It is appropriate to be able to pose this question in the aftermath of International Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January. I want to ask what the Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is doing to support the work of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation Holocaust education programme.

I thank the Deputy for this very timely and important question. Ireland is deeply committed to the cause of Holocaust remembrance and to ensuring that the suffering and horror of the Holocaust is never forgotten. At a time we are witnessing a deeply concerning rise in global antisemitism, including Holocaust denial and distortion, it is more important than ever that the victims of the Holocaust are honoured and that the lessons from that terrible time are learned.

Ireland has a long-standing relationship with the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation, a non-profit, independent organisation created to secure the long-term preservation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. I am sure I am not alone in having visited the site over the years. Through the Department, Ireland has provided grant funding for a number of years to the foundation’s perpetual fund for the essential work of maintaining the Auschwitz museum and preserving its artefacts for future generations. In 2025, a grant of €50,000 was made available for this purpose, marking the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the camp’s liberation. The funding of €100,000, announced by the Minister, Deputy McEntee on the occasion of Holocaust Memorial Day, 27 January, represents a significant increase on previous funding. This funding has been provided and is a response to the realisation that Holocaust denial and antisemitism generally has grown in recent times.

We have also seen the results of the recent survey by the Claims Conference which demonstrate that, despite an existing strong programme of Holocaust education in Irish schools, 12% of those surveyed had never heard of, or were unsure if they had heard of, the Holocaust. Almost 10% of young adults in Ireland believe the Holocaust did not happen and many more again were unaware of the numbers of Jewish victims. These figures are outstanding and alarming.

The programme for Government contains commitments to give effect to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism and to the implementation of the EU Council declaration on fostering Jewish life and combating antisemitism. The funding of €100,000 to Holocaust education is a strong illustration of the Government’s firm commitment to counter the scourge of antisemitism, of which Holocaust denial forms an important element.

If we needed proof that an education programme is important, that was given to us in a recent survey undertaken by the Conference of Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, with the involvement of an Irishman, Professor Gideon Taylor, son of a former distinguished Minister and Member of these Houses. As the Minister of State has pointed out, it was established that 10% of people believed that the Holocaust was a myth and 19% believed that the slaughter was exaggerated. We can never lose sight of the fact that two thirds of European Jews were slaughtered mercilessly, deliberately and in an industrial fashion during that Holocaust. The antisemitism we see today is linked to and caused by the atrocities experienced by the Jewish people then and in the many pogroms that happened beforehand. What else is being done by the Department to combat antisemitism and to ensure that we build the best possible understanding of what happened during the Holocaust, so that it will never, ever happen again?

I want to elaborate a little on the work of the funding. The funding will build upon the existing programme of Holocaust education provided by the Department of Education and Youth in Irish schools. It will enable the foundation to make available to schools in Ireland virtual guided tours of the Auschwitz Museum and Memorial, further enhancing opportunities for Irish young people to deepen their understanding of the Holocaust. I do not need to repeat the worrying statistics that myself and the Deputy are both appalled by. Ireland places great value on the importance of education to counter Holocaust denial or distortion with inclusion of the Holocaust in the school curriculum. My Department works closely with the Department of Education and Youth. There have been ongoing commitments in recent weeks where senior members of the Government have met regularly with representatives of Ireland's Jewish community, including the Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Minister for Justice and Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. Most recently, the Minister, Deputy McEntee met with the Jewish Representative Council. Just last week, the Tánaiste visited Stratford College, the only Jewish denomination school in the country, with Deputy James Geoghegan and a number of other local representatives.

I commend the Minister and the Government on what they are doing. It is really important work. When does the Minister of State imagine that this work will commence in the 600 schools around the country where it is going to be delivered? Does he think there is a possibility, given that children and young people are not just influenced by what happens and what they experience in school, but particularly by what they experience in their homes, that there is a need to educate some members of the public who are inculcating false thoughts, ideas and motivations in their children? Would it be possible to have some sort of public media campaign via the Department around the period of International Holocaust Memorial Day, which would drive home to people the extent of the slaughter and the extent of man's inhumanity to man that happened at that stage?

I welcome the comments by the Minister of State and the question. It is important that support is provided for organisations such as the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation. The statistics from the survey are concerning. Unfortunately, they reflect similarly concerning findings, perhaps worse findings, in other jurisdictions.

Clearly, it is important that the message goes out from all sides of these Houses that Holocaust denial or minimisation is appalling. We need to be very clear that the Holocaust happened at the scale at that it did and that it was an atrocity of a very particular and repugnant character. Human history should always record it and we in Ireland should acknowledge it. It is important that all sides of the House speak out against antisemitism, particularly in the context of incidents such as what happened on Bondi Beach. Nobody should be targeted for their religion, whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Christian or any other, but it is important the we speak out against antisemitism.

I am very grateful to both the Deputies for their timely interventions. To directly answer Deputy Ó Fearghaíl's question, it is expected that these tours will be made available to Irish schools in the next academic year, so that is not too far away at this stage. There is a great opportunity for all of us as local representatives to engage with schools in our constituencies to encourage them to be part of this programme. Just making it available and providing funding are not enough alone. We need to encourage people to partake and we need to encourage people to speak out and be quite clear that Holocaust denial and Holocaust distortion are forms of antisemitism. There is zero place for antisemitism in Ireland or anywhere else around the world, but sadly we are seeing increasing levels of high-profile incidents, not necessarily in this State. It is therefore incumbent on us as elected representatives to lead, to engage with our local media and local communities and to make sure that we have this education foundation going to school-age children, which can then make its way into homes but also we need to reach out to those who are not in formal education any more as well.

Deputy Ardagh and I are trying to establish what the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is doing regarding the repression of civil society and democratic opposition and the undermining of democracy and the rule of law in Russia.

Ireland remains deeply concerned at the ongoing erosion of human rights and democracy in Russia, which has been exacerbated by Russia’s illegal, full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we have seen a heightened number of arbitrary arrests and detentions, as well as harassment and persecution, of peaceful anti-war activists, human rights defenders, journalists, cultural figures, members of the LGBTQI+ community and ethnic minorities. Domestic opposition leaders have been arrested and prosecuted. Legislation has been introduced to limit civil society activity in Russia. The Russian authorities are rapidly expanding the numbers of individuals designated as foreign agents, terrorists or extremists to inhibit further any remaining scope for open political discussion.

Mariana Katzarova, the UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Russia has reported that there are over 2,000 political prisoners in Russia, many of whom face life-threatening conditions. Some, including Alexei Navalny, have died in detention. In her September 2025 report, the special rapporteur highlighted the prosecution of at least 912 people on politically motivated grounds between 2024 and mid-2025. At the Human Rights Council in September 2025, Ireland participated in an interactive dialogue with the special rapporteur, where we condemned the widespread use of torture, enforced disappearances, and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment as tools for systematic oppression by Russia.

As an EU member, Ireland has supported the EU’s response to the accelerating and systematic repression in Russia, including the adoption of a specific sanctions regime relating to the human rights situation in Russia in 2024. This regime allows for restrictive measures to be imposed on those responsible for serious human rights violations or abuses, repression of civil society and democratic opposition, and undermining democracy and the rule of law in Russia.

I commend the bravery of those Russian citizens who, despite great personal risks and under extremely difficult conditions, continue to work towards a free and democratic future for Russia, which respects human rights and the rule of law.

For the past four years, the world has been focused on Russian aggression and the appalling war in Ukraine perpetrated on a foreign, sovereign people by the megalomaniac that is Putin. We have lost sight of what may be happening within Russia itself, and that is understandable. When we think of opposition in Russia, we think of the late, brave Alexei Navalny, whose second anniversary will be marked next week. We are aware of the commitments and the strength of his wife Yulia in the aftermath of his death and her commitment to carry on the campaign. Prosecutors in Russia have banned 78 organisations as undesirable, including prominent human rights groups. Human Rights Watch itself was designated undesirable. What we can do on our own is very limited. Will the Minister of State tell us the degree to which there is active engagement between ourselves and our European partners to support opposition and to support civil society organisations in Russia?

There are a couple of measures there. First and foremost, Ireland has fully supported all 19 sanctions packages promoted by the European Union against Russia, the latest of which was agreed in October 2025. A 20th package of sanctions is currently being worked on and Ireland will be to the fore in supporting it. We absolutely condemn Russia's withdrawal from the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Ireland is a consistent funder of a range of human rights-dependent organisations around the world, and we acknowledge the very real atrocities that are being carried out in Russia by the Russian regime.

I might just raise one concern. We talk about the very real, brave opposition people who have been repressed, but we have not mentioned the very worrying number of, quite frankly, foreign stooges propagating from Russia - some of whom have Irish citizenship - talking about the regime and spreading misinformation and disinformation. We also need to be in a position to call them out and challenge them for their craven propaganda towards this regime.

It is interesting that the Minister of State talks about stooges. There are 450 members of the Russian Duma. One wonders how many of them are actual puppets or stooges because we have not heard very much in the West about any opposition from the ranks of the Duma to the activities of Putin and his foul regime. One would wonder how, on the law of averages, among 450 people, there are not, if even by chance, some people who have some moral integrity and who might have some of the courage that Navalny displayed when he literally put himself in a situation where he was inevitably going to be murdered, as he eventually was by the Putin regime. I reiterate it is vitally important, through whatever measures possible, that Europe supports those who are trying to build a normal, decent, civilised society in Russia and to save the people of Russia from the monsters that control them at present.

It should be really important to say the Irish Government condemns the Russian Government. The Irish Government and our European partners condemn the regime of Putin and those who support it and fund it, particularly the oligarchs. We have great sympathy for the people of Russia who live in a state of fear and repression and it has been made quite clear what happens to those who speak out against the regime. Alexei Navalny, whose death we mourn, is the most obvious one. We also have to remember that the efforts made to counter this have to be made primarily at a European level, be that through the European Union or the Council of Europe. One thing that always strikes me is that not only do we have Irish-accented stooges broadcasting on social media from Russia, but we have countless numbers of MEPs, including Irish MEPs, who fail to actually vote with the European consensus in criticising Russia, backing sanctions or indeed stating support for those who speak out in favour of human rights within the Russian Federation.

I ask for an update on how the Department is developing links with Canada and I request that it provide support for the Thomas D'Arcy McGee summer school in Louth as a way to support this important link

I am grateful to the Deputy not only for raising this issue but also for her consistent advocacy for stronger Irish-Canadian relations in her role as convener of the Canada-Ireland Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Group.

As the Deputy knows, Ireland and Canada have cultivated strong political, economic and cultural connections, grounded in our shared history, values and commitment to a rules-based international order.

Under the Global Ireland programme, Ireland significantly expanded its diplomatic presence in Canada opening new consulates generals in Vancouver in 2018 and in Toronto in 2022 complementing Ireland's trade promotion agencies in Canada. Plans for a new Ireland House in Toronto are under way while a new embassy chancery in Ottawa was opened by the Taoiseach during his visit in September 2025 where he met the new Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The Taoiseach has invited the Prime Minister to Ireland noting that three of his grandparents are Irish. The Government intends to fully ratify the EU-Canada Comprehensive and Trade and Agreement, CETA, in the coming months to build on our strong trading relationship with Canada. Since the provisional application of CETA in 2017, trade in Irish good and services with Canada has increased from about €3.2 billion in 2016 to more than €10 billion in 2023.

Last November, the Minister for enterprise Deputy Burke, led a trade mission to Canada with representatives from 31 Irish companies. Just last week, the Minister for the arts, Deputy O'Donovan, led a creative industries trade mission to Canada to meet with cultural, sporting and educational leaders. In addition, last week, the Minister for further and higher education, Deputy Lawless, launched the de Chastelian scholarships. This is a new programme that is jointly funded by the Irish and Canadian Governments. I visited Toronto in September. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy McEntee, is aware of the good work done by the Thomas D'Arcy McGee summer school. As I mentioned at the outset, I addressed this two years ago. I understand that a number of public bodies provide funding and a number of former civil servants from my Department have spoken at the school in recent years. We could not be more supportive of the work of the summer school. It is a wonderful initiative.

The Minister of State was very welcome to Carlingford on that fateful day in late August a couple of years ago. I wish to highlight the extraordinary cultural and historical bridge that is between Ireland and Canada through the legacy of Thomas D'Arcy McGee. He was born in Carlingford, County Louth in 1825. He was later the father of the Canadian Confederation. His life embodies those shared democratic values, and the people-to-people links between our nations. The annual Thomas D'Arcy McGee event is very well supported by the Department. The Minister of State, many other officials and former officials of the Department have attended. It brings together academics and policymakers from Ireland, Northern Ireland and Canada to examine modern challenges through a lens of McGee's legacy and evolution into a pluralist democracy. The Minister of State said that we can support this, but he can do one more little thing with financial support. Public bodies support it but every year that funding is decreasing for numerous different reasons. There are a lot of pulls on the money of other organisations. Considering the huge efforts that the Government and the Canadian Government are putting in together to support those links, a cash funding would be a great way of supporting the summer school.

From a Department point of view, most of our spending in relation to strengthening ties with Canada happens within Canada. This is not just from the direct diplomatic missions, including in Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa, but also with a range of groups that promote Irish culture and heritage and work with the Irish communities across the broad expanse of Canada. In relation to funding in country and the opportunity for the Thomas D'Arcy McGee summer school, there is a range of possibilities through general funding, particularly shared island funding, given the significance of this as a North-South project. I am more than happy to work with the Deputy to identify those. It might not necessarily come under the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, but that does not mean that we cannot lean on agencies or partners, be they public or private. It must be remembered how complex a character Thomas D'Arcy McGee was. Looking at that complexity, it is noteworthy in itself for a range of people from across this island to see how that diversity and complexity transfers from Ireland to a country like Canada.

We should have a debate about Thomas D'Arcy McGee in this House. As the Minister of State said, there are a lot of learnings to be taken from the complexities of his life from leaving Ireland as a Fenian to being shot on the steps of the Canadian House of Commons by the Fenians. There is a huge circle there. His legacy is hugely celebrated in Canada. As a son of Carlingford, it is important that we celebrate him too. He created the modern Canada. His spirit and legacy can also help create the future united Ireland that we all want.

One of the key strands to the Government's approach to Canada is promoting those cultural and historically links. That will not only be reflected in the new Global Ireland diaspora strategy that I look forward to launching at the end of April, but also in our commitment to working with our Canadian counterparts and using CETA not just for economic enhancement but looking where the real cultural and shared values are on a global scale. I find myself regularly at meetings of the United Nations' bodies, the G20 or otherwise. It is the Canadian Minister I always seek out to see what their interaction and intervention are going to be like. Enshrining that by support of the very famous Thomas D'Arcy McGee summer school in a no more appropriate and no more beautiful location as Carlingford would be absolutely appropriate. Whatever we can do to work with the Deputy in her role as convener of the friendship group to make sure that adequate support is provided, I undertake to do that with her fully and enthusiastically.

I appreciate that.

Before I go to the next question, I welcome those in the Public Gallery, particularly the guests of Deputy Newsome Drennan. I do not know if the Deputies have noticed but over the past few minutes they have been jumping up and down frantically waving to try to attract their attention. They are all very welcome and I hope they enjoy their day with the Deputy.

There is a lot of talk right now about online safety and regulation. The overwhelming sentiment from the public is that we need to tackle it head on and not be cowed into inaction by big tech. Yet the digital simplification packages as currently drafted stand to erode people's rights, not support them. Is the Department concerned about the package? What steps is the Minister of State taking to raise these concerns at EU level?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 65 and 70 together.

I am grateful to both Deputies Gibney and O'Rourke for tabling this timely intervention. The Government strongly supports the EU’s competitiveness agenda. Simplification is a key enabler of this. The European Commission put forward ten separate simplification omnibus packages in 2025. Each package usually contains several legislative proposals relevant to multiple Departments. My Department has been co-ordinating Ireland’s approach across government to these packages. The digital simplification omnibus package was published by the European Commission on 19 November last year. In the lead-up to its publication, Ireland strongly encouraged an ambitious digital simplification package that can support the EU’s strategic positioning as the location of choice for trustworthy digital innovation, while maintaining a central focus on protecting data privacy and fundamental rights of citizens. The proposals are a first step, and an important element of the overall approach to improving competitiveness at an EU level in line with the Draghi report and related work.

The package contains two legislative proposals, which are the digital omnibus on AI and the digital omnibus. The first legislative proposal, the digital omnibus on AI, aims to simplify and streamline the EU’s AI Act. The proposed changes to the AI Act respond to practical implementation challenges highlighted by stakeholders and are aimed at increasing certainty for regulators, businesses and citizens, reducing compliance costs and administrative burdens, and supporting innovation while maintaining protections. The Government has welcomed the EU’s focus on simplification, having consistently advocated for targeted and proportionate regulation, ensuring the right balance between stimulating innovation, boosting competitiveness and enforcing regulation when necessary. The second proposal, the digital omnibus, aims to simplify and streamline the EU’s data rulebook and cybersecurity incident reporting. The Government welcomes the proposed amalgamation of the open data directive, the free flow of non-personal data regulation, the Data Governance Act and the Data Act into a single consolidated data Act as it will streamline the data framework and provide greater clarity and alignment of the data rulebook.

The Government supports amendments to the general data protection regulation, GDPR, that can reduce compliance burdens but maintain the strong safeguards on the use of personal data in keeping with the core principles and objectives of the GDPR. Essential principles of public trust, transparency, data protection and improved public outcomes and public good are central to any simplification package. The Government further welcomes the efforts to simplify the reporting of cybersecurity incidents as the complexity of incident reporting has been repeatedly highlighted by stakeholders as a major issue, particularly for SMEs. However, we have concerns on the proposal to develop a single entry point for incident reporting across a number of legislative files, including non-cybersecurity ones such as GDPR. Discussions on these proposals remain at an early stage. We will continue to consult with stakeholders and engage constructively in these discussions. It is important to note also that the proposals under the digital simplification omnibus package must proceed through the EU’s ordinary legislative procedure, requiring review and approval by both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, which we will have the Presidency of for the second half of this year.

As we move forward, it will also be important to future-proof the EU digital regulatory framework, with the overall aim of increasing the coherence and effectiveness of the EU's digital rulebook. This means ensuring forthcoming digital regulations are developed with the same objectives around simplification, harmonisation and coherence strongly to the fore. In this context, the Government supports the broader review of the digital rulebook through the fitness check of the digital acquis announced by the Commission as part of this package.

I am really frustrated by the Minister of State's reply, as I was by a similar answer given by his colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, at the AI committee last week. The dogs in the street know big tech cannot be trusted. We have all endured the Grok scandal over the past number of weeks. A recent "Prime Time Investigates" programme reported on how our location data is being sold. Despite all of that, the Government remains stubbornly committed to backing omnibus proposals that give the very tech companies that are harming us more of our data and subject them to less regulation and oversight.

There seems to be a disconnect between the rights and protections of citizens and the push for deregulation. We are not seeing any critical engagement on how this will impact ordinary people. I am really concerned that at a time when we should be shoring up protections and rights, they are being totally ignored. The conversation is completely about how to remove rules. We are told that this is about simplification and harmonisation and that they will be achieved while balancing rights. Those rights are always the secondary thought. Unfortunately, I do not see any balance. Digital regulation and our digital rights cannot be construed as two separate issues. That does not work because the regulations exist in the first place to protect those exact rights. There are not adequate safeguards in the proposal from the Commission. What will the Minister of State do to ensure that is addressed in any digital omnibus package?

I share the concerns that have been raised, which were not addressed in the Minister of State's response. The identified concerns include the impact on the ability of citizens to exercise their GDPR rights, that a redefinition of personal data may narrow GDPR protections, a risk to enforceability of rights, expanded derogations and reduced obligations, and the weakening of safeguards on sensitive data, including AI. Similarly, in regard to the EU AI Act, there are concerns regarding delayed or diluted high-risk AI obligations, potential for underclassification of high-risk systems and relaxed rules on processing sensitive data for AI training. In his response, the Minister of State repeatedly made the point that he wants to support the implementation of this proposal and reduce compliance burdens while maintaining safeguards and protections. In fact, those protections and safeguards are being diluted and whittled away. We need the Government to stand up against that.

It is important that I be crystal clear on this matter. The Government's position is that simplification must be about better regulation, not deregulation. We need to reduce the regulatory burden, particularly for SMEs, while maintaining high ambition in terms of protections, including environmental, human health, privacy and a range of other standards. The omnibus proposal is not actually an omnibus; it comprises ten pieces of legislation and we are referring to just one element here.

The role of the Department of foreign affairs is to co-ordinate all Government responses to the proposal. Some of them will come from the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, and Deputy Gibney has referenced the role of the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth. Others will come from the Department of Health, the Department of the environment and so on. It is really important that our legislative approach be in line with core better regulation principles and the inter-institutional agreement on better law-making while prioritising smarter, simpler and more streamlined regulations. The Government recognises the importance of regulation, crucially to ensure markets operate efficiently and fairly. That in no way waters down our recognition that we also need to protect consumers in a range of areas.

In that context, it is important that regulations are targeted and proportionate to the policy objective, whether it is to protect consumers and citizens or to promote competitiveness and innovation. That is why the Government had advocated for a dynamic, ambitious and risk-based approach focused on removing regulatory overlaps and administrative burdens, for example, while also supporting compliance. This package was introduced in November. We are in the position of working through it in each of the different frameworks and policy areas. I hear the Deputies' concerns. They are valid and they need to be worked through. However, I do not necessarily conflate seeking to make things more simplified and more competitive with a rush to deregulate and some form of race to the bottom. I reject that assertion. It is worth working through this process in its entirety.

The Minister of State telling us simplification is not deregulation is as hollow to me as saying the removal of the triple lock will not affect our neutrality.

Where is the relevance?

It is just misleading. He said in the same breath that it is about relieving the regulatory burden. He must admit that what he is doing is removing regulations and, therefore, removing rights and protections. He referred to stakeholders in his first contribution. Who are those stakeholders? I am fairly sure they are businesses and industry. My problem with the governance we are pursuing in this area is that it is completely driven by the Department of enterprise. It is not considering the broader societal impacts of online and digital harm while we are all experiencing those impacts.

We are potentially allowing companies to self-certify their AI in lower-risk categories. We are potentially allowing companies to collect personal data that previously was protected. I mentioned the "Prime Time Investigates" report that, not too long ago, exposed how we are allowing third-party companies to track us using our data. Now we face a situation where that data is not even illegal to collect and sell. I do not disagree with the Government that we have huge issues with the enforcement of these regulations. What I disagree with is walking away from those regulations and seeking to get rid of them instead of properly enforcing them.

This move cannot be stripped away from the wider context around AI and the conversations happening internationally about how the European Union is a difficult place to do business, how America needs to be the home of it and where Britain stands post Brexit. The real risk is that protections are hollowed out because Elon Musk and the huge tech companies will have their way. They have very willing allies in the White House. That is something against which we must caution.

As a measure of the Government's assessment of this proposal, has the Minister of State's Department conducted an internal assessment of the potential impact on citizens' ability to exercise their GDPR rights arising from the proposed redefinition of personal data? That would be one indicator.

I will not be baited by the needless false comparison from Deputy Gibney in somehow bringing the triple lock and neutrality into this really serious debate. She asked who the stakeholders are before, without any evidence, telling me they are just businesses. In fact, stakeholders include civil society, work organisations, the trade union movement and citizens as a whole. There is a clearly enshrined EU consultative process. This is a really serious issue and I accept the bona fides of both Deputies in raising concerns. I do not dismiss their concerns for an instant. I may disagree with some of their points, which is allowed in this House, but I do not need to start making false assertions.

Deputy O'Rourke makes a very fair point in terms of what assessments are being carried out on an internal basis. Each assessment is done, depending on the policy area, by the relevant line Department. Regarding the initial assessment in relation to GDPR and citizens' rights, overall assessments, although not necessarily as specific as the Deputy outlined, are carried out by each Department, including the Department of justice, which is the relevant one. It is our responsibility in the Department of foreign affairs to co-ordinate those assessments and provide unified responses when we come to discuss this at a Council meeting or between officials at COREPER level.

Question No. 66 in the name of Deputy Séamus McGrath will be asked by Deputy Ó Fearghaíl.

What is the Minister of State's assessment of the situation in Belarus, where the dictator Lukashenko is an ally and, indeed, puppet of the Putin regime? How does the Minister of State feel about the situation there at present?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 66, 87 and 90 together.

It might not be wise for me to tell Deputy Ó Fearghaíl how I feel about the situation in Belarus. Personal emotions might be slightly stronger than the Government position. Belarus continues to live under the shadow of repression. The Government remains extremely concerned at the ongoing erosion of human rights and democracy there and Belarus's ongoing support for and complicity in Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. The Lukashenko regime's repression of human rights and restrictions on political participation and access to independent media are intended to stifle opposition voices and shore up its own authority. Former political prisoners, including Siarhei Tsikhanouski and Ales Bialiatski, have given harrowing accounts of prolonged isolation, psychological pressure and other inhumane treatment suffered in Belarusian prisons.

I share their grave concerns about the treatment of the more than 1,150 political prisoners. Shockingly, since May 2021, at least eight political prisoners have died in the regime’s captivity. Deputy Ó Fearghaíl can correct me if I am wrong. I am one of a number of Members from the last Dáil who adopted Belarusian prisoners as godchildren, be they godsons or daughters, based on a campaign. I am delighted that my Belarusian political goddaughter was released from prison. She simply had the crime of having a cigarette in the wrong place at the wrong time and being a young student. I welcome, therefore, efforts by the United States to achieve the release of all political prisoners of the regime in Belarus, which most recently secured the release of 123 political prisoners in December last. While the regime has released political prisoners in recent months, it has exiled many of them, separating them from their families and their homeland. It has also placed many more people in prison for their political views. I reiterate Ireland's long-standing position that all political prisoners must be released and the regime must end its repression against the Belarusian people.

Ireland’s response to the situation in Belarus has focused on working bilaterally, and at EU and multilateral levels, to support civil society and the democratic movement in exile and to highlight concerns regarding the Lukashenko regime's violations of human rights. At the same time, we seek to assure the people of Belarus of our continued commitment to their well-being, human rights and legitimate aspiration to a prosperous future in a democratic Belarus. In 2025, my Department provided funding to the Viasna human rights centre founded by Nobel Peace Prize winner Ales Bialiatski, and to the international humanitarian fund for the victims of repressions in Belarus to offer support to current and former political prisoners. In recent years, my Department has also provided funding to several other Belarusian civil society projects, including in support of independent media, through grants provided by the European Endowment for Democracy. Our connection with Belarus and its people is reinforced by the compassion and empathy of Irish families who welcomed Belarusian children and young people into their homes and lives, creating permanent bonds in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster almost 40 years ago. Belarusian democratic leader, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, was one of those young people. I am aware of the close ties of friendship that she holds for Ireland from her childhood stays in our country. I know I am one of a number of people in this House who has met her, as have other Ministers and the Tánaiste, who have also met her husband who was released just last summer from detention in Belarus after spending five years as a political prisoner. There is also ongoing contact between officials in my Department and representatives of the Belarus democratic movement.

Ireland continues to support strong co-ordinated EU sanctions and other measures, including action at the OSCE and at the UN, to hold Belarus accountable for its violations of human rights and the rule of law, and its complicity in Russia’s ongoing war of aggression in Ukraine. Ireland has very limited engagement with the Belarusian Government. A Belarusian diplomat is accredited to Ireland to perform consular functions on a non-resident basis and an Irish diplomat is accredited to Belarus on a similar basis. My Department’s current travel advisory for Belarus is simply not to go there.

I compliment the Minister of State on the positive and comprehensive response. I note that on 13 December Belarusian authorities released 123 prisoners following negotiations by the US Administration, which had agreed to lift a sanction on Belarusian potash. The majority of prisoners were sent to Ukraine, and a group of nine sent to Lithuania. Most of those released had been prosecuted and imprisoned for the peaceful exercise of their human rights. One of those released, Maria Kalesnikava, has since given an interview with the Financial Times in which she called for EU engagement with Belarus on the basis that the lack of it only serves to drive Belarus closer to Russia. Another of the released prisoners, Ales Bialiatski, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022, has also called on the EU to enter talks with President Lukashenko. I know the Government and Europe would be walking a tightrope on this particular matter but this suggestion has been made by two influential people who are intimately involved in the situation in Belarus and are advocating greater EU engagement. How does the Minister of State respond to that and what are his thoughts on how Ireland and the EU together might proceed?

It is a very serious proposition by the Deputy that needs to be dealt with quite delicately. In December of last year, the EU widened the scope of sanctions against Belarus in response to hybrid activities affecting EU member states. That decision was not taken lightly. While, of course, we welcome the release of political prisoners by Belarus and we are very grateful to the role of the US Administration, we have yet to see evidence of a change of policy in Belarus. In addition to its violations of human rights and the rule of law, and its absolute complicity in Russia's ongoing illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the regime's hybrid activity directed towards the EU continues to increase in scale. We have strongly condemned the large-scale incursions into Lithuanian airspace from Belarus. We will continue to work closely with EU partners to examine options for further actions to respond to Belarus's persistent and provocative hybrid activities. That means engaging directly with the regime is extremely difficult. I say that quite frankly. I take with great sincerity the interventions by the released political prisoners. We engage with those former prisoners as an Irish Government at a political and an official level as well as, crucially, at a European level. Some of our own European political affiliations and networks do so as well. We will take their views and their opinions into account but we also have to respond to the actuality and the hybrid incursions were actualities. It is a fact that Belarus is tied at the hip with Russia when it comes to the Russian atrocities in Ukraine. We have to bear all that into account and perhaps tread carefully when it comes to the suggestion or the request to engage directly.

I agree with the Minister of State because it is a tightrope situation. I think most of us in this country would look to what was said by Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who is a charismatic leader many of us in this House have met. She displayed tremendous courage in taking up the baton after her husband was arrested and has effectively been running a Belarusian Government in exile. She has said the European Union sanctions have a much stronger impact and must remain in place until long-term changes are achieved, including an end to the regime’s involvement in the Ukraine war, the restoration of Belarus's sovereignty and its transformation into a democratic economy, which would appear to be a long way away. She said:

Without sanctions and international isolation, the Lukashenka regime would not have begun releasing political prisoners. It is not acting out of humanity – sanctions hurt, isolation hurts, and he understands that he has reached a dead end. That is why he is willing to hand over even his most dangerous opponents in exchange for relief. But lifting or substantially easing sanctions against the regime is dangerous, as it directly strengthens Russia: Belarus’ economy works for Russia’s war machine, Belarus is used as a route to circumvent sanctions, and its enterprises are involved in weapon production.

We know where the weapons are going. Does the Minister anticipate that the current level of EU sanctions will be maintained, or, indeed, possibly strengthened?

In direct response to the Deputy's question, I do not envisage a lessening of sanctions any time soon. They were only just increased in December due to the hybrid incursions into Lithuanian airspace. I go back to his original point on how we get guided by the application of sanctions. Sanctions do work. Sanctions forced the Belarusians to release so many prisoners and the sheer prospect of them being weakened by the Americans provided that support. When we talk about Belarus, bearing in mind that we are, most likely, the EU member state located the furthest away geographically, the diplomat who services Belarus for us is accredited to our embassy in Vilnius. I think of the mindset and the interventions of my counterparts, particularly in the Baltic states and in Poland, who, on a daily basis not only face the very real undermining of their civil and political infrastructure by hybrid activities by Belarus but also the sheer impact of the complicity of Belarus in Russia's horrendous full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In many cases, I therefore defer to my Lithuanian colleague, a country which will assume the Presidency of the Council of the EU after Ireland as part of the trio system. We continue to engage with all our contacts both on a civic society basis within and outside Belarus as well as those from the political movement in exile. There is a clear demand to maintain the level of sanctions and be responsive to any more antagonism or protagonism from Belarus.

Let us be quite frank: Lukashenko is a dictator who has repressed his people since the collapse of the Soviet Union. He has done so willingly, aided and abetted by another dictator in the form of Vladimir Putin. They work in concert to repress their own people and undermine the very stability of the global world order that has kept Europe, until recently, in a level of peace that had not been seen before in history. Any sort of softening when it comes to the regime in Belarus is, by proxy, a softening when it comes to the regime in Russia. I am extremely heartened to see more political prisoners released. I am extremely heartened when they give us the honour to visit Ireland and to engage with us as a member of the EU, bearing in mind the human ties going back to the Chernobyl disaster. We all have to be very wary when it comes to Belarus and make sure that the sanctions are maintained at a level deemed necessary by us within the European Union as an entirety.

The previous EU-Morocco trade deal was struck down by the European courts because it was found to violate the rights of the Sahrawi people. This new trade deal has entered provisional application, despite persistent concerns around the involvement of the Sahrawi people, and the lack of engagement with or tangible benefit for them. What is the Department's stance on the deal and its compliance with the ruling of the Courts of Justice of the European Union?

I thank Deputy Gibney for raising this. If the Deputy does not mind, I acknowledge the work of Senator Alice-Mary Higgins in this regard. I have taken a Commencement matter for her in the Seanad and have had many engagements on what is a complex issue. It is good that we are discussing it.

On 4 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld an earlier ruling of the General Court annulling the Council decision on the conclusion of a 2018 agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. The 2018 agreement sought to extend tariff preferences laid down in an EU-Morocco association agreement to products originating in Western Sahara. The court set a deadline of 4 October 2025, in that it maintained the effects of the Council decision until that date. The Commission thus worked to negotiate a new agreement between the EU and Morocco by that date. The EU and Morocco signed a new agreement on 3 October 2025, and its provisional application began. On 2 October 2025, Ireland voted in favour of the Council decision via written procedure, indicating that Ireland would not stand in the way of EU consensus and in order to ensure that the EU complied with its legal obligations. However, Ireland also registered procedural and substantive concerns about the Commission’s handling of this process. Ireland made clear that we expect to receive regular updates from the Commission on key issues as the agreement is implemented.

The process towards adoption of a Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the EU of the new agreement with Morocco has not yet reached its conclusion. The next step requires the consent of the European Parliament. Ireland has continued to follow up with the EU institutions with regard to an expected date for this next step. We have not yet received an update in that regard. Throughout the process, Ireland has made clear our view that the compatibility of the agreement with the fundamental principle in international law of the right of peoples to self-determination should be paramount in the implementation of this agreement.

I thank the Minister of State. It is comforting to hear that there is activity on the part of the Government on this. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the consent of the Sahrawi people had to be sought or that there had to be a tangible benefit for them. Instead of seeking their consent, the EU committed to provide tangible benefit to them and to a regular control mechanism to evaluate the benefit required for implicit consent. Can the Minister of State provide clarity on that control mechanism in the deal? What is Ireland doing? The Minister of State stated that we are seeking updates and so on, but I ask him to seek that clarity and ensure it is robust enough to uphold the rights of the Sahrawi people or guarantee them that tangible benefit in line with the ruling. It is incredible to me that we have a trade deal that has been in provisional application since October, yet there is no clarity on how it is better than the previous version of the deal, which the courts ruled against. I welcome Ireland registering those concerns. Morocco enjoys preferential tariffs while the Sahrawi people in Western Sahara continue to be dispossessed of their land and occupied.

It must be made clear that Ireland maintains bilateral relations with the Kingdom of Morocco. We have an embassy there and a resident ambassador here, but we also maintain engagement with the opposition within Western Sahara. We do have that full engagement with all peoples, recognising that about 20% of Western Sahara is under the control of the self-determination movement. We tread a delicate line here, to be quite frank. I am not trying to be evasive or dismissive in any regard. The irony of having to uphold obligations under EU law and implementing something while there is still a full ratification process under way is not lost on me. The concerns that the Irish Government raised were multifaceted, but the pace with which this agreement was concluded was of major concern to us, and we raised that. There is a little bit of extra detail that I might supply the Deputy with in written form. I do not have it to hand at this moment.

I thank the Minister of State. I would like the Irish Government to champion a pathway for a referendum on self-determination, something which was promised after independence from France decades ago and never actioned. Instead, it seems like the world is keen to move on and ignore it if it means cheaper Moroccan imports and co-operation on migration policy. The Commission's proposals for delivering on tangible benefit as part of this deal include investment in Moroccan companies in Western Sahara, essentially financially incentivising continued occupation which features well-documented human rights abuses and surveillance of Sahrawis. Another aspect of their proposal is to deliver tangible benefit, as I mentioned, via humanitarian aid to Sahrawi refugee camps. I know the Minister of State agrees with me that humanitarian aid should not be used as a bargaining chip to trade away the rights of a struggling people. I am asking that this conviction be expressed by the Department on this specific trade deal. It is clear that this trade deal has serious flaws and has not complied with the ruling of the Courts of Justice. What are the Department and the Government going to do about it? I appreciate the Minister of State's stance on the delicacy.

I had another question on this, which probably will not be reached. I have to say a couple of things. First, the Irish Government has historically had a strong position in relation to this. I ask the Minister of State to maintain that and to maintain support for Sahrawi self-determination. On a minor note - it may not be minor in some respects - I do not agree with the framing of the SADR as "the opposition". That implies that it is the opposition within Morocco. It is recognised by some countries as the legitimate government of Western Sahara. I do not believe that it is recognised at this point by the Irish Government, but it is recognised as a government. It is the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people. The current situation is not sustainable. There is nearly no other country in the world that I can think of where the majority of the population is in exile in refugee camps. That is the case currently. The majority of the Sahrawi people are in refugee camps in southern Algeria. It is important that there is a referendum. It was promised decades ago back in the early nineties. That needs to progress. Ireland should insist on that. We must ensure that the rights of the Sahrawi people are not discarded through this process of the trade deal.

I want to make a brief comment as co-ordinator of the Ireland-Morocco Parliamentary Friendship Group. In recent times, I have become increasingly aware that an ever-increasing number of countries have moved to a position where they see the solution to this intractable problem, which must be resolved, having regard to sovereignty and human rights. More and more countries, including many of our European colleagues, see the resolution to the problem resting in establishing Western Sahara's autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty. That seems to the be the proposal that is winning ever-increasing support. It is something that I raised with the Minister for foreign affairs here some weeks ago.

I would encourage the Deputy not to.

I appreciate the intervention - I am looking up to make sure I am not missing anyone - from all three Deputies. What I want to get through is real clarity. Ireland's position on Western Sahara has been, and continues to be, guided by the aim of achieving a just and lasting political solution that will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, as to Deputy Ó Laoghaire's point, and we make that point at every opportunity that we are given. Ireland's engagement on this issue will also continue to take account of the role of and the insights provided by the personal envoy of the UN Secretary General for Western Sahara, Staffan de Mistura. Officials in the Department continuously keep any relevant developments under review, including in the context of the EU and UN discussions. On 31 October, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution No. 2797, extending the mandate of the UN mission for the referendum in Western Sahara for one year. Ireland is considering the implications of the MINURSO mandate renewal following its adoption.

We maintain a full awareness of what is going on and the complexity it provides in EU negotiations and the changing shifts of other member state governments. Ireland has not changed its opinion. It has maintained it. That underlines all aspects of negotiations and discussions as laid out here today.

Question No. 69 is grouped with Questions Nos. 108, 121 and 125.

I am not on that one.

We now move to Deputy Ó Laoghaire and Question No. 72.

I probably just addressed it. I had not anticipated this question would come up. It is on the same matter so I have probably addressed the point. I am satisfied to pass on it.

I had not prepared for this as such but I am keen to get the Minister of State's thoughts on it. It is about whether the Department will prioritise overseas aid and development as a key topic during the EU Presidency. I am sure this is a topic he will happily speak to for two minutes, particularly in the context of decreasing overseas development aid budgets across Europe and the impact those cuts are having on communities across the world.

The Deputy and I occasionally disagree. We actually agree more times than we disagree but let us not let the people of Dublin Rathdown know that. I like to think one area we passionately agree on is Ireland's role when it comes to official development assistance and development. I am relishing Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union putting development back at the centre of European discussions.

We are faced, quite frankly, with possibly the most destabilising and worrying approach to overseas development assistance since Irish Aid was created in 1974. It is not just the withdrawal of USAID's funding, which is massive, but the commitment by the British Government to withdraw from 0.5% to 0.3% is really destabilising. Last year, Ireland and Spain were the only two EU member states to increase their development budget. Credibly, Denmark maintained theirs and Norway, which is not an EU member state, also increased theirs. However, what I was confronted with at my first development Ministers' Foreign Affairs Council meeting was a real mix. Some member states said that for budgetary reasons, and a focus on defence and pension reform, they were cutting. Others, from a range of member states but traditionally member states who had been strong on this, gleefully relished that they were going to cut their development budgets in some sort of Trumpian act.

We have to make sure that all the development Ministers come to Ireland in early October and that we engage with Barry Andrews MEP, who is chair of the development committee in the European Parliament, to make sure, crucially, that the multi-annual financial framework, within its global Europe provision, does not cut development. We can increase spending in other areas. I have no problem with that and we will debate it in another forum but we have to make sure that Ireland is unified. There are voices in this Chamber, who are not here, who will tell us this is a waste of money. I visited eight of the 13 Irish Aid countries in the last year. I will go my ninth and tenth next week, and my eleventh for St. Patrick's Day, to show that we believe in development. It is an investment that works, not just for the people who receive that investment but, crucially, for people here in Ireland.

I agree. It is great to hear that it will be a point of focus for the Minister of State in the second half of this year, when we have the opportunity during the Presidency of the European Union. As he referenced, which I also did in my question, this is obviously within the context of USAID being cut, for example. That is really just storing up problems. It is the definition of storing up problems to cut aid in the way we are seeing this happen across the globe.

I question the unconditional aid piece. One of the other issues we are having across Europe is the fact that it is not being given unconditionally. That is problematic. Does the Minister of State see a connection between this drop in aid and the increase in defence spending? There is a connection in potential member states. It is so important we continue to maintain an emphasis on peacekeeping and not shift to peacebuilding and peace enforcement, which is a threat and is linked to development aid. I would love to hear the Minister of State's thoughts on that.

Crucially, every challenge we face in Europe at the moment goes back to global instability. When the pillar of development is removed, the foundation stone of that global stability is removed. You are creating more problems for yourself on direct bilateral relations and allowing more malevolent actors fill the space of more benevolent actors.

The Deputy is quite right that certain member states are cutting development aid and saying they need to put it towards security and defence. I do not buy that argument for an instant. If you are serious about security, including energy, food, political and domestic security, and managing migration in supporting those who need to migrate as well as making sure countries can handle and meet the requirements they have, you have to invest in development. It is a complete misnomer and false argument to say we are taking money from development to put into security. By taking money from development, you are forcing yourself to put more money into security. It is why the Government has not only not cut our development budget but is committed to increasing our security budget. The two are absolutely interlinked. You cannot do one by cutting off the other.

On defence without peacebuilding, you can end conflicts and ensure peace and human rights are championed, which builds the off-ramp for war-torn regions. This is concerning for me because earlier this week at the European affairs committee, I pressed Commissioner Serafin on this. It is clear to me that Europe is investing in war and military spending. All of the mechanisms that are available to member states and all the ways we are offering opportunities for development, employment and growth are around the military. There is a conflict there. I appreciate and am heartened by the Minister of State's comments, the connection he made between the two and how he will champion this during the Presidency. I look forward to seeing that work and co-operating with him on it.

Absolutely. As I said, I have no issue with European member states or the Union investing in security and defence. It is sensible, but I do not think you can make the argument that money can be taken from development and not expect to end up spending more on security and defence as a result. The Deputy mentioned early intervention and the source of the conditionality of aid. Something I am concerned about is the notion of tied aid. We do not believe in tied aid. We believe in development being the right thing to do and being an investment. It is an investment in people that will be paid off, not in our terms but perhaps on their terms. That is the empowerment of people, including making sure that women and girls have the same opportunities for human rights, dignity and education that we take for granted, but there is a regression on that.

I will make a particular reference to peacebuilding and the work of Irish Aid in Columbia and in the very fragile peace process in Liberia. That was a peace process that started with Irish peacekeepers and is going from strength to strength. The fact that people are willing to remove resources from that is just creating a recipe for potential disaster.

I will now go back to Question No. 77. Deputy Ó Murchú is here so we will take the question while we are waiting for other Deputies.

The question relates to governmental engagements with the European Union and the European Commission. I was at the committee during the week when we met with Commissioners Hansen and Serafin. I will ask specifically about Mercosur. We can have an argument about how strong the Government was in its opposition to it but what the Commissioners said was that it is within the EU's gambit, if it wants, to allow for provisional application of Mercosur. We know the huge issues there are, particularly from the farming sector and beyond, about Brazilian beef and other issues. What will the Government do from the point of view of ensuring there is not provisional application? We await the outworkings of the Court of Justice.

I will address the generality of the Deputy's point and then get to the specifics.

Ireland's engagement with the European Union is comprehensive and deep, reflecting our commitment to the European project. Since the Minister, Deputy McEntee, assumed office in November, she has participated actively in all three formal Foreign Affairs Council meetings that have taken place, including most recently in Brussels. These meetings are vital for co-ordinating our response to international challenges. The Minister also participated in the Foreign Affairs Council in trade format last November. The totality of Ireland's relationship is further evidenced by our consistent representation across all Council formations and our engagement at all levels with Commissioners here and abroad. Officials engaged in meetings with the relevant Directorates-General of the Commission to advance Ireland's interests in a wide range of areas, including development co-operation, trade and competitiveness.

Trade is the key part of the Deputy's question and his secondary point. Ireland's extensive engagement is not just tied to the fact we assume the Presidency of the Council of the European Union from 1 July. Ireland has very real concerns, however. We made our concerns clear not just over the last year but over the last five or seven years, since there was a Sinn Féin motion in this House in relation to Mercosur and its impact on the beef and poultry sectors and its very real environmental impacts.

We lobbied and negotiated with the Commission, which is the trade negotiating entity of the European Union throughout that process. Unfortunately, the deal it secured was not acceptable to Ireland, France, Austria or Poland. Belgium abstained and the Hungarians also opposed it.

We will continue to provide that level of engagement throughout the process, bearing in mind the European Parliament had an impactful vote two weeks ago, referring the deal. We made quite clear that we have very serious concerns about the trade deal in its current format and we are not in favour of its implementation or application. Hence we voted against it.

We do not have time to get into arguments about what the Irish Government could have done to oppose the Mercosur trade deal, which is a lot more. The fact is - we heard it from the commissioners recently - that the Commission can allow for the provisional application of the Mercosur deal, which would undermine democracy and the vote that already happened in the European Parliament. We need to ensure this does not happen. There are huge worries about Brazilian beef and poultry, that is not up to the same standard as European, and particularly Irish, farm produce. There is a particular issue in Bord Bia around this at the moment. What will the Government do to ensure there is no provisional application of the Mercosur trade agreement at this time? It would be utterly unacceptable to Irish farmers and the Irish people.

The Deputy's point is well made. He knows as well as I do the complexities of EU law and the right of the European Commission to negotiate a trade deal and of the European Council to give it the power to implement something in reflection of a vote passed by absolute majority or qualified majority voting, QMV, as was decided.

The Irish Government is clear that it does not back the Mercosur deal. We are against it. We voted against it. We lobbied against it for an intense period, building an alliance with many member states. We recognise the vote of the European Parliament and think there is absolute cause to pause everything relating to the Mercosur deal until that judgment is made. We will continue to work at a bilateral level with other EU member states, particularly those like-minded ones. Our Ministers have been in discussions. The Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, was at a European Council meeting in Larnaca this week alone. Other Ministers will continue to raise it at every opportunity, at Council level and bilateral level and, crucially, directly with commissioners and directors general in the European Commission.