Ryan O'Meara
Ceist:6. Deputy Ryan O'Meara asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if she will report on discussions regarding the EU budget at the last meeting of the General Affairs Council. [69091/26]
Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions
EU Budgets
Aindrias Moynihan
Ceist:40. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade for a report on the EU budget talks at the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 22 September 2026. [68987/26]
I ask the Minister of State for an update on negotiations around the EU's multi-annual financial framework, MFF, with particular regard to Ireland's priorities for these negotiations. The EU budget has to reflect the realities facing Europe today, including competitiveness, energy security, defence and, importantly, food security. For Ireland, one of the most important elements of that budget is the future of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. Will the Minister outline the Government's priorities for protecting the CAP at the next EU budget?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 40 together.
Pursuing agreement on the next EU long-term budget, that is, the multi-annual financial framework, is a key priority for the Irish Presidency. It overarches all our priorities. The Government is advancing negotiations at a critical juncture. We, as the Presidency, are bringing member states closer to agreement on key issues, such as the overall size of the long-term budget, where the EU should focus its resources and where funding should come from.
The General Affairs Council, which I chair, held its most recent meeting in Brussels on 22 September in which the MFF was discussed in public session. This included substantive engagement among member states on the expenditure, volume and revenue aspects of the future long-term budget of the EU. This discussion was the final one in a series of important debates held between European affairs ministers. It comes in advance of the Irish Presidency publishing our compromise proposal in October. Member States used this discussion as an opportunity to note their views on the overall volume of the future MFF and to highlight where they consider expenditure should be focused. Some member states called for significant reductions on the Commission’s proposals, while others called for the volume to be retained. Priorities varied, but member states highlighted the importance of agricultural, cohesion, defence and security, research, innovation and competitiveness for the next EU budget.
Debate has also continued on sources of revenue under the next MFF, which are known as own resources. Discussion focused primarily on five European Commission proposals, namely, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, the emissions trading system, a tobacco excise duty, a corporate own resource for Europe and a so called e-waste-based own resource. While the general consensus is that a significant package of new own resources is needed for the MFF, member states have a range of different opinion as to which should be implemented.
The variety of views, as set out at the General Affairs Council, emphasises the challenge and need for the Irish Presidency to carefully consider all opinions and deliver a compromise that brings member states closer to agreement. In order to do so, we will deliver a compromise proposal - a so-called revised negotiating box - to member states in the coming period. Our intention and role when holding the Presidency is to find the balance between member states and put forward workable solutions to areas of disagreement that are capable of addressing the Union’s current and emerging needs for the next decade. We are doing all we can to balance the views of member states, and we are counting on all around the negotiating table to approach discussions following the publication of our negotiating box flexibly and with a commitment to compromise.
At the end of the day, our objective is to ensure that the MFF will continue to support our farmers, fishers and rural communities, enhance European competitiveness through investment in energy, digital and connectivity, support Irish students to go on Erasmus and Irish researchers to have access to grants, invest in peace and reconciliation on the island of Ireland and continue the significant EU humanitarian and development assistance outside the borders.
The next meeting of the leaders of the European Union is on 15 and 16 October. We will publish our negotiating box in advance of that. This will be a key milestone in the agreement and will move the Council, which is the member states, closer to agreement on the overall package to ensure a timely agreement is met.
I thank the Minister of State. I will focus specifically on the Common Agricultural Policy and rural Ireland. The CAP is not simply a payment for farmers. It is an investment in the viability of family farms and the communities that depend on them. When a farm is viable it supports agricultural contractors, machinery businesses, vets, hauliers, merchants, local shops and services. The money circulates through the rural community and economy and remains within it. When farming is going well rural Ireland goes well, and that is certainly true in Tipperary and north-west Kilkenny. However, we also have to recognise the pressures farmers are facing from input costs, market volatility, weather events and the need to invest in the future of our farms. As the Minister of State mentioned, negotiations are continuing. As they continue, will the Government make sure the next CAP provides the certainty our farmers need, supports generational renewal and protects the viability of the family farm in rural Ireland?
Irish whiskey is one of Ireland's most successful indigenous export products, supporting jobs in distilleries, farming, tourism and rural communities. The recent announcement that US tariffs on Irish whiskey were to be removed was very welcome. However, producers, especially smaller and independent distilleries, need certainty. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government has received a clear timeframe from the US Administration for the removal of these tariffs? What assurances can be given to producers that Irish whiskey-----
A Theachta, you are referring to Question No. 11. We are discussing Questions Nos. 6 and 40. Question No. 40, which is in your name, relates to the EU budget talks at the General Affairs Council. We will get to Question No. 11.
Deputy Moynihan will also want to hear about the Common Agricultural Policy but I will leave it to the Minister, Deputy McEntee, to talk about whiskey.
The EU budget negotiations are exactly that; a negotiation. It is not like countries are negotiating with the EU. What is the EU? It is the member states of the EU, so it is a negotiation between the member states as to what the priorities are and how much we will spend. It is our role in the Presidency to chair those talks effectively. We have to act as an honest broker on behalf of the member states, and the Government is committed to doing that. We want to bring member states closer together on key issues, including the Common Agricultural Policy. We published our priorities for the multi-annual financial framework in the summer of last year well in advance of our Presidency so that everybody would know what our priorities were and that we could perform the honest broker role with our priorities well known at the same time. The Common Agricultural Policy has been a top priority for the Irish Government. When we go into Presidency mode we have to become an honest broker. However, it is the case that the Common Agricultural Policy is also a top priority for many other member states, although not for all. Our commitment now as honest broker is not only to listen to the domestic point of view and to put forward our domestic position. We also have to listen to the variety of opinions around the negotiating table and we have to drive the compromise among the member states that everybody can agree on.
Following up on my last point, it brings up the broader argument of food security. With Ireland being one of the world's greatest food producing nations, we have a globally recognised reputation for quality, safety and traceability of the food we produce. Our agriculture and agrifood sectors are fundamental to the Irish economy and rural Ireland. Recent events have shown that we cannot take food security for granted. We would never suggest that Europe should compromise on energy security or defence, because they are strategically important. Food security deserves the exact same recognition. Will the Minister of State give a commitment that Ireland will argue strongly and for a properly funded CAP in the next EU budget, as he has outlined Ireland did over 12 months ago? Will he commit to ensuring that protecting our farmers and our capacity to produce food will remain a strategic priority for Ireland in these negotiations, particularly working with like-minded countries that hold the same views on the importance of the CAP and food security?
In the interests of Irish farming and rural communities, getting agreement on the CAP is hugely important and giving clarity to farmers and rural communities on the shape and size of funding going forward. It is almost as if there are two separate questions on the multi-annual financial framework - deciding how much will be available and, separately, how CAP funding will be available to support rural communities. The LEADER programme is being funded through the second pillar and groups availing of it are very concerned. Will the Minister of State give an outline as to how that funding could be channelled to rural communities? In the interests of farmers, can the CAP aspect be agreed separately from the multi-annual financial framework?
Food security is one of the foundational reasons for the European Union's existence. The Common Agricultural Policy is a treaty-based policy which the European Union has long been committed to. However, some member states tell us that we need to look at other priorities, particularly competitiveness, as I mentioned. We are trying to get agreement on that. It is also fair to say that in my discussions with Ministers around the European table, many of them have prioritised the Common Agricultural Policy and particularly those policies in heading 1 of the multi-annual financial framework proposal.
Regarding the Common Agricultural Policy in general and the questions raised by Deputy Moynihan, there are two questions. One question is the overall size of the budget. We have heard some of the contributor countries say that they want the budget proposal to be reduced by several hundred billion euro. It is not just the size of the budget, though. It is also about where the priorities within the size of the budget are as well. Again, some member states emphasise what they call more modern priorities. The Government's position has been made very clearly. Last year, we thought it was important to get our spoke out to say what our priorities were, so that we could play the honest broker role, which I have been doing. I have chaired the meetings of the General Affairs Council. I have met each minister for Europe or foreign minister on the MFF in the past month, in a confidential format to find out where they are. We will propose our negotiating document in the coming period. That is not the end of the line. That would be a pointer towards the leaders getting this agreement over the line. It is hoped that our negotiating box will allow the leaders to come to an agreement. What they agree could be different and could be better or worse, from different people's point of view. It could also be different at the end of the day. In the next few weeks, our negotiating box is not the end of the story. The end of the story is when the leaders agree at the European Council. All of them have to agree and the European Parliament has to consent to the final outcome on the amount. There is a lot of work to do even after we put forward our negotiating box.
Question No. 7 taken with Written Answers.
Diplomatic Representation
Barry Ward
Ceist:8. Deputy Barry Ward asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade her views on the merits of establishing embassies in all EU accession countries with a view to increasing diplomatic relations as negotiations on their prospective membership continue. [68253/26]
Barry Ward
Ceist:85. Deputy Barry Ward asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade her plans to support the establishment of embassies in all EU accession countries with a view to increasing diplomatic relations as negotiations on their prospective memberships continue. [68254/26]
I support the increase of Ireland's diplomatic footprint generally. In the European Union it is hugely important that we invest in those relationships. There is no EU country that does not have an embassy here and there is no EU country in which we do not have an embassy. In relation to accession states to the European Union, an issue that, as part of our Presidency, is hugely important, there are at least three that will come into the accession process, hopefully quite soon, or are completing it, where we do not have embassies. Has thought been given to establishing a permanent diplomatic presence in those countries?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 85 together.
Ireland strongly supports EU enlargement as the European Union's most effective policy for ensuring the security, stability and prosperity of our Union. Ireland strongly benefited from EU membership and we believe that other European countries deserve the same opportunities that European Union membership has brought to us, provided that the necessary reforms are implemented.
EU enlargement is also a key priority of our EU Presidency and takes up a lot of my time as Minister of State with responsibility for EU affairs. During our Presidency, we have already secured significant progress on enlargement over recent months. In July, during the first month of our Presidency, I chaired the highest number of accession conferences, which are the formalities of moving along the process, in a single day since 2002. We advanced the candidacies of Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine and Moldova.
Over recent years, as a demonstration of our commitment to EU enlargement, we have significantly strengthened our diplomatic ties with candidate countries, including through the opening of new embassies in Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia in September last year. Ireland also maintains embassies in Ukraine and Türkiye, while our embassies in Athens, Ankara, Belgrade, Bucharest and Budapest are accredited to Albania, Georgia, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Kosovo, respectively.
Decisions on new missions will be taken in the framework of Global Ireland 2040 and the subsequent whole-of-government regional plans committed to in the programme for Government. All decisions on new openings are based on a robust analysis of how they will support our citizens, contribute to the promotion of our political and economic interests and promote our culture internationally.
I entirely agree with what the Minister of State has said about the importance and I also recognise the number of new embassies that have been opened. I was in Moldova last September during the parliamentary elections and I met the ambassador who was setting up the embassy there. Just this week, I attended an EU enlargement conference in Tirana in Albania and I met our Greek ambassador, Ciara O'Floinn, who was not just there and present for the conference in Tirana but was clearly very well connected with Albanian parliamentarians and is clearly very present on the ground in Tirana as well.
I recognise the hard work that has been done by our diplomats who cover, on a non-resident basis, countries such as North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania. Should we now be taking the next step of opening embassies in these countries? Certainly in relation to Montenegro the received wisdom is that it is very far along the track. The Minister of State mentioned that it is one of four countries which are progressing their accession status. In fairness to Montenegro, it has done a huge amount of work. I met the delegation in Tirana this week and I have also met them here. Surely if we are to maintain the principle of having a presence in every EU country, we should also have a presence in those countries close that are to accession.
The Minister of State mentioned other countries such as Kosovo, Georgia and Türkiye. We have an embassy in Türkiye but Georgia and Kosovo are covered by the embassies in Türkiye and Hungary, respectively. They are a little bit further away, realistically. Montenegro seems likely to become a member of the European Union in the coming years and we do not have an embassy on the ground. I am not saying we do not cover it because I know the embassy in Belgrade does a super job there and I pay tribute to it for the work it does. The principle of having a presence in countries is very important. Enlargement is close to our hearts. We were part of the first wave of accession to the European Union and we have been a very important part of many of the accessions since then. Part of this involves establishing a diplomatic presence in these countries.
I thank Deputy Ward. I am sure the Minister and the Government will take this matter very much into account.
The very fact we opened up new missions in the region in the past year in particular means we are now less thinly spread. Before our embassy was opened in Serbia, which was relatively recently, Montenegro was covered from Budapest, along with other countries, including Serbia. Now the staff of the embassy in Budapest have more time and can also focus on Kosovo, where they are still accredited, while the embassy in Belgrade can focus on Serbia and Montenegro. We are less thinly spread and have more resources in the region. This has been noticed. It gives us a chance to have a deep connection. Deputy Ward mentioned our ambassador in Greece with regard to Albania. It is easier to do this if there is only one country attached to another. It is relatively common that we have countries attached to particular embassies. We do not have a diplomat in every mission.
Without prejudging any Government decision on this, it is the case that we have an embassy in every EU member state. Our diplomats do extraordinary work. They provide extraordinary value for money. They do diplomatic work, consular work, political work and trade work. They help to promote Irish business and trade and, therefore, help to create jobs here. They do incredible work. We have one in every EU member state and if we go with this logic, I would have said that it is likely the Government will make a decision, certainly at the very latest when some of these applicant countries become member states of the European Union. All of this is, of course, under constant review by the Government and we certainly appreciate the need for it and the advantages that it brings.
I thank the Minister of State and I agree with what he said about our missions on the ground. They provide consistent, excellent service to Irish citizens there and here because of the work they do. The Minister of State mentioned trade and there is also cultural engagement, the presence on the ground and increasing the profile of Ireland in these countries.
I also recognise what the Minister of State said about the excellent work done by ambassadors who have responsibility, on a non-resident basis, for countries such as Montenegro, North Macedonia and Albania. I recognise how much work they do. I also take on board what the Minister of State said about this being under review and the principle that if and when these countries become members of the European Union, it will, hopefully, be a priority to open embassies there.
There is no lack of contact with those countries, and when their delegations come here to meet the European affairs committee or to meet me, as Chair of the committee, they constantly say there is contact with the Irish Government, but we must consider maintaining our connection to accession. When we think of it, we were not only part of the first accession but also key to the negotiations on German unity in the first half of 1990. In 2004 we were key to the day of welcomes when the largest accession ever, of ten new member states, happened during our Presidency. We were key in the negotiations to the most recent accession of Croatia in 2013. This is something that works for us because we understand the value of being part of the European Union and we know how much Ireland has benefited from it.
As the Minister of State has said, we want to make sure the countries that want to share in the success and prosperity should be given the opportunity to do so wherever they can. Part and parcel of this is to send a very clear signal to countries such as Montenegro, Albania and North Macedonia that we are so invested in this that we are going to open on the ground resident diplomatic representation in their countries. This would be a very welcome move. I say this conscious of the fact that we are serving these communities and countries extremely well as it is. I think we could do it better. I recognise the commitment the Minister of State has made in terms of the quality of service we are providing at a diplomatic level in these countries as well.
Deputy Ward has made all of his points very well. Again, it is important to remember that the focus of our missions abroad is primarily to support our citizens, to contribute to the promotion of our political and economic interests and to promote our culture internationally. I am familiar with a number of cases in the region that we will never see in the media or on social media where diplomats are really going out of their way to help Irish citizens who have got into difficulties of various kinds. We all know about these situations. They do incredible work. I said earlier that our embassy in Budapest looked after Serbia but it was actually our embassy in Bucharest. It was our embassy in Romania that looked after Serbia. However, the point is valid that having more embassies frees up resources, and it has freed up significant resources. There is now a significant focus on Serbia and Montenegro and, as I said, our embassies in Budapest and Bucharest can focus more on the work they do there. Embassies in places such as Bucharest are very busy because there is a huge connection between Ireland and Romania in terms of the movement of people. Again, if we look at Moldova, we have opened an embassy there. This is important from the point of view of it being an accession country but there are also a lot of people coming from Moldova to Ireland. This generates work for an embassy also.
There is a range of different factors that the Government has to take into account when opening embassies, primarily resources. I am hopeful in the context of the accession, without wishing to prejudge the situation, that the Government will be inclined to continue its position of having an embassy in every member state of the European Union. I can tell Deputy Ward that during the Brexit process it was very useful to have somebody in every capital. It was very useful to get our position across and explain the difficulties we were facing. When other countries are in difficulties we hear it directly if we have embassies there. I thank Deputy Ward for raising this point.
Passport Services
Colm Burke
Ceist:9. Deputy Colm Burke asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the action being taken by her Department to reduce the current re-processing timeline of a passport application where a query is raised, in view of the fact that when an additional information request is made, the application is paused until such time as the new documentation is received and processed, which can add an additional 15 working days to an application. [69138/26]
Will the Minister outline what action is being taken by the Department to reduce the current timeline for reprocessing a passport application query when a query is raised, in view of the fact that when an additional information request is made the application is paused until such time as the new documentation is received and processed, which can add an additional 15 working days, which is three full weeks, to the application?
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. If we look at the timelines and the work done this year, the passport service has issued over 740,000 passports to date, and it will continue to issue a significant number between now and the end of the year. All application types are currently being processed well within the advertised turnaround times. In fact, I would say that if people ordered a renewed passport this morning, it would be received in the post tomorrow, such are the turnaround times.
In the case of first-time and child renewal applications, supporting documents are required to be submitted. I appreciate, as we all do, that there is a process there that takes longer but it is, essentially, a confirmation of our citizenship, so it is an extremely important process that the office has to go through. The turnaround time for these applications begins on the date the required documents are received. We tend to see those paper applications being submitted, in particular, for the first-time child applications.
In cases where an application is incomplete or incorrect, and that is when we hear from people and they come to us, the passport service will contact the applicant to advise them of what is required to ensure their application is complete. The passport service then operates a document management system whereby incomplete applications are prioritised once the additional documents are received by the passport service. It had been the case previously where those applications may have gone to the back of the queue or might not have progressed as quickly. That has now changed, thankfully. It is now the situation that until the documents are received, those applications are paused, and then they are taken up and immediately prioritised once they come in. A number of steps still have to be taken once the documents are received, including registration, scanning, document verification and a review by an entitlement officer.
While it is said that this can take up to 15 working days, my experience is that when people engage with the Passport Office and send in those documents, and they are correct, the process moves much more quickly. However, there can sometimes be cases where there are challenges, and cases where the documents that have been resent have to then be sent again. These are the instances where we see applications taking a little bit longer. What we have tried to do to prevent that from happening, and I remember this from putting in the applications for my own two little boys, is put in place a form with a tick box at the front detailing exactly what applicants need to have sent in along with their applications. There are also video tutorials and a helpline for people to be able to ring up to make sure they have everything right. Additionally, when documents are sent in, they go directly to the team, so they know those documents are there on a desk and need to be scanned in. I will comment later on the office more broadly and how it has been expanded over the last number of years.
I thank the Minister very much. It is important that I first acknowledge that huge improvements have been made by the Passport Office. In fairness to the staff, they are extremely helpful when we do contact the office. My concern is that in a lot of cases where we run into problems, it relates to young children. If parents have two or three children who they are trying to sort out passports for, it is very stressful. When the notice comes and they are advised that it is 15 working days, people get even more stressed out. This is something we need to look at.
Equally, we need to look at the whole issue of advising people about getting applications in on time. I think the requirement should be that people should try, if at all possible, to get applications in four months before the time of a flight, because issues can arise. If two issues arise, for example, then there could be two periods of 15 working days. That is where the real stress comes from. This is something we might try to look at to see how we can help address the situation. The other question that comes up quite a bit is in relation to photographs for young children. It is a real difficulty, and something we need to look at as well.
We have campaigns but what I always try to do, and I encourage colleagues to do as well, is to highlight, insofar as possible and as often as possible, on our own social media and our own channels, just how important it is for people to apply on time. The ones that we hear about, and the ones that come to our offices, are naturally those instances where a mistake has been made, people have forgotten or people do not realise their passport is out of date. In particular, people might decide at the last minute to take a holiday and their infant child does not have their first passport. It is always advisable, therefore, to apply for a child’s passport as early as possible because a much longer process has to be gone through. Citizenship does have to be confirmed and a process also has to be gone through with the Garda and others in terms of checking, so the earlier a person can make those applications, the better. I will continue to make sure that our campaigns roll out throughout the year, and not just throughout the summer months. Actually, it is when it is not the holiday season that people should be thinking about making sure that their house is in order.
In terms of the photos, a lot of what was happening was to do with photos, with faces not being positioned correctly and issues in terms of lighting and backgrounds. There are video tutorials for families to be able to look at how to make sure their photo is correct and what they are sending in is correct. Where there are issues continuously emerging, however, as the Deputy highlighted, we need to do more to specifically home in on those issues and highlight them in our online system to ensure that when people go to the Department’s website, they can see those issues very clearly and they are brought to their attention before they make their application.
One of the problems we find is that people going on holiday, for example, in July, apply for passports in May, when, in fact, they could have easily applied in February or March. The Department might consider bringing forward the awareness campaign to early January or February. It is something that needs to be looked at to encourage people to apply well in advance of the time they intend to travel.
In relation to photographs, one of the common issues that comes up, especially with very young children, is the difficulty a parent has in trying to get a child to stay still for a photograph. It is one of the concerns that comes up quite a bit, and it can delay an application quite substantially. Can we look at that issue as well, as regards how we can expedite that whole area?
I again thank the Department and the Passport Office for the work they are doing and for dealing with situations where there are serious issues, especially when someone wants to travel for health reasons or to support a family member who is unwell in another country. I very much appreciate the help that is given to them.
With the agreement of the House, I call an Teachta Bennett.
I welcome the work the Passport Office does. I believe it is very efficient. I see many people getting their passports within a week of applying. I believe it is a fantastic service and does operate very well. I encourage people to apply online because it is the fastest process, whereas the paper process can be much slower.
What I would like to say today concerns the checks. I brought this issue up when I met the Passport Office in the audiovisual room one day. The Passport Office seems to have a system where it checks the photographs and the birth certificates as the application proceeds through the process, instead of checking everything in one instance. I have had complaints come into my office where people have had to wait six months because, on the first check of a passport, the pictures were not correct and they had to resend the pictures. The application then went back to the checker again but then the next issue arose, instead of all the issues arising during the first check by the Passport Office. I have requested before, and I request it again, that checkers request everything in the first instance instead of people posting documents back and forth and incurring postage costs as well. I thank the Minister.
I will be very honest. I have not heard of anybody waiting six months which is a long, long time because we now have 840 members of staff working around the clock to respond and to make sure the passports are posted out and everything is turned around as quickly as possible. Some 97% of passport applications are now online, so everything is uploaded and we do not have that issue with postage time, although that method is obviously quick as well.
For anybody whose application has an issue, it does not go back to the end of the queue. That does not happen. It is paused. The Passport Office cannot progress an application, particularly a first-time application, if it does not have all the details. I know from my own office and from dealing with the passport service, that if you pick up the phone and say there was an issue with an application but that the new documents are now in and ask the staff there to make sure it is progressing as quickly as possible, they generally do so. I have yet to see for myself where people are waiting up to 15 days.
At the same time, it is about making sure that we are all highlighting the need for people to apply on time, make sure their documents are correct and make sure things are signed appropriately so that, when the team receives them, applications can move through the process as quickly as possible. It is very much linear. I have been in the office a number of times, and it is not that an application goes from one part of the process and then takes weeks to get to another. They are all working in tandem with each other and moving at a really efficient rate, so much so that we have won awards in terms of our new online system. We now have a new passport as well, which is cutting-edge in terms of our security mechanisms.
All of the points made just highlight how well the Passport Office is doing but also the need to constantly highlight to people that they need to get their passport applications in on time and to appeal to them to please make sure their documents are correct.
European Union
Aisling Dempsey
Ceist:10. Deputy Aisling Dempsey asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the way in which Ireland is progressing EU enlargement. [69008/26]
I am taking this question on behalf of Deputy Dempsey. The pledge of the Government for this EU Presidency was that we would seek to repeat the successes of the past in substantially advancing the case of EU accession countries.
Given that many of the countries that lie along the eastern boundary of the EU have a binary choice facing them, between the EU and the dreaded Putin, I ask the Minister of State to give us a mid-term report on progress.
I thank the Deputy. I also thank him for mentioning that it is mid-term because today we are basically three months gone with three calendar months to go. We strongly support EU enlargement. It is a key priority. We have already secured significant progress on the enlargement files and we want to maintain that progress. The entire Government, including the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and I are working every day to make this a reality.
In July, during the first month of our Presidency, I chaired the highest number of accession conferences in a single day since 2002 - we called it Super Tuesday - advancing the candidacies of Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine and Moldova. On that day, Montenegro closed two extra chapters, with more than half of its negotiating chapters now closed. Albania entered the next phase of its accession process with the closure of its first three negotiating chapters. We also facilitated the opening of the second negotiating cluster, cluster 6, with both Ukraine and Moldova.
As holders of the Presidency, we are advancing crucial discussions on enlargement. We had the informal meeting of European affairs ministers in Dublin in September and I facilitated a discussion on new safeguards for future accession treaties. We are already getting into that phase of asking the existing member states what we need in terms of safeguards. This is a clear indication the process is moving forward and member states are starting to react to that.
Over the coming months, we stand ready to advance the candidacies of every candidate country, provided, of course, that reforms are implemented and they fulfil the conditions. That is challenging in some countries. We need, and will look for, EU 27 agreement, with every single member state agreeing to the closure of all remaining negotiating chapters with Montenegro by the end of the year. This will depend, of course, on the implementation by Montenegro of its reforms and the agreement of every member state.
We will also continue to advance the work of the ad hoc working party on the drafting of Montenegro's accession treaty. We want to close more chapters with Albania and we are working now to open more clusters, all clusters, with Ukraine and Moldova.
I would like to refer to three countries specifically. I acknowledge the foresight of Montenegro in adopting the euro many years ago and its commitment to becoming a member. Moldova has a new Government and is passionate about being a member of the EU. We know the work the ambassador, Larisa Miculeț, is doing here. I understand the Minister of State hosted the Deputy Prime Minister of Moldova here yesterday.
When it comes to Ukraine, while we are changing some of the circumstances of the huge number of Ukrainians residing in this country, the most significant thing we can do today for Ukraine is substantially advance its case for membership. There is nothing that would do more for Ukraine than membership of the EU. What is happening in respect of those three countries?
All I can say is that those three countries are on the list for major progress this year. As I said, however, it requires every single member state of the EU to agree.
Even this week, I have had quite a number of discussions, including with the Moldovans yesterday and the Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister the day before. I am in constant contact with the Montenegrin Government. I have also had discussions with existing member states about how we can move the process forward. We are working very hard to bring more negotiating chapters forward for closure for Montenegro and Albania next month and to open a number of the clusters of negotiating chapters for Ukraine and Moldova next month as well. It is going to be very tight to get some of that across the line, but we, our Department, all the officials and our embassy teams are working very hard on it.
It is important to remember that all of those countries are extremely vulnerable in their own way. The Deputy is right that membership of the EU is the single best guarantee of safety, security and democracy for them.
Deputy Barry Ward asked earlier about diplomatic missions. The Minister of State referred to Serbia and the fact that we have a new mission there. I want to echo what has been said about our diplomats. The finest people we have in our Irish public service are to be found in the diplomatic corps, serving this country as great patriots throughout the world. I have never failed to be impressed by them. I want to ask, however, about the situation in Serbia because the death of Ratko Mladić raised certain issues from the past. There appeared to be a willingness in Serbia, a candidate country, to make a fuss and commemorate the man's death. He was a war criminal. Former President Vučić did not attend his funeral but a number of ministers did. Did the behaviour of people in the Serbian Government raise questions about whether Serbia is, in fact, today embracing the spirit and values of the EU?
As a matter of fact, ministers from a number of member states raised that issue at a number of the meetings we have had recently. What happened in terms of that funeral was simply not appropriate for somebody who had been jailed for genocide. It was totally and utterly inappropriate. We know, though, that in Serbia there is a part of the population that very much wants to have strong ties with the EU. The current Acting President, Ms Ana Brnabić, was Prime Minister when I was previously Minister of State for European affairs and she seemed to be a very pro-European person. She led Serbia's negotiating teams at some of the intergovernmental conferences we had. We did attempt, as holders of the Presidency, to bring some progress to Serbia's candidacy before that. It was very challenging. Many member states had issues, so that is off the agenda for now, I would say. Serbia is a candidate country, however, and the most important part of being a candidate country is that it has a pro-European direction and implements the reforms it needs to implement. That includes a commitment to democracy and the rule of law if it ever wants to become a member state of the EU or if it has that European vision we all cherish.
Trade Agreements
Aindrias Moynihan
Ceist:11. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade for the up-to-date position on the tariff on Irish whiskey exported to the United States; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [69128/26]
Irish whiskey is one of our more successful indigenous exports, supporting jobs in distilleries, farming, rural communities and tourism. The recent announcement on the removal of US tariffs on Irish whiskey is very positive. People in the industry, however, need to see things move from an announcement to something concrete. Will the Minister give an update on the current position regarding implementation and any engagement the Government is having with the EU and the US on it?
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. Like all colleagues, I very much welcome the announcement by President Trump during his recent visit to Ireland regarding the elimination of US tariffs on Irish whiskey. As the Deputy said, this is a hugely important market for us. The US market, in particular, is a very strategic market for Irish whiskey.
Irish whiskey exports to the US in 2025 were worth €362 million, according to Eurostat data. This represents approximately 39% of overall whiskey exports, which is a huge amount when looked at on that scale. The elimination of the 10% tariff on whiskey will also amount to a saving of approximately €36 million for US importers of Irish whiskey. Again, that highlights the fact that tariffs do not benefit anybody. On the US side, there will be a saving of approximately €36 million. Given that it is such an important market for us, we want to keep those numbers high.
My officials continue to actively follow up on the technical implementation. Our team and embassy in Washington are in close contact with the Office of the United States Trade Representative on this. It usually takes time before adjustments can be made, but we are hopeful that we will see these brought in as soon as possible. While I cannot give a specific date, we are actively working and engaging on the matter.
The exemption from tariffs on whiskey shows a welcome for European spirits exported to the US. We want to continue to call for zero tariffs for all whiskey exports, not just for those of Ireland. This is in both of our interests. It remains a priority for the Irish Presidency, the European Commission and EU member states. We also want to see the full implementation of the EU–US joint statement and the extension of exemptions to other areas.
The last couple of months, in particular, have allowed us to get to a point where the relationship has stabilised. Last year was particularly turbulent but, with the Turnberry agreement and the recent ratification by the European Parliament, we are now in a position where the relationship is stabilising in a way that assists in getting us back to where we need to be, even though we might not like the legal direction or the positions that have been taken by the US.
Importantly, through the EU Presidency, my ambition as Minister for trade is to see what more we can do and what other industries we can support. Specifically for the whiskey industry, it was important that we achieved this given the all-island nature of it. Many people contributed to it.
While securing tariff-free access to the US is hugely important, there is also a significant opportunity for the future development of the Irish whiskey sector, as the Minister mentioned, through the whiskey technical file and the protection of Irish whiskey's geographical indicator. Many producers, farmers and other stakeholders believe the technical file can help to ensure that consumers, when they buy Irish whiskey, are buying a genuinely Irish product from Ireland, with stronger links to Ireland, including greater use of Irish-grown grain. That would only strengthen the premium reputation and the authenticity of Irish whiskey in the international market. It would also create additional opportunities for Irish tillage farmers and rural communities. Does the Minister agree that, alongside securing tariff-free access to the US, the Government could maximise export growth in Ireland by encouraging a stronger connection between the whiskey sector and Irish grain growers?
Any way in which we can highlight our produce that is home grown and directly connected to our food producers is a win-win for everyone here. I am not just talking about whiskey. I am also talking about food and other types of spirits we produce. There is a connectedness and when it comes to source to product, our country is seen as green, sustainable and one that applies the highest standards across the board. Therefore, we should take every opportunity we have to highlight our produce, farmers and excellent agrifood industry.
We want to expand and grow, so with 39% of our whiskey going to the US, there is an opportunity with zero tariffs to do even more, but we also want to make sure at the same time that we are advocating for produce at a European level because tariffs do not benefit anyone. They do not benefit the producers, individual countries or consumers or buyers of the products. We need to focus on how we can advocate for our industries at home and at a European level and that is exactly what I will be doing in the upcoming informal trade meeting, to which I will welcome colleagues from across the EU and from other parts of the world, and where the focus on the US and other countries will be a particular emphasis.
While the whiskey technical file might often been seen as led by the Department of agriculture, and we have shown it is hugely important for Irish whiskey exports, can co-ordinated efforts be made across government, whether in the Department of enterprise, foreign affairs or agriculture, to enhance the position of Irish whiskey and grain growers and to press it forward?
Second, to return to the question on tariffs, the Minister might not have a timeline for it today. What will be the next steps in bringing about that tariff-free access?
The co-ordination is already happening. The fact this was achieved, that there is an agreement with the US for Irish whiskey, came about not just because of political engagement from my side. I engaged directly with Mr. Jamieson Greer and the ambassador. The industry and agricultural sector engaged directly, as did the Taoiseach with President Trump. There has been a significant level of engagement from agriculture and trade and from the economic side of things by the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, as well the representative organisations on the ground. That is the approach we are trying to take more generally.
I was in the US last week. In the new Ireland House, Enterprise Ireland, Bord Bia, Fáilte Ireland, the consulate and the diplomatic teams are all working together in the same building. Where we can promote and work together on different issues, that is exactly what we are doing. That is to assure the Deputy that the co-ordination and co-operation, not only on whiskey but in every sector we are trying to promote and expand, is happening already. Our officials, in particular in Washington, are working around the clock to make sure this can come into effect as quickly as possible. While I cannot give a timeline, I hope to see it happen in the coming weeks.
EU Budgets
Sinéad Gibney
Ceist:12. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade her Department’s priorities in negotiating the multi-annual financial framework. [69077/26]
Much of the daily lives of our citizens, from farmers to researchers, small businesses and community organisations, is shaped by what is in the EU budget. We have seen calls across Europe, including from the likes of Chancellor Merz, for a slashing of social cohesion funding and a focus on a wartime economy. What are the Department's priorities for this multi-annual financial framework, MFF, and how is the Government advocating for Irish interests in negotiations?
First, if the Deputy has read the letter from Chancellor Merz, she will know that he did not say the cohesion budget should be slashed or that a wartime economy should be funded.
Pursuing agreement on the next MFF is a top priority for the Irish Presidency. The Irish Presidency has advanced work ambitiously and at pace over recent months in an effort to bring member states closer to a consensus and with a view to concluding overarching negotiations on the MFF by the end of 2026. In an effort to do so, the Presidency will deliver a compromise proposal on key issues related to volume, expenditure and revenue to member states in October. It will then be for leaders at the European Council to decide the direction of negotiations, but what is clear is the need for compromise and flexibility among all member states. Each and every member state has to agree to this proposal.
As the holders of the Presidency, we are committed to our role in being an honest broker in negotiations as we continue to seek workable compromises in some of the key outstanding questions under discussion. This includes the overall size of the MFF, the sources of revenue and the balance between expenditure priorities. There have been varying views among member states throughout the negotiations on these key questions, and they remain today. Ireland’s compromise will seek to move everyone closer to agreement.
We recognise that it will be challenging for Ireland to bridge the gaps between member states, but we have made every effort to do so. This has included four substantive discussions among permanent representatives in Brussels and three debates among European affairs ministers at the General Affairs Council, which I chair, as well as bilateral meetings with all member states by our permanent representative in Brussels in July, and by me in September. This has been complemented by engagement with the Taoiseach, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and other Ministers with their EU counterparts in bilateral exchanges. In all these engagements, we have listened carefully to all member states and now, in our honest broker role, we are carefully considering compromises based on sound and robust evidence, which we believe will be capable of moving member states closer to a consensus.
Voices in that letter did call for a cut in funding. That is just the reality of the reporting.
The Deputy referred to a slashing of cohesion funding
The letter states, "The funding should be focused on common investment in security and defence, competitiveness, innovation and the fight against irregular migration". While I appreciate the Minister of State's description of the process he is engaged in, I would like to understand how he is representing the interests of Irish people.
I am extremely concerned with the development of the next MFF based on the direction of travel at EU level. The EU cohesion funding, horizon funding, the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, and other key supports that are vital to many people across Irish society are under serious threat. These are also things that protect our democracies and societies from outside interference and ensure we have just and open societies and that children do not grow up in poverty and into adulthood in a world of fires and food shortages. This is the opportunity cost when the sole priorities of the EU are competitiveness and spending on the defence industry. Nothing the Minister of State has said has assured me he is pushing back against that.
I am glad I pushed back against the Deputy's initial question because she went on to quote from the letter. The letter also says there should be cuts across all the headings and that the member states that signed it accept an increase in the EU budget. During our Presidency, I have to represent not just this country but all the member states and what they want is a cut to the increases proposed by the European Commission. They have accepted that there will be an increase in the EU budget.
We have to balance that. We have to get agreement from every member state given that each member state has a veto on this process, not just Germany or any other country that might be mentioned. Every member state has a veto, but everyone feels the need to compromise in order to get agreement. The Deputy is right that it is in our interests to have agreement on all these things. There are people who will be waiting for funding from the MFF. The Deputy named them. They include farmers and universities. The competitiveness fund will be important for Ireland as well, and businesses will be waiting for it. Humanitarian aid organisations abroad will also be waiting for funding under heading 3. The negotiation that is happening is important and it is a negotiation among the member states, not with any faceless institution.
When I look to small Irish businesses, to our domestic productivity and to our communities on the ground, I do not see the benefits of the competitiveness agenda. No matter what the Minister of State says, his Government absolutely supports and champions that competitiveness agenda. I see redundancies from multinational tech companies and indigenous businesses struggling to survive. I also see a Government working in lockstep with whatever is the prevailing wind at EU level instead of standing up for what is most important to people on the ground here in Ireland. In this MFF, we need to see a focus on the peace project that the EU is supposed to be and can be. We need voices at EU level who will push for that focus on cohesion, democracy and delivering a better quality of life for citizens in the here and now. While we hear lip service and acknowledgement of these things, I do not see or hear anything about this being made a priority. It must be a priority. Those I represent want to know why our taxpayers' money should go towards subsidising arms factories rather than towards improving our society. I want to know what the Minister of State's Department is doing to demand that civil society, civilian life, agricultural life and civil businesses be the focus of the next MFF.
Farmers are a very significant focus of the MFF. They are hugely significant focus. Before our Presidency, we put forward our priorities and briefed Members of the Dáil and of the European Parliament on them. Those priorities we set out included agriculture and a real commitment to European engagement abroad. They also included competitiveness. What is competitiveness about? It is about making sure that we keep good-paying jobs in the European Union. That includes farming and small and medium enterprises. It also includes big businesses that employ people and provide essential manufacturing for the European Union. On cohesion, one of the priorities we negotiated into the negotiating document before we took on the Presidency was the PEACEPLUS programme, a unique fund that is jointly funded by the British Government, the Irish Government and the European Union. We succeeded in getting that into the negotiating document. That is cohesion funding in action. It shows where the Irish Government's priorities were before we got the Presidency, taking on this honest broker role.
Cuireadh an Dáil ar fionraí ar 10.33 a.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 10.37 a.m.
Sitting suspended at 10.33 a.m. and resumed at 10.37 a.m.