Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 May 2024

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the Chamber this morning. As he is well aware, one of the biggest criticisms we get as Government public representatives when there are announcements of international protection or Ukrainian citizens coming to a town is the lack of communication. That happened only this week in Tipperary when there were rumours circulating over the weekend that there were going to be 80 international protection applicants facilitated in the Dundrum House Hotel. Public representatives from my party and the Minister of State's party tried to get as much information as they could over the last three or four days before a meeting held last night with 200 locals present. Only two hours before that meeting was there a full briefing given to public representatives who were being sent into a room of 200 people who were only looking for clarity and information about what the next steps will be. People do not know them and it is a real problem for us and for local councillors.

We had the same problem only two weeks ago in Clonmel regarding the 82 modular units which are going to be built for Ukrainian families. Again, no information was put out, which meant false information was put out and believed. This ended up in a situation where there was a campsite set up for people protesting, which unfortunately made national headlines due to violence. A man working on the site was injured and had to be hospitalised overnight. That is extreme but that sort of lack of communication causes a lack of trust among the public. If the Minister of State or I have to go to these meetings and tell people we do not have the full details, they do not believe us, and I understand there have been issues in Rosslare with people being frustrated with the communication.

The reason I am raising this today is that everyone in Clonmel is talking about Hearns Hotel possibly being used for international protection applicants. I cannot tell people that I know for sure exactly what is happening and how many people are coming but it will be announced at some point. As happened last night, when councillors for the Cashel-Tipperary town district had to go to a meeting in Dundrum, I will get a briefing an hour or two beforehand and will have to work with that in terms of getting information to people in my community. It is not good enough.

There is a good example where good communication has worked and it is from Borrisokane in my county. When the Minister of State's predecessor, Deputy David Stanton, was Minister of State in the Department of Justice, he brought 14 international protection applicant families to the town. They have been there for five years now and the community is so happy with them that it is trying to have a march to protect them because there is a complication with them possibly moving out of their houses. The local people want to keep them there.

My question relates to Hearns Hotel. Has there been communication between the Department, the owners of Hearns Hotel and Tipperary County Council? How long has that been going on? When will international protection applicants be accommodated in Hearns Hotel and how many international protection applicants will this involve? What supports will be provided for them? As anyone from Clonmel will tell you, you cannot get a GP. If you go into a GP in Clonmel, they will tell you there are no vacancies. They cannot take you on. The accident and emergency department in the hospital is under huge pressure. Has contact been made with the local schools in the area? If people are coming, children will be among them. Will there be accommodation for those children come September?

I thank Senator Ahearn for raising the very important issue of Hearns Hotel in Clonmel being used as a facility for international protection applicants. I am responding on behalf of Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, who sends his apologies for not being here this morning.

Ireland and many other European countries are experiencing a significant increase in people seeking international protection. The arrival numbers remain significantly elevated and in the first 21 weeks of 2024, over 8,300 people have arrived in Ireland seeking accommodation from the State, averaging 398 people per week. This is more than five times the average from 2017-2019 and the highest weekly applications in 2024 consisted of over 610 applicants.

As of 19 May, there are over 30,000 people accommodated in international protection accommodation services, otherwise known as the IPAS system. Over 7,494 of this group as a whole are children, compared with approximately 8,700 people at the end of February 2022. IPAS provides support to people through non-governmental organisations to assist them in moving on from IPAS accommodation. Progress in this area continues to be challenging despite nearly 1,700 people transitioning to more permanent accommodation in the community since the beginning of 2024.

As of 19 May, there are 750 IP applicants in County Tipperary. The International Protection Procurement Service, IPPS, is responding to an offer of accommodation made in respect of Hearns Hotel. A full assessment of the property is under way at present. If a contract is signed with the provider, the property will subsequently be brought into use.

If a contract is signed with a provider, the property would subsequently be brought into use. If a contract is agreed and the property is to come into use, the community engagement team will provide a briefing document about the accommodation to elected representatives. The CET has been established to engage directly with elected representatives, relevant local authorities, local development companies and other entities and individuals. The purpose of the team is to improve the flow of information regarding arrivals into areas and to help equip local communities with the accurate information required to help them understand the current situation. The team does not have a role in the procurement of premises or the allocation of new arrivals.

The Government is committed to supporting all those seeking refuge in Ireland and is considering all offers of accommodation. The Department is currently availing of repurposed office buildings, decommissioned Defence Forces barracks and tents to try to address shortfalls in reception capacity. Since January 2022, the Department has brought more than 200 properties into use to accommodate those who arrive in Ireland seeking international protection. The Government is making every effort to accommodate asylum seekers against a backdrop of unprecedented demand. However, the situation remains challenging and the Department cannot provide accommodation to all applicants.

The EU reception conditions directive outlines the necessary reception conditions for receiving IP applicants. In line with this directive, in circumstances where the State temporarily runs out of accommodation, the State can exceptionally offer different reception conditions. It does this in the form of a €75 per week increased expense allowance, bringing the total allowance to €113.80 to those to whom the State cannot offer accommodation.

The Government remains committed to supporting all those seeking refuge in Ireland and is considering all offers of accommodation, in line with the comprehensive accommodation strategy approved by Government on 27 March this year. This revised strategy followed a review of the implementation approach for the White Paper due to an exponential growth in applications for international protection, with in excess of 30,000 new arrivals since January 2022, whereas the White Paper was originally based on 3,500 new arrivals each year. The review included inputs from the White Paper programme board and the external advisory group.

The Government-approved comprehensive accommodation strategy seeks to address the current accommodation shortfall while reforming the system over the longer term to ensure the State will always be able to meet its international commitments. The reforms will see a move away from full reliance on private providers and towards a core of State-owned accommodation, delivering 14,000 State-owned beds by 2028, quadruple the previous commitment under the White Paper. At the moment, no agreement has been reached but I do not have the specific details on the accommodation the Senator asked for. I will ask the Minister to provide that.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Of all of what he read out, only two paragraphs answered some of the questions I asked. I appreciate it is not his Department. He mentioned if the contract is agreed and that they are working with the provider. The provider said a few months ago that he would not use it for international protection and then he was found out. The new owners were found out to be misleading. Everyone in the town knows this is happening. Everyone in the town can see workers going in, changing windows, putting in carpets and putting in curtains. That is all happening because of engagement with the Department as to what needs to be changed.

I asked how many people would be staying there. Everyone knows there are 26 rooms. In other places around the country, it is four per room because they are families. That means we should know and should be able to tell the public that 100 people will be coming into that hotel. The real problem we have is that the impact of this is huge. It is on Parnell Street, the main street. It is the only hotel in the town centre of Clonmel. We have had this before with Roscrea. Removing the only hotel has a huge impact. It is closing a late bar and nightclub, O'Keeffe's, which is right beside it and which has to be closed because families are being put in there. It has an impact on every single business on Parnell Street. It is the busiest street from the point of view of hospitality, restaurants and pubs. The people of Clonmel are greatly concerned that there is no communication.

All I can confirm, based on the information provided to me by the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, is that the international protection procurement service is responding to an offer made to it of accommodation in respect of the property and the Department is assessing the property as to whether the accommodation is suitable and whether a contract should be agreed. However, I do not have any more specifics than that. I will ask the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, if he can provide further specifics on it. At the moment it is at the discussion stage.

I welcome the Minister of State. I thank the Cathaoirleach's office for choosing this Commencement matter. I have had some correspondence and have met with oyster fishermen in the Clarinbridge area. They have a good working relationship with the State agencies overseeing them such as Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. They do a small amount of commercial fishing. It is something that has been passed down through the generations. As a former Minister of State with responsibility for inland fisheries, I was happy to be able to assist with some licensing issues to ensure the oyster fisheries continue in that area.

They have a few concerns regarding what they deem to be over-regulation, with two State agencies effectively responsible for monitoring them and all that goes with it, in some cases, for a very small number of days of fishing. They believe that there should be a single inspection point and that there should be some collaboration between Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. I know the two agencies fall under different Departments. However, it does not make much sense to have one agency engaging with them in the afternoon and another agency engaging with them in the evening when they come ashore with their catch.

In the case of the wild fishery, we are talking about a small number of days fishing in the year. It is over-regulation. If we consider that there are large international supertrawlers out at sea, and God knows what is going on in some cases with them, and yet small numbers of local lads are out there fishing who have high costs associated with the over-regulation of their sector, I think it could be done in a better way. Is there any possibility of collaboration between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, which has responsibilities for Inland Fisheries Ireland, to make life somewhat simpler for them? They obviously understand the need for safety, food quality and abiding by regulations. However, I think there could be a better, simpler and easier way to assist those involved in what is a small but important industry which has long roots in the past and, it is to be hoped, a good future as well.

I thank Senator Kyne for raising this important issue as to whether Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority could agree a single point of inspection for oyster fishermen rather than duplication of inspections. I am responding on behalf of the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, who sends his apologies.

The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine is responsible for aquaculture licensing and its regulation, a remit which includes oyster farming. However, as the Senator rightly points out, the Minister does not have any responsibility for the licensing of wild oyster fishing. This function falls to Inland Fisheries Ireland, which is an agency under remit of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. I am advised that the inspections by Inland Fisheries Ireland in respect of wild oyster fisheries are required to ensure the vessels involved in fishing for wild oysters are in compliance with the dredging permits issued by that agency.

The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, on the other hand, is an independent statutory body established by the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 which has, among its responsibilities, controls in respect of fisheries and seafood safety and enforcement functions. Specifically, section 46 of the 2006 Act provides that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine may give such general policy directions in writing to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority in relation to its functions as is considered appropriate but that the Minister may not exercise any power or control in relation to individual cases, or groups of cases, with which the authority is concerned, or in relation to the performance in particular circumstances by the authority of its functions, such as that set out under its inspections remit.

I understand the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority inspections regarding wild oyster fisheries involve fishery controls, including compliance with minimum size and traceability requirements, and are specifically required for the enforcement of seafood safety law, both national and EU legislation, that deals with health conditions for the production and placing on the market of fish, shellfish and fisheries products. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is an official agency of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, with a service contract agreement in place outlining the agreed level and standard of seafood safety activity the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority performs as a competent authority.

The inspections carried out by Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority in respect of wild oyster fisheries are, therefore, conducted under separate statutory functions and are prescribed for different purposes. While the inspections conducted by these statutory agencies are operational matters, I will nonetheless refer this issue to the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications for his attention, given that his is the lead Department for wild oyster fisheries. Further advice may be available on the communications between Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority on the wild oyster fisheries concern, the possibilities relating to the inspection process involved and what may be feasible in that regard.

I thank the Minister of State for that response from the Minister, Deputy McConalogue. I will certainly convey it to those involved in the sector to see whether there is any way of streamlining the processes, not to in any way reduce the compliances that are necessary for food quality, safety and regulations but to make the processing somewhat simpler for those involved. There is a view that there is duplication in what is a very small sector, so I will go back to those involved. I hope there can be agreement or some sort of interaction between the two Departments to see whether we can streamline the process.

I again thank the Senator for raising this important issue. Referring it to the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications for consideration by his officials and Inland Fisheries Ireland, as the competent authority, is an important step taken by the Minister. While the inspections conducted by these statutory agencies are operational matters, there may nonetheless be an opportunity for better communications between Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority on the wild oyster fisheries concern.

Before I call on Senator Lombard, I welcome Maebh Doyle to the Public Gallery. Maebh is a transition year student from Bandon, County Cork, who is spending this week with Senator Lombard. I sincerely hope she is having a good week in Leinster House and that she sees how hard politicians work and how democracy operates. I also hope she will choose politics as a career because, in spite of everything, it is a great career and you can achieve so much. She is very welcome and please God we will see her back here soon.

I thank the Chair and acknowledge his kind words to Maebh Doyle. I would like the Minister for local government and heritage to make a statement regarding the plans for a directly elected mayor for Cork city and county. I am trying to start a debate about where we are with local government and what the national plan will be. On 7 June, a few days from now, Limerick will go to the polls to choose a directly elected mayor, which will be a unique statement for democracy in Ireland in so many ways. He or she will have a new function, a new office, new powers and a budget, and it will in many ways change how Limerick is going to be promoted and looked on. As positive as that is for Limerick, I want to know what the Government's plan is for directly elected mayors elsewhere in the country and whether Limerick is going to be an outlier whereby it will have a directly elected mayor but we are not going to do anything in the other local authority areas, whether in Wexford, Cork or wherever. Where is our national policy for directly elected mayors and how are we going to look at the issue going forward? Is Limerick going to be a template or is it just an experiment?

I am fundamentally of the view that what happened five years ago in the context of Cork was a total mistake. We should have one local authority in Cork, and if geographically between 12.5% and 13% of the nation were covered by one local authority, with a population heading towards 600,000 people, that would give it a unique power in the context of calls for funding, looking for international investment and how we would be looked at nationally or even internationally. We are behind the curve among regions in Ireland. Limerick now has the potential to move ahead, which is great for Limerick, but from a national point of view, we need to have a policy that will be appropriate to regions throughout Ireland, whether Galway, Limerick, Wexford or elsewhere, and I do not know whether that national policy is there at the moment. I acknowledge that we are coming to the end of a local government cycle and that nothing will be done in the next few weeks, but for the next five years, a plan needs to be put in place for our vision for local government, where we are going to go with the idea of directly elected mayors and what we are going to propose for regions.

I fundamentally believe that what happened in Cork was wrong. I read in the newspapers that there was fighting over the compensation package that was agreed in respect of the most recent boundary extension. A sum of €13 million has to go from Cork city to Cork county, and the city is now saying it cannot afford to pay it. This is daft. It makes no sense at all. That is going to do nothing for the Cork region. When I go to Páirc Uí Chaoimh to support Cork, I do not support the city player over the county player; I support Cork. I just do not understand how we have got caught in this unfortunate dilemma that does not see a suitable structure to promote Cork county or city appropriately in local government. My focus for the next five years is on what the strategy will be and how we are going to fix this issue to make sure that the Limerick dynamic can be looked at as a template to move forward in order that we can have it in all our major cities and regions such that they will all be on a level playing field. At the moment, Limerick is at least five years ahead of us, and having a directly elected mayor will give Limerick the potential to have an extra voice when it comes to attracting investment.

The real question for the Government, although it may be one more for the next Government than for this one, relates to how we are going to have a coherent local government policy that will promote the regions that need to be promoted and be a counterbalance to Dublin. What is the Department's view? Where is it going to go and how will it bring forward a new plan to make sure local government is what it says on the tin, that is, government for local people on the ground?

I thank the Senator for raising this issue relating to the process of introducing a directly elected mayor for Cork city and county. The forthcoming direct election of a mayor of Limerick on 7 June is one of the biggest reforms of local government since the foundation of the State. The Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2024 was signed into law on 6 March 2024 and gives effect to the plebiscite of May 2019, where the people of Limerick voted to have a directly elected mayor. Plebiscites held at the same time on the question of introducing directly elected mayors of Cork City Council and Waterford City and Council were narrowly defeated. In addition to providing for a mayor of Limerick, the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2024 makes provision for other local authorities to hold a plebiscite on the question of whether to have a directly elected mayor with executive functions for their administrative area.

A plebiscite of the electors of an administrative area may be proposed in three ways, namely where a local authority corporate policy group recommends it and the elected council approves it, where a petition is signed by more than 15% of the electorate and the chief executive certifies it, or where the Minister directs it. It must then be held within 12 months. Where the outcome of a plebiscite is in favour of a directly elected mayor, the Act requires the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to submit a report to the Oireachtas within two years containing proposals for legislative measures to provide for a directly elected mayor of that administrative area. These enabling provisions of the Act have been commenced and supporting regulations for holding plebiscites will follow in due course. It is important that there be options locally for triggering a plebiscite, and the design of the legislation aims at strengthening local democracy and subsidiarity by offering these options.

In the case of Cork, under these provisions, either or both of the two Cork local authorities could hold plebiscites for mayors in their own administrative area. However, these provisions do not allow for a plebiscite on the question of having a single directly elected mayor of a geographic area that comprises more than one local authority area.

I welcome the response, which gave us the Department's view on the policy, but I would argue there is a political element here that will be looked at when the new Government is put in place in the next 12 months. When it is formed, that Government will have to have a vision for local government and will have to acknowledge what Limerick has done is potentially the way forward and that we need to move into a different space to make sure this will happen at a national level in all our cities. If that were to happen and if we were to change our focus in respect of local government, we would have real change in the powers regarding local democracy on the ground.

For Cork, it does not make sense for two local authorities to be fighting over boundaries, compensation and so on. It is all about trying to promote Cork and the region.

We read in the newspapers that they are arguing about compensation packages. That does nothing to help me in trying to promote Cork as an entity. It is a political issue in many ways. Civil servants will give us the response but the political response is going to come when we form the new Government and decide how we are going to focus on local government itself.

I again thank Senator Lombard for his insightful and important question on directly elected mayors, in particular for Cork city and county. An information leaflet on the election of the mayor was recently delivered to every home in Limerick and explains the many benefits for Limerick which may apply in regard to the directly elected mayor. I understand the Senator's point, which is beyond the answer I have given, which just sets out the current law. There is a more political question to be answered and I will certainly raise that with the Minister.

I thank the Minister of State. The experience of democracy we are going to see in Limerick in the next couple of weeks will be very interesting. Once it is over the line and we see the Mayor of Limerick in operation and that person fulfilling his or her mandate, every county will want a directly elected mayor. I thank Senator Lombard.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I raise the question of the ongoing protests in Georgia. As the Minister of State will know, Ireland has very friendly relations with Georgia but we have seen in recent months, in particular in recent weeks, growing protests on the streets of Georgia against the transparency of foreign influence Bill that the Georgian Dream party is trying to introduce, but also against the increasing crackdown on any form of dissent within that country. The fear among many of those who are opposed to what is happening is that, because this Bill is very much based on Russian law, it is an effort on the part of the Georgian Dream party to stifle all opposition ahead of October's parliamentary elections. We saw a similar law introduced in Russia in 2012 and we know what has happened in Russia, with cultural figures, journalists, civil society groups and others having experienced serious efforts to stifle their voices and, in some cases, we have seen imprisonment and worse.

In April, the European Parliament called for sanctions against the founder and leader of Georgian Dream, Bidzina Ivanishvili. The vote in the European Parliament was 425 to 25. This individual is a billionaire oligarch who made his money in Moscow in the 1990s and has parroted Russia's line regularly in Georgia. The laws he is trying to ensure are introduced in Georgia, as the European Parliament and others have pointed out, are very much against EU values. We have seen a crackdown on the LGBT community and journalists and opposition politicians have been targeted, imprisoned and beaten.

I applaud the bravery of the demonstrators in Georgia in the past two weeks. They have been met with tear gas and rubber bullets, even though these are peaceful demonstrations. Given that Georgia was granted EU candidate status in December 2023, that polls consistently show over 80% of Georgians would like to join the European Union, and that Ireland has always been a strong supporter of enlargement by following the process, it is a serious concern that we are seeing the oppression of human rights in Georgia.

I believe we should continue to support Georgia in its moves towards membership of the European Union but, as we have done with Belarus and other countries, we need to point out where there are serious abuses of human rights and efforts to undermine democracy. We are 20 years on from the EU’s biggest enlargement when ten countries, mostly in central and eastern Europe, joined the EU family. I am sure the Minister of State would agree that, at some stage, it would be great to see Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia all in membership, having followed the process and having agreed to all of the necessary rules that apply to accession. However, what is going on at the moment in Georgia is not acceptable. It is important we show solidarity with those who are fighting to maintain democracy there and, if necessary, that we ensure sanctions are placed on those trying to crack down on human rights.

I thank Senator Byrne for raising this very important issue of the need for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make a statement on the ongoing protests in Georgia and to reiterate Ireland's support for Georgia's path to accession to EU membership. I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I welcome the discussion of this matter and thank the Senator for raising it. Ireland has always been a strong supporter of EU enlargement. The Senator referred to the largest-ever enlargement and, of course, Ireland had the EU Presidency at that time and we were very proud of that, and those countries were very grateful to Ireland. The Government was a part of the important December decision of the European Council to grant EU candidate status to Georgia, provided that Georgia undertook the appropriate reforms as outlined in the Commission’s enlargement report. However, the adoption of the foreign agents law and democratic backsliding by Georgia since then are very disturbing developments.

EU enlargement is a merit-based process. Advancing on the EU integration path must go hand in hand with progress on EU-related reforms. Ireland, along with our EU partners, has consistently urged the Georgian Government to withdraw the transparency of foreign influence law. Regrettably, on 28 May, the Georgian Parliament overruled the President’s veto and the Bill will be signed into law following final signature. The legislation is not in line with core EU values and norms and threatens Georgia’s path towards EU membership. It is a clear attempt by the Georgian Government to limit Georgia’s vibrant civil society and criticism towards the Government.

This law contradicts the will of the Georgian people, who have consistently and overwhelmingly pushed for a democratic and European future for their country. The Georgian people have shown their commitment to European values by coming out onto the streets in their thousands to protest since the introduction of the Bill. The heavy-handed response to peaceful protests by the Georgian authorities has been unacceptable. Opposition politicians have been expelled from parliament and, in extreme cases, they have been physically beaten. Journalists and media officials covering the events have also become targets of the Georgian authorities. Online media platforms have been barred from reporting on parliamentary proceedings and several journalists have been assaulted by riot police. Not only does this behaviour infringe on the Georgian people’s right to freedom of assembly, it is incompatible with a functioning democracy and fuels political polarisation in Georgia.

Ireland has echoed High Representative and Vice President Josep Borrell and President von der Leyen in urging the Georgian Government to withdraw the legislation and in condemning the disproportionate use of force against the protestors. We have been clear in our engagements with Georgia that the European Union is a Union of values and that the best way to secure Georgia’s progress towards EU membership is by demonstrating genuine commitment to European values and to the human rights of all citizens. The Tánaiste emphasised this point to Foreign Minister Darchiashvili when they met in Dublin last September. Along with our EU partners, Ireland has been clear that the transparency of foreign influence law will negatively impact Georgia’s progress towards EU accession. The Tánaiste, along with the foreign ministers of 11 other EU member states, wrote to High Representative and Vice-President Borrell and Commissioner Várhelyi earlier this month requesting an update on how the proposed law would impact Georgia’s EU candidate status and completion of reform recommendations, and they did so at the EU Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, which the Tánaiste attended.

The adoption of the foreign agents law is part of a larger, worrying trend of democratic backsliding by the Georgian Government. The proposal to introduce anti-LGBTQI legislation+, anti-EU rhetoric and accusations that its closest partners are complicit in a so-called global party of war all paint a worrying picture for Georgia’s future. The announcement that the Georgian Government will create a database containing information on all individuals involved in or publicly supporting violence, threats, and blackmail during the protests against the draft foreign agent law is also deeply concerning.

I am grateful to the Minister of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs for setting out clearly Ireland's continuing support for democratic values in Georgia and making it clear to the Georgian Government that membership of the European Union will be dependent on ensuring that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are respected. I encourage the Minister for Foreign Affairs to continue with this line.

If necessary, the EU should take action, including sanctions, against some of those who are engaging in democratic backsliding. This particularly applies to those who are protesting, journalists, and opposition politicians. What we are seeing happen in Georgia is deeply worrying. It is another example of Putin's attempts to influence the countries of central and eastern Europe. We need to continue to show solidarity with the people of Georgia who want democracy and human rights.

Ireland stands with the Georgian people in their pursuit of democracy and membership of the European Union. We will continue to urge the Georgian Government to withdraw the law and implement the necessary reforms to ensure Georgia's place in the EU. The EU has made it abundantly clear to Georgia that it is willing to work with the country to advance its European perspective but the Georgian Government must respond to this by abiding by European Union values, rules and norms. We are not seeing this. I urge Senators to use whatever contacts they have with the Georgian parliamentarians to encourage them to move in a different direction. Ireland will continue to engage with its partners in the EU on an appropriate response to the adoption of the transparency of foreign influence law and our wider concerns on the Georgian Government.

Following on from discussions at the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, in which the Tánaiste participated, the EU's response will be further discussed at the June Foreign Affairs Council and European Council. The European Commission will report on Georgia's progress as part of that annual autumn package of enlargement reports. This will be another important juncture.