65. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade whether her Department has concerns regarding the ability of citizens to exercise their rights under GDPR and the EU AI Act being undermined by the provisions currently proposed in the digital omnibus simplification packages; whether these concerns have been raised in early discussions on the packages; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8708/26]
Sentiment score: -0.01
There is a lot of talk right now about online safety and regulation. The overwhelming sentiment from the public is that we need to tackle it head on and not be cowed into inaction by big tech. Yet the digital simplification packages as currently drafted stand to erode people's rights, not support them. Is the Department concerned about the package? What steps is the Minister of State taking to raise these concerns at EU level?
Sentiment score: -0.03
I am really frustrated by the Minister of State's reply, as I was by a similar answer given by his colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, at the AI committee last week. The dogs in the street know big tech cannot be trusted. We have all endured the Grok scandal over the past number of weeks. A recent "Prime Time Investigates" programme reported on how our location data is being sold. Despite all of that, the Government remains stubbornly committed to backing omnibus proposals that give the very tech companies that are harming us more of our data and subject them to less regulation and oversight. There seems to be a disconnect between the rights and protections of citizens and the push for deregulation. We are not seeing any critical engagement on how this will impact ordinary people. I am really concerned that at a time when we should be shoring up protections and rights, they are being totally ignored. The conversation is completely about how to remove rules. We are told that this is about simplification and harmonisation and that they will be achieved while balancing rights. Those rights are always the secondary thought. Unfortunately, I do not see any balance. Digital regulation and our digital rights cannot be construed as two separate issues. That does not work because the regulations exist in the first place to protect those exact rights. There are not adequate safeguards in the proposal from the Commission. What will the Minister of State do to ensure that is addressed in any digital omnibus package?
Sentiment score: -0.10
The Minister of State telling us simplification is not deregulation is as hollow to me as saying the removal of the triple lock will not affect our neutrality.
Sentiment score: 0.00
It is just misleading. He said in the same breath that it is about relieving the regulatory burden. He must admit that what he is doing is removing regulations and, therefore, removing rights and protections. He referred to stakeholders in his first contribution. Who are those stakeholders? I am fairly sure they are businesses and industry. My problem with the governance we are pursuing in this area is that it is completely driven by the Department of enterprise. It is not considering the broader societal impacts of online and digital harm while we are all experiencing those impacts. We are potentially allowing companies to self-certify their AI in lower-risk categories. We are potentially allowing companies to collect personal data that previously was protected. I mentioned the "Prime Time Investigates" report that, not too long ago, exposed how we are allowing third-party companies to track us using our data. Now we face a situation where that data is not even illegal to collect and sell. I do not disagree with the Government that we have huge issues with the enforcement of these regulations. What I disagree with is walking away from those regulations and seeking to get rid of them instead of properly enforcing them.
Sentiment score: 0.00
67. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide an update on her Department’s stance on the amendments to the EU-Morocco trade deal; the use of provisional application for the deal; the way in which it interacts with the right to self-determination of the Sahrawi people; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8707/26]
Sentiment score: 0.01
The previous EU-Morocco trade deal was struck down by the European courts because it was found to violate the rights of the Sahrawi people. This new trade deal has entered provisional application, despite persistent concerns around the involvement of the Sahrawi people, and the lack of engagement with or tangible benefit for them. What is the Department's stance on the deal and its compliance with the ruling of the Courts of Justice of the European Union?
Sentiment score: 0.15
I thank the Minister of State. It is comforting to hear that there is activity on the part of the Government on this. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the consent of the Sahrawi people had to be sought or that there had to be a tangible benefit for them. Instead of seeking their consent, the EU committed to provide tangible benefit to them and to a regular control mechanism to evaluate the benefit required for implicit consent. Can the Minister of State provide clarity on that control mechanism in the deal? What is Ireland doing? The Minister of State stated that we are seeking updates and so on, but I ask him to seek that clarity and ensure it is robust enough to uphold the rights of the Sahrawi people or guarantee them that tangible benefit in line with the ruling. It is incredible to me that we have a trade deal that has been in provisional application since October, yet there is no clarity on how it is better than the previous version of the deal, which the courts ruled against. I welcome Ireland registering those concerns. Morocco enjoys preferential tariffs while the Sahrawi people in Western Sahara continue to be dispossessed of their land and occupied.
Sentiment score: 0.53
I thank the Minister of State. I would like the Irish Government to champion a pathway for a referendum on self-determination, something which was promised after independence from France decades ago and never actioned. Instead, it seems like the world is keen to move on and ignore it if it means cheaper Moroccan imports and co-operation on migration policy. The Commission's proposals for delivering on tangible benefit as part of this deal include investment in Moroccan companies in Western Sahara, essentially financially incentivising continued occupation which features well-documented human rights abuses and surveillance of Sahrawis. Another aspect of their proposal is to deliver tangible benefit, as I mentioned, via humanitarian aid to Sahrawi refugee camps. I know the Minister of State agrees with me that humanitarian aid should not be used as a bargaining chip to trade away the rights of a struggling people. I am asking that this conviction be expressed by the Department on this specific trade deal. It is clear that this trade deal has serious flaws and has not complied with the ruling of the Courts of Justice. What are the Department and the Government going to do about it? I appreciate the Minister of State's stance on the delicacy.
Sentiment score: 0.27
79. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade whether her Department will prioritise overseas aid and development as a key topic during the EU presidency, particularly in the context of decreasing overseas development aid budgets across Europe, and the impact those cuts are having on communities around the world; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8704/26]
Sentiment score: -0.09
I had not prepared for this as such but I am keen to get the Minister of State's thoughts on it. It is about whether the Department will prioritise overseas aid and development as a key topic during the EU Presidency. I am sure this is a topic he will happily speak to for two minutes, particularly in the context of decreasing overseas development aid budgets across Europe and the impact those cuts are having on communities across the world.
Sentiment score: 0.34
I agree. It is great to hear that it will be a point of focus for the Minister of State in the second half of this year, when we have the opportunity during the Presidency of the European Union. As he referenced, which I also did in my question, this is obviously within the context of USAID being cut, for example. That is really just storing up problems. It is the definition of storing up problems to cut aid in the way we are seeing this happen across the globe. I question the unconditional aid piece. One of the other issues we are having across Europe is the fact that it is not being given unconditionally. That is problematic. Does the Minister of State see a connection between this drop in aid and the increase in defence spending? There is a connection in potential member states. It is so important we continue to maintain an emphasis on peacekeeping and not shift to peacebuilding and peace enforcement, which is a threat and is linked to development aid. I would love to hear the Minister of State's thoughts on that.
Sentiment score: 0.07
On defence without peacebuilding, you can end conflicts and ensure peace and human rights are championed, which builds the off-ramp for war-torn regions. This is concerning for me because earlier this week at the European affairs committee, I pressed Commissioner Serafin on this. It is clear to me that Europe is investing in war and military spending. All of the mechanisms that are available to member states and all the ways we are offering opportunities for development, employment and growth are around the military. There is a conflict there. I appreciate and am heartened by the Minister of State's comments, the connection he made between the two and how he will champion this during the Presidency. I look forward to seeing that work and co-operating with him on it.
Sentiment score: 0.21