Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I apologise to our guests for the slight delay in starting. It is the last meeting of the joint committee before recess and we had a number of issues to deal with in private session. I thank our guests for their patience.

The items for today is No. P00072/2012 from Dr. Edward Horgan and others relating to the landings at Shannon Airport and a discussion of Ireland's neutrality and the difference between Irish neutrality and political neutrality. I ask people to be careful with their mobile phones as they interfere with the reception here and broadcasting. It is frustrating for people watching.

We are pleased to welcome Dr. Karen Devine, lecturer in international relations at the school of law and government at Dublin City University. Following a Fulbright scholarship at Columbia University in New York from 2012 to 2013, Dr. Devine's current research is a book on the impact of patriotism on public attitudes to foreign policy in the US and Ireland. We also welcome Mr. Paddy Smyth, foreign policy editor at The Irish Times. Mr. Smyth is the former foreign correspondent at the newspaper, having served as both Washington and European correspondent. Since his return from the US in 2002, he has been opinion editor and foreign policy editor. He is currently working as a leader writer in the editor's office and co-ordinates the newspaper's Century project - the coverage of the 1912-1922 decade of centenaries.

The invitation to address the committee arose as a result of ongoing investigations by the committee relating to No. P00072/2012 regarding US military and CIA use of Shannon Airport and Irish airspace. The petitioner is Dr. Edward Horgan. I welcome the witnesses and thank them for forwarding their presentations.

I will now read the standard information regarding parliamentary privilege. We will then have a scene-setter, setting the context for the witnesses' contributions. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We will talk about some of the work we have done to set the scene. The witnesses will probably be familiar with it but I will provide it for people viewing today and to have it on the record. I will recap our work to date on this petition for members and the witnesses. We have had public hearings with the petitioner and completed a visit to Shannon Airport where a delegation met the Shannon Group, which was formerly the Shannon Airport Authority. We met Ms Rose Hynes, chairman; Mr. Neil Pakey, CEO; Mr. Niall Maloney, head of operations; and Ms Mary Considine, company secretary at the Shannon Group. The delegation met members of An Garda Síochána, including Chief Superintendent John Kerin, Superintendent Derek Smart and Inspector Tom Kennedy. Finally, the delegation met with the petitioner, Dr. Edward Horgan, in Shannon Airport.

During the visit to Shannon Airport, members were advised that there are three types of landings. They are civilian charter flights with transport military personnel who may have personal weapons or side arms which are maintained on board under lock and require prior approval from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. The second type is military aircraft which require a diplomatic note commonly referred to as a dip note. It is standard on the dip note that such aircraft do not carry any weapons or ordnance. The third type is other military aircraft where a sovereign state seeks permission to land or over fly Irish airspace where the aircraft is transport for a head of state visiting Ireland or stopping en routeto another destination. Granting the right to land or over fly Irish airspace is vested in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The procedure is that the relevant authorities of a sovereign state apply to the relevant Irish authority, which is the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, for permission to land or over fly. An Garda Síochána has no role in the granting of the dip note. This is under the sole authority of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The dip notes do not allow weapons on board the aircraft and aircraft with dip notes have the same status as an embassy. It was a very useful series of clarifications around the respective roles of the persons we met.

As a follow-up to the visit to Shannon Airport and to gain a greater understanding of the dip note or prior approval system, members invited Mr. Niall Burgess, Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport; and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to address the committee. These public hearings were important in giving a focus to what members consider to be a key issue, namely, what is Irish neutrality.

Today's hearing is the final one in the series. When it is completed, we will conclude our deliberations. The witnesses' contributions are very important in terms of their perspectives on neutrality. I have read some of their perspectives delivered in the past. Former Senator Maurice Hayes wrote the foreword to the conference papers presented at a conference on 8 and 9 May 2009 entitled "Neutrality: Irish Experience, European Experience" organised by the Irish School of Ecumenics and the Dublin Monthly Meeting Quakers Peace Committee and edited by Iain Atack and Seán McCrum. I was not present at the conference but I have read the transcripts. It was a really excellent and though-provoking series of engagements. Dr. Devine and Mr. Smyth were present at the conference and would have presented to it. The next issue is important in setting the scene for our discussion.

In his foreword, Maurice Hayes stated:

Neutrality has for so long been a given in Irish foreign policy and has taken such a firm hold on the Irish imagination that it has come to be regarded almost as a constitutional imperative - which is far from the case. The Constitution merely reserves the right to wage war to the government of the day with the approval of the Dáil, and this has been further restricted by the requirement of Oireachtas consent and Security Council approval – the famous "triple lock" of the Nice Treaty endorsement.

How and why such a policy developed is lost in the mists of time – linked as it has been at various times to an anxiety not to get involved in World War II, to partition, to a preference for peace-keeping and conflict resolution, and at others to reservations about a European Common Security and Defence Policy.

The question arises therefore whether neutrality, as professed and practised, is pragmatism masquerading as moral principle, ideology which is not fully explained, or a well-thought-out ethical position which has not yet found the language and methodology for practical application.

There does, it seems, need to be a serious attempt to define neutrality, to spell out what it means in modern circumstances, especially since other traditionally neutral countries in Europe seem to be changing their stances in response to changed realities and relationships and new perceptions of threat and national interest. The changes in global political alignments too, where old enemies become, if not friends, at least partners in a new struggle against emerging common threats, make it all more difficult, and a less than Manichean differentiation of good and evil raises the question of which side, if any, we should be on.

There must be a question too whether real neutrality implies a capacity for self-defence, and whether there is any half-way house between neutrality in this sense and having no defence at all; whether neutrality is a negative concept, or whether a more positive formulation can be found within the structures of international treaties by which the Irish polity has bound itself.

There are, indeed, two views of the status of the neutral state: that of the state declaring its neutrality (which has little relevance except in time of war) and that of other states who may be potentially belligerent. These perspectives may not necessarily be the same, and it is hard to see what guarantees can be assumed by a small and isolated state which is not part of some larger arrangement for mutual assurance and protection – which in itself carries the implication of some sort of premium being required for membership.

This brings into the debate the implications of membership of the European Union, and the degree of commitment required to a common security and defence policy, whether this can be limited in practice (or indeed in conscience) as current Irish policy requires.

Questions then, more than answers at this stage. There may well not be clear answers which will satisfy everyone in a field redolent of fudge and ambiguity at the best of times even for the most self-confident of states. This is an area in which accommodation needs to be found by examining cases and their implications, by honestly facing up to difficulties, and by openly debating the issues.

That was the foreword or scene setter for the transcript and we thought it would be useful to reiterate it today. I invite Mr. Smyth to make his presentation.