Dr. Eamonn Cahill:

In response to the first question, the Deputy has identified one of the biggest perennial challenges in the export control space, which is keeping on top of advances in technology. It is not just advances in technology. There is no limit to human ingenuity when it comes to re-purposing ostensibly safe items to cause harm or to use them in improvised devices and so forth, so that is a constant challenge for us. The EU has in place a fixed framework for updating lists annually. That is quite efficient and can track changes in technology relatively quickly. However, as I alluded to in my opening statement, there is an additional mechanism to give additional flexibility and to aid responsiveness on the part of competent authorities, these so-called catch-all controls. If we become aware tomorrow that somebody is about to export a widget from Ireland that is currently not subject to controls, we have extraordinary powers to intervene in the short term and prevent that export taking place, with a view to ultimately getting that list formally incorporated on the list for future controls. It is not a perfect system, but vast effort is being put into making sure the lists are updated in as timely a fashion as possible and, as I indicated, there are alternatives for exceptional circumstances.

The EU competence versus national competence issue is another key challenge for us. First, in the dual-use space it is very clear that it is exclusively an EU competence, so the policy is set at EU level. However, the implementation of that policy is a member state competence so one gets into issues there regarding whether member states are implementing things in a consistent and uniform fashion and so forth. Again, there are mechanisms in place to support that. Member states co-ordinate with regard to licences that they deny, for example, to prevent exporters engaging in licence shopping. If they are denied in one country, they cannot then obtain one in another member state. The situation is very good in respect of consistency and uniformity in the dual-use piece.

The military area is more complicated. As we said, it is a national competence and different member states have different political and policy views about exports of arms to different parts of the world. The common position is supposed to address that and bring all of us onto a common converged approach to that, but it is not legally binding and different member states have taken different approaches in the past with regard to exports to some areas in which there was conflict under way. Obviously, Ireland does not have an arms industry in the way that many other member states have, so it is of lesser concern for us but it is something we are very conscious of.