Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

Fine Gael welcomes the Bill but reserves the right to strengthen it through amendments on Committee Stage. In assessing the Bill we must take account of two factors. The first is our economic and trade interest in minimising administrative costs, reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on legitimate exporters and ensuring Ireland does not unnecessarily reduce its attractiveness to international mobile investment, particularly in the area of high-tech knowledge age dual use goods and services. The second factor concerns our interest in controls to minimise the danger that military or dual use goods produced in Ireland would be used in an undesirable way internationally, and our interest in meeting international, legally binding political commitments and generally protecting and enhancing Ireland's good name and reputation.

The Bill has many worthy aims. It regulates arms brokering in Ireland and by Irish citizens abroad. It will introduce controls on the sale of technical help software and other technologies that could be used for military purposes. It will also give Government officials the power to inspect and audit companies involved in exporting military goods or dual use technologies, including chemicals, high performance computer components and telecommunications software, all of which may have civil and military uses. The penalties for breaching the export laws are to be increased from a fine of just over €12,000 to a two-year jail sentence.

The arms industry itself is not purely evil or unpleasant and in many cases it can be a legitimate industry providing important defensive components for countries to defend their borders and their citizens. It is important to note that many neutral countries, for example, Sweden, have extensive arms industries, and in many ways it is part of their neutrality to be capable of producing arms to defend their borders without have to rely on other countries to do so. It is also important to recognise the connection between research and development and advanced technology in expanding economies. It is important any Bill we introduce does not go too far in restricting industry or the development of Irish trade in this regard. That said, as a country with an ethical foreign policy, it is important we honour our responsibilities.

In researching this issue, I discovered an interesting comment from the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, who stated that Ireland does not have an arms trade. Of course, that is untrue and is disingenuous, as we know from the reports of Amnesty International and Forfás. Admittedly, some reports may go a little too far, with one even suggesting that the production of Ray-Ban sunglasses in Waterford is somehow part of the arms trade as they are worn by US Air Force pilots. While I do not accept this, the Forfás and Amnesty reports have demonstrated there are extensive operations in Ireland related to the production of equipment for military use.

As outlined in the Minister's statement, the Bill omits some key requirements for an effective exporting and licensing control system. One important area not addressed is a monitoring system for end-users of these exports. Unclear also is the degree to which the legislation will exercise control over Irish citizens simply relocating outside Europe and thereby bypassing European checks. Fine Gael shares the view that we must recognise Ireland's existing export control for arms trading is inadequate and lacks transparency. This has created a situation whereby there is an absence of democratic overview by the Oireachtas and members of the public, who cannot discover what has been exported from Ireland and the uses to which it has been put.

In 2004 Forfás published a report entitled Export Licensing of Military and Dual Use Goods in Ireland. It clearly stated that the estimated value of actual exports of controlled military products and components is in the region of €10 million to €20 million annually. The report also states that areas of the system are in need of improvement and notes specifically the absence of dedicated primary national legislation governing the military licensing system, a number of recognised gaps in terms of what is controlled under the legislation, scope for a more proactive approach, especially in the provision of advance information and advice, scope for greater involvement on an advisory and consultative basis to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in the range of relevant State resources outside the Department, and strengthening of the relationship between the Department and Customs and Excise to ensure the most effective controls possible are being applied.

Other areas to be considered include more proactive and wider enforcement, especially regarding possible exporters who are not applying for licences, rotation of staff between the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Enterprise, Trade and Employment for the purpose of developing corporate memory and expertise, increased and more structured access in the process to appropriate specialist technical and other expertise, and increased transparency in the decision-making process. I am not convinced that these weaknesses are addressed in the provisions of the Bill.

The legislation has a series of shortcomings. For example, it provides for only basic legal enforcement by means of ministerial orders, none of which has been published or circulated in draft form to Members. It does not appear to provide for ongoing parliamentary scrutiny of the formulation of these orders, the categories, equipment, services, activities to be regulated or the exemptions to certain regulations. The Minister alone will have the power to define export controls with little oversight from the Oireachtas.

It is also noteworthy that the Bill covers only physical exports and the supply of technical assistance but does not introduce control over mechanisms specifically covering the supply of military services and personnel. It introduces for the first time a statutory requirement that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment actively report to the Oireachtas on its export controls but does not specify the details to be included in such reports. In the past, the Department has released information on export licences which did not require sufficient protection for human rights or military security.

The Minister of State will be aware that a code of conduct on arms exports has been drafted at EU level but not yet adopted as a Common Position by the Council. In 2006, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for the code of conduct to be made into a Common Position. I encourage the Ministers for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Foreign Affairs to work towards this objective.

We must accept that, as a small country, the value of the Irish arms trade is a drop in the ocean in terms of the global value of arms exports. Progress is only possible at the European and international level. I endorse the European Parliament's call for an international arms trade treaty. It is clear that international treaties are the only effective means of addressing these types of issues. For example, the adoption in 1997 of the Ottawa Convention on landmines has resulted in a noticeable and documented reduction in the number of people killed and injured by landmines. The Department of Foreign Affairs would achieve better results if it were to prioritise achieving international agreement on arms control. It should use Ireland's role and position in the European Union to advocate making the existing code of conduct in the EU a Common Position and to champion the introduction of an international arms trade treaty which would be binding not only on small, neutral, ethical countries such as Ireland but on all countries.

I welcome the Bill as it is necessary to amend current legislation in this area. The Fine Gael Party intends to table a number of significant amendments on Committee Stage aimed at strengthening the Bill by giving more power and oversight to the Oireachtas and ensuring the Minister does not have free reign.

See this speech in context