Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend the Minister of State on bringing this complex and complicated legislation before the House. The Department also deserves to be commended. Sometimes the transposition of European law into Irish law can take very many years. In fact, I have seen legislation that has sought to transpose directives which were made some six or seven years previously. Obviously, with this legislation we are not transposing a directive but are giving full effect to an EU regulation. In fairness to the Department and the Minister of State, the regulation to which we are giving full effect only came into force in September 2021, so they are to be commended for drafting what is very detailed and complicated legislation in less than two years.

The purpose of the regulation when it came into force in September 2021 was to recast the dual-use regulation which had been in existence since 2009. I refer, of course, to Council Regulation (EC) No. 428/2009. As has been explained by previous speakers, the purpose of the regulation and this legislation is to ensure that in reference to dual-use products or technologies, meaning products that can be used for an orthodox civilian purpose but also for a military or security purpose, powers reside in member state Governments to either authorise or prohibit the sale of those products.

Obviously, from an Irish point of view, we do not have a history of arms manufacturing. Fortunately, that is the case in Ireland. If one looks around Europe, the countries predominantly involved in the manufacture of arms are the UK, France and Italy. However, Ireland is developing as a significant manufacturer of advanced technology and such technology may have a dual purpose or dual use. For that reason, it is extremely important in an Irish context that we give full effect to the regulation through this legislation.

Under the regulation member states are required to do several things, one of which is to prohibit the transit through their territory of non-EU dual-use items if their intended use would breach the regulation. That is being done explicitly in section 18 of the Bill. Member states are also required to ban, or demand an export authorisation for, items not listed in Annex I to the regulation. That is being done in section 10 of the Bill. Finally, there is a requirement on member states to demand export authorisation in certain circumstances for the transfer of dual-use items from their territory to another member state. That has also been expressly provided for in section 10.

All of the requirements that are contained within the regulation are dealt with in the Bill. More importantly, breaching a prohibition or failing to get an authorisation are now, and will be, criminal offences under Irish law as a result of this legislation. Deputy Bruton asked earlier how we will decide whether an authorisation should be granted or whether there should be a prohibition on the sale of certain products to a third country. That is a very valid question. When one looks at the background to the regulation, one sees that the objective is to ensure that member states will be guided by EU, national and international obligations and commitments. Obviously we will also be guided by sanctions that have been agreed by the EU and the UN and by national foreign and security policy decisions.

There is a procedure set out in the legislation which, in the first instance, gives the Minister the power to grant authorisation or to prohibit the sale of such products. A significant part of the legislation then goes on to deal with how that is to be enforced. No doubt there will be circumstances where parties who wish to sell the products on or who manufacture the products wish to challenge a refusal to grant authorisation by a Minister. In the legislation we very effectively set out an adjudication process whereby the Minister will asses in the first instance and then there will be adjudicators who will assess in respect of a complaint that has been made by a person affected by his decision.

I fully appreciate that there is a requirement for there to be a certain element of secrecy in respect of technology which people are developing. This is particularly true when it comes to commercial sensitivity. However, I note, and this is a common phenomenon in a lot of legislation, that sections 47 and 53 provide that any appeals to these decisions are to be held otherwise than in public. Yesterday, we had the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, FSPO, before the finance committee. The issue there was the extent to which hearings of the FSPO would be in public or if they would continue to be held in private. It is important that we all appreciate that under Article 34 of our Constitution, justice is primarily to be administered in public. Then, obviously, Article 37 also permits us to set up certain bodies that will exercise limited judicial functions. I suspect what is being done in the Bill is the exercise of a limited judicial function because it is balancing the rights of a person who has manufactured technology and is trying to challenge a decision of the Minister and the State to refuse a permission for that to be exported or sold on. I appreciate in this case that one probably would want to have disputes heard in private. The Department will deal with many of these issues. I do think given the Zalewski judgment that recently came out of the Supreme Court that there is an obligation on us to recognise that the primary forum for adjudication of judicial issues should be in public.

Obviously, the United Kingdom was subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 when it was introduced. The UK has left the European Union. Issues may arise in respect of the export of dual-use technology from Northern Ireland. I do not know how the Minister is going to deal with that, but it is something that Government needs to keep a close eye on.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is something kind of Orwellian about this Bill. It arises from European Union policy, although it also contains a national element, as has been described, to control the export of dual-use items, technology, things that might have apparently benign uses but can also be used for military purposes. We want to control the export of those things presumably to prevent greater proliferation of military hardware to regimes that we would be worried might put them to wrong uses. On the face of it, that is a very admirable imperative. What I find surreal and Orwellian about it is that the very European Union that is suggesting some sort of ethical policy when it comes to the export of military hardware is, in fact, one of the main suppliers of military hardware to some of the nastiest regimes in the world. That is continuing, indeed, in the current context where the EU itself, largely supported by our own Government, is arguing for more and more military expenditure to ramp up the military-industrial complex in Europe and for member states to spend more as a proportion of national income on producing weapons that are designed to kill human beings, as we should always remind ourselves. That is what the military-industrial complex largely does; it produces things to extinguish life on a grand scale. The European Union that says we should control our exports of dual-use technology, or the Irish Government in echoing all of this, is actually saying we should spend more on single-use military hardware that kills human beings.

Italy and Germany export huge amounts of arms and military hardware to Israel. I could mention the United Kingdom in this regard as well. Of course, the UK is no longer in the European Union but it exports massive amounts of military hardware to Israel. The second biggest exporter of weapons to Israel is Germany. It accounted for 24% of Israel's arms imports between 2009 and 2020. Germany does not provide data on the weapons it delivers, but it issued licences for arms sales to Israel worth €1.6 billion from 2013 to 2017. Undoubtedly, that will have increased very significantly since those figures were published. Italy is next, having provided 5.6% of Israel's major conventional arms imports between 2009 and 2020. From 2013 to 2017, Italy delivered €476 million worth of arms to Israel. The two countries have done deals in recent years whereby Israel has got training aircraft in return for missiles and other weapons. That does not look to me much like an ethical policy when it comes to the export of military hardware to regimes that use it for evil purposes. Let us call a spade a spade.

Very likely on the jets that flew over Gaza and killed children over the last few days, that bombed residential areas in Gaza, the weapons they used for those attacks would have come courtesy of major European Union states. They were killing innocent people. Those states like Germany and Italy, the European Union more generally and Ireland because we are part of the European Union and we say very little about this kind of stuff, know that Israel is involved in a criminal siege of Gaza, which has turned the latter into a permanent humanitarian catastrophe. It is besieged in what is undoubtedly an illegal action in the context of any meaningful idea of international law. It is a collective punishment of the people of Gaza, which is both a crime against humanity and a war crime. Israel is involved in a decades-long illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and denies basic rights to Palestinians guaranteed under international law, like the right to return of millions of refugees who are living in the most appalling conditions all over the Middle East. It denies them that right, according to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN special rapporteur on the Middle East. It is a state that is guilty since its foundation of operating a policy of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and repeated war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as we speak and an explicit and blatant policy of continued expansion of illegal settlements, of driving people out of the homes where they have lived for decades and of repeated military incursions.

This year has been the deadliest one for Israeli attacks on land that, under international law, is designated for the Palestinians. There have been repeated military attacks and killing of Palestinians day in, day out and week in, week out. The EU continues to allow the export of weapons and military hardware to a state that is doing all this. It then comes along and says it is going to control dual-use technology to prevent the export of stuff that could be used for military purposes by rogue regimes. At the same time, European states are allowed by the EU to arm a rogue state, and one which is possibly one of the worst offenders in those terms it is possible to imagine.

We could add to that military exports to Saudi Arabia while it prosecutes the war in Yemen. That war has brought 10 million people to the brink of starvation and has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. This involves major European states like France and Germany. When she was a minister in the German Government, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, went to Saudi Arabia, which is the most brutal dictatorship in the world, and concluded a major arms deal between Saudi Arabia and Germany to sell this foul, obnoxious, authoritarian dictatorship the weapons to kill Yemeni women, children and men. Saudi Arabia has now been doing that for a decade. Then the EU comes along with this regulation. If that is not the definition of surreal and Orwellian, I do not understand what is. I do not mean to be critical as I am sure the officials have put a lot of work into this Bill, but from a political point of view it is just an exercise in meaningless tokenism because what is the actual effect? The reality of what is going on is massive arms exports to regimes like the Israeli apartheid regime and the Saudi regime. The list does not end there but those are certainly two of the most obnoxious examples.

Some of the countries we list as being ones we can authorise for dual-use technology include some of the other big warmongers in the world, such as the US. It has the biggest arms expenditure in the world. While everybody condemns the absolutely savage invasion by Russia of Ukraine, it is worth bearing in mind that the US, for example, spends $877 billion a year on weapons, whereas Russia spends about $86 billion. The US spends ten times more on military hardware than Russia does. Russia is a brutal invading power, but the US is the biggest arms producer in the world and the spends the most of its budget on military hardware.

The UK, which is obviously no longer an EU member, is, I think, spending $70 billion a year on weapons. It has a massive arms industry exporting military hardware all over the world. Both the UK and US used their hardware to devastating effect in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, which was every bit as criminal and considerably more murderous than Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Billions of dollars' worth of weapons, including nuclear-tipped missiles and so on, were used to devastating effect on the people of Iraq. This led directly and indirectly to a million deaths, four million people being driven from their homes and Iraqi society being devastated for decades to come. The US and UK bombed part of the country back into the Stone Age and destroyed vast swathes of its infrastructure and so on, but that is all allowed; it is no problem. We can sell what we like to the US and UK, pretty much, and they can sell whatever they like to whichever regimes they like, but apparently we are going to control the export of dual-use goods that could be put to the wrong purposes by certain regimes. Does the Minster of State not think it is kind of Orwellian? What exactly is this going to achieve against that sort of background? It is really quite incredible.

There is something I would not mind a little clarity on. I heard Deputy Jim O'Callaghan say it. When we ask for sanctions against Israel, there is the usual excuse we get. Let us remind ourselves it is not just the left or those who are long-standing supporters of the Palestinians who are arguing for sanctions against Israel for its apartheid policies and crimes against humanity. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN special rapporteur and multiple human rights organisations are all arguing for sanctions against Israel of the sort the Irish Government very quickly imposed on Russia. What excuse does the Irish Government give? It says we cannot do that because it must be agreed EU policy. We are not allowed, therefore, to take unilateral action. I would not mind clarity on this, but what the Minister of State said was in this area we have discretion. Is that not right? We are broadly transposing the principles being espoused by the EU, hypocritical as those may be for the reasons I have outlined, but we also have a certain amount of autonomy and discretion in how we do this, when we do it and precisely how we define which things we may control the export of where we believe they could be put to the wrong uses. If it is the case we have some autonomy and discretion in this area, why is that not used by the Government to impose sanctions on Israel? Why does the Government consistently refuse to do what most of the global human rights community is now asking and what the Palestinian people have been asking for for decades, namely, impose sanctions on Israel for its war crimes, its apartheid, its crimes against humanity, the siege of Gaza, the indiscriminate killing and the ethnic cleansing? Why will we do absolutely nothing?

I got an email today that is somewhat connected to this in that it is from a Palestinian from Jerusalem who moved to Dublin in 2021 and is doing a masters. He got first-class honours, by the way. He has already made a formal complaint to Dublin Airport, but I think he wants it conveyed to the Government as well. It concerns the Israeli airline, El Al. This student was going through Israeli security in Dublin Airport before his travel with the airline to go home for a visit from Dublin to Tel Aviv on 27 April. It was news to me that there is Israeli security at Dublin Airport and I see it is news to the Minister of State too. The student describes pretty shocking treatment at their hands:

After the Israeli security have conducted a full- body security check on me, they commanded me to physically remove my clothes; threatened me - despite me saying no - that if I don’t take off my trousers, they will deny me boarding on the flight. I had a breakdown in the airport and that did not stop them from harassing me; I was dazzled that this has happened on Irish grounds.

I am dazzled; I am absolutely shocked. I was not even aware El Al was flying from Dublin Airport. I would not mind an answer to this, though I am aware the Minister of State might not have it here. Is Israel doing pre-clearance security for flights from Dublin? If it is, that is really shocking. I am only reading from an email I received, so it is a question. I am not asserting it is the case, but this is what we are being told by a young Palestinian living and studying here. I believe there should be a complete policy of boycott, divestment and sanctions against the Israeli state while it is committing crimes against humanity, including war crimes, ethnic cleansing, illegal occupation and illegal military attacks on other people's territory. Why would we not impose sanctions? Not only are we not doing that, but the EU gives Israel favoured trade status and Ireland continues to treat it essentially like a normal state.

If this is true we are even expanding that relationship with them and allowing the officials of this state, which is guilty of war crimes, to operate in this sort of manner on Irish territory, which is quite shocking.

As the Minister of State is aware, next week Sinn Féin is bringing a Bill to the Dáil asking for the Government to divest any investments it has in the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund that have any connection to the Israeli apartheid regime. It will be interesting to see what the Government's response to that is. If there is any serious intent behind this Bill, the stated objective of which is that rogue regimes that might use exports from this country for evil, murderous and immoral purposes, then surely the logic of that is that we should do everything we can to in no way support or facilitate a regime that is committing the sort of crimes the Israeli state commits against the Palestinians. Surely that is the inescapable logic of what the Government is suggesting is behind this Bill. That logic should extend to other brutal, murderous, authoritarian and undemocratic regimes. On the face of it the Bill has worthy objectives but unless this Government and the European Union start to practically act like they are serious about choking off any support for regimes that commit murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity, including against Palestinians, Yemenis or other oppressed and exploited people across the world, then it is meaningless and hypocritical tokenism.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I find that the description of this Bill as technical is not correct. This is not a technical Bill; it is an extremely important Bill that ostensibly seeks to protect human rights, to prevent arms falling into the wrong hands and to have peace and stability. Who could be against that?

Many of the things I wanted to say have already been said by Deputy Boyd Barrett. I agree with everything he said but I might put it slightly differently than he. It is unfortunate that there is no pre-legislative scrutiny report. I would have liked such a report. I know there were presentations and I have the opening statement that was given to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment and it was satisfied. I understand how difficult the work of committees is but ethics come into this, and ethics have been mentioned by one or two Deputies. Where is the forum for discussing the ethics of what we are talking about here? I would have thought the pre-legislative scrutiny in the committee would have been the time to tease out what we are doing in terms of the new legislation we are bringing in, which we have no choice on, and I will come back to that. I mention the implications of that and which countries we are singling out and which other countries we are not singling out and so forth. I do not see the word "ethics" mentioned anywhere. There was a golden opportunity lost there. That is brought home to me all the more because the end of the opening statement that was given on 29 September 2021 states:

The Department has been engaging with the Office of the Attorney General including the office of the Parliamentary Counsel on the drafting of the Bill. Important legal questions have arisen and are being systematically addressed, for example, on the unique interplay between national and EU competence in EU export controls and the mechanism for handling appeals.

This is at the end of that statement, telling us that important legal questions have arisen. I would say that important ethical questions have arisen as well and that has not been discussed anywhere.

I thank the Minister of State and the Department for their work. Clearly a tremendous amount of work has gone into this. It has taken a huge effort for me to try to understand what is here, what we are doing and then to articulate it. It is a fairly substantial Bill. There is so much in it; I would like to focus but it is difficult for me. The Bill has eight Parts and 74 sections and there is a Bill digest once again. I pay tribute to the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for the Bill digest; I do not know what we would do without it.

Many Deputies have acknowledged that the purpose of the Bill is good. It seeks to control the export of dual-purpose products and goods. That is not our competence anymore; it is the competence of the EU. What we have to follow is the regulation that had direct effect in this country. We are allowed a tiny bit of latitude into the type of legislation we bring forward in order to bring more openness and accountability into that process. Parallel with that, we have the export of military goods from Ireland, which - thanks be to God - still theoretically lies within our competence. That is good, theoretically, and I welcome all of that. Then I go back and look at the reports. In addition to there being no pre-legislative scrutiny, the regulatory impact analysis has also not been published. This happened last week as well with another Bill but in fairness to the Minister of State, Deputy Niall Collins, he came back and told me it has now been published. It was brought to my attention that when I spoke on the Construction Safety Licensing Bill 2023, we had a note from the Oireachtas Library and Research Service and we have a similar note that the Department kindly made the regulatory impact analysis available. It did so out of kindness but that note was not to be given out; it was just for the purpose of Deputies reading it. We received that exact same note today, which is particularly worrying, even though there is an onus on each Department to publish those analyses. In the international monitoring of Ireland we get good marks for producing the regulatory impact analysis reports. We regularly produce them but we do not get the top marks for the quality of those reports or for their publication. The Minister of State might have a look at that.

In saying that I am particularly conscious of the report under the existing Control of the Exports Act 2008, which will be amended. This report is on the period from 1 January 2021 to December 2021. There is no report for 2022 yet, even though we are five months into 2023. I read somewhere that there is an onus on the Department to produce the report as soon as possible but we have no report for 2022, so we are speaking on the existing legislation in a vacuum. When I look at the introduction by the Taoiseach, who was a Deputy and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment at the time, it states: "This report underpins the commitment to openness and transparency" and it continues: "We are deeply committed to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to supporting regional security and stability, to preventing terrorism and to protecting human rights." Who could be against that? Deputy Varadkar was talking about openness and transparency and providing a robust framework with this new Bill. I would think the first basic step in doing that would be to have the regulatory impact analysis published.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan already mentioned secret appeals. How can we learn from that? On the Bill, I would use the word "surreal" as well. This is an experience in surrealism for me because we are seeking to control the export of dual-use goods and services and military items in an open and transparent way with a Bill that does not allow for openness and transparency. That is because in addition to the appeals system, which is secret, we have commercially sensitive reasons given. Everything is given in an overall package and we cannot really see what is happening.

What is published is also interesting. Some eight or ten criteria must be taken into account and one of those is on Europe's attitude to countries and whether restrictions are in operation. In this report, we are told that 20 countries are subject to sanctions.

What is interesting about that is that one of them is Libya and another one is Turkey and yet we have done deals with these countries to outsource our responsibility for refugees. As well as what is included here being interesting, what is also interesting is the countries that are not included. Israel and Saudi Arabia are not included. Interestingly, Yemen, a country that is being destroyed by the arms industry through Saudi Arabia and other countries, is included and faces restrictions. We read a report on two levels: by reference to what is in it and by reference to what is not.

There is a very interesting use of words in the briefing document, for which I again thank the Minister of State because I appreciate getting briefing notes. They are very helpful. On page 2, we are told that the list of military items subject to export control is set out in the common military list of the EU. I understand that, under this legislation, we are now going to have our own list. Will the Minister of State clarify that? Will that list be public? I believe that is part of this legislation. The next bullet point tells us that Ireland does not have an arms industry per se. That is an interesting use of language. It states that military exports from Ireland are predominantly ICT components and mechanical devices of military standard.

In a very interesting article way back in April 2022, Conor Gallagher focused on one company that is doing very well. It is a tech start-up and is making software, which he points out is "of great interest to militaries, namely sophisticated virtual reality training software." It is very useful stuff that allows offshore wind engineers to fix turbine blades hundreds of feet in the air, allows peacekeepers to spot landmines and so on. It is one of hundreds of such companies. The Minister of State might have the up-to-date figures. I believe there are more than 500 companies in this country exporting dual-use components. This article is very good in a sense because it zones in on a very good start-up company and how well it is doing but it also shows how this technology can be used for other purposes. Mr. Gallagher goes on to point out that the co-founder and director of that particular company, a former cavalry officer who also set up the Irish Defence and Security Association, talked about ethics. I will go back to what I said. Where is the forum for discussing ethics with regard to this legislation?

According to this article, despite the pandemic, 476 dual-use export licences were issued in 2020. The number has increased each year. I do not have the 2022 figures but I have the figures for 2021 in a report. The figures are increasing every single year. There were 530 individual dual-use licences issued in 2021, an increase of 11%.

We are bringing in legislation to monitor, to control and to introduce a more effective and dissuasive penalty system. Where is the information as to how many offences were committed under the existing Act? Where do I find that information? How many prosecutions were taken? If there were not criminal prosecutions, how many civil actions were taken in this regard? I would like to know that type of information. I appreciate that we have clear obligations under European law and I understand that the regulation had direct effect but, to analyse this properly, we need the maximum of information. To be told that something is commercially sensitive is not helpful as regards openness and accountability. I sat in the Chair this morning and various Deputies asked about openness and accountability and how we are committed to those principles with regard to some international body. This is one area where we need openness and accountability in what we are doing.

Of course, we are bringing this legislation in at a time when Ursula von der Leyen is making a mockery of peace as she talks about increasing the amount of our money going to the arms industry, the military-industrial complex that makes the world less safe, and fosters a mentality of "them and us". There are those of us inside the garden within the jungle. As an island, Ireland is just about in there. We are inside the lovely garden Josep Borrell describes while outside the garden is the jungle. We have friends and it is okay to export arms to them. We are okay to talk to Israel, notwithstanding that Amnesty has said it is operating an apartheid regime. However, we do not talk about that because Israel is our friend. Saudi Arabia is a semi-friend so we are very careful there as well. However, we will use words that demonise countries when it suits the narrative. I have great difficulty with that.

The invasion of Ukraine was wrong, unacceptable and illegal but the failures to deal with other invasions, such as the repeated invasions, both open and surreptitious, carried out by America and those carried out by other countries, and our failure to deal with Israel's warmongering and being told we are anti-Semitic if we speak out are utterly frightening to me. Ireland has a primary role as a voice for peace given our neutral status. That status is slowly being taken from us, however. More and more, we are adopting a consensus mentality and demonising anyone who does not share it and labelling them as not our friends. We lose that independent voice at our peril. In the context of a later debate today, I was looking at Article 5 of the Constitution, which describes us as "a sovereign, independent, democratic state." We joined with Europe - and I am a committed European - for lots of reasons. The direction in which it is going is backing up a military-industrial complex and making the world less safe. It is adopting a neoliberal approach and ideology that is leading to more consumption and imperilling the planet. That is not my Europe. I do not believe it is the Europe the majority of Irish people want.

I will go back to the specific topic under discussion. It is hypocritical, surreal and, as Deputy Boyd Barrett said, Orwellian that we are looking at controlling this in a little bubble while not looking at the bigger bubble in which the military-industrial complex is gaining enormous power with our money. As an elected Deputy, it is impossible for me to follow the change in language. We now talk about peace enforcement and peacekeeping facilities. We train the Ukrainian soldiers over in Cyprus but say this does not breach our neutrality. I will stand here and say that we should give all possible humanitarian assistance to the people of Ukraine but, as a neutral country, we have a separate role. We should be a very active neutral country and say that we need this war to stop, that we need to look at the military-industrial complex and that we need to look at what we are doing in Ireland with more and more companies producing dual-use components and the Government producing a list of military items it is okay to export without any ethical discussion and without controls.

I looked in vain to see when the last site inspection under the previous legislation was carried out. There had been none because of the Covid pandemic. I do not know what site inspections involve but I am told those that took place during the pandemic were virtual. That is understandable to a point although I would have thought it would be possible to wear protective gear and get around that. How many site inspections have taken place? What problems have arisen with the existing legislation, which we are now repealing? How do we learn from it? Are there enough staff in place to monitor what we are now putting through in this legislation? There is talk about an internal compliance statement from companies. What does that mean? Where will that be seen?

I understand that many small and medium enterprises are struggling to understand their obligations. I fully understand that. I am struggling here myself despite having read all of this material. I understand the Government has taken some action to try to explain the provisions to such companies. However, the bigger question is where are we going in providing taxpayers' money to start-up companies producing dual-purpose goods.

A question relating to research and development raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy caught my attention. How are we monitoring how that is going? How much time, money and effort is going into a particular type of research that will aid the military-industrial complex and that will still allow us to call ourselves neutral? I want thriving small businesses and a thriving country. I also want a questioning democracy that looks at our part in the global military-industrial complex that is killing innocent people on the ground, even as I speak, in Palestine. The bigger ethical discussion has not taken place at all, notwithstanding the Department's effort. Of course, it is not for the Department to do the ethical discussion. It is for us and the Oireachtas committees. Unfortunately, it has not taken place.

I have serious questions about the surreal nature of what the Government is doing, albeit to comply with our European obligations. If we have to do this, the least we might do is make it as open and accountable as possible. Will the military list be published? What type of inspections will take place? How does that happen? We know about the issue of health and safety in meat plants, and the problems there were as regards lack of staff and how work was carried out. This issue is far more complex and equally as serious, yet I have no idea how that will be done.

A review of how this Bill is operating, within a reasonable period, should be built into the text as a matter of urgency. I could pick a time out of the sky, but an absolute review of the Bill should be conducted within a reasonable period, in addition to providing an explanation of why the regulatory impact has not been published. Why is there such a delay in publishing the reports? Why do we not have a report for 2022? Why was the report for 2021 on this very important issue not published for a full year after it was completed?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí a ghlac páirt sa diospóireacht seo. We all share Deputy O'Reilly's concerns that military equipment should not be exported by EU companies to third countries that can contribute to the conflicts she referred to. I welcome her acknowledgement of effective export controls in that context. We agree with the Deputy, and Deputies Ó Murchú and Connolly, that we should protect SMEs and that they need to be given resources and assistance. We will do that in respect of obligations under this Bill.

On Deputy Ó Murchú's point regarding the occupied territories and imposing unilateral controls on named regions, this Bill relates only to the export of dual-use and military items. Trade policy, and this also touches on some of the points Deputy Boyd Barrett and an Teachta Connolly made, which includes export controls, is a new competence. It is encompassed by the EU common commercial policy. That is why we do not implement unilateral trade restrictions, as we discussed. I will come back to some of the other points raised in that regard later. Deputy Ó Murchú also raised an issue relating to PayPal that is slightly adjacent to the Bill. I have asked him to provide details on the matter to me.

Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to sanctions, as did Deputies O'Reilly and Connolly. Sanction-related matters fall outside the scope of this Bill, which relates only to the export of dual-use and military items. Under the EU sanctions of February 2020, export of all dual-use items to Russia is prohibited.

Deputy Bruton raised the matter of how we assess applications. Both dual-use regulations and the common position are set out along very strict criteria that my officials will consider when they assess applications. Those criteria are laid out in the legislation and we will be happy to discuss them further on Committee Stage. In assessing an application for a licence, the Department will consult, as appropriate, with other Departments, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces and security services and competent authorities in other EU states. It will be done on a case-by-case basis so that circumstances that change and evolve can be taken into consideration.

Deputy Catherine Murphy asked where liability rests, particularly for those products that are exported. The responsibility for individual exports rests with each exporter, and the mechanisms apply across each EU member state. Deputies Murphy and Connolly both asked about academia and research. These areas are covered under the controls, and are subject to the same rules, as outlined in the Bill. Provisions are in place, including direct provisions under the regulations and the controls outlined in the Bill. Knowledge is covered, as are intellectual controls. The Deputy also raised a point regarding people getting around sanctions. The EU also prohibited the export of dual-use items, including the semi-conductors the Deputy referenced, to Russia in February 2022. Our Department makes every effort to establish the ultimate end user of exported items to mitigate the risk of diversion. The EU is very aware of Russian efforts to circumvent sanctions through going to third parties, as outlined by the Deputy. While it is outside the scope of this Bill, I can inform the House that the eleventh list of EU sanctions, which I understand will be imminent over the next fortnight, will particularly target circumvention.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan spoke about the export of dual-use items from Northern Ireland. That is addressed through the Northern Ireland protocol in the context of the Brexit agreement. The Deputy also mentioned that legitimate exporters are protected by this Bill and have nothing to fear.

On Deputy Boyd Barrett's points, as I said, matters of defence and neutrality are a national competence. Trade policy is an EU competence. The issue he raised in respect of the email he received concerns me. I ask him to bring it to the attention of my colleague, Deputy Chambers, as he is the Minister of State at the Department of Transport and has responsibility for international aviation. I will tell him to expect to receive an email from the Deputy's office.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No problem.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On EU sanctions, we do not adopt unilateral sanctions, as I outlined in the context my reply on common foreign and security policy.

On an Teachta Connolly's comments, my understanding is the joint committee was satisfied by a single sitting. It decided that no further scrutiny was required. I regret the regulatory impact assessment was not shared. There was no particular reason for that. There were only three respondents to the public consultation, but I will ensure the Deputy and the committee members get that assessment as soon as possible following this debate.

The Deputy and a number of others raised the issue of SMEs. The reality is that the impact of this Bill on compliant exporters will be negligible. The Deputy also asked about annual reports. These are generally published in the first half of the following year for the preceding year. The 2022 report should be published before the end of June. She will understand there were reasons for last year's report being delayed in the context of the pandemic. I again assure her we will provide her with a copy of the regulatory impact assessment.

I again thank all the Deputies. There were some interesting perspectives that were useful to hear, although many of the issues raised are outside the scope of this Department. I also thank Deputies for acknowledging the massive work that has been put in by officials in my Department who have turned this very detailed legislation around very quickly, while balancing a huge number of other priorities in this section. I place on record my thanks to them.