Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Exemptions sorted under the orders typically fall into two categories. The first category is civil air operators contracted by the US military to transport personnel from locations outside the US. These operators are required to seek an exemption for transiting through Irish airspace or landing in an Irish airport when troops on board carry their personal weapons. The second category is where munitions of war are carried on Irish-registered aircraft, wherever they may be operating. I have asked my Department to give more clear statistics on this because it is important we are clear and there is real clarity, rather than confusion. Last year, 1,185 exemptions were granted. On a small number of occasions, they are not granted if it is seen that they are carrying munitions beyond such as a personal weapon. Personal weapons could be carried for a variety of different characteristics. A personal protection officer might be accompanying a diplomat, a Head of State or whatever. There are a variety of reasons that would be allowed. Of the 1,185 exemptions granted last year, 275 of these aircraft landed in Ireland. A further 309 of the exemptions were granted to Irish-registered aircraft operating entirely outside of Ireland and Irish airspace. They are civil aviation aircraft and have a civil duty but, as I said, they might have someone like a personal protection officer carrying a revolver. They would have to get an exemption. They are not allowed to fly with any weapon without that exemption. The procedure in place is well understood and we have no evidence of any non-compliance. Any occasion where we do see that there are weapons beyond such personal weapons, exemption is not typically provided.I will respond now to some of the points made by Members. Senator Ruane said there is carte blanchein granting exemptions. There is no carte blanche. There are on occasions on which we say "No".

The point Senator Dooley made is a good one and is particularly important. We stand up clearly for the rights of nations to a peaceful existence. That includes the Palestinian people but it is not just them. The State took a really strong stance recently that was deeply unpopular with the Ethiopian Government. We did so in that instance because it was the right thing to do, even if it was diplomatically difficult. The strength of our diplomatic voice is felt when we follow proper legal and diplomatic procedures. What Senator Dooley said is true. The strength of our position in not asking for the withdrawal of the Israeli ambassador was all the more powerful when we saw that the Israeli foreign office was not applying the same sorts of standards of decency.

We have given significant support in recent years, particularly because of what has been happening in Gaza, to the International Criminal Court. That support has been financial as well as political. We have also supported the International Court of Justice, to which we will take a case in support of the South African stance. Such action is far stronger where the case is based on law and where we take the court application really seriously, as we did in supporting the Palestinian Authority's case against what Israel is doing in the West Bank. That takes time. It is not an issue on which we put out a press release. It requires South Africa to present its case. It requires us, under a specific article - Article 63, if I recall rightly - to act where there is room for us to make an intervention. That intervention is all the stronger when we follow international law and procedures and get the legal consequences right.

I make that point particularly in response to Senator Higgins. The Government's amendment seeking a six-month period to assess this Bill is not at all evasion, as she claims. It is the exact opposite. The aim is to give us an opportunity, using proper legal mechanisms, to look at how we can provide further confidence and security that the current application of the law is appropriate. I intend to work with my colleagues in the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Justice to use that six-month period to establish the legal mechanisms whereby we could, in a random but routine way, assess some of the flights landing here. It is a different circumstance when a flight is an overflight. We will not be bringing down such aircraft to be inspected. However, where an aircraft is within an Irish air field, we want to have a process whereby, in a manner, as I said, that does not automatically apply suspicion to another state, but acting, as Ireland does well, diplomatically, properly and with due process, to check to ensure the exemptions we are providing are in order.

That is what I intend to do, working with my Government colleagues, during the proposed six-month period. We work well in government when we work collectively. We will look at how such checks could be deployed and applied. We will come back to the House. The initial advice from my officials is that this legislative proposal would not deliver a proper legal format that would allow such checks to take place. Such a regime cannot be applied in a way that is outside the Chicago Convention, in a way that might look to treat one state in a different way from another. Such international conventions apply to all states that are party to them. However, in regard to the issuing of checks, it is possible, timely and appropriate for us to develop the legal mechanisms to be able to do that in an appropriate manner that does not weaken or damage our diplomatic relations but, rather, does the exact opposite. This will show us to be a State that stands up, with the rule of law, for peace in our world. Lord knows we need that at this time, particularly in the Middle East.

In case Senator Higgins might be worried, no one knows the date of the general election. Having spoken to my colleague party leaders of the two other parties in government, each of us has indicated that March next year is the last date on which an election can take place. We have time to carry out the legal and diplomatic processes we need to follow to be able to implement this change in a way that works. That is what is our amendment seeks to do.

To Senator Gavan I say that it is inappropriate to cast aspersions on the motivations of the Senators voting on this Bill. I believe they will vote with the exact same motive, which is to try to protect people and bring peace, with which others rightly say they will vote.