Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 May 2017

Vol. 952 No. 3

Priority Questions

Passport Applications Data

Darragh O'Brien

Question:

46. Deputy Darragh O'Brien asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the number of new and renewal passport applications respectively in the system; the target turnaround time for each category of applicant; the actual turnaround time for each category of applicant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25613/17]

I wanted to ask the Minister, following an update I received in February, to outline the number of new and renewal passport applications respectively in each of the systems, the target turnaround time for each category of applicant, and the actual turnaround time for each category of applicant. I know the Minister is acutely aware of the pressures our passport service is under at the moment. I ask him to use this opportunity to provide an update on how we are attaining our targets.

As of 26 May, there were almost 80,000 passport applications in the processing system. Of these, approximately 34,000 were first-time applications and 46,000 were renewals.

The turnaround time for online applications is 10 working days plus postage. The target turnaround time for Passport Express renewal applications is 15 working days and this is currently being met. The target turnaround time for first-time applications and applications for renewal of lost, stolen or damaged passports through Passport Express is 20 working days. These categories of application take longer due to the extra security checks involved.

The average turnaround time for these applications is currently 24 working days. This is mainly as a result of the exceptionally large volume of applications in the processing system.

As more applicants use the online passport application service, the efficiency gains will help improve turnaround times more broadly. I urge all Deputies to promote the use of this service to all adults who qualify.

I take the opportunity also to reiterate how important it is that applicants choose the most appropriate application channel, depending on their individual circumstances. The Passport Express option should only be used by those who are travelling in three weeks or more. Anyone renewing a passport who needs to travel in under three weeks should make an appointment online to apply in person at the Passport Office, in either Dublin or Cork. Naturally, there is a limited number of such appointments available and it is important that we collectively promote best practice and encourage citizens to check their passport is in date before booking travel. It is considered best practice to allow six weeks for a passport application, as difficulties can arise where an application is incomplete or where further information is required.

My Department provides a free renewal reminder email service and I ask Deputies to join me in promoting the use of this service.

All applicants are advised on notes accompanying the passport application form to check current turnaround times online on the website of my Department. These are updated on a weekly basis.

I thank the Minister. I commend the staff in the Passport Office who are under severe pressure and who are doing their level best to deal with the increased demand.

The Minister may have heard the Irish ambassador to Britain, H.E. Mr. Dan Mulhall, earlier today talking about the dramatic increase in passport applications from the United Kingdom. There was a 9% increase last year, year on year. It is probably projected to increase further.

I met the head of the Passport Service quite recently. I want to know does the Passport Office have the resources it needs. Is the Minister confident that they have the manpower and systems in place? I note the online renewal and online passport application has been successful in the short time since it has been launched.

Like all other Deputies and the Minister, I receive on a daily basis calls from distressed citizens whose passports will not be available in time for them to travel. It is particularly stressful. There are families paying a lot of money for probably the one holiday they will get each year. Has there been any thought of looking at changing the application in so far as those with travel documents are concerned as opposed to the increase in applications coming in from Britain merely to have the passport but not necessarily with a need to travel? Is the Minister looking at any changes in procedures at present and will we be able to continue to cope with the increased demand?

I recognise this is an ongoing challenge of significant dimensions having regard to issues as raised by Deputy Darragh O'Brien. A total of 75,145 applications have come from Northern Ireland and almost 70,000 from Great Britain between 25 June last year and 29 May this year. This is an increase of 50% from Northern Ireland and 55% from Great Britain over that period. I keep the situation under review at all times.

I welcome suggestions from Deputies. I was pleased to have the matter introduced by way of discussion at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence last week.

We have taken on new staff. As of January this year, 301 permanent full-time equivalent staff were assigned to the Passport Service. This is up 272 full-time equivalent staff from January 2015. To assist with strong seasonal demand from April to July, we have almost 230 temporary clerical officers in place. The matter remains under review.

It is a challenge but we are anxious to provide a level of service that will deal with all of applications in a timely manner. My advice must be for citizens to check their passport and apply in time.

I thank the Minister for his response, and also for the fact that this is under continual review. As I have said, all of us will be aware of the stresses that this generates for families when they find their passports may not be processed in time or are out of date. The first thing people should do, before any holidays or travel is booked, is to check their passport.

The figures the Minister has given me in relation to the increases in applications in such a short time, from the North of Ireland of 50% and from Britain of 55%, are stark. Has the Department, in conjunction with the diplomatic service in Britain, looked at projecting that forward into next year? If anything, when we get into the Brexit negotiations further, when those in Britain realise that they are leaving the European Union and the value an Irish passport will hold with regard to freedom of travel across the rest of the European Union and residence, we should prepare for the worst. The applications of those who need passports to travel are being caught up in the system with those of others who are simply and understandably concerned about their travel rights within Europe at any time in the future.

We are in the course of a comprehensive reform programme in the Passport Office which will involve upgrading and modernising all system across the Passport Service up to 2019. This includes newer technology, new business processes, extra staff, improved service. We also moved office. This is medium-to-long-term planning in the Passport Office. We have also taken steps to improve communications with citizens.

Of course, the online application will considerably improve the situation. Already, the online service has processed over 30,000 applications. Public feedback has been positive.

I recognise the challenge here. I understand the frustration on the part of many citizens but I acknowledge that we are providing an important service, albeit under challenging circumstances. I urge Deputies to encourage use of the online system as the default option for anybody renewing his or her passport. The greater the uptake, the more resources that can be devoted to the more complex cases, such as first-time applicants, including first-time children applications, which take a bit of time.

My advice, at the end of this question as at the commencement of the question, is to allow sufficient time, advise applicants to apply online and check their passport, particularly now as we are entering the holiday season.

Northern Ireland

Seán Crowe

Question:

47. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to comments made by various members of the British House of Commons regarding ongoing legal cases involving the prosecution of British soldiers over alleged criminal actions in Northern Ireland; if his attention has been further drawn to the fact that the Speaker has agreed that MPs should not make reference in debates to cases which are active in the British courts; and his views on British MPs abusing parliamentary privilege in comments regarding active cases in the British courts involving the deaths of Irish citizens without commenting on the details of these cases due to ongoing legal proceedings. [25702/17]

I tabled this question over my deep concern regarding comments of some members of the British House of Commons regarding two active cases in the British courts involving the unlawful killings of Irish citizens by British soldiers in the North of Ireland in the 1970s. I do not want to comment on the details of the killings and I am sure the Minister does not as well. The Minister will probably be aware that both cases have been heavily commented on in the House of Commons and in tabloids. Does the Minister share my concerns at how this clear abuse of parliamentary privilege might impact on these and future cases?

I am aware of the comments to which the Deputy refers, and I am concerned.

Dealing with long-outstanding issues relating to the legacy of the conflict in Northern Ireland is of the utmost importance to me, as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Government. A Programme for a Partnership Government makes specific reference to the Government's commitment to the establishment of the legacy framework provided for under the Stormont House Agreement, placing the needs of victims and survivors at the core of these institutions.

In pursuit of this, I participated for the Government in recent months in the currently paused talks process in Belfast, where a critical element is to achieve a way forward on the setting up of the Stormont House legacy framework.

In the discussions on legacy issues, I have been very clear on the urgent need to achieve progress so that the institutions can be established and start working to meet the needs of victims and survivors and to support broader societal healing and reconciliation. I have also emphasised in discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the political parties, the need to ensure that legacy inquests are properly resourced, and urged all with responsibilities in relation to the legacy inquests to move forward as quickly as possible to implement the helpful proposals of the Lord Chief Justice.

The talks in Belfast will resume after the UK general election.

In light of the speculation around the issue raised by the Deputy, it is worth stating clearly that there are no amnesties from prosecution provided for in the Good Friday Agreement or any subsequent agreement, including the Stormont House Agreement. The Government would not look favourably on any proposal to introduce such a measure, for State or non-State actors.

The Government’s position is that the rule of law, including the requirement under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights for effective investigations of unlawful killings, must be upheld by all responsible authorities. In this regard, comments which effectively propose a selective approach to upholding the rule of law are not helpful. I have made clear that the legacy process is not about seeking to find an artificial balance or equivalence in investigations but about ensuring we have a comprehensive approach. That means looking at all Troubles related deaths, regardless of the affiliation of the perpetrators.

There has been a clear abuse of parliamentary privilege. Those who remain without a voice, namely, the families of the victims, have an expectation that those elected to any parliament will respect the rule of law. In response to concerns raised by the Pat Finucane Centre on behalf of the families, the Speaker's office confirmed that the House of Commons had a long-standing resolution that references should not be made in debates to cases which were active in the courts. Does the Minister share my deep concerns about the underhand and devious attempts to undermine the rule of law and the independence of the prosecution service using the cover of parliamentary privilege? The concern is that this will prejudice the trial process. Does the Minister believe this is a crude attempt to try to collapse the trial process? I am sure he is aware that this is the first of many similar cases. The two cases involved go back 43 and 45 years, respectively. Those involved have been waiting a long time for justice and should not have to deal with comments made in the House of Commons and the British tabloid media.

I am very concerned by the issue raised by the Deputy, but I repeat that the Government is fully committed to the architecture set out in the Stormont House agreement which provides the best framework for dealing comprehensively with the legacy of the past. There is no provision in the Good Friday Agreement for an amnesty from prosecution and the Government would not look favourably on any proposal to introduce such a measure. The rule of law, including the requirement for effective investigations of unlawful killings, must be upheld by all responsible authorities. In this regard, it is important that, as soon as practicable after the UK general election, all parties in Northern Ireland, including Deputy Crowe's party, sit around the table and ensure we will have a functioning Executive and that the institutions will be up and running in Northern Ireland, as per the wishes of the people expressed as far back as 2 March. It is regrettable that the parties have not reached agreement. I assure all parties involved that my Government colleagues and I will ensure we will take our responsibilities, obligations and duties very seriously under the Good Friday Agreement, of which we are co-guarantors and subsequent agreements. I look forward to a resumption of the talks, in a positive frame of mind, at the earliest opportunity.

I share the Minister's concerns about the Northern Ireland Executive which I also hope to see up and running and doing its work soon. My concern about this case is that it is a backdoor to providing immunity for British soldiers. We know that throughout the history of the conflict only four British soldiers were convicted of shooting civilians while on duty and that all four were freed within five years of beginning their life sentences through the use of the royal prerogative. The families are concerned that this is an attempt to try to collapse the cases in an underhand and devious way. They are also concerned because these are the first cases of many in a queue. I ask the Minister to relay his concerns on this matter to his British counterpart and write to the new Speaker of the House of Commons about same following the general election.

Let me make it clear that I have already raised this issue with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. James Brokenshire. I will also raise it with important elected representatives as soon as the talks get under way again.

I acknowledge the many men and women on both sides of the Border who performed their official duty to protect the public with honour, dedication and diligence throughout the Troubles. Their service has not been and must not be forgotten. There is no contradiction between this acknowledgement and the need for a clear-eyed holistic approach whereby wrongdoing and those responsible for such wrongdoing will be identified and pursued in accordance with the rule of law. That is the approach reflected in the Stormont House agreement and the one I will pursue.

Brexit Issues

Darragh O'Brien

Question:

48. Deputy Darragh O'Brien asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if Ireland's status of neutrality or corporate tax rate was discussed at any of the meetings he has attended at EU level to discuss and agree the Brexit negotiation guidelines; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25701/17]

Everyone will agree that Ireland's corporation tax rate and our capacity to determine it are key components of our economic strategy. We must do all we can to protect it. Our corporation tax rate should not and cannot be used as a stick with which to beat us in the negotiations ahead. I ask the Minister whether, as part of the preliminary negotiations or discussions he has had with our European partners, Ireland's neutral status or corporation tax rate was discussed. Did these issues come up at any of the meetings he attended to discuss and agree the Brexit negotiation guidelines?

Over the course of the past 11 months, since the referendum in the United Kingdom I, with my Government colleagues, have been involved in an extensive programme of engagements with our EU partners on Brexit. There have been over 400 such engagements with the 27 EU member states and institutions which included, most recently, the visit of the European Union’s chief negotiator, Mr. Michel Barnier, to Ireland. The programme of engagements has been led by the Taoiseach, as well as my colleagues across government, complemented by official level meetings. For my part, I have had nearly 100 engagements with my EU counterparts and the EU institutions. A central goal of the engagement has been to ensure Ireland’s unique circumstances in the context of Brexit are understood by our EU partners and to seek explicit recognition of these issues and priorities in the European Union’s position for the withdrawal negotiations. Throughout my engagement with partners I have emphasised the political imperative of achieving flexible and imaginative solutions in the context of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, in particular, with a view to avoiding a hard border. In so doing, I have been equally clear that we will only pursue solutions that are compatible with our aim of protecting the integrity of the Single Market and Ireland’s place in it.

The EU guidelines adopted by the Taoiseach and his counterparts on 29 April fully take account of the Government’s priority of protecting the Good Friday Agreement and the gains of the peace process, including the need for flexible and imaginative solutions to avoid a hard border, as well as recognising bilateral agreements and arrangements between Ireland and the United Kingdom, including the common travel area.

Neither Ireland’s status of neutrality nor our corporation tax rate has been raised in any of my engagements with EU partners, or those of my officials, in the context of the European Union’s negotiation guidelines and directives. These are matters which have no bearing on the forthcoming negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom. I have been struck by the very genuine level of engagement and understanding demonstrated by our EU partners of the significant political challenges Brexit poses for Ireland and, in particular, the peace process. Finding solutions will be a challenging exercise but my engagement with EU partners has left me fully confident that we can count on their support as we seek the right outcome for Ireland at the end of what will be a complex set of negotiations.

I thank the Minister for his very clear response. I am sure he will agree that our need to be able to determine our own tax rate is greater than ever, given that we will probably be most affected by Brexit. It will potentially have a disproportionate effect on Ireland in comparison to other EU member states. I tabled my question in the context of remarks made by the new French President, Mr. Emmanuel Macron. I congratulate him on his election, but during the election campaign he singled out Ireland's corporation tax rate and said he believed the gaps in taxation between member states needed to be closed. There have been other similar signals, although perhaps they were only given in the context of an election campaign. Does the Minister agree that our neutrality, our right to set our own rates of corporation or other taxes and the common travel area are red line issues for Ireland in the Brexit negotiations?

I am satisfied that Ireland's long-standing policy of military neutrality is sufficiently safeguarded by the existing constitutional provisions, such mechanisms as the protocol to the Lisbon Treaty, the various Defence Acts and our long-term policy documents. Tax rates remain within the exclusive competence of member states. All member states are free to set their own corporation tax rate, as they see fit. Ireland's 12.5% corporation tax rate has been a long-standing element of Government policy and remains the centrepiece of our competitive tax offering.

As I have said, the issue of Ireland's corporation tax rate has not been raised with me or any of my officials during our engagements with our EU partners on Brexit. I have to acknowledge that during these engagements, our position has received a very positive reception from our EU colleagues. There has been speculation about the UK's post-Brexit corporation tax plans. It should be noted that the UK's intention to reduce its current 20% corporation tax rate to 17% by 2020 was announced well in advance of the Brexit vote. I do not believe Brexit will have any impact on the UK's ability to set its own corporation tax rates, no more than it will have any impact - adverse or otherwise - on our ability to set our own corporation tax rate.

I am glad, if somewhat surprised, to hear that this issue has not been mentioned. I wonder whether we have made it clear that we do not intend to move on these issues. We are firmly on the EU side of the table in these negotiations. The Minister has rightly mentioned that Britain intends to reduce its corporation tax rate to 17% by 2020. It is not just our corporation tax that makes this country attractive for inward investment. The most important factor is our educated workforce. We have a track record and a reputation as a place where companies can do business and employ people. I ask the Minister to keep it to the forefront of his mind that we cannot be complacent in this regard. We do not know what his new boss will do. I wish him well in that regard. It is very important that Ireland does not take its eye off the ball in case some of our more jealous European partners see this as an opportunity to squeeze what they might see as some concessions from us in areas like neutrality, corporation tax and the common travel area.

I assure the Deputy and the House that there is no question of any form of complacency on the part of the Government in respect of this issue. We have made a reasonably positive start to these negotiations. Our priorities have been included in the negotiating guidelines and in the commencement position of the British Government, as outlined in its White Paper and in the letters sent to the EU from Prime Minister May. Ireland's long-standing policy of neutrality, which has been pursued by successive Governments, including one supported by Deputy O'Brien, is well known throughout the EU and Europe. I do not believe there is any EU member state that is not fully au fait with our long-standing policy of military neutrality, which goes hand in hand with our belief that international engagement is critical to enhanced co-operation and reduced conflict throughout the world. I am conscious of both issues raised by Deputy O'Brien. I assure him and the House that we will continue to be mindful of our unique position regarding our rate of corporation tax and our long-standing policy of military neutrality.

Prisoner Welfare

Ruth Coppinger

Question:

49. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the hunger strike currently taking place among Palestinian prisoners; if he has raised this matter with the Israeli authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25703/17]

Since I originally tabled this question, which seeks the Minister's views on the hunger strike among 1,500 Palestinian prisoners and calls on him to raise the matter with the Israeli authorities and to make a statement on the matter, the hunger strike has finished - this happened three days ago - on foot of a concession that will allow prisoners to get two visits every month. Talks are now taking place between the prison authorities and the prisoners. This is a victory, in a way, for the hunger strikers.

Thankfully, the hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners has ended following an agreement at the weekend. It is understood that a new arrangement for a second family visit per month, and possibly other understandings, was the basis for ending the strike. The hunger strike by over 1,000 prisoners was a matter of great concern as it was entering its seventh week. I am relieved that it has ended without tragedy. We spoke directly about the need to avoid a tragic outcome with the Israeli ambassador and in other contacts with the Israeli authorities. The EU missions in Palestine, including Ireland’s mission in Ramallah, issued a public statement concerning the hunger strikes calling on Israel to respect fully the rights of prisoners. A further EU statement at higher level was being prepared when the strike ended.

I have said on the record that I do not believe there is any positive use of hunger strikes. When we expressed the concern of the Irish Government, we had to be conscious that many prisoners, including some of those who were on hunger strike, have been convicted of serious and violent offences. In addition, we were conscious that we could express similar or stronger concerns about prisoners in many other jurisdictions in the region, including Israel. We raised this matter in a low-key way for two reasons. First, we cannot support or encourage the use of hunger strikes as a means of exerting pressure. I have rejected its use on numerous occasions internationally and I will continue to do so. Second, we are aware from our own history of the real risk of attitudes hardening on either side, leading to tragedy, and of the danger of hunger strikes leading to increased tensions and clashes on the streets. We did not want to say anything that could add to that risk. I will not comment on the specific issues raised by the strikers. We have little detail on what has been agreed. I reiterate that my essential position and that of the Irish Government is that detained Palestinians should have the same protections and conditions that Israel affords to its own citizens when they are under detention. Under international law, Palestinian prisoners should be held within their own territory. In that context, I emphasise that when Palestinians are being held in Israel, special attention must be given to ensuring family visits are realistically facilitated.

Nobody would ever advocate that anyone should ever go on hunger strike. I think the 1,500 prisoners in this case were driven to desperation. Most of those who are in jail in Palestine are not even tried. They are held after raids in the occupied West Bank as part of what is known as "administrative detention". It is akin to the system of internment without trial that was in existence in the North some years ago. At the end of April, the number of Palestinian prisoners stood at 6,100, some 300 of whom were children. As the Minister has said, the treatment of Palestinian prisoners is much worse than the treatment of Israeli prisoners, even though many of them have not been convicted of anything. For example, Palestinian prisoners have no access to phones, study or work. The main demand of the hunger strikers was to be able to access phones to call their families. Israel responded brutally, for example by transferring prisoners, placing prisoners in solitary confinement, blocking visits from lawyers and confiscating property. It began a media offensive against a particular leading prisoner. We have our own experience of hunger strikes in this country. I think everyone should condemn the Israeli response in this case.

I acknowledge that some of the demands of the prisoners were made to seek forms of treatment that are broadly in line with international law. It should always be the case that prisoners receive such treatment. Some of the other demands, such as those relating to prison conditions, seemed reasonable. I do not really know all the circumstances so I am not going to comment in any great detail. Prison conditions in the Middle East generally are not the same as in Ireland or in Europe. For these reasons, I do not wish to comment specifically on the demands which were made. I stress the obvious principle that all Palestinian and Israeli prisoners should enjoy the same conditions and protections that Israel deems appropriate for its own citizens.

Next month's 50th anniversary of the occupation of the Golan Heights, Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Sinai Peninsula will be a massive political issue. We should be calling for an end to arbitrary arrests by the Israeli authorities. In most cases, it is utterly illegal for people to be held without trial. Military raids on homes, dozens of which take place routinely, need to be brought to an end. I commend the Israeli Medical Association - the doctors' trade union - for refusing to take part in the force-feeding of hunger strikers. This made it difficult for the Israeli Government to implement force-feeding as a threat. I support utterly the demands of prisoners for access to education, communication and family visits. We need to end the occupation and the military courts that are in place in the Occupied Territories. All political prisoners should be released. The Government's position should be to support those basic demands loudly and clearly.

I know that the Knesset passed a law two years ago authorising force feeding. My understanding is that this law has not been used to date. I am also aware that the Israeli doctors' organisation has stated that its members will not participate in force feeding. Fears that have been expressed about the use of force feeding have thus far not been borne out, but I want to avail of the opportunity here, in response to Deputy Coppinger, to say that I would consider the use of force feeding in the circumstances to be unacceptable.

Military Aircraft Landings

Catherine Connolly

Question:

50. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the procedures in place to ensure that US military aircraft landing at Shannon Airport comply with conditions related to permission to land; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25948/17]

Could the Minister clarify what procedures are in place to ensure that US military aircraft landing in Shannon are complying with the conditions set out regarding permission to land? Given previous responses from the Minister and the Department that these conditions are rigorously enforced, that there are robust procedures in place and that the conditions include that the aircraft must be unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and not engage in intelligence gathering, and that the flights concerned do not form part of a military exercise or operation, can the Minister clarify what procedures are in place to ensure that?

The Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952, made under the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1946, gives the Minister for Foreign Affairs primary responsibility for the regulation of activity by foreign military aircraft in Ireland.

Successive Governments have made landing facilities available at Shannon Airport to the United States for well over a period of 50 years now. These arrangements are governed by strict conditions, including that the aircraft must be unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives, that they do not engage in intelligence gathering and that the flights concerned do not form part of military exercises or operations. These conditions apply equally to military aircraft from all countries seeking to land in Shannon. The US, as with all other states, is required to provide my Department with confirmation in writing that the aircraft proposing to land in Shannon comply with the strict conditions as set out and as I have mentioned.

Thorough and robust procedures are in place in my Department with a view towards ensuring that the conditions for securing permission for foreign military aircraft to overfly or land in the State are clearly understood and properly applied now and into the future. These procedures are kept under ongoing review. Comprehensive records on requests received and decisions made are retained for the purposes of monitoring and oversight and are drawn on as needed to provide information to this House as appropriate.

The Minister is telling us that he is relying on assurances given, and he has given a history regarding the legislation and the orders. My question asks him to specify the robust procedures that are in place to ensure that the conditions are met. Telling me that a letter of request and a reply is the same as a robust procedure is simply not acceptable. We, as a neutral country, are now complicit in wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and so on. The death rate is appalling. If we look at Yemen alone, where a military raid was ordered by President Trump over dinner, 23 civilians were killed in that raid, including ten children aged 12 and under, an 80 year old man and several women. That was called a win by President Trump, although his senior officials have since confirmed that it was a mistake and that it was wrong. In Yemen, 19 million of the total 28 million population are in need of humanitarian aid, and one child under five dies every ten minutes from preventable diseases. We are complicit in that war and in this slaughter. I again put that simple question to the Minister. If his answer is that we are relying on assurances, I will take that but I ask him please to spell it out for me.

I reject what the Deputy has said about our military neutrality. The practical implementation of the conditions for granting permission for landings is guided by and reflects Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, to which the Government remains fully committed. The statement of foreign policy entitled "A Global Island" approved by the Government in January 2015 clearly states that our policy of military neutrality remains a core element of Irish foreign policy. This policy goes hand in hand with our belief that international engagement is critical to enhance co-operation and to reduce conflict in the world.

I assure the House and the Deputy that prior permission is required for all foreign military aircraft to land at Irish airports and permission, if granted, is subject to strict conditions. In accordance, with international practice, foreign military aircraft which are granted permission to land in Ireland are not subject to inspection. Sovereign immunity, a long-standing principle of customary international law, means that a state may not exercise its jurisdiction in respect of another state and its property, including state or military aircraft. This principle applies automatically to foreign state or military aircraft in the same way as it applies to Irish State or military aircraft abroad. This is not a specific issue in regard to the United States; this is in regard to all foreign military aircraft landing at Irish airports.

It is specifically in regard to America because international law has gone out the window with the election of President Trump. Prior to that, there were also the most serious breaches under the previous regime. The Minister is telling me that he is relying on reassurances. The lack of evidence has been raised in various court cases and those brave people who protest on a regular basis have been told to go and collect evidence. The word "protest" is wrong; rather they highlight and raise awareness about what is happening down in Shannon.

More than 3 million American troops have gone through Shannon based on reassurances from them that they are carrying no arms. They are going through Shannon to refuel in order to wage war in countries that are innumerable at this point and the loss of life is appalling. We have a duty to live up to our neutrality and the Minister is simply not doing that and neither is the Government.

I do not accept that. In considering requests for landings by foreign military aircraft, my Department's focus is on ensuring that the information provided with regard to flights and aircraft demonstrates that they comply with the conditions as applicable. Matters such as the times at which landings take place are operational ones for the pilot or pilots in consultation with the airport in question. They do not affect the decision on whether the aircraft meets the strictest conditions which the Department has laid down. Officials in my Department are available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to process any requests received and to maintain ongoing contact with embassies, particularly from those from which, by reason of geography, we receive the most applications.

I wish to assure the House again that Ireland's traditional and longstanding policy of military neutrality, which I am pleased is the stated policy of all parties in the House, is in no way adversely affected or threatened. The practical implementation of the conditions reflects Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. The Government firmly remains committed to that policy.

Top
Share