Vol. 622 No. 5
1 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position with regard to the number of principal and senior development specialists with Irish Aid volunteering to take part in the Government decentralisation programme; if he will confirm that legal difficulties surround the process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25454/06]
Three principal development specialists serve in Irish Aid headquarters in Dublin, none of whom has applied to decentralise to Limerick. There are 12 senior development specialists in Irish Aid headquarters, none of whom has applied to decentralise to Limerick. Two senior development specialists originally applied to decentralise to Limerick but subsequently withdrew their applications. There are nine development specialist posts in headquarters and five development specialists are scheduled to decentralise, of whom four commenced employment since the announcement of the decentralisation programme in December 2003 and one applied via the central applications facility.
A Labour Court case is ongoing regarding the terms and conditions under which technical grades are employed in various areas of the public service, including the specialists employed by Irish Aid. Technical staff employed by Departments and offices, including specialists and other fixed-term workers employed in Irish Aid, brought cases to the Rights Commissioner under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. The case, which involves complex legal issues, has been referred to the European Court of First Instance.
Some of the issues involved in the decentralisation of Irish Aid to Limerick have, therefore, a wider Civil Service dimension and must be resolved at central level. Discussions are ongoing with representatives of the specialists, their union — IMPACT — and the Department of Finance about the issues involved.
Decentralisation is a Government decision and the Government is committed to moving ahead with its implementation. At present 37 posts in the directorate are filled by officers who have signalled their intention to decentralise to Limerick. In addition, 15 officers, either from elsewhere in the Department or from other Departments, are expected to take up duty at Irish Aid headquarters in the next three months. A further six officers serving elsewhere in the Department, mostly abroad, have also expressed an interest in decentralising to Limerick. This means that a total of 58 or 47% of the 124 posts advertised on the central applications facility, CAF, will be in the Department by autumn of this year.
It is planned to have most of the senior management team for Limerick in place by the third quarter of 2006. The director general of Irish Aid has already indicated that he will decentralise to Limerick. Two counsellors are now in place in the directorate, both of whom have volunteered to go to Limerick and were recruited via the central applications facility. A third counsellor will take up duty this summer on return from a posting abroad. Two others recruited via the CAF are expected to take up duty in early July and will move to Limerick. The changeover of the senior management team, as in other grades, is being implemented in a planned and careful way so as to minimise disruption to the business of the directorate. While there are challenges ahead, management and staff are working effectively together to maintain the quality and integrity of the Irish Aid programme. I hope a greater number of specialists will, in time, volunteer to decentralise to Limerick.
I regret that this is the second time in a row the Minister for Foreign Affairs has not been present for Question Time. Deputies facilitated him in recent weeks by agreeing to move questions from Tuesday to Wednesday and, later, to Thursday. It is highly unsatisfactory, therefore, that there is no sign of him. It will mean that over a period of many months——
I ask the Deputy to concentrate on the substance of the question.
I wish to voice my dissatisfaction. During Question Time last month we heard a great deal of bluster and huffing and puffing from the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, as he tried to mask the disastrous position of the decentralisation of Irish Aid to Limerick. Why, on that occasion, did he not inform the House that major legal problems had arisen with regard to the decentralisation programme? He chose to make these problems public during a visit to South Africa. Will the Minister of State comment on the remarks made by the head of Dóchas who stated decentralisation will damage the efforts of Irish Aid? Does he agree that the matter is descending into a shambles, given that moneys donated to non-governmental organisations to assist their efforts in the Third World will be wasted on making trips to the decentralised office and there will be no direct link to between the NGOs and Irish Aid? Will he admit that a major problem has arisen in the decentralisation programme?
My senior colleague has just returned from Rome where he met the Pope and today travelled to Belfast to meet the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, with whom he and the Taoiseach will have important discussions. He has a relatively valid excuse for not being present.
Deputies agreed to move Question Time from Tuesday to Wednesday and then to Thursday.
I do not want to get involved in the type of wrangling we had on the previous occasion I spoke, specifically because I stated at the time that it appeared some Opposition Deputies were not listening to or tracking my statements on this issue.
I track the Minister of State.
The Deputy's question sought to ascertain the reason I did not make known to the House the legal issue that has arisen regarding specialist grades.
The director of Dóchas has commented since the previous Question Time.
If he has an opportunity to do so, the Deputy will probably confirm that I have made perfectly clear in the House, in his presence, and in my appearances before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs that a legal impediment has arisen. There is nothing new about the statement I made in the interview I gave The Irish Times from Africa, although I note the newspaper gave it ample coverage nonetheless. I made the same comments on the specific legal issue in a number of a parliamentary replies, some of which may have been issued to the Deputy. The case taken by the specialists has been well aired in newspapers in recent months and I understand several specialists from my Department wrote to The Irish Times in connection with the legal issue they have. There is, therefore, nothing new in my recent comments which appeared in previous replies. It may be worthwhile for the Deputy to read over these again before he frames another question on this matter.
The decentralisation to Limerick is not a shambles. Perhaps the Deputy did not listen to the substance of my reply. The good news it contained is that the percentage of those intending to decentralise to Limerick has increased. The figure I provided on the previous occasion I spoke in the House was that 41% of our staff requirement of 121 posts had been met. This figure has since climbed to 47%.
It is five of 24 posts.
As I stated on the previous occasion, from the central applications facility it appears that Limerick is a popular choice among staff from outside the Department. The transfer of specialists is still held up and the Department may have to face certain aspects of this issue. This would be normal in any event as one would not move everybody at once during any office move. We will try to phase the move to ensure the least disruption to the programme and the work of those in the headquarters and office of Irish Aid.
With regard to the issue of a direct connection with non-governmental organisations, I agree that many NGOs are Dublin based. Much of the population is in Dublin and the east coast on which much of our focus has been in the past. I presume the Deputy agrees with the conceptual notion behind decentralisation.
Yes I do, provided it is properly managed.
We should be able to move offices.
We have over-run the first priority question by more than two minutes.
I apologise. Everyone accepts that the principle of moving certain types of activity out of Dublin, whether office based or otherwise, is a good one.
Is the Minister of State suggesting the NGOs should also move?
Many of them have already done so.
I ask the Minister of State and the Deputy to desist from——
As a representative from Cork, Deputy Allen will be aware that some of the best NGOs are based in his city. I say this to the credit of the Cork based NGOs which have no problem accessing my Department or its funding and are among the most effective in the country.
2 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he or his colleague Ministers of the General and External Affairs Council of the European Union have received or commissioned a report on the consequences for the Palestinian people of the Union’s isolation of the Hamas Government; if such a report will be commissioned; and, if commissioned, if its results will be published. [25331/06]
I emphasise the deep concern of the Government about the increasingly serious situation in Gaza and the West Bank. It is essential that all parties have the courage to act with restraint — in particular at this time, the Government of Israel — and to avoid any further actions which cause additional escalation and endanger lives.
On 16 June the European Council issued a declaration on the Middle East peace process which set out the overall policy and the specific concerns of the European Union. It reminded all parties of their responsibilities to protect civilian lives and set out unambiguously the longer-term obligations on both sides. These include the need for Israel to end all activities in the occupied territories that threaten the viability of a two-state solution and are contrary to international law. The EU has been consistent in its approach to the Palestinian authority. We welcome the conduct of the democratic Palestinian elections in January and since 30 January the EU and the wider international community have set out the steps required of a Hamas Government. It must commit to non-violence, recognise Israel's right to exist and accept the agreements negotiated with Israel by the PLO and the authority. We support the efforts of President Mahmoud Abbas to encourage Hamas to accept the peace process. If there is significant movement in this direction by Hamas, the Government is committed to arguing strongly for an appropriate EU response.
The Government monitors closely the situation in the occupied territories, shares the widespread concern about developments in Gaza and the West Bank and believes that the Palestinian people should not face the prospect of a humanitarian crisis because of the reluctance of its Government to abide by the basic rules of the peace process. We have given a commitment that the level of Ireland's bilateral assistance to the Palestinian people will be maintained in 2006. The EU has been the strongest supporter of the Palestinian people, providing total assistance of €500 million annually. It has stated that it will continue to provide all the necessary assistance to meet the basic needs of the Palestinian people. It is unreasonable, however, to argue that we should continue capacity-building assistance to the Hamas Government irrespective of its attitude to the peace process.
The European Council and the Quartet have endorsed the European Commission's work to establish a temporary international mechanism to channel assistance directly to the Palestinian people. The operation of the mechanism will commence in the coming days, based on a funding allocation of €105 million by the Commission. This will bring the total Community aid to the Palestinian people so far this year to €259 million. The mechanism will focus on essential services, starting with the health services. It will also involve a programme of allowances to the many Palestinian families in need. The arrangements will be reviewed after three months.
I hope that other international donors, including the Arab states, will make early and substantial contributions through the new mechanism. As the European Council emphasised, it is also now important that Israel finds a way to resume the transfer of withheld Palestinian tax and customs revenues, which are essential in averting a crisis in the Palestinian territories. The withholding of these revenues has been the most significant factor in the economic difficulties now facing the Palestinians.
While the Minister of State's reply goes a little further towards even-handedness, it is unacceptable. There is no reference to the fact that 60 Hamas politicians have been rounded up and arrested near Ramallah by Israel. Israel speaks of 87 people arrested overnight, of whom it says 64 were members of Hamas and 23 were members of other factions. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation says 84 people have been arrested, including seven cabinet officials and 21 members of the Palestinian Parliament. It is extraordinary that the Minister of State, in replying to a question such as mine, did not condemn that. It is not surprising, however, because he refers to the statement of 16 June, which is a pious evasion by the EU. No explicit sanctions have been threatened against Israel for its continuation of illegal settlements in the West Bank. In his reply perhaps the Minister of State will point out such sanctions.
On the other hand, the Palestinians, whose elections he welcomes as free and fair, now find the people it elected are arrested arbitrarily by the Israeli authorities. This has not been condemned. Apparently, it is okay to threaten sanctions on the Palestinian people but to rely on moral suasion against the illegal settlements. There is nothing even-handed about the EU's position. It speaks of laying down conditions for the Hamas but not for the Israeli Government. This afternoon the Minister of State did not even condemn the arrest and detention of members of parliament elected in elections he regards as free and fair. He has not suggested that, for example, in his agreement with the Israeli authorities he will insist on human rights clauses. He has not suggested that he will not deal with Israel until the illegal barrier is removed and he has not asked them to withdraw immediately from the West Bank. What kind of response is that to the flagrant actions that are happening outside every principle of international law? Irish people have a more advanced position and every time they hear the General Council end of statement in Europe they are appalled because they cannot hear the Irish view.
Members must desist from secondary contributions. It is a problem with priority questions. We are trying to keep within the time allocated.
We have been consistent, clear, open, strong and vocal in support of the Palestinian people in every forum in which we are represented. However we must be fair, even-handed and responsible, and this is a complex and difficult situation.
The Minister of State has said nothing today. He has not condemned the arrest of parliamentarians.
The Minister of State to continue without interruption.
I did not interrupt anybody and I am about to respond. We are concerned about the escalating situation in Gaza and we appreciate the concern of the Israeli authorities about the recent incident, including the kidnapping of a soldier. He should be released immediately and unconditionally. However, Israel's reaction must be restrained and proportionate. In particular, the long-suffering people of Palestine should not be made to suffer further. All of us are concerned about the arrest of elected members of parliament and we condemn it. Ireland has added its voice to that of the UN Secretary General in calling for maximum restraint, in particular by the Israeli authorities. Our ambassador in Tel Aviv conveyed this message to them and this morning conveyed our serious concerns regarding the need for maximum restraint. Our consul general in Ramallah also this morning asked the Palestinian authority to do everything possible to secure the immediate release of the Israeli soldier. We have been active, consistent, fair and equitable with all sides, taking into account the seriousness of the situation.
President Abbas is doing his best to resolve the situation and deserves our support. Governments in the region are being equally helpful. Diplomacy must be given the time and opportunity to work and Deputies will share my view on this. It is important that we use all our communications networks and opportunities through our excellent diplomatic staff, who do an outstanding job on behalf of Ireland in ensuring human rights, equity and freedom for all citizens on both sides. We must play our role, through the EU, in ensuring there is a mechanism to bring peace, stability, a proper structure and mutual respect for both Governments, support for the citizens of both areas and transfer of resources internationally and through the EU. We must do our utmost to ensure that Israel recognises its key responsibility in transferring the customs and tax duties that are rightfully due to the Palestinian people in order that they have the resources necessary to run the territories in an efficient manner. We have not been found wanting, nor will we be so.
We are out of kilter and down time on Priority Questions. I will allow Deputy Higgins to make a brief observation.
Will the Minister of State indicate the Government's attitude to the 18-point plan agreed by Fatah and Hamas and whether it agrees, because President Abbas has accepted this, it is a basis for full restoration of aid from the EU to the Hamas Government, in view of the fact that the government is now a national government in terms of the plan agreed on 27 June? A short answer will do.
We accept the plan and want to ensure the agreements reached with President Abbas and Hamas can be implemented. It is important that the Hamas Government fulfils its responsibilities to recognise Israel, condemn violence and accept and support the peace process. If it indicates clearly, through diplomatic channels, that it accepts this situation we have no difficulty in ensuring further support to help it bring peace to this troubled region. This has been a complex and difficult situation for a long time and it is important that we are even-handed in dealing with it and use all diplomatic channels available to ensure the rule of law prevails and respect for human life is absolute.
3 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the circumstances surrounding the transporting of a handcuffed US marine through Shannon Airport without the necessary permission being obtained by the US from the Irish authorities; the subsequent discussions he has had with the US authorities regarding this incident; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25496/06]
I refer the Deputy to the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Dáil on 13 June, when he gave the House a detailed account of the matter to which the Deputy's question refers. Immediately after the incident in question was reported to the Department of Foreign Affairs by the US Embassy, the Minister for Foreign Affairs summoned the US ambassador to Iveagh House, where they met for the best part of an hour. He outlined our grave concerns. The ambassador confirmed the sequence of events and made clear that the failure to seek consent arose from an administrative error. He conveyed his deep regret for the breach of procedures and undertook urgently to advise his authorities of our views. In confirming the US authorities' determination that the use of Irish airspace and airports by the US be completely transparent and in conformity with Irish law and the wishes of the Government, he also confirmed his willingness to review the situation immediately with a view to ensuring there is no recurrence. The Minister informed the ambassador that, notwithstanding the fact this incident had no connection with allegations of extraordinary rendition, it was unacceptable that it should happen.
The following morning, the Minister briefed the Government meeting on these developments. Following the subsequent discussion, it was decided to make clear the Government's grave concern and to ask for a full written report from the US embassy. In addition, to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to prevent any recurrence of this incident, we are engaging in further discussion with the US authorities.
Officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs have met officials from the US embassy, most recently on 20 June, and have been in subsequent contact by telephone. The embassy is preparing its written report and has also taken steps to prevent any recurrence of the episode, in particular by seeking to ensure that all relevant personnel are aware of their obligations and of the procedures to be followed. On the basis of our discussions with the US authorities, I have no reason to believe that this was other than an isolated incident which arose from an administrative error.
Moreover, as the Minister and I have previously emphasised, this incident is quite distinct from the question of extraordinary rendition, and I remain confident of the continuing validity and weight of the clear assurances repeatedly given to us by the US authorities in that context.
The Minister of State claims this is distinct from extraordinary rendition but does this incident not confirm that the Government does not have a clue what is going on in Shannon Airport but must wait for a cleaner to board an aircraft? The authorities at Shannon Airport did not contact the Government but contacted the US Embassy. The Government is completely out of the loop. Is it not the case that the Minister of State does not know whether extraordinary rendition is taking place and would prefer not to know? That is probably closer to the point.
Will the Minister of State please outline what protocols are in place? I understand that permission is required from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for prisoners to go through Shannon Airport. Will the Minister of State confirm this? We are none the wiser on the requirements after this incident.
Is it not the case as stated in The Examiner, that there are no protocols in place? Is it the case that the troops we see wearing uniforms in Shannon and elsewhere, for example, in the recent incident in Ennis, are in breach of Irish defence legislation? Is this acceptable?
I regret that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is not here to answer my question directly. He told The Guardian that because of this incident we would have to conduct searches of the aeroplanes. The Minister of State did not mention these in his response. From now on will we conduct random searches, or was that promise made hastily after this incident? I see the Minister of State nodding which is interesting. Will he confirm to the House that the Government will conduct these searches?
Many Deputies on this side of the House have been calling for that sort of action for some time and have received a negative response.
I remind the Minister of State of the time limit.
I have been asked many questions and Deputy Gormley has made many statements which are not factual. First, a cleaner did not discover this situation.
The Garda Síochána did not discover it.
A soldier was being transferred on this aircraft. He was detained on board at Shannon. The officer in charge asked permission of the official on duty in Shannon if the soldier could be taken off the aircraft for exercise. The official in charge reported that immediately to his authorities in Dublin and to the US Embassy which in turn contacted directly the Departments of Foreign Affairs and of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The Department of Foreign Affairs was not contacted first.
I was not contacted.
No but neither was the Department.
I will outline the sequence of events. The Deputy is saying the cleaner discovered this but that is not the fact.
That is what was reported.
As soon as the Department of Foreign Affairs was contacted officials in the Department contacted the Minister who was attending a European meeting in Brussels. He returned immediately to Dublin and summoned the US ambassador into Iveagh House that evening and laid down the law on Ireland's position and said that this was unacceptable.
He told him what for.
The matter was investigated and we are satisfied that it was an administrative error as the US officials carrying out the transfer did not think they had to report this situation to our Department or the Government.
The following morning the Minister for Foreign Affairs briefed his Cabinet colleagues on the situation. The Cabinet decided this was unacceptable and we requested a detailed written report from the US authorities on this matter. Since then officials from our Department have held discussions with the US Embassy and we await the final report on the situation. There has been no doubt about this. If there was any difficulty whatever——
On a point of order, I asked the Minister of State a few questions but he is not answering them. What are the protocols?
I must advise the Deputy that the Chair has no control over the Minister of State or his answers.
Will there be inspections and what are the protocols?
To carry out inspections would imply that we are not prepared to accept the categorical assurances given to us——
The Minister of State is changing now.
——by the friendly government of a country with which we have an exceptionally close relationship. No plausible evidence has been produced that aircraft have passed through Shannon Airport carrying prisoners being transported as part of an extraordinary rendition operation. The number of supposedly implicated flights that have transited through Shannon is minuscule in comparison with the overall number of flights of similar aircraft stopping there.
A policy of spot checks could have only a cosmetic affect. Furthermore, the allegations relate not to recent events but to those which it is claimed happened several years ago. This retrospective imposition of a pattern of movements would be a flimsy basis on which to depart from a long-established practice.
That is pure nonsense.
In a joint statement on extraordinary rendition on 27 June, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and the Association for the Prevention of Torture do not call for spot checks but for the inspection of aircraft where there are grounds for believing that it is being used to transport detainees.
That is fine.
It has always been the Government's position that in such circumstances the Garda Síochána would exercise its powers of entry and search an aircraft.
They can do that only if they have evidence.
Not alone are we consistent in our attitude but we are the first country to raise this matter several times with the United States. It has been raised by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I.
They have never inspected an aeroplane.
There is no doubt whatsoever about the assurances we have received. The situation that has been raised pertaining to the transiting of a soldier has nothing to do with extraordinary rendition. It is only a red herring that is being used to create a scare among the people.
We have to move on to Question No. 4 in the name of Deputy Allen.
The Minister of State is going back on the previous commitments. The Minister for Foreign Affairs gave a commitment in the aftermath of the incident in question that inspections would be carried out. The Government is going back on this. What are the——
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
The Minister of State has not answered the question.
Of course, I have answered it.
The Minister of State has not.
No.
I have given the Deputy more information and factual information, but it is like everything, he does not like facts.
No, the Minister of State is completely——
Can we move on to Question No. 4?
——and utterly avoiding the question.
The Deputy has given a spurious concoction of misinformation——
Deputy Gormley should resume his seat.
——to deliberately mislead the public.
The Minister of State should answer my questions.
Will Deputy Gormley resume his seat please? We have to move on to Question No. 4.
Can the Minister of State give us the protocols which are in place?
Can we have the answer to Question No. 4?
There is none.
That is right.
Why did they contact the embassy? Why did they not contact the Garda?
That is it.
That is the question. Why was the Garda not contacted? Why was the embassy contacted? That is what I want to know.
If there was anything to be covered up, or if something was wrong, does the Deputy think the officer in charge of the soldier in question would have asked for permission to take him off the aeroplane?
That is what I want to know.
We do not know.
They walk around in uniform all over the place.
What is wrong with that?
They do not give a damn——
Does the Deputy want them to walk around naked?
——what the Government thinks.
Did they take off his leg irons for the exercise?
4 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps he has taken to date to work with other countries in order to combat human trafficking; the talks that he has held with his counterpart European Union Foreign Ministers on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25455/06]
Human trafficking, which is an important issue for Ireland and the European Union, featured in the conclusions of this month's meeting of the European Council. It was listed as one of the areas in which the EU can deliver concrete results to benefit the citizens of the EU. The Council's conclusions express its determination to pursue the fight against human trafficking by fully utilising the resources of Eurojust, Europol and the task force of police chiefs. The issue of human trafficking was also considered at the most recent meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, which examined the draft conclusions of the European Council. Article 5 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits trafficking in human beings. In 2004, the EU adopted a Council framework decision on combating trafficking in persons. My colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who has primary responsibility for what is first and foremost a criminal justice matter, is preparing legislation to criminalise trafficking for the purpose of sexual and labour exploitation.
A specific action plan to deal with trafficking in human beings was adopted by the European Council last December. The plan, which is wide-ranging, covers areas such as the co-ordination of EU action, the prevention of trafficking and the prosecution of offences linked to trafficking. The implementation of the plan has been actively pursued by the Justice and Home Affairs Council, in which Ireland is represented by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Under this country's existing criminal law, it is an offence to traffic a male or female person under 17 years of age for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The offence is punishable by up to life imprisonment.
I would like to refer to the work being done in this regard in international fora other than the EU. Human trafficking has been dealt with by the Council of Europe. That organisation's negotiations on the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings concluded last year. The convention, which was opened for signature in Warsaw on 16 May 2005, aims to prevent and combat trafficking in people in all its forms. A similar action plan was endorsed by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in December 2003. Ireland is a signatory to the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime and its two accompanying protocols on smuggling and on the prevention, suppression and punishment of human trafficking. The Department of Foreign Affairs has provided over €1.7 million, through Irish Aid, for anti-trafficking projects carried out by the International Labour Organisation and a respected non-governmental organisation, under the leadership of the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan.
Human trafficking is receiving considerable attention at EU and international levels. My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has raised it in bilateral contacts with his EU counterparts. He and I will continue to use relevant bilateral meetings to highlight our concerns in respect of this serious matter.
I do not understand why the Department of Foreign Affairs refused to answer this question when I tabled it as a priority question the last time the House took foreign affairs questions. Does the Minister of State agree that the recent "Prime Time Investigates" documentary exposed the conditions of slavery, rape and violence which are endured by trafficked women and children? Does he agree the programme also exposed that this country's controls in this regard are very lax and that our passport control system is porous? The Minister of State's reply confirmed that we are continuing to classify human trafficking as an immigration issue rather than as a human rights issue.
That is important.
Will the Minister of State explain how 14 and 15 year old Romanian children are getting visas, presenting themselves at passport controls and being allowed to enter this country without giving any real explanation of what they intend to do here or where they are going here? Does the Minister of State agree we have failed miserably to protect minors who come from states inside and outside the EU?
Yes.
Will the Minister of State tell me how he intends to deal with this problem as a human rights issue?
If the Deputy had listened to my earlier answer, the position would be very clear to him.
I was listening.
He asked why I did not answer this question the last time we dealt with such matters. This was and is a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister, Deputy McDowell. At that time, it was proper for that Department to answer the question. Since then, this matter has been on the agenda of a meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and I attended the meeting at which the matter was discussed. We are now reporting to the House and answering Deputy Allen's questions on foot of those discussions. The Deputy is getting two bites of the cherry. He got an answer from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform some weeks ago and he is now getting a direct response from the Department of Foreign Affairs. I also want to say that we have one of the most——
Why did the Minister of State answer a question on 24 May and refuse my question?
The Minister of State to continue without interruption.
I would like to be allowed to respond. We have spent millions of euro on our impregnable passport system, which is the most outstanding system in the world.
The Minister of State is not given to exaggeration.
Not likely. I know what I am talking about. I have seen the investment, the technology and the quality of the staff. I have seen the system in operation. I am proud of all the people who operate it. An outstanding service is being delivered to the people of this country in Dublin and Cork.
I asked about passport controls.
I am coming to that point. The Deputy spoke about young people who came to Ireland after people from their own countries applied on their behalf for visas for them. When such people were taken into this country, they were checked to ensure all their paperwork and documentation was in order. Nobody was aware that the children in question were to be exploited at a later stage. Such behaviour is a criminal offence under our laws. As we speak, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who responded to Deputy Allen when this matter was raised previously, is preparing legislation to deal with these issues. He intends to ensure that no loophole can be utilised in future and that people cannot be exploited in future. The European Union is at one on this issue. We are totally committed to ensuring that human trafficking does not take place here. The House can be assured that this country's system of passport control is very tight. The problems which have been mentioned tend to develop after the passport control stage. The issues in question are not related to the operation of our passport control system.
I would like to say——
Deputy Allen, please.
——that the Minister of State is tending to mislead the House, although perhaps unintentionally.
We have lost a great deal of time.
I would like to inform the Minister of State that human trafficking is not a crime under our laws. Unlike other countries, Ireland tends to treat the girls who are apprehended here, rather than the traffickers, as the criminals.
That is correct.
We do not have any systems in place to deal with such girls, who are the victims of human trafficking, in an effective manner. The traffickers are getting away scot free. I ask the Minister of State not to say that human trafficking is a crime under our law because it is not.
Human trafficking is a crime. The exploitation of any individual is a crime. Our laws are being updated. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has responded to the issues which have arisen. Ireland is ensuring, in co-operation with its EU partners, that the various regulations are being tightened at EU level——
Nothing will happen before the summer break.
——in order that people committing crimes of this nature are not allowed to get through the net at any time.
That is rubbish.
That is not the position.
It is not true.
5 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the human rights and other criteria taken into consideration by him and by his Department when his Department is consulted by other Departments in relation to the countries of destination of certain goods; and the mechanisms in place to confirm that these criteria are met in the first instance and to monitor them to ensure they remain satisfied. [25457/06]
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which is the licensing authority for Ireland's export control system, consults the Department of Foreign Affairs on all military licence applications and on some applications relating to controlled dual use goods. Ireland's export control system is implemented in a manner that fully meets its obligations as an EU member state and a participant in other international export control fora. Authorisation is given to export licence applications following careful case-by-case examination of their consistency with our international obligations, including the application of arms embargoes and compliance with the EU code of conduct on arms exports. The code of conduct refers to eight criteria which each application must satisfy before it can be approved. The criteria include respect for human rights; the internal situation in the final destination country; the behaviour of the buyer country in the international community, particularly its attitude to terrorism, the nature of its alliances and its respect for international law; regional peace and security; and the risk of diversion under undesirable conditions. The relevant regional sections are involved in the consultation process in the Department. These sections monitor and analyse the evolving political situation of each proposed country of end-destination, as well as issues such internal conflict and respect for human rights, to allow the Department to provide comprehensive and up-to-date observations to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on each specific case.
Officials from the Department attend the relevant EU working group meetings, including those of the conventional arms working group in Brussels, where EU officials exchange denial notifications and share information about their respective export control policies and regulations. The Department is also represented at regular meetings of the international export control regimes, including the Wassenaar arrangement, which deals with conventional weapons, the Australia group, concerned with chemical and biological exports, the missile technology control regime and the nuclear suppliers group. These meetings provide important opportunities for officials to exchange information with respect to particular end-destinations and end-users.
The Department is also consulted by the Department of Transport on applications involving the transit or overflight of civil aircraft carrying munitions of war or dangerous goods. In considering such applications, the Department of Foreign Affairs, as a matter of policy, applies criteria similar to those which relate to the export of weapons or dual use goods.
Is the Minister of State aware that Amnesty International outlined that a human rights-based approach entails more than a formal commitment to respect human rights norms and standards? It stated it requires the integration of those minimum standards into all planned policies, budgets and processes in an institution. Does the Minister of State agree that the decisions of the Department of Foreign Affairs do not meet those standards? Does he agree that the absence of a rigorous human rights-based approach to his responsibilities has been exposed by the passage of arms and a helicopter gunship through Shannon Airport to serial human rights abusers in Indonesia and Israel? I recently highlighted the shipments to Indonesia which were in breach of an arms embargo.
Last week, Shannon Airport was used to facilitate the sale of an Apache attack helicopter.
Does the Deputy have a question?
I am setting the context of my question. Does the Minister accept the Apache helicopter could have been used in the collective punishment — a crime against humanity — in Palestine in recent days? At least 49 Palestinians, including 11 children, have been killed by Israeli forces. Does the Minister of State agree with the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, that the bombardment of civilian infrastructure amounts to collective punishment, a crime against humanity? This would have been carried out by weapons such as an Apache helicopter.
Does the Minister of State agree that the kidnapping by Israel of 25 elected Palestinian representatives demonstrates Israel's lack of commitment to democratic principles? Will he clarify that, after consultation with the Department of Transport, as required by the 1973 order, the Department of Foreign Affairs approved the use of Shannon Airport for the transfer of military helicopters and other military apparatus to Israel? Does the Minister of State agree the role played by the State in the sale and transfer of arms to human rights abusers is unacceptable and must cease immediately? What steps will he take to ensure this stops?
I have already answered questions on the Palestinian-Israeli situation. What relevance does it have to this question?
We are transporting with the US a military Apache helicopter through Shannon Airport.
That is not true.
Yes, it is true.
I will outline the facts and want the Deputy to withdraw his statement.
It is true. I will not withdraw my statement.
I am aware of allegations made by Amnesty International about aspects of arms exports from Ireland. I have discussed the situation with the organisation. The Government is committed to ensuring Ireland's export controls are as strong as possible. For that reason, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment commissioned an independent report into the export control system. Following on from the consultant's report, published in July 2004, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment plans to introduce new legislation to strengthen the export controls system further.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh's earlier assertion is false. No embargo was in place against Indonesia at the time the goods transited through Ireland. In this case, the views of the Department of Foreign Affairs were sought in accordance with standard procedures. Our advice to the Department of Transport was based on all relevant foreign policy considerations, including the fact that Indonesia has made significant strides towards democracy. It has also been the victim of several grievous terrorist attacks such as those in Bali. Deputy Ó Snodaigh may not remember that fact.
I do remember that. However, there was a UN and a US arms embargo against Indonesia.
The Minister of State to continue without interruption.
Several Irish citizens were seriously injured in Bali. The Deputy should remember that Indonesia is a country of 225 million people, the fourth most populated country in the world. It is the largest Muslim democracy in the world.
The Minister of State is a joke.
The Deputy is making fictional allegations which he seems to be good at. He should withdraw them because they have no basis. His party's history probably contains items which may not have been disclosed to the proper authorities. There is no point in him making falsehoods in the House when they do not stand up in law or to scrutiny.
The Minister of State is a disgrace.
His allegations do not fit in with the facts presented by the rigid system operated between Departments to ensure only proper legitimate transiting of goods takes place.
We will move on to Question No. 6.
What was Deputy Ó Snodaigh doing up on the roof?
I am entitled to a supplementary. That is disgraceful. I am the only Member who was not entitled to a supplementary question.
What was he doing up on the roof?
Time has run out. Priority Questions have concluded.
I am entitled to ask a supplementary question like all other Members.
The problem is that the Deputy made the question irrelevant because I had already answered the questions he raised.
The Minister of State denied the facts. In February last year, an arms embargo was in place against Indonesia.
We must move on.
It was not lifted by the US until March this year.
The Deputy will withdraw that statement. It is the third time he has attempted to make it in the House.
The Minister of State is the one who is lying.
It is not factual, fair or correct.
The Minister of State will proceed with Question No. 6.
