Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 35 of 38.
“Nobody should be getting an exemption from the rules put in place to ensure our compliance with international law. We have dealt with the question of whether we may include provisions in this. There are already loads of get-outs built in, such as "may include", "may apply", "it shall" etc., but if we have rules that are necessary - the standard I have here is "necessary" and not just ideal - in order to implement the provisions of Chapter XV of the safety convention, we do not exempt industrial personnel or service vessels from those rules. Amendment No. 7 refers to "requirements outlined under subsection (3) ". Those are the clear requirements with regard to essential safety and are areas without exemptions. Amendment No.”
“This set of amendments tries to look at the kinds of rules from which no vessels should be made exempt, and the kinds of vessels that should not be able to make themselves exempt from the general applied safety standards. Amendment No. 6 provides that the exemptions from the rules would be "with the exception of any rules that are necessary in order to implement the provisions of Chapter XV of the Safety Convention and the IP Code". The rules will only apply where they are relevant. With regard to Chapter XV of the safety convention, if there are rules in our set of rules and regulations the Minister makes, which are placed there to ensure compliance with Chapter XV of the safety of lives at sea convention and the international protection code, that is not something we can be exempting vessels from.”
“When I put to the Minister of State the idea of having separate categories for different kinds of vessels, that was rejected by the Government in the previous set of amendments. It has chosen not to have separate provisions in respect of different kinds of vessels, and yet we have this very blunt tool whereby entire categories of vessel can be exempted from the rules. There is no tailoring or nuance but a blunt measure that allows for exemptions from the rules. Again, I am opposed to the exemption, or the idea that any service vessels would be exempted from the rules and regulations set out here. That vote has been put on Committee Stage and lost, so I cannot bring it back, but at a minimum, there should be certain kinds of rules and vessels where exemptions are not going to be appropriate.”
“Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, concern exemptions. It was interesting what the Minister of State said about how there will be other kinds of vessels that the SOLAS Convention does not apply to, because applying the SOLAS Convention within the regulations does not mean they have to be consistent with it. There is nothing to say the Minister of State cannot exceed the provisions in the SOLAS Convention. On that idea that we have to say "may" because we may apply these standards to some vessels, I do not know if that actually stands up. We can say we shall apply it and shall be consistent with it, which means we would be meeting the standards where we need to meet them, and we can have other standards where we do not have to do so.”
“I move amendment No. 6: In page 33, line 3, after “rules” to insert the following: “with the exception of any rules that are necessary in order to implement the provisions of Chapter XV of the Safety Convention and the IP Code”.”
“I accept the Minister of State's bona fides that he will put those regulations in place, but as circumstances change and as new categories of service vessel come into play, I would like to be assured that any future Minister would also do the same.”
“That is not about this Minister of State but about a future Minister and, again, it is about looking back, learning from the Whiddy Island disaster and looking to the fact there were entire parts of the Harbours Act that were not put into effect. There were safety rules that should have been brought into effect and applied which were not. I do not feel comfortable with us letting legislation through this House that gives a future hostage by saying "may" when a future Minister may be under pressure from an industry - who knows what the circumstances - and may or may not decide to exercise the really important safety powers they are given under this legislation.”
“I do not believe that is adequate or reassuring enough for the public and it is a cop-out, frankly. Again, I do not say this to the Minister of State in a personal sense, but I believe our legislation should be very clear and say "shall" where it should say "shall". It is a step backwards. I have covered the issue of service vessels and the question of LNG and its relevance. It is extremely relevant and it is covered by this. Why not accept "shall", even in terms of making regulations? I trust the Minister of State personally and I know he will make regulations, but I am not comfortable with a Bill that says a Minister may make regulations.”
“We are explicitly saying we should look at Chapter XV of the SOLAS Convention, a new chapter designed to update the SOLAS Convention to address the new realities, address the new role and the role of service vessels and other vessels and be consistent with that. Either it applies to service vessels, in which case we should be consistent with it, or it does not apply to service vessels and putting the word "shall" should not be an obstacle. The choice of the word "may", however, points to the suggestion that there are rules that should be applied and we may apply them, and we will be applying this new practicality test - we do not know what will be included in it - as to whether we will choose to apply these new safety standards under Chapter XV.”
“Either the SOLAS Convention does not apply, in which case saying we will be consistent with it should not be a problem and we will be fine because the convention has nothing to say about service vessels, we can be consistent with the SOLAS Convention and it will not have an impact, or it does apply, in which case we are saying it may not be practical to implement the provisions of the SOLAS Convention. The SOLAS Convention is a very nuanced piece of work. It is very clear in the provisions it puts forward for different kinds of vessels. Nobody is saying the regulations for tankers within the SOLAS Convention should be applied to service vessels.”
“I gave the example of one the many accidents we had in Bantry Bay, which involved a tug boat, not a tanker, whose collision led to the consequence and the accident. That is the kind of service vessel being covered by this legislation. It is the case that this very much relates to the hydrocarbon industry, and we will come in a moment to my other amendments where I explicitly ask that there would be specific situations where we do not have any danger of exemptions for the hydrocarbon industry. It is also the case that I have been very clear about the kind of vessels I am speaking about, and the SOLAS Convention covers these. Chapter XV of the SOLAS Convention is the new chapter and it relates to service vessels. It is disingenuous to say we are not sure if we will apply it because we do not think it applies.”
“It explicitly includes the hydrocarbon industry. In that regard, it is extremely relevant that I talk about things like liquefied natural gas. Indeed, if we were talking about major coal imports and so forth, and I know Ireland has a poor record on the importation of coal from the Cerrejón mines in Colombia, for example, it is explicitly linked to the hydrocarbon industry. I have been very clear; I am not talking about the tankers. We are not talking about the large vessels that are carrying fuels. We are talking about, as was said, the service vessels containing the personnel who are servicing the energy infrastructure, be that renewable energy infrastructure or hydrocarbon fossil fuel infrastructure. Those who are servicing include those who are carrying out repairs, engaging in inspections and carrying out deliveries.”
“I am afraid I am not satisfied with those answers. Sadly, I have to say that I think the Minister of State's response is misleading, and it is important that it would be very clear in the record. To say that this legislation will apply to offshore wind and that is its limit is misleading because we know it goes further than that. The language is explicitly clear in the Bill with regard to servicing the hydrocarbon industry. The hydrocarbon energy sector is not wind energy, and it is covered by the terms in the Bill. There may be an example of the kind of vessel that is of greater interest and focus and the thing the Government likes to talk about, but we, as legislators, need to lead with what is actually in front of us in the legislation. This legislation is clearly not limited in respect of the offshore wind industry.”
“As I stated on Committee Stage, in my correspondence and just a few moments ago to the Minister of State, the Whiddy Island disaster sets a precedent we cannot ignore in this debate. Fossil fuel companies involved in the accident at Whiddy Island were allowed to self-regulate, which had tragic results with the loss of 50 lives and also the 1 million gallons of oil that were spilled into Bantry Bay. This Bill will regulate safety conditions on vessels that conduct service to maintain offshore LNG terminals. It must contain guaranteed, clear and appropriate regulation and safety standards that recognise the dangers of this activity.”
“It is crucial that vessels servicing facilities that are dealing with this kind of fuel would be subject to particular safety rules, given the particular risk of the industrial activity in which they are involved. I do not believe we should be importing liquefied natural gas, but at the absolute minimum, safety standards should be applied. Amendment No. 4 seeks to amend section 46(6) to ensure that offshore service vessel and industrial personnel rules would include requirements relating to the survey and inspection of offshore service vessels and the manner and interval of such surveys and inspections so that when we put in place regulations, those regulations will ensure not just that these are the rules and we hope people abide by them, but that there will be regular inspections to make sure they are being implemented.”
“It seems sensible that offshore service vessels employed in different services might be subject to different rules, but that all of them should be subject to rules. Specific safety concerns associated with LNG terminals have been highlighted by civil society groups including Not Here Not Anywhere, Friends of the Earth, Frack Action and others. Terminals can malfunction. If a leak occurs, it forms a cloud of low-lying natural gas that drifts until it hits an ignition source, even simple static electricity, and then can burst into flame. Fires can cause second-degree burns up to two miles away. If liquefied natural gas were to be spilled on the ground, it could turn into a rapidly expanding odourless cloud, which could have a terrible impact on human flesh and cause asphyxiation.”
“That means, for example, making special provision where there may be particular dangers associated with the kind of vessel. My concern is that the rules as outlined in the Bill may not adequately distinguish between different types of craft and ensure that appropriate safety standards are laid out for vessels that carry greater cargoes. It is extraordinary, and we are going to come to it shortly, but we have an opt-out whereby entire categories of vessel can be removed because we can show it is complicated and not everything will suit everybody. However, this amendment is saying that, rather than carving out entire categories of vessel from these regulations, we should have regulations that are adapted and tailored to address the specific circumstances around different categories of service vessel.”
“Why, therefore, would we have a lowering of guarantees to the public on standards at a time when the Government is talking about introducing a new risk for the public? I would like answers as to why that amendment is not being accepted and why it is believed to be acceptable to have language that is weaker than the previous language. Amendment No. 2 is clear. It simply would replace "may" with "shall" with regard to the safety of lives at sea convention. Amendment No. 3 would amend section 46(4) to ensure the Minister shall make different rules in respect of different classes of offshore service vessels having regard to, among other things, the size of the vessel, the service for which the vessel is to be employed, the nature of the voyage and the type of cargo being carried, including dangerous goods.”
“I find it befuddling why such a small shift from "may" to "shall" in that amendment would not be accepted. It would not significantly delay the Bill. It might mean one more day in the Dáil. At a minimum, it will bring this legislation into line with the other standards we have previously applied. This is important, particularly because there are conversations at the moment about bringing liquefied natural gas into Ireland and about bringing a whole new form of heavy fuel - incredibly dangerous polluting fuel - into and through Ireland. The vessels regulated by this legislation include those that may be servicing, repairing or engaging with heavy LNG tankers or, indeed, the infrastructure associated with them.”
“Some of these incidents involved small vessels, exactly the kinds of vessels covered by this legislation. For example, on 10 January 1975 a tugboat collided with a tanker, releasing 115,000 gallons of heavy fuel oil into the bay. The Harbours Act 1976 was introduced to regulate the activity of these vessels, but the sections concerning the enforcement of safety were never implemented, ultimately leading to greater tragedies such as the Whiddy Island disaster, which saw the tragic loss of 50 lives. This is very serious stuff and the set of provisions is very serious, and that is why it would be absolutely remiss of the Oireachtas and the Minister if we did not pay attention to the difference between shall and may. It is a very small change to make.”
“We have been told one of the reasons for this Bill is that Chapter XV of the SOLAS Convention explicitly relates to the kinds of vessels in question and that standards are required in this regard, but the Minister has told us he may make regulations, not that he shall make them, and that even if he does make them, they may comply with international standards. That is simply not good enough and it is a step backwards. I was more, rather than less, concerned coming out of Committee Stage when the Minister told us it may not be practical to implement all the standards within Chapter XV and the SOLAS Convention as a whole. That is really worrying. There is no painting that as anything other than a dilution of the previous approach taken. Between 1968 and 1979, 33 oil spills were recorded at Bantry.”
“In previous merchant shipping legislation, when we talked about the SOLAS Convention, there was a requirement that the Minister shall include requirements on implementing the provisions of the convention in respect of the rules related to tankers, liquefied natural gas carriers, nuclear-powered carriers, high-speed craft and a number of other vessels. In previous merchant shipping legislation, the Minister committed that any regulations he would make shall be consistent with the international standards of the convention. In this Bill, however, shall has become may. That is a step backwards and a dilution of what we had previously.”
“Amendment No. 2 seeks to amend section 46(3) to ensure offshore vessels and IP rules shall include requirements the Minister considers necessary to implement the provisions of Chapter XV of the SOLAS Convention and the IP code. I am particularly concerned about the lack of an obligation on the Minister because this is inconsistent with the approach taken under other legislation. Let me move back in time. What are we talking about is the safety of lives at sea, SOLAS, convention. Its title is as clean and clear as can be.”
“There will not be nuance in recognising very dangerous and specific situations, such as those colleagues in Sinn Féin suggested on Committee Stage could involve the coroner's court. There are areas where co-operation will be crucial and this is one of them. I regret the Minister of State is not accepting my amendment.”
“All of this is simply trying to ensure that, in the work of the independent unit, it will engage in best practice regarding search and rescue, learn from accidents that have happened and realise the search and rescue component is a fundamental aspect after any marine accident. Many marine accidents may occur but search and rescue operations to save lives are fundamental. I would like to be assured about this, even through the Minister of State saying he will try to address it in regulations he is going to put in place. It seems to be a case of setting the unit up with some very generic provisions on service vessels, but not the very non-generic provision I will come to later whereby entire categories of vessels can just be excluded.”
“We are being stymied in both directions in that when we suggest that capacity be developed internally, we are told "No", and when we suggest engagement with external experts, we are also told "No". The Minister of State talks about the report but we do not want to wait until the next accident or investigation of what went wrong to have a report available with people's feedback outlining what could have been done differently or better. It is exactly a matter of ensuring there is capacity or that, if the expertise is not internal, it is identified and engaged with beforehand to ensure best practice.”
“I understand the Minister of State is not accepting the amendment but I suggest we are just trying to ensure an understanding and expertise. We have suggested a few different ways of achieving these. During our consideration of the previous Stage, I suggested there be internal expertise within the independent unit or among the investigators it will be employing. I am not talking about the expertise of each investigator but about the whole spectrum of the MAIU's employees. I am suggesting it would have somebody or maybe some persons with expertise in search and rescue. As an alternative, we have suggested engagement with the bodies with expertise.”
“The Bill does not really address the particular circumstances of emergency responders. My amendment would strengthen the legislation. Following incidents like the tragedy involving Caitríona Lucas, it would help to ensure lessons are learnt while respecting the essential work of both the emergency responders and the marine accident investigation unit. The amendment would strengthen the Bill and it should be considered.”
“It is about recognising that there may be a situation wherein volunteers are involved in an incident that requires investigation by the MAIU, that there may be a need for certain slightly different provisions that recognise the voluntary nature of those roles and that their position is slightly different from that of the employees and personnel covered in other aspects of the legislation. Are amendments grouped, a Leas-Chathaoirligh? May I speak on amendment No. 2?”
“The special provisions I propose are that when conducting a marine safety investigation involving search and rescue, the marine accident investigation unit, MAIU, should do the following: take into account the unique operational context of emergency response and the time-critical and high-risk nature of such operations; distinguish between decisions made during an emergency response and standard operations; ensure investigators have appropriate expertise in search and rescue contexts; establish a memorandum of understanding with other relevant SAR organisations, including but not limited to the Irish Coast Guard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, RNLI, and volunteer rescue services, to ensure appropriate co-ordination during the investigations; and that there be certain tasks that volunteer members of search and rescue organisations should not be required to do, considering their volunteer status, including activities to do with biological samples and medical examinations, interviews outside of reasonable hours or locations and documentation beyond that which would usually be maintained.”
“My amendment proposes certain special provisions. I mentioned search and rescue, SAR, as one of the contexts that may arise in which special expertise is required, alongside environmental expertise. In effect, the amendment provides for special provisions search and rescue operations that may be undertaken by the vessels covered under this legislation.”
“(4) Safety recommendations arising from investigations involving search and rescue operations shall be developed in consultation with relevant search and rescue organisations.".”
“(2) The Marine Accident Investigation Unit shall establish a memorandum of understanding with relevant search and rescue organisations, including but not limited to the Irish Coast Guard, RNLI and volunteer rescue services, to ensure appropriate coordination during investigations. (3) Volunteer members of search and rescue organisations shall not be required to: (a) submit to medical examinations or provide biological samples under section 29 without their consent except where required by a coroner; (b) attend interviews outside of reasonable hours or locations considering their volunteer status; or (c) produce documents beyond those that would reasonably be expected to be maintained by a volunteer organisation.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 23, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: "Special provisions for search and rescue operations 30. (1) When conducting a marine safety investigation involving search and rescue operations, the Marine Accident Investigation Unit shall: (a) take into account the unique operational context of emergency response; (b) consider the time-critical and high-risk nature of such operations; (c) distinguish between decisions made during emergency response and standard maritime operations; and (d) ensure investigators have appropriate expertise in search and rescue operations.”
“Aid should not be a matter of interest, it should be a matter of principle. Peace is a matter of principle. International law is a matter of principle. Taking a stand and being credible on those things also serves in Ireland's interests and it benefits Europe at a time when there are a lot of moving pieces right now in the world economy and when Europe needs to build its relationships, which, sadly, have been damaged in recent times by the failure of Europe to take actions on Israel. Ireland's credibility would be massively damaged if we were to erode the triple lock and thereby send a signal that we are trampling on the United Nations. Let it be clear: that would be a push against the United Nations General Assembly, one of the largest groups we are a part of and one where we have a strong and leading voice.”
“Europe needs them because the world has seen Europe's hypocrisy when it rightly condemns the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia and takes action after action on it while we are still talking about what I was concerned to hear the Minister of State in his speech refer to as "conflict" and "hostilities". Let us be clear about what Israel is saying, what Katz said yesterday: they are in a crush and cleanse phase. They want to capture large areas that will be added to the security zone of Israel. That is straightforward ethnic cleansing and colonialism. Ireland can be a friend to Europe by pointing out that if Europe does not take a stand against this form of colonialism, it damages its relationship with those many other economies across the world and those many others we need to engage with.”
“Right now, Europe has neglected its other relationships across the world. We talk about reaching out to other markets. Those other markets are in countries. Europe needs to work on its wider diplomacy. We look to the G20 that will be so important, as the Tánaiste has highlighted. Ireland was invited to participate in the G20, the 20 largest economies, not by one of our European partners but by South Africa. South Africa is also one of the countries in the Hague Group, which is a group of countries that are saying we must continue to stand for international law. Ireland being invited by South Africa to the G20 was also a recognition of our values and the fact that Ireland is standing by international law and international values. These are the issues we cannot throw away right now.”
“This is where Ireland can give leadership within the European Union. This is where Ireland can support our friends in the European Union by making sure we remind them and hold them to the principles of global values. That means looking to the aid cuts that are happening right across. Some of the largest tariffs last night were to some of the poorest countries in the world who are also seeing aid cuts not just from the United States but also from Europe. We also need to look to the issues of our neutrality and our peace. This gives us credibility internationally. Europe benefits from Ireland's unique voice, its unique credibility when it comes to the histories of colonisation, and its unique credibility on international law due to its neutrality and on peace building.”
“If Ireland and Europe lean in to producing the products, creating the services and leading in innovation that recognises those realities rather than chasing the deregulatory space, then this is where we are in the next wave of innovation. Currently, four of the big tech companies are European. I do not see why the next big companies in many of these areas should not be coming out of Europe and indeed out of Ireland. When we talk about making sure we do not lose what matters I make a particular point that the idea of cutting social cohesion funding at this time would be disastrous. It is opening ourselves to those who would sow division during a time of economic recession. While Europe needs to examine the reshaping of global value chains, as the Tánaiste said, we are also looking at an attempt to reshape global values.”
“Competitiveness is about having the grounds for innovation whereby we make it, we make products, we create services and we develop initiatives that operate in a way that will actually serve us as humanity. Again, this is an area where I feel very concerned for the people of America. I lived there for a long time and I am very concerned because I believe they will be hit worse by these tariffs. They are also being hit in parallel by an attack on science, an attack on public health research, which is the kind of thing that will undermine any future for pharma, and by attacks on physical realities such as the reality that women exist, the reality that populations are diverse, and the reality that we are in a climate crisis with a limited environmental space for survival.”
“We are seeing a stop on the corporate due diligence directive that has been put in place. I am very passionate about Europe. I was one of the four Irish representative parliamentarians at the Conference on the Future of Europe process. Europe needs to listen to the European public, something it failed to do during the previous crisis and during the period of austerity. The European public taking part in that future of Europe process were clear that their vision of Europe was not solely about the economy and it certainly was not about military might being their identity. It was around being proud of a Europe that had standards and being proud of a Europe where we collectively raised those. Not only is that crucial for the public, it is also crucial for actual innovation. Competitiveness is not simply about cutting.”
“It would be a poor decision to participate in a race to buy things that will make the European, national and global situation worse by accelerating climate change, accelerating militarisation and damaging human rights for the sake of a soundbite or trying to get a line or two or a smile or two. We need to be very clear. We need to talk about the industries we have that matter, are substantial and have a future. That needs to be our focus. It would be a very poor mistake, one I fear the European Union is beginning to make already, if we were to engage in a race to the bottom on standards, whether they be environmental standards, employment standards or regulatory standards. We have seen the new bonfire of regulations Bill brought forward by the Commission.”
“We need to look not just to the companies that exist now, but also to the next companies, which may be Irish and may be European. This goes to a crucial point: Ireland and Europe should not respond to the tariff announcements with short-term things that will make our situation worse regarding policy. Such things include the idea that we would start importing liquefied natural gas and fracked gas. We should not make ourselves more vulnerable and more exposed to the United States by importing fracked gas or by trying to curry favour through the purchase of arms, including F-35s. It has now been suggested that such arms may even contain a kill switch so that they are not usable unless it is at the agreement of the United States Presidency.”
“The next two weeks will be crucial for Ireland as we take part in the EU discussions around what reciprocal tariffs may look like. A point that is often made by the Opposition and is sometimes dismissed - it is as if we are against FDI when we talk about it - is about the importance of indigenous industry and the importance of new industry and innovation with our European partners. That is very crucial. In the area of pharmaceuticals, for example, we have a stay in terms of the tariffs. While pharmaceuticals are not included in yesterday's tariffs, we know there is insecurity in that area. It is a slow-moving industry that takes eight or nine years to move. However, Ireland has the education and the infrastructure.”
“I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne. I was very glad to have the Tánaiste come to the House today. I am hoping he will be able to return, maybe to discuss this at more length, because we have had requests for debates over many periods of time. The nature of the week that is in it means the focus is going to be on tariffs, but there are a large number of issues which the Seanad needs to discuss in detail with the Tánaiste. I am looking forward to seeing him return quite soon. It is important that we have a calm and thoughtful response to last night's announcement of various tariffs. It is also important that alongside our immediate and short-term response, we already have the medium-term response starting in the background.”
“Senators may bring forward amendments as they wish. Of course, there are already arms embargoes on Venezuela, and EU arms embargoes on Myanmar. Arms embargoes are not a wild and strange thing. Canada has stopped arms sales to Israel, Italy has blocked the practice, Spain has stopped arms sales, and the supreme court of the Netherlands has cited the exact International Court of Justice ruling we have mentioned when forbidding the transfer of F-35 components. This is not about being on the side of Israel or Palestine. It is about being on the side of international law. I thank the Minister and the Minister of State, who is here now. I look forward to engaging between Committee and Report Stages. We need to move ahead and ensure that we finish Committee Stage now and go to the next stage.”
“We need accountability month by month in the period between Committee and Report Stages as to which exemptions are granted, when they are granted and what measures the Government is taking to seek to protect against the very credible risk and likelihood of weapons passing through our State that may be used by Israel in Gaza, especially given what Senator Clonan outlined. We also need specific answers regarding the massive increase in the number of Irish-registered civil aircraft, from 26 to 519. Those civil aircraft need an exemption from the Minister. Exemptions have been applied for and were granted without question. The massive increase in the number has not been questioned. That needs to be addressed and accounted for between Committee and Report Stages. I will not engage further on this.”
“The Bill was designed to highlight issues of serious concern. Correlations are being drawn. There is a correlation in that there is a 14% increase in the number of exemptions. There is a correlation in that those who have been applying for those exemptions are predominantly doing so in respect of flights coming from the United States and Germany, which are the largest arms suppliers to Israel. Those correlations mean we need to see the Government talking about how it will strengthen the system. We cannot have exemptions becoming the rule, as they have been, with only 1% being refused.”
“I am very keen for the Bill to pass Committee Stage. The Government has been clear that it will not oppose its passing. We have such a thing as Report Stage whereby people can raise any issues they have. In fairness, the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, indicated there are issues on which he wishes to work and engage with Senators. We will be very happy to engage between Committee and Report Stages to strengthen and improve the legislation. That is how the process works. It does not work by seeking to torpedo Committee Stage while it is in progress. It works by carrying through the proper legislative process. I hope we will have a very constructive engagement with the Department between Committee and Report Stages. It is important to signal that, in that interval, we also need to see a change in approach from the Government and the Minister.”
“What transparency or guarantees can be offered to the Irish public, because it seems exemptions are being granted 99% of the time as a rule without having due regard for or putting in place additional safeguards concerning the fact that the ICJ has signalled a risk of genocide? I would like an indication from the Minister as to the approach he is taking regarding exemptions. Is there going to be a change? Will it be business as usual?”