I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Canney. I remind Senators they may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. On Report Stage each amendment must be seconded.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 to 6, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment 1:

In page 3, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

" "authorised person" means—

(a) a person, or a person belonging to a class of persons, authorised in writing by the Minister to exercise the powers conferred to an authorised person under this Act,

or

(b) a member of An Garda Síochána;".

I second the amendment.

Amendment No. 1 and the related amendments, which are consequential amendments that flow from it, insert the definition of an "authorised person" into the Bill. This is the same wording as is in the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1988. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 remove subsequent instances of "authorised officer" in the Bill and replace them with the phrase "authorised person".

Issues were raised on Committee Stage regarding what constitutes an authorised officer. These amendments address this question. In the 1988 Act, authorised persons are entitled to inspect planes for the purpose of ensuring the aircraft are safe to fly. Therefore, it is a natural continuation to have the same definition here. Amendment No. 6 removes the reference to a member of the Defence Forces, which is no longer needed because we have an inserted definition of "authorised person". I am grateful to colleagues in the House and officials in the Department of Transport who engaged on the issue of the definition and the need for clarity in the definition on who will be performing the actions under the Bill. This could also bring greater clarity on who could be performing the actions under the existing law.

Authorised persons include members of An Garda Síochána and any person who might be appointed by the Minister for the purposes of the Bill. This addresses one of the concerns raised on Committee Stage regarding clarification on an authorised person. The definition will also address another issue highlighted, regarding the many instances we have heard about throughout the media in 2024, 2025 and 2026 of commercial airlines illegally carrying weapons through Irish airspace and the details and flight manifests pointing to the types of weapons and tools of death on board. Later, I will read some of these details. Let us be clear that this is not a technical issue. These are weapons, munitions or technologies that are directly related to the infliction of death, injury and other abuses on individuals, which have been travelling directly or indirectly to Israel. We know this has been happening.

There have been flight manifests that literally tell us what is on a plane that flies over Ireland's airspace and the Department has been made aware of these instances. The Minister stated on Committee Stage that the Department was investigating these but there has been no update or progress on these investigations. There has been no evidence of what has been done on the documented instances of flights containing weapons transiting through our airspace, in some cases without any of the necessary permissions and no action being taken. At the time the Minister said where allegations are made in whatever publications, or if Senators have specific information with regard to flights landing in Ireland transporting munitions, they should be brought forward. He said that allegations already been made in the media are being actively investigated. However, there is a gap in relation to overflights. In the case of overflights we know what is in the manifest but, effectively, there have been no steps to investigate or take further action.

The amendment to change and establish the definition of "authorised person" seems quite technical but while the Minister said everybody should report instances, the question is to whom should they report them? People let the Department know. Is this the right thing to do if someone knows there is a flight carrying weapons, and they know what those weapons will do and where they are destined for? People have contacted the Garda but the Garda does not seem to have a role in it.

The Garda might contact the airport authorities. Now, we have a clarity. Having a definition of "authorised person", which includes anyone appointed by the Minister but also An Garda Síochána, means that if people are concerned that it may be planned for a flight to illegally transit our airspace in a way that is going to be in violation of the air navigation Act and in the absence of the legally required permissions or exemptions from the relevant Minister being sought, they can report it to An Garda Síochána. This is an important point with which to begin our discussion.

We should bear in mind that the core position is meant to be the prohibition of the transit of arms, weapons, munitions or dangerous goods, which include, of course, such technologies of war, exemptions occasionally made and with inspections to back it up. That has not been happening. If there is a concern now, it would be clear that a person would be able to contact An Garda Síochána and that members of the latter, as named authorised persons, would be able to act accordingly. Again, this is a useful amendment that strengthens the ability of the public to know who to contact in relation to these instances.

I am going to come to this somewhat later, but we are also seeking to address a gap in the 1973 Act regarding the weak enforcement powers in relation to aircraft flying over Ireland that are, as I said, operating in contravention of the order and the crew of which have not even bothered to seek permission or exemptions. Our amendment No. 7 will close that gap and strengthen and give the powers to the Minister and, again, other authorised persons to issue instructions for these aircraft to land in such instances. This is something on which we have done a lot of work. We have engaged in very good faith regarding any of the concerns that were raised on Committee Stage or at our meetings with the Department. We have come up with solutions that will really help the Government to ensure that the laws of the State are being applied and respected.

There is a problem, however. That is what we have been doing with our time. In the 12 months of the timed amendment requested by the Government for it to work on these issues, it is not clear what, if anything, the Government has been doing. We have heard nothing about investigations. The line at the time from the Minister was that we have an existing legal regime that needs to be used to its fullest and that our existing legislation provides for the inspection of civilian aircraft where there is an appearance or likelihood that such aircraft will depart Ireland and contravene Irish law. We have strong provisions in place.

As I said, we are going to try to address the lacuna relating to those flights that have not landed in Ireland. Here is the thing. During the past year, there have been zero inspections. We are still seeing no inspections of aircraft despite numerous recorded instances of flights carrying weapons, arms and the tools of destruction and death through our airspace and our airports. We have seen nothing from the Government. In fact, the language has become more cautious. There has been a pullback. At least a year ago, we were hearing language to the effect that the Government was trying to approach this matter through our existing laws and that it was going to do something. In the intervening 12 months, there has been nothing. What has happened in that time? People have continued to die, even since the ceasefire in Gaza was implemented. There have been 750 more documented deaths in the interim. We have seen the brutal actions that have been taking place in the West Bank. We have seen extraordinary violations of international law taking place in Lebanon, where Israel seems to be acting with total impunity. I will come to it later, but in the meantime other countries have begun to act. Ireland has maintained the same standing-still position of ask not, know not.

This Bill is an opportunity for the Government to, first, apply the actual laws of our State and ensure that they are applied. Any other gaps or excuses that make it difficult to apply the laws are addressed in these amendments. This Bill is about no more excuses. This Bill is about upholding the core principle reflected in our base law, which is that no arms, weapons, tools of destruction or dual-use goods should be going our Irish airspace or airports. That is the core position. The Government must stop making exemptions that allow it to happen and stop avoiding carrying out inspections, which would force it to admit that it knows.

I would like clarity from the Government of how it has used the time. As I said, we have very much engaged in good faith. We have tackled all the issues that have been raised. We have brought forward amendments in relation to the authorised persons. There are additional benefits that will facilitate addressing gaps that the Government has indicated it believes might be in the law. It would also strengthen the capacity of the public, who care so deeply about this matter. That is why we saw Lelia Doolan, at the age of 91, walking right across the country to bring attention to it. These are all gaps that we are addressing and that is what we have done with our time. I am sad regarding every month in which this Bill has not been put in place and in which the existing laws have not been properly applied. I want to know what the Government has been doing for the past 12 months. I want a clear report to the Oireachtas in terms of how the Government plans to move forward and make sure our laws are properly enforced and upheld.

I welcome the Minister State, Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan, and pupils from Glandore National School to the Chamber. They are welcome to Seanad Éireann. I welcome Jimmy Collins whose 13th birthday is today. I wish him a happy birthday. By the way, the Minister of State was speaking to me earlier and there is no homework for the rest of the week for the entire class. If possible, I would give Jimmy twice as little homework but I do not think that is possible.

Obviously, I support these amendments. We all know that the technical precision in legislation of this kind is obviously not a minor matter. It is the difference between a law that holds and one that can be undermined on procedural grounds. When we are dealing with an arms embargo, the question of who can authorise or inspect and enforce is absolutely foundational. Vague or inconsistent definitions create gaps that can be exploited, whether by design or by default. This Bill is very important because of what is happening today to the people of Gaza and the West Bank. As of this week, the death toll from the Israeli assault on Gaza since 7 October 2023 has surpassed 72,000. That is a very conservative figure. Independent peer reviewed research that was published in The Lancet estimates over 75,000 violent deaths, with scholars noting that official figures represent a floor as opposed to a ceiling because the very infrastructure needed to document death has been destroyed. UN Women reported just this week that more than 38,000 women and girls were killed between October 2023 and December 2025. That is an average of 47 women and girls every day, which is outrageous. That is why getting this right is exactly what Report Stage is for. Accordingly, I absolutely support and commend these amendments.

I fully and wholeheartedly support and commend the Civil Engagement Group and Senator Higgins on continuing to push this. I was elected to this House just over a year ago. This was one of the first important pieces of legislation we spoke about when this Seanad was convened. I cannot understand how nothing has been done about it. The behaviour of the US Government since this Bill was last debated has proven that we need more than ever to reclaim our neutrality and disassociate ourselves completely from the US military.

War crimes have been committed by the US in Iran and by Israel in Gaza. If it is possible that weapons are being used that were delivered through Shannon Airport or via Irish airspace, we have to completely extricate ourselves from having anything to do with this. The recent revelations that almost 250 more flights than were declared had flown over Irish airspace last year was due to an administrative oversight is very hard to believe and comprehend. That is no consolation to all those killed or maimed by munitions delivered by the flights or because of intelligence gathered through the flights. It is an indication of just how many US military flights take place in Irish airspace. The figure surged by a further 56% following the unprovoked US attacks on Iran. As Senator Higgins said, Spain, which is a member of NATO, and Switzerland, have closed their airspace to US military aircraft. We should not be afraid to follow their example and to declare ourselves to be out of this neo-imperialistic war. Section 2, at the heart of this Bill, deals with the granting of ministerial exemptions for weapons, munitions or dual-use goods to pass through Irish territory or airspace. In simple terms, this Bill just puts an arms embargo in place and it bans the passage of arms through Ireland to Israel. I do not think that is an unreasonable demand.

It has been 19 months since the UN General Assembly passed its resolution calling on Israel to end its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories. This is a resolution that Ireland voted for. We have, therefore, already accepted the argument here, so why are we still facilitating the passage of arms through Shannon Airport? It beggars belief that the Government has pushed this down the road. As Senator Higgins said, the Civil Engagement Group worked really well with the Government to come up with a solution to this issue. That was done. Now, though, it is just being left again.

This is not what the Irish people want. This is an issue of deep concern to the Irish people and there is something we can do about it as legislators. It is our job to do it. We do not want to be complicit in this war and we are. We know it is not just in Israel. Countless lives have been lost in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Why would we not bring in this legislation? Why are we allowing this to continue to happen? It is like the occupied territories Bill. It is being pushed down the road and the Government is dragging its feet. Given how volatile the world is now, especially, why is the Government not disassociating us from this? We can do it. Other countries have had the bravery to do it and it is about time we did it as well. We have all watched the horror that has been going on for the past three years. This is a very simple solution that we should be very happy to embrace.

Before I call the next speaker, I welcome the family of Shane Lee, who works for Senator Joe O’Reilly. I welcome all the family to Seanad Éireann. They are most welcome. I also welcome the guests of Annie Keegan. They are also most welcome.

Sinn Féin fully supports this Bill and the amendments. We commend the Civil Engagement Group on bringing this legislation forward and on progressing it through the House. This Bill needs to be urgently enacted and it would be simply wrong if the Government chose not to support its passage here today. Israel, alongside the United States and Russia, is one of the greatest threats to peace and stability. It threatens to return the world to an era in which might equals right and where human rights are not worth the paper they are printed on. Its genocide perpetrated against the Palestinian people has made a hollow mockery of international law, with thousands killed and displacing many more, while facing next to no consequences from the international community.

Practically the whole world has stood idly by as Israel commits unspeakably evil acts in Palestine daily. This is despite the claim that there is a ceasefire. There clearly is no ceasefire. Only Spain and South Africa seem willing to lead by example and to take a stand for human rights on the global stage. Ireland, shamefully, has done next to nothing to stand up against Israel’s fascism, besides offering empty words of sympathy for the Palestinian people and a hugely belated recognition of Palestinian statehood.

The Government is constantly gaslighting us about its efforts to stand up for Palestine, but the reality is that it has completely failed to provide leadership on this issue or to deliver any meaningful results. It is disgraceful that the occupied territories Bill has been dropped by this Government and that the Ministers are unable to condemn the illegal war of Netanyahu and Trump in Iran. If Ireland is unwilling to take a stand against Israel’s wars, the very least we should be doing is to make sure we are not complicit in them. This Bill would prohibit the transit of Israeli-bound weapons of war through our airspace. It is simply an obvious step the State urgently needs to take and the Government should be moving quickly to prohibit Ireland’s airspace from being used to transport arms to illegal wars across the globe.

This has been made crystal clear in the past week with the revelations that 248 US military flights over Ireland went unreported by the Department of foreign affairs as the result of an administrative error. Honestly, you could not make that stuff up. The Opposition has been saying for years that our airspace and Shannon Airport, in particular, have been used by the United States to support its wars in the Middle East and to directly assist in Israel’s genocide in Palestine. Now, the Government has always insisted it is fully aware of the foreign military flights given permission to travel through our airspace and has given assurances that inspections regularly take place. This failure, though, clearly shows the inability of the State to manage how our airspace is being used. The reality is that Ireland, because of our geographic position, is a crucial link in the logistics link between America and its bases and proxies in the Middle East. A constant stream of soldiers and weapons has passed over us and through our airports and this has accelerated with Israel’s war in Gaza and now the war against Iran and Lebanon.

Other EU countries have been very firm that they will not enable the transit of arms to Israel or the use of their airspace to support the war against Iran. Spain and Switzerland have both banned US military aircraft participating in the war against Iran from using their airspace. Ireland, however, has so far refused to take any similar measures with our Ministers preferring to stick their heads in the sand and pretend this issue does not exist, while simultaneously granting thousands of exemptions for US military aircraft to pass over our country.

It is unconscionable to me that our airspace would be used to transport weapons to perpetrate genocide in Palestine and in Gaza. If the Government actually cared about justice and human rights, not a single bomb or gun bound for Israel would be allowed to pass through our skies. This Bill is very clear and well thought through. It is a step towards achieving that aim and I hope that the Government changes course quickly and finally acknowledges our complicity in the criminal wars in the Middle East. The US military needs to be out of Shannon Airport and we finally need to stand up and say that Ireland will have no part in Israel’s genocide and in the war of Trump and Netanyahu.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit chuig an Seanad. Before I came down to the Chamber, I saw footage of a small girl collecting water in Gaza from a recognised aid point. She was shot dead in front of her brother. These were two small children. He was sitting beside her body in the aftermath of that shooting. Where did those 5.56 mm high-velocity rounds come from? I will tell the House where they came from. Those rounds came from the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Missouri and they got to Israel through our airspace.

Now, we have known for quite some time that the United States has been supplying Israel with not just small round ammunition but much heavier calibre weapons, weapons systems and fighter jet parts that are not being used in a war but in a genocide. In the 365 days since the Government time-delayed this Bill from my colleagues in the Civil Engagement Group - whom I commend on bringing this legislation forward - 17,155 women and girls have been murdered in Gaza, predominantly by weapons, munitions and explosive ordnance that has come through our airspace.

I will talk about the ground element of this first. I have heard time and again Ministers and Government spokespersons say there are no weapons being brought through Shannon Airport, to their knowledge. Well, read all about it. I reported on it in The Irish Times in 2006. I went to Shannon Airport. I had to get permission as The Irish Times security analyst to go there, but not from the Shannon Airport authorities. I had to ring the mobile of a US army lieutenant colonel, who controls access to the US troops in Shannon Airport and is based there permanently. I can give the Minister of State his mobile number, if he wishes. He can give him a tinkle and ask him for permission to come down and look at the weapons. I went into Shannon Airport and saw the Omni aircraft and other civilian aircraft landing. I was allowed to go up the steps and enter the aircraft just as they opened the door. When I looked down the body of the aircraft, I saw hundreds of young marines sitting in their seats and, as you do when you land, standing up and getting into the overhead bin. The cabin announcement was, "Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Shannon Airport. Please leave your weapons on the aircraft. For small sidearms - automatic pistols and so on - put them in the overhead bin, and for larger weapons, put them under the seat in front of you.", and that is what they did. I wrote about that and it was published on the public record. Senator Higgins talked about the authorised officers. If I can discover weapons within 45 minutes of arriving in Shannon as a civilian, what could an authorised officer discover in our airport? I suspect it is rather a lot. It begs the question of why there is this reluctance or inhibition around trying to find out what is in those aircraft, either refueling on the ground in Shannon or transiting through our airspace.

At the moment, we have hundreds of Irish troops in south Lebanon. They are 5 km from the town of Bint Jbeil, which has been absolutely destroyed. As part of their campaign of urbicide, they have levelled Bint Jbeil. I have been through Bint Jbeil hundreds of times, looking at all the children running after the Irish armoured personnel carriers. We would give them out our ration packs and dollars. That town is gone. Where do the explosive ordnance, the weapons, the weapons systems and the munitions come from? They come from Scranton in Pennsylvania. How do they get to Israel? Through our airspace.

This Government has to ask itself a question. The weapons being used in Lebanon pose a direct threat to the lives of our troops. Our taxpayers are making a financial contribution to sending those weapons and munitions into that space. Under an international agreement, Ireland pays for the onward navigation and air traffic costs of US military aircraft transiting our airspace. If you want to count them, download the app Flightradar and have a look. You will see hundreds of US military aircraft transiting Irish airspace. They are being refunded those air navigation costs by Irish Government Departments to the tune of millions per year. Irish people might be queasy about making a financial and material contribution to a war like the invasion of Iraq, which we did, but I do not think Irish taxpayers or voters would be happy making a financial contribution to a genocide and to the femicide my colleagues here outlined.

I bear no animus whatsoever toward my colleagues in Government but I am puzzled at this. I have a piece of shrapnel at home which was embedded in the Portakabin I slept in the village of Al Yatun. This time 30 years ago, the Israelis came in during Operation Grapes of Wrath. Last weekend, on the 30th anniversary, they slaughtered 106 men, women and children in our neighbouring UN compound at Qana. We had about 250 civilians in Al Yatun. Irish troops were sheltering the local civilians. It was during that period that that piece of shrapnel hit my Portakabin. I remember being unable to touch it because it was so hot. I have it mounted on a piece of timber in the downstairs toilet of my house. Where was it made? In the United States of America. How did it get to Israel and Gate 1-4 Alpha, from where it was fired? Through our airspace. Is it not ironic that we have troops in a peacekeeping role trying to save lives during massacres and breaches of international law, yet at the same time we permit the transit of these weapons and explosives through our airspace?

I got subpoenaed to a trial in Shannon to give evidence about people trespassing on the airport perimeter and approaching US aircraft on the ground. On cross-examination, I was asked whether there were weapons on those aircraft and was able to give evidence to confirm there were. I also played audio in the court of the recording I made on that US aircraft. The judge asked me the effect those munitions would have on innocent civilians in Lebanon, Iraq or wherever they would be discharged. I said the soft tissue injuries from high-explosive weapons include the pulping of internal organs. The shock waves of these munitions causes the pulping of internal organs and shatters bones. You often see - I have seen it myself at first hand - small children and elderly people and there will not be a mark on the body because the shock wave has killed them by liquefying their internal organs. These are small children and grandparents. The soft tissue injuries are catastrophic from the blast, the heat and the shrapnel effect. Limb separation, decapitation - it is indescribable - and the burns. I do not have the words to describe that. In the court, the Garda superintendent who was conducting the prosecution for the State was completely silent. I said to him afterwards, "Do you have children?" He said, "I do." I have children. Why would we, the Irish people, accept the transit of this material?

I have two more things to say about this because it is so important. We have a growing clamour in our public discourse for Ireland to grow up and be the adults in the room. I hear people say this, including economists, God help us, and academics who have never heard a shot fired in anger and have never seen it. They want us to grow up, be the adults and participate more in what are now illegal military operations internationally. I think the growing up and smelling the coffee, as it were-----

I remind Members there is latitude but we are on specific amendments. I know the Senator has referred to them. I want people to keep as close as they can to the amendments.

We have to know what is transiting through our airspace, for all of these reasons.

Back in 2006, when the Israelis invaded Lebanon, they closed down the cellular network in Lebanon and I could not reach any of the contacts I had there as a journalist. Do Senators remember 11811? I dialled that; it is international inquiries. I got, "Eleven eight eleven. Mary speaking." I said, "Would you have a number for the Lebanese Parliament?" She said she did not and would have to route me through its embassy in London. Lo and behold, ten seconds later I was talking to a member of the Lebanese Parliament while Beirut was under fire. He asked where I was from and I said I was from Ireland. "You know what," he said, "you should be ashamed of yourselves because I know Shannon Airport is being used to bring this destruction and death to my city." Ireland prides itself on its diaspora and neutral status and that in and of itself puts Irish lives at risk.

In terms of primary intelligence, we must be the only country in the European Union that tolerates not knowing what weapon systems are transiting through our airspace.

I commend this Bill and commend my colleagues on drafting it and persisting with it. I am disappointed to note the Government is opposing it because I do not see anything in it that causes any difficulty. When I go to sleep at night - last night was one of those rare occasions when all four adult children were in the house sleeping - I just think of how lucky we are. Then I think of that little girl who went to get water.

She was shot through the head with a high velocity round, and we are participating in that. We are facilitating that. We are not taking the simple steps outlined in this Bill to remove ourselves from that supply and we are giving genocide, femicide, patricide and homicide tacit moral approval. In years to come, I or anybody in this House may be asked, "When this was happening, Dad, Mum, Grandad, Nana, what did you do about it?" I am proud to say that we supported this initiative, and others. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his leeway.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I commend the Civil Engagement Group, CEG, on bringing forward this really important Bill. We need to ensure that it passes in full through the Oireachtas and I encourage the Government to support it today. It is extremely disheartening and, to be honest, angering to see the lack of follow-up action by the Government on the issue of illegal wars and the genocide that is happening in Palestine. I was hopeful we would see more action from the Government but, unfortunately, it has been found wanting in so many ways. The occupied territories Bill is an example of that. There were so many platitudes around it - the urgency, the need to take action and the need for sanctions. Where are the sanctions related to goods and services? There has been such a delay in that Bill and I know the Irish people want to see more from our Government on this. I thought that we were going to be leaders in this area initially but we have lagged behind so many other countries that have taken way more action than us. I see it every week in Cork. Every single Saturday in Cork, we march for the people of Palestine, and not just Palestine, but for those who are being affected by illegal military invasions and genocides throughout the world.

This Bill is important. Just last week, we had a march on Leinster House led by Lelia Doolan, who is aged 91 and walked from Shannon to Dublin. She walked 220 km at 91 years of age with many people because the Irish public feels so passionately about this and because she feels so passionately that we need to ensure we are not being compromised as a nation, that we are not damaging our neutrality and that Shannon is not being used by other countries and nations that are implementing illegal wars. We need to stop this.

Regarding this Bill and the amendments that are in place, the Air Navigation and Transport (Arms Embargo) Bill 2024 seeks "to provide for restrictions on the transit and export of weapons of war from and through the State to the state of Israel". It is very important that we do this. I cannot believe that these inspections are not taking place in the first place. Why are we not doing this? We are all in extremely privileged positions in this Chamber in the Houses of the Oireachtas and we have an opportunity to act here and bring forward laws that could change the outcome for so many. We will be judged, as other Senators have said, in the future. Our children and grandchildren - future generations - will look back. This is a pivotal time not only in Irish history, but in the history of the world as a whole and we will be judged on every single action that we have and have not taken on this. That is why it is important that we stand on the correct side of history and support this Bill.

There is no record of any inspection having been carried out since 2020. I was shocked by that and that the Minister had granted a record 1,354 exemptions in 2024 and exemptions for a further 1,280 flights in 2025, with no inspections of any aircraft. This Bill would ensure that the Minister appoints authorised officers to inspect aircraft that have secured exemptions for the carriage of munitions of war through the State. The Minister would be obliged to provide a report to the Houses of the Oireachtas outlining the number of aircraft inspections every three months. I do not think that is onerous. That is a very sensible provision within this Bill.

The amendments proposed to the Bill aim to strengthen the Minister's powers to refuse exemptions to any countries subject to investigation by the International Criminal Court, ICJ, for breaches of the UN Charter and to close the gap that allows commercial aircraft to illegally carry weapons without necessary permissions. There are also technical amendments. We know that the ICJ has ordered states to take provisional measures to prevent acts being committed in contravention of Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against the people of Gaza. We have a responsibility here to act on this. In April 2024, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution calling for an arms embargo on Israel.

According to data collected by the military plane tracker, Shannon Warport, as an example, at least 1,300 US military and military-contracted civilian aircraft flew within 60 km, or 37 miles, of Shannon Airport between January 2024 and March 2026, including at least 45 flights that travelled to or from Israel. We have seen the reports that Belgium's Challenge Airlines made 21 flights carrying weapons to Israel through Irish airspace from October 2023 to January 2025. These were illegal flights, I would argue, but it is clear that the Government has effectively turned a blind eye. On the one side, we are issuing statements of platitude and condemning the genocide and what is happening, and on the other side, we are turning a blind eye and not doing anything. We have an opportunity now to actually do something very important and meaningful and that the Irish people want.

In October, the Government granted an exemption for an Omni Air International flight chartered by the US military to carry arms to the Israeli military. That was the first time since 2006 that our Government had openly acknowledged authorising a flight that was carrying weapons through Shannon to Israel. In the midst of what we have all watched over the past three years, that is absolutely shocking. It flies in the face of the steadfast solidarity and support that the Irish people have shown during this period to the Palestinians.

We have a chance before us today to make absolutely clear that this cannot and will not be accepted. I urge Senators on both sides of the House to support this Bill because we are lagging behind other European countries in tackling the arms supply. Slovenia, Spain and France have all brought forward restrictions or embargoes, so we need to play our part. That is why we are supporting this Bill. I urge everybody to support the CEG and the Bill it is bringing forward.

Before I call the Minister of State to respond, I welcome guests of Senator Shane Curley, Eileen and Ollie Monaghan, who are the sister-in-law and brother of Councillor Martin Monaghan. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann and I thank them for being here.

I thank all of the Senators for their contributions today and their work on this Bill, and for bringing forward these amendments. Amendments Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 seek to provide clarity on those responsible for the enforcement of the Bill. While the insertion of a definition of "authorised person" in section 1 and the removal of an enforcement role for the Defence Forces are both welcome, outstanding issues of the enforceability of this Bill remain. The Bill, as currently drafted, does not provide sufficient detail on the powers to be conferred on authorised officers. The Bill provides for the seizure of goods carried in contravention of the Bill, but with the removal of the role for the Defence Forces, is now silent on who will be responsible for this enforcement activity. In view of the serious nature of the powers required to ensure section 2 and the new proposed section 3 of the Bill, it would seem appropriate to provide for these in primary legislation.

Could the Minister of State clarify his last sentence? I could not hear it. Did he say it would or would not be appropriate?

I am sorry. In view of the serious nature of the powers required to enforce section 2 and the newly proposed section 3 of the Bill, it would seem appropriate to provide for these in primary legislation.

If these are technical issues and if there are specifics wished for in exactly how the inspections will take place, exactly how the seizures will be conducted and exactly what physical steps will be taken in relation to it, then I would say the Government has the capacity to bring amendments specifying those details. The Government has the capacity to bring in secondary legislation, if it wishes to, by regulation or to bring amendments in respect of how it would like inspections to be conducted. Frankly, the Government is suggesting that we cannot move forward. After years of inaction and a specific requested year in the form of a timed amendment when there has been inaction, we have answered the question as who is going to do it and what they going to do but because it does not say exactly how they are going to do it in the Bill, the Government is suggesting that makes it hard for it to move forward. Come on. If there was ever a "hold me back", ridiculous position taken by the Government - the suggestion is that there is a gap in how laws are enforced. By the way, in the core Act there is no new action. We are talking about the already existing issue of the right for inspections to take place. That already exists but we simply are saying that they need to start happening.

A crucial point is we are talking about a situation whereby the Government is choosing each flight. The base position, as I said, is the prohibition of the transit of arms, ammunition, weapons and dangerous goods through our airspace or airports. Each individual flight that lands in Ireland or that flies over Ireland is required to seek direct permission. We are talking about a base level whereby the Government is choosing each of the exemptions. It is a choice every time an exemption is made to allow the transit of those weapons. We have heard about them and what they do in clear detail. Each time, it is a choice. When it involves civil aircraft, it is a choice made by the Minister for Transport. The powers of inspection have been there for years. I will quote the Minister for Transport, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, when he spoke here one year ago:

We have an existing legal regime. That needs to be used to its fullest and our current legislation does provide for the inspection of civil aircraft where there is an appearance or a likelihood that it will depart Ireland and contravene Irish law. We have strong provisions in place.

Now the Minister of State is saying a difference is made by stating who will do the inspections. If the gap is there, it is a gap that already existed. If the gap is there, why were we being told one year ago by the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, that there were strong powers and he planned to use them? We are working through fixing the excuses but as we know, the core excuse - the core reason - is that the Government does not want to do it and does not want to know. We have come back and said exactly who can do it. We have been clear that what we want them to do is what the State should already have been doing anyway, which is inspecting. We are just making it that the State must inspect. The Minister of State said that the Government needs technical details of exactly how. Senator Clonan explained how he was able to go in and see pretty clearly and observe what is happening. If there is a desire among the Government and it has specifics of exactly how it would like these inspections to be taking place, it is for the Government to bring amendments, as it could on Report Stage and as it will be able to in the Dáil, as part of the many Stages ahead of us in that House.

To be clear, what the Minister of State is telling us right now is that the Government is not only opposing the Bill but is also not supporting these amendments. Even though the Minister of State has said that these amendments address the question of who shall do the actions, he has said that he believes there is a new gap, which is around how they will do the inspections. That is not a basis for opposing the clarity around who will perform the actions. That is not a rationale for opposing these amendments. It is certainly not a rationale for opposing the legislation. As I said, it is only practising a new excuse for inaction, which is essentially a choice. I have used the word "inaction" but I should not say it is inaction. It is not inaction because 17,000 women and girls have died in the 12 months that we have been waiting for this Bill to be allowed back into the Chamber. Real actions killed them. Real weapons took their lives. It is not inaction but complicity. It is allowing transit. The Government is now saying this is getting close to forcing it to name who will do the job but it will try to put up another hurdle and make it even harder again.

I did not hear in the Minister of State's reply an answer to the question I asked him, which was what has been happening in the past 12 months. The Government said it wanted to do investigations into the documented cases of weapons and military goods passing over our airspace. What happened with the investigations? The Government said it wanted to use the current legislation to its fullest and to employ the strong provisions that are in place but there have been zero inspections. There have been no inspections. I would like an answer to what has been done for the past 12 months. If the Minister of State has obstacles that he believes are in his way and preventing him from taking action, I would like to know what he is doing about addressing them.

As I have already said, while I commend the Senator on the amendments she has brought to the Bill, there is a serious issue still outstanding. That is why I am saying to her that it would seem appropriate to bring in these amendments through primary legislation.

I welcome to the Gallery guests of Senator Nelson Murray from Kennastown, Navan in County Meath. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann and I thank them for being here.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

"Ministerial discretion to extend the application of section 2

3. (1) The Minister may, by regulation, apply the provisions of section 2 to—

(a) any state which is subject to provisional measures or a final judgement ordered by the International Court of Justice in respect of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, or

(b) any state which is in breach of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations.

(2) Where a decision is made in accordance with subsection (1), the Minister shall lay a report before both houses of the Oireachtas detailing that decision.".

I second the amendment.

I am glad that the Government is accepting the definition of "authorised persons". It is accepting a step forward by having a definition of "authorised persons", including, crucially, a definition of authorised persons that would give the public clarity about who they can contact about the concerns they have about weapons passing through our airspace.

I commend all those in Shannonwatch, such as Lelia Doolan, those in the media and others who have been doing the job of shining a light where a veil has been drawn over the use of our airspace and airports for so long. Amendment No. 1, as accepted, would for the first time give them clarity about who they can contact about the breaches of Irish law, breaches which are compounded because they contribute to breaches of international law.

Another issue raised during the debate was the question of all the other times. What about all the other inappropriate uses of our airports and airspace? I agree. It is in the preamble to the legislation and I commend Sárán Fogarty who did the initial work on drafting this legislation. Our original legislation was an Act to provide for restrictions on the transit and export of weapons of war to and from the State of Israel and appropriate inspections in the context of the International Court of Justice order for provisional measures to prevent acts being committed in contravention of Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. That was a clear international legal message and edict and there is a responsibility on all countries in relation to that kind of breach of international law to do all we can - to take all reasonable measures - to prevent acts being committed in breach of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. With genocide, it is not about after the fact. The responsibility is to prevent it. That is the obligation on all states.

That was the context in which we brought forward this legislation. It was in the context of the horrific and ongoing actions taken to effectively destroy and eliminate a people and a culture in Gaza, the mass destruction of civil society, infrastructure, all universities and all the building blocks that go to make a people, as well as the horrendous taking of so many tens of thousands of lives, including those of tens of thousands of children. That was the context of the original legislation as we brought it forward.

Sadly, during the year of inaction we have had - a year the Government sought to implement the powers it has, look at inspections further and investigate what was happening - the situation has worsened. We are now seeing a raft of illegal military actions taking place with more extraordinary bombardments. One hundred bombs were dropped in ten minutes on Beirut. We have seen the illegal strikes against Iran, the threat of military action being made against many countries across the world and what seems to be a new and terrifying era of smash and grab colonialism and accelerated might is right politics and a further move away from the international law that should be the cornerstone for all of us and of which Ireland should be the champion.

Amendment No. 2 expands the space for ministerial expression because everything in this legislation is framed around allowing action to take place - ensuring, allowing, facilitating and, where necessary, demanding action from the Minister. In this case, the amendment expands it. It proposes:

The Minister may, by regulation, apply the provisions of section 2 [they are the provisions in respect of a prohibition and restriction] to—

... any state which is subject to provisional measures or a final judgement ordered by the International Court of Justice in respect of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, [and to]

... any state which is in breach of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations.

That article is core in protecting against the wrongful use of force in breach of territorial integrity. The amendment also provides that the Minister shall give account of that decision to the Oireachtas. This strengthens the Bill further by giving powers to the Minister to move and expand the kinds of core principles in the Bill to other instances.

Why is it useful? The frustration evident in the original legislation came from the fact, as I said, that the base position is meant to be no weapons, no munitions, no arms and no dangerous goods. These things should not be passing through Ireland, in general, ever. That is the core base position and it is an appropriate base position for a neutral state. Then there is discretionary power under which the Minister makes an exemption. As I said previously, it means that every time a civil aircraft carrying weapons through our airports or airspace is allowed to do so by the Government, that is a choice and it means every one of the flights that carries weapons used against civilian populations is a choice made. This is the extraordinary power. It is not that we have to introduce a limit. The limit is there and exemptions, exceptions, waivers are being given, thousands, as has been said. A record 1,354 exemptions were given in 2024 and 1, 280 were given last year, again with zero inspections of what has been done with those powers.

Amendment No. 2 would, by bringing that ministerial discretion - because arguably the Minister can already choose not to give any exemptions in these instances and I do not think Ministers should - make a blanket rule about that prohibition. It would mean we would not be dependent on ministerial discretion each time, wondering if the Minister will make a choice and decide to allow or not allow it through. The public would have assurance that there is something like a Government policy that we will not be complicit in breaches of international law and that policy would be reflected in a clear prohibition of the granting of exemptions. It would give the public confidence that permission would not be given for the transit of weapons, ammunition and dual use goods.

It is worth saying what those dual use goods are because it sounds very light, that they could be used for this or that. To be clear, dual-use goods are goods with a military function. They may or may not be used for that military function but the fact there was an almost sevenfold increase in the transit of those goods during the course of Israel's assault on Gaza tells us they probably are. Very often, they are the technologies that are core and crucial to the machinery of war, the kinds of technologies that facilitate such things as the hello daddy programme, an automated weapons system designed to activate when someone comes home. The phrase "hello daddy" signals the obliteration of that home with what Israel has been clear it regards as the large civilian casualties surrounding each of its supposed and hypothetical military targets.

That is something they are completely comfortable with. Are we comfortable with it? Are we comfortable with the technologies that facilitate this kind of thing being dual-use goods that are moving through our State? This is the context of why we had that requirement on section 2. Amendment No. 2 recognises that while our original Bill was very specific to Gaza and to the requirements and obligations under a particular ruling in respect of the Genocide Convention, now we are seeing multiple instances where prohibitions should be applied. We urge the Minister of State to accept amendment No. 2, which allows for that discretion and, for example, for appropriate prohibition in respect of the breaches of international law we are seeing now in the assault on Lebanon where, as Senator Clonan has so eloquently described, our own peacekeepers may indeed be the victims of weapons that transit through our airspace.

While the original arms embargo was very timely, the UN had been clear and the Genocide Convention of the UN Human Rights Council called for an arms embargo, since then, in that year of inaction, other countries have been acting. It is important to note that. This is the very frustrating thing about the Irish Government's position. It acts like we are out on our own and it is so difficult. We were the 127th country to recognise the State of Palestine. We are not that far out ahead. We are pretty far behind. The Government tells us it wants to bring others with us. We wrote letters encouraging everyone to take action on occupied territories. Then Spain and Slovenia did it. Ireland, having said, "Yes, let us all do it, we are waiting for everyone," let them move ahead and did nothing on the occupied territories Bill. Here again, Slovenia has announced that it will ban the import, export and transit of all weapons to or from Israel. It announced that in August 2025. Spain passed an arms embargo on Israel in October 2025. The Supreme Court in the Netherlands ordered the Dutch Government to stop exporting fighter jet parts because of the breaches of international law. Italy and Canada, even now, they should have acted on Gaza but it seems that finally on Lebanon maybe they are moving, as they have announced that they will suspend ammunition deliveries. We are seeing other countries acting and knowing that they want to remove themselves from the record of history and from complicity in the flow of arms to illegal and appalling war crimes. Now, even those who did not act on Gaza are beginning to act because they see otherwise what the direction of travel is. If nobody is applying international law, international law itself is the victim. If we see more and more illegal wars, illegal action and action that is disregarding the UN Charter, the basics of the Geneva Convention and so on, countries will realise that unless we put some kind of a brake on this, then we are contributing not just to all those deaths at the end of all those individual rifles, bombs and pieces of ammunition that have passed through, but that they are contributing to the assault on international law, the UN and the order that matters.

It is very reasonable under this amendment that the Government is not required, but has the discretion to start acting and give leadership not just in the implementation of our Irish law but in standing up for international law and sending a clear message of prohibition that it will not be part of the arms flow and that there is an arms embargo from Ireland's perspective in any situation which is in breach of the convention on genocide or Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations. That is an appropriate step to take. It would be a case where Ireland could show that we are serious about international law. Again as was said on the occupied territories Bill, it is another instance where the actually courageous thing, the grown-up thing for countries to do is to take a stand. International law is crystal clear on the occupied territories Bill. They have gone back to the Attorney General how many dozen times and they still have not managed to find a way to say it is not correct. It is correct and clear, and required. Similarly, making sure we take every step we can in relation to preventing genocide is required of us. Those who have taken direct action, and we see them taking it, the frustrated public, for example in those cases where Senator Clonan had to testify, have done so because the public are seeing illegality. The public care about the law, just like the Government should. The public do not just care about fellow humans right across the world, they care about the law and living in a world where Irish and international law apply. That is why they are frustrated and led to take whatever action they may take, be it the kinds of cases that have been described of those who have entered Shannon, or those who literally walk hundreds of miles to make a point.

I hope this amendment will be accepted. I would really like to know what Ireland is planning to do. How can we stand among all these other countries that are instituting arms embargoes and credibly say that our plan is to continue saying we do not know? It is not a plan and it is not an adequate response. I hear people saying they want remove the triple lock so we can stand up and hold our head up. How can we hold our head up high when we have our hands over our eyes about the weapons that are moving through our airspace?

I welcome the winners of the National Short Story Competition to the Gallery with their parents and teachers. I see my own former workmate and friend, Eoin O'Sullivan, down there. I do not know if Deirdre is still around. Just to say hello to them all and thank them for coming up today. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

We are at a moment where the international rules-based order is under profound strain. The ICJ has issued clear findings, as my colleague has said. The UN Charter has been breached. If our legislation responds only to the specific and the named while ignoring the systemic, we are not upholding international law, we are selectively applying it. Selective application is not a principle; it is politics dressed up as law. The International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world, has found it plausible that rights protected under the Genocide Convention have been violated and has issued multiple orders of provisional measures. The court found it had legal standing to hear the case and determined that South Africa's claims were plausible. It indicated that it is incumbent on Israel to comply with its obligations under the United Nations Charter. Those orders, unfortunately, have not been complied with.

I really feel like Ireland's credibility as a voice for small nations and occupied peoples rests on consistency. The moment we begin carving out expectations based on which country is doing the breaching, we surrender the moral authority that gives Irish advocacy its force internationally. This amendment ensures our arms embargo is principle-led, not case by case. It says that Ireland will not be a conduit for weaponry to any state found by the highest international courts to have violated its obligations. It is not really a radical position; it is the logical consequence of taking international law seriously.

I wanted to come in again to make a few more points on this. First, I want to break this down.

We have weapons passing through Ireland’s airspace going into areas where there are illegal wars, war crimes and genocide happening. We are not doing everything in our power to stop that. That is what it breaks down to. We are not doing everything in our power to stop that. We have the power to carry out inspections, which are not happening. This needs to happen. As Senator Higgins said, this is about broadening it out. It is obviously not just about Palestine. It is about any part of the globe where illegal war crimes are happening, including in Lebanon.

Consider if this were happening on land. Imagine if people were walking through Ireland now carrying these weapons and trying to get to the other side to deliver them. Does the Minister of State honestly think that the Irish people would not stand in the way and prevent that if they could? Absolutely. As the Minister of State knows, every Saturday in Cork people walk and march for the people of Palestine. The Irish public are completely behind this. The Government often says to the Opposition that we are not providing solutions but all I ever hear from us here in opposition is practical solutions. I want to be proud of our Government. I want to be proud that Ireland played a leadership role in relation to this. Look at Pedro Sánchez in Spain. It is incredible to see what you can do with moral and courageous leadership and taking a stance. I would like to see more of that in Ireland. This is a very practical and simple Bill, as are the amendments. I encourage everybody to vote in support of this.

I will speak directly to the amendment No. 2 in relation to dual-use materials and to echo what Senator Harmon said. This is not a radical proposal and it is not an adversarial proposal. It is simply one that will assist us in implementing existing legislation.

In relation to dual-use weapons, I know that my colleagues in Government share our concern about the export of alumina to Russia. Alumina is an absolutely essential component of weapons systems. I know we have great colleagues here who selflessly travelled to Ukraine and went to Kyiv, which is an onerous journey, to protest and to give support and solidarity for the victims of Putin's brutal and unlawful aggression. We saw the Taoiseach and Ministers witness what happened at Bucha.

Let us make no mistake about this. When Colin Powell misled the UN Security Council over the dossier about weapons of mass destruction in order to get a UN Security Council mandate for the invasion of Iraq, little did we know that they were the good old days because now governments do not even bother going to the UN for a resolution. They do not even declare war. We have a US President who says get the fuck out of the strait, we are coming and we are going to destroy your civilisation. That is what we are talking about here and that is what we are talking about in relation to dual use.

Could we avoid the expletives if we can?

Apologies.

I know the Senator was quoting somebody else, but if we could just avoid it.

I think it is important in terms of the barbarity of the times we live in-----

I understand-----

-----when the President of the United States uses those words against a state he has not declared war against. He calls Putin's special military operation a special combat operation. We are living in a time when full spectrum powers have turned their back on the international rules-based order and on the conventions and laws of armed conflict. By definition, what is happening in Lebanon where our troops are is war crimes. We are unhappy about the transit of alumina from Aughinish Alumina to Russia, quite rightly, but we should be even more concerned about weapons, ordnance and materials that are military and dual use transiting through our airspace. Furthermore, the Irish taxpayer is paying for that. Is this the Comedy Club? Is this the Laughter Lounge?

We have hundreds of young Irish men and women in Lebanon 5 km from Bint Jbeil, which has been razed to the ground. After the murder of a French peacekeeper last week and Indonesian peacekeepers, I am very concerned about our troops. The Government is allowing weapons to pass through our airspace that could be used and that will be used in proximity to our troops. If any of our troops are seriously injured or killed I will know and I will be able to tell this House where the ordnance came from because I have an expertise in that area. God forbid that this happens because we may hang our heads in shame. It is disgraceful.

Specifically to the point of dual use, I will give an example. The Israeli military has a machine called the D9 bulldozer. They take this earth-moving piece of equipment, a bulldozer, they armour it by covering it in armour plate and then they use it as a weapon. They use it to destroy houses with families inside burying them alive. They have killed US citizens in this manner. In the last couple of days, there has been a documented case of two 16-year-old boys who were detained - I should say kidnapped - by the Israel Defense Forces. They were stripped, their hands were bound behind their backs with cable ties and they were buried alive. The contemporary witnesses say that before they were crushed under one of these earth-moving pieces of equipment they could hear the boys cry out. I remember when my young men were 16, when they were blossoming into young adults at that point of the threshold of adulthood, and how beautiful 16-year-olds are. Who could put them into the ground like that and use dual-use technology to murder them in that way? This is what we are talking about with this Bill. It is not adversarial and it is not radical. It is just asking us to do the right thing. The rules-based order has been turned on its head and we are going to tolerate it. It is a very simple set of suggestions.

I commend my colleagues. I will say it again. Since I came into these Houses over the last four years, I know that all of my colleagues here are good people and they share my concern and my horror at this. That is why I just ask them to please allow this piece of legislation to progress. They know what is going to happen when it is progressed. As Senator Higgins said, by opposing it Senators are making a decision. They are making a decision and it is not a passive thing of "Oh no, we have to wait and see." They would be deliberately slowing down the prospect of us intervening meaningfully in preventing genocide, femicide and medicide, which we have seen in Lebanon near where our troops are, where doctors, nurses and paramedics are deliberately targeted for murder. These are extraordinary times. This is not an extraordinary set of proposals. I prevail upon the Government to please reconsider and support this legislation to allow it to complete its passage.

Go raibh maith agat, a Sheanadóir. An bhfuil an tAire Stáit ag iarraidh teacht isteach?

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas le gach Seanadóir a bhí páirteach sa chuid seo den díospóireacht. The first thing is that we will not oppose the amendment. Second, and I am taking this for the Minister but I am also speaking in a personal capacity as well as from the Government side, I do not know anybody who supports what is happening in the world today. It is important that we agree on a number of things. The principles are first of all that the international rules-based order must be upheld at all times. I have travelled with Senator Clifford-Lee and Senator Ahearn to the Kyiv Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU. As Cathaoirleach of this House I spoke very strongly at the IPU in support of the Palestinian people and against what is happening in the world today. Senator Clonan is right and I completely agree with him. I said it here last week. I am 19 years a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas and in my wildest dreams, or any kind of the dream, I never thought that an American president would behave as he is doing.

He is showing scant regard to all of us around the world, in particular to the institutions of the United Nations and ICJ, or even basic decency to the likes of the European Union, for example.

I do not agree with Senator Clonan that we are being carefree about our troops. On the contrary, the Minister for Defence and Government, along with the Chief of Staff, are very much aware of their responsibilities to our troops. It is important we send a message from this House that our Government will always protect and look after our troops. I would like that to be said because it is very clear. I have met our troops, visited them and spoken to them. I recognise the point the Senator is making about the flagrancy, or rather the vagaries, and we have seen the killing of troops in Lebanon. I do not mean to be controversial but something and somewhere has to look at the whole structure of the United Nations in the wider context of our debate. Two of the big five have a veto to block reform and block sending troops to Lebanon for peacekeeping, for example, which we all know is required.

I do not agree with Senator Higgins, though I fully respect and admire her passion. We have been leaders in the world. Others are following us. She spoke about Sánchez but he is following us. If we are right, we need to reflect on the EU-Israel agreement as a European Union. We must respect human rights. We have to. I was in China for St. Patrick's Day and I spoke on human rights. I did not demur from my responsibility and my role as a member of the Irish Parliament or Irish Government. We woke up this morning to the President again putting up a post about continuing the ceasefire. Our Government is being quite clear about de-escalation and the end of the conflict because there is no good in what is happening. Senator Clonan is right about Colin Powell. He was a man we all respected and admired, and what happened regarding his comments about weapons of mass destruction? Nothing. Look what happened then. The sad part is there are other actors in the world, and at a time when he is under pressure otherwise, you have to say the Prime Minister of the UK has stood up and has not been railroaded into action that could have had catastrophic consequences more profound than we currently have.

It is important in this debate that we adhere to the fact that we are looking at the whole point of upholding the rule of law. Senator Higgins speaks about consistency. I hope we are consistent. We are consistent. I commend her on what she is doing and what she has said, and I heard her in this House as a Member and hear her now as a Minister of State. I would think Government is acting on the same page though maybe along different lines. However, we share the same common bond of respect for law and respect for life. In this context it is about ensuring our Government, as the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, said here before, is not promising things it cannot do.

We will not be opposing the amendment. As a member of the Government, as a politician and as a citizen, I am appalled, as we all are, by what is happening in the world today. We all want to see this conflict end for a variety of reasons, but one of them has to be that the President of America cannot just bypass all international norms and do what he wants on a whim. The sad part for me, though this may be for a different debate, is the UN has been rendered useless. We are embarking on the journey of appointing a new Secretary General of the United Nations. That appointment has to reflect where we are in the world, geopolitically, today. We have a new secretary general of the IPU being appointed.

Elected.

Elected; I thank the Senator. We as parliamentarians have a duty and responsibility to lead and be fair in these Houses, and we have, but others have not. Senator Clifford-Lee, who has done Trojan work in the IPU in a variety of different roles, will attest that in Istanbul this week some countries wanted to absolve themselves of any responsibility. I do not want to divide with Senator Higgins because I am probably a lot closer to her than she might think, but our Government is very clear and very consistent. The Ministers, Deputies O’Brien, McEntee and Harris, and the Taoiseach have made that point. The Taoiseach in Washington brought a lot of people with him. There are people in the Houses of Congress in America who question me about our Government’s role and our parliamentary position and I tell them we are not anti-Israel or antisemitic but pro-people. Senator Higgins is right when she speaks about the destruction of a civic society and a people. We agree with her on that so we will not oppose the amendment and I will let the Senator come back in, but I wanted to make the point that we have been consistent.

I know the Minister of State has strong personal feelings on this matter but the inconsistency is in the actions. There have not been actions. There have been no inspections of flights that are granted exemptions. As I said, I asked previously and there was no action taken on documented cases of aircraft travelling with weapons through our airspace. That choice of inaction and the choice to continue to grant exemptions and to not inspect are inconsistent with a seriousness about international law. I am talking about simply avowing international law and then acting to try to support it. The UN is the United Nations and it is about the nations of the world and what they do. I do not have time for the wider debates about United Nations reform, though I believe the General Assembly still has a clear and important role.

I would like clarity from the Minister of State. I am hearing support for my amendments. It points to the fact that these are very sensible amendments that show I listened to, engaged with and responded to any of the concerns raised on Committee Stage. I would like an indication at this point in light of the fact the Government is supporting my amendments and has been supportive of this. Is the Government going to be supporting this Bill and its progress to the Dáil where any further issues may be addressed? This amendment allows a widening of the situation and of the frame. I am concerned by some of the language we previously heard in this debate about how it is very hard to do it and how there are even more gaps in how we do it. The arms embargo against Russia has been in place for quite a long time. Is Ireland saying we do not apply inspections in general because we have not got the capacity? If we have the capacity to apply inspections, why would we not be applying them in these instances? I would like an indication from the Government. We were told on Committee Stage there are existing powers and it is going to start using them and then they just were not used for a year. Alternatively, is it the case the Government is looking to strengthen the powers further and plans to amend the Bill as it moves through the Dáil? I would like clarity on the Government’s position on this legislation because I have not had that in this debate.

Is the Senator pressing her amendment?

I am looking for a reply from the Minister of State on that.

Does the Minister of State want to come back in on that? We can take this at the end. It is not relevant-----

No, I am happy to get a response on this point.

I will reply in the context that the Government is not supporting the Bill's passage. I think the Minister of State, Deputy Canney, has spoken to the Senator about that already. I am a conduit for information to the Senator; I am not the line Minister. There has been engagement between the Senator and the Department and I think the Minister of State, Deputy Canney, was speaking to her beforehand, but Government will not be supporting the passage of the Bill through the House.

Okay. The Minister of State can see that is disappointing because we are seeing amendments supported and it was supported on Committee Stage. I am very disappointed to see that be the position of the Government.

The amendments are not being opposed but the Government's position, I am informed, is we are not supporting the passage of the Bill through the House.

Is the Government opposing it?

The Bill, yes.

In that context, I am saying that I have engaged in good faith. The amendments are being taken on board, the Bill was supported as it was on Committee Stage and if it is only being improved, and the Government agrees that these are improvements, it is very disappointing to see a position of opposition to the Bill. That is fine. Perhaps I was lulled into an impression that maybe we were moving forward by the support for the amendments and that was why I was-----

I am standing in for the Minister, as the Senator knows-----

I understand and I understand Deputy Buttimer is simply communicating a position.

The Government are not opposing amendments but we are not supporting the passage of the Bill. It has been clear. My contribution to Senator Higgins is where I stand. I have articulated many views that we share here. My information is that the Government is not supporting the Bill's passage through the House.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, to delete lines 17 to 20 and substitute the following:

“3. (1) The Minister, or authorised persons, shall carry out inspections of aircraft—

(a) seeking leave to land in the State under Article 5 of the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Orders 1973 and 1989, and

(b) issued an instruction to land in the State under Article 8 of the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Orders 1973.”.

I second the amendment.

Amendment No. 3 is addressing the gaps. Amendment No. 3 focuses on the provisions in relation to the inspections of flights that have been granted permission. Again, this is an issue that was raised on Committee Stage in relation to the flights that have been granted permission. As I say, I will not overstate the fact that there is no obligation to give these flights permission. These are not flights that have an automatic right to transit. They are being given permission to transit.

We have seen a situation whereby there is no follow-up. There is no check in terms of what actually is on these flights. We have heard of the special arrangement, which relates to a slightly different area in terms of military aircraft where, theoretically, military aircraft are going through from the United States without notice but will have no weapons at all on them. How plausible do we believe that is? Especially when we see an under-reporting of 248 flights on the front page of the newspapers this week.

It was raised that it would be extraordinarily onerous to inspect all of those granted permissions because a number of those who are granted permissions are Irish-registered aircraft operating outside Irish territory, which still require exemptions. These are Irish-registered leased aircraft and some of them may not be passing through Irish airports or Irish airspace but are still required to seek exemptions.

It is an interesting area. It is one that needs more attention but I have accepted, in order purely to facilitate, because I want our laws working. I want them happening. This Bill somewhat narrows. What we had previously was going from zero inspection to a mandatory inspection of all those who are granted exemptions. Now, the Bill, as narrowed by this section, would simply be a matter of mandatory inspections for all those who land in Irish airspace, which is estimated to be around 262 flights that have been given exemption. These are flights that landed in Ireland which we know have exemptions in relation to the carriage of munitions, weapons, dangerous goods.

It is a very basic thing. I do not think it is onerous. In fact, the number "262" simply matches to the 248 flights we ignored. The 262 flights landing in our Irish airports would be inspected. Very often we are told that they are probably personal arms. The suggestion is that these may just be personal arms. I think it is very reasonable that we look in the planes and see if what we are being asked for an exemption for matches what is actually in the planes.

This would be put alongside amendment No. 7, which allows and provides for the issuing of a direction to land. Again, now inspections would be taking place on the 262 flights that have already landed and it would allow for those flights that are directed to land. We are going to come to it in amendment No. 7 in terms of directions to land.

I can list flights as examples. On 1 February 2024, there was a flight with more than 6.4 tonnes of US-funded tear gas transported to Israel. On 2 February 2024, there was a Challenge Airlines flight that included more than 24 tonnes of weaponry, all marked as dangerous explosive-containing goods, for delivery to the Israeli Government and IDF contractors. A FedEx flight on 22 May 2025 carrying 13 shipments of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel illegally flew through Irish airspace. AirNav Ireland assisted two Lufthansa flights from Dallas Fort Worth carrying at least 18 packages with fighter jet components. There was an El Al flight on 4 April, very recently, off the coast of Galway shortly before 9.15 a.m. and Elbit Systems of America sent six shipments on El Al flights through Irish sovereign airspace from Newark Airport to Tel Aviv with cargo labelled as "Foreign Military Financing" from the US government again.

We are talking about all those instances of overflights documented, where people are saying "here is the manifest, here is what we are told is on the plane and here is its destination; it is going directly or indirectly to the IDF". Right now, the Government has said there is nothing we can do about those overflights even though it is illegal. Most of them do not even bother asking or many of them do not even ask for exemptions. However, as we will come to in amendment No. 7, now we have a position whereby we can give a direction to require those planes to land. This is putting it down and making it workable. A Minister can give a direction saying that when the public are contacted and told that a flight has left Newark, what is on the flight, that its flight path is right over Ireland and what its destination is, that flight can be directed to land. Then, in the instance that a flight has been directed to land and does land, it can be inspected under amendment No. 3, alongside all of those other flights that have landed. Again, that is not onerous and it is not too much to ask at minimum that the State would have the capacity to inspect those few hundred flights a year that land, as well as those that may land following direction.

If a flight does not land following direction, then we already know they have not submitted themselves to inspection and are therefore in clear breach. That deals with the situation for which Micheál Martin said last month there is no strong evidence. No strong evidence is an example of this language which says we cannot know for sure. There is the suggestion that there is no proof and that if anyone had proof we would ask them to come forward. We are told there is nothing we can do. When proof is being provided, they say that proof would have to be in the hands of the relevant authorities. We have now been clear that such authorised persons would include An Garda Síochána and others. It takes away that excuse of there being no strong evidence because it creates a requirement and a capacity to search for that evidence. If a flight declines to land it will be in breach of the law. The fact is that these companies are real companies. They are not like a shadow fleet, it is FedEx, it is Lufthansa. These are known groups. That is amendment No. 3. I will come to amendment No. 7 in time, which compounds it.

I will try to be brief. This amendment is about simply inspecting what is in the cargo hold.

Prior to the Minister of State's arrival, I said that there is a compelling primary intelligence interest in trying to ascertain what is on aircraft that are coming through our airspace and that are using Shannon for refuelling and onward navigation. The reason I say that is because the Israeli military has been using cluster munitions in south Lebanon, near Irish positions. Where does it get them? It gets them from the United States. Where in the United States are they made? They are made at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant. Delivery systems are made at the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant in Pennsylvania. How do they get to Israel? Through our airspace.

I accept the point the Minister of State made about us having primary concern for our troops in Lebanon. However, if you go today to Wadi Zibqin, Wadi Baruz or Wadi Deir Siryan, which are all near where the Irish are based, you will find that they are littered with cluster munitions that have been deployed by the Israeli military and that have come through our airspace. I do not for one minute doubt that the Minister of State values the welfare of our troops. He says he visited them. I have been there. I have been under fire. I have seen what the impact of these weapons is on the innocent Lebanese men, women and children with whom we have built a relationship over the past 50 years. This is not a war; it is a genocide. Here is something we can do to further ensure the safety of our troops. I know that force protection and the safety of our young men and women is paramount for the Government. I absolutely accept that, but we are in error if we are not, at a bare minimum, checking aircraft on the ground in Shannon to see what is being transported to the Israelis for use in south Lebanon where our young men and women are stationed. This is especially true as we move up to the final deployment. Those Irish troops, and the innocent people who are being slaughtered, are my paramount concern.

I will be very brief, because I know Senator Higgins wants to come back in. There is much that unites us rather than divides in what we have heard. I understand and appreciate the contributions of Senators Higgins and Clonan regarding this amendment. It is important we understand that the Government and its agencies act and engage in terms of the external carriers. That is why we are not opposing this amendment. I know we are not going to support the Bill, but I certainly think, in the context of what Senator Clonan spoke about, that there is a system is in place. There is a robust engagement, and I have trust in the system. I take the Senator's point. There are criteria that have to be fulfilled and upheld as regards the inspection regime relating to those who are transiting through Ireland. Again, we are not opposing the amendment. We will continue to review and monitor the situation.

It is incumbent upon us as a nation to ensure that we do not allow for the passage of munitions through our airspace that will, as the Senator said, cause further damage and potential loss of life. Today, we mourn the loss of a second French peacekeeper in Lebanon. All of us who are parliamentarians here and the governments of various countries elsewhere must ensure that the sovereignty of our airspace and their airspace is upheld in terms of the passage of munitions.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, line 22, to delete “authorised officer” and substitute “authorised person”.

I second the amendment.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, lines 26 and 27, to delete “authorised officer, the officer shall” and substitute “authorised person, the person shall”.

I second the amendment.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, lines 29 and 30, to delete “by the Defence Forces”.

I second the amendment.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

“Amendment of Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order 1973

4.The Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order 1973 is amended in Article 8 by—

(a) the deletion of “section 64 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1936 (No. 40 of 1936)” and the substitution of “section 1 of the Air Navigation and Transport (Arms Embargo) Act 2026” for it, and

(b) the insertion of “, or over the State,” after “within the State”.”.

I second the amendment.

I am very interested in the Government's perspective in relation to this because this is the lacuna that we have heard about. I provided a list of examples of some of the kinds of flights involved. We are being told that these flights are going over our heads and being asked what we are going to do. The question the Minister posed was how we would enforce this if the Bill becomes law.. Simply inserting the phrase "or over the State" into Article 8 of the order, that is the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order 1973, and addressing the question closes the gap which currently exists. I would like the Minister of State's comments on the gap - I had some engagement from the Department on it - which currently exists in the law and which is enabling commercial aircraft to illegally carry weapons through Irish airspace without the necessary permissions.

This is not just that the weapons are being carried to illegal wars but that the flights themselves are illegally carrying weapons because in some cases they are not even seeking permissions. On Committee Stage, the Minister asked what we could do and how we could enforce the provisions of this Bill. The answer is that the powers are already there in existing legislation. We do not need to police our skies. We do not need to be sending jets up to drive them to the ground. We simply need to make it clear that these flights are in breach of our law and have in place actions that we can take. That would involve issuing instructions to flights suspected to be operating in contravention of the 1973 order that, on the basis of an order the Minister could issue, they must land for inspection. If they fail to comply with an instrument of the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1946, upon which the 1973 Act builds, then the owner or hirer of an aircraft will be deemed to have contravened that instrument. We move to a situation where rather than saying that a flight went overhead, that we are worried that it was in contravention and that it refused to land and submit to inspection, we can know that it in contravention and continue to take appropriate actions.

As I said, some of these flights are not shadowy. These are companies such as Lufthansa and FedEx, which can be made answerable in relation to a breach of the order. Under this Bill, such contravention would now therefore be clear. Therefore, I would like the Government's position on amendment No. 7. It is a really key one.

An bhfuil aon Seanadóir eile ag iarraidh teacht isteach? Níl. Glaoim ar an Aire Stáit.

It is clear that amendment No. 7 interacts with amendment No. 1, as it pertains to authorised persons, and amendment No. 3, as it pertains to Article 8 of the order. It is clear that Article 8 of the order was drafted from the perspective of an aircraft being on the ground as opposed to being in flight. As such, and in the context of the comments on amendment No. 3 regarding what we have been speaking about, it would appear to broaden the existing powers in the order to provide for the instruction to land. If I am honest about it and if we look at it in the context of the time for assessment of the compatibility of this provision with international rules in relation to aircraft in flight but also regarding the initial examination, there is not enough detail provided on these issues within the legislation. How do we communicate with a pilot? What do you do during the flight? What are the safety implications? Senator Clonan spoke about inspections of the cargo in the hold. It is for those reasons that we are not opposing the amendment but are not supporting the Bill. The explanation I have given is that the narrow scope of the proposed inspection regime is being broadened by what the Senator is asking here in respect of existing powers. It creates more than what we need at this point, but perhaps the Minister can engage further with the Senator in the Lower House. I know she is not a Member of the Lower House, but it can be extended to other Members of the Houses in that case.

Certainly, I would appreciate the opportunity for others in the Lower House, or the Dáil, as I would call it, to engage on this issue. That is the appropriate place for these issues to be addressed. However, this amendment is an attempt to address the lacuna that the Government has identified. It has told us and has put its hands in the air asking what to do in circumstances where these flights are transiting our airspace and where we cannot police our skies. I am trying to bring an arms embargo in relation to the transit of weapons to Israel that are being used in breach of international law but there is an existing arms embargo. It does beg the question as to whether we would see the same kind of response if we had munitions transiting to Russia via our airspace. Would the answer be there is nothing the Government can do? There was a question earlier about how we would do the inspections. This is frankly inadequate.

Gabh mo leithscéal, a Sheanadóir-----

A year of inaction has been inadequate. Setting forth to say we do not want to expand the powers we are not using is also an inadequate response.

Gabh mo leithscéal. As it is now 4.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Seanad of this day-----

Can we adjourn at this point?

I am told I have to go ahead with this. I am sorry but I am following the procedures.

Was it put to conclude?

Yes.

Yes. Apologies. I am just following what was set out.

Okay. I think that is shameful but anyway.

I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Seanad: "That amendment No. 7 is hereby negatived, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby received for final consideration; and the Bill is hereby passed." Is that agreed?

Agreed.

Not agreed.