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 Natio…

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 ov…

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 abou…

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

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

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.

Is the Government opposing it?

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

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.”.

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 whereb…

I move amendment No. 4: In page 4, line 22, to delete “authorised officer” and substitute “authorised person”.

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 move amendment No. 6: In page 4, lines 29 and 30, to delete “by the Defence Forces”.

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 i…

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 W…

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 …

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.

Can we adjourn at this point?

Was it put to conclude?