Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 20 of 38.
“I find the Minister of State's opening statement surprising because some of the language used speaks to and seems to respond to an argument and discussion that I have been highlighting and moving forward for almost a decade in these Houses - the fact that under European procurement rules, value for money does not necessarily mean lowest price. Value for money can be lowest price, it can be the best balance of price and quality, and it can be life-cycle costing. The Minister of State spoke about the extraordinary amount - billions and billions - that is spent in procurement. The State is the largest customer in the State. The policy of having an integrated approach in terms of green, social and other considerations is a conversation I have been having with the Office of Government Procurement and the Department for years.”
“That is a real concern. They should be moving ahead and having no fossil fuels rather than having a further fossil fuel infrastructure in back-up generators existing across the country. It is something that we cannot afford from a climate perspective. It also creates a jeopardy.”
“There should not be public buildings still piloting different Departments, making a business case and piloting this building and that building that they might upgrade. Any building that the State has the keys to, access to or can retrofit should be retrofitted. If that requires a State retrofitting agency, which is literally delivering, then that is the thing. This is where the public comes in. There was an appeal on public batteries. That was a good point in relation to that. If that is something to be looked at, let us have State infrastructure that is going to deliver, be it retrofitting or around battery storage locally. There was a reference to the 80% renewable supply. We do not have those figures. There is no guarantee at all of how much renewable versus electric will be happening with these new private wire developments.”
“There is a big lecture on energy security for LNG but not a consideration of how private wires are going to intersect with our energy security issues and threats, even though that we know that up to one third of the energy users in the State may be using them and may be absorbing a huge amount of our renewable capacity. On energy security, there are so many more issues to focus on. I wish to focus on at the intimate level energy security of households. We still have an approach that tries to encourage the choice of retrofitting and trying to give it the plans and the loans. This is a point where if the State is serious, we need to be stepping in. There are 20,000 people on the warmer homes scheme waiting list. There should not be a waiting list of 20,000 people for the scheme.”
“If we have private wires - those renewables that are going to particular clients - it looks like that they will not be given an obligation. I asked the Department because there are step-in rights for the State in certain safety and other circumstances. I asked the officials if it they considered that energy security should be a situation where the State can say, "That wind farm powering Amazon or whoever else's giant data centre at this point if we do have interconnectors cut, we need to be able to access that for the grid." They said they had not considered energy security.”
“When private wires were discussed, we heard from everybody that 31% of our energy is now going to large energy users and 22% is just going to data centres. The 22% on data centres is what is driving the private wires legislation. One of the real problems with the legislation, which was identified when we examined it at the committee, if it does not include the usual obligations we would have in terms of if there was an energy crisis with transmission measures and demand side measures, then we see the increased demand from data centres and other energy users absorbing the renewables that have been coming on stream. Instead of that new renewable on stream contributing to decarbonising our economy, system and everything else, it is being absorbed by new uses.”
“It is just like the warmest year and the warmest year in a row. There has been intense loss of species. A total of 45.8 million displaced due to weather related disasters in 2024 alone and 75% of the world's poorest, who are reliant on agriculture, are being impacted by climate change. A total of 189 million people potentially pushed into hunger. That is the threat. If the hottest years do not move us, perhaps the reversal of the gulf stream, which is now being talked about as a very terrible threat and possibility, should focus our minds. These are real statistically probable threats that we are facing. Why would we contribute to intensifying those risks for everybody? It is frankly unjustifiable. We heard a lot about energy security being quoted then.”
“I welcome the reference to the new interconnectors to Spain and France and the many planned new interconnectors. For a hypothetical scenario, which will cover a few years, we are contributing. There is no such thing as just storing LNG; we use it. Six times a year one uses it. Once one has that facility, they are burning LNG off every year and six times a year they refill it. Even if it did exist, it would not actually be a reserve of energy that we could tap into because every two months it relies on new shipments. We see what happens to shipments of LNG in a time of crisis and energy crisis. It frankly does not deliver in terms of security. It is not a reserve that we have there. It intensifies what we know is the real risk. When we talk about climate and its impacts, we can talk about the past decade as the warmest on record.”
“It is 80% more impactful, as we have heard. Not only that, but this kind of gas, methane, hits faster. It is effectively an accelerant for climate change. If we look to the next ten to 20 years, the period in which we need to act, this is something that will have its most devastating impact in that period. Indeed, LNG will largely be bought from the United States, which has left the Paris Agreement. It is an extraordinary, wild idea that we are going to lean in and intensify one of the known security risks, including energy security risks, which is climate change, and contribute to that market and be part of it, in response to this one hypothetical case where cable might be cut prior to the arrival of the many new interconnectors.”
“Of course, the first energy security review the State did came down against LNG infrastructure. It said we should not do it because it was not the right approach. They did another energy security review, therefore, and certain factors went into the new review. I should note that the committee has called for a further energy security review. They took NORA, the national oil reserve, out of the equation, even though that is fuel substitution. In the cost-benefit analysis, they did not give consideration to using wind and battery together. A number of very strange decisions in the new energy security review and cost-benefit analysis seemed to be designed, frankly, or certainly came to the effect that the State was justifying this new LNG terminal. What do we know about the gas that goes in, the methane?”
“I sit on the climate and energy committee and we discuss energy security all the time, or rather we discuss energy policy all the time. It is interesting that energy security gets invoked at certain points, and then at other points in the conversation it is missing as a topic. We heard a lot about energy security when the Government was pushing to introduce the LNG reserves and the floating storage regasification unit, FSRU. That was being cited again and again. The committee looked at it and it was clear that there although there was one very specific risk, one very particular scenario, to which this arguably could be one of the responses, this new infrastructure does nothing for most of the other very likely and predictable energy security risks and scenarios we are looking to in the future.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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”.”.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”.”
“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-----”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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— ...”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.".”