Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Dec 2001

Vol. 546 No. 4

Combating Terrorism: Motion.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion provided by Article 1.11 of the Treaty of Amsterdam to take part in the adoption of the following proposed measure:

a proposal for a Council framework decision on combating terrorism,

a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 11 December 2001.

The initiative for the framework decision on combating terrorism came from the European Commission in advance of the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers which met on 20 September. The JHA Council, in welcoming the proposal, emphasised the need for a common understanding of what terrorism means in order to facilitate cross-border co-operation. The Council also instructed senior officials to take forward work urgently so as to enable the Council achieve significant political agreement at its meeting last week.

Mr. Gormley

On a point of order, we simply cannot hear what the Minister is saying. Could he—

An Ceann Comhairle

I have called for order in the House. The Minister to proceed.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The European Council meeting on 21 September endorsed that approach signifying, in particular, its agreement to the adoption of a common definition of terrorism and asking the JHA Council to flesh out that agreement.

Work has progressed within the framework of title six of the Treaty on European Union on the proposed framework decision. That work has been undertaken in the main by the co-ordinating Article 36 committee and Coreper. It also involved two further meetings of the JHA Council, on 16 October and 16 November, prior to last week's meeting on 6 and 7 December. Negotiations continued right up to and during that Council meeting at which political agreement was achieved on the text in the terms in which it has been laid before this House. That agreement is provisional in that the text is subject to parliamentary scrutiny reservations by Sweden and Denmark, as well as Ireland, and further consultation by the European Parliament.

The purpose of the proposed framework decision is to approximate member states' legislation on terrorism in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union thus facilitating co-operation between member states at a number of levels. Article 34(2)(f2>b) provides that the Council may, acting unanimously on the initiative of any member state or of the Commission, adopt framework decisions for the purpose of the approximation of the laws and regulations of the member states. It also provides that framework decisions shall be binding upon member states as to the result to be achieved but shall leave to national authorities the choice of form and methods and that they do not entail direct effect.

The proposed framework decision on combating terrorism will approximate member states' legislation, in particular by establishing a common definition of a terrorist act and laying down common criminal sanctions.

The provisions which it makes for this purpose are explicitly stated in Article 1(f2>b) as not being intended to amend the obligation to respect the fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. I envisage implementation of the proposed framework decision being achieved by way of primary legislation which will be brought before the House in the coming year. I intend that legislation will, in addition to addressing the specific requirements arising from the proposed framework decision itself to which I have already referred, also be directed to making any further changes to our law judged necessary for the purposes of dealing with international terrorism. I do not consider that the implementing legislation should present difficulties. Ireland's experience in combating terrorism means that our existing legislation in this regard is more comprehensive than the provisions of this proposal.

The events of 11 September represented a defining moment for the world. Few events have demonstrated so starkly the choice between good and evil as the attacks perpetrated that day in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania by the forces of international terrorism. I am determined that Ireland will respond decisively and comprehensively to the challenge which those events represent and that will be my aim in framing the legislative proposals needed to give effect to the proposed framework decision and related issues.

Mr. Shatter

As with the previous motion, Fine Gael supports this proposal. I welcome the framework document and the opportunity to discuss it. On the assumption that this will be adopted by the EU member states, the framework decision will require substantial changes in our criminal law. In future, when dealing with matters of this nature, it would be helpful to the House if a detailed background document be made available to at least delineate, from a preliminary view, each of the statutory provisions that might be affected and the criminal law amendments that might be required. That is a matter to which we should return.

I ask that, following the Council framework decision being formally made, the Minister arrange to have a document laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas detailing the statutory changes envisaged to allow us implement our obligations under the framework document.

Terrorism is something with which we are familiar. For too many years we have had our own domestic brand of terrorism with the IRA, the Real IRA and the Provisional IRA and we still have problems with terrorism and private armies in the context of republican and loyalist groups. At a time when we are addressing our own problems, it is ironic that there is to be a common European approach which is a direct consequence of the horrendous acts of 11 September. The approach provided for here should not simply relate to addressing issues of terrorism to the relationships between the member states of the European Union. Rather, the principles prescribed under the framework decision should provide a fundamental bedrock that should inform not just internal European relationships but the way in which EU countries manage their external and foreign relationships. This is particularly important.

Article 1 states:

Each member state shall take the necessary measures to ensure that terrorist offences include the following list of intentional acts which, given their nature or their context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation as defined as offences under national law where committed with the aim of i) seriously intimidating a population, ii) unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform, or abstain from performing, any act, iii) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or international organisation by: attacks upon a person's life which may cause death, attacks upon the physical integrity of a person, kidnapping or hostage taking, causing extensive destruction to a government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructural facility (including information system), a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss; seizure of aircraft, ship or other means of public or goods transport.

It continues with further instances that can constitute terrorist acts. In the context of a united EU approach, we should not adopt a blinkered approach. It is interesting to observe the diversity of views expressed by EU members.

Regarding the terrorist acts to which the Israeli State is being subjected on a daily basis, we are proposing prescriptions in relation to the resolution of the problems in the Middle East that frequently are not based on the reality of what the people there are experiencing but on the perception of how we in the EU should deal with terrorist acts should we be subjected to them. For the purpose of this framework decision and the way in which the EU views terrorist acts committed by terrorist groups outside the EU, I suggest a comprehensive definition of terrorist offences be agreed by the Union. This is a particularly important issue in light of what happened on 11 September in the context of the difficulties affecting not just the member states of the European Union, in so far as they may be under threat from international terrorism, but in the context of the difficulties affecting states outside the EU.

I presume this House cannot change any element of the framework decision before us, but I will highlight some issues. The definition of a terrorist group as contained in Article 2 seems to be a tortuous one. I do not have time to recite the definition but it states that a terrorist group means a structured group of more than two persons. Why would two persons who commit acts of terrorism be excluded from this?

Mr. Howlin

They would be a terrorist cell.

Mr. Shatter

It is a very strange dividing line. If three people blow up a building and kill 20 people they fall within the context of being a terrorist group, whereas, if two people do it and no third person involvement can be proved, they are not regarded as a terrorist group under this pro vision. I would like an explanation for that definition.

There are provisions here arising out of Article 2 and other Articles which may require this State to create new offences. I already raised the issue of amending existing criminal law and the second issue I wish to raise relates to any document that may be laid before the House. We should get some insight from the Minister as to what new legislation may be required to create new criminal offences to comply with our obligations under the framework decision.

In the context of dealing with terrorism and terrorist groups as provided for under the framework decision, there are certain prescriptions about the type of sentences that might be imposed for certain offences, with minimum and maximum terms laid down. This proposal does not provide for a harmonisation of offences and sentencing throughout the EU. The next step in dealing with this issue, by way of implementation, would be to have a uniform definition of particular offences, and prescribed maximum sentences across the EU. I would be interested in the Minister commenting on that. It would be a complicated thing to do and may not be achievable in the time frame prescribed. It should be on the agenda, in the context of what is now proposed, under the third pillar.

I hope that would also ensure a uniformity of approach by the courts in the different states in the imposition of sentences for those who are convicted of terrorist offences and for the determination of whether particular acts alleged to be offences are offences. There is a danger in the implementation of this, because domestic legislation in each of the countries of the EU can vary and what might be properly defined as an offence falling within this framework may not be so regarded due to difficulties in legislative drafting and linguistics.

It is important that this framework decision is implemented. I understand that Italy does not have a difficulty with this either and the Minister might confirm that. In the context of the implementation process, as well as having the documentation that I mentioned, I hope the Minister might come to the Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights Committee to discuss measures being taken and the expected time frame in implementing them.

This measure is perceived by the State and other members of the EU as a rational and considered response to the events of 11 September. Democracies have an obligation to take such steps as are necessary to protect themselves from those who commit terrorist acts and try to destroy the freedoms available within a democracy. We have an obligation at EU level using the third pillar powers to take the type of action that is being taken here. As a Member of this Dáil I regret that it has taken the tragic events of 11 September to focus the minds of the member governments of the EU to this degree on the need for co-operation in these areas. I admit that it could not have been done effectively without the Amsterdam Treaty, but in the context of the difficulties this State has experienced over the past 30 years, greater co-operation could have been achieved in dealing with certain issues from other EU member states if the terrorist difficulties that we experienced had been given a higher priority.

The enormity of what happened on 11 September brought home the reality of the appalling consequences that international terrorist groups can bring about – the death, destruction and mayhem that can result from acts by people of fundamentalist views who have no concern for the human carnage they create whilst they try to achieve objectives that are alien to all right thinking people. This House, in taking this measure today, is responding to the events of 11 September but, as both Deputy Howlin and I said on the last motion, it is regrettable that we need to deal with this issue with this level of speed in a very limited debate without Members of the House having an opportunity to get views from bodies such as our Human Rights Commission about the substance of what is being proposed. I hope, when it comes to the enactment of the new legislation that will be required, there will be greater space and time for consultation and for Members of this House to consider proposals in Bill form before they are processed.

Mr. Howlin

On behalf of the Labour Party, I do not intend to oppose this resolution although I enter the caveat that I made in the previous discussion that I regret we have not had more opportunity to read the draft texts, debate them and get views from external parties. There are many who would like an input in this debate in advance of it being a fait accompli. We need to reform parliamentary scrutiny. The notion that there is no parliamentary scrutiny of these matters until they are decided by Council is not the norm. It is not the way other parliaments do business and I would have liked to have had some input into the discussion before the Council meeting so that the Minister could go to Council armed with the views of a cross section of this Dáil and whatever final decisions he would make would be strengthened by the debate in committee or in the plenary of this House.

Fundamental changes in attitude have taken place since 11 September and reading the Justice and Home Affairs Council conclusions on the Brussels summit of 20 September, we see a raft of proposals that presumably will come before us in future. A broader explanation of what exactly is happening is required to ensure a correct balance between, on the one hand, the resolute action against terrorism to ensure there is no repetition of the awful events of 11 September that might befall any country and, on the other hand, the fundamental freedoms European citizens enjoy under the European Union treaties and conventions, including the freedoms we enjoy in this jurisdiction under the Constitution which are often defined by the Supreme Court.

When the Justice and Home Affairs Council of Ministers refers to the convention on mutual assistance and criminal matters we need to know how that is progressing. The establishment of the EU police chiefs' task force, the notion of co-operation between police and intelligence services to counter terrorism across the EU and the establishment of an EU counter terrorist unit were suggestions made by the Council of Ministers last September. The House requires much fuller explanations on what progress has been made in our name so we can ensure that whatever organs of the State, be it police or security, involved in establishing European wide scrutiny, investigations or co-operation, act in a way that is consistent with our values, beliefs and laws.

Deputy Shatter suggested that with the possible exception of Spain, Ireland is more used to dealing with terrorism issues because of the domestic terrorism we have endured with terrible consequences over the past 20 to 30 years. Unfortunately, we were required to enact severe legislation, including the Offences against the State Acts and the establishment of the Special Criminal Court. The Government introduced new offences in what it described as draconian legislation after the Omagh outrage. It was considered necessary to tackle domestic terrorism. In terms of strengthening anti-terrorist measures we have a base of laws that probably goes further than most European Union law.

A new dimension is the international co-operation on terrorism to deal with organisations, such as Al-Qaeda, which uses a world-wide matrix to launder money, perhaps through financial institutions in this country, recruit expertise, train and plant people, procure different components for weaponry and so on. A framework of international co-operation is required to deal with this in a structured way. Given this, I have no difficulty with many of the proposals contained in the draft framework directive, although they are underdeveloped.

I have grave concerns about the generalities involved in what is the prime issue of the definition of a terrorist offence. We will await the draft legislation the Minister has promised to introduce next year to see if we can, in a structured way, spell out what specifically constitutes terrorism. It will take a long time to get an agreed definition. Suggestions such as "seriously intimidating a population" and "unduly compelling a Government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act" are too vague. Every day, organisations seek to compel the Government to perform or abstain from performing an act. Protest groups outside the House today – I met two of them – are trying to compel the Government to perform an act or refrain from performing one. It would be absurd to delimit the right of people to protest. I hope the rights enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty of European Union will not be delimited by the structure to oppose terrorism envisaged in this draft directive. Article 1(f2>b) provides that the framework decision shall not have the effect of amending the obligation to respect fundamental rights and legal principles enshrined in Article 6 and I am happy to rely on that as accepting the norms of rights that have been developed within the EU and among the member states. I look forward to the primary legislation so that we can debate this issue in a more structure manner. The framework motion requires us to consider it in a much more general way.

Many in this House, including my party members, would not share Deputy Shatter's view on the reaction of Israel to the Palestinian Authority. We are deeply shocked by the aggressive over-reaction by Israel, which only now can be seen as a determined effort by it to destroy the Palestinian Authority. We all abhor the acts of aggression perpetrated by terrorist groups through the use of suicide bombers that have slaughtered innocent people in Israel but the action of its lawful Government has not been measured or balanced.

Post 11 September, we are all shocked at the structured existence of international terrorism. It is clear that Al-Qaeda is one manifestation but there are others. As democrats, we cannot sit idly by while our democratic structures are attacked in the way the attacks on the US were used to strike a body blow against democracy. We need resources on a cross-national and multi-national basis to deal with the transfer of money, resources and weaponry in which these terrorists organisations engage. However, we must balance this against the fundamental rights and freedoms of people to engage in lawful protest and to challenge lawful authority in a democratic, structured and rational way.

While accepting the need for this framework directive, the ensuing legislation will require careful analysis in this House. The pattern of rushing many of these proposals in the aftermath of 11 September through the Justice and Home Affairs Council of Ministers last week to the Heads of Government Council meeting to take place this weekend, with very little time for parliaments to debate them, is not a good way to deal with such matters. I hope it will not be a precedent for the way we deal with them in future. However, the Labour Party will not object to the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Gormley

I wish to share my time with Deputies Ó Caoláin and Joe Higgins.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy does not exceed eight minutes.

Mr. Gormley

I oppose this measure because I subscribe to the principle that one should not buy a pig in a poke. I have not read enough about this measure, I do not know enough about it and I suspect that many Members are in a similar situation. Those who claim expertise may not be tell ing the full truth as they cannot have had this document more than a few days ago. I have not had the opportunity to discuss it with other people. I wish to put on record that I am totally opposed to terrorism. I was horrified by the events of 11 September and unequivocally condemned those terrorist acts as I condemned terrorist acts committed by the Provisional IRA and other terrorist groups in this country.

The manner in which this so-called debate is being conducted is an affront to democracy. Rushed measures are very often bad measures. A knee-jerk reaction as a result of what happened on 11 September will result in bad legislation and a rolling back of hard won civil liberties throughout Europe. This issue relates to the development of a European Union justice platform. It is a matter which the Green Party has been discussing for some time. Increasingly, justice legislation emanating from Brussels does not get the required debate in this House and very often citizens do not know what is happening. Indeed, elected representatives in this House do not know very often what is emerging from Councils of Ministers. We said, during the Nice treaty debate, that there ought to be a very different way of dealing with Council of Ministers meetings, which should be subject to debate in this House.

I welcome the fact that the Labour Party has produced a Bill, which we fully support, in relation to the European Union. Clearly, this is a case in point. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is consulting his EU colleagues and it appears that Mr. Berlesconi has certain reservations, but they are talking among themselves. What role is there for parliamentarians in the national Parliaments in this matter? It seems we are very much a side issue although very important measures are being discussed.

While the events of 11 September were horrendous, we in this country also experienced horrendous events but we did not react in this way. There can be no rush to judgment as that will, unquestionably, lead to repercussions down the line. The issue of terrorism is a vexed question. I listened with interest to Deputy Shatter's interpretation of events in the Middle East. There have been suicide bombers and other acts of terrorism, but is the bombing of Yasser Arafat's compound not an act of terrorism? Under this framework document, that would be regarded as an act of terrorism if carried out by a group.

Article 9 will require member states to ensure that they have jurisdiction in respect of offences relating to a terrorist group that is directing or knowingly participating in a terrorist group or inciting, aiding and abetting and attempting to commit terrorist offences where such offences have been committed in whole or in part within its territory and irrespective of where the terrorist group is based or pursues its criminal activities. The key words are "inciting, aiding and abetting". It is clear that over very many years the CIA incited, aided and abetted terrorist groups throughout the world. That is a fact. We need to look at the involvement of states themselves in what I call terrorist activity. That has not been looked at in any great detail. It is generally assumed that a state cannot commit terrorist actions. I do not agree in any way with that assumption.

The definition refers to "causing extensive damage to Government property". What does that mean? Does it mean putting a brick through a window or graffiti on a wall? To what precisely does it refer? We know of groups which have engaged in protest. Following the shooting dead of protesters in Derry, a large group went to the British Embassy in Dublin and gave vent to their anger by burning down that building. Those people would be deemed terrorists but it could also involve a lesser event, such as disruption of transport systems as a result of a sit-down protest. For example, Deputy Howlin was engaged in such a protest in Wexford at the time of the Carnsore demonstrations. Would he be guilty of terrorism? I am deeply afraid that such broad definitions will be abused because, as we have seen in the past, legislation which is introduced in this way can be abused. Computer crime also causes damage to Government. Is a young computer hacker a terrorist?

Probably for the best of intentions, people are trying to rush measures through but I believe any such rush to judgment will result in serious long-term consequences for our civil liberties throughout Europe. For that reason alone, I will oppose this measure. It is likely we will not get the requisite numbers for a vote but, as a matter of principle, we will take a stand.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I oppose this motion. I deplore the fact that, once again, as with the European arrest warrant, the Government is asking the Dáil to act as a rubber stamp on a proposal which has huge implications for civil rights in this country and throughout the European Union. I only had sight of the proposal cited in this motion this morning. It was not even circulated to all Deputies and my office had to request a copy from the Library. It is a detailed and legally complex document which was only laid before the Dáil yesterday. Yet today we are expected to nod it through without any proper scrutiny or debate.

The subject matter of the document is a proposal for "Adoption of a Council Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism". One needs to consider much of the text of this document very carefully. It is, of course, reactive and, in that, it is certainly flawed. Article 2 refers to "offences relating to a terrorist group". An earlier speaker also referred to this. It states that "a terrorist group shall mean a structured group of more than two persons, established over a period of time and acting in concert to commit terrorist offences". Many will recognise very different realities in reading that definition. Indeed, the victims of British state violence in Ireland will have a very clear view of where this definition aptly applies. Article 1, under so-called terrorist offences, states that "each member state shall take the necessary measures to ensure that terrorist offences include the following list of intentional acts . . . ." No. 1 refers to "seriously intimidating a population". No. 3 refers to "seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country." That section of the article also refers to the manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons as well as research into and development of the latter.

Where do we recognise the realities – such as seriously intimidating a population, seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country – to which these sections refer? We must accept that this document fails and refuses to recognise the existence of state terrorism. Article 1 also refers to "unduly compelling a Government . . . to perform or abstain from performing any act". I do not want to be light hearted about this subject, but would the efforts of the "famous four" in this House be seen as tantamount to unduly compelling the Government?

On the basis of one clause alone, this Council framework decision on combating terrorism should be thrown out. Item 11 effectively rules out the concept of state terrorism by stating that "Actions by the armed forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties are not governed by this framework document." At the same time a wide-ranging definition of terrorism is provided and this includes "causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility". By this definition, the British Army's murder of 14 people on Bloody Sunday would not be terrorism. However, the burning of the British Embassy in Dublin would be terrorism. In Britain and the Six Counties, catch-all conspiracy laws have been used to trample upon the rights of citizens and were the cause of major miscarriages of justice. This measure paves the way for similar injustices.

I have, without reservation, condemned what happened in New York on 11 September and I am totally committed, as I have stated on many occasions, to the removal of arms and armed organisations from the political equation on this island and between it and its near neighbour. I have no doubt this and previous reactive measures have made and will make no difference to those who are committed to carrying out armed actions or actions of violence. What we clearly need to do is to grapple with the causes of these actions of violence. That is the issue which needs to be addressed. If the time, effort and energy expended on this ever-increasing raft of legislative reactive measures was employed more properly in addressing the core causes and injustices, both domestically and internationally, we would see a significant improvement in the situation here in Ireland and across the globe.

I will also be opposing this motion. I call on all Members to recognise that this is a flawed approach to very important business.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I vehemently protest about pushing through the Dáil – with one hour's debate in each case – this measure on combating terrorism and that which relates to the European extradition warrant. These are far-reaching measures and it would be incredible if the Dáil agreed to pass them without examining and scrutinising them properly. If the Dáil passes both motions, it may rebound on the heads of those who support their rapid passage in the future in ways they may not foresee. The raft of legislation and other measures coming before the House in recent weeks are being opportunistically pushed through in the wake of the atrocity of 11 September. That atrocity is being used to justify measures which would not normally pass muster and which certainly would not usually be pushed through with the haste being employed here this evening.

Across the Atlantic, the situation is even more exaggerated. Provision has already been made there for military tribunals to try, in secret, people – of whom there are approximately 20 million at present – who are not citizens of the United States. These tribunals have been empowered to pass a sentence of execution on people who have no right to appeal. The Government in Britain is attempting to introduce what virtually amounts to internment without trial. There has even been a debate in the United States about whether torture should be legitimised within that country's security systems.

It is incredible that all the major parties in this House are willing to go along with the panic measures we are being asked to pass today. I am seriously concerned about these measures, particularly in terms of the way they can be interpreted. I have no doubt they can be used to criminalise the anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist movement that is growing apace in Europe. I attended protest meetings in Gothenburg, Sweden, at which tens of thousands of people were present, on the occasion of the summit held there earlier this year. I personally witnessed the deliberate provocation by sections of the police of protesters who set out to be peaceful. However, a number of them did not remain peaceful when provoked in this manner.

I am opposed to violent demonstrations because they are counterproductive in every sense. However, article 1 of the draft framework decision refers to "causing extensive destruction to a public facility". Sit-down protests and peaceful occupations have traditionally been used by those opposed to government measures or policies to make their point in certain cases. Under the decision, this provision can be extended to cover such protests. It is stated that the word "extensive" is used as in the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. Unfortunately, we received the draft framework decision document only 24 hours ago. However, I could not find the definition to which it refers in the convention. Will the Minister read it aloud to the House when replying to the debate?

The provision which refers to "unduly compelling a Government . . . to perform or abstain from performing any act" can also be extended to cover, for example, what the anti-globalisation movement has set out to do, namely, fundamentally change – in a peaceful way as far as the majority of its members are concerned – the structures of the European Union and some of its policies, such that which relates to the privatisation of public services. Undoubtedly, this will be used by the types of Governments that orchestrated the violent police actions in Gothenburg in Sweden and in Genoa in Italy earlier this year against mass movements of the peoples of Europe.

Another question is the narrow definition of terrorism that is envisaged within the measures being put through here today. I and my party, the Socialist Party, are, and always have been, opposed to terrorist methods. This is a one-sided definition of terrorism. What is being visited on the innocent and suffering people and children of Iraq by the sanctions imposed by the United States, Britain and other states is terrorism. That is causing incredible misery. It has caused the deaths of perhaps half a million people in the course of the past ten years. This incredible terrorism being perpetrated by the richest countries on earth against one of the poorer countries on earth is totally ignored here, as indeed is the terror being visited by the Israeli state on the long-suffering Palestinian people.

I am opposed to the suicide bombing tactic and the suffering and destruction it causes. However, it is incredible to hear a member of the Dáil refer, as Deputy Shatter did, to the Palestinian terror without referring to the policy of murder and assassination being carried out deliberately by the Israeli state with the approval of the United States and Britain. It has not been publicly condemned. Here is a state that is setting out to murder people without any process and slaughtering little children in the process, and we have absolute silence as far as the countries that want to have these measures hammered into their laws are concerned. We have here a completely one-sided approach to the situation and nothing whatsoever to address the horrific economic and social conditions and the barbarism that is imposed on millions of people in the poorest countries on earth and from which arise generally some groups that mistakenly or misguidedly and in a counter-productive and reactionary fashion engage in acts of terrorism.

We had the spectacle some months ago of General Augusto Pinochet arrested in Britain. Mr. Blair, who says he is crusading against terror around the world, had a proven mass murderer in his grasp – Pinochet, the mass murderer from the 1973 coup carried out in Chile with the connivance and support of the American CIA and others in defence of multinational corporations and their interest – and assisted him in going safely back to Chile instead of having him put on trial for the crimes he carried out. What we have here is another monumental exercise in hypocrisy by the western Governments, and typically this Government, which absolutely must not in its own mind go against the policies of the United States, or Britain for that matter, is going along with it.

This is a bad day's work. Even at this stage I call on the Dáil to reject this measure and to have further debate on these proposals.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt)

I thank all those who contributed on this important motion. I am gratified, although not greatly surprised, at the consensus on the need for concerted strong and effective action to combat international terrorism so that we may ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that the horrific scenes such as those we all witnessed on 11 September will not be repeated.

This proposal for the framework decision on combating terrorism is proof positive of the ability of the European Union's member states to act together in a decisive manner to uphold the democratic values common to us and to further the Union's stated aim of creating an area of freedom, security and justice for all its citizens. Unfortunately, we in Ireland have had long experience of dealing with terrorism. We have been able to contribute, therefore, in a positive way to the development of this proposed framework decision and it has helped us to develop these proposals into effective tools which can be used against those who engage in or assist terrorism.

It will be necessary to enact legislation to give effect to this proposed framework decision in due course. As the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform indicated at the outset, this should not present great difficulties as Ireland's legislation is in any event very comprehensive as it stands.

In the aftermath of the Omagh bombing, this House passed the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act. In legal terms it represented a significant enhancement of the previous offences against the State legislation. In moral terms it represented our determination to protect lives and democracy itself. It is the case that the capacity of the criminal law to respond to atrocities such as that in Omagh is kept under constant review in the light of experience, and the Government will not hesitate in bringing to this House further proposals it considers necessary.

This proposed framework decision which is before the House is only one measure, albeit a significant one, that has been taken at European level to combat terrorism. The European Council held an extraordinary meeting on 21 September to consider measures to progress the fight against international terrorism and set out a plan of action which included the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant, a measure already discussed, and also the adoption of a common definition of terrorism.

The Government is satisfied that these measures strike an appropriate balance between taking strong action against terrorism and at the same ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. The attacks in the United States on 11 September were unprecedented. They have forced civilised society to think again about the measures, legislative and others, in place to deal with the scourge of terrorism. Rarely has the choice between good and evil been put in such stark relief as by the attacks carried out that day in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania by the force of international terrorism with their consequent tragic loss of life. It is in this context that Ireland is determined, with our partners in the European Union, to frame a decisive and effective response to those who would perpetrate such attacks and that would be the aim in framing the legislative proposals needed to give effect to this proposed framework decision and related issues.

On Deputy Shatter's question about the law, in general it will require member states to ensure that their laws make certain specified offences punishable as terrorist offences when they are committed against one or more countries, institutions or people with the aim of seriously altering or destroying the political, economic or social structures of any country. The offences in question range from murder and other violent offences to offences endangering people, property and the environment. Member states will always be obliged to criminalise directing a terrorist group, participating in or supporting such a group and laundering the proceeds of offences committed by such a group.

Deputy Shatter and others spoke about the definition of groups as terrorists or as structured. The definition is an unwieldy one which was agreed by the 15 member states and was previously agreed in the context of combating organised crime. On Italy, it has no difficulty with this text. On Dáil committees, an issue that was also raised by Deputy Howlin, in general, justice matters are dealt with by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights while the Joint Committee on European Affairs has looked at justice affairs from a European viewpoint. It is perhaps something which the committees should consider. I note from the debate on the Forum on Europe in the wake of the Nice treaty that there is a very strong emphasis on more parliamentary scrutiny, a view which I share.

Deputy Shatter raised the question of harmonising offences and maximum sentences across the EU. This, as the Deputy acknowledges, is a very difficult issue. There have been a number of discussions with the JHA Council on this matter. However, it has proved almost impossible to date to get agreement on maximum sentences. There has been greater progress in harmonising the definition of offences.

Deputy Howlin asked for an update on events since the 20 September meeting of the JHA Council. On mutual assistance, convention and protocol, legislation implementing those instruments will be presented to the Oireachtas next year. On the police chiefs' task force, this was established following the October meeting of the European Council in Tampere in 1999. It has an obvious role in co-ordinating activities. The anti-terrorist task force is established at Europol in The Hague and is responsible for collating information.

Deputies Gormley and Higgins queried the word "extensive". As the footnote indicates, this word is taken from the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This is a UN convention signed in 1999. Legislation to ratify it will be before the House early next year as required by UN Resolution 1373. The definition is a matter for legislation.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Has it not been decided yet?

Mr. T. Kitt

The definition will be decided in domestic legislation. The Deputy asked if this would prevent people from protesting. Like other Members of the House, I would have been involved in many protests over the years. Section 10 of the preamble states:

This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they emerge from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States as principles of Community law. The Union observes the principles recognised by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union and reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably Chapter VI thereof. Nothing in this Framework Decision may be interpreted as being intended to reduce or restrict fundamental rights or freedoms such as the right to strike, freedom of assembly, of association or of expression, including the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions with others for the protection of his or her interests and the related right to demonstrate.

Those who have suggested that this framework decision impacts on the right to protest are reading the proposal wrongly.

Question put: "That the motion is hereby agreed to."

Deputies

Vótáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputies who are claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Gregory, Gormley, Sargent, Ó Caoláin, Joe Higgins and Healy rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 68 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Question declared carried.

Sitting suspended at 6.45 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.