Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement.
Containment of Nuclear Weapons Bill 2000 [ Seanad ] : Report Stage.
Acting Chairman
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, lines 7 and 8, to delete "THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER," and substitute "22 SEPTEMBER".
These three amendments arise as a consequence of the three Opposition amendments I accepted on Committee Stage and which inserted various dates in the Title of the Bill. The amendments do not alter the dates inserted on Committee Stage, they merely equate them with the way they are presented in other sections of the Bill which, according to our legal advice, is the most correct way of presenting the dates.
I do not intend to contribute a great deal on this Stage because we did most of our business on Committee Stage, and I thank the Minister and his officials for accepting so many of the amendments tabled by me. A document was sent to my party Whip's office on 29 October on which I would like clarification. It states:
The Containment of Nuclear Weapons Bill which is at Committee Stage has encountered some intractable difficulties relating to process and implementation of the obligations it contains.
Certain of the authorities with responsibility for the delivery of the obligations have expressed concerns in this regard.
The models for implementation used in other countries have been examined and the help of the European Commission has been sought.
The European Commission has met with representatives of the Department of Environment and Local Government which has responsibility for the matter, and arising from that meeting, a possible resolution of the dilemma has been identified. This resolution has been put to the authorities involved and an early response is expected.
If this resolves the matter, the Bill will proceed immediately to completion.
Will the Minister of State give an explanation of this note?
This was a note sent out to advise the Deputies, in particular the Opposition spokespersons, on the delay in getting the Bill from Second Stage in 2001 to Committee Stage in October 2003. It was merely clarification for Deputy Allen and his spokesperson colleagues in opposition.
It is dated 29 October, which was after Committee Stage. Have all the difficulties referred to in the note been resolved and can we now proceed to completion?
The Deputy is right. He received it after Committee Stage and I am pleased to confirm to the House that all matters were resolved satisfactorily and we can now complete the debate on the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, lines 9 and 10, to delete "THE 5th DAY OF APRIL," and substitute "5 APRIL".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, line 18, to delete "THE 1st DAY OF JULY," and substitute "1 JULY".
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 4 has been ruled out of order as it is outside the scope of the Bill.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, line 7, to delete ", including land covered by water" and substitute "or below land and on or below the sea or in the air".
I realise this issue was dealt with on Committee Stage and the Minister of State will recall there was some mishap in respect of my amendments not being included at that time. Has consideration been given to the sufficiency of the amendment made? I suggest that it be a little more comprehensive, given that we are dealing with not just issues of nuclear weaponry or potential material to be used in such on land but also by shipment or travel by air. The amendment could be more comprehensive than simply stating "including land covered by water". Whether that would relate to shipping is a matter I would like clarified. It may be seen as a belt and braces type amendment but I would like the Minister of State to assure me that we have covered all the bases, so to speak.
Deputy Sargent will recall that on Committee Stage I accepted an amendment from the Opposition to include land covered by water. Now he is asking us to extend that to include below land and on or below the sea or in the air. I am satisfied on the advice I have received that the current definition of "land" is to cover the objectives under the Bill. I refer Deputy Sargent to page 4, line 7, which gives the definition of "place", including any means of transport. He referred to boats or other means of transport but it is included in the Bill. The advice is that this is sufficient to cover the intention of Deputy Sargent's amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related to amendment No. 6 and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, line 10, to delete "signed" and substitute "done".
These amendments relate to the text and the definition of "protocol" in section 2. On foot of Opposition amendments the definition was amended slightly on Committee Stage, as was the Title of the Bill. These amendments are only of an editorial nature and are as a consequence of the amendments made on Committee Stage. They do not alter in any way the substance of the definition. The use of the word "done" instead of the word "signed" is to bring it into line with the amendment made to the Title on Committee Stage. The other amendments relate the insertion or deletion of commas, as appropriate.
What is meant by deleting the word "September" and substituting the word "September" in amendment No. 7?
I asked the same question. The Deputy will see that after the word "September" there is a comma. We are deleting the comma.
Spot the difference.
Ten out of ten.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, lines 10 and 11, to delete "September," and substitute "September".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, line 16, to delete "reference" and substitute "reference,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, line 16, to delete "English language" and substitute "Irish and English languages".
Bhí leasú mar seo ar Chéim an Choiste. Beidh a fhios ag an Aire go bhfuil an dá theanga, Gaeilge agus Béarla, mar chuid de Bhunreacht na hÉireann agus sa gcomhthéacs sin tá mé ag súil gur féidir leis glacadh leis an leasú atá agam. Tá sé i bhfad níos simplí ná mar a bhí an chéad leasú – ní gá go mbeadh sé chomh simplí le Béarla amháin. Ba cheart go mbeadh an dá theanga san áireamh.
Nuair a phlé muid an cheist seo ar Chéim an Choiste, bhí go leor eile teangacha a bhí bainteach leis na Náisiúin Aontaithe agus, ar mholadh ón Fhreasúra, ghlac mé leis an leasú ag baint leis sin. Nuair a bheidh an Bille seo rite agus sínithe ag an Uachtarán, beidh an tAcht seo ar fáil as Gaeilge. Ní amháin go mbeidh an tAcht ar fáil as Gaeilge, beidh na Sceidil fosta. Seo an gnáthchóras.
An fhadhb atá ann ná má aistrítear an Bille mar atá sé, deirfidh sé as Gaeilge "mar atá leagtha amach as Béarla", sin an t-aistriúchán a bheidh ar an doiciméad. Ba chóir go mbeadh sé ar fáil as Gaeilge sa chéad dul síos, mar is í an Ghaeilge teanga náisiúnta na tíre, agus ansin as Béarla agus ba chóir go mbeadh an dá theanga luaite in ionad teanga amháin fosta. Ó thaobh an dhlí de, tá an chéad áit ag an nGaeilge ach nuair a aistreofar an doiciméad, d'fhéadfaí a rá gur i mBéarla a leagadh amach an Bille.
Is rud bunúsach é. Dúirt an tAire go mbeidh aistriúchán ann agus tá sé soiléir dom nach bhfuil aon dochar ann má ghlacfaidh sé leis an leasú de bharr go ndeir sé go mbeidh sé ar fáil as Gaeilge. Beidh sé aisteach má léann duine an slíocht as Gaeilge a luafaidh Béarla agus nach luafaidh an Ghaeilge. Tá sé aisteach go bhfuil teanga amháin i gceist nuair atá an Bille ar fáil sa dá theanga.
Níl mise ag athrú an nós atá anseo le tamall fada. Seo an dóigh a dhéantar rudaí maidir le Billí agus beidh an Bille ar fáil as Gaeilge tar éis dó bheith sínithe ina Acht ag an Uachtarán. Ní athróidh mé an tslí a rinneadh obair anseo ó thús na Dála.
Glacaim gur seo an bealach a rinneadh an obair go dtí seo ach sna díospóireachtaí a bhí againn ar Bhille na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, bhí muid ag triall athraithe a dhéanamh air sin. Má aistreofar an Bille seo mar atá sé, dearfaidh sé "mar atá leagtha amach sa Sceideal sa teanga Béarla". Ba chóir go leagfar amach sa Sceideal é i nGaeilge sa leagan Gaeilge agus i mBéarla sa leagan Béarla. Bheadh aistriúchán mícheart ann dá n-aistreofaí an Bille mar atá sé leagtha amach. Rud teicniúil atá ann agus ní chóir go mbeadh cosc á athrú.
Ní rachaidh mé ar aghaidh leis seo mar tá sé chomh bunúsach sin. Tá Sceideal ann agus tá Béarla ag an deireadh – níl ann ach cúpla líne – agus ní dhéanfadh sé dochar ar bith, go speisialta nuair a bhí an Sceideal ar nós chlár fógraíochta do Linguaphone cheana féin. Níl sé ann a thuilleadh, áfach, níl ann ach Béarla. Tuigeann an tAire go bhfuil seo simplí agus go mbeidh sé ag freastal ar riachatanas bunreachtúil má tá an Ghaeilge agus an Béarla taobh le taobh sa Sceideal, fiú sa leagan Gaeilge agus sa leagan Béarla. Ní thuigim cén fáth nach bhfuil an tAire ag glacadh leis an leasú. Tá sé den tuairim go bhfuil ceart ag an nGaeilge ach níl sé sásta glacadh leis seo.
Protocól idirnáisiúnta é seo agus tá an protocól i mBéarla. Beidh an tAcht i nGaeilge, beidh an Sceideal i nGaeilge agus chomh luath agus a bheidh fail an Bille a aistriú, mar is gá le gach Bille agus Acht, beidh sé ar fáil as Gaeilge. Níl mise ag caitheamh salachair ar an Ghaeilge. Beidh sé ar fáil as Gaeilge agus beidh an Sceideal ar fáil as Gaeilge agus sin an córas anseo leis na blianta maidir le protocóil idirnáisiúnta.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 4, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"(a) engage in activity which would result in nuclear weapons becoming available contrary to the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 or the Agreement of 1973,”.
I raised this matter on Committee Stage and the Minister responded to it, for which I thank him. I would like to be assured that there is not a danger further down the line that there could be a legal challenge based on the wording here. As it stands, is there a risk that it is confined to giving legal effect to the latest protocol only?
I support Deputy Upton's amendment. Given that I asked about the Bill in 2004 on the Order of Business this morning, will nuclear weapons legislation coming down the track require us to include this amendment? Have we taken account of future obligations as well as present ones?
The advice on Committee Stage was that this amendment could not be accepted and that it went beyond the scope of the Bill. The Bill deals only with the transposition into Irish law of Ireland's obligation to the protocol to the nuclear safeguards agreement of 1973. We do not see any necessity for the amendment.
The Bill is specifically aimed at implementing Ireland's obligations under the additional protocol to the 1973 safeguards agreement. The additional protocol relates to specific activities, including dual purpose equipment and materials mentioned in the protocol, and is aimed at strengthening the effectiveness of the existing safeguards agreement.
The 1973 safeguards agreement involving the non-nuclear weapons states which are party to the non-proliferation treaty was made on foot of the treaty. Ireland is a party to both the agreement and the treaty and also participating in the implementation in Ireland of the safeguards agreement. The objective of both the additional protocol and the safeguards agreement is to prevent the diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons and other explosive devices.
Ireland, as an EU member state, is committed to working towards an EU common policy related to criminal sanctions for the illegal export or brokering of weapons of mass destruction and related material, including nuclear weapons. This process is taking place under the aegis of its action plan for the implementation of the basic principles for an EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, legislation is already in place in Ireland prohibiting the unlicensed export of dual use material, including nuclear related technology. The Government, therefore, does not see a need for this amendment which I have to oppose.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, lines 39 and 40, to delete all words from and including "or" in line 39 down to and including "Annex l" in line 40 and substitute the following:
"Annex l or relevant to the information to be provided in Article 2 of the Protocol".
The text of section 3(1)(a) was amended on Committee Stage on foot of a Government amendment by the deletion of the words, “Annex lll”. Arising from that amendment there is a need to improve the text of section 3(1)(a). This is an editorial amendment which does not alter the substance of the section. It merely moves the words “Annex l” from line 40 to its proper position in line 39 after the words “activity listed in”. This is the correct position for the words “Annex l” as it is Annex l which lists the activities referred to.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 4, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following:
"(c) import into the State from any other Member State of the European Community equipment or non-nuclear material referred to in Annex lll or export such equipment or material from the State to any other Member State of the European Community.”
I cannot recall the reason this paragraph was dropped. Can the Minister of State explain the reason this happened?
On legal advice received by the Department this amendment cannot be accepted as it would not be possible to bring a prosecution on the basis of the amendment. Section 3 sets out the conditions under which a person could be guilty of an offence. Annex lll deals with the reporting methods by which the European Union and member states are obliged to report to the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is not possible to be guilty of an offence under Annex lll. Paragraphs (a) and (b) already cover things that may be imported. Annex lll does not contain a reference to any material or equipment and is, essentially, an administrative annex dealing with the exchange of information. It is an administrative detail.
I am slightly puzzled. I seek clarification in order that this matter does not slip through the net. This paragraph was contained in the Bill as passed by the Seanad. I wonder as to the reason it was not in the Bill following Committee Stage in the Dáil. Is there a straightforward answer to this question?
The paragraph was in the Bill in the Seanad. On further consultation the Government was advised that it was not necessary for the reasons I have given to the House. Annex lll is an administrative detail. It deals with how information is provided. No products or materials are involved.
I have no argument with the logic of what the Minister of State is saying but is it not normal for a change in legislation to be made by way of an amendment rather than be dropped following an observation? The Minister of State has mentioned the paragraph being dropped. This means Members must comb a Bill very carefully, not merely for Government amendments but also to see if something has been dropped without an amendment. Was this paragraph dropped without an amendment?
It was not dropped in transit from the Seanad to the select committee. It was dropped by way of an amendment on Committee Stage.
I misunderstood the Minister of State when he said the paragraph was dropped.
My apologies. It was amended.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are related and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 4, line 45, to delete "liable--" and substitute "liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for life, or both.".
These amendments address the need to establish credible deterrents and sanctions for the offences of unauthorised production, use, acquisition, transfer and processing of material that could be used in the making of nuclear weapons and thus contribute to the spread of weapons of mass destruction and of obstructing nuclear weapons inspections. They would ensure the introduction of proper State sanctions for domestic violations of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Amend ment No. 21 is related to amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
There are two problems in the legislation. First, paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 3(2) propose that offences under this section should be treated either as indictible or summary offences. It is not clear what will govern whether an offence is an indictable or summary offence. Second, the penalties for these offences, six months imprisonment and a €3,000 fine for a summary offence and four years imprisonment or a €500,000 fine for an indictible offence, are minor. Section 14 outlines that all other offences under the legislation will be dealt with summarily and the consequence of conviction will also be minor. There will be a maximum of six months imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding €3,000.
The Sinn Féin amendments recognise three classes of offence within the legislation and propose three classes of sanction. An offence under section 3, the violation of the non-proliferation treaty by contributing to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, cannot be construed as anything but a grave offence. This is a crime against humanity which deserves the strongest possible deterrent and the harshest available sanction. A refusal to comply with inspections, the obstruction of inspectors or the deliberate deception offence under section 7(9) and section 9 are not minor offences, nor is the section 12 offence which involves a failure to provide information or keep documentation required by the national authority or the IAEA. Iraq stood accused of a similar offence. The penalty in that instance, which the Government seemed to back, was the invasion and levelling of the country, the violation of its sovereignty and loss of life.
The least this domestic legislation can do is to provide a credible deterrent and sanction by threat of a substantial prison sentence and/or a fine. On the other hand, the section 10 offence of failure to notify and the section 11 offence of leaking or publishing so-called privileged information are minor. I question whether such information should be privileged as this will prevent transparency which is in the public interest. We, therefore, propose to retain the designation of these offences as summary and liable, on conviction, to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of €3,000.
Section 11 relates to the offence of leaking or publishing so-called privileged information. I question that such information should be privileged as this will prevent transparency, which is in the public interest. I contend that both of these offences are minor. We propose to maintain the designation as summary and liable on conviction to six months in prison or a fine of €3,000.
I understand that we are debating amendments Nos. 13 and 14. Perhaps the Chair will clarify if the Deputy has also included amendment No. 21 to which he referred in great detail.
Acting Chairman
No.
If that is the case, I will refer only to amendments Nos. 13 and 14. Following consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and within my Department, and taking into account the Committee Stage amendments, the Government is satisfied that the current fine and prison sentence is adequate and in keeping with the gravity of the offences allowed under section 3.
If amendments Nos. 13 and 14 were accepted, it would not be possible to convict a person on a summary conviction. That is how we see this matter. I will go into more detail on section 14 and amendment No. 21 at a later stage.
I do not think the fines or sentence that are being suggested are grave when one considers the offence we are discussing. It is not a minor infringement on law. A fine of €3,000 on summary conviction is minor when one is talking about such offences. I ask that further consideration be given to this. I do not believe amendment No. 13 would prevent a conviction being sought and gained – it would have the effect of ensuring the gravity of the offence was taken into account and the sentence corresponded with the offence. The fine mentioned is too low and should be substantially increased if this Bill is to have any deterrent effect.
Based on legal advice, I am not prepared to accept the amendments. I do not think the Deputy or any Member would want to find that having accepted the amendment, it would not be possible to convict a person on a summary conviction. While it may be a matter for discussion later, I would point out that on conviction on indictment, it would be a matter of a fine not exceeding €500,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years. I feel this is sufficient and the punishment fits the crime.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 7, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(2) Information compelled by virtue of subsection (1)(k) shall not be admissible in criminal proceedings against the person from whom such information is compelled or that person's employer.”.
I raise this as a matter of ensuring constitutional rights are protected. While the Minister responded to it on Committee Stage, it is important that it is raised again and clarified that there is no risk that could emerge that people could be compelled to incriminate themselves, giving rise to information that could be used to convict them. The danger is the information could be used later to convict the person. I would like the Minister to comment on this again.
I can clarify the position. Section 7 (1)(k) of the Bill provides that an authorised officer, for the purpose of ensuring that the Act has been complied with, may require a person to give any information to the officer which the latter may reasonably require in the inspection or investigation. The amendment would mean such information would not be admissible in criminal proceedings against the person from whom the information was obtained or that person's employer.
On the basis of legal advice received by my Department, we cannot accept this amendment. I understand from our legal advisers that the insertion of such a provision is not necessary as the matter is covered in common or case law. Such a provision has not been inserted in previous legislation. To do so in this Bill would have a knock-on effect for other legislation. It is obviously something that would require detailed consideration and such consideration is not possible given the time available for this Bill.
My legal advice tells me that while a person would not, under existing law, be obliged to incriminate himself or herself, the person would be obliged to provide information reasonably required. In these circumstances, the general rules of common or case law would apply. Accepting this would go against the normal process of inspections or official visits to premises. The Bill is sufficient as this section stands. I hope the Deputy accepts the insertion of this would not help us in achieving our objectives.
I am slightly concerned at the Minister's view that it would be time-consuming and difficult and would require a lot of discussion. I would not like to think that was the basis for not accepting the amendment. As long as I can be assured that is not the basis, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
That certainly is not the reason. The primary reason is that it is covered under common or case law.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 17.
In page 8, lines 38 to 40, to delete all words from and including "any" in line 38 down to and including "or" in line 40 and substitute the following:
"an activity listed in Annex I or relevant to the information to be provided in Article 2 of the Protocol or Annex".
This amendment relates to section 9 (b) of the Bill and is consequential on the Government counter-amendment to an Opposition amendment to section 3 (a) of the Bill agreed on Committee Stage. The amendment is designed only to improve the existing text and does not in any way change the substance of the existing text.
The amendment merely moves the words "Annex I" in line 40 to its more correct position after "listed in" in line 38. This is the more correct position for Annex I as it lists the activities referred to in this section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 10, line 13, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
While this is a simple enough change, it would have a drastic effect on this Bill in that it would ensure what the Bill sets out will happen and the regulation "shall" designate rather than "may".
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.