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 forward work urgently so as to enable the Council to achieve significant political agreement at its meeting last week. 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 been taken forward within the framework of Title VI 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.
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 there is also to be reconsultation of 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)(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 the member states as to the result to be achieved but shall leave to the 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 1b 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. The proposed framework decision accordingly provides as follows.
Article 1 defines a terrorist act by reference to specified conduct as defined as offences under national law and when committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation. The conduct specified in the article represents the types of acts traditionally associated with acts of terrorism and includes, for example, attacks upon a person's life which may cause death, attacks upon the physical integrity of a person, kidnapping and hostage taking, causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system or an infrastructure facility, seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport, the manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, the release of dangerous substances etc. Threatening to commit such offences is also covered. Member states will be required to take the necessary measures to ensure that terrorist offences under domestic law include such offences.
Article 1A provides that certain other offences, aggravated theft, drawing up false administrative documents and extortion are to be regarded as terrorist linked offences when undertaken for the purpose of committing one of the terrorist acts to which I have referred.
Article 2 deals with offences relating to a terrorist group and provides for acts consisting of directing a terrorist group or knowingly participating in the activities of a terrorist group. It will require member states to ensure that these offences are also punishable. Member states will also be required by article 3 to make inciting, or aiding or abetting an offence referred to in articles 1 or 2 punishable as well as attempting to commit offences covered by articles 1 and 1A with certain limited exceptions.
Article 4 deals with the penalties which terrorist offences and terrorist linked or related offences should attract. The core principle is set down in Article 4(1), which provides that member states shall ensure that the offences concerned are to be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties. That article further provides that terrorist offences, including attempting to commit such offences or aiding, abetting or inciting their commission, should be punishable by custodial sentences heavier than those imposed under national law for similar offences committed in the absence of the special intent required by Article 1, that is the intent to seriously intimidate a population, unduly compel a Government etc. That requirement will not apply, however, where sentence imposed under national law is already the maximum possible sentence, which would be the case for us where an offence attracts a possible life sentence.
Article 4 also requires member states to provide that the offence of directing a terrorist group is punishable by a maximum custodial sentence of not less than 15 years, except where it relates only to threatening to commit terrorist offences in which case the maximum penalty is to be not less than eight years. The offence of knowingly participating in a terrorist group is also to be punishable by a maximum penalty of not less than eight years. There is a related provision in article 6, which will enable, but not require, member states to provide that the maximum penalties to which I have referred will not apply in circumstances where the offender renounces terrorist activity and provides certain specified assistance to the judicial or administrative authorities.
I referred to Article 1b and the provision it makes to the effect that the proposed framework decision is not intended to have the effect of amending the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. Senators will recall in this regard that article 6 of the Treaty refers, inter alia, to the fact that the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, and requires the Union to respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to member states.
Article 7 provides for offences committed by legal persons and will require member states to ensure that such persons can be held liable for terrorist offences etc. committed for their benefit by certain persons connected to them.
Article 8 provides that, as with natural persons, penalties for legal persons must also be effective, proportionate and dissuasive in the case of legal persons and may include fines and other penalties.
Article 9 will require member states to estab lish jurisdiction over offences covered by the proposed framework decision in circumstances where the offence is committed in whole or in part on its territory, on board a vessel flying its flag or an aircraft registered in the state involved, the offender is one of its nationals or residents, the offence has been committed for the benefit of a legal person established in its territory, or the offence has been committed against the institutions or people of the member state in question or against an institution of the European Union or an EU body based in the member state, and in respect of any case in which extradition has been refused. Member states may also take jurisdiction in respect of offences dealt with in the proposed framework decision committed in other member states. Provision is made for co-operation between member states where more than one member state has jurisdiction with a view to deciding in which member state proceedings may most appropriately be taken.
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.
Article 10 deals with the position of victims and is intended to supplement the proposed framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings by requiring all appropriate assistance to be provided to the families of victims as well as providing that the investigation or prosecution of an offence covered by the proposed framework decision should not be dependent on a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence at least in circumstances where that offence has been committed in the territory of the member state.
Article 11 will require member states to take the necessary measures to comply with the proposed framework decision by 31 December 2002 and provides for the Council to assess the manner in which member states have implemented the measure by 31 December the following year. Article 12 provides for the coming into force of the proposed framework decision following its publication in the Official Journal of the EC.
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 which I have already outlined, 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 in which we live. 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.