I have two questions on the section. On page 3 we referred to two different terms and I ask the Minister for an explanation in relation to these terms. Under (I) it says "involving an act of violence against the life, physical integrity or liberty of a person". What does the term "physical integrity" mean? I thought "physical" pertained to matter and "integrity" to probity. Does it have a meaning at law? Part II of that section says "involving an act against property if the act created a collective danger for persons". Now if this is considered to be a political act and an attack on a person but in the course of this attack another innocent person is injured, does that qualify as "persons", or does it have to be two persons separate to the person who was the subject supposedly of the political attack? Why do we use the plural there? I know the singular is used in other parts of the Act. Why do we use the plural in this part?
SECTION 2.
The wording here is taken directly from the convention. They are direct quotes from the convention and I am informed that the interpretation of them in each case is a matter for the courts. They are already in the 1987 Act.
Does the term "physical integrity" have any meaning in Irish law? What will the courts say "physical integrity" means?
The Schedule sets out what the offences are under the law. As regards the interpretation of "physical integrity", "collective danger" and the other points the Deputy raised, they were taken directly from the convention and put into our law in 1987. We are just restating them here. It has been and will continue to be a matter for the courts to interpret what they might mean in different circumstances.
On the section generally, we have some difficulty with what is left. We reiterate our support for the idea of putting a Schedule equivalent to the 1976 Schedule into this Act, but there are a few things by which I am still mystified. I think I am right in saying that in section 3 (3) (a) we are still left with subparagraph (4), an offence involving kidnapping, the taking of hostages or serious false imprisonment. That is still to be left in the section. I cannot understand why that is going to be left in the section given, that the Schedule sets it out in items 3 and 4 of the Schedule. I do not see why that should be done a second time unless the phrase "involving" is seen to be wider than the offence itself.
In relation to paragraph (5), "an offence involving the use of an explosive or an automatic firearm if such endangers persons . . ." it seems to me that possession or use of a firearm with intent to endanger life is caught by that and that is item 8 in the Schedule. Why are those items being left there, given that as a matter of Irish law they are already caught by items 3, 4 and 8 of the Schedule which is to be inserted?
The reason for the dual approach is that we wish to retain the close link with the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism provided for in section 3 of the 1987 Act while at the same time ensuring that we will have the clarity and certainty given by the First Schedule. There is an element of duplicity, as Deputy McDowell has pointed out, in having both the list of offences in section 3 (3) and a separate Schedule of offences; but it causes no difficulties in practice and there are advantages in the dual approach being taken. As I said, it follows the wording of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, so there is no doubt but that we are giving full effect to the provisions of the convention. These provisions have already been tested in our courts and have been found to be in order. This approach has benefits.
I will wait to be convinced of the benefit. It seems that it is surplus. The Act distinguishes between certain forms of offences using automatic firearms and other offences. I cannot understand how it could possibly be relevant that somebody used an automatic firearm rather than a single shot repeating weapon in any circumstances to decide whether something was political or not.
Whereas the Department may be advising the Minister very strongly that there is some advantage in using the language of the convention it was on the language of the convention that we all fell apart on the last occasion, because it was woolly and unsatisfactory. It seems to me that there is no need to make special provision for automatic firearms. I do not believe that a a matter of international law we should have a different view of any offence involving a firearm based on the fact that it lets off more than one bullet when the trigger is pulled.
The definition of "explosives" in subparagraph (c) of the 1987 Act seems to me to be again an unnecessary new definition of the term "explosive" when there is plenty of Irish material under the 1887 Act as to the definition of an explosive. I cannot understand why these sections are still being kept. I ask the Minister to consider whether she would not have a neater, more understandable Act if she scrapped subparagraphs (4) and (5) of section 3 (3) (a) and took out the definitions of "automatic firearm", "explosive" and "an offence involving" and relied on plain, simple, straightforward language which most people can follow.
I appreciate what Deputy McDowell is saying. Restating something may seem superfluous in many ways, but the strong legal advice that my officials have is that we should keep the link with the convention and at the same time set out very clearly in the Schedule the actual offences in a wording which has regard to our own legislation. Because of the constant possibility of a constitutional challenge it is felt that the "belt and braces" approach is the better way to proceed.
I accept that, but there is no constitutional basis for a challenge at all. The Sunningdale Commission's report was the "belt and braces" piece of constitutional theory, not anything that has happened since.
Is Deputy McDowell offering his services to the State in the event of such a challenge?