Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 84.
“Third, it replaces the definition of “corresponding offence”, currently in section 7(3) of the principal Act, with a new definition. The change does not substantially alter the meaning, however. The term “corresponding offence”, when referenced in section 7, remains as referring to those offences listed in Schedule 2 that are linked to the terrorist offence being penalised, with the penalties for those Schedule 2 offences providing the first step to establishing the penalty for the terrorist offence at issue. The updated definition is intended to provide clarity, with more robust language. It is broken down into two categories, one in respect of the "terrorist activity" offence and one respect of the "terrorist linked activity" offence.”
“Amendment No. 18 carries on with amendments to section 6 of the Bill. It inserts a subsection (c), which again amends section 7 of the principal Act relating to penalty provision. Subsection (c) results in, first, the insertion of a subsection (2C) into section 7 of the principal Act, which relates to the requirement of Article 18 of the directive, discussed previously under amendment No. 16, that requires that fines be imposed on companies convicted of terrorist offences. Second, it results in the insertion of subsections (2D), (2E), (2F) and (2G) into section 7 of the principal Act to clarify that penalties for the "attempt" and "threat" offences are linked to the same penalty provisions for the substantive offences being attempted or threatened.”
“Subparagraphs (iii) and (iv) of subsection (a) address numbering changes resulting from prior amendments which change the format and numbering of subcategories within the definition of "terrorist activity" and "terrorist linked activity", as discussed under amendment No. 7. Changes are thus necessitated in section 7 of the principal Act to signpost accurately the updated definition sections that are to be linked to the penalties that section 7 provides for. The amendment that subparagraph (v) of subsection (a) addresses relates to a requirement in paragraph 3 of Article 15 of the directive that where the offence of threatening terrorism is committed by a person directing a terrorist group, the maximum sentence for the threat offence shall not be less than eight years. This amendment ensures that this requirement is adhered to.”
“These amendments relate to section 7 of the principal Act, which provides for penalties for terrorist offences. Section 6 of the Bill, as it currently stands, amends section 7 of the principal Act to include penalties for the new offences the Bill introduces. The amendments I am proposing will reframe section 6, with the changes largely driven by technical requirements on foot of the 2017 directive and the cross-referencing of sections the penalty provisions need to link to. Amendment No. 17 deletes and replaces subsection (a) of section 6 of the Bill. Subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (a) amend section 7(1) of the principal Act, and their purpose is to signpost later penalty subsections that the earlier provisions in subsection (1) are to now be subject to.”
“I move amendment No. 17: In page 7, to delete lines 35 and 36, and in page 8, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following: “(a) in subsection (1), by— (i) the substitution of “Subject to subsections (2C), (2D), (2E), (2F) and (2G), a person guilty” for “A person guilty”, (ii) the substitution, in paragraph (d), of “subject to paragraph (f), to imprisonment” for “to imprisonment”, (iii) the substitution, in paragraph (e), of— (I) “paragraph (e)” for “paragraph (c)” in subparagraph (i), (II) “paragraph (f)” for “paragraph (d)” in subparagraph (ii), and (III) “paragraph (g)” for “paragraph (e)” in subparagraph (iii),”, (iv) the insertion, in paragraph (e), of the following subparagraph: “(iv) in paragraph (h) or (i) of that definition, on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.”, (v) the insertion of the following paragraph: “(f) in the case of an offence consisting of an act referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘terrorist activity’ committed by a person who— (i) when committing that offence, was also committing an offence under section 6 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, and (ii) by virtue of the said paragraph (d) would, but for this paragraph, be liable to a maximum term of imprisonment of less than 8 years, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 8 years.”,”.”
“It now expressly provides that for the purposes of this Act, "the engagement by a person in any protest, advocacy or dissent, or in any strike, lockout or other industrial action, shall not of itself constitute grounds for inferring that the person is doing an act with the intention of seriously intimidating a population" or the other tests or definitions for terrorist activity. The last aspect of this amendment inserts section 6(10) into the principal Act. This stems from the requirement in paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the directive for co-operation between member states when both may have jurisdiction to bring proceedings against an individual. The directive lays down factors that must be considered when arriving at a conclusion as to where the proceedings will take place. This amendment lays down those considerations.”
“That terrorist intention is defined in the Act as aimed at "seriously intimidating a population", "unduly compelling a Government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act" or "seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or an international organisation". The amendment does not make any fundamental change to this subsection, but simply reformulates the wording to make it clearer. It is important to point out that I brought forward the amendment in question on foot of what was stated here in the concerns that individuals expressed.”
“Rather, the offence will now be provided for via the definition of "terrorist activity" in section 4 of the Act, which was discussed previously. This expands the definition to include the threatening of terrorist acts and with engaging in terrorist activity, then codified as an offence in section 6(1)(a)(i). This is a structural change to how the offence is drafted. This amendment also reworks section 6(5) of the principal Act, which clarifies that the engagement by a person "in any protest, advocacy or dissent, or in any strike, lockout or other industrial action" is not alone a sufficient basis for inferring the person is committing an act with terrorist intention.”
“Technical legal reasons can preclude the attempt of these actions from being charged as an offence in and of itself. This is down to the fact that in these cases the substantive action that is being attempted can be considered an attempt itself or an otherwise unfinished action in the pursuit of criminal harm. It would be illogical to criminalise attempting to attempt terrorism and a prosecution would, invariably, fail where the action being charged is too far removed from the actual criminal harm. The amendments, thus, exclude the attempt of these acts from the ambit of the offence of attempting terrorism, as required by the directive. This amendment also deletes section 6(1)(a)(iii) of the principal Act. This relates to the offence of threatening terrorist activity. This does not, however, remove this offence from the principal Act.”
“This amendment relates to section 6 of the principal Act, which is the main terrorist offence provision. The first group of amendments to this section aims to insert in section 6(1)(a) two new subparagraphs, which will be sections 6(1)(a)(ii) and 6(1)(a)(iia). These amendments stem from the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the directive. This makes it an offence to attempt terrorist acts. There are certain terrorist acts that while considered offences themselves, the attempt at such is excluded from being an offence under the directive. Thus, attempting to threaten terrorism, attempting to possess explosive substances or firearms for terrorism, attempting to provoke terrorist activity and attempting to organise or receive training for terrorism are not offences under the directive.”
“I move amendment No. 16: In page 7, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 6 of Principal Act 7. Section 6 of the Principal Act is amended— (a) in subsection (1), by— (i) the substitution of the following subparagraphs for subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a): “(ii) attempts to engage in a terrorist activity, other than a terrorist activity consisting of— (I) a threat referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘terrorist activity’, (II) an act that is an offence under section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 consisting of the unlawful or malicious possession or control of an explosive substance with the intent referred to in paragraph (b) of that section, (III) an act that is an offence under— (A) subsection (1) of section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 consisting of the possession or control of an explosive substance other than for a lawful object, (B) section 15 of the Firearms Act 1925, (C) section 26 or 27A of the Firearms Act 1964, or (D) section 4 of the Chemical Weapons Act 1997, or (IV) an act committed outside the State that, if committed in the State, would constitute a terrorist activity to which clause (I), (II) or (III) applies, or (iia) attempts to engage in a terrorist-linked activity other than— (I) public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, (II) receiving training for terrorism, or (III) organising or facilitating travel for the purpose of terrorism, or”, and (ii) the deletion of subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (a), (b) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (5): “(5) For the purposes of this Act, the engagement by a person in any protest, advocacy or dissent, or in any strike, lockout or other industrial action, shall not of itself constitute grounds for inferring that the person is doing an act with the intention of— (a) seriously intimidating a population, (b) unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or (c) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or an international organisation.”, and (c) the insertion of the following subsection: “(10) The Director of Public Prosecutions shall, when considering in which Member State it would be most appropriate for criminal proceedings to be brought against a person to whom subsection (9) applies, take account of the following: (a) the Member State where the offence was committed, (b) the nationality or Member State of residence of the person, (c) the country of origin of the victim of the offence, and (d) the Member State in which the person was first arrested for the offence.”.”.”
“An amendment, therefore, was required to provide for this. The amendment provides for the specific offence of directing a terrorist group by a body corporate and provides for a corresponding penalty of a fine to comply with Article 18.”
“Article 17 of the directive requires that legal persons can be found liable for offences under the directive and Article 18 requires that they can be punished by fines. A body corporate is a person under Irish law and thus can be found liable for the same offences as a so-called natural person can. This applies to all the offences provided for in the principal Act and the Bill. One offence that does not currently carry a fine is that of directing a terrorist group, which is criminalised via section 6 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. This section makes it an offence to direct an unlawful organisation and section 5 of the principal Act designates terrorist groups as unlawful organisations. However, the 1998 Act only provides for sanction for this offence via imprisonment. It does not provide for fines.”
“I move amendment No. 15: In page 7, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 5 of Principal Act 6. Section 5 of the Principal Act is amended by— (a) the insertion of the following subsection: “(2A) A body corporate that directs the activities of a terrorist group (at any level of its organisational structure) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine.”, and (b) the substitution, in subsection (4), of “Subsections (1), (2) and (2A)” for “Subsections (1) and (2)”.”. This amendment relates to a requirement of Article 18 of the directive and concerns sanctions for legal persons. The term "legal persons" denotes a body corporate such as registered and statutory organisations.”
“Given the specific requirement to make it an offence to travel outside the State for the purposes of carrying out those acts and, as such, those acts would be committed outside the State, the reference should be travelling for the purposes of committing an offence under section 6(1)(b)(i) of the principal Act, so it is a very technical amendment.”
“This is because participation in the activities of a terrorist group is criminalised under Irish law via section 21 or section 21A of the Offences Against the State Act 1939. These make it an offence to be a member of, or provide assistance to, an unlawful organisation. Section 5 of the principal Act designates terrorist groups as unlawful organisations. However, the 1939 Act criminalises those acts only when committed in the State. When they are committed outside the State they are criminalised via section 6(1)(b)(i) of the principal Act.”
“I move amendment No. 10: In page 7, to delete line 7 and substitute the following: “(II) an offence under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 6,”. This is a technical amendment that refers to the offence of travel for the purpose of terrorism. The precise requirement this amendment is dealing with is the provision for the offence of travelling from the State to another state for the purpose of participating in the activities of a terrorist group. In the Bill as it stands, when providing for this requirement section 4D refers to travelling from the State for the purposes of committing an offence under section 21 or section 21A of the 1939 Act.”
“What it will cover are circumstances where people have sought to incite impressionable people to commit terrorist activity. If that has happened, as I am sure the Deputy will agree, the people behind it should be held equally liable.”
“Similarly, it could be used in circumstances where an offence has not occurred but where somebody is clearly trying to incite somebody else to commit a terrorist act. It is important to know that if it is in our Statute Book, a whole series of hurdles need to be overcome. It will not be a matter for a Minister for Justice in the future to say he or she thinks a political opponent has breached section 4A of the terrorist Act. It will be a matter for gardaí to investigate, the DPP to make a decision on whether to prosecute, and for the court to determine it. The types of examples the Deputy is concerned about are not of concern to me. I do not see any circumstance in which any form of legitimate commemoration will be subject to this section.”
“It will not be a function of a future Minister to interpret this section if it becomes part of the law. It will be a matter for An Garda Síochána in the first instance to consider whether or not there has been a breach of this section. It will then be a matter for the DPP to decide whether or not a person deserves to be prosecuted for public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. It will finally be a matter for the court and the jury, if it is on indictment, to interpret and decide whether or not an offence has been committed. The likelihood is that this is a type of offence that will apply in the aftermath of a terrorist offence that has been committed, and where individuals can be identified as having incited individuals to participate in the offence.”
“However, if there are people who are trying to incite naive impressionable young people to commit terrorist activity and that subsequently happens, as we have seen previously, those people should be held liable for it, as was the case in the Bataclan. We have seen elsewhere in Europe examples of where serious terrorist actions have taken place and the people who have incited them and are behind them deserve to be prosecuted and convicted as much as the individuals who carried out the acts.”
“First, the message itself must reasonably constitute an incitement to commit a terrorist act and, second, the publication of the message must give rise to a reasonable apprehension that someone might as a result of such publication commit a terrorist act. The use of a reasonableness test is an objective legal standard used in law to prevent against arbitrary or irrational interpretation, assessing circumstances against a hypothetical reasonable person's response or action. I assure the Deputy that the concern he has about section 3, which he is seeking to remove, is unfounded. He will not find a situation arising where people who are commemorating patriot dead or attending protests will find themselves being prosecuted on the basis they are trying to incite a terrorist act.”
“The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has confirmed the revised text affords greater protection to someone exercising their right to freedom of expression than the current section 4A, which simply refers to the publication of a message. It does not see anything about the nature or content of the message. The only thing that makes the publication of the message criminal under the current section 4A is the intent of the publisher. Proof of this on its own will not be sufficient to secure a conviction under the reframed section 4A. The proposed section 4A contains two new safeguards that are not in the current version of section 4A.”
“I will not read section 4A as set out in the principal Act but the revised section 4A, as proposed by the Bill, states: For the purposes of this Part, a person publicly provokes the commission of a terrorist offence if— (a) he or she, with the intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity, distributes or publishes, or causes to be distributed or published, by any means (including via the internet) to the public or a section of the public a message— (i) inciting, or that could reasonably be construed as inciting, persons to commit a terrorist activity, or (ii) that glorifies (including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity, and (b) such distribution or publication gives rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result.”
“Its explicit reference now in the amendment is an exercise clarity and compliance. The amendment also reformulates the wording of the offence provision more generally to give clarity to the elements necessary for a prosecution of public provocation. This, in fact, safeguards the offence from abuse and misuse.”
“As I said earlier, the purpose of the legislation is to give full effect to the 2017 directive. Article 5 of the directive requires that public provocation to commit terrorism be criminalised. As mentioned on previous Stages, the amendment of section 4A of the Act does not create new or separate offence of public provocation by way of glorification nor does it make it unduly vague and expensive. Rather, the amendment clarifies that the scope of the public provocation offence is such that it can include public provocation by way of glorification of terrorism. This clarification stems from the requirement of Article 5 of the directive. The clarification does not change a substantive offence, and provocation by way of glorification is encompassed in the offence as it currently stands.”
“The first thing to point out is that they were acquitted. There is also absolutely no provision in Irish law at present, or that will be introduced by this legislation, that would come anywhere close to what is section 13 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000. That Act, as I said, makes it an offence for somebody to display a logo or to wear an emblem that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that they are member of, or a supporter of, a prescribed organisation. It is astonishing legislation that certainly does not in any way exist in this jurisdiction nor would any Government seek to put it forward. We are dealing with a completely different situation to what has arisen in the past. I give the Deputy an assurance that the types of issues he is concerned about are not issues that will be covered by the legislation.”
“It has to be with the intention of inciting persons to commit terrorist activity. Nobody is suggesting that by going to a commemoration or remembering patriot dead that someone is seeking to incite others to commit terrorist activity. As well as this, someone has to distribute or publish messages to the public that incite them, or could reasonably be construed as inciting persons, to commit terrorist activity or glorifies terrorist activity, and it has to give rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of terrorist activity could thereby result. The section as set out is markedly different to the example the Deputy gave a few moments ago. He highlighted how Kneecap was prosecuted in the United Kingdom because of the fact they were wearing emblems that were suggestive of them being supportive of a prescribed organisation.”
“I thank the Deputy for the amendment. I assure him he can continue to commemorate whatever patriot dead he wishes, now or in years to come, and if this provision is enacted, it will have no impact on what he seeks to do. It is important to point out the type of terrorist activity that is going to be covered by this legislation. Earlier I gave the example of what happened in the Bataclan in 2015. I am sure the Deputy will agree that if somebody had sought to encourage and incite the individuals who carried out that atrocity to do so, those atrocities and the act of the person seeking to incite people to get involved in them should be criminalised. If we look at the provision contained in this section he is seeking to remove, it only applies in certain circumstances.”
“Deputy Murphy also raised a question as to whether, under the definition that is put forward here in amendment No. 7, the fuel protestors would come within terrorist activity or terrorist-linked activity. The answer to the Deputy's question is "No". If you look at the definition, you obviously have to recognise the serious offences contained within Part 1 of Schedule 2-----”
“My view is that the top of criminal activity is genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. That is what I would have at the top of the pyramid of criminal activity, but terrorism is separate from that. The Deputy may want, and is perfectly entitled, to define for the purpose of political narrative what is happening in Gaza as terrorism but for the purpose of our legal system, it is important that we distinguish between terrorist activity and, separately, genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.”
“I am satisfied that the definitions set out here are appropriate and will not cover what we regard as ordinary, legitimate protest. Deputy Murphy started his contribution by indicating that terrorist activity refers to republicans and the type of terrorism we have in Ireland, and that it does not refer to what is happening in Gaza. Obviously, the Deputy was not here earlier when I emphasised that crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide are already criminal acts under the Irish legal system. They are criminal acts under the International Criminal Court Act 2006 and, more importantly, anyone aiding or abetting those criminal acts is criminalised by the Criminal Justice Act 1997. I am entitled to say there is a distinction between the hierarchy of criminal activity.”
“I thank Deputy Ward and Deputy Murphy for their contributions. Deputy Ward wondered whether I had any concern that the definition of terrorist activity or terrorist-linked activity could, in some respect, interfere with and criminalise legitimate protest as we know it. No, we are not in a situation where we have a similar type of laws here, nor would I or the Government ever propose similar type of laws here as those which operate under the terrorist Act in the UK. I think it is section 13 of that Act which makes it a criminal offence to wear an emblem or to display an object which would lead to an reasonable apprehension that the person is a member of or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Nothing near that level is contained within this legislation.”
“By stating that, I am not trying to take away from the points the Deputy has made about what is happening in Gaza or the West Bank. There are legal instruments that can deal with the issue he spoke about, but we are talking about terrorist offences perpetrated and carried out in Ireland and the European Union and the measures that can be put in place to try to ensure they do not occur and that we can combat them.”
“The Deputy spoke very eloquently about what is happening in Israel but as I said to him on the earlier amendments, we already have in place in Ireland legislation that criminalises crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. It is provided for in the International Criminal Court Act 2006. We also have crimes for people who are aiding and abetting that. If somebody is aiding and abetting genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, they also are committing a very serious criminal offence. However, for the purpose of this legislation, I must emphasise that it is about the type of terrorist activity that, regrettably, we have seen on this island in the past and we have seen in Europe in the past. The primary focus is trying to protect people in Ireland from such terrorism.”
“The Bill we are dealing with is terrorist offences legislation, the primary purpose of which is to protect people in Ireland from terrorist attacks. It is for the purpose of transposing the 2017 EU directive on updating the laws in respect of terrorism. That arose predominantly because of the attack on the Bataclan theatre and other very significant terrorist attacks that took place in Europe from 2015 onwards. The primary purpose of the legislation, and the reason I am bringing it forward, is to ensure Irish people can be protected from terrorist attacks and that there is co-operation between EU member states to ensure there are not terrorist attacks on the territory of the EU. That is the primary purpose of it.”
“For procedural reasons, it was included as part of the second group of amendments but the substantive nature of amendment No. 8 is the same as that of the Deputy's earlier amendments. My comments regarding to the latter are the same.”
“The remainder of the amendment contains the same elements as were included in section 2 of the Bill as it currently stands and in section 4 of the principal Act, giving partial effect to the requirements of the directive with regard to criminalising as terrorist offences public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, recruitment to terrorism, receiving and providing training for the purpose of terrorism, travel for the purpose of terrorism and organising travel for the purpose of terrorism, all of which are expanded on further in the Act or Bill. That is what I want to say in respect of amendment No. 7 but since we are discussing amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together, I understand that amendment No. 8 proposed by Deputy Mark Ward is a consequential amendment related to the first group of amendments discussed under group one.”
“The definition of terrorist-linked activity in the amendment gives effect to this, at paragraph (c), when referring to offences classified in Part 3 of Schedule 2 carried out in certain specified circumstances. Those circumstances needed to be expanded, however, from the current iteration of this definition in the principal Act to cover committing forgery with a view to travelling for the purpose of terrorism and also to exclude committing forgery with a view to threatening terrorism, as this exclusion was required by the directive.”
“This amendment incorporates it into the definition of terrorist activity in the definitions section of the principal Act. When terrorist activity is then codified as a terrorist offence in section 6(1)(a), the offence of threatening terrorist acts will be covered as part of this same offence provision without having to be referred to separately. There are technical requirements of paragraph (c) of Article 12 of the 2017 directive on combating terrorism that will be given effect to in this amendment. Paragraph (c) of Article 12 refers to forgery offences required to be codified as terrorism when committed with a view to carrying out certain other terrorist acts.”
“They make clear that the definition is referring to the same act that would constitute offences in the State, notwithstanding that the act occurred outside the State. While the definitions as they currently stand in section 4 of the principal Act provide for this, it was advised by parliamentary counsel that rewording was needed in the interests of clarity and precision. The amendment also expands the definition of terrorist activity to include making a threat to carry out terrorist acts. This is demonstrated in paragraph (c) of the proposed new definition. Again, this is not a new offence being introduced at this point but, rather, is a drafting technique, moving the reference to threat from where it is currently criminalised in section 6 of the principal Act, which is the general terrorist offence provision.”
“This is a technical amendment that alters the wording of the definition of terrorist activity and terrorist-linked activity in section 4 of the principal Act. It expands on the definition of these as currently proposed by section 2 of the Bill. The amendment does not substantially change the substance of these definitions in the principal Act or from what was proposed in section 2 but, rather, enhances them in the interest of legal clarity and ensures compliance with the 2017 directive on combating terrorism in respect of the acts required to be codified as terrorist offences. The key changes to the current proposed section 2, as provided for in this amendment, are, first, the definitions of terrorist activity and terrorist-linked activity now have separate subsections when referring to certain acts committed outside the State.”
“I move amendment No. 7: In page 4, to delete lines 3 to 11 and substitute the following: "(d) by the substitution of— (i) the following definition for the definition of "terrorist activity": " 'terrorist activity' means— (a) an offence specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 committed with the intention of— (i) seriously intimidating a population, (ii) unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or (iii) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or an international organisation, (b) an act committed outside the State that, if committed in the State, would constitute an offence specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2, done with the intention of— (i) seriously intimidating a population, (ii) unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or (iii) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or an international organisation, or (c) a threat to commit such an offence, or such an act, made with such an intention;”, and (ii) the following definition for the definition of “terrorist-linked activity”: " 'terrorist-linked activity' means— (a) an offence specified in Part 2 of Schedule 2 committed with a view to engaging in a terrorist activity, (b) an act committed— (i) outside the State that, if committed in the State, would constitute an offence specified in Part 2 of Schedule 2, and (ii) with a view to engaging in a terrorist activity, (c) an offence specified in Part 3 of Schedule 2 committed with a view to— (i) engaging in a terrorist activity (other than a threat to which paragraph (c) of the definition of 'terrorist activity' applies), (ii) committing an offence under section 21 or 21A of the Act of 1939 or committing an act outside the State that, if committed in the State, would constitute an offence under either such section, or (iii) travelling for the purpose of terrorism, (d) an act committed— (i) outside the State that if committed in the State, would constitute an offence specified in Part 3 of Schedule 2, and (ii) with a view to— (I) engaging in a terrorist activity (other than a threat to which paragraph (c) of the definition of 'terrorist activity' applies), (II) committing an offence under section 21 or 21A of the Act of 1939 or committing an act outside the State that, if committed in the State, would constitute an offence under either such section, or (III) travelling for the purpose of terrorism, (e) public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, (f) recruitment for terrorism, (g) providing training for terrorism or receiving training for terrorism, (h) travelling for the purpose of terrorism, or (i) organising or facilitating travel for the purpose of terrorism;",".”
“When it comes to our status as a country that complies with our international obligations when it comes to wrongdoing, crimes against humanity and war crimes by other states, we comply with that but this is not the instrument in which to insert the Deputy's amendments. For that reason, I must oppose amendment No. 1.”
“As I said, it is already an offence. If individuals involved in armed forces are engaged in war crimes or crimes against humanity, there is a consequence to that down the road. In terms of the enforcement of this, all we in Ireland can do is set out in our legislation what we believe should be the appropriate standard of international law applied domestically. We have done that. We criminalised genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Interestingly and importantly, we will also criminalise the crime of aggression. Let us look at what is happening in Ukraine. The purpose of that could be that it could apply in situations like that.”
“I have to say, however, in terms of the criticism of the Irish Government, no government in Europe has done as much as the Irish Government when it comes to standing up for the Palestinian people. You can see that in terms of the anger that is directed towards the Irish Government by the Israeli Government. There is a reason for that and the reason is because the Irish Government has very much stood against the heinous activities that have been going on within Gaza. I also want to deal with a final point that Deputy Ward raised, which was the Irish citizens who have been detained in Israel. I, along with the Taoiseach and Tánaiste call for those Irish citizens to be released immediately.”
“When we look at the specific offences of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, they derive from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and from being transposed in the 2006 Act. It enables punishment by the Irish courts for breaches of international law that fall within the jurisdiction of that court. Aiding and abetting under the 1997 Act is also a criminal offence and that similarly can be prosecuted. I note the sincerity with which Deputy Ward puts forward his concern about what is happening in Gaza. I share very many of his concerns. In Ireland, we have repeatedly stated that the behaviour of the IDF is reprehensible and is criminal, and they are committing crimes against humanity.”
“I want to emphasise, as I did at the outset, that a commitment to the rule of international law is enshrined in our Constitution and is enshrined in the International Criminal Court Act 2006, where we have expressly stated that genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are very serious criminal offences. We know that if you are aiding and abetting them, that is a criminal offence as well. This is one of the core principles of Irish law and foreign policy and includes both customary international law and international agreements. The Genocide Convention and the Geneva Convention are international agreements to which Ireland is party and to which we have given effect in our legislation.”
“The effect is to criminalise as terrorism travel, organising travel, providing training, receiving training and recruitment for the purposes of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity or genocide. As I explained on Committee Stage, I understand the intention behind these amendments. I know what their purpose is. The principal Act does exclude, however, the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict and in the exercise of their official duties from being categorised as being terrorist offences. That was a requirement of the underlying original EU measure underpinning the legislation. That same requirement remains within the 2017 EU directive we are transposing here.”
“That is already provided for in the International Criminal Court Act 2006. Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, and amendment No. 8 provide for new terms to be included as part of the definition of "terrorist-linked activity" in the definitions section of the principal Act. These new terms are further defined in expanded definitions to be inserted as proposed amendments Nos. 11 to 14, inclusive. It is appropriate that we are debating all of the amendments together and that I respond to them all together because, combined, they create new terrorist offences within the engaging in terrorist-linked activity offence.”