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 72 of 84.
“We in this country know that the only way to really achieve political purposes in a democratic society is through debate, discussion and, ultimately, democracy. I commend the Bill to the House and I will listen attentively to what colleagues have to say.”
“People need not be fearful that, in some respect, this legislation will engage with people who, as I have said, do not have the intention of seeking to promote or incite the commission of a terrorist act. New terrorist acts are being created in the Bill, such as training of terrorism or teaching of terrorism, but they are appropriate when we look at the climate that exists at present in terms of where the threat from terrorism lies. People may wish to cast a sceptical eye on terrorist offences legislation enacted in the House but we cannot get away from the fact that terrorist activity continues to exist. Certain people believe it is acceptable for them to use violence against citizens and against the State for the purpose of trying to achieve their political purposes.”
“Bizarrely, people who want to do this can do so but they will only find themselves criminalised in circumstances where they are doing this glorification for the purposes of inciting others to commit a serious criminal offence. It is important to point out that the Bill includes the same definition of "terrorist activity" as is included in the 2005 Act. The definition recognises that terrorist activity is a reference to what we know as serious scheduled offences. We know that in the definition under the 2005 Act "terrorist activity" means an act that is committed in or outside the State and that if committed in the State would constitute an offence specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2. We are speaking about activity that is already criminal activity.”
“I am pleased the Bill is appropriate and necessary. When we look at our terrorist legislation at present, there are certain areas where there are gaps, and the purpose of the Bill is to ensure these gaps are filled. As I emphasised earlier, it is also important to recall that in order for a person to be found guilty of committing an offence under this new legislation, it is essential that the person must have the intention to incite others to commit terrorist activity or to be involved themselves in terrorist activity. This is not legislation that can or could be used for the purpose of trying to stymie artistic displays or individuals who may, shortsightedly, wish to glorify terrorist activity in the past.”
“The section provides for the insertion of a new paragraph 6A to this Part, inserting into this list offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Justice (Offences Relating to Information Systems) Act 2017. The effect of this is that the offences of interference with an information system, or data without lawful authority, would constitute terrorist activity if intended to seriously intimidate a population, unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or an international organisation. Section 9 is a standard provision providing for the Short Title of the Bill once enacted, the collective citation for the Bill and related Acts, and the commencement date.”
“This section also provides that, when sentencing on conviction for the offences of recruitment to terrorism or providing training for terrorism, a court may consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the offence was committed against a child. Section 7 replaces the text of the 2002 EU Council framework decision on combating terrorism in Schedule 1 of the principal Act with that of the 2017 EU directive. It also deletes Schedule 1A, containing the text of EU Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA, which is no longer in force. Section 8 amends Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the principal Act. This lists certain offences already on our Statute Book that can be considered terrorist offences in certain contexts and so form part of the definition of "terrorist activity" in the principal Act.”
“The power to make regulations is required in order that the Minister may, if deemed necessary, add to the list of prohibited weapons, techniques or methods covered by the offences of providing training and receiving training for terrorism. Section 5 sets out the new offence of travel for the purpose of terrorism. This criminalises travel to and from the State for the purposes of committing a terrorist offence, aiding and abetting another person to commit a terrorist offence, or providing training or receiving training for terrorism. The same section also makes it an offence to knowingly organise or facilitate travel for the purpose of terrorism. Section 6 provides that the penalty on conviction for any of the new offences introduced by the Bill is a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years or both.”
“The legislation in England and Wales is completely broad and simply requires someone to wear or display something that arouses a suspicion that they are a supporter of a prescribed organisation. When we are discussing it, people need to take into account the marked difference between the two statutory provisions, namely, what we are proposing in Ireland and what exists at present under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in England and Wales. Section 4 of this Bill sets out a new definition for the existing offence of providing training for terrorism and inserts a definition for the new offence of receiving training for terrorism. It also includes a standard provision allowing for the making of ministerial regulations.”
“All it simply requires is that in a public place someone wears or displays an article that would arouse suspicion that the person is a supporter of a prescribed organisation. As Members will be aware, and I do not want to comment too much about an ongoing prosecution in England, the band Kneecap is being prosecuted on the basis they displayed a flag attached to Hezbollah. If that concert had happened in Ireland with the flag of Hezbollah, the band could not be prosecuted under section 4A of the new terrorist offences Act, unless they accompanied it with a clear intention to get people to commit a terrorist offence, which is something completely different.”
“The difference between what happens in Ireland and what happens in England and Wales is that Kneecap are being prosecuted under section 13 of the Terrorism 2000 Act of England and Wales. I will quote what this provides. It is an extraordinarily broad offence and it is not something that would be enacted in Ireland. The offence in England and Wales is as follows: A person in a public place commits an offence if he— [...] (b) wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Under the legislation in England and Wales there is absolutely no requirement for someone's behaviour to come with the intention of seeking to cause the committal of a terrorist offence.”
“If we look at the new provision to be introduced in section 3, the offence is committed when a person, with the intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity, distributes or publishes, or causes to be distributed or published, by any means, to the public, a message inciting terrorist activity or that glorifies terrorist activity, and such distribution gives rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of the activity could thereby result. In order for somebody to be convicted of an offence under this section, they have to be engaged in the activity for the purpose and intention of inciting people to commit a terrorist offence. This is not something that could happen in respect of the circumstances regarding Kneecap.”
“It is also a requirement of the offence that such distribution or publication must have given rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result. These additional elements serve to act as safeguards in ensuring that it is only those who set about to deliberately incite terrorist activity who are captured by this offence. I am aware some concern was expressed that the enactment of this provision could result in a prosecution similar to that taking place in England at present in respect of the band Kneecap. This is something that will not happen here and I will explain why this is so.”
“Section 3 provides a revised definition of the offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. The revised definition sets out that glorification of a terrorist activity, including by praise or celebration, may be considered publicly provoking the commission of a terrorist offence, provided that other critical elements of the offence have been satisfied. Thus, it must be shown that he or she possessed the requisite intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity when he or she distributed, published, or caused to be distributed or published, a message that glorified, including by praise or celebration, a terrorist activity.”
“Section 1 simply clarifies that references to the principal Act relate to the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, which is being amended here. Section 2 amends section 4 of the principal Act by replacing references to the 2002 EU Council framework decision on combating terrorism with that of the 2017 EU directive, which is the new EU governing instrument underlying our international counterterrorism laws. This section also signposts new definitions for offences found in latter sections of the Bill. This includes definitions for the three new offences of receiving training for terrorism, travelling for the purpose of terrorism and organising or otherwise facilitating travel for the purpose of terrorism. It also signposts the existing offence of providing training for terrorism which is redefined in this Bill.”
“This includes partaking in a programme of modernisation occurring at Eurojust, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation, which co-ordinates investigations and information exchange on cross-border crime across Europe. Its modernisation programme includes strengthening its counterterrorism register and case management system. What this means is that cross-border links between terrorism investigations and prosecutions will be more easily and readily identified, and information more swiftly shared among member states via secure digital communication channels. This will ultimately lead to more terrorist acts being prevented and more terrorists being brought to justice. The Bill contains nine sections and one Schedule.”
“We have seen in recent years the destruction and devastation caused by cyber attacks on our national infrastructure. These are grave affronts to our society and it is appropriate that they be treated as terrorist offences. Potential offenders should know that they will meet the full force of the law should they proceed to carry out such attacks. I have spoken previously about how this Bill will pave the way for lreland’s participation in enhanced counterterrorism networks. Once enacted and when Ireland is fully participating in the EU’s directive on combating terrorism, we will be a position to adopt subsequent EU counterterrorism measures.”
“For example, it will be necessary to show the intention was to provoke the commission of terrorist acts when publicly sharing messages glorifying terrorism. Furthermore, there must also be a reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could in fact result. The Bill will also categorise cyber offences already on our Statute Book as terrorist offences and, therefore, allow for extra years to be added to terms of imprisonment for those convicted when the offence is intended to cause widespread harm. These are the offences of interfering with or damaging data or IT systems and where the result could be serious damage to State or international organisations, major economic loss or creating a collective danger to the lives of citizens.”
“This recognises the particularly egregious nature of luring minors into the word of terrorism. It is acknowledged that the activities these offences prohibit involve commonplace acts such as travel and study, or indeed the sharing of content on public platforms which is now a widespread and daily occurrence in our lives. These are acts that in a free and modern society we should be at liberty to participate in, engage in and enjoy unconstrained when carried out without nefarious aims. That is why the notion of terrorist intention will always be an essential element required to convict someone of the offences in this Bill, with the intentional nature of an act inferred from objective and factual circumstances.”
“In recent years, sophisticated digital messaging tools, including high-quality video, assisted by a network of social media accounts, has allowed for the rapid dissemination of terrorist messaging. This has included videos celebrating or praising horrendous terrorist acts like assassinations and terrorist bombings. This Bill re-articulates the offence of public provocation to commit terrorism to clarify that such provocation can be done by distributing messages that glorify terrorism. Conviction for the offences I have just spoken about can lead to a maximum prison sentence of ten years. The Bill also provides that when existing offences of recruitment and training for terrorism are directed towards a child, the courts can treat this circumstance as an aggravating factor when sentencing offenders.”
“Knowledge that the training is for the purposes of committing, aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of terrorism is required to be convicted of this crime. This means collecting materials for legitimate purposes, such as academic research, would not be considered to be receiving training for terrorism. Under our counterterrorism laws, it is an offence to distribute public messages aimed at provoking the commission of terrorist offences. Publicly sharing messages with invitations to join terrorist groups, calls to action or denigrating the victims of terrorism is prohibited where such behaviour is intended to, and causes a danger that, terrorist acts may be committed.”
“It addresses threats resulting from actively preparing for the commission of terrorist offences and can be committed by those ultimately acting alone and training through self-study. It can involve receiving training in the making of explosives, chemical or biological weapons and other relevant technical expertise. Like with the offence of providing training for terrorism, there will be a ministerial regulation-making power in prohibiting other weapons and techniques that could be part of such training. This means that should new technologies, materials or practices be developed in the future that could be used to carry out terrorist acts, there is scope to preclude training in their use.”
“This recognises the need to stem the flow of terrorist fighters in and out of the country. Travelling to Ireland and travelling from Ireland for the purposes of committing, aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of terrorism is criminalised. The act of organising or facilitating travel for the purposes of terrorism will also be an offence, with the same elements as the travel offence, save for the prohibited act being that of making arrangements to enable any person to travel to or from the State for the purposes of terrorism. The Bill criminalises receiving training for the purpose of terrorism. This will complement the offence of providing training for terrorism, which is on our Statute Book.”
“This followed concern expressed by the UN Security Council over these threats, and instruction to UN member states to ensure domestic laws were sufficient to prosecute and penalise such activities. The EU’s directive on combatting terrorism reaffirmed many of the Union’s established counterterrorism measures and terrorist offences. With Ireland having fully incorporated such measures into our national laws and practices, it meant Irish law was aligned with many of the requirements of the directive. However, new offences were also introduced to tackle the international and cross-border dimension to the terrorist threat previously discussed. It remains incumbent on Ireland to transpose these offences into our national law. Travel for the purpose of terrorism is a new offence that the Bill incorporates.”
“This has resulted in harmonised definitions of terrorist offences with our EU counterparts, as well as minimum rules when it comes to sentencing terrorist offences. This provides a benchmark for co-operation and information exchange between national authorities and prevents the existence of legal loopholes that may be exploited by terrorists. Notwithstanding this, the nature of terrorism continues to evolve. In 2017, in response to the growing threat posed by people travelling abroad for the purpose of terrorism, the heightened security threat they pose when returning home and the increasing threats from citizens inspired or instructed by terrorist groups abroad, the EU updated its counterterrorism framework with the directive on combating terrorism.”
“Its passing will also pave the way for Ireland's participation in enhanced EU counterterrorism networks, enabling a co-ordinated and dynamic response to domestic and cross-border terrorist threats. Enactment of this Bill is a commitment in the programme for Government, and supports the broader programme commitment to strengthen national security. Ireland has comprehensive counterterrorism laws, found in the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act and the Offences Against the States Acts, which we debated yesterday. The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act, in particular, represents a response by Ireland to the shared threat terrorism poses across the EU and beyond. Successive EU counterterrorism agreements have been given effect to in Ireland via this Act.”
“I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to bring the Bill before the House. It marks a significant step forward in ensuring that Ireland’s counterterrorism framework is robust and fit for purpose in the face of modern terrorist threats. The Bill will amend the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, a cornerstone of lreland’s counterterrorism laws, to allow for a broader category of prosecutable offences in respect of terrorist activity. These include terrorist acts with a cross-border element and cyberattacks where the aim is to cause widespread harm. The Bill is part of Ireland’s commitment to bring our terrorism laws into line with those of other EU member states, through our participation in the EU directive on combating terrorism, which this legislation provides for.”
“That is why we have had the Special Criminal Court to date. As legislators, we have a duty to support the public by supporting the Garda and justice system in tackling the criminals. Retaining these measures in respect of the most serious crimes associated with terrorism and organised crime ensures justice can be served and is free from any attempts to thwart the criminal justice process.”
“As provided for in Article 38.3 of the Constitution, we are entitled to have special courts where the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the administration of justice. I thank the House for its consideration of these motions. I thank all the Deputies for their impending contributions, which I will listen to carefully. The threat from terrorist activity, including from dissident republican paramilitary groups, remains, warranting the continuation in force of the provisions in the 1998 Act. The same applies to section 8 of the 2009 Act. Every Deputy in this House knows the appalling damage caused by organised criminals, particularly those involved in selling drugs, to individuals, families and communities. Such threats require an effective and strong response from the criminal justice system.”
“A huge amount of work has to be done in respect of this, meaning we probably will be here next year seeking renewals of the Offences Against the State Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice Act 2009. However, the important thing from the point of view of this debate, which has taken place annually since the 1998 legislation was enacted, is that a policy proposal now being put in place will result in the repeal of the Offences Against the State Act and its replacement with legislation more appropriate to a modern society, taking into account all the threats that exist from terrorism and persons who threaten the security of the State. We will continue to have circumstances in which we will have non-jury courts. I do not want anyone to think the proposal will result in there being no non-jury courts in Ireland.”
“As set out in the two reports I have laid before the House, it is the clear view of An Garda Síochána that the provisions in the 1998 and 2009 Acts continue to be necessary and effective in ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime. On the basis of the information set out in the reports, and on the advice of the Garda authorities, I propose that the House approves the continued operation of the relevant provisions of the 1998 and 2009 Acts for a further 12 months, commencing on 30 June. Members will be interested in knowing when I will be able to introduce legislation repealing the Offences Against the State Act. I regret that it will not happen by this time next year.”
“This review is informed by recent research on the topic, the Law Reform Commission's report on jury service, and legislative and policy developments in related areas over recent years. I am committed to continuing to improve transparency and the availability of data across the criminal justice sector. There is a wealth of information on these provisions available in the reports I have laid before the Houses, and, further, detailed information on the Special Criminal Court available in the annual reports of the DPP and the Courts Service. Initiatives such as the launch of the open data portal for the Courts Service are key to providing better access to and a better understanding of courts data, including data on the Special Criminal Court. My officials will continue to engage with the relevant agencies on such transparency measures.”
“It is important to emphasise that a non-jury court will continue to be available, in exceptional circumstances, to try serious criminal offences when the ordinary courts are deemed inadequate. A new court would operate on a standing basis, rather than its operation being conditional on a proclamation, and thereby connected to the Troubles. There is one further matter I wish to address. Deputies will be aware that the majority and minority of the independent review group were broadly aligned in their view that further consideration should be given to the issue of jury reform and the need to improve transparency around the operation of the Special Criminal Court. My Department is currently undertaking a review of jury service.”
“Indeed, the vast majority of scheduled offences continue to be dealt with in the ordinary courts. My Department has engaged in detailed consultation on the recommendations of the review group and has examined the reports from a variety of perspectives, including policy, governance and legislation perspectives. I recently informed the Government that I accept in principle the recommendations of the majority report. Accepting in principle the recommendations of the majority report sets a clear direction for reform. However, given the importance of the Acts over many decades, detailed proposals for reform must be thoroughly considered and approached with the utmost care.”
“The Special Criminal Court was established to respond to the threat to the State and its people from republican terrorism over the decades and it continues to deal with the threat posed by terrorism and the most serious organised crime cases. It serves to eliminate the very real risk to jurors and potential jurors by subversives and ruthless crime groups who place no value on human life. While it is, of course, my firm view that trial by jury should be preserved to the greatest extent possible, I have a responsibility not to ignore the threat posed by such groups. In accordance with that principle, the Special Criminal Court is used only in very limited circumstances. I am informed that there were three trials last year, involving eight defendants.”
“It provides for special courts within the Constitution. I take seriously an assessment as to whether or not special courts are required. The majority also devised a suite of proposals on how the court might operate to uphold the rights of accused persons, and to support transparency and maintain public confidence. While recognising that the right to a jury trial is not absolute and that there may be circumstances where a real risk of jury intimation necessitates a non-jury court, the minority were of the view that there was insufficient evidence before the review group to form a view on the necessity for a non-jury court. I am firmly of the view that the Offences Against the State Acts have served our country well in combating both subversives and organised crime and have fulfilled a vital role in our criminal justice system.”
“These changes should prompt a change of policy while also recognising that any legislation to replace the Offences Against the State Acts must maintain the legislative basis for an effective State capacity to deal with terrorism and organised crime on an ongoing basis, while also being compliant with human rights and the rule of law. As the Deputies know, the majority report recommended we replace it with modern legislation. As part of this, the assessment of the majority of the review group was that there is, and will continue to be, an ongoing need for a non-jury court, as permitted by the Constitution, to try serious criminal offences in certain limited cases. Sometimes people forget that Article 38.3° of the Constitution sets out rules in respect of when we can have special courts.”
“I believe they now constitute anachronistic legislation that requires modernisation to reflect the current security threats and challenges faced by the State. The Acts were not just reflective of their time, they were also very much moulded by the Treasonable Offences Act 1925. The proposal of the majority to repeal the Offences Against the State Acts is not new. As well as being recommended by both minority and majority reports in 2023, it was also recommended by the Hederman committee back in 2002. The main reason I believe the Acts should be repealed is that the threats the State faces today from paramilitarism have reduced and significantly altered.”
“I now want to deal with the issue that has arisen as a result of the publication of the independent review of the Offences Against the State Acts. The House will be aware that the majority and minority reports of the independent review group were published in June 2023. The majority recommended the repeal of the Acts and their replacement with modern, bespoke legislation. It is my view that it is now time to call time on the Offences Against the State Acts. Those Acts have served the State very well since they were introduced back in 1939 by my predecessor, P.J. Ruttledge. Their enactment and amendment was designed to respond to the very real threats that arose form paramilitarism in Ireland in the 1930s and 1940s and from the 1970s to the 1990s.”
“It includes information provided by the Garda Commissioner on the use over the past 12 months of the provisions in question and details of the relevant offences. It is clear from the report that gardaí made a significant number of arrests in respect of the offences relevant to section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, with 11 charges laid before the Special Criminal Court and three convictions recorded there. A further two sentencing hearings were dealt with in the Special Criminal Court during the reporting period. The view of An Garda Síochána are clearly set out in the report and it is that the continued operation of this provision is required. It is my strong view also that section 8 should be continued in operation for a further 12 months. That deals with the two motions before the House.”
“It deserves praise for its considerable successes in disrupting the activities of criminals, making significant seizures of drugs, cash and weapons and bringing criminals to justice. I draw attention to a joint task force operation in March that resulted in drugs worth £6.5 million being seized near Belfast and an operation carried out by An Garda Síochána in May that resulted in the seizure of €5.4 million worth of drugs in Meath. Deputies will also be aware of other significant cases in which individuals have been sent forward for trial in the Special Criminal Court in recent weeks. As Minister for justice, I acknowledge this important work and the brave gardaí who persevere with it, day in, day out. The report that I have laid before the House, in accordance with section 8, covers the period from 1 June 2024 to 31 May 2025.”
“The House will be aware of the threat that society and the criminal justice system face from groups who will stop at nothing in pursuit of their criminal activities. There is no disputing the damage they have inflicted upon communities throughout the country. Their willingness to resort to extreme violence and their flagrant disregard for communities is apparent. Supporting the efforts of An Garda Síochána to combat organised crime, and bring to justice those involved, remains a priority for me and the Government. This is reflected in the record allocation of more than €2.48 billion in budget 2025, which allows for sustained investment in recruitment, equipment, technology and vehicles within An Garda Síochána. An Garda is working intensively to bear down on the criminals involved and it has had a very good record in that regard.”
“The purpose of this provision is to guard against the possibility of interference with jury trials by ruthless criminal groups who seek to behave as though they are beyond the law. It was enacted as a response to a number of difficulties where the justice system was considered to be under serious threat from organised crime. Organised crime groups had shown a particular ruthlessness in their activities, including attacks on witnesses and intimidation of jurors. It was an imperative that the criminal justice system was robust enough to withstand the assault launched upon it through intimidation and violence. I believe most Deputies will agree with that remark and that the imperative remains.”
“It is my strong view that the relevant sections of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act should be continued in operation for another 12 months. That brings me to the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 and, in particular, section 8, which is also the subject of a motion before the House. It refers to a small number of serious organised crime offences that are set out in Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Section 8 of the 2009 Act makes these offences scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the Offences Against the State Act 1939. Trials for these offences are to be heard in the Special Criminal Court subject to the power of the DPP to direct that the offences be tried in the ordinary courts.”
“The strategy notes the changed security environment and evolving geopolitical landscape, where the links between the EU’s internal and external security require more action against the range of threats faced, including hybrid threats by hostile foreign states and state-sponsored actors, powerful organised crime networks, the ongoing threat faced from terrorism, technological advancements and more. In response to these threats, the strategy sets out a work plan with a stronger legal framework, better information sharing and closer co-operation. Ireland is not immune from the threats arising in this changed security environment and we must have the capability to deal with the threats arising. As I have said, the views of the Garda are set out in the report and it is that the continuing operation of these provisions is required.”
“There has generally been a deterioration in the international security landscape in recent times, in part due to terrible wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Europol, in its most recent terrorism situation and trend report for 2024, sets out the threat situation at EU level. The report confirms that terrorism - particularly jihadist and lone actor attacks - remains a key threat to the EU’s internal security. The European Union recently published its internal security strategy, ProtectEU.”
“It is our duty to ensure that those tasked with protecting us from this threat have at their disposal the appropriate measures to meet it. In that regard, I am firmly of the view that the provisions I am seeking renewal of today are necessary to support gardaí in investigating, disrupting and dismantling the activities of terrorists. The report laid before this House, in addition to providing information on the use of the provisions in question over the past year, also notes the clear view of the Garda Commissioner that the Act continues to be an important tool in ongoing efforts to combat terrorism. Of course, while the 1998 Act was a response to a domestic threat from dissident republican terrorism, as an open democracy it is very important that we should not lose sight of the threat from violent extremism and international terrorism.”
“In recent years, the benefits of that co-operation have been apparent from successful joint operations between the PSNI and An Garda Síochána. There is a long shared history between the two jurisdictions in countering terrorism on the island and it is essential that we continue to build on this strong co-operation in the post-Brexit period. Indeed, the joint Cross Border Policing Strategy 2025-2027 provides a platform for An Garda Síochána and the PSNI to build on existing strategic and operational collaboration and to strengthen policing capacity and capability. As Minister for justice, I want to pay tribute to the Garda and the PSNI, who continue to co-operate closely and work tirelessly together to keep their communities safe and to counter all threats of terrorism.”
“They have remained resolute in their opposition to democracy, the rule of law and all that the Good Friday Agreement stands for. It is also well established that these groups have links to, and operate hand in hand with, organised criminals. We recall the attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell back in February 2023, which is further proof of the ruthless and reckless nature of people who refer to themselves as dissident republicans. Thankfully, they did not succeed and Chief Inspector Caldwell continues to recover. North-South co-operation is crucial in these matters and I am pleased to say co-operation between the Garda and the PSNI is very strong. In fact, it is virtually automatic co-operation.”
“It is notable that seven of the 12 provisions to be renewed, namely sections 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 17, have not been utilised during the reporting period. Of course, the fact a provision is not used in a particular year does not mean it is redundant or unnecessary as the usage of different sections can vary from year to year. It is clear that the so-called "dissident republicans", who have their origins in the Provisional IRA and the INLA, continue to represent a threat. Despite the progress towards peace made over the years, they continue to seek to return to the fruitless violence of the past. We must continue to do all we can to deal with this threat. No one should be under any illusion that these groups do not represent a threat; they do, although thankfully it is at a lower level than in the past.”
“As Lord Turnbull, chair of the inquiry, said, that would lead to a lot of problems and confusion, so we do not support that suggestion. These provisions of the criminal law provide strong legislative powers to ensure the Garda and the courts are in a position to meet the challenge laid down by these opponents of peace. Section 18 of the 1998 Act provides that sections 2 to 4, inclusive, 6 to 12, inclusive, 14 and 17 must be renewed by the Oireachtas at least annually if they are to remain in force. The report laid before this House includes information provided by An Garda Síochána on the use of the provisions in question over the past 12 months and a table setting out usage figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation.”