2026-05-20

Before we go through the amendments, I want to acknowledge and thank Deputies for their engagement on the Bill on Committee Stage and now on Report Stage. I have noted and considered the issues raised by Deputies on Committee Stage and I look forward to working constructively with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Members of the House to ensure this important Bill can be passed.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, and 11 to 14, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 3 of Principal Act 2.Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following new definitions: “ ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the acts specified in Article 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court; ‘genocide’ means any of the acts specified in Article 6 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court; ‘war crime’ means any of the acts specified in Article 8.2 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.”.”. This amendment is necessary as a foundation for later amendments defining the circumstances in which it would be an offence to join, train or recruit for an armed force when that armed force is engaged in a crime against humanity and war crimes. This group of amendments and existing legislation in this area ignores the pressing terrorism crisis of our time, namely the actions of the IDF in Palestine. Current laws do not prevent people from joining a military organisation engaged in genocide and gross human rights violations. While this now arises in regard to the actions of the IDF, it may in future arise in regard to the armed forces of other states engaged in war crimes which recruit what are in fact mercenaries. The IDF recruits foreign fighters, just as others who are targets of this legislation do. The EU directive dates from a period when ISIS was at its peak and there was a significant problem with the people travelling from Europe to join ISIS. Sinn Féin's amendments are designed to address citizens of the State travelling or training to participate in genocide and war crimes. They also outlaw recruitment by the armed forces of such a state. Our amendments would also have the effect of preventing the IDF or other armed forces engaged in genocide or war crimes from training with the Irish Defence Forces. It was revealed that IDF military personnel have trained in the Military College for a period of six years. This is something that would not be permitted under Sinn Féin's amendments. Is this something that the Minister would stand over? Would the Government allow this to happen now? I suspect the Minister would not allow this to happen at this moment in time but the Bill is not just about today. It is about the future and future-proofing legislation so that future Governments and whoever sits in the Minister's seat will not be allowed to permit the IDF or any other organisations involved in genocide to train with our military on Irish soil. Even today, there is footage of the IDF mocking peaceful activists kidnapped in international waters. Today, the IDF is breaking international law. It is being led by Israel's National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, who happily had a birthday last week where his birthday cake had a noose to symbolise that he hopes to be able to hang Palestinian people. This is absolutely inhumane. He can be seen walking around in the footage waving a flag and mocking detained citizens. Some of them are our citizens who are being put into a corner with their heads bowed to the ground and not allowed to look up. It is absolutely horrific. Last year, my colleague Chris Andrews was in a similar situation and he has testified how he and other detainees were treated by the IDF. What is the crime these people are accused of? All they are looking to do is break Israel's horrific blockade and deliver vital aid to Gazans, who desperately need help. I call on the Irish Government to demand the immediate release of all the citizens who are detained and to seek urgent clarification of their whereabouts. We do not know where they are. There are 15 Irish participants, as well as hundreds of other civilians, who have been taken off these boats. What we saw on that footage today is what is happening right now. This adds to what we know the IDF has already engaged in. It has engaged in the arbitrary killing of civilians. Members of the IDF are on record admitting to this. They have shot unarmed and starving civilians who were queueing for food. They were queueing for food because of a man-made famine created by Israel. Members of the IDF have killed many innocent children. Last year, UNICEF estimated that at least 50,000 children have been killed or injured in Gaza. In total, 75,000 Palestinians have been slaughtered by Israel since the bombardment of Gaza began. Why does Israel continue to break international law? Why does it continue to commit genocide? It is because there are no sanctions and Israel is allowed to get away with it. I do not see the amendments we are tabling today as being any less important than enacting the occupied territories Bill. It is time for the Irish to take decisive action. It is time for the Irish to hold Israel to account because of the daily horror inflicted on the Palestinian people. I ask the Government to support the amendments we have tabled, which basically seek to stop the IDF from being allowed to train on Irish soil and to stop Irish civilians from going abroad and training with the IDF.

I thank Deputy Ward for moving his amendment. As he indicated at the outset, we are dealing with group 1, which comprises amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 11 to 14, inclusive. As Deputy Ward indicated, they are all in respect of issues associated with crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. Deputy Ward is being specific about saying these amendments are focused on the IDF. I have to point out, as I did on Committee Stage, that this legislation is about transposing the 2017 terrorist offences directive from the EU into Irish law and the way we are doing that is by updating and amending the (Criminal Justice) Terrorist Offences Act 2005 that has been in place for the past 20 years or so. Very many of the legitimate concerns Deputy Ward has identified in moving his amendment are dealt with in Irish law and legislation under the International Criminal Court Act 2006. In that legislation, we set out that in Ireland crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide are criminal offences. It is important that the world is aware that in Ireland you can be prosecuted for those crimes. It is also the case in Ireland, because of the Criminal Law Act 1997, that if you aid or abet crimes against humanity, genocide, or war crimes you are committing a criminal offence in Ireland. It is important to emphasise for anyone listening in that in Ireland we have a body of laws that deal with crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes and they are dealt with in our International Criminal Court legislation. What Deputy Ward is seeking to do, through his amendment, is move into this terrorist offences legislation with similar types of prohibitions. However, I think it is important that we keep a distinction between the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and, separately, the crime of terrorist activity. It may be from the point of view of presentation that Deputy Ward wishes, and he is entitled to say this, that war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide are forms of terrorism but legally, in our criminal justice system, it is important we distinguish between both of them. Looking at the amendments that have been tabled by Deputy Ward, amendment No. 1 provides an interpretation of the three matters: crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. 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. 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. 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. 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 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.

The Minister was right in saying at the very start that, right now, I was speaking about the IDF but I also did say that these amendments would stop future situations arising where another country could be inflicting genocide and war crimes on other people. They would stop people from Ireland being recruited into such organisations and training on these lands so it is not just about now with the IDF. It is about future situations that may arise. If the Minister accepts that Israel is committing genocide, then he must accept that the IDF is the instrument Israel is using to bring about the horrific situation we see in Palestine at the moment. The Minister said that the IDF has committed war crimes. All these amendments are looking for is for the Bill to say that it would be an offence to join, train in or recruit for an armed force when that force is engaged in crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. That is all these amendments are calling for. I do not think that is too much to ask. I accept that it may be something the Minister would not agree with at this time, but I do not know who is going to be sitting in his seat in five, ten or 15 years' time.

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. 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.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 3, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: " 'organising or facilitating travel for the purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide' shall be construed in accordance with section 4F;".

I move amendment No. 3: In page 3, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: " 'providing training in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide' shall be construed in accordance with section 4F;".

I move amendment No. 4: In page 3, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: " 'receiving training in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide' shall be construed in accordance with section 4F;".

I move amendment No. 5: In page 3, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: " 'recruitment for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide' shall be construed in accordance with section 4F;"

I move amendment No. 6: In page 3, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: " 'travel for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide' shall be construed in accordance with section 4F;".

Amendment No. 7 arises out of Committee Stage proceedings. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and will be discussed together.

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;",". 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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.

I accept that amendment Nos. 7 and 8 are connected to the amendments I spoke about previously but I will speak on amendment No. 8 and possibly come back in on amendment No. 7. We have to remind ourselves of what we are dealing with and why we cannot allow citizens of our State to serve in the IDF or any other armed force engaged in war crimes. In addition to the destruction of Gaza and the killing of tens of thousands through indiscriminate bombing, members of the IDF have engaged in the shooting of pregnant women and the burning alive of children as they slept in tents. The IDF has blocked aid, food and medicine from getting to a starving population. Its members have raped and sexually assaulted Palestinians, including teens, who have died as a result. This is not disputed. This is documented and justified in Israel. The IDF has targeted healthcare staff, attacked hospitals and ordered healthcare staff to leave patients, including newborn babies, to die in incubators. It has targeted journalists. Nearly 200 journalists have been killed according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Israel will not let international news teams into Gaza. We have to send a message that Ireland will not tolerate this. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. We simply cannot do nothing. We cannot be bystanders to genocide and we cannot allow citizens of this State to facilitate genocide. Does the Minister know what we will be doing very soon because good men have done nothing? We will be welcoming former members of the IDF to play a game of football against the Irish team. This is absurd. Can the Minister guarantee that those players who take to the pitch have not taken part in or supported the genocide of the Palestinian people? Can he guarantee that those who travel to Ireland to support Israel have not taken part or supported the genocide of the Palestinian people? I said to the Minister earlier that if he accepts that Israel has committed genocide, he must accept that the IDF is the instrument Israel is using to commit that genocide. If this is the case, I do not see how the Minister cannot accept our amendments.

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. 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. 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.

I have some concerns that the definitions in the Minister's amendment are overly expansive. They risk capturing non-terrorist activity and blur distinctions between intent and action, potentially granting disproportionate State power without sufficient safeguarding or clarity. Does the Minister have any concerns that the amendment's vague definitions could risk capturing lawful protest, activism, research or humanitarian work as terrorism by relying on expansive intent tests and extraterritorial reach that exceeds genuine security needs?

I support the Sinn Féin amendment and I have concerns about the Government amendment. I have concerns about the whole Bill, to be honest. I will start on the Sinn Féin stuff, to which the Minister responded by saying this is about real terrorism, it is about brown people or republicans. That is the type of terrorism he is dealing with here, not any of that fine state terrorism we see carried out by the US and Israel. Today, we have video of an Irish citizen being terrorised by Itamar Ben-Gvir, the security minister in Israel. It shows an Irish citizen, a peaceful activist trying to bring humanitarian aid and break the illegal blockade of Gaza, being physically mistreated while Itamar Ben-Gvir gloats about it. However, we are expected to accept that we are not dealing with any of that kind of terrorism here, and we will deal with it somewhere else. Why are there double standards? Why must we accept that the genocide of the Palestinian people and the complete mistreatment of anyone who attempts to stand up for the Palestinian people do not count as terrorism and we do not want to cover that here? My second point relates to Government amendment No. 7, which seeks the redrafting of the definition of "terrorist activity" to include "an offence specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 committed with the intention of ... [among other things] unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act". The offences specified include a lot of serious stuff that people would recognise as terrorism but also include criminal damage and endangering traffic. Could the fuel protests have been defined as terrorist activity? They were potentially endangering traffic under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The definition of endangering traffic states "intentionally places or throws any dangerous obstruction upon a railway, road, street, waterway or public place". Would placing a tractor on O'Connell Street or in front of a refinery be counted as endangering traffic? I suspect it would. If we combine endangering traffic, as so defined in the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, with "unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act", when obviously these protests were designed to call for a cap on fuel prices among other things, can these people be defined as terrorists? Regarding criminal damage, attempting to get into Shannon Airport and break the US war machine, which is being used to encourage and collaborate with the genocide, is criminal damage, yes, but it is absolutely morally correct to do so. Does that become a terrorist act? That is the problem with this whole Bill in reality. I know the Government has amendment No. 16, which states the engagement by a person via protest, advocacy or dissent, or strike, lockout or industrial action, shall not, in and of itself, constitute grounds for saying that it is terrorism, but it also leaves open the possibility that a protest can be defined as terrorism. As for non-violent civil disobedience, which includes "endangering traffic" or "criminal damage" that has the purpose of "compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act", I have been on plenty of protests in my life and all of them have had the purpose of compelling a government or international organisation to do or not do something. That is the whole purpose of a protest. Whether it is unduly compelling, I do not know, but it is certainly trying to compel them to do something. It is very dangerous that people could be defined as terrorists in this way. I am interested in the Minister's response. I assume he will say the fuel protestors would not be defined as terrorists under this legislation. I am interested in how he will say they are not because, on my reading, it seems they can be. That is what is so worrying about this proposal.

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. 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. 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.

Thank you, Minister.

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-----

Thank you, Minister.

-----and there is an understanding as to what it, in fact, means.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 4, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: "(f) organising or facilitating travel for the purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, (g) providing training in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, (h) receiving training in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, (i) recruitment for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, (j) travel for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide,".

I move amendment No. 9: In page 4, to delete lines 14 to 29. There is a need for robust legislation to tackle terrorism and terrorist activity. I know everybody can agree on this. I will hang on for a minute, if that is alright, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if people want to leave while we are discussing Palestine and the genocide that goes on there.

Hold on for a moment, Deputy. You can proceed now.

This is needed, particularly given the current global climate. However, the vagueness in this Bill is more likely to lead to abuse by the Government to stamp out political protest, political activism and free speech. Intention and the glorification of terrorism are open to interpretation. We cannot have a vague Bill and I will outline why. A clause in the Bill could criminalise those of us who wish to commemorate past Irish revolutionaries. Will the Minister commemorate the members of the good old IRA, such as De Valera, Lemass and Collins? Were they not considered terrorists of their time by the British establishment and the British Government? The language of glorifying terrorism contained in the Bill is open to interpretation. This is the language of the DUP, which has sought to criminalise anyone who attends commemorations of loved ones killed in the conflict in the North. I make no apology whatsoever when I attend, and I will continue to attend, commemorations of our patriot dead. It could be equally used against those commemorating the 1916 Rising or even wearing an Easter lily as I am at this moment. As I said previously when the Bill was being discussed, such laws existed in the 1980s. It is probable that putting up in public a poster of Bobby Sands or Nelson Mandela would be construed as glorifying terrorism. In the recent past, we have seen how Mo Chara from the rap group Kneecap was charged with a terrorism offence for waving a flag while performing on stage. There is no greater oxymoron then British Government. Kneecap has been a thorn in the side of the British Government because it represents everything the British establishment hates. The debate on the Bill takes place against a background where there has been across Europe, Britain and America an increase in the use of similar legislation against legitimate political protest, including in relation to Palestine. We cannot ignore this context. The problem is when we insert this kind of provision in law we do not know how it will be used in future. The Minister's assurances that the provision will not be misused does not give any sense of assurance. When I spoke earlier I said that while he may not use this law against Irish people, a future Minister could do so. We do not know who will be sitting in that chair in five, ten or 20 years down the line. There is clearly an attempt to crack down on freedom of speech rather than terrorist activity. Given the direction that Europe is going, we should not allow a diktat from the EU on this or any other issue that impacts on freedom of speech. The section must be opposed because its provisions are authoritarian, uncalled for and open to abuse.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

I will sleep well tonight knowing the Minister will not be coming after me for wearing my Easter lily. I also appreciate his assurance that my future attendance at any commemoration of our patriot dead will not be seen as a terrorist offence. However, he has not given me any assurance that future Ministers sitting in his seat will take the same stance. There is vagueness in the Bill that is open to interpretation. It does not give me any confidence whatsoever that this vagueness will not be interpreted by a different Minister, maybe from a different party, and used in a different way. We are asking the Minister to delete the section on public provocation to commit terrorist offences because the definition is too vague. It is also subjective and open to abuse by future Ministers. I will continue to wear my lily and commemorate our patriot dead, and I accept the Minister's assurances of that. However, I want to know that future generations of Irish people will be able to do the same thing, and this Bill will not come after them.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 7, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Training for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide 4F. (1) For the purposes of this Part, training in the armed forces of a state engaged in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide means intentionally providing instruction or training in the skills of— (a) making or using, for the purpose of committing, or contributing to, the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide— (i) firearms or explosives, (ii) nuclear material, (iii) biological weapons, chemical weapons or prohibited weapons, or (iv) such other weapons, or noxious or hazardous substances, that may be used in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide as the Minister may prescribe, or (b) such other techniques or methods for the purpose of committing, or contributing to the commission of, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide as the Minister may prescribe, knowing or believing that it is likely that the skills provided are intended to be used by a person receiving the instruction or training for the purpose of committing, or contributing to the commission of, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. (2) The Minister may, if he or she considers it appropriate to do so, make regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) and he or she shall— (a) before making such regulations, consult with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Defence, the Commissioner of An Garda Siìochaìna, and such other Minister of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate having regard to the weapons, substances, techniques or methods concerned, and (b) in making such regulations, have regard to the following: (i) the capability of the weapon, substance, technique or method concerned to cause the death of or serious bodily injury to persons or substantial material damage to property; (ii) the capacity of the weapon, substance, technique or method concerned to be used for the purposes of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide and the likelihood of it being so used; (iii) the extent to which instruction or training— (I) in the making or use of the weapon or substance concerned, or (II) in the use of the technique or method concerned, is required for the making or use, as the case may be, of that weapon, substance, technique or method for the purpose of committing, or contributing to the commission of, a war crime, a crime against humanity or genocide.”.”.

I move amendment No. 12: In page 7, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Recruitment for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide 4F.For the purposes of this Part, recruitment for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide means the intentional recruitment of another person to serve in the armed forces of a state which is engaged in, or is reasonably suspected of having engaged in, a war crime, a crime against humanity or genocide.”.”.

I move amendment No. 13: In page 7, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Travel for purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide 4F.For the purposes of this Part, a person travels for the purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide if he or she travels from the State to a place other than the State for the purpose of participation in the armed forces of another state which is engaged in, or is reasonably suspected of having engaged in, genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.”.”.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 7, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Organising or facilitating travel for purpose of participation in the armed forces of another state which is engaged in genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes 4F.For the purposes of this Part, a person organises or facilitates travel for the purpose of participation in the armed forces of another state which is engaged in genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes— (a) if he or she— (i) does any act— (I) consisting of the making of an arrangement for the travel by any person to the State from a place other than the State, or (II) that would facilitate the travel by any person to the State from a place other than the State, or (ii) causes any person to do such an act, knowing that such travel is for a purpose referred to in section 4F, or (b) if he or she— (i) does any act— (I) consisting of the making of an arrangement for the travel by any person from the State to a place other than the State, or (II) that would facilitate the travel by any person from the State to a place other than the State, or (ii) causes any person to do such an act, knowing that such travel is for a purpose referred to in section 4F.”.”.

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. 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. 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.

Amendment No. 16 arises out of Committee Stage proceedings.

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.”.”. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are related and will be discussed together.

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.”,”. 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. 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. 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. 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.

I move amendment No. 18: In page 8, line 21, to delete “offence.”.” and substitute the following: “offence.”, (c) by the insertion of the following subsections: “(2C) A body corporate guilty of an offence under section 6 shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine of such amount as, having regard to the gravity of the offence, the court considers appropriate. (2D) A person guilty of an offence under subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 6 of attempting to commit the offence under subparagraph (i) of the said paragraph (a) of engaging in a terrorist activity shall be liable on conviction to the penalty to which he or she would be liable if he or she were convicted of the second-mentioned offence. (2E) A person guilty of an offence under subparagraph (iia) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 6 of attempting to commit the offence under subparagraph (i) of the said paragraph (a) of engaging in a terrorist-linked activity shall be liable on conviction to the penalty to which he or she would be liable if he or she were convicted of the second-mentioned offence. (2F) A person guilty of an offence— (a) under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 6, and (b) that consists of a threat to commit an offence (in this subsection referred to as the ‘threatened offence’) referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘terrorist activity’ with the intention referred to in that paragraph, shall be liable on conviction to the penalty to which he or she would be liable if he or she were convicted under the said subparagraph (i) of the threatened offence. (2G) A person guilty of an offence— (a) under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 6, and (b) that consists of a threat to commit an act (in this subsection referred to as the ‘threatened act’) referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘terrorist activity’ with the intention referred to in that paragraph, shall be liable on conviction to the penalty to which he or she would be liable if he or she were convicted under the said subparagraph (i) of the offence consisting of the threatened act.”, and (d) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (3): “(3) In this section ‘corresponding offence’ means— (a) in relation to an offence (in this paragraph referred to as the ‘first-mentioned offence’) under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 6 consisting of engaging in a terrorist activity, the offence (in this paragraph referred to as the ‘second-mentioned offence’) specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 that consists of the act of which the first-mentioned offence consists, notwithstanding that it is not a component element of the second-mentioned offence that that act be done with the intention specified in the definition of ‘terrorist activity’, and (b) in relation to an offence (in this paragraph referred to as the ‘first-mentioned offence’) under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 6 consisting of engaging in a terrorist-linked activity, the offence (in this paragraph referred to as the ‘second-mentioned offence’) specified in Part 2 or 3 of Schedule 2 that consists of the act of which the first-mentioned offence consists, notwithstanding that it is not a component element of the second-mentioned offence that that act be done with a view to engaging in a terrorist activity or committing any other offence.”.”.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 19: In page 8, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 13 of Principal Act 7.Section 13 of the Principal Act is amended by— (a) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (5): “(5) (a) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), it shall not be necessary to prove that— (i) the funds concerned were wholly or partly used for the purpose of carrying out an act referred to in that subsection (1), or (ii) the accused was aware of the specific act for which the funds concerned were, or were to be, wholly or partly used. (b) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (3) to which paragraph (a) of that subsection applies, it shall not be necessary to prove that the funds concerned were wholly or partly used for the benefit or purposes of a terrorist group within the meaning of Part 2. (c) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (3) to which paragraph (b) of that subsection applies, it shall not be necessary to prove that— (i) the funds concerned were wholly or partly used for the purpose of carrying out an act referred to in the said paragraph (b), or (ii) the accused was aware of the specific act for which the funds concerned were, or were to be, wholly or partly used.”, (b) the substitution, in subsection (6), of “Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4)” for “Subsections (1) and (2)”, (c) the substitution, in subsection (7), of “Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4)” for “Subsections (1) and (2)”, (d) the insertion of the following subsection: “(9) Subsections (9) and (10) of section 6 shall apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section subject to the modification that the reference in the said subsection (9) to an offence under that section shall be construed as a reference to an offence under this section.”.”. Amendment No. 19 relates to section 13 of the Principal Act and is intended to give effect to requirements of the 2017 directive. Section 13 of the Act relates to the offence of financing terrorism, which is linked to Article 11 of the directive. Paragraph (2) of Article 11 stipulates that in respect of the offence of financing terrorism, it shall not be necessary that the funds in fact be used to commit terrorist offences nor that the offender know for which specific terrorist offence the funds are to be used. Currently section 13(5) of the principal Act only partially covers these requirements. Paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 13(5), as proposed to be inserted by this amendment, are more comprehensive, ensuring full compliance. The amendments to section 13(6) are compliance provisions in respect of jurisdictional requirements of the directive in Article 19. Paragraph (1) of Article 19 of the directive requires that member states establish jurisdiction where certain conditions are met; for instance, where the act is committed by an Irish citizen. The amendments to section 13(6) of the principal Act provide for these in respect of the offence of financing terrorism. The amendment to section 13(7) is, again, linked to jurisdictional requirements of the directive and serves to extend jurisdiction in respect of the terrorist financing offence when committed outside the State, beyond those listed in section 13(6), under another set of conditions which are referred to in section 43 of the principal Act. This is to meet the requirements of paragraph (4) of Article 19 of the directive. Amendment No. 20, which is the final amendment, builds on amendment No. 19 in relation to extraterritorial jurisdiction of the terrorist financing offence. It amends section 43 of the principal Act, which relates to proceedings for offences committed outside the State. The amendment requires that the terrorist financing offences, when committed outside the State, be only proceeded against with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, as is required for other terrorist offences in the Act. It also gives further effect to paragraph (4) of Article 19 of the directive mentioned previously. That paragraph requires that member states take measures to establish jurisdiction over terrorism offences where the member state refuses to surrender or extradite a person suspected or convicted of such an offence to another member state or to a third country. Section 43 of the principal Act already does this for a range of terrorist offences where the DPP consents. However, the terrorist financing offence was not fully encompassed by this, so this technical amendment No. 20 rectifies that gap.

My understanding is that amendment No. 19 aims to make terrorism financing offences easier to prosecute by removing the requirement to prove that funds were actually used for a specific terrorist act or that the accused knew the precise purpose. It broadens liability across subsections and aligns evidential rules with section 6 so that prosecutors need only show that funds were provided in circumstances linked to terrorism, not that they directly financed a particular operation. Does the Minister have any concerns that the amendment lowers evidential thresholds so far that it risks criminalising individuals without proof of intent or use of funds, or that it weakens safeguards against terrorism financing prosecutions?

I thank Deputy Ward for his question. He accurately sets out the purpose of amendment No. 19 in respect of the offence of financing terrorism. One of the requirements would be that the prosecution would have to show that the funds were used to commit specific terrorist offences. That was something that was too specific. If somebody gives money for the purpose of terrorist activity, it should not be a requirement on the prosecutor or the State to establish that he or she had knowledge that it was going to be used for a specific terrorist act. Somebody could be acquitted of the offence by saying that he or she did not realise it would be used in, to take the earlier example, the Bataclan, and that the funding he or she provided was for another terrorist offence. It is appropriate that we criminalise the funds being used to commit terrorist offences and that there is not a requirement in the legislation for the offender to know that it is for a specific terrorist offence. The amendment is not going to weaken the laws in respect of trying to combat terrorist financing. In fact, it will probably make it easier to prosecute individuals whose objective has been to finance terrorism. Previously they may have been able to seek to use the defence that they did not seek to fund that specific act and argue that the prosecution must prove that they knew that the funding was for that act. It is important that liability should rest on individuals who know that they are funding terrorist activities, even if they cannot be specifically aware of which terrorist activity is going to be covered by their funding.

I move amendment No. 20: In page 8, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 43 of Principal Act 8.Section 43 of the Principal Act is amended— (a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) of section 13” for “13(1) or (2)”, and (b) in subsection (3), by— (i) the substitution of “subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) of section 13” for “13(1) or (2)” where it first occurs, (ii) the insertion, in clause (I) of subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a), of “or subsection (3) or (4) of section 13” after “section 6(1)”, and (iii) the insertion, in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b), of “or subsection (3) or (4) of section 13” after “section 6 (1)”.”.