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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Sentiment score: -0.48

I do not think the Deputy will. It passed yesterday without a vote.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I thank all Members for their contributions, which I have listened to carefully. I many not be able to respond to each of the issues that was raised. I hope they are not offended if I do not specifically refer to the issues to which they referred. I am conscious that a couple of the issue raised, for instance by Deputies Kelly and Coppinger, do not relate to the Bill so I may not be able to deal with them. If I have time, I will. The general opposition to the Bill I have introduced centres on the content of section 3, which concerns public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. A number of Deputies have referred to the fact that this is going to be grossly unfair and will interfere with freedom of expression and the right to protest. I dispute that. It is not the case. I will contrast the language in the British terrorism Act with what is contained here. The wording is completely different. The first and most important point I want to make in respect of section 3, which deals with public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, is that someone does not even get within the parameters of that offence unless what he or she is doing is being done with the intention of inciting a person to commit terrorist activity. When we talk about "glorification" and actions "that could reasonably be construed as inciting", they only arise if the activity of the person who is being investigated or prosecuted is with the intention of inciting another person to commit terrorist activity. The type of activity we are talking about is in circumstances where people are trying to encourage impressionable younger people to incite them to commit a terrorist act. The argument that has been used repeatedly is that these measures are going to block protest and stop people expressing their legitimately held political opinions. Even if they are political opinions that are supportive of terrorist activity, that is not going to be the case. You have to be inciting somebody to commit or with the intention of committing terrorist activity. Deputies Paul Murphy and Coppinger may not have been here when I referred to the specific provisions of the legislation in the UK under which Kneecap is being prosecuted. Kneecap is being prosecuted under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I want to read out again the content of that provision because it is alarmingly wide. It is a provision that would not be enacted by this House. It states: "A person in a public place commits an offence if he ... 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". Somebody who is a supporter of Hamas and who displays that support could be prosecuted in the UK. That would not happen here. The only circumstance in which someone can be prosecuted here is if the activity he or she has been involved in is with the intention of seeking to incite somebody to engage in terrorist activity. There is a full difference between the two Bills. The rights to protest and to freedom of expression are fully contained within our Constitution and the European convention. Those rights are not going to be impinged by this. Deputy Ward gave a couple of examples. He said he likes to be able to sing rebel songs. He will still be able to do it.

Sentiment score: -0.19

Notwithstanding his ability as a singer, he is still going to be able to do it. People can sing songs about "The Boys of Barr na Sráide" and "The Men Behind the Wire". In loyalist parts of Belfast, they can sing whatever they want. They can do whatever activity they wish. The only time this legislation will be triggered is if it is being done with the intention to incite people to commit terrorist activity. What Kneecap is being prosecuted for in the UK would not happen here. Under this legislation, people would be entitled to say they support Hamas, although it has been involved in reprehensible behaviour. You can say what you want. The only time your message is going to come within the criminal law and face criminal sanction is if it is being done with the intention of inciting someone else to commit criminal terrorist activity. We have seen this previously. Deputy Coppinger referred to the fact that this has only been done in recent times because of what is happening in the Middle East. In fairness to the Government, we are belatedly, not unusually, transposing into Irish law a directive from nearly ten years ago. We are transposing into Irish law the directive from 2017. The concern of colleagues that this will have a restrictive impact on protest or freedom of expression is not accurate. People will still be entitled to express support and praise for terrorist activities in the past. I am not suggesting anyone present would do so, but if somebody wanted to stand up and praise terrorist activities that took place in this country in the 1970s or 1980s, for example, the Dublin-Monaghan bombings or the Kingsmill massacre, if somebody wanted to say that he or she supports those acts of terrorism, he or she would be entitled to do so. The only time they will be caught by the criminal law, if this legislation is enacted, is if he or she is doing it with the intention of trying to incite others. Regrettably, it is the case that terrorist activity takes place around Europe. We in Ireland have been pretty fortunate not to have examples of it in recent times. In other parts of the world, however, which we cannot ignore, terrorist activity takes place. Sometimes, I regret, it is perpetrated by people who have also had mental health issues. To respond to that, we need to recognise that there are people seeking to incite vulnerable, impressionable people to get involved in violent behaviour for their own political means. Colleagues also mentioned broader issues about what it happening in the world at present. What is happening in Gaza is reprehensible. This legislation is not going to include an attempt to identify which pieces of terrorist activity we regard as good and which we regard as bad. "Terrorist activity" is defined under the 2005 Act. There is a Schedule that sets out the offences covered by "terrorist activity". It does not specify that the activity is carried out by certain political groups and not by others. It is objective in its operation. A couple of my colleagues have asked if I will consider amendments; of course I will. I presume Deputies will table amendments. I note what Deputy Paul Murphy said about section 8. He was the only Deputy who referred to a section other than section 3 with which he had concerns. That section seeks to deal with the reality that many of the attacks being perpetrated at present by persons who are trying to exert political pressure on governments and states are cyberattacks. That is something we need to recognise and we should be entitled to respond to it. Deputy Kelly made a significant contribution about Evan Fitzgerald and I am concerned that if I do not say anything it will be perceived as if I do not have a response to give in this respect. All I want to say is that at present there are still two cases that are live and ongoing. I am conscious I am under the guidance of the Ceann Comhairle, and I am not going to be talking about any cases. In respect of the other two individuals prosecuted with the late Evan Fitzgerald, their cases are still live. One of them has pleaded guilty, while the other case will be back before the courts in July. It would be completely inappropriate of me to make any comments at this stage in respect of those cases because there will certainly have to be some form of a hearing in respect of sentencing for the former and there could be a full trial in respect of the latter. As the Minister for justice, I have certain powers that can be evoked if necessary. I am not going to do anything at this stage until those trials have come to a conclusion. Since it is fresh in my mind, Deputy Coppinger mentioned the issue of the Special Criminal Court and how we can have non-jury courts. It is provided for in the Constitution. It says we can have special courts that can be put in place when the ordinary courts of justice are inadequate to deal with the administration of justice. That option does exist. I thank all my colleagues for their contributions. I will take on board what they said. I conclude by stating that section 3 of this Bill is not seeking to restrict protest or undermine freedom of expression. It would not apply to Kneecap and its members could not be prosecuted in this country under this particular provision if this legislation were in place. This is because they clearly did not have the intention of seeking to incite other people to commit a terrorist act. It comes back to the fact that we really need to look at what is in the Bill as opposed to what we think is in it. I thank the Ceann Comhairle.

Sentiment score: 0.02