Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister might say this amendment is not dealing with the same things as the UK legislation. It is dealing with what we have in Irish legislation. He is right. He was also right in describing the legislation that is being changed by this legislation as clunky. He has used the word "trigger" quite a bit. What is the test? What triggers incitement? That is the reason I put in this amendment. The legislation the Minister is proposing is too loose. The previous legislation that this Bill is amending is too clunky. The Minister agrees with that. I would describe it as "wordy".

What we are trying to do here is to put in conditionality. While we are dealing with our own legislation, we must remember that the Minister will not always be the Minister but this legislation will be on the books. Under the law of unintended consequences, while what is happening in the UK may not happen here, the interpretation of this Bill has to be absolute. We cannot have the scenario of the issues relating to Kneecap and Mo Chara, and possibly a number of other instances, here in Ireland. That is why I have included this conditionality to require "material evidence" of an intention. The Minister is saying that is implicit. Every legal person I have dealt with in drafting this amendment does not agree. It is not implicit, sacrosanct or guaranteed. That is why we think it is a reasonable amendment to include actual material evidence rather than depending on the view of a chief superintendent or anyone else, depending on the circumstances. Material evidence, and not opinions, would require to be produced in order for somebody to be prosecuted. That is the difference. That is why we submitted this amendment. Otherwise, we could have a Kneecap and Mo Chara situation. I do not want that to happen. We could have a variation of that scenario.

I repeat that my amendment reads, "Proceedings for the offence of terrorist-linked activity consisting of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence shall not succeed unless there is material evidence as to an intention on the part of the accused". The way in which the Bill is drafted is not absolute. It is potentially open to being misunderstood and, dare I say it, abused. That is the key concern. We talk about artistic and political expression. I am with all of that, and people must be allowed to express themselves. It may not be to everyone's taste but that is beside the point. We must put in place good legislation.

I certainly believe that the Minister needs to reflect on this amendment. If he is not going to accept it, he needs to reflect on it for Report Stage. We are not short of legal opinions in our party. We have lots of them. We are hearing that the particular requirement I have included is necessary. Otherwise, the legislation is far too loose.