Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

The main terrorism that I have experienced in my life was at the hands of people in British Army uniforms, who were directed from Whitehall. It is unfortunate that, in the absence of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, we do not have legislation here to banish those people from our country.

I have a number of concerns about this Bill. I appreciate that there needs to be proper protection of vessels and marine installations, but I am not satisfied that there is some major new problem that needs to be addressed by a raft of new security legislation. Other speakers have referred to the new dangers that have arisen since the awful events in New York and Madrid, but I am concerned that those events are being used to serve as the pretext for legislation that would not have prevented either of those atrocities. I am reminded of something that was said last year by Ms Irene Khan of Amnesty International when she referred to the fact that the so-called war on terror was being used to curtail human rights, undermine international law and increase the level of fear and suspicion between different peoples.

If we needed proof of that, we need only look at the awful facts that are beginning to emerge from the Iraqi prisons. While states need to protect themselves against threats, they do not have the right to undermine human rights in the process. One of the possible dangers in this legislation is contained in section 7(4)(b) which refers to the provisions of the European arrest warrant. That facility, which was approved by the House a number of months ago, brings an end to the previous situation whereby this State had formal extradition arrangements with other states and puts in place a new situation where warrants can be issued by member state courts and exercised without having to satisfy previous safeguards in another jurisdiction. As we ought to have learned from our experience of the extradition of people between this jurisdiction and those under the control of the British Government, such cases can be fraught with difficulty, especially when dealing with offences that are connected with political problems and conflicts.

I cannot foresee why people might choose to seize a ship of another state in Irish waters. We ought not to prejudge such an event by decreeing in advance that anyone who would do so would automatically be extradited or punished here. What would we do, for example, if people being brought by ship from one country to another to be placed in a concentration camp, were to mutiny in Irish territorial waters and seize the ship in which they were being transported? Would we arrest and extradite them or would we lock them up in prison here? These may seem like unlikely scenarios, at least in an EU context, but in a world of mass human rights abuses, they surely merit some consideration before we pass blanket legislation such as this Bill.

I am also concerned by section 2(1)(a) which refers to the offence of "seizing or exercising control over a ship or fixed platform by force or threat of force or any other form of intimidation". People could find themselves subject to the rigorous sanctions recommended in this Bill by their participation in legitimate acts of protest. If workers went on strike on an offshore exploration platform and the dispute developed, as industrial conflicts sometimes do, into an occupation, would such persons then be considered to be in contravention of this section and depicted as terrorists? Would it allow companies like Shell or Marathon to invoke this legislation in the event of an industrial dispute offshore?

A similar situation might arise in industrial action on a ship. Last year, non-national employees of a shipping company found themselves in possession of the ship on which they were employed because of a refusal to pay them. If this Bill is passed, will such employers be able to resort to legislation to have the workers arrested and charged with such serious offences?

In a similar fashion, would people engaged in protest or direct actions against ships carrying war materials or nuclear materials come under the terms of the legislation? I have taken part in protests against Sellafield and Greenpeace has attempted to physically obstruct vessels carrying noxious materials from Sellafield through the Irish Sea. If such an action was successful to the extent of the protesters boarding such a vessel and preventing it carrying its deadly cargo further, would that be considered an act of terror?

Almost everyone has referred to Sellafield. I fail to see how this Bill would prevent the possibility of a terrorist attack on that installation. God forbid that anything like that would ever take place. Surely, however, this misses the point that the danger that Sellafield presents, and the harm that Sellafield does, is that it is there at all. We might not be able to prevent some lunatic deciding to crash an aeroplane into it but we can and should be doing something about the danger it currently poses. We should be pressuring the British Government to close the place down. I happen to hold the view that there are no greater terrorists on the planet than those who operate Sellafield. The sooner we introduce legislation to outlaw its operation and the resultant effects on Irish people, the happier we will all be.

See this speech in context