Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

I was trying to think, sitting here, of what risks to this State might apply regarding some of the events for which we are preparing. Deputy Broughan mentioned how we had fortuitously had a committee meeting last week on port security in this State. I am raising this because I am wondering what circumstances we should be concerned about. One concern to come out of that meeting was the discussion we had with officials regarding safety at Galway city, given the port facility with very large quantities of flammable gas right in the heart of the city. I am not a chemical engineer and cannot state the specific substance, but anyone who knows Galway city centre and the docks area there will know that one regularly sees the loading and unloading of vessels carrying highly combustible explosive materials. It is effectively right in the city centre. If we are to be publicly concerned — personally I do not see much chance of a terrorist attack on Galway — that was one risk highlighted to me at a recent committee, and perhaps the Government might want to address it. The officials raised my concerns at our meeting.

It is interesting that the convention to which we are signing up also addresses the safety of platforms when it comes to possible terrorist attacks. The one other great risk I see here, if someone were sufficiently demented to try to take on such terrorist activities, is in the proposed development of the gas pipeline from the Corrib gas field, which hits the Irish mainland near Pollatomish, County Mayo, before travelling overland for some 9 km. to the proposed processing station. I am told by experts in the field that there is no international precedent for such a lengthy pipeline from the shore to the processing point. The very existence of that pipeline in itself poses quite a risk for the area given possible blockages or other damages that can be caused to it. However, in Iraq at the moment, some of the targets most difficult to protect against terrorist activity are those very pipelines.

Yet in this country, for reasons about which I am not very clear, we cannot put a processing plant at a landfall elsewhere or provide offshore processing facilities. I am genuinely concerned that, if someone were sufficiently demented and wished to target this country's offshore facilities, that person would not have to go offshore. He or she could look at those 9 km. of pipeline, which would be almost impossible to guard, and decide that a small device there would do incredible damage to this country. I would be interested in hearing the Minister reply whether, if there are risks in this country, he can guarantee future safety, given whatever circumstances lie ahead. It was interesting to hear Deputy Finian McGrath speak of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. What effect would a similar bomb along that pipeline have? Can the Minister give assurances that the pipeline is safe from such terrorist attacks?

The third obvious risk to this State, which my colleagues have mentioned already, is a possible attack on the nuclear facilities at Sellafield. I know it does not have a maritime risk; the danger is more from air attack. Out of interest, I can report back to the House that I recently had some discussions with the British members of the nuclear safety authority who were over here showing the very good work they do in trying to keep those facilities safe. I failed to get an answer as to how they could prevent a terrorist attack by a plane going into those facilities or how they might protect against it. The British authorities said they were unable to give details for security reasons. The Irish expert to whom I was talking was interesting. He was hypothesising — having merely thought about it and having some experience in the area — that we would be down to devices which would release smoke close to the reactors to try to hide them if a plane were approaching or the issuing of balloon barrages which would rise up around the reactors. When I heard of those possible precautions, it filled me with nothing but further concern at the possibilities.

However, I have digressed from the Maritime Security Bill 2004, which is before us. My central point is very general and does not necessarily relate to the provisions. We are all concerned about the fight against terrorism world-wide, having seen the atrocities carried out in Madrid, and in New York in 2001. We cannot ignore or fail to address the threat. However, I strongly believe the current manner of our addressing that terrorist threat is completely wrong. It is interesting to read the Schedule. The 1988 convention was remarkably prescient in recognising some of the threats before us. However, in Schedule 1 to the convention, I am particularly drawn to the fact that it records Resolution 40/61 of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 9 December 1985. That is an extremely important resolution for us to return to in our fight against terrorism.

It makes us recognise that the causes of international terrorism must be tackled. Special attention must be paid to causes such as colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as those involving alien occupation. This House has legislated on several occasions for Bills similar to this to introduce protective measures, where we are trying to put in place tough penalties and stiff sentencing against people who are carrying out terrorist activities. However, we are not addressing the real causes of that terrorism. That is particularly relevant to the present situation in Iraq where, under Resolution 4061 of the United Nations, there is an alien occupation. One has to ask how that is helping the fight against terrorism. Is it contributing to the development of terrorism on a long-term basis? I believe it is.

It is remarkable to see, as referred to by Deputy McGrath, section 3 of Article 7 of the convention provides that if a terrorist is found on a ship we are committed to giving him or her basic protections in our jurisdiction, or indeed any jurisdiction. That is a demand any signatory to the convention would have to follow: such a person would be entitled to a visit from a representative of his or her state, under Article 7, or indeed under Article 10 of the convention such a person would be entitled to have his or her case handled and brought to court without delay and dealt with under the rules of the arresting nation state.

The broad question must be asked about the current activities of the American Government in holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay where the accused terrorists are being refused the right to have a case brought to court. It seems this is in flagrant breach of the spirit as set out in this United Nations convention. I question whether that breach of the UN convention is not adding to global terrorism rather than detracting from it.

Most noticeable at present is the systematic abuse by British and American armed forces and the military police under their jurisdiction in Iraq. Is that flagrant breach of human rights not also a far greater cause of the rise of global terrorism and should the Government not seek to diminish this threat by making our views known to the states in breach of such abuses which are denying people access to a fair trial? Rather than this House passing one Bill after another trying to patch up laws to provide protection against possible terrorist attacks, would it not be wiser to use our independent voice, which is highly regarded on the international stage, to say, in effect: "We in this country have learned over 30 years how to fight terrorism, and the way is not necessarily by punitive restrictive legislation, it is by promoting the democratic ideals upon which our State and the American and British states were founded."

That is the best course in terms of tackling international terrorism. It is to return to the values that established and form the cornerstone of western liberal democratic tradition. What I fear terribly is that in the struggle to fight terrorism or in the so-called war against terrorism, we are engaging in a war against our own democratic rights and values. We are introducing legal punitive measures which, while individually justifiable or prudent, are collectively leading to an infringement on the very freedoms and rights we cherish.

I hope my attack is not seen as anti-American per se. I lived in America for a period in the mid-1980s when, like many people of my generation, I could not find work here. I found the freedom there a remarkable asset. The welcome extended to me as an "illegal" working in America was enormously rewarding. It was an exhilarating state to live in. Friends who have been living in America since that time have remarked on the loss of freedom there in the past 20 years. In a sense the terrorists have been allowed to win. The restrictions being put in place to restrict terrorism are restricting our quality of life and inhibiting our sense of democracy and freedom.

While I welcome the passing of this Bill in the sense that it may possibly provide us with legal measures to take on terrorism linked to ships in international waters and while it is difficult to argue against the legal provisions and the safeguards the convention contains, I have serious questions and doubts about the process we are following, about our apparent eagerness to sign as many measures as possible so that we are seen as "good boys" on the international stage, in the war on terrorism.

In reality Ireland would be better appreciated as a State if we said honestly that it is the current abuse of human rights by a number of Governments that is the real contributor to rising global terrorism. The treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo is the recruitment agency for international terrorism. We know, in this country, what inflames people and encourages them to take up the bomb and the bullet. Having seen it operate in our own country we know how this works so we should know how to stop it.

The Government in its unique role as holder of the Presidency of the European Council of Ministers is failing to deliver that most valuable lesson that we should have learned in this State over the past 30 years, and I very much regret that.

See this speech in context