Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I congratulate Deputy Keaveney on a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech, which is appropriate from a Deputy who comes from a maritime county and is deeply conscious of the security needs, fishery needs and the general marine and maritime needs of her area and the country.

We on this side of the House welcome the Bill. It is long past the time when it should have been introduced. We draw attention to the need for a proper, comprehensive, integrated defence and security plan, onshore and offshore, in respect of this country with particular reference to our involvement in EU defence and security discussions, debates and measures that are likely to be put into operation in the future.

The points raised by Deputy Keaveney clearly illustrate the need for vigilance in terms of marine and maritime security. The Achille Lauro was famously hijacked a long time ago. I think it was a Captain Delgado who achieved immortality by seizing a cruise liner on the high seas. Many people have put those events to the back of their minds and presume that such an event could never occur here, that we are universally loved and that nobody would ever attempt to do anything of that nature here, but that is as far from the truth as one can go. We have had experience of various kinds of agitation and terrorism over the years.

I draw a distinction between warfare and terrorism. Warfare is when war takes place and there is a formal declaration, although whether it be formal or informal is immaterial. Terrorism is what takes place when innocent people are used as victims to promote a cause such as a holy war. One can think of the various acts that have taken place over recent years and we do not have to think back so far. We can talk about terrorism in terms of the Omagh bombing. Nobody could ever suggest that bombing was a sacrifice of innocent victims to promote some particular cause, which was not very clear then and is not very clear now.

We can think of the atrocities of 11 September when 2,500 to 3,000 people were sacrificed to promote a cause, but I am not certain what that cause was. I am not certain that the perpetrators of those atrocities were sure about what the cause was other than some peculiar way of using it as a means of revenge for some perceived or real grievances they had. The central issue is that innocent people were sacrificed. Where innocent people are sacrificed, it is up to the democratic community to recognise that such atrocities are not a threat to one country or one administration but a threat to every country and administration and a direct threat to democracy. We in Fine Gael have long since promoted the notion that we need to become involved in a more realistic way not only with European defence and security thinking but in the preparation and enactment of policy.

In regard to maritime security, this island has an extensive coastline which, in European terms, is huge. The problem that exists is that we have not yet given proper recognition to the fact that we live in a peculiar time in a hostile world where democracy is sacrificed on a regular basis and where those who seek to promote a particular cause will seek out the weakest area to target and will carry out the most publicity-seeking exercise by way of an atrocity.

The recent Madrid bombings were supposed to have been a punishment for the association of the Spanish authorities with the war in Iraq. The perpetrators had a peculiar way of dealing with that problem. They sacrificed a large number of innocent people going to work and about their business. There was no declaration of war, no formal warning; in fact, there was no warning. Those bombings were simply a means of ensuring that terror prevailed, hence the description — terrorism.

I have no doubt there will be instances in the future whereby others will seek out the most vulnerable locations throughout Europe to promote their cause and they will do so in a most spectacular way. I am not being critical, but I question whether the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is the correct Department to promote this legislation. It would have been more firmly and appropriately based in the Department of Defence because it relates to defence and security.

We have promoted the notion in this House many times that because we are a neutral country, nobody will attack us, that we are safe and secure and can defend ourselves or, if not, others will come to our defence in the event of an emergency, but I am not so certain about that anymore. Given that this country is an economic entity in its own right, it is sophisticated and we can no longer expect to depend on others to come to our defence and others do not expect us to depend on them. We have come to a juncture where we have to be seen to do something for ourselves and to become involved in what is promoted around us as a means of defending not only ourselves but our European colleagues. That may well be anathema to many people but it is a reality. It is something we need to think and talk about if we are to move forward.

This is relevant in the context of the expanding membership of the European Union, which now stands at 25 countries. The Union is a large entity that is growing on a daily basis and will expand further. A responsibility falls on us as a nation and as a Parliament to think to what extent we are prepared to take seriously our responsibilities in terms of European defence and security. My colleagues, Deputies Gay Mitchell and McGinley, have spelt this out on numerous occasions in this House and I reiterate what they have said. It is imperative that we engage in a realistic fashion and with all possible haste with our European colleagues in an effort to identify how best we can contribute to the abolition of terrorism and to the provision of defence and security mechanisms that will ensure our security and defence as well as the defence and security of our European colleagues.

It is long past the day that we can afford to say that nobody is likely to target us and we can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that nobody will focus their attention on us. The attention has always been focused on what is seen to be the weakest or most vulnerable point. It is not a question of how friendly we are in the world arena or what nice guys or girls we are when it comes to international discussions, debates or negotiations. It comes down to one point, namely, a decision by those involved in terrorism as to whom they will seek out as the next target and how they will do that.

We need to examine how that could happen here and what we need to consider. There is always a danger in the maritime area of a vessel being hijacked on the high seas. That could be done in a number of ways. A cruise liner or an oil tanker could be hijacked. We need only think of the likely consequences of an oil tanker being hijacked and it running ashore on one of our ports. Given our extensive coastline, such an incident would place major responsibilities on us.

Let us examine the mechanisms we have in place to thwart such an attack. Are there sufficient personnel in place or do we have adequate air and sea surveillance to deter an attack of that nature? I do not believe so. We must give serious consideration to how we would react to such an eventuality. Are there sufficient resources in place to deal with an attack on a gas or oil platform? I have serious doubts in that regard.

See this speech in context