Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

I will return to a matter of concern regarding the Bill highlighted in the House last week by my colleague, Deputy Morgan. It concerns the possibility that sections of the Bill could be used against those engaged in industrial action or other forms of legitimate protest. This needs to be examined and, if need be, addressed through the form of amendments to the relevant sections. I hope to do this at a later stage.

The preamble to the convention, to which effect is being given by the Bill, notes that "acts of the crew which are subject to normal shipboard discipline are outside the purview of this Convention". I assume from this that those who drew up the convention did not intend that it would be used other than against what we describe as specifically terrorist offences. This should be specifically included in the Bill to ensure it is not used against those who might be engaged in strike action or even an occupation connected with industrial action on board a ship or an offshore oil rig or exploration rig. I would be grateful to the Minister if he provided clarification on this matter before we proceed to the next Stage.

The scope for the legislation to be used in the manner to which I refer is to be found in section 2(1)(a) which states anyone "seizing or exercising control over a ship or fixed platform by force or threat of force or any other form of intimidation" is guilty of an offence. This is further strengthened in section 2(1)(j) where it is extended to include anyone who would attempt to seize or exercise such control. It is clear that this could be interpreted to include persons engaged in industrial action. There was a recent case in Cork in which a ship's crew found itself in possession of a vessel because it had not been paid. I would be concerned that the ship owner in that case could resort to legislation such as this Bill and claim the men were not involved in a legitimate action but carrying out an act of terrorism. If the Minister cannot assure us that this is impossible under the Bill, as it stands, we need to amend it accordingly.

The same applies to those who might be engaged in protest against a ship or marine installation. The Sellafield plant is the obvious case that springs to mind in this context. There have been many protests against the installation and I am sure people would not like to think members of Greenpeace or any of the other groups which have engaged in sea-borne protests against the plant, including legitimate attempts to prevent the transportation of noxious materials, could be arrested and charged with terrorist offences under this legislation.

Section 4 gives powers to the Garda to arrest without warrant anyone engaged in an offence as defined in section 2. If this is to be interpreted in the manner I suggest it might be, one may again see the spectacle of the Garda being used to end legitimate actions. Many of us will remember previous occasions when this took place during occupations at the Ranks bakery in Dublin and other parts of the country.

Whatever the legal position, we must always try to avoid circumstances in which employers are able to resort to the organs of the State to force workers to end a strike or occupation. This would take place if this legislation was framed in a manner such that a ship owner or an offshore exploration company could cite it to invoke the power of the State to intervene against its employees.

I worked offshore in the late 1970s and early 1980s. While working on the oil rigs in the Porcupine Basin, workers decided to stop working as a mark of respect for each hunger striker who died in that period. We were threatened as a result. Many might not know there are arsenals on board offshore exploration rigs to be used to prevent any type of mutiny. Management and other selected persons are in a position to use these arsenals. This must be borne in mind in this instance.

Section 4 contains further dangers. In subsection (3) it provides for the master or other person in charge of a ship or fixed platform to arrest or detain a person whom he or she believes to be committing an offence under section 2. In fact, the person would not even have to have committed the offence but merely have been deemed to have been attempting to do so. This interpretation would have serious implications if it was employed in the course of an industrial dispute where a ship's captain or owner or a foreman on an exploration platform could arrest and confine someone engaged in industrial action or threatening to do so. Clarification is required on this danger and amendments should be made to the Bill, if necessary.

Circumstances would be made even worse if the ship in question was registered in a state where there were human rights abuses. This would include several of the states that have ratified this convention, including states where even membership of a trade union is illegal and others in which trade unions are legal but where members are the subject of state repression. In many countries to be active in a trade union movement is effectively to have a death sentence hanging over one's head. What would happen, for example, if the crew of a ship from such a state happened to be involved in a dispute in Irish waters and the ship's owners managed to arrest those involved? Section 5 allows a master of a ship to detain such persons and hand them over to the appropriate authorities of a convention state. Would this state be happy if such a dispute occurred in Irish waters and the persons detained were then transported from Irish waters to be placed in the custody of another convention state in which they might be subjected to human rights abuses, or even worse?

The same situation might arise where prisoners are being transported to such a state from another jurisdiction through Irish waters and where they mutiny in order to prevent themselves being taken back. That might sound far-fetched but we live in a world — in a Europe, for that matter — where atrocities have been and are being perpetrated by states against their own citizens. We need to be very careful before we allow for even the slightest possibility that such states might be able to justify their actions in this regard under international law.

States and people are rightly concerned about terrorism but we should also be careful not to neglect the need to provide safeguards to ensure the so-called war on terror is not used as an excuse to carry out state terror. No one could justify the awful events that took place in New York on 11 September 2001, or those in Madrid, nor should anyone attempt to justify the awful events taking place at this very moment in Iraq. In recent weeks we have all seen images of prisoners being subjected to terrible treatment. Civilians are being murdered on the streets and human bombs are exploding on a daily basis but these occurrences are altogether separate from the killing of many thousands during the initial phase of the war. This is all being done as part of the so-called war on terror, a war that has absolutely nothing to do with the causes or the perpetrators of the atrocities of 11 September 2001 or what took place in Madrid recently. Therefore, I urge caution in rushing to frame any legislation that is seen to be part of the so-called war on terror without first examining carefully its implications for the protection of rights of both the citizens of this State and those of other jurisdictions who happen to find themselves here, in whatever circumstances.

I am aware that this legislation predates the current US and British offensive but it has clearly been given a renewed impetus by it. Most of the speakers from other parties have clearly placed the Bill in that context. In that light, we should be even more careful to take our time and closely examine all of its implications before we rush to embody in legislation provisions that might have the effects to which I referred.

I seek clarification on the matters I have raised. If the Minister of State can answer my queries satisfactorily, that is good. If not and there is a possibility that the legislation might be used, for example, against those engaged in industrial action, I propose to address this on Committee Stage with appropriate amendments.

See this speech in context