Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

These amendments are an abuse of process as they have nothing to do with the original Bill which deals with money laundering and financing terrorism in what the Minister described as a technical Bill. It is debatable as to whether it is a technical Bill but it certainly has nothing to do with these amendments. Amendments which fundamentally change the Bill’s character and involve giving the Minister for Justice and Equality, as well as his successors, pretty draconian powers by any definition should not be brought in at the last minute or tacked on to a Bill that has nothing to do with the issues they concern. The only explanation for this odd state of affairs where the Minister introduces these extraordinary amendments to a Bill which has nothing to do with the issues in them can be the timing in advance of the forthcoming G8 summit in Fermanagh. There is simply no other reason it would have to be rushed in this way, other than the fact that Minister is meeting a schedule to prepare for the G8 summit. He should at least admit that and tell us why he is in such a rush to bring this legislation which, at the very least whatever he may think, requires serious scrutiny.

There is an irony in the Minister accusing others of engaging in conspiracy theories when the whole basis of these amendments is a conspiracy theory that there is a real and imminent threat to cause explosions when there is no basis for such an assertion whatsoever. These supposed threats must be justified by the Minister. He must give us credible evidence that such a threat exists, that these powers are necessary and proportionate, and that they are likely to be effective in dealing with such a threat, if it exists.

The Minister, of course, does not want that serious scrutiny of these amendments because that is not the purpose of this Bill. This set of amendments is timed to coincide with the preparations for the G8 summit. It is cynical to engage in this.

Will the Minister give us an assurance that these powers will not be abused during the G8 summit or other protests? I do not accept the rationale behind these amendments. I have not heard sufficient argument from the Minister’s side to justify the amendments. Even if I accepted the rationale, should he not make a distinction between a bomb threat, a weapons threat and peaceful protests? The definitions as they stand are vague. They refer to possible threats to human life. How will these be construed? If the Minister said there was credible evidence that people were running around with guns in a particular vicinity threatening lives, then he might have a more credible argument for saying we need these powers. However, the amendments as they stand are much more vague and general than that.

As I see it, there is nothing whatsoever in the way these amendments are worded to stop the Minister and the Garda making the decision to turn off mobile phone communications in and around a protest. It is not a conspiracy to suggest that such actions may be considered. I refer again to my experience in Genoa during protests at the 2001 G8 summit. It was not a funny experience as much as the Minister might smile wryly about it. A young man was killed there by Italian police. It produced a huge reaction from the Italian people about what went on. What happened there was absolutely disgraceful. It might be of interest for the Minister to know that the Italian justice Minister directing these actions at the time was Gianfranco Fini, a fascist supporter, an ideology the Minister opposes.

What is to stop a Minister in the future abusing these powers? That needs to be discussed and that is why these amendments should not be tacked on in this way. I do not trust the timing or the rationale behind the provisions. There are also serious questions as to how these powers could be abused in the future. They should be debated separately from what the Minister describes as a technical Bill.

See this speech in context