Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

There you go again. The Bill is very clear. It is about the protection of life. It is not, as the Deputy is suggesting, about preventing peaceful demonstrations. Not all the demonstrations we have seen occur at G8 meetings have been peaceful. I have absolutely no doubt that in the context of those demonstrations many people participated in good faith with peaceful intent. They had genuine issues about which they were concerned. Unfortunately, as we know, some of these demonstrations have been infiltrated by others who do not have peaceful intent and have behaved extremely violently in locations with which the Deputy would be familiar. I do not know if he follows every G8 summit and demonstrates personally at each one but he will have witnessed what I have described.

If there are difficulties at a demonstration, it is always important that any conduct of police is proportionate and appropriate to the events taking place.

The Deputy and I do not disagree on that issue and occupy the same space. We may disagree politically in our perceptions of the world, but it is always important, first, that people are allowed to peacefully demonstrate; second, that, in the context of policing and security issues, the police behaves in a reasonable and proportionate manner; and, third, that the State does what is necessary to protect lives of citizens and others who visit the State.

I wish the world was as simple as the Deputy believes it to be. I wish there were no terrorist threats or individuals who are convinced by a variety of ideologies, whether it be fascism or Islamic extremism, or individuals who have a view of the world that results in their engaging in violence. I wish that did not happen, but the sad reality is that this still happens on this island. Let us not pretend it is still not a problem. It is not the problem that it used to be, but it remains a problem. It is appropriate, therefore, that we are dealing with this issue today. On 22 May 1998 the overwhelming majority of people on this island voted in favour of the Good Friday Agreement. They voted for an end to terrorism and in favour of peace and dialogue. It is right that we note that today is the 15th anniversary of the vote on the Agreement. The sad reality is that there is still on this island a group of criminal terrorists intent on murder and mayhem who have no mandate and no interest in the democratic view of the overwhelming majority of the people.

In the context of his own approach to political issues, the Deputy should not forget this. A constable and a prison officer have been shot dead in recent times in Northern Ireland. Attempts have been made to blow up individuals, including members of the PSNI. Following the good work done by the police forces on the island, a number of potential atrocities have been prevented. The Deputy seems to think it is a bad thing that people coming to the island to attend the G8 conference should be safe and secure. The Taoiseach will attend the meeting representing the European Union. We should be proud of the fact that he will attend the meeting and represent the voice Europe can express at such meetings which are of substantial importance. I presume that, whatever his political differences with the G8 leaders, the Deputy will agree that those attending the meeting, in the context of the democratic values he supports, are entitled to participate and engage in their discussions without a threat to their lives and that it is important that those who accompany them, some of whom may be on this side of the Border, with others on the far side of it, are afforded the maximum protection necessary of the State against individuals who may engage in terrorism. That issue is relevant to this measure and I do not pretend otherwise, but the measure is not being enacted solely because of the G8 conference. We need it in our law to bring our protective measures up to date having regard to the way technology has developed and the possibility of individuals remotely detonating explosive devices. It is as simple as that. It has nothing to do with stopping people from demonstrating peacefully and it is extraordinary that the Deputy should think so.

It is also extraordinary that a small number of Members stood up to oppose us dealing with this matter today. This is not an abuse of the House because it has been, on occasion, the practice in the House that where there is a need to deal with an issue of importance and where the legislation has been prepared, for it to be recommitted. I did this many years ago in the context of an important measure which had nothing to do with this area - the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Bill 1987. There was a need to recommit it in order that provisions the then Fianna Fáil Government had removed on Committee Stage could be restored to protect women and children. There is nothing extraordinary about recommitting a Bill. One of the amendments we are discussing will ensure the legislation is entitled, the Criminal Justice Bill 2013. It will be suitably titled and not confined to money laundering issues. In circumstances where an overwhelming majority of the House recognise that it is necessary to deal with this issue, there is not an abuse of process. I am not surprised at some of the Deputies who stood up to oppose us dealing with it, but I am surprised Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly joined the group. Perhaps he was wrong footed and did not know what the vote was about.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett said this power might be used to disrupt a peaceful demonstration. If he had read the Bill, he would know that is not so. I refer to section 50 which provides for the conditions for the authorisation being granted. They are reasonable grounds for believing there is a serious threat; a reasonable prospect that the cessation of a mobile communications service within a geographical area - the issue raised by Deputies Mattie McGrath and Niall Collins - would be of material assistance in averting that threat; and, having regard to all the circumstances, including the importance of maintaining the availability of the mobile communications service in the geographical area concerned and the effect of the cessation on users, the giving of authorisation is necessary and proportionate to its objectives. If that section was taken on its own, I would understand the Deputy having concerns that a reference to a serious threat might result in this provision being invoked by a Minister who believed people should not be allowed to demonstrate and that demonstrations posed a serious threat, but he has not read the definition of "serious threat":

"'serious threat' means an imminent threat that--(a) an explosive or other lethal device will be activated by use of a mobile communications services provided in the State by an undertaking; and

(b) that activation of that explosive or other lethal device is likely to cause--

(i) death of a person;

(ii) serious bodily injury to a person; or

(iii) substantial damage to property".

If a building is blown up, that may cause substantial injury to persons. The definition of "serious threat" has nothing to do with peaceful demonstration. I presume the Deputy does not suggest that if someone is participating in a peaceful demonstration who has planted a bomb and has a mobile device with which to detonate it, the State should ignore this.

This is not an issue. People have a constitutional right to engage in peaceful demonstration through the constitutional right to assembly. It has been in the Constitution since 1937, which replicates provisions in the 1922 Constitution. The legislation provides in discrete and limited circumstances for a basic authorisation to facilitate members of An Garda Síochána in the context of a modern legal framework to save lives and prevent the detonation of bombs by those intent on murder and mayhem. It is not a unique provision, as it is to be found in legislation elsewhere. If it had been possible to bring forward the provision, for example, in a separate Bill, I would have done so. It had to go through the drafting process and we had to proof it. This all takes time to ensure we provide the necessary checks and balances and the provisions are not excessive. These provisions were not invented overnight.

A significant amount of work must be done to get the balance right, to provide for how the exercise will be done and to deal with issues relating to telecommunications companies.

There is no conspiracy in this; it is about protecting human life. I do not believe there is any reason we should be less concerned about protecting the lives of eight of the world's leaders who will be on this island together with all the individuals who will come with them as backup. That is important. It is equally important we protect the lives of everyone who lives on this island. It is important, for example, that if a criminal terrorist group, based on this island, either North or South, with nothing to do with the G8 meeting, decides to resort to this type of explosive device, we have the facility to use the powers that exist here to protect lives.

See this speech in context