Tony Kett (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister and thank him for his most comprehensive analysis of the Bill. As Senator Cummins outlined, the Bill is set against the backdrop of the devastating and traumatic events of 11 September 2001 and the other serious terrorist acts which took place at that time. We witnessed in graphic detail what human life means to these people who justify their actions by means of one cause or another. It also highlighted the challenge facing the international community in terms of creating legislation to deal with these people both at home and abroad. The European Council framework decision of 13 June 2002 was drawn up in response to the events of 11 September 2001. As the Minister outlined, that legislation must be incorporated in domestic legislation. The Bill also incorporates a series of conventions dealing with terrorism. These include the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including diplomatic agents, and the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

Many of the Bill's provisions giving power to the authorities mirror elements of the Criminal Assets Bureau, especially in regard to the freezing of funds and the seizure of assets. We are all aware of the success of the Criminal Assets Bureau and we can only hope that the nations of the world will be equally successful with common legislative measures in regard to counteracting terrorism.

The Minister referred to the difficulty of defining a terrorist act. We would probably all recognise a terrorist act if we saw one but it is difficult to define it in a few sentences or paragraphs. How does one distinguish an act of war or political assassination from a terrorist act? I am sure the Minister, with his expertise and knowledge of this area, has made a very good stab at it here. I am prepared to let him do the paraphrasing.

Like most Members of the House I welcome the exclusion from the Schedule of offences of those seeking to change society by engaging in legitimate means of protest. However, I would not like to see that exclusion being used by people to engage in criminality under the cover of protest. At some time in our lives we have all engaged in a protest in the belief that we had a just cause. It is important that citizens have the right to speak out and engage in protest if they so wish. However, they must also understand that in demonstrating, they must act within the confines of the laws of the land. In recent times we have seen evidence of demonstrations that have gone very badly wrong. In one anti-globalisation protest, shops were looted and garages and businesses were set on fire. This may have been due to members of a hard core element finding their way into the demonstrations, people who may not have had anything to do with the cause but just used it as a cover. People who organise demonstrations have a duty to ensure this does not happen.

Terrorism did not begin on 11 September 2001 and, unfortunately, it did not end then either as the events in Madrid demonstrated. We have had our fair share of terrorism and, as a result, our legislation is better in that respect than that in other countries. We only have to look to the outrageous bombing of Omagh and the death, devastation and trauma that brought. Terrorism presents a continuing threat to the peace process. More than anything else, the events of 11 September 2001 brought a shared determination among the nations of the world that terrorism would not prevail. The question can be asked as to why terrorism is so prevalent now. However, if we look around the world we will see that atrocities are not a feature of this time only. For example, Palestine is an area in which there has been ongoing conflict for many years.

We all looked on the US as being impregnable and it was a shock for us when we saw the ease with which terrorists found their way into the heartland of America to carry out atrocities. We probably all feel more vulnerable as a result. The stronger the legislation we enact, the better for us. The same holds true for the rest of the world. An organisation is only as strong as its weakest link. We need to be sure that in putting forward legislation we are holding up our end, so to speak. I have no fears in that regard.

The link between poverty and global security cannot be overstated. Poverty is the ultimate endemic threat and we should maintain the resolve we are currently showing in tackling terrorism to also tackle poverty. If we extend the fight to poverty we will probably make real progress in promoting global security. The atrocities listed by Senator Cummins and the Minister were undoubtedly terrorist acts carried out by secretive organisations that are hell-bent on undermining the world's governments and the way we live. They challenge everything all of us who believe in democracy and a peaceful existence hold dear. However, their ability to recruit into their organisations is often born out of the type of economic and social justice which some countries uphold. Poverty can also be a factor because people in such circumstances can be frustrated and angry and have a low sense of self-worth. People can join political movements or organisations in order to achieve self-worth at the right end of the gun rather than the wrong end.

If I had a concern before the Minister made his speech, it was to ensure that, in finalising this legislation, we do not compromise or impinge on civil liberties. The Minister stated that he had included specific provisions in the Bill to ensure that does not happen, about which I am happy. If we started to restrict such freedoms as those to congregate, assemble or speak out as we see fit, we would have already lost the battle in a war concerning the type of democracy in which we wish to live.

The wider debate on terrorism must address the very real threat of state terrorism as it exists in the international climate in which this debate commenced and continues to take place. There is no doubt that the era of Saddam Hussein and his party in Iraq constituted a terrorist regime which denied freedom of speech and expression to its own people. When Saddam considered that people were not upholding the laws, he oppressed, murdered and maimed them. We need to consider what is the best way to deal with such cases. I am not so sure that we should do so by practising our own form of terrorism. A bomb in Iraq and a bomb in Northern Ireland are both wrong if the intent is to kill innocent people — either collaterally or otherwise. "Collateral damage" is a horrible term used by Americans and others when they get something wrong and kill civilians. We must be consistent in our own principles if we believe in true democracy and its moral basis. Therefore, the definition of terrorism in the Bill is crucial.

This is one of the most important Bills which has come before the House in the context of world peace and it is important we ensure we play our part in eliminating the conditions in which terrorism can flourish. We must stand with our partners in Europe and the United Nations and implement legislation. I wish the Minister well as he endeavours to do just that.