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

I thank the Senator for raising these issues. Part 3 is an important new provision in our legislation, which should have been put in place years ago. It is important that it be put in place because it is essentially about saving lives. Section 19 defines a serious threat as an imminent threat that an explosive or other lethal device will be activated by use of a mobile communications service provided in the State by an undertaking and the activation of that explosive or lethal device is likely to cause the death of a person, serious bodily injury to a person or substantial damage to property. The remote detonation of explosive devices can do one or all three of those things. Unfortunately and tragically on this island, we are not strangers to the lethal impact of such devices. Too many people have died as a result of them. Modern technology allows those devices to be left in a location and then detonated by an individual some distance from the event.

Despite the Good Friday Agreement, we still have on this island a group of criminal terrorists who are quite willing to take the lives of others without any conscious feelings of guilt. We have had in Northern Ireland a number of tragic deaths and I have had to attend a number of funerals there. Explosive devices have regularly been identified in the North over the past two to three years at various locations. These have been neutralised and lives have been saved. I am speaking from memory but I think I am right in recalling that in this State in 2012 there were 98 occasions on which the expertise of the Defence Forces was sought to deal with and identify explosive devices or devices that appeared to be explosive devices and to do what was necessary to neutralise them. On each occasion, the Defence Forces were called in by An Garda Síochána.

In the context of the security of this island, North and South, it is important that these powers exist. They exist in Northern Ireland but our legislation has a gap in this regard. In the context of our legislation, there was a fear grounded on solid background intelligence and information that an explosive divide could in some part of the country be remotely detonated and we were dependent on the voluntary co-operation of telecommunications companies, if needed, to shut down a mobile communications system. That was not good enough. With or without the G8 summit, this legislation was under preparation. I was concerned that we should have it but that we should get it right, that it should be proportionate and that balanced protections should exist to ensure mobile telephones could not be arbitrarily shut down would be put in place. We managed to complete substantial work on this with the assistance of the Attorney General's office shortly after a money laundering Bill was published and we saw this as a useful vehicle to turn into a criminal justice Bill in which we could incorporate these measures.

I have been asked if there is any connection between this legislation and the G8 summit. During the G8 summit, which is taking place in Northern Ireland, a number of important world leaders will come to the island of Ireland, many of whom will stay in Northern Ireland and others of whom will stay in the Republic of Ireland. The Garda Síochána and Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, are working jointly to ensure adequate security on the island during the course of the summit.

Who is to know whether some group of terrorists, home-grown or imported or a domestic representative of some foreign terrorist organisation, will see the summit as an opportunity for a "spectacular", to use the IRA phrase? Who is to know? I have no reason to believe it will happen but I believe in the precautionary approach. I believe our legislation should be as good as it can be to ensure we provide the maximum protection for everyone living on this island and everyone who visits it, be they visiting as political Heads of State, spouses of political Heads of State, a topic about which many have become excited during recent days, or those who accompany them in the performance of their public duty for their countries.

In the context of having the legislation prepared, it makes sense that we enact it speedily. Of course, if an issue arises surrounding the G8 summit - I must again emphasise that I have no reason to believe an issue will arise - and this legislation has to be used to protect lives, it will be so used, but within the confines of the prescriptions detailed in the legislation for the powers to be invoked. Section 20 lists the important conditions in this regard, including that there be reasonable grounds for believing that a serious threat exists. I have outlined the definition of "serious threat". A second condition is that there is a reasonable prospect that the cessation of a mobile communications service within a geographical area would be of material assistance in averting that threat. If there is serious information to indicate there is such a threat, we will ensure the threat is closed off. A third condition is that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the importance of maintaining the availability of the mobile communications service in the geographical area concerned, including the effect of a cessation on users, the giving of an authorisation is necessary and proportionate in its objectives.

Those are the conditions. They are carefully crafted. Taken together with the definition of "serious threat", they are designed to ensure this is not a power that would be used in circumstances in which it would be a nonsense to do so. However, it is a power available to us and one which can be applied to a discrete and distinct geographical area, which could be part of rather than a whole country, but could also be applied to the geographical area of the Republic of Ireland in circumstances in which there was clear and solid information that there would be a series of terrorists bombings in parts of this country. If it were known that these could or would be detonated remotely by mobile phones, who would complain if we shut down the communications system and prevented those intent on violence from achieving their objective of killing and maiming individuals? Who would object to that? There is no rational reason any person would do so. That is what this is about. It is a serious and important reform.

We must ensure our criminal law is up to date with modern technology. In the context of my role as Minister for Defence, this includes assessment of the threats that our civilian population, the Garda Síochána or members of the Defence Forces may be under and assessments of what we can do to diminish those threats, protect lives and ensure people intent on murder and mayhem, or with general terrorist objectives, do not achieve those objectives or do not use this State as an easy target to benefit some foreign cause in circumstances where a foreign Head of State is visiting Ireland and there is a perception that because our laws are in some way defective, it is easier to engage in a murderous act on this island than it might be elsewhere.

In the UK, including Northern Ireland, the possibility of doing this already exists. All of us watched with horror as the events in Boston unfolded on our television screens - recorded if they were not seen live - when two explosive devices wrought terror on the streets of Boston at the end of the Boston marathon and innocent people lost their lives or had their lives destroyed. It is reliably understood that, out of fear other devices might be exploded in Boston, authorities used the powers granted under legislation in Boston that we do not yet have. That is the reason why we are doing this. It is in the public interest and in the interest of public safety to ensure those who are intent on violence and terrorism are not given a free pass and are well aware of what steps may be taken to prevent them from achieving their objectives.

On the other question I was asked, it is my understanding that it is technologically possible to close down generally a mobile telephone system while leaving a band open for emergency calls, where appropriate. I am not going to pretend to be an expert on all the technologies of mobile communications systems. There may be circumstances in which they must be closed down in their totality, including emergency services, but it is my understanding from the advice I have been given that it is possible to have a general close-down while maintaining emergency services in certain circumstances. Based on the fact that people are technologically very bright, who knows whether some terrorist group is aware of the fact that if one closes a system generally but leaves open the emergency services, there is a means of exploiting that radio signal in order to achieve death and destruction?

This is a precautionary measure and I hope and expect the G8 summit will be an historic event on this island. I am proud of the fact that the Taoiseach will be attending it, not only as Head of the Government but also to represent the Presidency of the European Union. I hope the summit goes well, has a productive agenda and achieves its objective constructively, and that people come here in peace and leave in peace in the absence of incidents of any description. Regardless of the G8 summit, this is a crucial precautionary measure for the safety of the citizens and residents of and visitors to this State. We must provide them the maximum protection against terrorist acts.