Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have some sympathy with the notion that clarity is required and I agree that CJEU jurisprudence indicates that. There is a difference between saying there must be clear criteria, which is what the court has said, and the requirement for a clear definition. I do not believe there is any ambiguity.

The difficulty is that nowhere in any of our legislation is the term "security of the State" defined. What the Senators suggest is a reasonable expectation of what that would mean, and it has a common meaning for all of us as we speak about this. Amendment No. 1, for example, mentions "subversive activities by hostile states and from hostile groups within the State" but what happens if an individual is the relevant actor? The point I am trying to make is not that there is a problem with this definition but that there is a problem with any definition. As soon as an exact meaning is put down on paper, people like me would try to pick it apart.That is where one creates so-called loopholes that we build into the law, specifically, as protections for people. The danger is that if one gives a very specific worded definition as to what that means, one is also creating the possibility for somebody to place a given accused person outside that definition. That is why I would be much more comfortable that the courts get to interpret what that term, "security of the State", means, as they have in the past in different and nuanced cases. I would be much happier to leave that role to the courts than to take it upon ourselves as the Legislature to put in place an all-encompassing term that might leave something out or might have an unforeseen consequence on what might happen in the future. I would have difficult with these amendments for that reason.