I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and his officials to the Chamber.

I am pleased to introduce this Bill following its recent passage through Dáil Éireann. It marks a significant step forward in ensuring Ireland's counterterrorism framework is robust and fit for purpose in the face of modern terrorism threats. The Bill will amend the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, which I will refer to as the 2005 Act and is a cornerstone of Ireland's counterterrorism laws. It will allow for a broader category of prosecutable offences in respect of terrorist activity. These include terrorist acts with a cross-Border element and cyberattacks where the aim is to cause widespread harm.

This legislation is part of Ireland's commitment to bring our terrorism laws into line with other EU member states through participation in the EU's directive on combating terrorism, which the Bill transposes into Irish law. Its passing will also pave the way for Ireland's participation in enhanced EU counterterrorism networks, enabling a co-ordinated and dynamic response to domestic and cross-border terrorist threats. Enactment of the Bill is a commitment in the programme for Government and supports the broader programme commitment to strengthen national security.

Ireland already has comprehensive counterterrorism laws, found in the 2005 Act and the Offences against the State Acts.

The 2005 Act, in particular, represents a response by Ireland to the shared threat terrorism poses across the EU and beyond. Successive EU counterterrorism agreements have been given effect to in Ireland via this Act. This has resulted in a harmonised definition of terrorist offences with our EU counterparts, as well as minimum rules when it comes to sentencing terrorist offences. This provides a benchmark for co-operation and information exchange between national authorities and prevents the existence of legal loopholes that might be exploited by terrorists.

Notwithstanding this, the nature of terrorism continues to evolve and adapt. In 2017, in response to the growing threat posed by people travelling abroad for the purpose of terrorism, the heightened security threat they pose from returning home and the increasing threats from citizens inspired or instructed by terrorist groups abroad, the EU updated its counterterrorism framework with the directive on combating terrorism. This followed concern expressed by the UN Security Council over these threats and an instruction to UN member states to ensure domestic laws were sufficient to prosecute and penalise such activities. The EU's directive on combating terrorism reaffirmed many of the Union's established counterterrorism measures and terrorist offences.

With Ireland having fully incorporated such measures into our national law and practises, it meant that Irish law was already aligned with many of the requirements of the directive. However, new offences were also introduced to tackle the international and cross-border dimension to terrorist threat previously discussed. It remains incumbent on Ireland to now transpose these offences into national law.

Travel for the purpose of terrorism is a new offence the Bill incorporates. This recognises the need to stem the flow of terrorist fighters in and out of the country, both travelling to and from Ireland, for the purpose of committing, aiding or abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of terrorism and for it to be criminalised. The act of organising or facilitating travel for the purpose of terrorism will also be an offence, with the same elements as the same travel offence save for the prohibited act being that of making arrangements to enable any person to travel to or from the State for the purpose of terrorism.

The Bill criminalises receiving training for the purpose of terrorism. This will complement the offences of providing training for terrorism, which is already on our Statute Book. It addresses threats resulting from actively preparing for the commission of terrorist offences, which can be committed by those ultimately acting alone and training through self-study. It can involve receiving in the making of explosives, chemical or biological weapons and other relevant technical expertise. Like with the offence of providing training for terrorism, there will be a ministerial regulation-making power in terms of prohibiting other weapons and techniques that could be part of such training. This means that should new technologies, materials or practices be developed in the future that could be used to carry out terrorist attacks, there is scope to preclude training in their use. Knowledge that the training is for the purpose of committing or aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of terrorism is required to be convicted of this crime. This means that collecting materials for legitimate purposes, such as academic research, would not be considered to be receiving training for terrorism.

Under our counterterrorism laws, it is an offence to distribute public messages aimed at provoking the commission of terrorist offences. Publicly sharing messages with invitations to join terrorist groups, calls to action or denigrating victims of terrorism is prohibited where such behaviour is intended to and causes a danger that terrorist acts may be committed. In recent years, sophisticated digital messaging tools, including high-quality video, assisted by a network of social media accounts, have allowed for the rapid dissemination of terrorist messaging. This has included videos celebrating or praising horrendous terrorist acts like assassinations and terrorist bombings. This Bill rearticulates the offence of public provocation to commit terrorism to clarify that such provocation can be done by distributing messages that glorify terrorism. Conviction for the offences I have just spoken about can lead to a maximum prison sentence of ten years.

circumstance as an aggravating factor when sentencing offenders. This recognises the particular egregious nature of luring minors into the world of terrorism.

It is acknowledged that the activities these offences prohibit involve commonplace acts, such as travel, study or indeed, the sharing of content on public platforms, which is now widespread and a daily occurrence in our lives. These are acts that, in a free and modern society, we should be at liberty to participate and engage in and enjoy unconstrained when carried out without nefarious aims. This is why the notion of terrorist intention will always be an essential element required to convict someone of the offences in this Bill with the intentional nature of an act inferred from objective and factual circumstances.

For example, it will be necessary to show that the intention was to provoke the commissioning of terrorist acts when publicly sharing messages glorifying terrorism. Furthermore, there must also be reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could, in fact, result.

The Bill will also categorise cyber offences already on our Statute Book as terrorist offences, thereby allowing for extra years to be added to terms of imprisonment for those convicted in circumstances where such acts are intended to cause widespread harm. These are offences of interfering with or damaging data on IT systems, the result of which could be serious damage to the State or international organisations, major economic loss or the creation of a collective danger to the lives of citizens. In recent years, we have seen the destruction and devastation caused by cyberattacks on national infrastructure. These are grave affronts to our society, and it is appropriate that they be treated as terrorist offences. Potential offenders should know that they will meet the full force of law should they proceed to carry out such attacks.

I mentioned that this Bill will pave the way for Ireland’s participation in enhanced counterterrorism networks. Once enacted and when Ireland is fully participating in the EU directive on combating terrorism, which I spoke about earlier, we will be in a position to adopt subsequent EU counterterrorism measures. This includes partaking in a programme of modernisation occurring at Eurojust, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation, which co-ordinates investigations and information exchange in relation to cross-border crime across Europe. Its modernisation programme includes strengthening its counterterrorism register and case management system. This means that cross-border links between terrorism investigations and prosecutions will be more easily and readily identified and information more swiftly shared among member states via secure digital communication channels. Ultimately, that will lead to more terrorist acts being prevented and more terrorists being brought to justice.

The Bill also contains a range of technical amendments to the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005. These largely stem from the requirements of the directive that have been inserted to ensure full compliance with it, as well as amendments that restructure certain sections of the Act. The latter do not seek to change the substance of these sections, but, rather, are proposed to enhance legal clarity and precision.

The Bill contains 13 sections and one Schedule. Section 1 simply clarifies that the references to the principal Act relate to the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, which is being amended here.

Section 2 amends section 4 of the 2005 Act by replacing references to the 2002 EU Council framework decision on combating terrorism with that of the 2017 EU directive on combating terrorism, which will be the new EU governing instrument underlying our international counterterrorism laws once this Bill is passed. This section signposts new definitions for offences found in the later sections of the Bill. This includes definitions for three new offences of receiving training for terrorism, travelling for the purpose of terrorism, and organising or otherwise facilitating travel for the purpose of terrorism. It also signposts the existing offence of providing training for terrorism, which is redefined in the Bill and brings the definition of "terrorist group" into line with that of the directive. The section rephrases the definitions for terrorist activity and terrorist-linked activity, which forms the basis for the offence of engaging in those activities. The rephrasing is in pursuit of legal clarity and precision, particularly in relation to when those activities are committed outside the State, rather than a substantive change to their meaning.

Section 3 provides for a revised definition of the offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, which is an offence already in the 2005 Act, as required under the directive. The revised definition sets out that distributing public messages that glorify terrorist activity can be considered as committing the offence of publicly provoking terrorism. This is in addition to distributing messages that more explicitly encourage terrorism. The definition also requires that other critical elements must be satisfied for the offence to be prosecuted. Those other critical elements are that it must be shown that the alleged offender possessed the requisite intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity. It is also a requirement that the distribution or publication of a message inciting or glorifying terrorism must have given rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist act would result. These additional elements inserted into the new definition of this offence serve as safeguards to ensure that only those who set about deliberately inciting terrorism are captured by the offence.

Section 4 sets out a new definition for the existing offence of providing training for terrorism and inserts a definition for the new offence of receiving training for terrorism. It also includes a standard provision allowing for the making of ministerial regulations. The power to make regulations is required in order that the Minister may, if deemed necessary, add to the list of prohibited weapons, techniques or methods covered by the "providing" and "receiving" training for terrorism offences.

Section 5 sets out the new offence of travel for the purpose of terrorism and the offence of organising or facilitating travel for purpose of terrorism. These criminalise travel to and from the State for the purposes of committing a terrorist offence, aiding and abetting another person to commit a terrorist offence, or providing training or receiving training for terrorism. They also make it an offence to knowingly organise or facilitate travel for those same purposes.

Section 6 meets the requirement of the directive for fines as a penalty for companies that commit terrorist offences. This specific provision is providing for the offence, and sanction by way of a fine, of a body corporate directing the activities of a terrorist group.

Section 7 relates to a range of amendments to section 6 of the 2005 Act, which is the main terrorist offences section. The first stems from a requirement in the directive to make it an offence to attempt terrorist acts. There are certain terrorist acts, however, that while considered offences themselves, the attempt of such is excluded from being an offence. Attempting to threaten terrorism, attempting to possess explosive substances or firearms for terrorism purposes, attempting to provoke terrorist activity and attempting to organise or receive training for terrorism are not offences under the directive. This is down to the fact that in these cases, the substantive action that is being attempted can be considered an attempt itself, or an otherwise unfinished action in the pursuit of criminal harm. It would be illogical to criminalise attempting to attempt terrorism and a prosecution would invariably fail where the action being charged is too far removed from the actual criminal harm. The amendment thus excludes the attempt of these acts from the ambit of the offence of attempting terrorism in the 2005 Act.

Section 7 also includes a technical amendment to section 6 of the 2005 Act, moving the act of threatening terrorism to within the definition of terrorist activity found earlier in the Act. This is a structural change to how the offence is drafted, as advised by Parliamentary Counsel.

Section 7 also reworks section 6(5) of the 2005 Act, which clarifies that the engagement by a person in any protest, advocacy or dissent, or in any strike, lockout or other industrial action, is not alone a sufficient basis for inferring that the person is committing an act with "terrorist intention". This subsection has been reformulated from its iteration in the 2005 Act to make the wording clearer.

The last aspect of section 7 stems from a requirement of the directive related to co-operation between member states when both may have jurisdiction to bring proceedings against an individual. The directive lays down factors that must be considered when arriving at a conclusion as to where the proceedings will take place, and this amendment lays down those considerations.

Section 8 includes a range of amendments, this time to section 7 of the 2005 Act. In the round, they relate to providing penalties for terrorist offences newly introduced by this Bill - a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years or both - and ensuring that certain minimum sanctioning requirements required by the directive are met. They also ensure that companies can receive fines on conviction of any of the offences under section 6 of the 2005 Act, clarify that penalties for the "attempt" and "threat" offences are linked to the same penalty provisions for the substantive offences being attempted or threatened, and involve a reformulation to the definition of "corresponding offence." The latter definition references criminal offences listed in Schedule 2 of the 2005 Act, the penalties for which are the first step to establishing the penalty for certain terrorist offences under the 2005 Act. The amendment redrafts the definition in the interest of clarity and precision. This section also provides that, when sentencing on conviction for the offences of recruitment to terrorism or providing training for terrorism, a court may consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the offence was committed against a child.

Section 9 relates to section 13 of the principal Act, which deals with the offence of financing terrorism. It enhances this offence provision to meet the requirements of the directive, such as ensuring that it not be necessary that the funds in fact be used to commit terrorist offences nor that the offender know for which specific terrorist offence the funds are to be used when they commit terrorist financing. It also brings the terrorist financing offence within the jurisdictional requirements of the directive.

Section 10 builds on the amendments in section 9 in relation to extra-territorial jurisdiction of the terrorist financing offence in order to meet requirements of the directive. It amends section 43 of the 2005 Act, which relates to proceedings for offences committed outside the State, requiring that the terrorist financing offence, when committed outside the State, may only be proceeded against with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, as is required for the other terrorist offences in the 2005 Act. It also provides that the State can assert jurisdiction over the offence when committed outside the State in circumstances where the State has refused to surrender or extradite a person suspected or convicted of such an offence to another member state or to a third country. Again, section 43 of the 2005 Act already does this for a range of terrorist offences where the Director of Public Prosecutions consents. However, the terrorist financing offence was not fully encompassed by this, and so the amendment rectifies this gap.

Section 11 replaces the text of the 2002 European Council framework decision on combating terrorism in Schedule 1 with that of the 2017 EU directive on combating terrorism. It also deletes Schedule 1A containing the text of European Council framework decision 2008/919/JHA, which is no longer in force.

Section 12 amends Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the principal Act. Part 1 lists certain offences already on our Statute Book that can be considered terrorist offences in certain contexts and so form part of the definition of "terrorist activity" in the 2005 Act. Section 12 of the Bill provides for the insertion of a new paragraph 6A to this Part, inserting into this list offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Justice (Offences Relating to Information Systems) Act 2017. The effect of this is that the offence of interference with an information system or data without lawful authority would constitute terrorist activity if intended to seriously intimidate a population, unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or an international organisation.

Section 13 is a standard provision providing for the Short Title of the Bill once enacted, the collective citation for the Bill and related Acts, and the commencement date. With that, I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.

Is mian liom, thar ceann Sheanadóirí Fhine Gael, ár mbuíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire Stáit as ucht teacht isteach tráthnóna chun éisteacht agus labhairt linn mar gheall ar an mBille. Mar atá léirithe ag an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Brophy, ina ráiteas ag tús na díospóireachta, leasaíonn an Bille seo an tAcht um Cheartas Coiriúil (Cionta Sceimhlitheoireachta), 2005, a bhí leasaithe cheana ag an Acht um Cheartas Coiriúil (Cionta Sceimhlitheoireachta) (Leasú), 2025. Tá sé mar aidhm ag an mBille lánéifeacht a thabhairt do Threoir Pharlaimint na hEorpa Uimh. 2017/541 maidir le sceimhlitheoireacht a chomhrac trí na forálacha sin nach bhfuil tar éis teacht isteach cheana i ndlí na hÉireann, i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 5 do Phrótacal 21 maidir le feidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh.

Mar atá ráite ag an Aire Stáit, cruthaíonn an treoir trí choir nua i ndlí na hÉireann, is iad sin, traenáil a fháil don sceimhlitheoireacht, taisteal chun críocha na sceimhlitheoireachta agus taisteal a eagrú nó a éascú chun críocha na sceimhlitheoireachta. Tá na forálacha seo tábhachtach chun tuilleadh cumhachta a thabhairt don Garda Síochána a chuid oibre a dhéanamh níos éifeachtaí i gcoinne na sceimhlitheoireachta agus chun ár ndlíthe a neartú agus iad a thabhairt i gcomhréir le ballstáit eile de chuid an Aontais Eorpaigh, go háirithe i gcomhthéacs Treoir Uimh. 2017/541 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa a chur i bhfeidhm. Mar sin de, tá muid thar a bheith sásta ár gcuid tacaíochta a thabhairt don Bhille seo tráthnóna.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit ar an tráthnóna breá seo. I felt I had to say something in Irish after hearing the beautiful Irish of Senator Kelleher.

I broadly support the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill. This is necessary and timely legislation. The nature of terrorism has changed dramatically in recent years. It is no longer confined to organised groups operating in defined territories. It is decentralised, digital, international and often embedded within networks that operate across borders, across jurisdictions and, in some cases, behind layers of plausible deniability.

Ireland cannot afford to be behind the curve on this issue. There are growing concerns that we are seen to be unprepared. There is evidence, both anecdotal and factual, suggesting that extremist networks view Ireland as a softer environment in which they can operate compared with our European neighbours. The ability to move between jurisdictions, particularly across the island, combined with the limited visibility into certain networks presents a real vulnerability.

We have seen worrying incidents in recent years, namely attacks on members of An Garda Síochána, assaults motivated by extremist ideologies and threats against places of worship. These are not isolated events. They point to a broader pattern that deserves serious attention. In parallel, there have been warnings from analysts and international observers about the activity of extremist-linked networks in Ireland, including those operating indirectly through affiliated or front organisations. This brings me to a related point, namely the need for better visibility and understanding of ideological networks operating within the State. Concerns have been raised about the presence and influence of movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood through a range of associated organisations. This is not a question of religion; it is a question of transparency, governance and whether the State has the tools and information necessary to understand what is operating within its jurisdiction.

In that context, this Bill is a step in the right direction. It strengthens our legal framework in several important ways. It criminalises travel for the purpose of terrorism, the provision and receipt of training, and the facilitation of these activities. These are exactly the kinds of indirect and preparatory actions that characterise modern terrorism structures. By targeting them, we move from a purely reactive model to a preventive one.

This Bill will also bring Ireland into alignment with wider European standards. This is critical. Terrorism is not a domestic problem alone; it is an international one. Co-operation, intelligence sharing and legal compatibility with our partners are essential if we are to respond effectively.

Supporting this Bill does not mean ignoring its flaws, however. Before I finish, I feel obliged to address one part of the Bill, the so-called Kneecap clause. Specifically, I am speaking of the addition to the principal Act which states that if a person shares content that glorifies a terrorist activity, including by praise or celebration, that person will be found to have provoked the commission of a terrorist offence. Overall, I am very supportive of this Bill, but it seems negligent on the part of the Government to proceed to push through this clause despite the heavy debate to which it was subjected and scrutiny it came under in the Dáil. Also, it seems downright reckless to bring this into the Irish political context. It may sound a little facetious, but could singing "Seán South of Garryowen" qualify under this clause? The latter is an important question that the Government should have asked itself.

For better or for worse, the War of Independence, the Civil War and the Troubles are not pieces of dead history. They are, for better or worse, living parts of our society and culture. That makes the Irish context unique and it requires careful drafting when it comes to provisions dealing with speech, expression and historical memory. I will not belabour the point, but I believe that the specific provision should be revisited. I would be open to amendments that narrow its scope and provide clearer safeguards, and I encourage the Government to engage constructively with the Opposition on this matter.

The Bill is necessary. It enhances our ability to respond to modern terrorism, aligns us with international partners and addresses real and evolving threats. Like all legislation in this area, however, it must strike the right balance. With targeted refinement, particularly in relation to speech provisions, it can do that more effectively. I support the Bill, but I also support improving it.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. We have a number of serious concerns regarding the legislation. While I fully recognise the need for robust and effective laws to deal with real and ongoing threats of terrorism, and the Bill does indeed deal with many of the emerging challenges in recent years in relation to bad actors in particular, we must ensure terrorism-related provisions are not misused to target legitimate political protests, activism or freedom of expression. Unfortunately, the Bill as drafted fails to guard against this, so we will not be supporting it today.

The expansion of the definition of the provisions relating to provocation of terrorism is deeply problematic. I will cite two examples, both from Britain, but nonetheless examples of either the wilful misinterpretation of legislation or the unintended consequences – perhaps some might consider them to be intended – of such legislation. One is where a member of the band Kneecap faced terrorism charges for waving a flag on a stage in Britain. The reality was that the main objection the prosecutors had to him was his support for the people of Palestine, who continue to live with genocide and occupation. The other example relates to the interpretation by a judge of legislation that pertains in Britain. Four protesters at a protest against Britain's support of Israel were convicted of public order offences and then had these interpreted as terrorism charges by the judge. They were given very lengthy sentences. I cite these as examples of how what may be intended consequences can be taken either by prosecutors or by the Judiciary in the direction of unintended consequences.

The legislation is also too broad in its definition of terrorism. I fear that, under its terms, those involved in liberation struggles or resisting oppression or occupation could be criminalised. We only need to look at what is happening internationally. We have seen Irish citizens engaged in legitimate protest against the genocide in Gaza being accused of terrorism by the Israeli Government. Our colleague Senator Chris Andrews has spoken about his treatment at the hands of the Israel Defense Forces, and, likewise, that of Dr. Margaret Connolly, sister of Uachtarán Catherine Connolly.

We have particularly serious concerns about the section dealing with public provocation of terrorism. This is the section referred to by Senator Keogan. The language of glorifying terrorism is not neutral; it is the language of reactionary unionism in the context of this island, language that has been used in the North to criminalise families attending commemorations for loved ones killed during the conflict. It is reasonable to argue that the follow-through of that, as Senator Keogan suggested, could well affect those commemorating the 1916 Rising or the events at Béal na Bláth or Kilmichael. These are events that could be brought into that same ambit. Why would we import the kind of language in question into the laws of this State? Why would we introduce provisions that we know have been misused and abused in the past?

Sinn Féin tabled amendments in the Dáil that would have made it an offence for citizens of this State to join, train with or assist armed forces engaged in genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. They would also have prevented such forces from recruiting in Ireland. That is not hypothetical. In 2024, The Ditch revealed that Israel Defense Forces personnel, along with personnel from 13 different countries, were trained at the Irish Military College between 2018 and 2024. Under our amendments, that would not have been permitted.

Given the gravity of our concerns, we will vote against the Bill on Second Stage. As it stands, there are elements of it that are authoritarian, unnecessary and open to abuse, and we cannot and will not support legislation that undermines fundamental democratic rights in this State.

Before I call on the next speaker, I welcome the guests of the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Deputy Niamh Smyth, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor, Senator Robbie Gallagher, Deputy Ryan O'Meara, Deputy Paul Lawless, and Mr. Barry Comerford from the committee office. I hope they enjoy their visit here to Leinster House this evening.

I, too, want to signal a number of concerns in respect of this legislation.

I believe, especially now on Second Stage, that the burden or obligation of proof is on the State. It must show us how these are not going to happen. It is not just for us to say that there may be inadvertent consequences because if they are warned about and action is not taken, then they are not inadvertent. What measures will the State take to ensure that instances, such as those we have seen with regard to Palestine Action and other abuses, will not take place?

I will highlight a few key concerning features of the legislation. The Bill expands the definition of terrorist activity to include threats to commit the offences listed in the Schedule, a Schedule which can be added to at any point. That is another concern. The offences outlined in the Schedule to the Bill include criminal damage, that is, damage to property. These are listed as offences that could end up under the terrorism definition when they are committed with the intention – it is not the effect they have but, rather, the intention of the offence – of seriously intimidating a population; unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act; seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or organisation. That sounds fine but this is combined with the fact that people do not have to do any of the actions any more under the offences. Rather, they must only potentially suggest they might do some of the actions listed under the Schedule of offences, and then these intentions will be interpreted by the courts. It is always a very vague piece when we are looking to interpret intentions.

What does “compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act” mean? We all do that all the time. We take all kinds of actions. The word “unduly” is doing heavy lifting in this regard. It is not clear what will be meant by that. We all campaign and protest with the aim of persuading or compelling governments or other organisations to take action. We have all chanted “Pass the occupied territories Bill”. People have protested looking for SNAs in their schools. People have taken all kinds of actions. On occasion, that protest action has included something that could be determined as damage to property or criminal damage. That is not to say that criminal damage is not a concern or should not be prosecuted appropriately. When it is vandalism or criminal damage, let it be prosecuted as such. What I am worried about is that someone who sprays graffiti with a message saying, "No to the extra airport terminal” or whatever else could not only be charged with criminal damage but also a terrorist offence, as their goal was to try to affect the actions of the Government.

Let us talk about those who rightly protest against the use of our airports to breach international law. We have breaches of international humanitarian law and known war crimes taking place. We have situations where aeroplanes carrying arms to contribute to international breaches of international law are moving through our airports. Will the person who writes a protest sign on the gates be charged with not just criminal offences, but terrorism charges potentially? Indeed, it will now no longer solely be about those who commit these actions but also those who say, "I feel like going down there and writing it on the walls". Will that be coming under it? These are not hypothetical questions because we have seen what has happened in the United Kingdom with the absurd and obscene weaponisation and use of terrorist legislation in relation to persons who are clearly not - when we go back to the core definition of terrorism - creating terror in any sense. They are merely inconveniencing government.

I will make four or five other points. The Bill also expands section 4A, which deals with public provocation to commit terrorist offences. It includes the offence of publishing a statement that “glorifies (including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity”. What is meant by that? In the UK, we saw the Palestine Action act involving the Filton 4 activists. They were sentenced as terrorists for criminal violence, but we know they were just holding a sign saying, "I support Palestine Action". Is that glorifying? They were arrested for literally holding a sign saying they support those who have taken direct action in protest. That is that muddy piece between protest and terrorism. It is why we should not be diluting or risking those dilutions because terrorism is incredibly serious and we need to be tackling it properly, rather than muddying the word to the point where it is abused as an instrument of control by the Government.

The definition includes acts committed inside and outside of the State. Others have made this point in the context of the glorification or praise or celebration of terrorist activity. What is meant by that? Does 1916 come under it? Does the commemoration of our historic actions come under it? We heard recently that the Haitian team taking part in the World Cup was told to remove the picture it had showing the battle in which Haiti overturned slavery. It had to be removed from the football strip. Are we going to get to a point where we are removing the historical and, in some cases, contemporary battles against colonialism?

These changes require the replacement of provisions that protect protest and strike action in the 2005 Act. The protections in the 2005 Act specifically on protest and strike action are diluted in this legislation. The 2005 Act made it explicit that they would not be considered relevant in terms of the Schedule of offences. This legislation, however, merely states they are not evidence of bad intent on their own. That is a massive dilution of the right to protest and strike, which was previously protected.

I would go into further detail on section 6, which amends section 5 of the principal Act. These are specific and serious concerns. There is also the concern with regard to criticising or challenging states engaged in colonial action, be it historic or contemporary. Can the Minister of State assure us that there is no danger for persons who are rightly protesting in that regard? For example, people may say that they do not wish to destabilise the existence of states, but they may not wish to support the existence of illegal occupations by states or others. People will say such things in protest. Where is the line going to be? What protections are in place? In fact, all I see in the Bill are dilutions.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the Chamber. I welcome the overall intention of this Bill but I too have reservations, similar to Senators Keogan and Higgins. Terrorism remains a real threat across Europe and beyond. It is important that our laws are updated to deal with the new challenges we face, particularly in relation to online radicalisation, recruitment and terrorist financing. However, I wish to hear the Minister of State’s thoughts on the section on public provocation. No one wants to see people encouraging or promoting acts of terrorism, and that should be absolutely against the law. My concern, however, is that the wording in this section is quite broad and leaves a lot open to interpretation, and we know where interpretation can get us. The Bill talks about messages that could be seen as glorifying a terrorist activity or could reasonably be construed as encouraging terrorism.

The difficulty is that these are not always black and white questions. What one person sees as glorification, another may see as political commentary, protest or advocacy. The examples we used earlier included Kneecap in Britain. More recently, we have had fuel protests here. Everything is subjective and up to interpretation.

Our political climate is constantly changing and it is hard to know what the country or world will look like in five or ten years' time. With the hate speech legislation, we saw how the boundaries of acceptable speech were twisted and skewed. It is not unimaginable to think that such legislation could have a chilling effect on protest or advocacy. We have seen in England how peaceful protestors, including people in their 70s and 80s, have been arrested in connection with demonstrations linked to Palestine Action. The Minister of State cannot guarantee that the State will not pinpoint similar groups in the future when it comes to this section on public provocation.

Whether people agree with protests, or some protests in particular, is beside the point. Broad powers can sometimes be used in ways that many would never have anticipated. Of course, we need strong laws to tackle terrorism, but we also need strong protections for freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest. This section does not yet provide enough certainty and is too open to interpretation, but I welcome the Minister of State's thoughts on this.

The Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, is very welcome to the Chamber this evening.

Fianna Fáil welcomes this debate and supports the Bill. The Bill is part of Ireland's commitment to bring our terrorism law in line with those of other EU member states. Fighting terrorism is a top priority for the EU, and in March 2017, the EU adopted a directive on combating terrorism, namely, Directive (EU) 2017/541. The new rules strengthen the EU's legal framework to prevent terrorist attacks and address the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters. The directive introduced new offences relating to the foreign terrorist fighter phenomenon through enhanced information exchange between EU member states.

This Bill will amend the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Acts 2005 and 2015. The passing of the Bill will pave the way for Ireland's participation in an enhanced EU counterterrorism network, enabling a co-ordinated and dynamic response to domestic and cross-border terrorist threats. Enactment of this Bill is a commitment in the programme for Government and supports the broader programme commitment to strengthen national security. The Bill is an important step in strengthening Ireland's counterterrorism framework and ensuring that our laws remain fit for purpose in the face of evolving security threats.

While most of the directive has been implemented in Irish law, the Bill addresses the remaining gaps and brings Ireland fully in line with the current EU counterterrorism framework. The Bill introduces three new offences: receiving training for terrorism; travelling for the purpose of terrorism; and organising or facilitating travel for the purpose of terrorism. It also expands the offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence to include the glorification of terrorist activities and updates the law to recognise certain cyberattacks as terrorist offences in appropriate circumstances. These measures will provide law enforcement and the justice system with additional tools to prevent terrorism, disrupt terrorist activity and respond to emerging threats. At the same time, Ireland remains committed to ensuring that all counterterrorism measures are implemented in accordance with the rule of law, human rights obligations and the principles of necessity and proportionality.

The Bill has an important European dimension. Its enactment will support Ireland's participation in key EU justice and security co-operation measures, strengthening information sharing, collaboration with our European partners and addressing common security challenges.

Overall, this is a targeted and proportionate Bill that updates our legislation, enhances public safety and ensures that Ireland continues to play a full role in international efforts to counter terrorism and violent extremism. I look forward to the progression of the Bill.

Before I call the Minister of State, I welcome her to the Chamber. I know it is not her first time here; she was here last week. I wish to personally congratulate her. She is a former Member of this Chamber, and it is great to see our former Members progressing to higher office. I wish her all the best in her new role.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for that.

I listened with interest from my office to the comments on this Bill, and I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. It is very encouraging to see the level of support across the House and the goodwill towards the legislation, albeit with some comments from Members of the House.

It is undeniable that the landscape of terror threats in Europe has shifted in recent years, yet terrorism and violent extremism continue to pose a persistent and multifaceted threat. These are complex threats from across the entire ideological spectrum, often driven by geopolitical tensions and frequently accelerated by digital connectivity. Whatever their provenance, acts of terrorism constitute a serious attack on democracy, the rule of law and the enjoyment of human rights. Ireland has put in place strong anti-terrorist legislation to ensure that terrorist activities will not be tolerated here, while at the same time ensuring the safety and protection of fundamental freedoms and rights for all.

The Bill before the House will further discuss this ongoing threat by creating new terrorist offences relating to travel and training for the purposes of terrorism. These provisions are of critical importance in denying international terrorists the means and opportunity to use this jurisdiction for planning and supporting terrorist activities.

International co-operation, particularly with EU partners, is essential in our efforts to combat terrorism. This is especially the case given the cross-border nature of many terrorist threats and the scope of the offences. As previously stated, the Bill will give effect to provisions of the 2017 EU directive on combating terrorism. This is an important step in bringing our domestic counterterrorism laws further into alignment with that of other EU member states and will aid in international co-operation to address the security threat.

I note various comments made by Senators Murphy, Keogan and O'Reilly, who raised serious concerns regarding glorification of terrorism and the definition of provocation as an offence. In Ireland, the right to freely express one's convictions and opinions is protected under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Those who engage in legitimate reporting on terrorist acts, criticism or other forms of legitimate expression should not, in our modern, liberal democracy, fear they might be captured by the scope of this offence.

The offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist act seeks to target those who glorify and justify terrorism, or who disseminate messages or images online and offline, including those related to the victims of terrorism, as a way to gather support for terrorist causes or seriously intimidate the population, particularly where such dissemination causes a reasonable prospect that terrorist acts may be committed. That is why the new expanded definition of the offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence contains several ingredients that must first be present in order for a person to be guilty of glorification of a terrorist activity under the provisions of section 3 of the Bill. It must be shown that he or she possessed the requisite intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity when he or she distributed, published or had caused to be distributed or published a message. The message itself must have glorified, including by praise or celebration, a terrorist activity. The publication of the message must give rise to a reasonable apprehension that someone might, as a result of such a publication, commit a terrorist act, which is obviously an objective test. The use of a reasonableness test is an objective-level standard used in law to prevent against arbitrary or irrational interpretation, assessing circumstances against a hypothetical reasonable person's response or actions.

These ingredients sound complex, but they are not; they are standard phrases in law. These ingredients serve to act as safeguards, ensuring that it is only those who set out to deliberately incite terrorist activity, where it is reasonable to assume a terrorist activity, as defined in the Bill, would result, are captured by this offence.

The high standard of proof contained within the reframed definition ensures a person's fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and association, are protected and situations do not arise whereby otherwise lawful activities are considered as falling within the scope of this offence.

Senators Murphy and Keogan raised concerns around the Kneecap clause. As the definition of "public provocation" has been expanded in the Bill, there might be a possibility it could be open to abuse and misuse by curtailing free speech and lead to prosecutions similar to those in the UK in relation to the band Kneecap, which came to all our attention. The Bill does not contain provisions in any way reflective of the charges faced by a member of Kneecap. There is a marked difference between the two statutory provisions in question, namely, what we propose in section 3 of the Bill to reformulate the definition of a public provocation offence and what exists under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in England and Wales. Under the legislation in England and Wales, there is no requirement for a person's acts or behaviour to carry with them the intention of causing committal of a terrorist offence. It is much broader, simply requiring that in a public place a person wears or displays an article that would arouse suspicion that the person is a supporter of a proscribed organisation. Contrast that with section 3 of this Bill, which carries a much higher burden of proof to bring about a successful prosecution for public provocation to commit a terrorist offence by glorification. It must be shown the person possessed the intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity when he or she distributed, published or caused to be distributed or published a message inciting or glorifying, including by praise or celebration, a terrorist activity. It is also a requirement of the offence that such distribution or publication gave rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result. These additional elements act as safeguards in ensuring it only applies to those who deliberately incite terrorist activity and only where it is reasonable to believe a terrorist activity would result. That is what is captured by this offence.

Senator Murphy noted Sinn Féin amendments in the Dáil. The Minister rejected proposals from the Opposition in the Dáil to codify as terrorist offences certain acts of state forces engaged in war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. The acts were travelling, organising travel, recruitment and training for the purposes of serving with such forces. It is understood the intention behind the amendments was to ensure those who participate in or facilitate acts that contribute to breaches of international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide at the behest of a state via its armed forces can be convicted of terrorist offences. The 2005 Act, which this Bill updates, excludes the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict and in the exercise of their official duties from being categorised as terrorist offences insofar as those acts are governed by humanitarian or other rules of international law. This was a requirement of the original EU measure underpinning the legislation, a 2002 EU Council framework decision on combating terrorism. That requirement remains in the 2017 directive that will underpin the primary Act on foot of the Bill. The aim of the Bill is to give full effect to the 2017 EU directive on combating terrorism. Therefore, these proposed offences will fall outside the scope of the Bill.

Terrorists are increasingly leveraging, as we have discussed at length in this House, new technologies to intimidate, radicalise, recruit and carry out terrorist attacks. The Bill will address part of this dangerous trend. It clarifies that the dissemination of messages that glorify terrorist acts, done in such a way as to provoke further terrorist acts, is an offence. It also allows for the categorisation of cyber offences already on our Statute Book as terrorist offences. The latter is a necessary step for the protection of our critical infrastructure from terrorist cyberattack. Both of these measures are complementary to existing provisions aimed at tackling the digital dimension of terrorism, including the power of An Garda Síochána to order online platforms to remove terrorist content.

This legislation, in tandem with other measures, will help to ensure we are sufficiently prepared to meet the ever-evolving challenge of modern terrorism. I thank Senators from across the House for their contributions and support on the introduction of this Bill to the House. I look forward to their support as the Bill is further considered on Committee Stage.