I move amendment No. 19: In page 19, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: "(3) When requested by a committee appointed by either House of the Oireachtas or jointly by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Minister shall publish information in relation to the conditions attached to the approval of decisions under subsection (2).

I move amendment No. 20: In page 19, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall publish, on an annual basis, the class or classes of assistance as agreed with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, for which deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power has been approved.”.

I move amendment No. 21: In page 19, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall publish a list of the class or classes of assistance for which deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power may be approved under subsection (2). (4) Where the Minister wishes to introduce a novel class of assistance, he or she shall update the list published under subsection (3).”.

I move amendment No. 22: In page 19, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall, in consultation with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, develop and publish guidelines for directions to deploy members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power under subsection (1).”.

I mentioned it on Committee Stage and I will mention it again because I think it is a fundamental issue here. The approach that the Government is taking here and that the Minister has chosen to take, despite the testimony he has heard from survivors, is not in the interests of justice in itself. When we talk about "in the interests of justice" - the phrase can and, I fear, will be abused as it is used in the Minister's legislative proposals - the crisis of justice we face and the Minister faces and presides over is…

I wish to check the grouping.

I just want to check in case I have some of that grouping.

I was indicating.

We normally discuss all the amendments in a group and then put the questions at the end.

I get that, but why would we have finished amendment No. 1? Normally we discuss them all.

Is it not included in the grouping?

I get that, but because it was a grouping, I thought we would discuss them all and then the formal question would be put.

We do not normally put the question on the amendments until we finish the full discussion.

Yes.

I indicate my support for this set of amendments. It is important. I refer to previous legislation. I understand it was the case that participation in an armed force which is engaging in terrorist activity would have been included and was something that was identified. A shift has been taken to remove accountability for members of such armed forces in regard to terrorist offences in the Bill. Reference was made to international humanitarian law and other structures in place regarding such offences. There is a signi…

I will make a similar point. We are not seeing international humanitarian law being upheld in its spirit or its letter. There should be consequences for those who have engaged in breaches of international humanitarian law. The Minister of State said there are domestic measures but I do not know what domestic measures there are. It has now been moved but when the football match was due to be happening, there were discussions about what screening would take place in relation to potential war crimes and breaches by th…

I have also proposed the deletion of this language, "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence", from the definition of "terrorist-linked activity". My concerns are very similar. They relate to the very slippery slope that the provisions in this Bill set out. The Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, stated on Committee Stage that "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 ... as a …

I will come back to them.

The Minister of State suggested that the Government had looked to introduce a few safeguards into the Bill. What she is seeing in these amendments are good-faith suggestions for further safeguards we believe are needed in terms of the risks associated with the language in the Bill. In responding to this group of amendments, she might also provide clarity on the issues I raised regarding offences committed inside versus outside the State and the question of a comparator Act. If there is a similar law in Germany to t…

I believe the Minister of State was in possession.