Vol. 531 No. 5
9 Mr. McDowell asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he expects to receive the report of the Hederman review group on the Offences Against the State Act, 1939; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6143/01]
I understand the committee reviewing the Offences against the State Acts expects to finalise its report and submit it to me within a relatively short time.
Does the Minister accept that it is an inordinate amount of time for this matter to be under discussion? Does he further accept that it was never intended by the House that the Offences Against the State Act would be a permanent statutory measure? Does he also accept that the Special Criminal Court is being used in a way that was not envisaged when the legislation was enacted? One of the core requirements of the Good Friday Agreement is a return to normality in legal matters and the administration of justice. Does the Minister agree that the continued use of special powers in the Offences Against the State Act in this jurisdiction indicates a lack of normality? Does he accept that removing the special powers in the Offences Against the State Act from the Statute Book would be a good indication of a return to normal, to non-emergency legislation?
I agree with the Deputy that it was never the intention of the House to have the Offences Against the State Acts in place for a protracted period. History, however, explains the reasons, since the introduction of the first Act, the legislation has been in place for so long. The threat to the peace process and the people of this island led to the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998. It gave me no pleasure to introduce it in the House. Its powers have been described as draconian. Resolutions are brought before the House by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to enable it to decide whether those powers should remain in force for the following 12 months.
The Special Criminal Court has been utilised for purposes which could not have been foreseen when it was originally established. It is often used because a view is formed that the administration of justice cannot be effectively secured in another court, for a example, a court with a jury. The committee dealing with the review of the Offences Against the State Acts has a very formidable and complex task to perform. It would be quite wrong of me to interfere or to ask it to expedite its report as I am acutely aware of the difficulties and enormity of the task it faces. I hope the report will be available in the not too distant future when we will have the opportunity of discussing this very important provision.
I am not convinced the time has come to extinguish the Special Criminal Court given the despicable events in society in recent years.
How will the Hederman report, when published, be dealt with? Will it be referred to the justice committee, will it be a matter for the Government to consider and make decisions on or will Members of this House have an opportunity to debate it before fundamental decisions regarding the administration of justice are irrevocably made?
The committee was originally set up to formulate a report regarding the Offences Against the State Acts for Government and would, in the first instance, be a matter for Government to consider. The continued operation of the Offences Against the State Acts is a matter for this House so I would anticipate that following consideration of the report by Government and subject always to the question of national security, that the justice committee, as a sub-committee of this House, would discuss the report.
