Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2001

Vol. 539 No. 1

Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998: Motion.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 12 and 14 and 17 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998 (No. 39 of 1998), shall continue in operation for the period of 12 months beginning on the 30th day of June, 2001.

The resolution before the House today seeks approval for the continuance in force of those sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998, which would otherwise cease to be in operation on 30 June 2001.

Members will need no reminding of the circumstances in which these provisions were enacted in 1998. The Omagh bomb, in August of that year, was the single worst atrocity in the conflict in the North of Ireland. It gave rise to universal revulsion and also to a determination – nowhere more so than in this House – that those responsible for this mass murder would not succeed in subverting the democratically expressed will of the people on this island that the conflict should be resolved only by peaceful means and on the basis of consent.

One person is currently before the courts on a charge related to the Omagh bomb, and the investigation is continuing with excellent co-operation between the Garda Síochána and the RUC. The Garda Síochána will never give up the search for those responsible. The intention of the Oireachtas in enacting the 1998 Act was to strengthen as far as legitimately possible the provisions of the offences against the State Acts that deal with subversives to enhance the capacity of the Garda Síochána and the criminal justice system to deter and detect those who would seek to subvert the democratic order and impose their undemocratic will on the people of this island through violence. In recognition of the particular circumstances surrounding the enactment of the provisions of the 1998 Act, there was general agreement that the Act should be regularly revisited by the Oireachtas to see if the circumstances then prevailing justified the continuance in force of its provisions, or whether there had been a change in circumstances sufficient to convince the Oireachtas that the provisions were no longer needed. Under section 18 of the Act, therefore, as amended by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1999, and by virtue of resolutions passed by each House of the Oireachtas on 20 June 2000, sections 2 to 12, inclusive, and 14 and 17 will cease to operate on and from 30 June 2001 unless a further resolution is passed by each House authorising the sections to continue to operate for such period not exceeding 12 months as may be specified in the resolution.

Also included in the Act was a requirement on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to lay a report on the operation of the Act before each House of the Oireachtas prior to any consideration by the Houses of the renewal of the provisions. I laid such a report before this House on 21 June. I will go into more detail on the information contained in the report shortly, but its conclusion is that the renewal of the provisions for a further year is necessary. The sad reality is that those responsible for the Omagh bomb have, in the past year, continued their campaign of violence and there is no change of substance to the circumstances which led to the enactment of the 1998 Act.

Let me turn now to the individual sections which this House is asked to continue in force for a further 12 months. I will outline their purpose and indicate where they have been utilised in the past 12 months. Section 2 provides that where, in any proceedings against a person for membership of an unlawful organisation, evidence is given that the accused when questioned failed to answer or gave false or misleading answers to any question material to the investigation of the offence, the court may draw such inferences from that failure or from the furnishing of a false or misleading reply as appear proper. As mentioned in my report which is before this House, this provision has been utilised on many occasions in questioning persons arrested on suspicion of being members of an unlawful organisation. Charges do not of course result in every case in which the provision is used, but during the period of the report, in other words over the past year, charges were preferred in five significant cases in which section 2 was utilised. One of these cases resulted in a conviction, while the other four cases are currently before the courts.

Section 3 of the Act provides that in proceedings for an offence of membership of an unlawful organisation the accused must give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his or her behalf, unless the court permits otherwise.

Section 4 amends section 3 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1972. The effect of the 1972 provision is that any statement or conduct by a person accused of membership of an unlawful organisation implying or leading to a reasonable inference that he was at a material time a member of such an organisation shall be evidence that he or she was then such a member. It originally defined the expression "conduct" as including an omission by an accused person to deny published reports that he was a member of an unlawful organisation. The change made by section 4 of the 1998 Act was to expand the definition of "conduct" to include movements, actions, activities or associations. This simply aligns the definition of conduct in the 1972 Act with the reference to movements, actions, activities or associations used in section 2 of the 1998 Act.

Section 5 provides for the drawing of adverse inferences in the prosecution of a person for any offence under the offences against the State Acts, any offence scheduled under the Acts and any offence arising from the same set of facts as such an offence, provided the offence carries a penalty of five years imprisonment or more. The effect of this section is to allow a court to draw inferences where the accused relies on a fact in his or her defence that he or she could reasonably have been expected to mention during questioning or on being charged, but did not do so. This section, as with section 2, incorporated important safeguards whereby it will not have effect unless the accused was told in ordinary language what the effect of a failure to mention such a fact might be, and provides that a person shall not be convicted solely on an inference drawn from such a failure.

Section 6 established the offence of directing, at any level of the organisation's structure, the activities of an organisation in respect of which a suppression order has been made under the Offences against the State Act, 1939. One person is currently before the courts charged with such an offence.

Section 7 made it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the article is in his or her possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences.

Section 8 made it an offence to collect, record or possess information which is of such a nature that it is likely to be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the commission of serious offences. Two persons are currently before the courts on charges under this section.

Section 9 made it an offence to withhold information which a person knows or believes might be of material assistance in preventing the commission by any other person of a serious offence or securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any other person for such an offence and who fails without reasonable excuse to disclose such information to a member of the Garda Síochána.

Section 10 extends the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act, which otherwise is 48 hours, to 72 hours on the authorisation of a District Court judge. The judge must be satisfied, on the application of an officer of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent, that the further detention is necessary for the proper investigation of the offence concerned and that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously. The person being detained is entitled to be present in court during the application and to make, or to have made, submissions on his or her behalf. In the past year 27 persons have had their periods of detention extended under this provision and nine of these were subsequently charged with offences. Two of these persons have been convicted and the remaining cases are before the courts.

Section 11 allows a District Court judge to permit the rearrest and detention of a person in respect of an offence for which he or she was previously detained under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act but released without charge. This further period must not exceed 24 hours and can be authorised only in circumstances where the District Court judge is satisfied, on information supplied on oath by a member of the Garda Síochána, that further information has come to the knowledge of the Garda Síochána about that person's suspected participation in the offence and about which it wishes to question the suspect.

Section 12 made it an offence for a person to instruct or train another person in the making or use of firearms or explosives or to receive such training without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Six persons were convicted during the past year with offences under this section.

The effect of section 14 is to make these new offences scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the 1939 Act. This means that persons suspected of committing such offences are liable to arrest under section 30 of the 1939 Act.

Section 17 builds on the provision in the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, providing for the forfeiture of property. Essentially, the 1994 provision empowers a court, in its discretion, whenever a person is convicted of an offence, to order the forfeiture of any property in the possession of that person which was used, or intended to be used, to facilitate the commission of the offence. The effect of section 17 is, in the case of a person convicted of specified offences relating to the possession of firearms or explosives and where there is property liable to forfeiture under the 1994 Act, to require the court to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is satisfied there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made such an order.

This information on the use made of these provisions of the 1998 Act over the past year is based on information received from the Garda authorities and is contained in the report on the Act laid by me before this House. When contrasted with the previous report, it shows that more and more the key provisions of the Act are taking effect. I have always made the point that it would take time for the Act to take effect. Some provisions of the Act, such as extended detention, of their nature have an immediate impact. Others, however, such as the new offences created by the Act where time is needed to build a case for prosecution or the provisions for the drawing of adverse inferences which take effect only when a case comes to court, were always going to take time to have effect. We are now seeing the results coming through, with the section 2 provision for adverse inferences used in five cases resulting in one conviction and four pending charges, one person charged under section 6 with directing the activities of an organisation in respect of which a suppression order has been made, two persons charged under section 8 in relation to information likely to be useful to members of an unlawful organisation and six persons convicted under section 12 of instructing or training another person in the making or use of firearms or explosives.

Mr. Shatter

I presume the Minister's full statement will be on the Dáil record. In fairness to him, it contains relevant and important information.

Fine Gael supports the motion before the House and the continued enforcement of this legislation. One of the ultimate objectives of any democratic society must be to preserve democracy and ensure those who express their views through the ballot box have those views respected and supported. It causes sadness to Members of the House that this legislation is still necessary. It was the hope of many that the Good Friday Agreement would put into the annals of history the days of the bomb and the bullet and people believing in resorting to violence to achieve some worthy political objective. It is regrettable that there are still subversive groups unwilling to recognise the democratic acceptance of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement by the people of the whole island. These subversive groups are willing to maim, injure and kill to achieve their perceived political objectives. As the Minister stated, this legislation arose from the tragedy at Omagh. It is welcome that there is one person before the courts but many of us, on all sides of the House, would like that to be the case for all those responsible for that dreadful tragedy, the deaths that occurred and the blighting of many lives through serious injury. They should be brought before the courts promptly, tried and convicted for the enormity of the offence of which they are guilty. It is regrettable the security forces, the Garda and the RUC have not succeeded in bringing more of those responsible before the courts. It is particularly ironic that the day we debate this legislation coincides with the discovery in the last 24 hours of yet another bomb, this time in Monaghan.

I join the Minister in congratulating the Garda and our Defence Forces on the central role they play in protecting all of us on this island, particularly those who live in this State, from the men of violence. I congratulate them, too, on the steps they take to bring an end to violence in Northern Ireland and curtail the activities of those who refuse to recognise the great wish for peace throughout the island. The Garda should be congratulated for finding the bomb in Monaghan yesterday as should the Army bomb disposal unit, members of which regularly place their lives at risk to the benefit of all in this community. It dealt with that bomb today and ensured it did not pose a danger to anyone. It is the earnest hope of the Fine Gael Party that we reach the stage where legislation of this nature will not be necessary. I hope by June next year it will not be necessary for a similar motion to be brought before the House by the Government of the day. I am not optimistic that will be the case. There are small groups on this island which are deaf to discussion and dialogue. They believe they have a God-given right to take life, maim, injure, destroy and do everything possible to undermine the peace process and distort normal politics and democratic interaction on the island.

Having this legislation before us yet again serves a useful function. It allows all of us committed to democratic politics to make clear that we will not allow the continued subversion of democracy by the men of violence. It is deeply regrettable after so many years, deaths and atrocities, that we need to return to this debate annually. I conclude on behalf of Fine Gael by congratulating the Garda and the Defence Forces on the work they do and expressing full support for the continued employment of this legislation. On this we are at one with the Minister and the Government. I repeat the hope by this time next year we will be in a new environment, in which the need to renew this motion will not arise, and can celebrate the fact that finally the small group of subversives who have chosen to ignore the democratic will of all the people of this island will have a change of mind and approach, but I am not optimistic.

Mr. Howlin

I begin by remembering the reason the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998, was passed. It was in the immediate aftermath of the horrible bombing of Omagh where almost 30 people died, scores were savagely maimed and the town was devastated. The pain of all involved is as real today as it was in 1998. The Irish people collectively were outraged to an extent I have never witnessed and there was a determination not yield to such savagery, particularly as it came within months of the vote on and signing of the Good Friday Agreement. The strong view put to the House and in the public media was that those responsible for the heinous crime could be identified, but the legislation then in place was not sufficient to ensure they would be brought to account. The belief was that the amending legislation contained in the 1998 Act would have that effect and it is a cause of dismay that there has not been substantial progress in bringing to account those responsible for that vicious and evil crime.

Last year, in seeking to reconfirm this Act, we went through its individual sections in some detail. Reading the report provided for us under the Act, it seems that there has been greater use of its provisions in the last six months than in the previous 12. I welcome that in so far as it strikes at that small group which is deaf to the will of the Irish people, North and South, the yearning of people everywhere for peace and the democratic right of people to have their endorsement of the Good Friday Agreement recognised. Nobody has the right to pull that asunder and they certainly do not have the right to pull it asunder by vicious and violent means. I am fearful that this small group of individuals has grown since this particular measure was enacted. From media reports of late, it seems, not only is their numerical strength greater but so also is their financial base. It behoves us all to give the Garda whatever it needs to ensure it can protect democracy and the rule of law in this State. For that reason the Labour Party will support the proposals to extend the provisions of this Act for a further year, again hoping it will be the last year they will be required. We do not know. It is a difficult and fraught time for the peace process, which is not an issue that divides the House; we wish the key players in the process success in the weeks to come.

The larger issue here is the review of the offences against the State Acts, 1939 to 1998, which was promised in the Good Friday Agreement. In a reply to a recent parliamentary question the Minister said the committee chaired by the former Supreme Court judge, Mr. Anthony Hederman, recently submitted an interim report to him. I understand the final report is to be available before year's end. Will the Minister indicate if he will submit the interim report to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights so that we can have sight of it or will he at least provide it to Opposition spokespersons? Will he indicate now his preliminary views regarding his response to that interim report so we can know how this matter is to be progressed?

Since last year a number of other issues have also arisen. One was the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights that provisions of the offences against the State Acts under which detained persons can be charged with failure to account for their movements is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. That relates to the Heaney and McGuinness v Ireland case and the Quinn f2>v Ireland case. It is important that the State is seen to support and defend the European convention strongly and effectively. In a few days we will be dealing with the transposition of that convention into our domestic law and the mechanism by which that might best be done, and we must be mindful of the rulings of the Court of Human Rights in matters which affect Irish law.

Also, since our debate this time last year the United Nations human rights committee found Ireland in breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the grounds of not showing reasonable and objective grounds for depriving a person of the right to a jury court. The UN committee stated that in future this State should not try people before the Special Criminal Court unless it could show reasonable and objective criteria for so doing. What is the Minister's response to that? Will the DPP in future give an explanation that meets the criteria laid down by the UN human rights committee, that is, grounds that are reasonable and objective for referring a case to the Special Criminal Court? We have obligations under the convention and I understand we are obliged to respond to that finding within 90 days. Since that 90 day period is still ticking away, the Minister might indicate what the Government's response to that finding will be.

While we support provisions that are required to protect our democracy, they must always be tempered. An interesting article, "Constitutional Aspects of Non-Jury Courts", written by Peter Charleton SC and Paul Anthony McDermott BL was published in the Bar Review in November 2000. It states:

The fact that special powers can be justified does not mean that one should not be vigilant in assessing their impact . . . As a minimum it may be suggested that special laws should meet the following principles:

i) they should operate only in so far as is absolutely necessary;

ii) they should delegate as little as possible from the ordinary criminal law;

iii) they should be as clear as possible;

iv) they should be kept distinct from ordinary powers and should only be used against those for whom such laws are made necessary. The temptation to use special powers against other criminals should be resisted;

v) they should be reviewed at regular periods and should be repealed as soon as the conditions justifying their existence have ceased to exist: in other words ‘no emergency, no emergency law.'

States can fall into the habit of maintaining oppressive, emergency or draconian laws on the Statute Book because it sometimes facilitates the prosecution of ordinary crime. The House would not agree that should be the case and I, like many Members, look forward to a time in this State and on this island when all emergency laws and special powers will disappear entirely from the Statute Book.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I oppose the renewal of these sections. It was accepted in 1998 that the measures put forward by the Government at the time were exceptional and draconian in the extreme and all involved professed that they did so with great reluctance. Now, three years later, it is becoming routine to renew these draconian provisions and, like previous offences against the State legislation and amendments to such Acts, these can become part of the permanent law of the land. That is wrong and I oppose it.

The Omagh atrocity was held in the strongest revulsion by virtually every resident of this island bar perhaps a few dozen that were involved in whatever group carried it out. It is said that this legislation is to deal with that group. However, laws put through the Dáil do not apply to one or two dozen people, awful as they might be; the law becomes the law of the land and is applicable to all citizens. It can be used on occasion in a situation that is quite different from that which caused the law to be introduced. By any standards the provisions the Minister is proposing to renew today are extremely repressive. The right to silence is attacked, even though that is traditionally seen as an important right regarding no inferences being drawn, particularly for the vulnerable. These provisions are so wide-ranging as to provide a possible catch-all set of circumstances to take care of virtually every situation. It is incredible to propose that the omission of a denial to published reports that one belongs to a proscribed organisation can be regarded, in large part, as proof of a crime and that with that and on the word of a senior Garda a person can be convicted. Provisions Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are also catch-all provisions. There is the possibility that an article one might have in one's possession could be used for a crime. The same goes for the collection of information or if a person has information which might have prevented a crime. The powers are so loose and broad that they are capable of being abused in particular circumstances. The State has already got widespread powers. They are sometimes over-weening powers on this particular question. The Offences against the State Act, 1939, is quite draconian.

I mentioned Ms Sarah Condon on the Order of Business, that she was carted off to Limerick Prison today for taking part in a peaceful protest against refuse charges. That peaceful protest involved a charge under the Litter Pollution Act, 1996. Under the Offences against the State Act, 1939, peaceful citizens who have an objection to, for instance, a local tax and who might advocate peaceful civil disobedience to it to pressurise a Government can be charged and convicted of a serious crime. It is false to give the impression that this is just to deal with a few dozen unreconstructed people using individual terror and completely out of sympathy with the view of the vast majority in the State.

The problem is that draconian legislation can be abused, when it suits the State, in circumstances other than those which caused it to be brought forward. I saw evidence of such an abuse of law in the last two weeks by a member state of the European Union. Sweden is regarded by many as a civilised state. I was in Gothenburg for the summit of EU leaders from 14-16 June, and a participant in peaceful protests against the policies of the European Union, the armaments industry, etc. I saw the Swedish police invoke their powers in an arbitrary way and use them against peaceful protesters, not against those throwing rocks or breaking shop windows. It was police provocation that caused that maniacal response by a tiny section of the protesters.

The police used arbitrary powers of detention, held protesters for six hours, and photographed and identified them as a tactic against the right of peaceful protest. In the dead of night, they invoked a power to revoke free travel between Sweden and other countries of the European Union. Two buses travelling from Germany – including socialist movement colleagues – to participate in a protest that involved 20,000 people, were detained by armed police on the outskirts of Gothenburg and forced to go to a military detention camp. They were detained there all day and only allowed to leave the buses in threes to take fresh air. Under heavily armed police escort, they were forced back to the border and deported that night.

These were people travelling to make a peaceful protest, but legislation on the books was used in outrageous fashion to cut across a growing movement of opposition to certain policies of the European Union. I am not prepared to give any state powers that can be used and abused in this fashion. There is no question that the huge majority of our people are in total opposition to the activities of such paramilitary organisations which still exist or are still active. The State already has powers to deal with these groups and has used them. There are more powers than have yet been used by the State.

I am opposed to any strengthening of repressive legislation. What brought those who planted the horrific Omagh bomb to heel was not the legislation brought forward in 1998, but the mass revulsion and mass mobilisation of citizens of this island against that barbaric action. It is the building of a movement, to break with the sterile sectarian politics that dominates the northern section of this island and provide a real alternative, that will cast to the sidelines those who believe they can carry out acts, said to be in the name of the Irish people, but in fact only in the name of a tiny minority.

Mr. Crawford

It is with great sadness that I rise to speak on this motion, sadness because it is necessary to have provisions of the Act extended. The Garda authorities have indicated that in view of the current security threat assessment, and the significant threat posed by dissident republican groups, it is necessary that the relevant sections of the Act remain in force. The Minister has advised the House that is the case.

It is dangerous to equate what is happening in this country to what is happening in protests in other countries. As one involved in farm protests for many years, I protested all over Europe. Those protests were peaceful. They did not aim to cause damage to property, but to make a point about the economic situation of farmers in Europe at the time. That type of protest is important. We are dealing with a situation where evil people are putting together bombs and using other methods in an attempt to damage the limited peace on this island, and damage lives and property.

I thank the Garda and the Army for their excellent operation in recent days in the Clones area, the area I represent not only as a Deputy but as a councillor. The Garda and the Defence Forces need our full support and we must do all we can to provide it. In the townland of Clonoula near Clones in County Monaghan, the Garda and the Army disposed of a bomb of 60 kg of home-made explosives in a creamery can, ready for transportation to an unknown destination. It is no coincidence that it was found within a short distance of a local Church of Ireland hall damaged in an arson attack last year and which had only reopened, in the presence of Oireachtas Members, a few weeks ago. The bomb was placed only 500 metres from the main Galway-Belfast road. It could have been used in Northern Ireland, but could also have done serious damage to passers-by if it had gone off prematurely. Families had to be evacuated while it was being dealt with. Anyone who suggests we have rid ourselves of the problems which existed in 1998 when this Act was introduced is living in cloud cuckooland. We must ensure the Garda Síochána and the Army have at their disposal the necessary powers to allow them to prevent the occurrence of atrocities.

Doohat Orange hall, which is situated close to my home, was damaged in recent weeks and that damage was not accidental. However, like the Minister, I wish to remind the House about the greatest atrocity of all, namely, the Omagh bombing. In August 1998, 29 lives were lost and two unborn infants were taken from this world. Many others were maimed. I recently spoke to the husband of one of the girls who was seriously maimed by the Omagh bomb and he informed me that, almost three years later, she is still undergoing surgery and continues to suffer from various side-effects. The families of the many victims of Omagh are still waiting for the people who carried out this atrocity to be brought to justice. I accept that the Garda, the Army and the authorities north of the Border have done everything possible. I have no doubt, however, that there are those in different organisations who know exactly who was responsible for the bombing. Even at this late stage and for the sake of our island home, it is important that they should come forward with the information they possess in order that those who carried out this atrocity are brought to justice as quickly as possible.

Previous speakers referred to the importance of the Good Friday Agreement. When it was signed, everyone hoped no further atrocities would occur and that the war was over. I perused the Agreement in recent days and discovered that the majority of the issues with which it deals have been dealt with, if not in full, to a large degree. For example, the prisoners have all been released. Thankfully, however, some of them have been taken back into custody and, in my opinion, that should be done when and where it is necessary. The Good Friday Agreement also contains a section dealing with decommissioning. Today we heard about the use of explosive material in a bomb found near the Border. It is obvious that there is a need for decommissioning because we need to be certain that the war is over.

Sinn Féin made a commitment in respect of this matter. When it made that commitment, it stated it would do everything possible to persuade others to deal with the issue of decommissioning at the earliest opportunity. In recent months, Martin McGuinness, under oath, admitted that he was a senior member of the IRA. We no longer have to depend on Sinn Féin to order the commencement of or discuss decommissioning because a Sinn Féin MP and, I am sure, others who are closely involved with him in debates and discussions are members of a single organisation. Decommissioning was to have commenced a year ago and it was to have been concluded by now. At this late stage I call on those to whom I refer to show their commitment to the Agreement. They should not continue to ask others to honour the promises they made in that Agreement; they should make a commitment to deal with one of the issues with which they can deal.

I had no difficulty with decommissioning and recognised that it needed to be done at the initial stage. I did, however, have difficulty with the release of some prisoners, particularly in light of the atrocities some of them were responsible for carrying out. It is no longer acceptable for members of Sinn Féin or Protestant hardline elements to claim that more time is required. They have had their opportunity, they know what must be done. The only way to ensure we will not need to approve the continuance of this legislation's provisions next year is to impress on those concerned that decommissioning should and must take place.

The peace agreement is too precious to be allowed to disappear down the drain. We know that more than 3,000 people died as a result of the troubles in Northern Ireland. However, we will never be able to estimate the number of people who were maimed or the number of lives that were shortened as a result of the atrocities that occurred. None of us want to see such atrocities happen again. I congratulate the Garda and the Army on the way they dealt with what might to some seem like a relatively small bomb discovered outside Clones. I remind the House that the device in question would have been more than sufficient to kill or maim many people. The fact that there are people who want to continue along the path of violence means we must retain whatever legislation is necessary to ensure the hands of the Garda Síochána are not tied and that they can deal with the sort of persons who obviously want to terrorise our island home and prevent peace and reconciliation.

I recently attended a function with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle at which people from both sides of the religious divide sat down, ate a meal together and enjoyed an evening's entertainment. That is what we want to see happen across this island home of ours.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I thank those who contributed to the debate.

I intend to publish the interim report of the committee shortly. This report on the Special Criminal Court is complex and detailed and it would be premature to respond to questions about it now. However, it will provide the basis for an excellent debate on the future of that court.

Mr. Howlin

When will it be published?

Mr. O'Donoghue

I hope to publish it soon.

As regards the finding of the UN human rights committee on the referral of cases to the Special Criminal Court, we are still within the 90 days given to the Government in respect of the finding. The interim report of the Hederman committee will assist the Government in deciding what should be the appropriate response. I have no doubt the committee reviewing the offences against the State Acts, which is chaired Mr. Justice Anthony Hederman, will take into account Ireland's human rights obligations, whether under the European Convention on Human Rights or otherwise, in making its recommendations.

While this legislation is draconian in many respects, it is necessary. It should be noted that the number of persons held under the extended detention provisions in section 10 over the past year was 27. That is a relatively modest number and, taken together with the other information I provided, supports my view that the provisions of the Act are reasoned and proportionate and are being implemented by the Garda Síochána in a measured and restrained manner. Some provisions have not yet taken effect in the context of court proceedings, but the Garda authorities have informed me that the provisions in question have been utilised, where appropriate, during the investigation of offences. Members will appreciate that many of the investigations at issue are, of their nature, ongoing.

The Garda Síochána has enjoyed considerable success in the past year in combating those who would subvert, through the use of violence, the democratic wishes of the people on this island. I am sure the House will join me in congratulating the force on its achievements. As Members are aware, the Garda Síochána, together with the Army, successfully prevented a bomb attack along the Border. The threat to life and to our democratic values which led to the enactment of the 1998 Act remains, however, as yesterday's incident clearly shows. So also, I am sure, does the determination of this House never to give in to such a threat, but to provide the Garda Síochána and the criminal justice system with all legitimate means of combating it. The 1998 Act is an important part of that and is proving its worth. I am grateful to the House for agreeing to continue it in force. As well as security concerns which alone would justify the continuance of the pro visions, another reason is it would be ridiculous to abandon it in advance of the forthcoming review by Mr. Justice Anthony Hederman's group. There are those who threaten to subvert the peace process through violence. The 1998 Act is a democratic response to that threat.

I understand why Deputy Higgins feels that the legislation is draconian but he should acknowledge why it is necessary in present circumstances. He alleges that the Offences against the State Acts go overboard and need reform. I will receive the review committee's report on the Acts which will provide the basis for the House to discuss comprehensively all the issues involved. I am grateful to the House for supporting the provisions. Significant progress has been made on the path to peace but there are still those prepared to use violence to achieve their aims, as we saw with yesterday's threatened bomb attack. That real threat in a democracy must be responded to. The nature of the threat is the same since the House approved the enactment of the legislation and the continuation of it last year. That is the reality no matter how much we wish otherwise. The report on the Act's operation in the last year shows that it was sparingly, but increasingly effectively, used. I always said that it would take time for the results to come through, but, as I stated in my contribution, they are now doing so. The Act is effective and is as necessary now as when it was enacted.

Regarding Deputy Higgins's trip to Gothenburg, everyone supports the right to peaceful protest. Deputy Higgins and some of his socialist colleagues profess themselves to be Trotskyites. It was Trotsky who said, "The party right, the party wrong and the party right and wrong." I would not dispense advice to the Deputy, but it was shortly after that they put an ice-pick into his head down Mexico way.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Trotsky did not say that.

Question put and declared carried.