The motion is to conclude after 45 minutes. I call on the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, to move the motion. The Minister has ten minutes.
Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion
I move:
That Dáil Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 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 30th June, 2012.
The House will be aware of the background to the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. It was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in August 1998 in which 29 people were murdered in an indiscriminate bomb attack.
The Act contains a series of amendments to the Offences against the State Acts 1939 to 1985 to make them more responsive to the threat from certain groups. Principally, these amendments concern changes in the rules of evidence for certain offences under the Acts, including the drawing of inferences in certain circumstances; the creation of new offences, such as directing an unlawful organisation, possession of certain articles and collecting information; and extending the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the 1939 Act to 72 hours.
Section 18 of the 1998 Act, as amended by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999, provides that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 must be renewed by the Oireachtas at specified intervals if they are to remain in force. By virtue of resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas in June 2011, these sections were continued in force until 30 June 2012.
Prior to moving any motion for renewal, the Act requires me to lay before the Oireachtas a report on the operation of the relevant provisions. The present report covers the period from 1 June 2011, the end date of the previous report, to 31 May this year. The report was laid before the House on 8 June 2012. It also includes, following a commitment I gave when seeking renewal of the sections this time last year, a table showing the figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation. This is helpful in showing the importance of the Act in equipping the Garda to detect and prevent terrorist actions.
It is my fervent wish that the time will come when these provisions will no longer be required. However, as Minister for Justice and Equality I must have regard to the reality of the situation. The Garda assessment, shared by the PSNI, in regard to the terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland is that it is severe, which demonstrates the need for the continuance of these provisions. If Deputies needed reminding, this need is clearly and tragically evidenced by the murder of PSNI Constable Ronan Kerr on 2 April 2011, the numerous other attacks on PSNI and security personnel and attempted bombings in recent months. These attacks included the attempted murder of a soldier on 5 January 2012, a pipe bomb recovered at the scene of a fire in West Belfast on 17 January 2012, two pipe bombs set off in Londonderry on 19 January 2012, a viable device placed under the car of the elderly parents of a PSNI officer on the 15 April 2012 - the second such attack on these individuals, a van with 262 kg of home made explosives, with the potential for remote detonation, discovered near the Border at a location used as a regular turnaround point for PSNI vehicles on 26 April 2012 and an explosive device - found under a parked car - and a cache of weapons found in north Belfast on the 27 April 2012. On Saturday last, 9 June, a quantity of explosives was found during a search in County Mayo.
North-South co-operation in the area of security is vital. I can assure the House that it has never been better. I keep in close contact with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Owen Paterson and with the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, Mr. David Ford. I know that the Commissioner maintains close and frequent contact with Chief Constable Baggott. This is mirrored by contacts between the two Forces at every level.
While countering the threat posed by dissident groups is very important, it is necessary not to lose sight of the threat from international terrorism. The 1998 Act grew out of our own domestic troubles. However, its provisions form an essential element of the State's response to the threat of terrorism from any source. We cannot ignore the growth in recent years of the international terrorist threat. In co-operation with our EU partners, we must continue to counteract any threat from such sources. The 1998 Act forms part of the response to that threat.
It is the firm view of the Garda Síochána that the Act continues to be a most important tool in its ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism. The Garda authorities have stated that the provisions of the Act are used regularly, which is evident from the report which I have laid before the House. Furthermore, given the considerable threat posed by some dissident groups, it is essential that the Act's provisions should continue in force to support the ongoing investigation and disruption of terrorist activity.
I would like now to turn to the provisions of the 1998 Act, which are the subject of the resolution. As I mentioned, I have laid before the House a report on the operation of the relevant sections between 1 June 2011 and 31 May this year. The report demonstrates the value of the relevant sections to the Gardaí and the necessity for their continued availability in tackling the terrorist threat.
Section 2 allows a court, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, to draw appropriate inferences where an accused person fails to answer or gives false or misleading answers to questions. However, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on the basis of such an inference. There must be some other evidence which points towards a person's guilt. This provision was used on 47 occasions in the period covered by the report.
Section 3 requires an accused, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, to give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his or her behalf. This provision was used on four occasions.
Section 4 provides that evidence of membership of an unlawful organisation can be inferred from certain conduct, including matters such as movements, actions, activities or associations on the part of the accused. This provision was not used in the period covered by the report.
Section 6 creates the offence of directing the activities of an organisation in respect of which a suppression order has been made under the Offences against the State Act 1939. This provision was not used in the period covered by the report.
Section 7 makes it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that they are in possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences. This provision was used on 15 occasions.
Section 8 makes it an offence to collect, record or possess information which is likely to be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the commission of serious offences. This provision was not used in the period covered by the report.
Section 9 makes it an offence to withhold certain information which might be of material assistance in preventing the commission of a serious offence or securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person for such an offence. This provision was used on 83 occasions.
Section 10 extends the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act from 48 hours to 72 hours, but only on the express authorisation of a judge of the District Court following an application by a Garda of at least superintendent rank. Furthermore, 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. An extension was granted in 11 cases.
Section 11 allows a judge of the District Court 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 only be authorised where the 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 about that person's suspected participation in the offence. This provision was used on 17 occasions.
Section 12 makes 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. This provision was not used in the period covered by the report.
Section 14 is, in effect, a procedural section which makes the offences created under sections 6 to 9 and 12 of the 1998 Act scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the 1939 Act. This means that persons suspected of committing these offences may be arrested under section 30 of the 1939 Act. This provision was used on 98 occasions during the period under report.
Section 17 builds on the provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 providing for the forfeiture of property. Where a person is convicted of offences relating to the possession of firearms or explosives, and where there is property liable to forfeiture under the 1994 Act, the court is required to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made such an order. This provision was used on three occasions during the period covered by the report. Deputies will note by reference to the table that this is the first reporting period that has recorded a usage of this most valuable provision. I very much welcome this development.
As I have already stated, dissident groups unfortunately remain a threat to the existence of this State. They are opposed to the benefits that have flowed from the peace process and are determined to undermine it. The State must retain in its laws the capacity to defeat them and defend itself. On the basis of the information set out in the report and on the advice of the Garda authorities, I consider that the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act should remain in operation for a further 12 months.
I commend the motion to the House.
We are all agreed that one of the challenges of this sustained period of peace on our island is complacency. We cannot assume that it will always be this way. For this reason, Fianna Fáil will be supporting renewal of this legislation. The Minister outlined seven incidents, all of which were serious and had the capacity to maim, damage or, in some instances, result in mass murder. I presume the incidents outlined are only a selection of those which have taken place during the past 12 months. The potential to cause huge damage to human rights and the identity of this country remains a threat. As recently as last week, there were further incidents.
There have been cuts to the budgets of the Garda Síochána and Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is hoped there will be a continued ringfencing of the budget in this area and that the maximum possible resources, along with the co-operation referred to by the Minister, are being invested to ensure these laws are implemented. Fianna Fáil supports the continuance of this legislation.
We discussed this issue last year in the context of the requirement on the Minister to bring before the House every 12 months a resolution for continuance of certain sections of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, at which time Sinn Féin put on record its opposition to the provisions contained within that Act and the then proposed resolution.
In outlining his reasons for continuance of these provisions, the Minister referred to dissident activity. Sinn Féin has clearly stated that those groups involved in that type of activity should cease that activity. They need to join the peace process. It is incumbent on all of us to encourage these groups to embrace the democratic process. The Minister has referred in the past to upholding and implementing in full the Good Friday Agreement because it is the democratic wish of the Irish people. There is an onus on us to do so and as part of this there is a responsibility to bring about as quickly as possible the normalisation of policing and justice on the island of Ireland.
There is no argument for the retention of these Acts. This is draconian legislation and we have said so in the past. This is not only our view. It might be a lonely view in the Chamber, but outside it various human rights organisations have criticised the provisions the Minister proposes to renew. According to the Minister's report only ten convictions have been secured in the courts despite the fact that 610 people have been arrested under these provisions. According to the table provided by the Minister, four sections have not been used for many years and one section has not been used for ten years. This is an indication the provisions have more to do with information gathering, but this is not the purpose for which they were originally brought before the House. We need to review and repeal them and I urge Deputies to vote against the proposal.
I opposed the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 when it came before the Dáil and I also oppose the renewal of the various sections today. The Act was introduced after the unspeakable atrocity that was the Omagh bombing. At the time I pointed out the united response of rage and revulsion of ordinary people on the island as a whole and beyond the island, but in particular of the ordinary people, Protestant and Catholic, in Northern Ireland, did more to isolate the crazed organisations which seek to sow sectarian division than any raft of repressive legislation.
The Socialist Party and its antecedents over a 40 year period have a proud record of championing the unity of working-class people in Northern Ireland and active opposition to sectarian division, sectarianism and sectarian organisations. It also opposed the oppression coming from the British establishment and the tactics and methods of the paramilitary organisations, whether loyalist or republican, pointing out they would not bring forward the interests of the ordinary working class people of the North or find a resolution to the situation in the North and the national question. We have been vindicated with regard to these issues.
I am opposed to giving the State major repressive powers which can be used in any direction should the State require it at a particular time. I refer in particular to the renewal of section 6 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 which provides, "A person who directs, at any level of the organisation's structure, the activities of an organisation in respect of which a suppression order has been made under section 19 of the Act of 1939 shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life."
This brings us to sections 18 and 19 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939. Section 19 states if and whenever the Government is of the opinion that any particular organisation is an unlawful organisation it shall be lawful for the Government in the public interest to declare that such organisation be suppressed. This relates to organisations outlined in section 18 of the 1939 Act. According to section 18, "In order to regulate and control in the public interest the exercise of the constitutional right of citizens to form associations, it is hereby declared that any organisation which [under section 18(f)] “promotes, encourages, or advocates the non-payment of moneys payable to the Central Fund or any other public fund or the non-payment of local taxation shall be an unlawful organisation within the meaning and for the purposes of this Act.”
Are you worried you will be suppressed for not paying the household charge?
Therefore, this gives the State the power to suppress an organisation-----
Like Socialist Party members who do not pay the household charge. They could be suppressed under this provision. Is this the Deputy's case? Is this what is known as an invitation to treat?
We will come to this in a moment but before we do so let us take as an example a group of citizens with serious difficulties with how motor taxation is levied who form a group and as part of a civil disobedience protest and a demand for change advocate the withholding of motor tax for a period. This could be criminalised under the Offences Against the State Act and the progression I have gone through could be implemented. It gives dictatorial powers to the Government. Since the Minister referred to it, 50% of the households in the State are engaged in a major boycott of the household tax.
It is called tax dodging.
No, that is what Denis O'Brien does.
What do you call it?
That is what your friend Denis O'Brien does.
It is called tax dodging.
It is a pity the Minister would not refer to billionaire tax exiles who own most of the media in the country in the same terms, or perhaps the Minister does. Does he?
He does not want to talk about them in case they do not use their newspapers to support him.
A total of 50% of the households in the State are engaged in a major boycott of the household tax. This is a major active campaign of opposition to austerity and the injustice of their being called upon to bail out billionaire bankers and bondholders throughout Europe and the world.
Was Deputy Wallace engaged in a campaign against austerity?
The campaign involves mass assemblies and rallies, political lobbying, major protest marches and organised opposition to effect a change in Government policies. The Minister and the Government would have the power to declare such an organisation could be repressed and those organising the anti-household tax organisation could be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.
To go back further in history prior to 1939, the campaign of justice by small farmers against land annuities and repayment of the old landlord class to reward them for their crimes or what they did could be suppressed and those leading it could be subject to life imprisonment under this legislation. It is monstrous. It is oppressive and we oppose it.
As Deputy Higgins has already said, we all welcomed the enormous movement by people in the North - Catholic, Protestant and those of no religion - who in response to some of the most horrendous atrocities in the conflict there demanded an end to the sectarian violence that had blighted the Northern state for so long. It was that pressure of people power uniting against sectarian atrocities that brought about an end to the worst aspects of the conflict in the North. While it was not, sadly, an end to all the conflict, at least it created an atmosphere in which the main participants in that conflict stood down and peace agreements followed. We all welcomed that and we all abhor the attempt by small numbers of people to return to or continue down the cul-de-sac of sectarian violence that blighted the North.
While it is right and justified to condemn and criticise in the strongest terms groups that wish to continue down that failed and disastrous road, it is also worth pointing out - as we did at the time - that the structures that were established as a result of the peace agreement institutionalised politics along sectarian lines, not dissimilar to what has happened in places such as Lebanon and elsewhere and has at least helped to continue to fester sectarian sentiment rather than overcome it by having, for example, quota systems when it comes to voting.
Does the Deputy have a solution to the Lebanon problem?
The Minister has had his chance and he will have it again. It helps to move away from sectarian quotas which are included in the Northern Ireland peace agreement. However, repressive legislation such as this is not the way to continue the momentum for peace and for breaking down sectarianism. In many cases this legislation is used to target the wrong people. I will not elaborate on Deputy Higgins's comments in this regard except to say that under the provisions of this legislation Mahatma Gandhi, if he were in this country, could be imprisoned for life for his campaign not to pay tax on the production of salt. Under such a campaign of civil disobedience he would be liable to be put in prison for life and proscribed as the organiser of an unlawful campaign of civil disobedience.
Deputy O'Brien pointed out that given the low number of convictions under this legislation in contrast with the large number of arrests and other uses of the legislation, it would appear it is being used more to gather information on organisations and groups with which the State has a problem. When this extends to anti-war activists it begins to be of serious concern. The Garda recently raided the home of the PRO of the Galway Alliance against War. His house was raided at 8 a.m. with his wife and daughters in bed. Vile language was used against members of the family and one of his daughters was vilified for being a member of Sinn Féin. The gardaí claimed to be there because of an investigation over a protest that had taken place in Shannon Airport against the use of that airport by the US military. They did not find the information they sought, but they seized three computers, two DVDs of peace protests in 2005 and 2006, and various papers. They also complained that Mr. Farrell, the PRO of the Galway Alliance against War, had too many books on his shelves before they headed off with computers, including a computer belonging to his wife which contained sensitive academic and examination material belonging to students in the university in which she lectures. They have still not returned those computers which do not contain any incriminating information on the activities of a peace organisation, but contain the databases containing contact details for the membership of the Galway Alliance against War.
Was that raid carried out under the provisions of this legislation? What does the Minister have to say about the use of such powers to raid in the early morning the house of an anti-war activist? Will he return those computers and ensure this legislation is not abused in this way? Will he ensure that legislation that would allow that to happen is not on the Statute Book?
I thank Deputy Calleary for his considered response to and support for the motion. There remains a substantial threat from terrorist activity and particularly from so-called dissident republican paramilitary groups which warrants the continuing in force of the Act's provisions. This House needs to send out the clear message that the State will not bow to the self-serving interests of terrorists who continue to see themselves as being entitled to destroy a peace process that is working and has made the lives of so many people on this island so much better.
The Deputy asked about the provision of resources to An Garda Síochána. I repeat what I have said on many occasions in the past. The Garda will continue to take whatever action is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks and bring those engaged in terrorist activities to justice before the courts. It will continue to co-operate fully with the PSNI in its work. It is appropriate to congratulate the Garda and PSNI on the work they have done in the past 12 months in preventing some atrocities that would have occurred without the very good work undertaken by both policing organisations on this island, which work so well in co-operation with each other.
I listened with some interest to what Deputy O'Brien had to say with regard to human rights and with some bemusement to what Deputies Higgins and Boyd Barrett had to say. They appear more concerned with the rights of those intent on destroying the peace process and committed to continued violence and atrocities than the rights of ordinary individuals who want to go about their lives on the island. The greatest right is the right to live in peace-----
What the Minister has just said is utterly dishonest.
-----the right not to be maimed or injured, the right not to discover a bomb under one's car, the right not to be shot as one walks down the street, and the right of a member of the PSNI, who happens to be a member of the Roman Catholic community, not to be targeted and shot by republicans who resent that the PSNI is now a force that substantially represents the different religious groupings in Northern Ireland. That is the ultimate right - the right to live in peace. The State has a right and obligation to protect the wider community on this island. We have a particular obligation regarding the Republic of Ireland and we have an obligation with regard to all those who live in Northern Ireland to do everything we can to contribute to maintaining peace on the island. These provisions are crucial in that regard and I make no apology for their continuation. The number of occasions on which they have been utilised clearly indicates they perform a very serious function in this area.
I listened to Deputy Higgins speak about how he opposed these provisions originally and he religiously opposes them. He then made reference to the atrocity of the Omagh bombing and pointed out that in his view the united rage and revulsion that resulted from the Omagh bombing was all that was needed.
I did not say that.
He did not say that.
Despite rage and revulsion it took 30 years to end the conflict in Northern Ireland. The conflict in Northern Ireland-----
It was ended by the people.
Despite Deputy Boyd Barrett's illusion that it ended because people rose up against violence, it ended because it took those engaged in violence 30 years to discover that violence was not getting them anywhere and they grew weary of it. Ultimately, political arrangements were put in place under the Good Friday Agreement which provided mechanisms to bring the violence to an end.
So it is no credit to the people. It is never the people.
Sadly and tragically, it was not the demonstrations that took place in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s that ended the violence.
They sent a message to the paramilitaries.
The reality was that many of the people perpetrating violence were slow learners and were impervious to demonstrations. If the Deputies are naive enough to think that expressing revulsion will stop the groups currently committed to terrorism on this island or that it is something they have any regard or consideration for, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. The reality is that there is a group of violent people committed to destroying the peace process and to creating as much chaos as they can on this island and all the revulsion in the world will not do any good. Democracies must have legislation in place to protect the essence of democracy. This legislation is necessary to ensure the law enforcement agencies on this island can take whatever action is necessary to ensure that those engaged in these activities can be fully and properly investigated and brought to justice.
My final point is brief. Either Deputies Boyd Barrett and Higgins are of the view that they are part of democracy and of the democratic system, respect Parliament and recognise that Parliament passes laws and those laws should be complied with or they are simply permanent street protestors. One cannot take an à la carte view to the law.
What about Gandhi's campaign?
There is very little real difference, other than scale, between the conduct some of the Deputies have condemned on the part of Deputy Wallace and their boasting of evading paying the household charge-----
That is rubbish.
-----which they are obliged to pay.
The Government has prostituted this Parliament by underwriting tens of millions of euro to bondholders and bankers on the backs of working class people.
A total of 60% of people in this country have already paid. The Deputies cannot be à la carte democrats.
The Government has abused this Parliament.
They cannot choose what taxes they should and should not pay. It is disgrace that Members of this Parliament consider it fit to lead people down the cul-de-sac of failure to comply with the law and withholding taxes-----
I will take that seriously when you deal with Denis O'Brien's tax affairs.
-----which they are obliged to pay along with the majority who have already complied.
Will the Minister have the same diatribe against the millionaire tax exiles?
Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 103; Níl, 20.
Tá
- Bannon, James.
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Browne, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Costello, Joe.
- Creed, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Deering, Pat.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lyons, John.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Mathews, Peter.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Nulty, Patrick.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Donovan, Patrick.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Spring, Arthur.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Troy, Robert.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
- White, Alex.
Níl
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Collins, Joan.
- Daly, Clare.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Catherine Murphy and Jonathan O’Brien.
Question declared carried.