In accordance with the order of the Dáil today, the motions will be moved and discussed together but decided separately. I call on the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to move the motion.
Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009: Motions
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 beginning on 30th June, 2013 and ending on 29th June, 2014.
The House will be aware that the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was enacted in the wake of the murder of 29 people by the Real IRA in Omagh on 15 August that year. It was a necessary response to that terrible atrocity and the loss of 29 innocent lives. That bombing and those murders represented a direct attack also on the fragile peace process and indeed on this State as a major sponsor of that peace process. It demanded a robust response from the State and a clear statement that the atavistic view of those murderers would not prevail. We had had enough of their agenda of hatred, sectarianism and contempt for the will of the majority. They, like the rest of us, had been given the opportunity to decide in a democratic way on the future of this island and on the relationship between the two jurisdictions. Their views did not prevail and like all anti-democrats, they resorted to murder and terror. However, they were never going to succeed. They have not succeeded but they continue to this day with their ideology of hatred and destruction.
At the time, 1998, the State had a responsibility to respond to the direct challenge which they presented. One such response was to provide strong legislative powers to ensure the Garda and the courts were in a position to meet that challenge. The Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was a necessary and proportionate response. 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, inclusive, 6 to 12, inclusive,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 on 13 and 20 June 2012, these sections were continued in force for a period of 12 months beginning on 30 June 2012.
Prior to moving any motion for renewal, the Act requires that I lay before the Oireachtas a report on the operation of the relevant provisions. The present report covers the period from 1 June 2012, the end date of the previous report, to 31 May this year. The report was laid before the House on 17 June 2013. It also includes, following a commitment which I gave previously, a table showing the figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation. I believe 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 and that of the Government 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 Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, in respect of the terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland is that it is regarded as severe. While the threat level in this jurisdiction may be different, it is imperative that our laws and our police are properly equipped to deal with the threat, whether in this jurisdiction or Northern Ireland. Let no one be under the illusion that these groups do not have designs on this State, as well as on Northern Ireland. This clearly demonstrates the need for the continuance of these provisions. If Deputies needed reminding, this need is clearly and tragically evidenced by the murder of Prison Officer David Black in November last. In addition, in March this year, among numerous incidents north of the Border, the Police Service of Northern Ireland arrested three men following the interception of a number of mortars in a van in Derry. All three men are known to be members of the "new IRA". The van contained four mortars which were ready to fire. Moreover, it is not only in Northern Ireland that the campaign of terror has continued or that these terrorist groups are active. In March, gardaí arrested five men and recovered a firearm at and near the scene of the fatal shooting of Peter Butterly in County Louth. In February, gardaí arrested two men in Newbridge, County Kildare, involved in the process of making pipe bombs, as well as seizing three mortar or rocket launcher-type tubes with associated components and arrested three men in an operation near Cahir in County Tipperary. In addition, last September witnessed the murder of Alan Ryan. In these circumstances, the Garda must have at its disposal the appropriate measures to meet this threat. The powers available under the 1998 Act are considered paramount in maintaining effective preventative action against the terrorist groups.
North-South co-operation in the area of security is vital and I can give the House the assurance that it has never been better. I keep in close contact with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers, MP, and with my colleague, the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, David Ford, MLA.
The Garda 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 terrorist 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 also.
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 I have laid before the House. Furthermore, given the considerable threat posed by some paramilitary groups, it is essential that the Act's provisions should continue in force to support the ongoing investigation and disruption of terrorist activities.
I turn now to the provisions of the 1998 Act which are the subject of the resolution. As I mentioned, on 17 June I laid before the Houses a report on the operation of the relevant sections between 1 June 2012 and 31 May this year. The report demonstrates the value of the relevant sections to the Garda and the necessity for their continued availability in tackling the terrorist threat.
Looking at the sections, 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. The section was used on 62 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 behalf. This section was used on 19 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 section 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 section was not used in the period covered.
Section 7 makes it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the article is in possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences. It was used on ten 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. It was used on two occasions.
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. It was used on 40 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 ten cases.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I have a concern in the context of giving the information. It was originally my understanding that I would have ten minutes in respect of each motion. Is the order ten minutes in total because if that is the case, I should put on the record of the House information in regard to the second motion and, time wise, that cannot be achieved in ten minutes?
Can I have the agreement of the House to allow the Minister more time? Agreed.
And if colleagues need more time it should be agreed.
I need less time and therefore the Minister can take mine.
I do not want to read this at a rate of knots that makes no sense.
We do not want that.
Section 11 allows a judge of the District Court to permit the re-arrest 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. It was used on four 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. It 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, inclusive, 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. It was used on 52 occasions during the period.
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 there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made such an order. The section was not used in the reporting period in question.
As the report indicates, a number of sections, namely, section 4 on the drawing of inferences from the statements of an accused person that he or she is a member of an unlawful organisation, section 6 on directing an unlawful organisation, section 12 on training persons in the making or use of firearms, and section 17 on forfeiture of property, were not utilised during the reporting period. It should, however, not be inferred from this lack of use that these provisions are in some way redundant or unnecessary. For example, section 17 was only used for the first time during the 2011-12 reporting period, despite being present since 1998.
The existence of the provisions means that members of terrorist groups are aware that the State remains resolute in its determination to use every lawful means to defeat them. I might point out, incidentally, that they are far from being redundant. Section 12 will, in effect, be strengthened by a provision in the forthcoming legislation to give effect to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.
In that regard the Government has approved the drafting of the relevant Bill. The Bill, when enacted, will amend the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 to create the three new offences of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism. These offences will carry sentences of up to ten years on conviction on indictment.
As I have already stated, terrorist groups 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.
On the basis of the information set out in the report and on the advice of the Garda authorities, I consider the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act should remain in operation for a further 12 months commencing on 30 June 2013. I commend the motion to the House.
I turn now to the second motion, which states that "Dáil Éireann resolves that section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 (No. 32 of 2009) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2013 and ending on 29th June, 2014."
This resolution will provide for the continuation in operation of section 8 of that Act for a 12 month period beginning on 30 June 2013. In the context of that legislation I remind the House of the background to the 2009 Act, lest anyone believe it was an over-reaction to a non-existent threat. At the time there had been an increase in the level or organised crime. Organised gangs had shown a particular ruthlessness in their activities, including attacks on witnesses and intimidation of jurors. As a result the Garda was encountering difficulties in persuading people to give assistance in its investigations. The complete disregard which these gangs showed for human lives threatened to subvert the entire justice system. In the circumstances, it was imperative that the Government, and the Oireachtas, take the necessary steps to ensure that the criminal justice system was robust enough to withstand the assault launched upon it through intimidation and violence of witnesses and jurors. The measures contained in the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 were designed to tilt the balance firmly in favour of the rule of law and justice and instil confidence that criminal gangs will not be permitted to frustrate criminal investigations or prosecutions of their activities.
In the context of the very real threat these gangs posed, the Act provides for a limited number of specific organised crime offences to be prosecuted in the Special Criminal Court. The proposal to use the court for a limited number of organised crime offences removed the possibility of jury tampering or intimidation of jurors. The purpose of section 8, therefore, is to ensure that organised criminal gangs cannot interfere with the criminal process to determine the outcome of cases. To this end, the section declares that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order in regard to certain offences. The offences in question are the organised crime offences under Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.
Briefly, these offences are directing the activities of a criminal organisation - section 71A of the Criminal Justice Act 2006; participating in or contributing to certain activities of a criminal organisation - section 72; committing a serious offence for a criminal organisation - section 73; and liability for offences committed by a body corporate - section 76.
Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 makes these scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the Offences against the State Act 1939. While this means that the Special Criminal Court will hear prosecutions for the offences in question, the Director of Public Prosecutions may still exercise her power to direct that the offences should be tried in the ordinary courts. Permitting the DPP this discretion maintains the fundamental balance in deciding which cases are appropriate to be tried in the Special Criminal Court.
A further bulwark in maintaining this balance is provided in section 8(4) of the 2009 Act. It provides that the section shall cease to be in operation unless a resolution has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas resolving that it should continue in operation for a further period to be decided by the Oireachtas. As I have already said, that is the purpose of moving today's resolution
To enable the House to decide on the continuation of section 8, subsection (6) provides that before a resolution to continue section 8 in operation is passed, I must prepare a report, which shall be laid before both Houses, on the operation of the section in the period under report. The report, covering the period from 1 June 2012 to 31 May 2013, was laid before both Houses on 17 June 2013.
The reasons for which the Government is seeking the renewal of section 8 are clear. Organised crime continues to present a significant law enforcement issue with a number of criminal gangs continuing to engage in serious crimes. There is, unfortunately, plenty of evidence of the willingness of these gangs to engage in murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, drug smuggling, counterfeiting and other serious offences. Given the nature of organised crime, the investigation and prosecution process can be lengthy and difficult. This is particularly so given the insidious power that criminal gangs hold over their members and, regrettably, within the communities in which they live. The 2009 Act has been in operation for over four years and while there have been arrests under the relevant sections of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, no cases have yet come before the Special Criminal Court in accordance with section 8.
This does not, however, invalidate the reasoning for having such a provision available for use in appropriate circumstances. Let us be clear - if criminals are prepared to take human life, then they are quite prepared to subvert the system of justice. Accordingly, there is necessity for legislation that anticipates this possibility to be in place. There is a responsibility on me as Minister, on the Government and, indeed, on the House, to ensure that our criminal law contains appropriate provisions to ensure the effective administration of justice by the courts. In my view section 8 is necessary in this regard. The use of the Act to date also serves to highlight the considered approach of the DPP and vindicates the way in which the provision is constructed, allowing her to exercise her discretion to direct that cases would be tried in the ordinary courts.
In the report to me on the operation of section 8, the Garda Commissioner is of the clear view that this provision is likely to be required for some time to come. As Minister for Justice and Equality, I must have the utmost regard for the views of the Garda authorities in matters such as this. It is essential to ensure that the Garda have at its disposal the best possible range of powers to face up to organised criminal gangs.
In the period under report, there have been a total of 41 arrests under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. One arrest was made under section 71A, directing the activities of a criminal organisation, 35 arrests were made under section 72, participating in or contributing to certain activities of a criminal organisation, and a further five arrests were made under section 73, committing an offence for a criminal organisation. Charges have resulted in 12 of these cases for a variety of criminal offences including aggravated burglary, vehicle theft, arson, handling of stolen goods and the DPP has directed further charges of extortion in two cases. Eight individuals have been charged since the commencement of the 2006 Act, two under section 71A, directing the activities of a criminal organisation, and six under section 72, participating in or contributing to certain activities of a criminal organisation. Three individuals have been convicted under section 72 and have received sentences of three years in one case and nine years in the other two cases. This includes the two individuals originally charged under section 71A.
Five other charges preferred under section 72 were subsequently withdrawn by the DPP. However four individuals were convicted of conspiracy to rob and subsequently received custodial sentences of between two and five years duration. One other individual was convicted of offences under the Misuse of Drugs Acts 1977 and 1984 and received five years in prison.
The Garda authorities devote considerable resources, from across the Garda organisation, to their efforts to tackle organised crime and they deserve our praise for the successes they have had against a number of those involved in these criminal gangs. Furthermore, the Commissioner has made it clear time and again that there will be no let up in the action taken against these gangs. He has the Government's full support in that approach.
Let me be blunt about it - the individuals involved in organised crime are ruthless people who will stop at nothing to avoid being brought to account for their crimes. Violence and intimidation are a way of life for these people, as we have seen from some of the incidents that have taken place in recent years. We, that is, the Government and the Oireachtas, have a duty to make sure that the criminal justice system is equipped to prevent them undermining our core values. To that end, we must ensure that in the most serious of cases, where jury intimidation is a real possibility, the law has a means available to bring serious criminals to account.
On balance, I consider it is necessary to continue section 8 in operation for a further period. The period now proposed will run for a period of 12 months beginning 30 June 2013. I commend the motion to the House.
Deputy Acting Chairman Peter Mathews
Having taken over from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I understand there are 20 minutes remaining in this debate to be divided between the three contributing parties, some of which are sharing. The indications are that there will be seven minutes for each third contributing.
To be fair to Members, because it was necessary to place all matters on the record, I took up some additional time. Members opposite agreed I would have that time. In fairness to Members of the House, if some additional time is required to facilitate Deputies to complete their contribution, they should be allowed that.
That means I am going beyond the Order of Business that was agreed this morning. I take it, like the Cabinet, we will have collective responsibility on this.
We will try to keep it to seven or eight minutes each.
I would appreciate if Members would do that.
Is this the new Minister for Justice and Equality we are seeing today? I welcome it, if it is.
Although this island has been transformed since the Good Friday Agreement and the establishment of a power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland, the relative peace that we now enjoy cannot be taken for granted. There is still considerable work to be done in integrating the two communities in Northern Ireland. There is also, unfortunately, a significant threat to the peace as a result of the activities of what are referred to as "dissident republicans". These groups do not have any real support on the ground, either north or south of the Border. They are groups that are fighting against the democratic wishes of the Irish people, as voted for in the 32-county referendum on the Good Friday Agreement. To a large extent, the actions of these dissident republicans are part of a cover for drug dealing and racketeering. We know that even though these dissident republicans do not have support, they can inflict terrible damage. It was a dissident republican group that was responsible for the worst atrocity of the Troubles in Omagh in 1998.
The amendments to the Offences against the State Act brought in by the Fianna Fáil Government after the Omagh bombing were necessary at that time. Unfortunately, they are still necessary today. We as a State cannot lower our guard or lessen our vigilance in response to this ongoing threat. I have no doubt it would be the wish of most Members of this House for our laws to be normalised and for these provisions of the Offences against the State Act not to be necessary. However, we cannot take that chance nor do we have that comfort. The only time we should consider lowering our guard is when the dissident republicans have abandoned their campaign of violence and crime. I ask them to recognise the democratic wishes of the Irish people and to lay down their guns and stop their violence.
It is for this reason that Fianna Fáil will support the resolutions being brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas by the Minister for Justice and Equality. We believe that the legislation should be extended for a further period of 12 months from 30 June 2013.
There is also a proposal to extend section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. This legislation was introduced by Fianna Fáil in government to respond to organised crime.
It provides that certain organised crimes will be prosecuted before the Special Criminal Court, rather than having such trials heard by a judge and jury.
The right to a trial by jury is an important aspect of the criminal justice system. Nonetheless, we as a State cannot tolerate a situation where ordinary members of society who are asked to be jurors are exposed to intimidation and threats of violence from serious gangland figures. For that reason, we believe it is correct that this section should be extended. Gangland criminals will do anything in order to increase their profits and make money from drugs. If they thought that intimidating a jury would prevent them from going to prison or would be an interference in their criminal activities, then they would intimidate and harass jurors. This is an event that we as a State cannot tolerate.
For that reason, Fianna Fáil will support the extension of the resolution to section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. We believe that the discretion should remain with the Director of Public Prosecutions to direct whether or not a person should be sent forward for trial by the Special Criminal Court. We do not believe it appropriate that serious gangland figures should be tried by a jury. Their violence and organised crime has deprived them of the right to a trial by jury and we should not be apologetic about denying them that. The safety of this country and its citizens depends upon it.
We are back again. Every year we debate this, every year Sinn Féin opposes it and every year it passes.
We all know the background to the Offences against the State Act and I will not rehearse it again today. Suffice to say I have no hesitation in renewing the call on those responsible for what happened at Omagh to cease their activities and to embrace the peace process. The events of that day were a direct attack on the peace process and the Sinn Féin strategy. It is a credit to all those involved in the peace process at the time that it survived and has since flourished. While there is a while go before we, as republicans, realise our ultimate goal of a united Ireland, we must continue to defend the peace process.
Although full responsibility for the events of that day, 15 August 1998, lies with the so-called Real IRA, subsequent details have shown that less than perfect policing procedures, analysis and communication of intelligence were employed. Recently, I met the Omagh support group which continues to campaign for justice and I listened to their real concerns about that day. These people deserve to know the truth and I urge the Government to act on its pre-election promises and have a public North-South investigation into that fateful day.
The Omagh bomb was of particular importance to me. Three children from my home town of Buncrana lost their lives and two of our friends from Spain who stay in the town every year as part of their English language learning development also lost their lives. Our community was devastated by that bomb.
I and my party call on those responsible to take note of the progress made on this island since the passage of the Good Friday Agreement. They will not derail our peace process, they do not have the capacity to do so. I want to put on the record of this House that senior members of my party, the leadership, have repeatedly had their lives threatened by many of these individuals. Up until recent times, the leadership of my party was receiving warnings from the PSNI. This is a serious matter for us and we do not take it lightly. We have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in Sinn Féin, both leadership and membership, to confront these individuals to demonstrate clearly and to work day in and day out to defend the peace process.
However, they do not warrant a strong argument for the retention of these measures. We live in a society where there is space for those with varying views to put forward those arguments and if they believe in the strength of their convictions, I ask that they debate them with the rest of society. The Good Friday Agreement was overwhelmingly and democratically endorsed by the vast majority of the Irish people. If the perpetrators believe in democracy at all, I ask that they cease their activities.
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.
Our international commitments are not the only reason for us to oppose the motion. The Government has certain obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. The Agreement places an onus on both Governments to work towards the normalisation of the security apparatus in the Twenty-six Counties and the Six Counties. As the Minister stated, the agreement was endorsed overwhelmingly by the majority of people on this island. It needs to be protected and implemented in full. Therefore, the scrapping of the legislation before us for renewal is a pressing issue for all of us in these Houses.
In the past, many Deputies have argued in favour of the provisions of the Act because they have played a role. Today, I do not think anyone can truthfully argue that these provisions have a place in the present or future of this State.
Sinn Féin believes the legislation is counter-productive in the long run. The retention of these provisions is an admission of the failure of this and previous Governments. The challenge to us is to prove that we have a normal society and that normal policing will convict those who seek to undermine it. There is no place in society for the emergency legislation that was passed in 1998. Draconian legislation can never be a substitute for sound law and good and accountable policing.
As Members in this Chamber will be aware, Sinn Féin has consistently opposed the retention of this amendment. We have argued each year that it should be repealed in its entirety. At this time, there is neither a need for such legislation nor an argument in favour of it. The continuation of it will only serve to erode further the human rights ethos in which the State's legislation should be grounded. If Deputies in this Chamber truly value the concepts of democracy and human rights, I implore them to vote accordingly and to reject the motion. We are a normal society and the existing laws are strong enough if properly resourced.
Sinn Féin has been in a minority in this House in recent years when it has rightly opposed the 1998 Act. The chances are that we will be in a minority again today. We are not in a minority internationally, however, as we analyse this measure. The UN Human Rights Committee shares our stance on it. An Garda Síochána and the courts can convict those who carry out atrocious acts in this day and age and ensure they serve a proper sentence for those actions.
We must make every attempt to convince so-called dissident groups to move away from violence and to get them to accept the will of the people as expressed in the Good Friday Agreement. We must also convince them of the opportunities that the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process give republicans to further the republican and all-island agenda, and that is where our focus for the next 12 months should be. I ask Members to vote against this measure.
On the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, it is a sad reflection on any government or state when it has to admit that the ordinary courts are not adequate. If we are serious about dealing with organised criminal gangs, we need to put resources in place. For instance, we should not be closing rural Garda stations. This morning we discussed this. Not only did the Government close rural Garda stations, but it cut the number of Garda vehicles and the number of Garda personnel. If any Member of these Houses really wants to know the position, he or she should speak to gardaí on the ground who tell us that they have depleted resources and capacity to combat crime. The Minister will say that is just one aspect of the matter. If we are to be serious, we should ensure financial resources are invested in front-line manpower. If the recruitment embargo must be lifted to deal with organised criminal gangs, that should be done.
I am sure those who are involved in organised criminal activity see the introduction of legislation to ensure they are tried before the Special Criminal Court as an admission of the State's failure to provide protections and safeguards to those who serve on juries. It is the wrong way to go. We will oppose this proposal for that reason. That is not to disregard flippantly the activities of these criminal gangs. We understand they cause misery and hardship and have no regard for law and order. If one examines best international practice, one will see that other countries have found more effective ways of dealing with organised criminal gangs that do not involve institutions like the Special Criminal Court.
The Minister cannot argue for the retention of draconian legislation while he is responsible for implementing considerable cutbacks to An Garda Síochána and taking away its resources to combat criminality in our communities. There is a contradiction in the argument and for that reason, we will oppose both motions.
I call Deputy Boyd Barrett. Is the Deputy sharing time with Deputies Finian McGrath and Mattie McGrath?
How many minutes have we?
Nine minutes, three each.
I thank the Acting Chairman.
I also oppose this motion, as I did last year. The Omagh bombing was an outrageous tragedy and atrocity.
It was tragic proof of the utter bankruptcy and callousness of a certain strand of unrepresentative republicanism in this country. I have no hesitation in saying that those who are nostalgic for a return to paramilitary struggle as a way to deal with problems in the North are wrong, and I call on them to adopt different tactics and perspectives in trying to address political and social problems in the North. Their tactics and actions should be unreservedly condemned. I believe in a very radical change in society and it is justified to engage in protest and sometimes even peaceful civil disobedience to try to bring about change in society. The tactics employed by these groups, as witnessed in Omagh, are utterly indefensible.
Nevertheless, I have problems with this legislation and from where the Government is coming. I must point to the double standards of the Government in condemnations of violence and the use of force for political ends; I cannot understand how on the one hand it can rightly condemn atrocities like that which occurred in Omagh while on the other hand we can see no such indignation or outrage when it comes to the use of drones to kill innocent people in Afghanistan. Those people are every bit as innocent as the people in Omagh but where is the indignation and condemnation in that respect? Far from that, we get the feting in this country of the commander-in-chief of the military forces, President Obama, without mention of what his forces are doing in Afghanistan, what they did in Iraq or the consistent abuse of human rights in Guantanamo Bay.
What occurred with the G8 protests is also evidence that the Government cannot be trusted with draconian powers, as 80 peaceful protestors who travelled in a bus - I was on the bus - were followed by a Garda armed response unit for 30 km or 40 km until the bus reached the Border. At that stage the protestors were faced with a phalanx of police, and I believe the full security bill for the G8 was £50 million. That was to deal with 3,000 peaceful protestors, so it cannot be justified. This was part of quite a cynical attempt to deter people from engaging in peaceful protest.
Draconian legislation does not deal with political or social problems, and one must address the root cause. History has indicated that draconian legislation can be counterproductive and fuel support for organisations rather than deter them in their actions.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak to this debate on sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and legislation relating to the Criminal Justice Act. It is always important to reflect upon, examine and pay close attention to a motion like this as we should never take human rights or respect for human dignity of citizen for granted. This is also an opportunity to examine where the people are on this island with regard to justice after many years of violence and conflict. It is important to scrutinise laws and legislation but we must come to the process with an open mind and see if such measures are needed in the current political climate.
It is important for us to learn from the mistakes of the past so that our justice system is fair and above reproach. Do most of our citizens have faith in the justice system? Many would say they do not and many have major concerns, and there can be no running away from these hard questions, particularly when major injustice has been done to innocent people. I wonder if a short 45 minute debate is enough when things are not right in our own system. For example, is it right that a man involved in a garlic tax scam gets a six-year sentence after repaying money to the Revenue Commissioners while violent criminals and abusers get lesser sentences? People are asking such questions across broader society and they must be addressed in the justice system.
Why does the Taoiseach not meet the families and relatives of the people killed in the Omagh slaughter? Why is the British Government being ignored and let off the hook in handing over files with regard to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings? I sat on the Oireachtas justice committee that considered the Barron report so I saw the evidence. The Dáil passed an all-party motion that demanded action. We are talking about offences against our citizens and State but there is silence and a lack of action. These are important issues and the fudge must end. I call on the Minister and the Government to give a commitment to meet the Omagh relatives and do something about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. We should see some movement and justice for the families, above all, on both sides of the conflict. With regard to the broader debate on offences against the State, we all have a duty to try to ensure this type of legislation will at some stage be no longer needed in this country.
I am delighted to be able to speak on the extension of the sections of the Criminal Justice Act and sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. I am supportive of this provision and although we should not have to use such provisions, it is an unfortunate necessity. It is only right and proper that we have this provision.
I salute all who were involved with the G8 summit, which passed off peacefully. It is important that world leaders could come to Ireland, which is our country. Somebody referred to the location being in Great Britain but it is in Ireland by a beautiful lakeside. I am glad it passed off peacefully, although it is unfortunate that security must be provided. I was on the way to Omagh when the atrocity occurred but I am thankful I did not arrive until the morning afterwards. I met families and the late Mo Mowlam, along with Prince Charles, as I stayed for a couple of days afterwards. It was a most horrific scene. There were serious question marks about the deployment of police forces on both sides of the Border and I challenge the Minister to act on the report handed to him over a year ago. That was compiled by Mr. Martin Bridger, who was a special investigator for the PSNI and a covert intelligence officer.
The Minister and the Taoiseach have the report, and at the 2004 Ard-Fheis the Taoiseach promised he would meet the Omagh families. Since getting into government, the Taoiseach and the Minister have been silent and refused to meet those people. There are serious question marks over the circumstances surrounding the Omagh bombing. I salute Mr. Gallagher and their families for the way in which they are trying to raise the issue and have the truth outed. In opposition, the Minister promised action but has shamefully neglected to act. He has had the report for over 12 months and the Taoiseach stated that the Minister would meet those people. When will that happen and will the Minister be up-front in providing the answers these people require? These are peaceful and quiet people but they want a determination on the issue, and I am sure the report makes for very serious reading. Detective Sergeant John White from Tipperary needs to have his name cleared. He is a neighbour and when he was brought to court, the charges were thrown out. He was used as a scapegoat and his name should be cleared.
The Minister has indicated there will be more recruitment to Templemore, which is much-needed. I hope the work continues as we must support An Garda Síochána by keeping their numbers above the magic level of 13,000. I welcome the news and I look forward to seeing Templemore training centre active again.
I thank the Members who support these two motions. As I stated, a substantial threat from terrorist activity remains, particularly from paramilitary groups, and this warrants the continuance in force of these provisions. Deputy Mac Lochlainn has traditionally opposed these matters but I agree with and welcome his calling on those who are still committed to engaging in paramilitary terrorist activity to cease such activities.
I join in that call. Indeed, I have made the same call with great regularity. However, there is a contradiction in his recognising that we still have groups on this island who threaten to bring about murder and mayhem while denying the Garda the powers it requires to ensure it can deal with those groups. While I welcome what Deputy Mac Lochlainn had to say about those groups and their activities, I would suggest to him that is logically utterly and completely inconsistent to recognise that they exist, to recognise that the threat in Northern Ireland remains severe, to accept that they pose a threat to life and limb and then to say we should repeal powers that facilitate the Garda Síochána in bringing them to justice. I ask the Deputy not to approach this from an ideological perspective if we have to deal with this matter again next year. This is about protecting our community. It is about empowering the Garda to do everything that is necessary to stop the type of murder and mayhem to which these individuals are committed.
Of course, it is also important that effective action can be taken, including legislative action, to maintain confidence in the prosecution and judicial processes. Criminal groups do pose a very real threat in this regard and the provisions of the 2009 Act are necessary in that context. We can all recall occasions on which witnesses withdrew evidence of a very serious nature in our courts when there was alleged intimidation. One of the basic fundamental rights of citizens of this State is the right to freely walk along the street, drive in their cars and engage in normal life without their lives being under threat. That is the most fundamental right. Citizens must be free to know they can get on with their lives without being murdered or having their quality of life destroyed by individuals intent on violence and mayhem. That is the most fundamental right to which I must have regard as Minister.
In the context of the dreadful atrocity of the Omagh bombings, I have met with the Omagh families. Perhaps if Deputy Mattie McGrath could resist the temptation to give me a kick every time he stands up-----
When?
-----he might restrain himself. I did meet with the Omagh families and I heard their case for a cross-Border inquiry. I also accepted the very detailed document that they furnished to me, which I have read and considered seriously. After we have finished our deliberations on that matter, I will be in contact with them again. The Deputy is incorrect in saying that they are being ignored. This is a very complex issue.
The Minister met them when he was in opposition. He has not met them as a member of the Government.
This is a very complex issue and we must take care about the manner in which we deal with it. I met with the families in July last and that is the position in that regard.
One contributor - I think it was Deputy Mac Lochlainn - ran the old line and made references to the closure of Garda stations and to Garda resources. We dealt with this issue at great length at today's meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. I thank the Irish Examiner for the excellent publication it produced a few days ago looking at crime in every county in Ireland and for the manner in which it approached the issue. The statistics showed clearly the truth of what I have been saying, namely, that better deployment of gardaí and effective, targeted operations-----
Operations like following peaceful protesters around?
-----and the smart policing in which they are engaged is resulting in a reduction in crime in practically every category across the country. As I said earlier, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of burglaries taking place as a result of Operation Fiacla. Perhaps at some stage it will be recognised in this House that the reforms that have been introduced are in the public interest. My aim is not the protection of vested interests. I am committed to the public interest and to using our resources as wisely as possible. If some people in individual groupings or organisations are uncomfortable with reform and change and want to denigrate me for what I am doing, so be it. That is for them, but the proof of the pudding with regard to crime is the fact that crime levels are down. I thank the Irish Examiner for its very detailed survey in that regard.
The Minister has already exceeded his time. I ask him to conclude as I must put the question to the House.
That does not mean that additional steps do not need to be taken because, as we know, difficulties remain in some areas. However, I have the greatest confidence in the Garda Síochána and the Garda Commissioner in addressing those.
Debate adjourned.