Two motions relating to the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, respectively, will be debated together and the debate will conclude after one hour and 15 minutes. In accordance with the Order of Business, the motions will be debated together but decided separately. I call on the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, to move the first motion. The second motion cannot be moved until the first motion has been disposed of, but may be discussed with it.
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 beginning on 30th June, 2015 and ending on 29th June, 2016.
The House will be aware that the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was enacted by the Oireachtas in the wake of the murder by the Real IRA of 29 innocent people in the Omagh bombing in August 1998. This atrocity demanded a robust response by the State and the legislation enacted then was a necessary and proportionate measure to defend the desire of the vast majority of law-abiding people on this island to live in peace. The Act contains a series of amendments to the Offences Against the State Acts 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 in June 2014, these sections were continued in force for a period of 12 months. Before moving any motion for renewal, the Act requires that I lay before the Oireachtas a report on the operation of the relevant provisions. The current report covers the period from 1 June 2014 to 31 May 2015, and was laid before the House on 10 June 2015. It includes a table showing usage figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation.
It is the fervent wish of the Government and, no doubt, the House that a time will come when the provisions will no longer be required. However, as Minister for Justice and Equality I must take into account the reality of the situation. The Garda assessment, shared by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, is that there is a real and persistent threat from terrorist groups on this island. The threat level in Northern Ireland from these groups is regarded as severe, and while the direct threat in this jurisdiction may be different, these groups carry on planning and logistical activities in the State. These groups are vehemently opposed to peace and seek to attack the institutions of Northern Ireland and destabilise the peace process. However, I am determined they will not succeed in their objective.
I pay tribute to the men and women of the Garda Síochána who work tirelessly to counter the threat from paramilitary organisations. The Garda authorities co-operate very closely with the PSNI in this regard, and this is a key relationship in protecting communities across the island. It is the clear 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. In the time available, I will not go through all the relevant sections in detail. The report I have provided gives details of the instances in which the various sections have been used during the period in question and there is a lot of detail there. The report also indicates that a number of sections, namely, sections 3, 8, 12 and 17, were not used during the reporting period in question. However, it should not be inferred from this that these provisions are redundant or unnecessary, given that the usage of the sections varies from time to time and from year to year.
Terrorist groups remain a threat to the people on this island. They are opposed to the benefits that have flowed from the peace process and are determined to undermine them. The State must retain in its laws the capacity to defeat them, and we have a duty as legislators to ensure this is so. On the basis of the information set out in the report and on the advice of the Garda authorities, I propose that the House approve the continued operation of the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act in order for them to remain in operation for a further 12 months, commencing on 30 June 2015.
I turn now to the motion regarding the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. The Act was a response to a number of difficulties facing the justice system at a time when certain organised criminal gangs were behaving as though they were beyond the law and untouchable by gardaí and the courts. Hand in hand with the disregard for human life was the intimidation of whole communities to prevent people co-operating with the law. There was significant evidence of intimidation of witnesses and some courts faced difficulties in empanelling jurors. It was clear that these gangs were prepared to go to any lengths to thwart the criminal justice system. It was imperative, therefore, to take the necessary steps to ensure the criminal justice system could withstand the challenges it faced from them.
The reasons the Government and I, as Minister, are seeking the renewal of section 8 are clear. Organised crime continues to present a significant problem. There is, unfortunately, stark evidence of the willingness of these gangs to engage in murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, drug smuggling, counterfeiting and other serious offences. Although the provision has been in place since 2009 and there have been arrests under the relevant sections of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, no case has come before the Special Criminal Court in accordance with section 8. However, this does not invalidate the reasoning for having such a provision available for use in appropriate circumstances. The use of the Act to date serves to highlight the considered approach of the Director of Public Prosecutions in exercising her discretion to direct that cases would be tried in the ordinary courts where it is possible to do so. The Garda Commissioner has made clear to me her view that the provision will be required for some time to come and I must have the utmost regard for the views of the Garda authorities on this matter. The Commissioner has the Government's full support in tackling these threats to the fabric of our society.
In the period under report, there were a total of 25 arrests under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, with 18 arrests under section 72 and a further seven arrests under section 73. Sections 71A and 76 were not used in the reporting period in question. The House will share my view that trial by jury must be preserved to the greatest extent possible. However, we cannot ignore the threat posed to the criminal process by individuals, terrorist groups and organised criminal groups who seek to intimidate jurors or potential jurors. Their aim is to subvert the criminal justice system but we cannot allow that to happen. We must take appropriate and proportionate measures to prevent such interference. In the circumstances, I consider it necessary to continue section 8 in operation for a further period of 12 months beginning on 30 June 2015. I commend these motions to the House.
One of the State's primary duties is to ensure its citizens and institutions are protected from attack. That is the purpose of the motions before us. By supporting them, my party is reaffirming that principle in our Parliament. Since these motions first came before this House, this island has been transformed beyond recognition through the Good Friday Agreement and the establishment of a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland. However, the relative peace we now enjoy cannot be taken for granted. As is clear from the stalled implementation of the Stormont House Agreement, considerable work remains to be done to integrate the two communities in Northern Ireland. The institutions are still fragile and a significant threat remains to the peace process 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, whether North or South of the Border. They are fighting against the democratic wishes of the people as expressed in the 32-county referendum on the Good Friday Agreement. To a large extent, the actions of these republicans are cover for drug dealing and racketeering. However, even though these dissident republicans do not have support, they are nonetheless capable of inflicting terrible damage. A dissident republican group was responsible for the worst atrocity of the Troubles in Omagh in 1998.
The amendments to the Offences Against the State Act introduced by the then Fianna Fáil Government in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing were necessary at the time. Unfortunately, we believe they are still necessary today. We cannot lower our guard or lessen our vigilance in the face of this ongoing threat. I have no doubt most Members would prefer that our laws were normalised and that the provisions were unnecessary. However, we cannot take that chance. 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 by laying down their guns and ceasing their violence. This is why Fianna Fáil supports 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 12 months from 17 June 2015.
It is also proposed to extend section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. This legislation was introduced by Fianna Fáil as a response to organised crime. It provides that certain crimes will be prosecuted before the Special Criminal Court rather than a judge and jury. The right to a trial by jury is an important aspect of the criminal justice system but this State cannot tolerate a situation whereby members of society who are asked to be jurors are exposed to intimidation and threats of violence from gangland figures. For that reason we agree that the section should be extended. The recent shootings in Dublin demonstrate the continuing need for this law. Gangland criminals will do anything to increase their profits from selling drugs. If they thought interfering with a jury would prevent them from going to prison, they would be unlikely to hesitate in intimidating and harassing jurors. We cannot tolerate such a possibility. For that reason, Fianna Fáil will support the extension of section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. Discretion should remain with the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether a person should be sent for trial by the Special Criminal Court. We do not believe it is appropriate that serious gangland figures should be tried by juries. Their violence and organised crime have deprived them of the right to trial by jury. We should not apologise for denying them this right because the safety of this country and its citizens depends on it.
At the same time every year, these motions come before the House and are opposed by Sinn Féin. Every year, we request that proper time be allocated to a debate on the motions but our requests are always denied and the motions are passed. This happens even though the legislation fundamentally undermines human rights, civil liberties and democratic life in this State. There is absolutely no basis for the continued use of draconian provisions such as these.
The provisions up for renewal and, indeed, the Offences Against the State Acts in their entirety, have no place in the present or future of this island. We are living in a new political reality and there remains a duty on the Minister and the Government to live up to their obligations under the Good Friday Agreement to deliver security normalisation, something which the renewal of this Act does not help to deliver.
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 here in the Twenty-six Counties and in the Six Counties. As every Member of this House will be aware, the Agreement was endorsed overwhelmingly by the majority of the people on this island. It needs to be protected and implemented in full.
It is clear there is too much apathy among too many in the Opposition on this issue. Such apathy, coupled with the misguided and misplaced enthusiasm of others in the Oireachtas, has obvious negative implications for society. As Members of this Oireachtas, we all have an onus to uphold and implement the Good Friday Agreement in full. That is why Sinn Féin is calling on every Member to vote against this motion and to campaign for the repeal of the Offences Against the State Acts in their entirety.
In the past, many Members have argued in favour of the provisions of the Acts 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. We live in a normal, law and order society, and normal policing is more than adequate to convict those who seek to undermine that law and order. There is no place in our society for the emergency legislation that was passed in 1998. The retention of this Act is an admission of the failure of this and previous Governments.
Draconian legislation can never be a substitute for robust law and strong and accountable policing. Sinn Féin has always been in a minority in this House in recent years when we have rightly opposed the 1998 Act. I am sure we will be in a minority again today, but we are not in a minority internationally as we analyse this measure. The United Nations Human Rights Committee shares our stance on it. An Garda Síochána and the courts can convict and ensure those who carry out acts of violence in this day and age serve a proper sentence for those actions.
It is our duty to make every attempt to convince so-called dissident groups to move away from violence, embrace peace and accept the will of the people as expressed in the Good Friday Agreement. We must also clearly explain and convince them of the opportunities the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process give republicans to further the republican and all-island agenda. That is where our focus for the next 12 months should be rather than seeking to mismanage the issue through outdated measures such as this Act. This is another reason I ask Members to oppose this motion.
It is important to look at the issue of so-called dissident activities. In recent years, there has been virtually zero support for them. Unfortunately, considerable elements have resorted to criminality. In essence, they are criminals. They are involved in criminal activities to line their own pockets and enrich themselves. They are not republicans. This is not going to help bring about a new, united republic. They could not be further from being republicans. There may well be some among them who hold a republican view.
In terms of those who are not involved in activities that enrich themselves, our challenge in these Houses is to engage with them and demonstrate the benefits of the peace process. The lack of leadership from this Government and the British Government in demonstrating the benefits of the peace process is the real issue here. Where are the economic benefits of the peace process for people living in working class areas, including Border counties like my own Donegal? What economic benefits have accrued? That is the message to defeat those who would engage in so-called dissident activities.
These types of laws are self-defeating because they almost make martyrs of some people by avoiding due process. The real challenge for these Houses is to demonstrate to communities that are suffering economically or politically that there are real and tangible benefits from the peace process. Can we have a re-engagement by both Governments to deal with the outstanding issues from the past and give victims on all sides answers about what happened to their loved ones?
I am mindful of the powerful documentary on Monday night, which for the first time on our State broadcaster demonstrated the role of the British state in co-ordinating the activities of loyalist paramilitaries from the 1970s. They reformed, controlled and armed those paramilitary organisations as well as directing them to the homes of republicans with intelligence and other forms of assistance. That occurred from the 1970s right through to the 2000s. Throughout all those years we never had a Government in this State that told the British Government it needed to take ownership of the full responsibility it had for directing those paramilitaries against the Nationalist community for all those decades. The British Government was a direct player in the conflict and arguably the most serious player, certainly in terms of the resources at its disposal throughout those decades. If that type of issue was dealt with robustly, it would send a message that the peace process is equal for all. Such action by our Government would do more to dissuade young people from joining these so-called dissident groups than the legislation which is before us again today.
As an Irish republican, I stand ready to play my part and my party will play its part in helping that process at any stage. That is the challenge for us all. If one looks at the role of the British and Irish Governments in recent years, they seem to have been more interested in their own particular agendas than in driving through the peace process. There was a lack of engagement and support from the Government leading up to the current budgetary crisis in Stormont.
The lack of leadership on the part of this Government is just not good enough. I reiterate the call made by my party's President, Deputy Adams, for the Taoiseach to engage directly with the British Prime Minister. 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 this legislation nor an argument in favour of it. I therefore call on people to vote accordingly and reject the motion.
I now turn to the motion regarding the Criminal Justice (Amendment) 2009. Admitting that the ordinary courts are not adequate to deal individuals who are involved in organised criminal activity is a sad reflection on any government or state. In such circumstances, the state in question has failed to deal with issues like jury intimidation and witness protection. If we are serious about dealing with organised criminal gangs, we need to put resources in place, and especially resources for An Garda Síochána.
I am sure those 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 and we will oppose this proposal for that reason. That is not flippantly to disregard the activities of these criminal gangs. We understand they cause misery and hardship and have no regard for law and order.
If we examine best international practice, we 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. That court has been criticised by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for its procedures and for being a special court which ordinarily should not be used against civilians.
Among the criticisms are the lack of a jury and the increasing use of the court to try organised ordinary crimes rather than the terrorist cases it was set up to handle. On the contrary, the jurisdiction of the Special Criminal Court is not restricted to offences related to the extraordinary circumstances which led to its establishment.
There is information available which shows that an increasing number of cases that are not obviously related to offences against the State are being tried in the Special Criminal Court, largely as a result of the exercise by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the power to certify cases involving other than scheduled offences for trial in the Special Criminal Court. This is simply unacceptable.
The Minister cannot argue for the retention of outdated legislation while at the same time implementing considerable cutbacks to An Garda Síochána and taking away its resources to combat criminality in communities throughout the State. There is a contradiction in the argument and for that reason we will oppose this motion.
The next speaking slot is shared by Deputies Clare Daly, Mick Wallace and Paul Murphy.
We are discussing the annual ritual whereby the Government of the day renews archaic and, some would claim, illegal legislation for a further 12 months, irrespective of whether any of the legislation has even been used. No cases have yet come before the Special Criminal Court in accordance with section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. The mere existence and practices of the court have been repeatedly criticised by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Trial by jury is a human right, the reasoning behind this right being that a jury offers a check against the abuses of unfettered state power.
Earlier this year the High Court ruled to extend further the power of the State while simultaneously undermining citizens' rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Before the ruling, any evidence that was deemed to have been obtained illegally could not be admitted in a prosecution no matter how inadvertent the mistake or no matter how damning the evidence. The law that was struck down served to vindicate the rights of citizens under the Constitution and the law and protect them from any abuse of State power. This was certainly a retrograde step. Friedrich Nietzsche once said:
He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.
The powers afforded by this legislation were for times of emergency in a very different Ireland. It is frightening that the State continues to extend these wide-ranging laws year on year with scant justification. They are laws more appropriate to the perversion of justice that characterises the affront to decency and humanity that is Guantanamo Bay.
The Minister has spoken about the need to protect the State from the threat of international terrorism, a threat whose existence, the Minister has previously admitted, is not supported by any evidence. I maintain that the greatest threat to Ireland from international terrorism comes exclusively from our continued support for the US war machine and our effective membership of the coalition of the willing, in the sense that we are allowing millions of US troops and weapons to pass through Shannon Airport on their way to destabilise the Middle East and beyond. An immediate cessation of that policy would be far more effective than the archaic State powers effected by this legislation.
Less than two weeks ago, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights raised a long list of serious concerns with the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock. Among more than 60 human rights concerns raised was a major concern that there is no domestic mechanism to hold the State accountable for violations of economic, social and cultural rights. It is concerning that Ireland will not incorporate economic, social and cultural rights in the Constitution. Why does this Government still refuse to make this progressive move? Would it have too many repercussions for regressive laws such as the one we are looking at now?
Without a shadow of a doubt there are many problems in the world, including a great deal of terrorism and violence. However, I believe most independent thinking people would admit that the majority of terrorism in the world today is caused by or starts with those in the US military. I do not think it is possible to contradict that any more. They have caused untold devastation. Let us consider the statistics on the amount of countries they have invaded and bombed. In 2014 alone, special American forces carried out military exercises in 133 countries, that is to say, over two thirds of the countries in the world. This is terrorism. It would be wonderful if our Government ever garnered the courage to decide that we should not allow Shannon to be used by these people.
I am unsure whether I am sad or embarrassed to be here again at the annual charade, whereby we are asked to wave through draconian legislation in order that it can operate for another 12 months. It bears emphasising that the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act was supposed to be passed as emergency legislation in 1998 but yet we renew it every year. The reason we are asked to renew it every year is that the Bill contains a radical departure from normal procedures in any civilised society with regard to due process. The potential for such legislation to be seriously abused is real and disturbing. We should step back and ask whether this legislation is in any way useful. As Deputy Wallace said, section 8 of the 2009 Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act, which we are being asked to renew today, has never been invoked by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Back in 2011 in a strongly worded statement the Irish Council for Civil Liberties said that the Government's renewal of this redundant gangland power in the Act defied reason. If it defied reason in 2011, it certainly defies reason in 2015.
When the Minister moved this Bill in the Seanad last week, she acknowledged that organised crime continues to represent a significant law enforcement issue. In other words, the presence of this draconian legislation has had absolutely zero impact on gangland crime. Rather, it is put forward to curtail civil liberties and does nothing to deal with what it is supposed to deal with. The proof is in the moving. This is fourth time in the lifetime of this Dáil that we have debated these issues. The first time around, on 13 June 2012, in moving to renew the 1998 Act, the former Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, told the Dáil: "The Garda assessment, shared by the PSNI, in regard to the terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland is that it is severe". On 19 June 2013, again moving the motion the same Minister said, "The Garda assessment, shared by the PSNI, of the terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland is that it is severe". On 19 June 2014, the current Minister for Justice and Equality said: "the Garda assessment, shared by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, of the terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland is that it is severe". Last week, the Minister again said, "the Garda assessment, which is shared by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, of the terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland is that it is regarded as severe". In other words, every year we have had a carbon copy. The wording has not changed, but neither has the supposed threat level. What benefit has this legislation brought during that time?
The real way of dealing with gangland and organised crime is to work with other Departments to address their social causes. If the Government wishes to deal with terrorist activities, it should deal with the conditions that breed them, including the position of our prisons, which have been shamefully ignored. Curtailing democratic rights in line with the recent Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill is an undemocratic overreaction to an overblown terrorist threat. It is simply not good enough. The idea that we would suspend a right to jury trial and other basic democratic human rights in the name of a so-called spurious threat is absolutely appalling. We should not be renewing it. We should absolutely do away with this repressive legislation.
Here again we have a ritualised endorsement and extension of a serious attack on basic civil liberties. This is particularly serious at a time when the reality of the actions of the State and how it defends the interests of the elites at the expense of the majority has become clear. Serious attacks on people's democratic right to protest have taken place over the course of the past half year or eight or nine months. This demonstrates clearly how tragedies, be it 11 September 2001 or the Omagh bombing, are used by the establishment to restrict civil liberties, citing emergency need only for the provisions to be extended for the 17th year in a row.
The Anti-Austerity Alliance and the Socialist Party oppose these measures. They were originally introduced in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing, an act which rightly caused revulsion among ordinary people throughout the country. The Socialist Party has a proud record of opposing the campaigns of paramilitaries across the island. We always pointed out that it was futile to attempt to bomb British imperialism out of Northern Ireland and that the actions of paramilitary groups only served to increase division and create sectarianism rather than uniting people. We have seen the development of a sectarian head count in the North in recent years. Clearly, the paramilitary campaigns were not successful, even on their own terms.
However, the Government has behaved cynically in bringing forward these proposals. Back in 1998, the then Government introduced the measures to deal with a specific situation. Since then, we have seen them renewed every year, with warnings that threat levels remain the same and references to paramilitaries in the North, international terrorism and, on this occasion, criminal gangs. This is fundamentally anti-democratic legislation and an attack on civil liberties. Draconian legislation is not the solution to the problem of terrorism. On the contrary, it becomes another weapon in the hands of the establishment to clamp down on people's right to protest and on movements that are opposed to the establishment. We have seen similar legislation used across the world to deal with social movements and protests. The classic example of this is in the United States, where the PATRIOT Act has been employed to massively curtail dissent and protest. In Brazil last year, anti-terrorism laws were used to clamp down on the huge protests that took place in the context of the football World Cup being held in that country.
In Ireland, we have seen the courts and the Garda Síochána used as weapons against the mass movement of people in opposition to water charges and austerity. We have seen people jailed for expressing their democratic right to protest, with one person still in prison at this time. We have seen the Garda used as a private security firm, on behalf of the richest man in Ireland, to impose water meters on communities which do not want them. We have seen elected representatives, women and children dragged out of their beds at 7 a.m. by a squadron of gardaí for engaging in a peaceful sit-down protest. Why on earth would anyone trust this Government or a future Government made up of the parties of the establishment to use these powers responsibly rather than against movements which dare to challenge the establishment?
I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate. In particular, I thank Deputy Niall Collins for supporting the motions. I remind colleagues that the only parties that are attacking democracy are the criminals and terrorists who would seek to undermine it. I remind the House, too, that we have independent courts in this country which have served the State well and whose integrity is beyond question. The Judiciary is the final arbiter in this process. The measures before us this evening are not undemocratic. My presence here and the discussion we have had are an assertion of the democratic principle. It is for the Dáil to vote on these matters as it sees fit. Bringing these measures before the House every year is an essential part of the democratic process. It is the democratic way to present measures to Members and request their approval.
Despite Deputy Paul Murphy's suggestions to the contrary, this is not about suppressing social movements and protest. That is inaccurate. The Deputy will see from the reports that were laid before the House precisely how and in what circumstances the measures have been used. Any democratic state has the right to defend itself from elements which seek to undermine its authority and structures. Although the legislation does provide for trial at the Special Criminal Court, it also makes clear that trial in the conventional courts is not ruled out. The Director of Public Prosecutions has discretion in this area, and the fact that no cases have been sent forward to the Special Criminal Court shows these are not decisions that are taken lightly.
At the same time, the lack of use does not mean the provisions are not necessary. The State must be in position, as I said, to deal with elements in our society that would seek to undermine it. This is not a charade or ritual. The legislation is before the House because it is considered vital to retain it. If we examine the work that is done by the Garda authorities, the ongoing efforts to combat organised crime, the firearms that are seized and the continual success in disrupting the activities of those elements which would seek to do harm to this country, it is very clear there are real threats facing us. Deputy Clare Daly is correct that on each occasion these measures have been put before the House by this Government, we have stated that the threat in Northern Ireland remains severe. We have said that because it is true. It is reflective of the reality of the situation and the challenges we continue to face. I agree with Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn that both Governments must work continually to improve the situation in Northern Ireland and maintain the peace. He is absolutely correct in that.
I make no apologies to the House for the measures contained in these proposals. It is the fundamental duty of Government and all Members of this House to do our utmost to ensure the security of our people. We cannot contemplate a situation where democracy is undermined by terrorism. Having just returned from a two-day meeting of justice and home affairs Ministers in Luxembourg, where the threat of terrorism across Europe remains top of the agenda, it is clear there is no room for complacency respecting, for instance, the threat posed by ISIS. We have seen attacks in France and Belgium. We see from the conflicts in Syria and Libya the huge challenges that present in trying to support people in those countries. There is an enormous challenge to face right across that part of the world.
We cannot contemplate a situation where democracy is undermined by terrorism. As Minister for Justice and Equality, I have a responsibility, with my Government colleagues, to recognise and protect the human rights of all citizens. There is no greater human right than the right to life. That is why I commend these motions to the House.
7 o'clock
Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 89; Níl, 26.
Tá
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Bannon, James.
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Collins, Áine.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- Lyons, John.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McFadden, Gabrielle.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Mahony, John.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Perry, John.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
Níl
- Adams, Gerry.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Collins, Joan.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Daly, Clare.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Halligan, John.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Mathews, Peter.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O'Brien, Jonathan.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Pádraig Mac Lochlainn.
Question declared carried.