Before I call on the Minister to open the debate, I remind Members that there are two separate motions being debated, namely, the motion regarding the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the motion regarding the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. The motions will be moved separately, but will be debated together and decided by separate questions. There is an amendment tabled to both motions by Sinn Féin and the Labour Party has tabled an amendment to the first 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, 2023 and ending on 29th June, 2024.
The two motions before the House seek the approval of Dáil Éireann to continue in force provisions of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 aimed at tackling terrorism, and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 in respect of organised crime. Given the nature of these important provisions, the Houses of the Oireachtas has decided that they should be periodically reviewed. As Minister for Justice, I am required to lay reports before the Oireachtas on the use of the relevant provisions in the two Acts, and reports covering the 12 months up to 31 May 2023 were placed in the Oireachtas Library on 20 June.
This coming 15 August will see the 25th anniversary of the Omagh bombing. This barbaric and brutal murder by the Real IRA of 29 innocent people and injuries caused to more than 200 people will live long in our memories, and I think we all know where we were when we heard what happened. Our thoughts are always with the families of those murdered and the survivors of this heinous act. The House will be aware that the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was a necessary and wholly proportionate response to the atrocity at Omagh. It is imperative our laws and our authorities are properly equipped to deal with the threat from terrorism.
It must be recognised that in the subsequent years there has been steady progress towards building a lasting peace on this island. Earlier this year, we commemorated the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. This historic agreement demonstrates how democratic policies can improve the lives of citizens in a divided society. There remains much work to do. Peace is fragile, as we can all very clearly see, and it needs to be protected. This time last year, we all welcomed the lowering of the threat level in Northern Ireland. Regrettably, this was short-lived. In March, the UK authorities raised the threat level to severe, meaning a terrorist attack is highly likely. This has obvious security implications for the State and is of real concern.
It is clear the so-called dissident republicans, who have their origins in the Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army, INLA, continue to represent a threat. Despite the progress towards peace made over the years, they continue to seek to return to the violence of the past. Images of masked men in paramilitary uniforms on the streets of Derry earlier this year and youths throwing petrol bombs at police are things we hoped we would all never see again. They serve to remind us that we cannot take for granted the enormous opportunity for peace and progress that was brought about by the Good Friday Agreement.
We must continue to do all that we can to deal with this threat, and let no one be under any illusion that these groups do not represent a threat to this State. They have remained resolute in their opposition to democracy and the rule of law and all that the Good Friday Agreement stands for, and they remain wedded to brutality and criminality. It is also well established that these groups have links to, and operate hand in hand with, organised criminals.
The attempted murder in February of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell, which was a callous and cowardly act in front of his young son, is proof positive that dissident republicans are ruthless and reckless and continue in their attempts to maim and murder PSNI officers. As Minister for Justice, I pay tribute to the members of An Garda Síochána and the PSNI, who continue to co-operate closely and work tirelessly to keep communities safe and to counter all threats from terrorism. It is our duty to ensure those tasked with protecting us from this threat have at their disposal the appropriate measures to meet it. In that regard, I am firmly of the view that the provisions I am seeking the renewal of today are necessary and required to support An Garda Síochána in investigating, disrupting and dismantling the activities of terrorists.
The report laid before this House, in addition to providing information on the use of the provisions in question over the past year, also notes the clear view of the Garda Commissioner that the Act continues to be an important tool in ongoing efforts to combat terrorism. Of course, many provisions of the Offences against the State Acts have equal application to the international terrorist threat. We are not immune from this evolving threat and we must remain vigilant. We continue to work closely with our EU and international partners in this regard.
The House will be aware that in February 2021, I established an independent expert review group to examine all aspects of the Offences against the State Acts. The group was asked to take into account, first, the current threat posed by domestic and international terrorism and organised crime; second, the duty to deliver a fair and effective criminal justice system to ensure the protection of communities and the security of the State; and third , Ireland's obligations with regard to constitutional and European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, rights and international law. The chairperson, Mr. Justice Michael Peart, submitted reports from the majority and minority of the membership in May, and I published them last week, ensuring they would be available to Deputies ahead of today's debate. I want to put on record my gratitude to the chairperson for leading this important work, and my appreciation of the dedicated effort and input of all of the members.
It is clear that the group approached its task with rigour, commissioning research and analysis, and undertaking extensive consultations with our statutory agencies, with other experts in this jurisdiction and elsewhere, civil society and the wider public to inform its deliberations. The Acts, including the 1998 Act that is the subject of this debate today, have served us well, and continue to serve us well, in tackling subversives and organised crime, and fulfil a vital role in our criminal justice system. Given their importance over many decades, any proposals to reform must be thoroughly considered and approached with the utmost care.
There is much to digest in the majority's package of recommendations and in the perspective of the minority, and as I have said, it is important we take time to consider carefully how best to proceed. With this in mind, I have asked my officials to consult other Departments, the Garda Commissioner, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and the Courts Service, all to inform the preparation of a substantive response for consideration by Government in due course.
I have also asked my officials to consult the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission to ensure a broad human rights perspective is captured.
However, in the meantime, having regard to the very clear view of the Garda authorities as noted in the report laid before the House that the 1998 Act continues to be one of the most important tools in ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism, I am absolutely satisfied these provisions continue to be required and they should remain in operation for a further 12 months.
I note that Sinn Féin, which has never supported the Offences against the State Acts or the Special Criminal Court, has tabled an amendment calling for legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the review group as soon as possible. It is a merely another excuse from Sinn Féin to justify sitting on its hands once more on a hugely significant vote for the criminal justice system. As I have said, I have asked my officials to begin detailed consultations on the findings of the reports of the review group. I do not think it would be appropriate, given how we are dealing with pillars of the criminal justice system, which have served us well, to give a commitment to legislation without full consideration of the issues. As Minister for Justice, I have too much respect for An Garda Síochána, the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and the courts to do so. I must first consult those authorities and others to inform a substantive response for consideration by Government.
It is imperative we do not do anything to undermine the efforts of the authorities with responsibility for countering paramilitary and criminal groups and protecting communities. I know just how important the Offences against the State Acts and the Special Criminal Court are. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Sinn Féin. It spent decades defending and supporting attacks on our State and our criminal justice system - supporting those who murdered gardaí - and it will sit on its hands again tomorrow night when it comes to supporting the renewal of this legislation. Sinn Féin cannot be trusted with our criminal justice system. It can only be trusted with finding itself an excuse not to do the right thing.
Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 is also the subject of a motion before the House. It refers to a small number of serious organised crime offences that are set out in Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Section 8 of the 2009 Act makes these offences scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the Offences against the State Act 1939, that is to say, trials for these offences are to be heard in the Special Criminal Court subject to the power of the DPP to direct that the offences be tried in the ordinary courts. The purpose of this provision is to guard against the possibility of interference with jury trial by ruthless criminal gangs who behave as though they are beyond the law. Everyone in this House is fully aware of the threat that society and the criminal justice system face from organised crime gangs, which will stop at nothing in pursuit of their criminal activities. There is no disputing the damage they have inflicted upon communities throughout the country. They have consistently demonstrated they have nothing but disdain for the rule of law. Nobody can doubt they have will not hesitate to use extreme violence and murder in pursuing their aims and evading justice. We have seen this time and again.
This Government is fully committed to supporting An Garda Síochána in combating those involved in organised crime. This is reflected in the unprecedented allocation of more than €2 billion in budget 2023. An Garda Síochána is working intensively to bear down on those involved and deserves praise for its considerable success in disrupting the activities of criminal gangs, making significant seizures of drugs and weapons, bringing organised criminals to justice and, most importantly, preventing loss of life. As Minister for Justice I acknowledge this important work. It is clear from the report that An Garda Síochána made a significant number of arrests in respect of the offences relevant to section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, with a number of convictions recorded in the Special Criminal Court during the reporting period. The views of An Garda Síochána are clearly set out in the report and they are that the continued operation of this provision is required. It is my strong view, therefore, that section 8 should be continued in operation for a further 12 months.
I will refer briefly to the Special Criminal Court as it touches on both motions before the House today and was the subject of consideration by the independent review group. The Special Criminal Court was established to respond to the threat to the State and its people from republican terrorism over the decades and it continues to deal with the subversive threat from paramilitary groups and the most serious organised crime cases. It serves to eliminate the very real risk to jurors and potential jurors by subversives and organised crime groups. While it is, of course, my firm view that jury trial should be preserved to the greatest extent possible, we cannot ignore the threat posed by such groups. It is also the case that the Special Criminal Court is only used in limited circumstances, with 21 cases tried before it in 2021 - 4% of cases overall.
The assessment of the majority of the review group is that there is, and will continue to be, an ongoing need for a non-jury court as permitted by the Constitution to try serious criminal offences in certain limited and exceptional circumstances. Such an assessment requires very serious consideration in the context of continuing to safeguard the security of the State and our citizens. I note the majority has not simply recommended that a standing non-jury court be legislated for but has also devised a suite of proposals relating to how it might operate to ensure the rights of accused persons are fully respected and to support transparency and promote public confidence. Also of note is that the minority, while not endorsing the recommendation of the majority for a standing non-jury court, accepts that recourse to jury-less courts may be warranted in the interests of justice where there is "a real and present danger of jury intimidation".
It will be clear, as I have said, that there is much to digest and reflect on in the work of the review group and I intend to take time to consult and to consider how best to proceed. This debate provides an opportunity for Deputies to share their initial reactions to the reports and I look forward to engaging with all Deputies on this.
As set out in the two reports that I have laid before the House, it is the clear view of An Garda Síochána that the provisions in the 1998 Act and the 2009 Act continue to be necessary and effective in ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime. On the basis of the information set out in those reports and the advice of the Garda authorities, I propose that the House should approve the continued operation of the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act and the 2009 Act for a further 12 months commencing on 30 June.
I move:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
":
— 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, 2023 and ending on 29th June, 2024; and
— calls on the Minister for Justice to bring forward legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review Group as soon as possible.".
I thank the Minister for publishing the review in advance last week. The Offences against the State Act goes back to an Ireland of 84 years ago - 1939 and the outbreak of the Second World War. The legislation introduced internment camps in the Curragh in Kildare where de Valera imprisoned without trial republicans, German soldiers who had strayed off course and some communists. When Hamilton Neil Goold-Verschoyle, who was a communist, began political classes in the Curragh, a bishop contacted de Valera and had him removed to another prison, which I believe was Arbour Hill, for spreading such foreign propaganda. It was an era of executions and military tribunals. Brendan Behan was interned there and later wrote The Quare Fellow about one such execution, which was in Mountjoy Prison.
I knew some of the men were interned back then, such as Tomo Costello, Denna Fitzgerald from Tralee, a Kerry footballer, and the Landers brothers. Some of them were still alive when I was younger. Others I heard about, such as Mr. Goold-Verschoyle, Mr. Kinch, the famous writer Máirtín Ó Cadhain and Brendan Behan. Austin Clarke wrote a poem about them. Some were executed after speedy trials and buried beside the path between the main gate and the old women’s prison in Mountjoy. Those men are all dead now but the emergency legislation introduced during what this State euphemistically called the Emergency trundles on and gets us from A to B, or from 2022 to 2023. Nobody can argue with any substance that the circumstances that gave rise to the introduction of this emergency legislation exist today. Even if we were to disregard the Second World War legislation, there were 497 prosecutions back in 2008 under the renewable sections, while in 2022, there were seven. There is a contradiction between what is said in the annual report - the views of the Garda authorities that the second Special Criminal Court is indicative of the use of the court and why it is necessary and what the Minister said, which is that only 21 cases were held there in the past year.
Recently, we all commemorated the Good Friday Agreement in the 25th year since its passing by the people of this island. It is an internationally binding agreement and other agreements have followed since in relation to the North, yet the Government has continued to run away from its role in implementing these agreements. It is happy to be pictured when agreements are signed but not to face up to the hard work of implementing them. Nowhere is this more clear than in its foot dragging relating to the Offences against the State Act.
There are also important Good Friday Agreement considerations. The Hederman committee arose out of the Good Friday Agreement. It spoke about the importance of equivalence between jurisdictions on this island. Again I hope this review will not lie unimplemented for 20 years and that the comprehensive and well-researched report produced by Michael Peart’s highly regarded team can drag Irish anti-criminal gang legislation into the 21st century.
The Good Friday Agreement is unambiguous in the obligations it imposed. It says: "The Irish Government will initiate a wide-ranging review of the Offences Against the State Acts 1939-85 [and beyond, we say] with a view to ... reform and dispensing with those elements no longer required as circumstances permit.” Yet the Hederman review was never implemented. These elements were not dispensed with, and 21 years after that review, the work needed to be redone.
Hederman's report said:
As will be seen from the Committee's detailed analysis of this legislation contained in succeeding chapters of this Report, it believes that what is now required in a modern environment is for the Oireachtas to repeal the existing Offences against the State Acts and to replace them with one single consolidated item of legislation containing significant reforms in respect of the statutory regime which has heretofore obtained.
This quote is from the Hederman review, not the recent one, published in 2002, although one could be mistaken for thinking it comes from the most recent review. There is an old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The Government is guilty of this, with the renewal of this legislation serving nothing more than its own political expediency.
We know that communities want to feel safe and we wanted to contribute to this discussion, this review and this modernisation of the law. In Sinn Féin we sought, we secured support for and we were the only party which made a submission to the review group. One of these was more a political recommendation but the other recommendations were that the use of the emergency legislation should come to an end; that the practices of other jurisdictions be examined and the Law Reform Commission's recommendations be implemented; and should the committee recommend that non-jury trials remain in exceptional circumstances, that each case be decided on its merits and that reasonable and objective grounds be given for any decision to hold a non-jury trial
The report was released by the Minister last week. The report endorses very significantly and vindicates our position and our contribution and I most definitely welcome its publication. What is most welcome, apart from its legal recommendations, is the advocacy of the momentum to the modernisation of our criminal justice system. It proposes that this is not be based upon conjecture or fear. Aneurin Bevan used to talk of fear of the bogeyman and used to say that if one does not have a programme then a bogeyman will do. It should be based on statistics and data which can objectively state why a long-held desire for jury trials be maintained.
The report sends a message to the entire system that we need this data to improve justice for victims of crime, not only in this situation but for domestic and sexual violence, where it is sorely lacking in comparison to neighbouring jurisdictions.
I have been listening to what the Government has been saying since the publication of this report and we hope, maybe against expectation because I can detect lethargy, prevarication and excuses layering across each other over the past week, this new report will be implemented. I have listened to Government spokespersons saying that we must consult, discuss and inform ourselves and that we require consideration. There is no commitment, however, no sense of urgency, no desire to grasp the baton from the review committee and to carry it along to the final lap to legislation to improve, to renew and to modernise. That suits the Government.
The report itself proposes abolishing the separate scheduled offences, abolishing the Offences against the State Act and appointing a judge to review the decision to send to the non-jury court and whether the provisions of the legislation have been complied with by the DPP in any case where a decision is issued that a case can be tried in a non-jury court. It suggests obliging the DPP to consider in every case whether there are measures that could be taken, or protections that could be provided, to address any reasonably or known risk of jury intimidation and therefore negate the need for trial in a non-jury court. It also suggests that the Garda Commissioner should personally approve any submission by gardaí that the use of the non-jury court is appropriate. It further requires the DPP personally, herself, to make the decisions as to whether a non-jury court be used.
There is also work to be carried out by the Legislature regarding alternative measures to protect jurors where potential risks arise and therefore negate the necessity for trial in the non-jury court. That is where we can have a debate.
The report also says that an accused should not be convicted solely on belief evidence, suggests the use of a "privilege" judge, and that inferences from silence should not be sole corroboration, and thus clearing out the outdated and holding on to essential weapons in the fight against criminal enterprises. We want such changes to be both human rights compliant but also safe for communities, for victims of crime and for gardaí themselves. We are willing to play our part in that.
We must remember that the legislation is, in the words of the authors of the new report, not intended to be implemented "on a piecemeal basis". While I have sympathy with the recommendations of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, in regards to the scheduled offences, which the Labour Party attempted to introduce with its amendment, we do need to avoid a piecemeal approach.
All of this is in the context of modernisation of the whole system, which I mentioned earlier. The Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland made several recommendations relating to cybercrime and cybersecurity, with more resources and the fast-tracking of recruitment recommended. These recommendations must be implemented and the vacancies and staff turnover within the National Cyber Security Centre, NCSC, should be addressed also. We have also seen several major cyber-attacks take place on State institutions and we cannot be seen as a soft touch by any rogue states.
Other measures outside of the court system are also required. The recruitment of forensic accountants and other experts and specialists as required within CAB and other bodies charged with fighting financial crime should be prioritised. There have been a number of delays in transposing EU legislation in this area and cross-border collaboration will require robust legislative frameworks to be in place. Referrals to the Court of Justice of the European Union were only narrowly avoided.
We need modernisation and not the renewal of outdated legislation. As we and others have stated repeatedly, the idea of having to renew legislation each and every year is not ideal. If this renewal did not exist, the Government would probably feel the need to invent it. On the one hand it has accepted the overwhelming weight of legal and academic analysis in establishing the review and publishing the report, but is acting as though it does not want the circus of this renewal vote to end. The Government insists that the special court works and paints all opposition to it as somewhat subversive, but it wishes to be congratulated on the work of others in seeking change. It is for the Government's own political ends to create this political set piece every year.
Look at what we have seen from successive Fine Gael Ministers for Justice since they took control of the Department about 12 years ago. There is a retention and recruitment crisis in the Garda. I spoke recently to a garda in west Dublin who said that pre-Covid, there were 23 gardaí on his unit and now there are only 12. Courts across the State have very significant backlogs and lengthy waits for trials. Coroners' courts have delays and families cannot move on while waiting and wondering what happened to their loved ones who have passed. Legislation to combat white-collar crime, the handmaiden of serious and organised crime, has been implemented past EU deadlines. Certain crime levels are increasing. Prisons are starved of necessary resources, increasing risks to staff and public safety.
The report of the review group offers a way forward. There is a serious and credible threat from organised crime. These groups rely on instilling fear within vulnerable communities and think little of compromising and infiltrating the justice system. All courts need to be integrated into a single reformed modern criminal justice system, without the annual provisions. Resources must be provided to An Garda Síochána.
The majority opinion of the report backs this very clearly and says: "Many of the recommendations which follow throughout this report are simply a reiteration of what the Hederman Committee recommended in 2002." The review is clear in its view that the current system should not continue. There are great merits in the views of the majority and the minority and we will consider them fully whenever the enabling legislation is brought forward, hopefully as soon as possible.
I appeal to the Minister to refrain from the temptation to hold this set piece again next year. We have moved an amendment to call upon her to implement the recommendations of the report, and not on a piecemeal basis but as soon as possible. I hope the Minister will respect these recommendations in full. The work to implement the report can be completed and a Bill moved soon. An implementation body, which we have seen in other aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, has been established and should be established here. We are facilitating and will facilitate this. We will work with the Government. We do not want to come back again here next year and that is why we urge all Deputies to accept our amendment and to put an end to this.
I would like to move amendment No. 2.
That amendment cannot be dealt with until the Sinn Féin amendment is dealt with.
I will wait until I can speak to my amendment.
The Deputy may only speak to it now.
Deputy Ó Ríordáin may speak to it. If the Sinn Féin amendment is unsuccessful, he will be asked to move his amendment.
I will speak to my amendment if that is in order. I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for the clarity.
We support amendment No. 1, which was tabled by Sinn Féin. Our amendment proposes:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
":
— resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12 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, 2023 and ending on 29th June, 2024; and
— for want of any or any adequate information being presented to it, in order to enable the Dáil to make an informed finding as to the inadequacy of the ordinary courts to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order in relation to the offences under sections 6 to 9 and 12 of that Act, declines to resolve that section 14 of that Act should continue in operation from or after 30th June, 2023.".
This is not a motion about the Special Criminal Court or about renewing or confirming that court. The Special Criminal Court was established on foot of a Government proclamation in 1972. The court will continue in being under that proclamation regardless of how we vote on the motion tomorrow. The motion before us is only about the need for annual renewal of some important changes we made to the Offences against the State Act in 1998. Most of those changes were about creating new offences or new rules of evidence and these are set out in sections 2 to 4, inclusive, 6 to 12, inclusive, and 17 of the 1998 Act. Labour has supported those new provisions. In fact, we do not see the need to bring them before the Dáil and Seanad every year for further confirmation. We believe they should be part of the permanent criminal code.
Our problem has always been with section 14 of the Act, which we are also being asked to renew for a further year. Section 14 declares in respect of each of the offences under the Act, the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order. For a further 12 months without examining the circumstances of any individual case, all prosecutions for any of those offences can only be by way of a non-jury trial in the Special Criminal Court. We have consistently objected to the blanket referral of all prosecutions for specific offences to the Special Criminal Court.
We have also consistently called for proper review of this legislation. Now we have the report of the independent review group and we are confirmed in our position. The minority in the review group would abolish the Special Criminal Court completely but the majority report supports our position as a party. The majority recommends that there should be no blanket referrals of offences to a non-jury court and instead the DPP should use the power she already has to decide on a case-by-case basis if there is a sufficient threat to the administration of justice to justify sending a particular trial to that court. The independent review group has recommended many more reforms and safeguards. We need a serious debate on this report and we need the opportunity to interrogate the Government's position on its recommendations.
I return to the motion and our amendment to it. If our amendment is passed, the Special Criminal Court will remain in being and the offences created under the 1998 Act will remain part of our criminal law. The only change would be that those offences would not be automatically referred en bloc to the Special Criminal Court. They would be prosecuted in the ordinary way before the ordinary courts unless the DPP exercised her discretion in a particular case to send that case to the Special Criminal Court.
We also highlight another aspect of this in our amendment. We say that "for want of any or any adequate information being presented to it, in order to enable the Dáil to make an informed finding as to the inadequacy of the ordinary courts to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order" the Dáil should decline to renew section 14. We object to being asked to declare in this perfunctory way that the ordinary criminal courts are inadequate without any evidence or any informed consideration on the issue. We have always argued that annual pro forma decision of the two Houses on the adequacy of the ordinary courts is faulty because it should be evidence based. The declaration in the 1998 Act, which we are asked to renew annually, amounts to a legislative finding. However, no body of information has been provided to the Members of both Houses on foot of which we could only make such finding.
As a body, we have not been given any information as to the adequacy of criminal courts or the risk of corruption or intimidation of juries. The courts have made it clear that both Houses are entitled to make increase and to be informed through their committees in aid of the legislative power. However, neither House and no committee of either or both Houses has at any stage in the years since 1998 ever debated let alone had hearings and made findings on this issue. Under the 1998 Act, the Houses of the Oireachtas retained for themselves the power to make annual decisions on these matters. To do so properly the Houses must take the very basic step of properly informing themselves about the matters on which they will decide. For want of any evidence, how can we validly make this declaration that section 14 must be continued?
The majority report of the review group states:
A guiding approach for us is that the recommendations which follow should be read as systemic and based on a stricter approach overall, with more checks and balances. Our recommendations are made on the basis that they would be implemented as a package, with each element a facet of the envisaged reform. What we propose is not being put forward on an individual basis for piecemeal implementation.
Therefore, there is a single proposal before us from the review group rather than a menu of choices. That should make the job easier for the Minister. She and the Government are entitled to some time to arrive at their final position but they cannot expect that it will be acceptable to come to the Houses again this time next year and repeat this exercise as if the report had never been published. They cannot expect to be able to sideline this report in the same way the comprehensive review carried out by the Hederman committee in 2002 has been sidelined.
Tá áthas orm go bhfuil deis agam labhairt ar an ábhar seo agus gur éirigh liom deis mhaith a fháil laistigh de 11 nóiméad.
The first thing I must say is that although I am only stating the obvious, throughout my life I have been opposed to violence no matter where it is used. I have always made my best endeavours to discourage people from seeing violence as the way forward. That is particularly relevant today because more and more states as well as individuals seem to be turning to violence as a solution to our problems. The second thing I would like to say is that organised crime is a major challenge in our society. Again, I have always believed as well as dealing with the perpetrators of crime, we must try to reduce crime. We must look at the causes of crime. We must ask ourselves why so much crime derives from intergenerationally deprived communities with poor educational activities. What could we do better to try to help those communities which is, in the ultimate, best way of trying to reduce crime? In that regard, I particularly regret the demise of the RAPID programme. It was abolished in 2011, which hit the most deprived communities hardest. We must ask those who take illegal drugs, including people who use cocaine and say, "Sure, it's only recreational", who they get it from and whether they are part of this whole problem collectively.
I welcomed the report on the Special Criminal Court and the Offences against the State Act. I have not had an opportunity to read this report yet. I normally do these things over the summer. I collect all the reports and then when I get a bit of an opportunity I read them, and I will do that over the summer. The report proposes a consultative process with An Garda Síochána, the DPP and so on. I suggest that there is one glaring omission in the people the Minister plans to consult. That is the Independent Reporting Commission established by statute here and in London on foot of an international treaty agreed in November 2015.
Its purpose is to progress towards ending paramilitary activity relating to Northern Ireland in both jurisdictions. It is worth noting what its members said in their recent reports, with which the Minister is familiar but perhaps the House is not so familiar. They said, inter alia, that “to those two Tracks should be added a further dimension, namely that to end paramilitarism we also need an agreed formal process of Group Transition, involving direct engagement with the Paramilitary Groups themselves.” They went on to say that a critical question is who would own the process. Our answer last year was and remains that it is the two Governments and the Executive acting on a co-ordinated, collective basis, as happened for the Fresh Start agreement. They say they envisage that “the overall process would be overseen by a formal body established for that purpose by the two Governments”. In the meantime, they suggest that the two Governments appoint an independent person who would be authorised to speak to the various parties, including the paramilitary groups.
As the Minister knows, this is a statutory body with three very responsible people on it. Its recommendations should be acted upon forthwith. I understand there is a favourable disposition here. We have to persuade the British that having set it up, they should act on the recommendations.
I noted the Minister's comments regarding the high threat level in Northern Ireland. In light of the very wrong attack on Detective Chief Inspector Caldwell, that is very obvious and very unfortunate. However, it seems to me that the threat level is much lower here, based on my observations and on verifiable fact, which I will come to. We should ask ourselves what is so remarkably different about the approach in this State compared with the approach in Northern Ireland and why the threat level is demonstrably very different here.
This is where implementing the recommendations of the Independent Reporting Commission report becomes vital. Thirty years of work with republican prisoners has convinced me that dialogue is the most effective way of reducing republican violence and persuading people that there are more peaceful ways of promoting their objectives of a united, independent Ireland. I would like to cite some interesting figures. In December 2020, there were approximately 30 prisoners held in the republican wing, E block, in Portlaoise prison, including three from a group called ONH, or Óglaigh na hÉireann. ONH went on ceasefire in January 2018. It is worth noting there are no prisoners associated with that group in prison, either North or South. In regard to all other groups that are in E block in Portlaoise, the number has reduced from 30 to seven in that time and there is one further prisoner awaiting finalisation of a request for extradition which is before the Supreme Court. To my knowledge, there are no prisoners out on bail or on remand who would be likely to wind up in E block. Of the prisoners there, a number are due out within the next year or two.
In view of what the Minister said about the threat level, would it be possible for her to get me figures in respect of the number of republicans brought before the Special Criminal Court in each of the past five years? As I have said time and again, when working towards peace and interacting with various groups, and I have visited prisoners, North and South, on a consistent basis, I find that we make more progress through dialogue, interaction, listening and persuasion. That is what the body that the two Governments set up are actually saying and they have validated this view. They have validated that it is interaction and acting on that interaction that is likely to see a rich seam of progress.
I do not have time today to go into all of the issues from the different perspectives but we need to move forward. The Good Friday Agreement has been discussed ad nauseam. There must be a lot of people making money out of running symposia on the agreement. One thing I was disappointed about when it was discussed was that I did not see an awful lot of debate. I did not go to too many of the events. At those I did attend, an important issue was the role of the prisoners in progressing matters in the 1994 to 1997 period. Without dealing with that issue and without interacting with them, the Good Friday Agreement would never have happened. I can remember back in 1994, 1995 and 1996, when I was going over to England to visit the prisoners - to say that the conditions were not good is an understatement - that people were saying: “What are you doing? You are consorting with men of violence.” I believed at that time, as I still believe today, that dialogue with anybody is never ever wrong. If somebody is willing to speak to you, it is only reasonable to speak back. I have boxes of files at home from that period, and letters, correspondence and submissions. There were a lot of people who eventually got the message. In my view, there was no Good Friday Agreement, no matter what the politicians agreed, if we had not grasped that nettle. We had to interact with the people who were involved in violence because if we did not, we were missing the problem.
I remember talking to politicians many years ago when they would not talk to Sinn Féin, as the Sinn Féin Members present today will remember. They were not going to talk to the DUP, although they liked talking to the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Official Unionists. I said that if that was the problem, there was no problem; there was no problem with violence. We had to get down on the ground to see how we could move forward.
The Minister mentioned that, thankfully, there have been relatively few killings since Omagh. There have been a number, and I seriously regret each one, but what I say to myself is this: you never, ever got thanks for the person who did not know that if history had been different, they would have been attacked or killed. You will never get thanks for that. The only way that can be measured is by measuring what it was like before action was taken and then measure afterwards. Ultimately, Irish history tells us one thing when it comes to republican violence, which is that repression does not actually have the effect that those who promote it think it does, and dialogue always seems to have more effect. There are people in our society who could speak much more authoritatively about that than I can.
In recent years, I have been working with two other people who are well-known and well-respected community activists. They are impeccable individuals who have worked against violence. It would also be worth listening to them and to their perspectives. They are people who interact with the Northern authorities. We need to move this forward. I am not convinced. I will put it this way. If we measure North against South and what we do differently in the South compared with the North, we will find the key to the way forward.
We return to Sinn Féin. I call Deputy Martin Kenny.
It is 21 years since we had the Hederman report on the Offences against the State Act. Many of that report's recommendations are similar to those of the report we have before us in the past week. I was thinking about this. We seem to have a situation whereby we generate reports continually but do not implement them or do much about them.
That needs to change, and it needs to do so quickly. The report came out 21 years ago because it was written into the Good Friday Agreement that emergency legislation relating to the conflict, North and South, would be examined and reviewed and, where possible, rescinded because it was considered to be conflict-related legislation. We all accept that there are aspects of it that are primarily used now in regard to the very violent criminal gangs which, in the main, plague our communities with drugs, violence and all of that. They have huge power, a massive network and many are international in nature. We have to have 21st century legislation to deal with that and firm legislation to protect communities and people, including jurors and witnesses and everyone involved in the system including gardaí. We want to see that put in place. We want to build consensus with the Minister and everyone else in the House to do so. That is why we accept what is in the report from the experts who were appointed by the Minister’s predecessor, Deputy Flanagan. After the general election in 2020, I spoke to the then Minister, Deputy Flanagan, about this matter. Initially, he was resistant to having a review because he felt that would be to concede that there was something wrong with the legislation. He did not want to do that, but he eventually came around and said he would establish the review. He is to be commended for that.
It was always our view, and I think it was the view of most people in the Opposition, that if there was a reasonable examination of this legislation that the issues we have been raising on this side of the House for decades would be seen to be a problem and the idea of having recourse to non-jury courts on a continual basis was something that should be re-examined and was something that should not happen. Other aspects of what was put in place, such as the evidence of a senior garda and how the whole system works, including how the referral to the Special Criminal Court worked, did not work. They have been the subject of criticism internationally by the United Nations and Amnesty International. They were also criticised by organisations on this island. Everyone recognised there was a problem in this regard. That is now outlined in a report compiled by a group of people who have studied the facts and have made proposals.
We want to build consensus with everyone in the context of implementing those proposals in a speedy manner. We do not want to be back here next year, the year after and the year after that doing the same thing over and over. If we are obliged to implement emergency legislation on an annual basis for decades, it is no longer emergency legislation. We need to recognise that. We want to build consensus. If we can do so, then we will support that consensus. I was disappointed when the Minister stated that the Government will not support our amendment. All it says is that we should implement the report, the conclusions of which set out many of the issues which have been the subject of fraught debates over the years. They are sensible recommendations which would benefit our criminal justice system in the long run. The Minister of all people should recognise and understand that. It is 2023, not 1998 or 1978. We are in a different world and a different Ireland. We need to recognise that. We also have new challenges mainly from criminal gangs which are a scourge on our community. We have to have firm legislation for that, and we will. We are committed to delivering that kind of legislation but we are also committed to ensuring that we have the apparatus to deal with these people. In that context, we need to make sure that An Garda Síochána is strong enough, that our court system is efficient and effective and that our prison system is adequate. None of those things is adequate right now. The Minister has to take responsibility for that as well.
I do not want to be critical of the Government. I want to ensure that we can work together, deliver and find a consensus and support it in order to deliver something for everyone. It is vitally important that we have legislation that does not meet with the wrath of international and national organisations of high repute. We want to make sure that does not happen; it has been happening, but this is an opportunity to move away from that if the recommendations in the report are implemented. If we get into government, we will implement them. However, I hope that they will be implemented long before that and that we can build consensus to do so. I ask the Minister to reconsider her position on our amendment. It was tabled in good faith in order to try to build consensus, move the situation forward and get away from the annual circus we have every year.
Every year, this legislation is put before us. In the debate this year, it is happening against the backdrop of the recently published independent review. It was conducted by six people of whom two wrote a minority report. The main media focus will be on who will vote for and against and who will abstain on the vote on the Special Criminal Court for yet another year. There will be a particular focus on Sinn Féin in that regard. We cannot ignore the review group, however, which is united on the recommendation to repeal the Offences against the State Acts but which is far from united when it comes to the Special Criminal Court. The minority report raises profound questions about the court. I am working my way through the report. I have not read it all but I have read a good bit. As the authors of the minority report note:
Our core difference with the majority stems from a reluctance to recommend the establishment of a permanent or “standing” non-jury court where the prosecution (DPP) will still decide on trial venue with no unequivocal recommendation grounding concrete measures to ensure a reduction in the use of non-jury courts. Furthermore, we believe that establishing a permanent non-jury court by ordinary legislation is constitutionally inappropriate based on an originalist understanding of the relevant provisions of Bunreacht ha hÉireann 1937 ...
They describe the jury trial as the gold standard and note that it is the norm in most common law systems, although their minority report also notes:
The right to trial by jury is not, however, an absolute right and the Constitution sets out the circumstances in which non-jury trials can take place, i.e. for minor or summary offences and where the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order.
It further states:
Rather than becoming a normalised or permanent fixture of the court system we believe that non-jury courts, whether constituted by statute or established by constitutional amendment, should be used only in circumstances where there is a real and present danger of jury intimidation or tampering.
When powers are conferred, there is an expectation that they will be used as intended. Over time, the original intention is sometimes lost and liberties are taken. I will give one example. I am very familiar with it, even though it was a long time ago in the context of the Offences against the State Acts. In the early 1980s, one of those Acts was used against people in Kildare who were protesting against water and bin charges. It was a campaign of civil disobedience. The charge was that they were advocating the non-payment of a lawful tax. The issue was eventually resolved when it was determined that they were charges and not a tax but that was not before a couple of people faced the real threat of losing their employment because of it. I raise this to demonstrate that these things can be used in a way that was never intended. The issues raised in the minority report with respect to juryless courts raises the same concerns about the possible extension of their use over time. The minority report states:
In the event that a permanent or "standing" non-jury court were to be established in the manner proposed by the majority we disagree profoundly with their proposal that the choice of trial venue should remain a matter solely for the DPP ...
It also states:
The criteria upon which such a decision should be made should be set out clearly in legislation and should not be so open-ended as to allow for casual or routine recourse to non-jury trial.
I am very surprised that is not the approach favoured by both the majority and the minority. The Special Criminal Court has a range of special powers that would not be accepted in normal courts, including that of belief evidence. The minority report recommends the provision for belief evidence be repealed and not provided for by way of re-enactment in any replacement of the Offences against the State Act and prior to that recommendation the minority report goes into considerable detail on the reasons why. If the Special Criminal Court is to stay in any form, we need to consider very seriously what the circumstances are that would permit this and what are the absolute checks and balances that are needed.
We have to remember that the UN Human Rights Committee also identified the court as being in violation of Ireland's obligations under the international human rights treaties. It expressed concern about the expansion of its remit and has called for its abolition.
I certainly do not want to put juries or witnesses in harm's way. We have to examine how other jurisdictions that have to deal with organised crime and other very serious crimes do so without using non-jury courts. Organised crime gangs such as the Kinahan and Hutch gangs have wreaked havoc and have a total disregard for human life, but we should not allow them to shape how our criminal justice system will be designed into the future. The State needs to enact alternative provisions for juries, as is done in other jurisdictions. We also need to be proactive rather than reactive in respect of the policing model. These crime gangs do not emerge from nowhere, and we have to get to grips with why they have been allowed to get to the level they have got to. There have been several examples of that around the country, some more high profile than others.
I ask the Minister to set out what her attitude will be to the minority report as well as the majority report. Will she take them in tandem? What can we expect in terms of legislation? Does the Minister envisage us being here again in 12 months' time? Does she expect this to be dealt with within that timeframe? She talked in her opening statement about bringing recommendations to Cabinet, which I understand, but she has been silent as to how the Oireachtas will be involved in this and what the timeframe will be. I would like to hear what she has to say about that.
We will support the Labour Party amendment.
The report puts a different context on the debate which we have been having in this House for many years. Unlike other Deputies, I do not believe the annual renewal is a circus or a performance; it is a genuine level of oversight built into the Act. There is no doubt but that it is not one that is robust, that has constitutional protections and so on, but the fact the Act has to be renewed each year provides a level of oversight and an opportunity for it not to be renewed.
I think of the times we have come through with this Act. There were probably many occasions on which we could have passed fairly draconian constitutional amendments which could have put non-jury courts on a very strong constitutional basis. I am not saying that would have been preferable, but there perhaps would have been public opinion in favour of having done that. To do this through the Oireachtas annually, I believe, protected the overall goal that these are extraordinary powers. Previous governments did not go down the route of seeking a constitutional amendment for non-jury courts, which, as I said, could have secured public support.
Equally, we are in a very different place from the days of paramilitary activity being at such a scale that it required significant resources of the State. I take the Minister's points that there are still ongoing paramilitary activities which warrant the use of this court, and I have no doubt about that, but I have to admit to her that my primary motivation for standing up to support the Bill tonight is the way it is used to tackle the illegal drugs industry. I imagine many Members in the House are motivated in supporting the Bill on that basis. We know that in tackling the illegal drugs industry, this is not the only tool that is there, and perhaps we rely too closely on the judicial system and forget too often about issues like poverty and the criminalisation of addiction. Many community supports can be put in place to prevent the drugs industry thriving off the difficulties many of our communities face.
As I said, the Offences against the State Act is an important tool for gardaí. It is one measure, and we have a long way to go. The Taoiseach has supported me in calling for the roll-out of the north-east inner city model. I hope very soon that we will have that in place in my community, Ballymun. I know the Minister's Department has assisted with a similar one in Cherry Orchard and many other places. Those types of senior official groups give communities direct access to decision-makers and ensure that resources - not only financial resources but sometimes human resources - are focused in communities, and the resources of those agencies are important.
I also acknowledge the Taoiseach's work on the child poverty initiative, and I hope we will start to see real progress on that. I think there is a great deal of commonality between those two projects, the area-based interventions and the child poverty one. We have to take into account what will happen with the citizens' assembly on drugs as well and how we change our laws to better react to the issues of addiction and to prevent the criminalisation of many people who have a genuine health issue. I think there is a lot of common ground across the House on that.
In the absence of those measures being in place, however, and in the absence of our having an alternative to the Offences against the State Act, I support the Bill. However, the amendments being put forward by the Opposition represent genuine concerns that are equally reflected in the report, and the Government also needs to listen to that. Given that it was the Government that initiated the report and it was done so on the basis of the concerns that, I think, are shared by many people, we want to make sure the Government also responds to it. In real terms there is probably one more occasion on which this Government will vote on the Offences against the State Act in the term of this Government. It seems unlikely that sufficient legislation will be in place for us to deal with this before its being dealt with again next year, but we should not leave that as an excuse. We need to respond to the majority and to the minority reports and to examine the issues within them because the drugs industry is not going away, the issues around the drugs industry are not going away, and if the predominant use of the Special Criminal Court - and I think nearly 30 convictions in the Special Criminal Court since 2019 have related to organised crime - is for that issue and that issue is not going away, then we need a permanent solution put in place for that.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I echo some of Deputy McAuliffe's remarks, particularly earlier, when he referred to the potential response that the State, that the citizenry of the State, might have made a number of decades ago had referendums been put to them as regards the manner in which courts may have dealt with criminality, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s. It is something to reflect on and something I think all of us reflect on when these debates come up every summer. However, I support a motion that seeks to underpin how the State seeks justice against some of the most dangerous criminals in this country, whose sole aim is to bring disorder, criminality, violence and fear to our society. I am and have continued to be unequivocal in my support for the Special Criminal Court and the work it carries out in order to uphold the security and safety of the State. I am very proud to represent Fine Gael, which is a party that has stood on the side of justice and law and order for many decades.
Law and order anyway; I am not sure about justice.
For years the Special Criminal Court has been at the forefront of bringing to justice leading criminals within Ireland, and that includes names like John Gilligan, Slab Murphy, Lisa Smith and, of course, Jonathan Dowdall, to name just some. Despite the success of the Special Criminal Court in securing justice for victims of organised crime and terror in Ireland, it is rather shameful that the largest Opposition party in this State and in Dáil Éireann remains unwilling and unable to support the renewal of the Special Criminal Court. I have listened very carefully to what my colleagues opposite have said, not just here but also on radio and on television over the last week. After years of voting against the renewal of the Special Criminal Court-----
The vote is not on that.
-----Sinn Féin must now of course be realising that the public sees through their position on this court. Why else would they have switched their approach in recent years to abstaining from the vote? I believe they did so because they felt shame in the position, which was indefensible. In recent weeks they have engaged in a hypocritical campaign that is designed purely to mislead the public as to Sinn Féin's belief about the Special Criminal Court.
Today, we even saw a Member for whom I have a high regard use the term "lethargy" when referring to a report when the ink was not even dry. That is laughable. Thankfully, I have more confidence in the public than Sinn Féin seems to and the vast majority of people see through its approach and see the Special Criminal Court for what it is.
Criminal gangs tear communities apart and have caused untold misery for many families in the State. It is those families I think about when we renew this legislation annually. I do not have time to mention the high probability of juror tampering in the absence of the Special Criminal Court, which we have seen in other jurisdictions. Therefore, I am pleased to align myself with the work of the Minister, Deputy McEntee, the rest of the Government and her Department in taking the fight to organised crime and not hiding away from the challenges we face. We are seeing record levels of investment in An Garda Síochána and the introduction of new legislation, which will support the Garda in carrying out its work in a safe manner. The introduction of new offences will protect innocent people and there will be stronger sentencing guidelines for those convicted of serious crimes. We are demonstrably committed to building stronger and safer communities. This Government has a proud record of standing on the side of ordinary people who wish to live their lives free of intimidation and fear. We stand on the side of men and women who, every morning, put on uniforms to protect our communities from those who wish to do us harm. We also stand with our legal system, which brings justice to those who break the law.
The public deserves accountability from politicians and to know why for decades a political party on this island refused to support the requirement for the Special Criminal Court. My Fine Gael and Government colleagues and I will be able to answer the call for law and order and ensure that this legislation is renewed for another year, providing the Minister with the time and space needed to respond appropriately to the expert committee.
Deputy Paul Murphy is sharing time with Deputy Barry.
Since we last debated this in 2022, the long-awaited review of the Offences against the State Act has been published. This was the fig leaf that Sinn Féin used to justify abstaining on the vote to renew the Special Criminal Court as opposed to its traditional correct position of opposing the court and that most of the rest of the Opposition and the Government cited when voting for it.
The review has recommended that the Act should be repealed. With that, the court would be abolished, yet here we are again with another motion to renew it for another year that will be nodded along by the Government. Most of the Opposition will go along with it and some may abstain.
Unfortunately, the majority opinion of the review is to turn what was sold to the public 50 years ago as an emergency court to combat the IRA into a permanent institution of injustice. It seems all the majority really had a problem with was the ad hoc way a supposedly emergency anti-terrorist non-jury court "mission crept" into adjudicating on more and more cases. Its solution is, therefore, to legitimise the abolition of the fundamental human right to trial by a jury of one's peers by making it official and permanent and to add a few minor safeguards as window dressing to take the blatantly unjust look off it. The justification most commonly given is the need to protect juries from intimidation. In this day and age of video evidence and remote technology, however, there are many ways that juries can be anonymised and protected from identification, short of abolishing them. This court is not necessary anymore and, in truth, never really was.
The majority report recommends maintaining the claimed belief evidence of a garda that someone was a member of a terrorist organisation or criminal gang as evidence that he or she is a member. Anyone involved in criminal law will tell you that gardaí lie in court. They do so regularly, but at least those lies are open to challenge in a jury court. Contradictory evidence, such as the video evidence that vindicated the defendants in the Jobstown trial and exposed the Garda's co-ordinated lies, can be introduced to a fair-minded jury of ordinary people rather than a hand-picked trio of upper class establishment judges.
It is not only us saying that the majority report on the review is wrong. A host of human rights and civil liberties organisations in Ireland and internationally are demanding that the Special Criminal Court be abolished and not replaced by any new non-jury court. These include the ICCL, Amnesty International, the State’s own Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
There was also a minority report within the review. It eviscerated the threadbare arguments of the majority. The two members in question wrote: "We do not believe that the recommendations contained in the Majority Report are supported by adequate empirical evidence or sufficiently extensive comparative analysis". In order words, the majority came to the conclusion which the Government and the establishment wanted, regardless of the evidence.
It is important to ask why the State wants this power. It is because it wants to ensure that, if there are threats to the political and economic status quo now or in the future, it has a ready-made Diplock court on hand to lock people up on the say-so of a garda. This is not about combating organised crime or terrorism. It never was. It is about maximising the repressive powers of the State and its ability to jail potential opponents that might threaten the status quo.
No one who supports freedom of organisation, freedom of expression or any of the basic principles of democracy should vote in favour of this motion or in favour of creating a new permanent, non-jury court. If the Government will not do the right thing and simply abolish the Special Criminal Court, it should allow the people to decide and hold a referendum on whether a permanent non-jury court should be established. I am confident that the answer it will get will be a resounding "No".
I know why Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are voting to renew the Offences against the State Act. Both parties are long-time supporters of non-jury courts and a range of other repressive measures. The Green Party is voting against its declared principles. Nothing new there. What about Sinn Féin, though? The Sinn Féin justice spokesperson was, I believe, silent in his contribution about what way the party intended to vote if its amendment was voted down tomorrow night. It abstained on the issue last year. Is it going to abstain again this year? If so, why do so when civil liberties are at stake? Why abstain on taking a garda’s opinion as evidence in a court? Why abstain on allowing a court to draw inference from a person exercising his or her right to remain silent? Why abstain on non-jury courts, ignoring the advice of the ICCL, Amnesty International and others? Why is Sinn Féin saying that it will support non-jury courts in future if the expert panel majority recommendations are implemented? Two experts out of six on that Government-appointed committee have opposed non-jury courts. Sinn Féin should stand by civil liberties and do the same.
I welcome this debate. It is timely and important. I am speaking primarily as Chair of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and also as a Deputy from a Border constituency who lived through all of the Troubles.
If anything is absolutely true, it is that the Good Friday Agreement has worked and the violence has ended. Notwithstanding the fact that more than 3,500 people died as a direct result of violence by the IRA, Protestant paramilitaries, the British army, the RUC and others, peace is in our land, North and South. This means that the focus of the legislation that was used during those troubling years has now changed. The IRA’s guns - that we know of - are silenced, but there are still serious issues in our country. The court was revived because, as the Minister stated, 29 people died as a result of the Real IRA’s action in the bombing of Omagh. Earlier this year, there was an attempt to murder Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell. It was an evil act in front of his son.
There is still a serious threat to the security of the North and South from paramilitaries.
The State's capacity to deal with terrorism and organised crime, while protecting human rights, must be paramount. That capacity means that there is a constitutional provision which allows the use, in exceptional circumstances, of courts like the Special Criminal Court, to deal with actions like jury intimidation. That is allowed under our Constitution. It is an exceptional measure and must only be used exceptionally. The majority and the minority reports talk about changes in the way the court sits, the Constitution, the need for unanimous verdicts and issues around juries. It is important that we address other issues raised in the minority report in relation to juries and the way jurors are announced in open court. There is a suggestion that there should be a separate entrance for jurors but whether they go in by a separate entrance or not, the fact is that we are now dealing with the Kinahan cartel and with violent and evil people who are absolutely ruthless in the murders that they commit. Jurors would be very unhappy if they were identified because if they then convicted such people in an ordinary court by way of a gold-standard jury trial they would be in danger as a result.
It is important and judicious that this report is properly examined and that the Minister introduces, at the appropriate time, the new legislation that is needed. Of interest in my constituency was the conviction in the Special Criminal Court of a person for the murder of Keane Mulready Woods, a young child who was murdered and his body dismembered. The court passed sentence for that crime and there will be other such crimes in our society because the drugs and the drug dealers are not going away.
The use of the Special Criminal Court must be exceptional and rare and there must be a real and present danger to jurors. As a Border Deputy, I am very conscious that during the period of the Troubles Ms Jean McConville was buried in an unmarked grave by the IRA, Mr. Tom Oliver was brutally murdered by the IRA and Robert Nairac is believed to be buried somewhere in my constituency. These crimes still affect all of the people in my constituency. Very recently I went to Bragan bog where the remains of Mr. Columba McVeigh are believed to be buried. The bodies of Columba, along with Mr. Joseph Lynskey, Mr. Robert Nairac and Mr. Seamus Maguire, four of the so-called disappeared who were murdered by the IRA, have yet to be returned. To say that the war is over is absolutely true. Sinn Féin calls it a war but I do not call it that. That is what Sinn Féin says. We need those bodies to be returned and we need the people in the IRA who murdered them to make sure that the victims' families, after 50 years in some cases, can get closure. The Good Friday Agreement is working and it is important that Sinn Féin would support this legislation. Sinn Féin has its history and its interpretation of our country. I note that the spokesperson for Sinn Féin named a number of people who were active in the IRA and who were jailed. Some of them were executed during the Second World War. I did not hear him mention the name of Mr. Seán Russell who was a commander in the IRA at that time. I understand he died on board a Nazi U-boat on his way to Ireland, 200 miles off the Galway coast. He was an associate of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Joachim von Ribbentrop, of the Nazi regime. There is history that the Sinn Féin representative should not forget either.
The key point now is to move our country forward and try to reach a consensus on where we have to go. Any legislation the Minister proposes will obviously be duly and properly considered and will be brought before this House. In the meantime, I fully support the renewal of this legislation. At the end of the day, jury trials are the gold standard and there is no doubt about that. However, when juries are intimidated, as they can be and have been, exceptional measures are needed but there also needs to be exceptional safeguards. I have no issue with increasing safeguards to ensure that when judge-only trials are taking place, there is a very serious and profound examination of the reasons for that. One of the arguments about having to come into this Oireachtas to renew this legislation is that it is a good thing because it forces us to renew the mandate to continue on an annual basis. That is constructive in that it gives us the opportunity to examine the situation, to read the report on what has happened in the previous year and to do due diligence on what we are going to do in the future. I will be supporting the Government in the forthcoming vote.
I welcome the Minister back to the Chamber and thank her for bringing forward this very important motion. I have listened to a lot of the speakers today. There are lots of things going on and lots of things being discussed but at the end of the day we are talking about law and order in our country.
The first point I would make is that we needed this emergency legislation during the Troubles in the North which spilled over into the South. As the Minister said in her opening remarks, that has not all gone away. There are still undercurrents of that so this legislation is required as a safeguard for issues that might arise. We need to be vigilant going forward. Whether we like it or not, the drugs trade in this country is thriving. This is an emergency because it is not confined to Dublin, inner-city Dublin or any other city; drugs are freely available in every town and village right across this country. The effect of this may not be seen yet but I would proffer that in the next ten years we will see the detrimental effect on society of the wide availability of drugs. The drugs trade is controlled by drug dealers. Some people call them drug lords but I would not give them that kind of title. The people who are orchestrating all of this for money are throwing people into fear and families into disarray because they do not know how to cope. Drug use is also very silent. If people drink pints, they will either fall down, go to sleep or go fighting but if they take drugs, we do not know what is going to happen. It is very important that people are educated about drugs. Also, our gardaí need a huge amount of help. I want to put on record my support for the introduction of additional tools to help gardaí to deal with crime. The facial recognition technology and body cameras are essential but they are only part of an overall suite of modern technologies that we need in order to be able to combat and drive out these villains who are using every technology at their disposal to prevent detection. I commend the gardaí who do an awful lot of work in this area. When they put on their uniforms in the morning and go out there, God knows what they are going to face. We need to support them more and make sure that the respect we had in the past for An Garda Síochána remains intact. The best way we can do that is by giving them the tools, including legislation, that they require.
As regards the Special Criminal Court, there has been a review of it and two reports on it have been produced. That is a good thing because it provides material for us, as legislators, to consider when deciding on the best way forward. I agree that decisions in courts should be made by a jury but, of course, there are exceptions to that rule. I would not like juries to be used when drug people who instil fear in everyone in the State are being tried. Basically, action needs to be taken by An Garda and a judge in such cases.
This is a debate we will continue to have in future. Please God, we will all still be here to have it next year. Between now and then, however, steps should be taken to bring in legislation that will take over from this to deal with modern terrorism, if I might call it that, and the modern way in which villains are operating in this country and outside it. Issues such as crime and drugs are global at this stage and we need to ensure the legislation and laws that apply in this country can also help us to deal with people who get out of here when the heat on them gets too hot.
It is important we have strong legislation, not as a big hammer to bring down on people but to have in reserve for when it needs to be used. That is why we need to keep the legislation in place. In addition, we need to have a good look at the criminal court and its set-up going forward. That debate should begin tomorrow or the day after that and it should be a good and honest discussion. That is what democracy is about. I do not accept that anybody in this Chamber wants to bring in legislation to protect something or to prevent free speech or anything like that. I do not buy into that. This is an important debate but there are many more important debates to happen in the coming weeks and months to ensure we have something different to talk about when we discuss this legislation next year.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motions. I know we have this debate annually and contributions can sometimes be repetitive but, notwithstanding that, it is a worthwhile debate. We have it annually because, after the Omagh bombing in 1998, the Oireachtas decided that as it was introducing 12 significant new sections through the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, those sections should be reviewed annually. Of them, five relate to offences, but there are other provisions within the Act which were an immediate response to the Omagh bombings. It was sensible of the Oireachtas to decide back in 1998 that the House would revisit these pieces of legislation annually. The same test was used in respect of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, which introduced four new offences that have to be reviewed annually. In general, the Special Criminal Court seems to dominate our discussions in these debates, but it is worth remembering we are not just renewing the scheduled offences which become applicable to the Special Criminal Court. There are other important evidential provisions we also renew annually.
The threats to be considered can be divided into two spheres. To a large extent, we look at the domestic terrorist threat and there is also the domestic organised crime threat. I am pleased to state that, in the past 30 years, Ireland has been transformed in terms of the violence that dominated the island back in the 1970s and 1980s and for a significant part of the 1990s. When people saw the tragedy and brutality of the Omagh bombing, there was a recognition that strong legislation was required to respond to the threat from paramilitary violence. I welcome the fact that paramilitary violence on the island has, to a large extent, subsided. We do not have to go through the violence, trauma and tragedy through which people on this island, particularly in Northern Ireland, had to go because of decisions made by others for many years.
I do not know whether the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach has seen the very good documentary entitled "Once Upon a Time in Northern Ireland". If he has not watched it, I recommend that he do so. The great thing about the documentary is there are no politicians, experts or famous celebrities on it. It focuses on ordinary people from both communities in Northern Ireland, who are interviewed about their experiences through the years of what we refer to as the Troubles. One thing that jumped out at me from the documentary was that there seemed to be a general recognition of the pointlessness and uselessness of violence that was perpetrated for so long in Northern Ireland. That may be related to the age of the people who were being interviewed. In addition, there was a recognition on both sides of the sectarianism of it. Many of the people interviewed were breathtakingly honest. They observed that in their youth they did not realise the extent to which they were captured by sectarianism and believed that violence was appropriate. The great thing is that so many people now on the island of Ireland believe violence is not appropriate for the purpose of trying to achieve political objectives. In a perverse way, the violence and pointlessness of that violence from the past adds greater confirmation to that. People could not contemplate taking up violence for political objectives in Ireland now without recognising the pointlessness of the violence that went in the past. It is useful and beneficial that the threat from domestic terrorism has declined. Obviously, the threat from international terrorism has probably risen, but it is unquestionably the case that it is worthwhile looking at the Offences against the State Act again in light of the reduced threat.
One then moves to consider the threat from organised crime. Unfortunately, that threat has not reduced in recent years. In fact, it has increased. The greatest current threat to people in this country from criminal activity is that which is posed to certain disadvantaged communities that are persecuted by drug dealers who try to identify people in those communities to take their drugs and do their dirty criminal activity for them. We can see that activity is ongoing, Unfortunately, there is still a huge amount of criminality in Ireland, all of it fuelled by money and greed and the desire to make money out of the destruction caused to other people's lives by drugs. As a legislative assembly, we need to re-emphasise to young people the dangers of and threat caused to their lives by drugs. We can discuss people who can take drugs on a sort of recreational basis but let us be clear that anyone who gets addicted to serious drugs is destined for a life of misery or will face extremely difficult challenges to get away from it.
This debate is different from previous ones on this issue as we have the reports that were prepared this year. I commend the previous Minister who commissioned the report and the six members of the committee who produced the reports. I make the point that just because a Minister seeks a report from an expert group - in this case, it is unquestionably an expert group - that does not mean we all have to sheepishly follow what is in the reports. Obviously, I know the Minister, Deputy McEntee, as a responsible Minister, will read them carefully and the Government may decide to adopt all the recommendations of the majority or minority reports but, as politicians, we need to have the central input into that. I am not in any way dismissive of experts. We were lucky to have had such expertise involved in producing these reports but, ultimately, decisions on what this House should do with the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 are ones for elected politicians. The people behind these reports recognised that and that is why they have set out recommendations for us to consider. I have read both reports and I commend their authors. It is worthwhile we get the opportunity to consider diverse views. It is clear where the division lies. The minority report states there is no longer a need for the Special Criminal Court and that certain evidential provisions should be removed from the Statute Book.
One of the interesting points in the minority report, which I do not agree with, is that they say that when it comes to an assessment of the threat, to a large extent the threat has been assessed under intimidation claims made by witnesses as opposed to jurors. The point made by the minority report is that we do not have huge evidence of intimidation of jurors but we do have some evidence of intimidation of witnesses, and they should not be correlated as they are not similar. In my opinion, there is significant similarity between them. What it does show is that there is an attempt by a person to nobble a trial. It is probably easier to try to nobble a witness than a jury, but certainly the fact that persons have made efforts to interfere with and intimidate a witness indicates to me those people would very similarly make efforts to intimidate and influence a juror if they needed to do so.
There is also mention in the minority report about how we can get around the problem in respect of juries by having what is referred to as remote juries, anonymised jury lists, and transfer of jury trials to a different location. I suppose I come to this with certain views but I try to come to it with an open mind and I wonder about the efficiency and effectiveness of remote juries. Since Covid-19, we can try to envisage it a bit more. In effect, what it would mean is that the jury may not be in the same room as the witnesses or indeed the judge or maybe the public. I do not know if that has been clarified. There is an absolute advantage for judges and jurors to be in the same room as a witness to assess that witness and the credibility of his or her evidence. Body language is important in court as it is in politics and it is not something that can simply be reduced by saying we will have a remote jury who can look at the witnesses on television. I note what is stated about anonymised jury lists. To a large extent the identity of jurors is very easily established at present. However, even anonymised jury lists are not going to be able to stop an individual who decides at 4 o'clock or 4.30 p.m., after a court concludes, that they will follow home one of the jurors. I suspect they would be able to identify where the jury was based even if it was remote from the area and the place of trial.
I have had a quick look at the minority report. I will look at it again. If I had to pick between one or the other, although I do not think it should be like this and I think the best of both should be picked, when it comes to the retention of the Special Criminal Court, there is a benefit in the recommendations put forward by the majority. The only thing that might be missing from the majority report is that we will not be reviewing it annually. That may cut down on repetition but there is a benefit from this in order that the public can see that we are appraising the continuation of the court.
A very prominent case was heard this year by the Special Criminal Court and it resulted in a significant acquittal. Anyone who watched or listened to that or even just followed it in the media could see it was a very effective and fair court. We also had the benefits of that court. I am not advocating by any means we get rid of jury trials but one of the advantages of a decision from the Special Criminal Court is that we get a written judgment which explains the reasons the court believes somebody is not guilty or guilty. This is not provided in ordinary jury courts, and that is not to suggest we should get rid of them. We need to have as many jury court trials as possible, but let us not present the Special Criminal Court as a permanent institution of injustice; it is not.
I give qualified support to retaining the Special Criminal Court as it has been effective against subversive elements and organised criminal gangs. However, we should aim for a time when the court is no longer necessary as relying on it permanently would undermine the effectiveness of jury courts. There was a time when we needed this; obviously we can see that. However, the time has come now to reconsider because, thankfully, we have a ceasefire and a peace process which is supported by the vast majority of people. As I said, we disagree with the absolute position in some parts of this House that we must continue this court indefinitely. We slip into the habit of having it and it is an easy way of getting around things and whatever else.
That said, I would love to see some kind of a court set up in this country that would give justice to citizens and would take on some of the white-collar crime and some of the issues surrounding the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, and what it has done. I have asked parliamentary questions about this for an individual in Clonmel whose tax number is being used wrongly and he got an apology from Revenue. I need to see a people's redress. These things are simple. We roll them in every year and there is a need for them. However, we need a root-and-branch review of what is going on here and what went on with the National Asset Management Agency. I said it the night it was set up. Many lives have been wrecked and many people made a lot of profit out of it. When it goes so far as somebody's tax number being used wrongly by elements in NAMA, that is very serious and I have a lot of questions which I will ask at another time. I will hand over to my colleagues at this point.
I wish a belated welcome back to the Minister to her role. There are a number of problems associated with the recurring extension of this law: the lack of periodic review, the potential for abuse of powers, the impact on civil liberties, the lack of transparency and accountability, the potential chilling effect on civil society, and the failure to address root causes. At the same time, we support the retention of the Special Criminal Court as it has been effective against subversive elements and organised criminal gangs. I use this opportunity to pay a special compliment and to thank An Garda Síochána as always for the excellent work it has been and is doing. I also mention the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, and to thank the organisation for the massive positive contribution it has made to Irish society since its inception in taking on what I would call people who thought they were untouchable. Of course, the Legislature at the time created the environment and gave CAB the powers it has, which are far-reaching. We have seen that power being put to good use over recent years and it is very important.
In accepting this motion, we should be critically examining the need for exceptional measures such as the Special Criminal Court and the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. While it is crucial to address threats to national security and to public safety, we must do so without compromising the fundamental rights and principles that underpin our democracy. By welcoming this, we have to be careful about people's civil liberties but we also have to ensure law and order is upheld and that we support An Garda Síochána in the work it does all the time. The life of a garda, and the Minister knows this better than anybody else, is actually extremely difficult at present. There is an awful lot of paperwork and bureaucracy and we have to show our support for them.
We support the motion before us, as we have done on each previous occasion it has been before us. On the whole, the Special Criminal Court has been an effective tool against subversive elements and, in recent years, against organised criminal gangs. For this reason, it is worth retaining. However, the case for its retention is far from unanswerable. We need to be clear that the ultimate aim of the Oireachtas is for there to be a time where the shutters can be brought down on the Special Criminal Court. To believe it should exist permanently would be to admit that jury courts are incapable of operating effectively, and that would be completely wrong.
There is a lot of hypocrisy and posturing around the issue. I do not for one moment accept the position of the Sinn Féin Party on the existence of the Special Criminal Court, even if it appears to have moderated that position in recent years. Equally, we do not buy into the absolute position of many in the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael parties. For example, many will acknowledge there are many within Fine Gael who have a more absolute position in favour of the Special Criminal Court and who seem to view its existence as some kind of an essential for a society that values law and order, as if the court has a thin blue line standing between ourselves and chaos and disorder. In their eyes, any criticism of the court's existence is seen as being somehow soft on criminal gangs and subversive organisations, which is simply not the case. There are many legitimate criticisms to be made of the existence of the Special Criminal Court. The right to trial by jury of one's peers has existed since Greek and Roman times and it should not be lightly cast aside without acknowledging just how serious a step that would always be.
We should not pretend the Special Criminal Court is somehow an ideal forum that produces the right results every time and is free of external influences and interference. We are talking about justice. I think of my parish, where there is a lady dead since 1996 and there has been no justice seen. I refer to Sophie Toscan du Plantier. A murderer walks free. The Garda is talking about a review and the case goes on and on. I plead with the Minister to intervene with the Garda to speed up the results of the review of the case that is going on and, I hope, bring someone to justice for this horrendous crime. Her family have suffered so much since 1996. How can anyone think any family could go without finding justice in this country for the murder of a woman who was a mother, a wife to a person who has passed away and a daughter? This needs to be expedited as quickly as possible.
It has been an interesting debate to sit and listen to. A number of questions have been raised about the Special Criminal Court and its continued operation, but today is different because we have the two reports from the review body. They have flavoured the discussion a bit more than in previous years in terms of what actually goes on here.
I have heard a lot of Members speak about what we would do without the Special Criminal Court and about how the court is vitally important to protecting the State. That may be the case, but no evidence has been provided on that anywhere at all. The Special Criminal Court has been here in operation so long we do not know what effect it has had. As to the idea the Special Criminal Court had a calming effect on the IRA campaign that went on for 30-odd years or whatever, I do not think it did. I do not think it made any difference to the campaign. There was obviously a risk people were going to end up in jail anyway. The Special Criminal Court has not made any difference to that at all. One could argue the Special Criminal Court has made absolutely no difference to drug crime across this State either. I do not see any criminals deciding they had better not get into the drug business for fear of ending up in the Special Criminal Court. Consequently, I am not satisfied there is enough reason there to maintain this at all.
The presumption of innocence is vitally important. When people are going to stand up for the State, protect the State and give evidence for the State we must, no matter how difficult and uncomfortable it is for us, the Government, the Garda, the judicial system and everything like that, remember the presumption of innocence should be very important and the prime thing we are talking about. There is no evidence being provided anywhere that jurors are being nobbled and stuff like that, which is supposedly why the Special Criminal Court was set up. I believe it was set up so Garda evidence would not be challenged. Juries would not accept the evidence of gardaí, whereas judges have unfortunately accepted that evidence to a large extent and that has guaranteed convictions. The sole purpose of the Special Criminal Court has been to guarantee convictions and that is the reality of the situation. Gardaí have been going in there and there is a whole culture among lawyers, defence teams and so on of saying certain points should not be brought up in the Special Criminal Court because it will never wash as the court will not accept it. There is, therefore, a whole watering down of the presumption of people's innocence and their right to a fair trial. That is what the Special Criminal Court is about and that is what this is about. It is not about protection of juries. If it is about protection of juries then show us the evidence. We should be shown evidence juries are being tampered with and stuff like that. I would be quite happy if I could see that evidence, but it is about protecting the bad and shoddy work of the Garda and ensuring it goes through unquestioned.
There are plenty of cases where people have been wrongfully convicted in the Special Criminal Court and served long sentences. I know of one case in particular, fairly close at hand. These cases have gone on. That is enough to ensure the Special Criminal Court should not be there, because it is wrong. As a society, we should be able to protect jurors. It is interesting the minority report talks about what could be done for the protection of juries. None of that was tried. I do not think any of it has been tried. Maybe it was in the early 1970s or something before the Special Criminal Court was implemented and used again, but I do not think so. It was basically a knee-jerk reaction where we said we have to convict these boys, we have to get them into jail, if we get enough of them into jail the whole thing will die away and that will be the end of the story. That is what the Special Criminal Court set out to do and tried to do.
Deputy Jim O'Callaghan mentioned a prominent case that took place this year and how he listened to it. I listened to that case as well. I only listened to the media reports about it on RTÉ and so on and I said to myself there was no way that guy was going to be convicted. I could tell from the evidence being reported on the fecking radio that it was put up. I thought he was going to be convicted in the Special Criminal Court because that is what the court is there to do, that is, to get convictions, and that he would get off on appeal. Bizarrely, the court, probably because it knew this review was happening and so on, took a reasonable view and let him off as it stood. That was down to the gardaí gilding the lily and putting more and more onto it. He could possibly have been convicted of something else and that could have very easily happened. Deputy Canney said we should have a good, honest discussion on this and I agree. We should have a discussion that is not around jury tampering. I do not see any evidence of that and would like the Minister to outline where the evidence is on jury tampering, because then we could have a discussion on that.
There was talk of the two reports, which are very good, especially the minority report. I still do not agree with it because I do not believe the Special Criminal Court should be there at all, but is it going to be like the Hederman report from 2002 in that in 20 years' time we will still be talking about it? The point of having this review in the Dáil every year is at least there is some scrutiny, at least there is some protection and at least there is chance of someone saying something will happen. There is nothing surer than that if this was put on a permanent basis it would be gone and forgotten about and the people tried before that court would be forgotten about as well. We would be throwing the key away and we would all suffer for that, because justice would not be done.
I am grateful to the House for its consideration of these motions and thank all Deputies for their contributions, especially those who support the motions. The very real threat to our society that comes from dissident republican paramilitary groups and the brutality of ruthless crime gangs needs an effective and particular response from the criminal justice system. As I mentioned before, these threats are now very interconnected. As legislators we have a duty to support the Garda and the justice system in tackling these threats and also to ensure there is a level of trust between ourselves, members of the public and An Garda Síochána. That is what so much of this is based upon. The Offences against the State Acts have stood the test of time for 80 years. It is important we take the time to consider carefully how best to proceed on foot of the work of the review group. It is imperative we do not do anything to undermine the efforts of the authorities with responsibility for countering paramilitary and criminal groups and protecting communities. Community safety must be at the centre of what we do at all times.
To many Deputies' points, I too believe in jury trials and that they are the cornerstone of our legal system. However, I ask the question I asked last week, namely, would any Member of this House wish themselves or a family member to be asked to be a juror in many of the trials at the Special Criminal Court. I can guess what the answer would be for most in this House. I believe in jury trials, but I believe in keeping people safe and it is important this legislation is here to do that. It is our primary counterterrorism legislation and to move quickly without assessing everything in both these reports would be wrong. To assist with this, I have, as I have said, asked my officials to consult other Departments, the Garda Commissioner, the DPP, the Courts Service and the IHREC. I also intend to take two initiatives before we reach a conclusion on the reports. On juries first of all, I will be working with my officials to identify any measures - looking at what has been recommended previously or anything more short of non-jury trials - that might in certain cases mitigate the risk of intimidation or other types of interference.
I intend, having regard to the concern of the majority and the minority - I believe it is reflected in this House - and having regard to the limited data available on the operation of the Special Criminal Court to the extent of jury and witness intimidation, to engage with An Garda Síochána, with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and with the Courts Service to identify what movements could be made in the collection and publication of data relating to these matters, to support independent scrutiny and to promote public confidence. This is something that is happening across the Courts Service as well. We do not have enough data and we do not have a lot of data. This is why we are modernising our structures. This needs to apply here also.
Regardless of this important work, I repeat again that the threat from terrorist activity remains real. It is persistent. Serious organised crime continues to present a significant challenge. It is absolutely crucial that we have the capacity to be able to deal with it and to respond to it effectively. This is our single most primary counterterrorism legislation. It is important that it is protected and that we do not rush or move to change, redact or impact it in a way that might negatively impact the positive work that has happened because of it over the last number of years. Again, the renewal of these provisions clearly demonstrates that we do not accept the activities of terrorist and organised crime groups and that we are determined to support An Garda Síochána and the criminal justice system in defeating them.
Colleagues asked about their role. Without the shadow of a doubt there will be a role for both Houses in deciding how we move forward. It is important that steps are taken, as I have said, to look at elements of this report in great detail, and whatever recommendations are then made, there would be a role for everybody in this House and moving forward.
I thank the Minister and I thank everyone for their contributions.
Amendment put.
In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 28 June 2023.
I move:
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, 2023 and ending on 29th June, 2024.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
":
— 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, 2023 and ending on 29th June, 2024; and
— calls on the Minister for Justice to bring forward legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review Group as soon as possible.".
Amendment put.
In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 28 June 2023.