I move:
That Seanad Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 12 and 14 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998 (No. 39 of 1998), shall continue in operation for the period of twelve months beginning on the 30th day of June, 2000.
Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998: Motion.
The resolution seeks approval for the continuation in operation of those sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998, which will cease to be in operation on 30 June 2000 unless they are continued for a further period.
On a point of information, is there a script?
Yes, it is on its way.
Section 18 of the Act, as amended by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1999, provides that sections 2 to 12, 14 and 17 will cease to operate on and from 30 June 2000 unless a resolution is passed by each House of the Oireachtas authorising the sections to continue to operate for such period not exceeding 12 months as may be specified in the resolution.
Members of this House will appreciate that although this legislation has been in force for a relatively short period of time, the Act, as amended by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1999, recognised the importance of revisiting the provisions at an early date. The intention was, of course, to afford members of the House an opportunity to examine and debate the issues involved which go to the very core of our duty to protect fundamental rights and our responsibility as Members of the Oireachtas to protect the security of the State.
The purpose of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998, which was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bomb, was to provide the additional protections and powers needed to tackle the threat to the security of the State and the integrity of the peace process presented by certain malevolent dissident groups by making amendments to the Offences against the State Acts, 1939 to 1972. Principally these amendments made changes in the rules of evidence in relation to the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation and, more generally, other offences under the Offences against the State Acts and scheduled offences. The Act also created new substantive offences and extended the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the 1939 Act. It might be useful if I were to set out in some detail those legislative provisions – provisions which the Government wishes to see continued.
The provisions of sections 2 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Act can be divided into four categories with four essential purposes. First, the Act made changes to the rules of evidence which previously applied in relation to both the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation and more generally for the purpose of other offences under the Offences against the State Acts and scheduled offences under those Acts. Second, the Act created certain new substantive offences of particular relevance to the activities of unlawful organisations and those who provide support for them. Third, the Act gave additional power to the courts in respect of those who provide support to the activities of unlawful organisations or engage in offences on their behalf and, fourth, the Act extended the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act.
The first category of the sections we are discussing, sections 2 to 5 of the Act, concern changes in rules of evidence. Section 2 has specific reference to the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation and is one of the key provisions of the Act. Its effect is to provide that where, in any proceedings against a person in relation to that charge, evidence is given that the accused failed to answer or gave false or misleading answers to any question material to the investigation of the offence while being questioned in relation to that offence, the court may draw such inferences from that failure or from the furnishing of a false or misleading reply as appear proper. The section goes on to provide that references to any question material to the investigation of the offence include any references to any question requesting the accused to give a full account of his or her movements, actions, activities or associations during any specified period. The section also provides that any such inference may be treated as or as capable of amounting to corroboration of any other evidence relating to the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation.
The section contains two important safeguards – it provides that the section itself does not have effect unless the accused was told in ordinary language what the effect of a failure or a false or misleading answer might be and provides that a person shall not be convicted solely on an inference drawn from a failure to answer a question or from the furnishing of a false or misleading reply.
Section 4, which amended section 3 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1972, made a related and consequential change. The effect of the former section 3 of the 1972 Act – which provided that any statement or conduct by an accused implying or leading to a reasonable inference that he was at a material time a member of an unlawful organisation shall, when proceeded against for membership, be evidence that he or she was then such a member – was also to define the expression "conduct" as including an omission by an accused person to deny published reports that he was a member of an unlawful organisation. The change made by section 4 was to align the definition of conduct with the expression used in section 2 of the Bill, that is, conduct was defined to include movements, actions, activities or associations in addition to the failure to deny such a report.
Section 3 of the Act which made the second important change in the area of evidence also has specific reference to the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation. It provided that in proceedings for such an offence the accused shall not, without leave of the court, call any other person to give evidence on his or her behalf unless notice has been given of his or her intention to do so. The procedures to be followed in this regard are set out in section 3(2) to (7) which are closely modelled on the existing provisions of our criminal law regarding the requirement to give notice of an alibi on which an accused intends to rely for the purpose of his trial. The section also provides that the requirement in relation to the giving of notice will not apply to a witness whose evidence is solely in relation to the matter of sentence.
The third change in the area of evidence was made by section 5. This section is not restricted to the offence of membership but, provided that the offence carries a penalty of five years' imprisonment or more, has application to any offence under the Offences against the State Acts, scheduled offences for the purposes of the 1939 Act and offences arising out of the same set of facts as an offence under the Acts or a scheduled offence. The effect of this section, which is closely based on a similar provision in the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996, is to allow a court to draw inferences where the accused relies on a fact in his or her defence that he or she could reasonably have been expected to mention during questioning or on being charged but did not do so. This section, as with section 2, incorporated important safeguards whereby it will not have effect unless the accused was told in ordinary language what the effect of a failure to mention such fact might be and provides that a person shall not be convicted solely on an inference drawn from such a failure.
The second category of provisions created five new substantive offences in sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 as follows, directing an unlawful organisation, possession of articles for purposes connected with certain offences, unlawful collection of information, withholding information and training persons in the making or use of firearms, etc.
Section 6 established the offence of directing, at any level of the organisation's structure, the activities of an organisation in respect of which a suppression order has been made under the Offences against the State Act, 1939. That offence attracts a penalty of up to life imprisonment.
Section 7 made it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable sus picion that the article is in a person's possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences. It also provided that it will be a defence to prove that the materials were not in the person's possession for such purposes. This offence attracts a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years or both.
Section 8 made it an offence to collect, record or possess information which is of such a nature that it is likely to be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the commission of serious offences. A serious offence is defined for the purpose of the section as an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years or more involving loss of human life, serious personal injury, false imprisonment or serious loss or damage and includes an act or omission done or made outside the State which would be such an offence if done within the State. The section also provides that it will be a defence to prove that the information in question was not being collected for the purpose of being used in the commission of a serious offence. The offence of unlawful collection of information attracts a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years or both.
Section 9 made it an offence to withhold information which a person knows or believes might be of material assistance in preventing the commission by any other person of a serious offence or securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any other person for such an offence and who fails without reasonable excuse to disclose such information to a member of the Garda Síochána. A "serious offence" is defined in section 8. This offence attracts a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for up to five years or both.
Section 12 made it an offence for a person to instruct or train another person in the making or use of firearms or explosives or to receive such training without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. This offence attracts a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years or both.
As I indicated during discussions in the Oireachtas leading to the enactment of this Act, these offences have limited application. They are of a type that they are likely to be committed by members of unlawful organisations arising from the activities of such groups. They are targeted, therefore, as specific activities, such as the collection of information which would be of assistance in planning terrorist attacks or the possession of material which can be used in the making of improvised explosive devices, in which members or supporters of such groups can and do engage. Likewise, the offence of directing an unlawful organisation calls for evidence over and above that of membership of such an organisation. It was nevertheless considered prudent to provide for such an offence which is capable of attracting the higher penalty of life imprisonment to deal with circumstances where such evidence may exist.
The offence of withholding information has a wider potential application, but the message it is intended to underscore is that it is the duty of persons who have knowledge of planned offences involving death, serious injury or destruction, or information which would lead to the conviction of those responsible for such offences, to make that information available to the Garda Síochána. The effect of section 14 is to make these new offences scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the 1939 Act. That will mean that persons suspected of committing such offences are liable to arrest under section 30 of the 1939 Act and can be charged in relation to such offences on the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Section 17 is the third category of provision and is intended to strengthen the powers of the courts in respect of those who provide support to the activities of unlawful organisations or engage in offences on their behalf. This section amended section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, which deals with the forfeiture of property used for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of an offence or intended to be used for that purpose in circumstances where a person has been convicted of an offence. The effect of the change made by section 17 is to provide that in the case of persons convicted of specified offences relating to the possession of firearms or explosives, a court will be required to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made such an order. The provisions of section 61 apply to both real and personal property and, therefore, permit the seizure of lands on which arms are stored should such a course be warranted.
The fourth essential purpose of the Act is to extend the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act, which was 48 hours, in two separate circumstances. First, section 10 will allow a District Court judge to authorise the detention of a person for a further period not exceeding 24 hours on the application of an officer of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent, provided that the District Court judge is satisfied that the further detention is necessary for the proper investigation of the offence concerned and that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously. The person being detained is entitled to be present in court during the application and to make or to have made submissions on his behalf.
Second, section 11 allows a District Court judge to permit the rearrest and detention of a person, in respect of an offence for which he or she was previously detained but released without charge, for a further period which again is not to exceed 24 hours in circumstances where the District Court judge is satisfied, on information supplied on oath by a member of the Garda Síochána, that further information has come to the knowledge of the Garda about that person's suspected par ticipation in the offence and about which they wish to question the suspect.
The House will be aware that last Thursday, in accordance with the requirements of section 18(3) of the Act, I laid a report before this House on the operation of these sections during the period 3 September 1998 to 29 May 2000. That report contains information received from the Garda and it shows that during the period covered by the report, no court proceedings utilising sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 12 of the Act have yet arisen. However, the Garda authorities have informed me that the provisions in question have been utilised where appropriate by the Garda during the investigation of offences. Senators will appreciate that many of the investigations at issue are, by their nature, ongoing.
I am informed that the number of occasions on which a period of detention was extended under section 10 was 29 and that each of these detentions was in respect of a single person. I am further informed that no persons in respect of whom extension orders were made have yet been charged or convicted of an offence, but a number of files have been submitted to the law officers for directions. Nobody has been rearrested under section 11 of the Act and no orders have yet been made utilising section 17 of the Act, although I understand that it is possible that the section will be invoked in relation to cases before the courts at present.
In considering these statistics, it is important to bear in mind that the provisions of the Act, which were acknowledged on all sides of the House to be strong, were intended to be used only in limited circumstances. It is not surprising, therefore, that the power of extended detention has been used in a relatively small number of cases and that the trial-related provisions have not yet been applied. This sparing use of the provisions of the Act does not, of course, in any way indicate that they are no longer needed, rather it simply reflects the intention that exceptional measures should not be used routinely. The view of the Garda authorities, as outlined in the report which I have laid before the House, and in the light of their current security threat assessment, is that these provisions should remain in force. I concur fully with that view.
In addition to immediate security concerns, which alone would justify the continuance in force of these provisions, there is another compelling reason for such a continuance in force. Senators may recall that in 1998, on foot of a commitment made in the Good Friday Agreement, I appointed a committee under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Anthony Hederman, to conduct a wide-ranging review of the Offences against the State Acts. The review is currently under way and I expect that the committee will report towards the end of this year. It clearly would make no sense to ask such a committee under a distinguished chairman to review the Offences against the State Acts, including the provisions we are discussing today, and then to allow the provisions to lapse before the committee reported their conclusions on those very provisions.
I am asking the House, therefore, in the light of the Garda assessment of the current threat to security which exists, notwithstanding the progress now being made in implementing the peace process, and in order to allow enough time for the completion of the report by the committee which is reviewing the Offences against the State Acts, to continue in force the relevant provisions for a further 12 months. I commend the resolution to the House.
I welcome the Minister to the House. This resolution is, in one sense, largely technical in that the Minister is coming back on foot of assurances given to the Houses last year when this legislation was going through that certain sections of its operation would be reviewed. The need for that was understandable given the very wide powers these sections give to the police and the authorities in the carrying out of their responsibilities.
It is clear from the Minister's speech, which was in a sense largely a restatement of these powers, that this is not ground over which we want to go again. This a motion and that ground was covered during the detailed debate we had in the House on that occasion, so I do not intend to go through the Bill section by section as the Minister has done.
It is very clear that the provisions have been used sparingly. That is clear especially from the report to which the Minister referred. In many ways, that report is limited in what it can say. It would be much more satisfactory if there was some way, perhaps through the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, that the police would be able to report back to the Members of the Oireachtas on the operation of the legislation because it would be very useful if the Members could hear from the police of the frustrations they still feel, the changes they might seek to make or perhaps the reasons progress under this legislation has been less than many people might have expected. It would be an innovation and, although there might be difficulties, it would give Members a fuller picture of how the legislation has operated.
The Minister seems fairly confident that the Hederman review group will finish its work by the end of this year. Ministers invariably tell the Houses of the Oireachtas that whatever ongoing review is taking place is likely to be finished by the end of the year. I hope in this case he is right because there is a need for the publication of the findings of that overall review of Offences against the State legislation. It is a body of legislation which has grown in an ad hoc fashion over the years, often in response to immediate crises. Much of it was not perhaps thought through in a coherent way and the report of the Hederman review will be very important from the point of view of the whole body of law. I hope the Minister is right when he says it will report by the end of the year. If that is not possible, maybe an interim report would be useful.
The first reaction to this debate is a sense of frustration. This legislation was passed in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing when there was a justified level of outrage at what had happened. It is one of the sad aspects of life that as time passes, our sense of outrage grows less. We should be as angry today as we were in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing about what happened then and as determined to ensure something such as that never happens again and that the perpetrators of that outrage should be brought to justice, made answerable and made pay for one of the worst crimes ever committed on this island or elsewhere.
It is extraordinary that with the passing of time the people believed to be the killers and those belonging to the organisation responsible for the deaths are now free to assemble, carrying out their so-called political objectives with impunity and to signal to the rest of the community that they have no intention of giving up their methods of murder, bombing and so forth and that they are as determined as ever. That is the terrible sense of frustration which many people, but especially those who were touched and who lost loved ones in the Omagh bombing, must feel when they see in their midst these people grouping, their brazen arrogance and see that for these people, their perverted ideal, if it can be called that, is far more important than lives and the maiming of innocent people. We have not heard any sense of regret or remorse from these people or a sense that they might be mistaken in what they are doing. We know they have no mandate from anybody to engage in what they are doing, except from their own perverted reading of Irish history which alone seems to give them a mandate to continue along those lines.
It is again perhaps a reflection on us as a community that such people are not visited with the moral obloquy which their deeds demand and that the system of shunning and boycotting such people is not part of our tradition and the community does not show these people in sufficiently stark terms what it thinks of them and their behaviour.
When we review this legislation, there is a great sense of frustration that nothing seems to have happened. Great as these powers are, they have not been used in any effective way to achieve the purpose which is the bringing to justice of those guilty or, at least, those against whom charges can be brought. That is not the fault of the police, of which I am certain. It is not the fault of the Bill but is a fact of life we have to face that getting evidence in a closed society can often be very difficult where outdated and unsustainable notions of loyalty prevail and unsustainable attitudes towards co-operating with the police have become part of the everyday thinking, almost articles of faith, of many of the people.
Hopefully, events in Northern Ireland are moving with some degree of smoothness. Many of the major crises post-Good Friday have been met and overcome. We still face the problems of the implementation of decommissioning and the full implementation of the Patten report, two very formidable obstacles which are interlinked in many ways. Neither is a final solution to the problem but both are huge problems to be overcome before any sort of final settlement is reached.
Nonetheless, we cannot take for granted that all these problems will be overcome. What we can take for granted is that those who perpetrated the Omagh bombing will continue their campaign to destroy the Good Friday Agreement. We can be certain that they will not rest until they have blown the Good Friday Agreement out of the water and have destroyed the peace process. It is all the more important, therefore, that the powers in this Bill are renewed and are available to the police and the authorities in the event of further outbreaks of violence. As I said, we are dealing with people who are certain to engage in future outrages, who despise democracy, tread upon the constitutional rights of others and seek no justification for what they are doing.
It would be foolish not to renew these powers today. It would be wrong of me not to say that these powers have not been abused in the period since their implementation and also not to say there is a great deal of frustration, which is widely shared, that these extra powers have not resulted in arrests, charges being brought and people being brought to justice. Hopefully, this will happen in time and these powers will not have to be used. I am glad they are there should that need arise. I commend the motion to the House.
I welcome the Minister to the House. Both the Minister and Senator Manning referred to the concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the House when this Bill passed through the Seanad in late 1998. At the time the Minister was at pains to point out that these changes would only be used in extreme cases and that this Bill would be back for repeal or otherwise 12 months later. Unfortunately, on Garda advice, the Minister has found it necessary to continue these sections for a further 12 months, and that is why the resolution is before the House. There was much scaremongering about draconian measures when the Bill was introduced but from the figures cited by the Minister and from his speech, it is evident the Garda has ensured these measures have only been used when absolutely necessary.
The Omagh tragedy was the background to the 1998 Bill. That bombing stunned everyone in this country and throughout the world, and a massive amount of goodwill was expressed towards the victims. We should also remember that bombing took place when a peace process was in place following the Good Friday Agreement. However, some people were still willing and anxious to wreck the peace process, not by democratic means but by unlawful and violent means. That was why it was necessary to implement these changes.
The peace process has come a long way since these changes were introduced in 1998. The process had its difficulties. The Northern Ireland Executive was set up and ran successfully for six weeks, during which Ministers worked closely together. Unfortunately the Executive collapsed. I compliment the Minister, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties, the British Government and all who held the ceasefires for bringing about circumstances in which the Northern Ireland Executive and the other fora were re-established.
It is important that people in Northern Ireland are able to lead somewhat normal lives. The common denominator throughout the peace process and the ceasefires has been the strength of resolve for peace shown by the overwhelming majority of people, North and South, and of various political and religious persuasions. This is in spite of those who are still trying to wreck the process.
The Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998, made changes to the rules of evidence which apply to the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation and, more generally, for the purpose of other offences under the Offences against the State Act and scheduled offences under those Acts. The Act created new substantive offences of particular relevance to the activities of unlawful organisations and those who provide support for them. It also set out to strengthen the hands of courts in respect of those who provide support for the activities of unlawful organisations, or those who engage in offences on their behalf. The Act extended the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act. There were also other minor amendments.
The report laid before both Houses outlines the following, from which I draw encouragement. In 1998, on foot of a commitment in the Good Friday Agreement, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform appointed a committee under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court judge, Mr. Hederman, to conduct a wide-ranging review of the Offences against the State Acts, 1939 to 1998. This review is under way and the committee is expected to report towards the end of the year. The Minister stated it would be foolish to repeal the Act in the absence of such a report.
I also note that while no cases for utilising various sections of the Act have yet arisen, the provisions in question have been utilised by the Garda, where appropriate, during the investigation of offences. Many of the investigations at issue are, of their nature, ongoing. The period of detention has been extended under section 10 on 29 occasions and each detention was in respect of a single person. No persons in respect of whom extension orders were made have been charged or convicted of an offence, but a number of files have been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
No persons were re-arrested under section 11 of the Act and no orders have been made utilising section 17, although it is possible the section will be invoked in cases before the courts. The Garda authorities have indicated that, in view of the current security threat assessment, particularly the significant threat posed by dissident republican groups, it is considered necessary that the relevant sections of the Act remain in force. Both Houses must continue to give the Garda every assistance and support in this matter.
I agree with the Minister that a final decision on the need for the continued operation of the relevant sections should not be taken until the report of the committee is available, and on the need to allow sufficient time for consideration of the committee's report. The Minister proposes to continue the operation of all sections for a further 12 months. In so doing, taking the overall security situation into account and notwithstanding the progress made in implementing the peace process, he considers that any action to discontinue the relevant sections in advance of the examination of the committee's report would be inappropriate. I agree with that assessment.
To repeal the Act now would send the wrong message to dissidents and those trying to wreck the peace process. When we least expect it, as in the case of the Omagh bomb, these people strengthen their resolve and seek to do damage to people and property in a bid to wreck the peace process. That process has its detractors and objectors in democratic fora, North and South. I have no difficulty with people who hold an opposing opinion, as that is what democracy is about. However, I have enormous difficulty with those who set out to knowingly murder and maim citizens of our country, North and South. The Minister's advice is that we have to extend the provisions of the Bill for a further 12 months. I commend the resolution to the House.
I welcome the Minister and, with reluctance, I welcome the resolution to extend the provisions of this Act for a further year. Democracy has many enemies and sometimes those enemies win. Sometimes their success is temporary or is a small victory, but the 1998 and 1999 Acts were small victories for those enemies of democracy. It is a pity and sad we have had to pass these Acts.
I travelled to France as a student many years ago and on one occasion I was stopped and asked for my identity card. I asked what was meant by an identity card as we did not have such things in Ireland because we lived in a democracy and did not need them. Those living in France at that stage wondered how any democracy could exist without identity cards.
Since we fought for and won independence in the 1920s, we have had a sense of trying to avoid any constraints on liberty. These measures were introduced with reluctance following the Omagh bomb and were described by the Taoiseach as draconian measures. At the time, the Minister gave a commitment that the provisions would be reviewed, and that is what we are doing today. I welcome the chance to review the measure and the Minister's statement. He has taken us through the review very well and indicated to what extent these powers have been used. Senator Manning pointed out that they have been used sparingly.
In an interview some months ago, the Garda Commissioner ruffled some feathers when he said it is unlikely those responsible for the Omagh bomb would be charged. That comment gives some idea of how, although these measures are draconian, they have not been strong enough on either side of the Border to bring those guilty of that outrage to justice. We are aware that we have to continue these powers which are constraints on our liberty. We do so reluctantly but in the knowledge that it is necessary.
Only yesterday a bomb was found at Peter Mandelson's official residence in Hillsborough. I do not know how long it was there but it is a reminder of the continuing threat to democracy on this island. I look forward to the day when the Minister comes into the House to tell us we no longer need this legislation. I hope that day comes soon. We had high hopes after the Good Friday Agreement but lost some of that confidence as a result of the traumas of the past year or two. I hope we are close to that feeling again. Democracy will have won and its enemies will have lost when the Minister tells the House we no longer need these powers as we are living in a safer Ireland. I support this motion with reluctance. We continue these provisions in the knowledge that it is the only choice we have.
I welcome the Minister to the House. Like Senator Quinn, I will support this motion with great reluctance. At least we had the foresight to ensure that the 1998 provisions would be on a temporary basis and subject to the review of both Houses. I am glad this House has an opportunity to review the provisions. It has been acknowledged that the offences against the State provisions are draconian and do not operate in normal circumstances in any other democracy in Europe. When similar measures were proposed in Westminster in 1998, it caused uproar. Britain is intent on ensuring that no tragic incident, no matter how horrific, will result in what it deems as bad law, including interference with the rights of citizens and the right to silence.
That is the context in which we must look at this issue – the other jurisdiction did not feel it necessary to be as draconian as us. However, we implemented the measures because we were closer to the event. We did so on the condition that they would be temporary and that the Hederman committee, which we were obliged to set up under the Good Friday Agreement and which is due to report at the end of the year, would look at the matter. I agree with the Minister that it would be somewhat invidious of us, having passed the legislation in 1998, not to wait until we get the full report from the former Justice, Mr. Hederman. We can then review the provisions of the Offences Against the State Act, as we are obliged to do under the Good Friday Agreement, and bring the legislation of both jurisdictions on this island into line.
I have some concerns about severe measures being adopted in legislation to deal with one organisation and one horrific incident. I do not think we can do that as citizens and democrats other than on a temporary basis. Therefore, a review of how well it is working is extremely important. The operation of the legislation does not seem to have been very effective. Sections 2 to 9, inclusive, and 12 have never been used in court proceedings. although section 2 might be used in the interrogation process.
Detention was extended by an additional 24 hours on 29 occasions and there were no rearrests. I am surprised this did not happen. I would have liked some more information on the reason for the 29 extensions. Presumably a file was provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Minister said files have been submitted to the law officers. Who are these officers? Are they Garda officers? Are they or the Director of Public Prosecutions actively engaged in bringing charges? There is not much sense in putting draconian measures in place unless there are results.
I am most surprised that nobody has been arrested for being a member of an illegal organisation under this legislation. I always thought it was easy for the authorities to arrest a member of an illegal organisation. Under the existing Offences against the State Act, all it requires is a superintendent, a high-ranking Garda officer, to say he or she believes that somebody is a member of an illegal organisation. Why have we been unable to find one single member of the illegal organisation, the Real IRA, which everyone knows is responsible for the Omagh bombing? I do not understand how this has happened because the rules of evidence are quite weak in this regard. This measure has always been used against members of the INLA and the IRA. I would like to know why we have no statistics regarding the charging of members of an illegal organisation.
When this legislation was introduced, we wanted to achieve a balance in protecting the rights of citizens. If we were to give the Garda the draconian powers they sought, we wanted a counter-balance. It was in 1977 the heavy gang were put to rest, having operated from 1972 or 1973. At that time, a committee was set up under Judge Barra O'Briain to make recommendations on the taping of interviews in Garda stations. The Minister told us in 1998 that this system was operating on a pilot basis in eight stations throughout the country. I remember asking if Carrickmacross was one of them and I think the answer was negative. A great deal of questioning takes place there or in Dundalk. What progress has been made since then in making provisions for the audio-visual taping of interviews? I am not aware if any have taken place. Some protective measures were requested because, as this legislation specifies, if inference is to be drawn from the behaviour and responses of those being questioned, we will know there is a record of what transpired in the interrogation cell. Will the Minister give us some information on that? We need to know what checks and balances are being put in place.
We also need more detail on the effective operation of this legislation. All we got was a bland statement from the Minister saying the Garda have requested the extension of this provision. Why do they want its extension if they have not made a single prosecution? No one has been charged with membership of the illegal organisation which this legislation was specifically introduced to deal with. We all want peace in Northern Ireland and we are willing to support what is necessary to ensure that. However, we cannot do that unless we know we are doing so on a sound basis. That requires information – I am not satisfied we have been given sufficient information to assure us of the value and effectiveness of this legislation, which also seems contrary to the human rights legislation we passed recently.
When the former Justice, Mr. Hederman, makes his recommendations, he is almost certainly likely to strike down many of the provisions of the Offences against the State Act. We must prepare ourselves to make ordinary provisions dealing with offences against this State. Where there are provisions, they will have to be shown to be effective. The only reason the Offences against the State Act, 1939, has remained on the Statute Book is because it was handy and the Garda Síochána liked it being there. It was an extraordinary measure which was introduced during the Emergency.
I support the retention of this measure on a temporary basis. However, I hope that as soon as the former Justice, Mr. Hederman, makes his recommendations at the end of the year, legislation will be introduced rapidly so that we can regularise the position in relation to the jurisdictions in the Republic and Northern Ireland.
I share the other Senators' concerns about the renewal of this legislation, but it is quite obvious it has to be renewed. I use this occasion to ask the Minister three questions.
The first concerns the apparently increasing amount of drugs being found in Northern Ireland. Is there as much co-operation as possible between the police forces of both jurisdictions? The scale of drug abuse there appears to have become enormous. I have received letters from those involved in the rehabilitation of prisoners and their families in Northern Ireland indicating their shock at the way some of the families, rather than the prisoners, have become involved in drug abuse.
Second, has any progress been made on preventing the expulsion of people in Northern Ireland by paramilitary groups and allowing for the return of those expelled? These groups have, for their own reasons, perhaps because they have decided the people are involved in drug abuse, decided that such people must go into exile.
Third, has there been any further progress in finding the graves of the disappeared? This is a source of great distress. I realise the commission has had to halt digging at the various sites. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me if any more progress is being made behind the scenes.
I thank Senators for contributing so positively to the debate and for recognising the need to continue this legislation. The Garda Síochána want to see the provisions continued, although no charges have been brought forward. They believe that certain people in our society remain a security threat to the State. In those circumstances, it is in the interests of the common good that the legislation should remain extant.
The issue of the video recording of people being questioned is progressing, in that stations throughout the country are being provided with the relevant equipment. I anticipate that each station involved will have the necessary equipment within nine months. Pilot schemes are in operation and it is hoped to introduce the scheme generally during 2001.
These provisions are of considerable importance in the context of the continuing battle against people who would seek to subvert the will of the vast majority of the people of this island. That is why these provisions have been brought forward again for the coming year.
In regard to the questions posed by Senator Henry, I will refer to those matters and contact her about them in due course, so that she may have the necessary replies. I thank Senators for their support for these provisions which are of fundamental importance.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 4.05 p.m. and resumed at 4.30 p.m.