Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Jun 2004

Vol. 177 No. 1

Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period of 12 months beginning on 30 June 2004."

The motion before the House seeks approval for the continuance in force of those sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 which would otherwise cease to be in operation on 30 June 2004. It is worth recalling the circumstances in which the 1998 Act was enacted. In August 1998, the Omagh bomb brutally snuffed out the lives of 29 innocent people and injured more than 200 others. That terrible atrocity has reverberated throughout the island of Ireland ever since, and rightly so. There was a determination then, as now, that those responsible for that mass murder would not succeed in subverting the democratically expressed will of the people and that the Northern Ireland conflict should be resolved only by peaceful means and on the basis of consent.

To date, one person has been convicted in this jurisdiction on a charge related to the Omagh bomb, and another person has recently been charged in Northern Ireland. I emphasise that the investigation is continuing at a very high level on both sides of the Border, with excellent co-operation between the Garda authorities and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is worth reiterating that the Garda Síochána will never cease in the search for those responsible for that atrocity.

It will also be recalled that, in recognition of the particular circumstances surrounding the enactment of the provisions of the 1998 Act, there was general agreement that the Act should be regularly revisited by the Oireachtas. The purpose of this recurring Oireachtas scrutiny is to determine if the circumstances then prevailing in 1998 justify the continuance in force of its provisions or whether there had been a change in circumstances sufficient to convince the Oireachtas that the provisions were no longer needed. Accordingly, under section 18 of the Act, as amended by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999, and by virtue of resolutions passed most recently by both Houses of the Oireachtas on 25 and 26 June 2003, sections 2 to 12, 14 and 17 will cease to operate from 30 June 2004. That is, of course, unless a further resolution is passed by each House authorising the sections to continue to operate for a period of up to 12 months.

In addition, there is a requirement in the 1998 Act on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to lay a report on the operation of the Act before each House of the Oireachtas prior to any consideration by the Houses of the renewal of the provisions. Such a report was laid before this House today. The conclusion of that report — this is also the view of the Garda authorities — is that the renewal of the provisions for a further year is absolutely necessary. The regrettable reality is that those responsible for the Omagh bomb continue to pursue and plan a campaign of violence and that there is no substantive change in the circumstances which led to the enactment of the 1998 Act. In this regard, the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA, which are factions of the republican movement, continue their calculated repudiation of the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Ireland, North and South, for peace in the form of the Good Friday Agreement. These paramilitary groups arrogate to themselves the right to kill and maim in the name of a people and a nation who, time and again, have rejected their path of violence.

Let us not forget that these groups, day in and day out, seek to plan and execute terrorist attacks, both small and large. The House may recall that, in June last year, two enormous improvised explosive devices were intercepted, one by the Garda Síochána in County Louth and the other by the PSNI in Derry. Both had the potential to be two more Omaghs, and it was only through dint of excellent police work that further tragedy on a massive scale was averted.

Before turning to the individual sections of the Act, I should mention the current position as regards the report of the committee to review the Offences against the State Acts, 1939 to 1998. The report is an extensive one which deals with complex issues of law and policy. It involves important considerations concerning the balance to be struck between national and international security on the one hand and civil liberties and individual rights on the other. Those recommendations in the report of direct relevance to the purpose and scope of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill 2002 were considered in the context of the preparation of that legislation. The Bill, which is currently awaiting Committee Stage debate in the Dáil, will, accordingly, give effect to a limited number of recommendations to that end. A fuller consideration of the recommendations of the committee will be finalised once this Bill has been enacted, and I will then bring further proposals to the Government.

I will turn now to the individual sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 that this House is being asked to continue in force for a further 12 months. In particular, I will briefly outline their purpose and indicate to the House how they have been utilised in the past 12 months. Section 2 was utilised on 29 occasions, with one person charged and convicted in the reporting period. In addition, six persons were convicted during the period under report, having been charged prior to that period in cases where this section was utilised.

Section 5 was utilised on 16 occasions. This section provides for the drawing of adverse inferences in the prosecution of a person for any offence under the Offences against the State Acts, any offence scheduled under the Acts, and any offence arising out of the same set of facts as such an offence, provided that the offence carries a penalty of five years imprisonment or more. The effect of this section is to allow a court to draw inferences where the accused relies on a fact in his defence that he could reasonably have been expected to mention during questioning or on being charged but did not do so. As with section 2, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure.

Section 7 was utilised on 12 occasions. This section makes it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the article is in possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences.

Section 9 was utilised on 30 occasions. This section makes it an offence to withhold information which a person believes might be of material assistance in preventing the commission by another person of a serious offence or securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person for such an offence.

Section 10 was utilised on one occasion. This section extends the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act from 48 hours to 72 hours, but only on the express authorisation of a judge of the District Court. In the reporting period, no charges resulted in the granting of an extension order, but a file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Section 11 was utilised on four occasions. This section allows a judge of the District Court to permit the re-arrest and detention of a person in respect of an offence for which he was previously detained under section 30.

Section 14 was utilised on 76 occasions. The effect of this section is to make the new offences created under sections 6 to 9, inclusive, and 12 of the 1998 Act scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the 1939 Act. This means that persons suspected of committing these offences are liable to arrest under the provisions of section 30.

I would now like to turn to those sections of the 1998 Act that were not utilised, namely, sections 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 17. Section 3 provides that, in proceedings for an offence of membership of an illegal organisation, the accused must give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his behalf. This section was not used.

Section 4 amends section 3 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1972. The effect of the 1972 provision is that any statement or conduct by a person accused of membership of an unlawful organisation implying or leading to a reasonable inference that he was a member of such an organisation shall be evidence that he was then such a member.

Section 6 establishes 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. Although it was not utilised in terms of criminal charges during the period, one senior member of a dissident republican group was found guilty of this offence last August and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment to run concurrently with a sentence of six years imprisonment for membership of that organisation.

Continuing with those sections of the 1998 Act that were not utilised in the period under report, section 8 makes 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. Section 12 makes it an offence for a person to instruct or train another person in use of firearms or explosives or to receive such training. Although this section was not used in the reporting period, one person arrested for membership was subsequently charged with receiving training in the use of firearms. Section 17 builds on the provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 providing for the forfeiture of property.

This information is based on data received from the Garda authorities and is contained in the report on the Act laid before this House. This report, together with the previous reports, shows that the key provisions of the Act are continuing to be used to good and proper effect. One of the most significant results in the Garda Síochána's fight against subversive activity was the conviction of a person on a charge of conspiracy to cause an explosion related to the Omagh bomb. The provisions of the 1998 Act were used appropriately by the Garda Síochána in this case and will continue to be used in its efforts to bring to justice all of those responsible for that and other unjustifiable acts of terrorism. Equally, however, the relatively modest number of occasions on which the provisions of the 1998 Act have been used by the Garda Síochána demonstrates that these provisions have been applied in a reasoned and proportionate manner.

Much has been achieved in the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and, although the current pace of progress leaves much to be desired, it is the only show in town. However, as I have already mentioned, there are those who would do everything in their power to subvert the peace process through violence. One need only examine the recently published First Report of the Independent Monitoring Commission to see just how much of a threat these dissident republican groups pose.

In the IMC report, the Real IRA is described as having access to a significant quantity of arms and equipment and as being potentially a very dangerous terrorist group. Since the Omagh bombing, attacks attributed to the Real IRA include the bombing of Shackleton Barracks in February 2000, a sporadic but high-profile campaign in Britain, including a rocket-propelled grenade attack on the Security Intelligence Service headquarters. There have also been some recent attacks on the British military, as well as against people involved in the Policing Board and district policing partnerships.

The IMC report goes on to state that the primary focus of Real IRA attacks remains on security force bases and personnel in Northern Ireland and on those involved in the new policing arrangements but that a wide range of targets cannot be ruled out, including targets in Britain.

The IMC characterises the Continuity IRA in similar vein. Although it is described as a limited organisation with a relatively small membership, the IMC considers that it can, by operating through small units, mount effective, if sporadic, attacks. The Continuity IRA is further said to have access to an unknown quantity of weapons and explosives and has technical expertise sufficient to construct improvised explosive devices. In the last year or so, the group has carried out a number of successful attacks, including an attack on a military barracks, one on a town hall, and one on a Unionist politician's constituency office. It was also responsible for a recent arson attack on the vehicle of a member of a district policing partnership and has targeted other members. Furthermore, it has recently been involved in setting up new active service units.

Finally, the IMC goes on to describe the relationship between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA as, seemingly, one of co-operation.

That is a small glimpse of their activities because I know from my functions as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that both organisations are also engaged in major low grade criminality, connected to the drugs world, levying drug pushers, sorting out disputes between them and other terrible crimes. They will also lend their firearms for reward to common criminals to carry out criminal acts. That is what they are up to. When thinking of the invocation of Pearse and others at the end the 1916 Proclamation not to bring dishonour and shame upon the arms of the republican movement, I wonder how even they, in their warped and twisted logic, square that one.

This motion offers us the opportunity to keep in being, although under scrutiny, valuable provisions of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 which I would be happy at some stage to tell the House were no longer necessary but I would be derelict in my duty if I was to do so now.

I welcome the Minister and thank him for his address on this important matter. He knows that when the Act was amended in 1998, following the Omagh atrocity, the Government gave a commitment to all sides of the House that not only would this resolution be put on an annual basis but there would also be provision for a report being placed by the Minister in the Oireachtas Library concerning the rationale for continuing with these draconian provisions. It is important that we debate this on an annual basis.

I have read the Minister's short report on the rationale for the continuance of the Act and I fully agree with him and with the view of the Garda Síochána about the need to retain these measures as a means of countering terrorism in both parts of the island and ensuring that maximum co-operation exists to put these people behind bars, where they belong. The Minister has the support of this side of the House in bringing this resolution to the House and in arguing for it.

It is important to note that in the report the Minister placed in the Library on 14 June 2004, the Garda Síochána states in no uncertain terms in paragraph 8 that there were 14 convictions in the period under report in connection with subversive activities and a further 30 persons were charged during the period and are awaiting trial. A total of 14 convictions have resulted from the legislation that was amended in 1998 following the Omagh atrocity; that is important. Most significantly, for the first time a charge was brought against an individual for directing terrorism.

The Northern authorities should learn from this. Recently, as the Minister is aware, the case against four alleged members of the Real IRA was dropped in the Northern Ireland courts as a result of a loophole in the legislation there whereby the Real IRA, which is proscribed in this jurisdiction, was not specified as an organisation banned under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is appealing the case but it is worth pointing out because attention should be paid to this matter on both sides of the Border and a consistent approach taken in both jurisdictions. The authorities in Northern Ireland, particularly the Secretary of State, have a responsibility to the families of the Omagh victims to do everything in their power to ensure that charges outstanding against many of the individuals directly involved in the planting of the bomb and motivating others to carry out the atrocity are brought to bear. It is good to hear that the investigation will continue until such time as all charges are laid against these people for one of the most serious atrocities in the Troubles in the North.

These fanatical organisations still refuse to accept the new form of self determination which the Irish people accepted when they voted for the Good Friday Agreement. We must be careful from a counter-terrorism standpoint to keep a close eye on these people and be on our guard at all times because they have no democratic compulsion whatsoever. They exist merely to frustrate the will of the Irish people and to bring down any possibility of putting in place the Good Friday Agreement on a lasting basis and they must be squashed and sat upon by every means possible. This is why this draconian legislation will continue in place until such time as these fanatics move off the scene and are put behind bars indefinitely.

It is important that all the offices of the State, specifically the Criminal Assets Bureau, are brought to bear on these people. As the Minister rightly pointed out, this group and others are involved in a whole range of illegal activities. It is important that the Criminal Assets Bureau should be enabled to do everything in its power, even if it needs more support or changes in the legislation, to close down the significant operations in place by these people to carry out their particular form of terrorism. It is important that the Criminal Assets Bureau should continue its work in this regard and do everything in its power to investigate the criminal links that exist within these organisations.

As some of the weaponry from the Continuity IRA got into the hands of the criminal fraternity in Limerick city last year, it is very important that this matter is continually monitored, because these people trade in arms. They have no compunction about giving arms to various organisations as a means of extracting a price from them. Much of the gangland feuding in our cities stems directly from the fact that much of this illegal weaponry remains in place and intact and the hardware can be sold on or leased out at various times to these individuals and other criminal groups. This is why it is important to sit on them and wipe them out.

Younger and madder republicans than the breed we saw in the 1970s and 1980s are still to the fore in some of our universities. Some of the universities are still the recruiting ground for the more irredentist illogical breed of republicans who still refuse to accept the will of the Irish people. The Real IRA used a particular university as a recruiting ground and preyed on young people as a means of bringing them into the United Kingdom and causing havoc at some point in the future. It is important to be aware of this fact.

The Minister spoke about the continued threat by the Real IRA referred to in the latest report of the IMC. Like other Members of the House, members of the Fine Gael Party met this morning with the IMC, which I compliment on its work. It shone an important light on the murky world of paramilitary political parties who operate in this State and in the other state. The rationale for the IMC remains important because it continues to expose the fundamental anti-democratic tendencies of paramilitary political parties, some of which are on the peace message but most of whom are not.

The Fine Gael Party welcomes this resolution. It is important that it remains in place and that these powers are given to the law enforcement authorities to ensure those who are directly responsible, not just for the Omagh atrocity but for the continuation of their fascist message to our people, because they refuse to accept the will of the Irish people, are rounded up and ultimately put in prison. They will not accept the wishes of the Irish people because they are not democrats and never have been. They used their neo-racist argument against British people for the past 90 years to continue their war in this country and in the neighbouring island. The Government, which is committed to international treaties and is a Government within the European Union, must do everything in its power to squash these people and ensure their deadly message is once and for all taken from society. Members on this side of the House, particularly the Fine Gael Party, welcome the resolution and support the joint co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána in ensuring these people are brought before the courts.

I welcome the Minister. However, I do not welcome the fact that the resolution is still, unfortunately, necessary. The Minister, in his former capacity as Attorney General, and I, in my former capacity as adviser, took part in proceedings of the Northern Ireland Cabinet sub-committee when this response to the terrible Omagh bomb was being formulated. It was necessary then and it is necessary now. The firm and vigorous response of the Government at the time contributed substantially to the temporary ending of the Real IRA campaign because all the powers necessary to deal with it existed. Unfortunately, as the campaign resumed some time afterwards, this legislation will remain necessary until terrorism of all sorts is ended.

I congratulate the Garda Síochána on the vigour with which it has pursued both the perpetrators of the Omagh bomb and the perpetrators of all the other actions undertaken both then and since by the Real IRA. I regret any notion or suggestion — my name was drawn into this at one stage — that the Government would in any way soften in regard to two objectives, namely, the ending of the campaign of violence and the vigorous prosecution of those responsible for the Omagh bomb, the bombs that preceded it but did not cause the same loss of life and any further acts they might commit. Some members of that organisation in Portlaoise Prison have expressed doubts about continuing with the campaign. It should be clear to any thinking person that there is nothing positive to be gained by pursuing that tactic. I look forward to the day when they accept they have been defeated by the Irish people and those acting on their behalf.

It is criminal to draw young people into something which is not just criminal but utterly hopeless and which could at best succeed in putting people who could be more productively and positively used behind bars for much of their lives. I regard as particularly pernicious the attempts to intimidate people from joining or staying in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is a necessary step. I was particularly pleased that the Minister's special adviser applied for and was accepted as a media and public relations officer for the PSNI. She worked not only with the Minister but also, previously, with the Taoiseach when he was Leader of the Opposition. That sends an important signal to those who would still be tempted to demonise the effort to establish a new reformed police service in Northern Ireland.

I appreciate that it is not necessarily perfect and that there might be, in certain instances, legacies of the past that still need to be addressed and dealt with through various inquiries. We had to co-operate, for our safety and for the benefit of the people of Ireland, with the unreformed RUC. There was good co-operation but obviously it is far more satisfactory to be able to work closely with the new reformed Police Service of Northern Ireland. We have every interest in making it a success. It is both essential and important that the republican movement, at the earliest opportunity, give its support to and participate in it so we can confront whatever remnant remains that is unreconstructed.

I do not have a problem with dissident republicanism that does not engage in violence. There is a body of dissident republican intellectuals who publish their views. There is no harm in having critical voices, regardless of the standpoint from which they originate, within the republican movement and coming from the republican tradition. What is indefensible, however, is attempting to attract people from the mainstream movement into continuing what is an absolutely hopeless campaign. I have always taken the view that democracy is inherent in any sane republican philosophy but if it is ever the case that republicanism and democracy find themselves on opposite sides, democracy will always win.

There are many ideological absurdities. It is sad, for example, that in Republican Sinn Féin and the Continuity IRA there are people who still cannot recognise the existence and achievements of this Republic over so many years. It is a real existing Republic, as opposed to some fantasy that never existed in real terms in the past. That somebody should spend their life living in this Republic and be unable to accept or recognise it as such, incomplete though it might be, is very sad.

There is a letters column in the Irish News where one can read letters from what one might call dissident republicans. I noticed one last week from somebody associated with the 32 County Sovereignty Movement. The person spoke about standing up for socialism. If one means hardline, irreversible socialism, that is not possible except in a Marxist state and democracy would have to be suspended to achieve it. The person also claimed to stand for anti-sectarianism. That is ludicrous coming from a remnant of a movement that has no input or participation whatsoever from the other tradition or community in the island. Their position involves either forcing that tradition to accept an imposed united Ireland or, as somebody from that source once put it, going like the people from Cork did in the 1920s. I recall replying that my grandmother came from County Cork and she did not go.

That attitude is a travesty of the republicanism of the United Irishmen, which was based on traditions or elements of traditions coming together, and that of the 1916 Proclamation which spoke of cherishing all the children of the nation equally. It is an utterly degenerate form of republicanism.

People should not cease, in addition to taking any security and police measures that are necessary, confronting these ideological assumptions. That had to be done with the mainstream republican movement in the late 1980s and it was a far from unprofitable exercise. One must question the assumptions people have in this type of closed world where everything adds up in terms of mathematical logic, as it were, but not in terms of any sort of humanity.

I support this resolution. It will be a wonderful day for Ireland when these two dissident republican organisations decide to accept the will of the Irish people. I am not aware that anybody stood in any of the recent elections to represent their viewpoints, let alone got elected. The will of the Irish people today matters, as Pearse would have written in 1914 and 1915. It matters and we cannot refer to an electorate that has long since disappeared from this earth.

I thank both Senators for their contributions. This House is well aware of the seriousness of the threat we face. I echo what Senator Mansergh and Senator Hayes said about the dissident republicans. They are seducing innocent and guileless individuals into a wholly warped and hopeless expression of something which itself is a caricature of what it pretends to be.

As Senator Mansergh said, people are entitled to have convictions. I do not care if there are some people who believe they are the direct descendants of Cardinal Rinuccini's Confederation of Kilkenny or if there is a group of people in some back street in the Liberties still carrying on the Emmet revolution in their own minds. So be it; they are entitled to these views. If, on the other hand, one takes a life or sets out to murder somebody or to ruin young people's lives or have them thrown into our jails, it is a different matter. It is entirely wrong and evil and it must be confronted. The sad fact about the so called dissident republicans is that their only ultimate aim is to try and re-ignite an undeclared civil war on this island.

The true vocation of republicanism now is to hark back to Tone, Emmet and Davis and to the process of reconciliation. It is to take the tricolour which is waved so often these days and to state that its purpose was to symbolise a society that reconciled green and orange and that united both not simply by subjugation but by a voluntary act of the will. The crucial issue now must be that the Good Friday Agreement in the minds of all true republicans, among whom I number myself, be the context in which that great act of reconciliation, which has not yet happened on this island, can take place. Without that, the republican spirit of the people of this island will be completely thwarted. If there is no reconciliation of orange and green there will be no genuine republic in Ireland, rather there will be a separatist State. People will leave on boats, as Senator Mansergh said, because they cannot fit into a monochrome and introverted view of republicanism and Irish history.

I agree with what has been stated here and I echo what has been said on both sides of the House: this so-called dissident threat is threadbare. It is perverse and grotesque and is fated to fail. I address myself to the people involved because I know they read about all these matters through their various organs. People in Portlaoise Prison and elsewhere should not mistake the resolve of democratic Ireland to see them off the stage.

Hear, hear.

If anyone, in jail or out of jail, thinks I will re-ignite some new torch of Irish republicanism or freedom, he is very wrong indeed. If people think they can bully the Irish Government into backing down or treating them as anything other than what they are — a group of people in pursuit of the impossible through grotesque means — or that they can influence me through protests and so on, they are very much mistaken.

Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 16 June 2004.
Top
Share