I welcome the Minister for Justice and Equality to the House.
Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion
I move:
That Seanad 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 of 12 months beginning on 30th June, 2011.
The resolution before the Seanad seeks approval for the continuance in operation of those sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, which would otherwise cease to be in operation after 30 June. Senators will be well aware at this stage that this legislation was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in August 1998. That was a dreadful atrocity which claimed the lives of 29 innocent people and injured more than 200 others. The attack at Omagh was no more or less than a callous and calculated act of mass murder. It was a futile attempt to derail the peace process which was then still in its infancy. If anything, its brutality galvanised the already strong resolve of both communities on this island for a shared future based on peace and democracy. It is a testament to the strength of conviction and commitment of those parties which supported the peace process that not only did it survive this attack, it also has flourished. The recent Assembly elections in the North are evidence of how matters have developed and matured in this respect.
We can happily reflect on the great advances that have been made in normalising politics in Northern Ireland and the ever closer North-South relationship across a broad range of areas, including justice and policing. We should never forget, however, the cruelly high price paid by so many people who were bereaved by the mindless criminality of the very few.
Recognising the exceptional nature of the measures contained in the 1998 Act, it was decided that certain sections of the Act should be revisited annually by the Oireachtas. The purpose is to allow the Houses of the Oireachtas to decide whether the current circumstances justify the continued operation of these sections. I have no doubt whatsoever that their continued operation is justified and I shall outline my reasons for the benefit of the House presently.
To support the consideration by Senators of the need for the renewal of the relevant sections of the Act, I am required to lay a report on their operation before both Houses prior to the resolutions being moved. The report, which I laid before the House on 13 June 2011, covers the period from when the last such report was prepared, in June 2010, to 31 May 2011. The clear message from the report is that the relevant sections of the 1998 Act continue to be of significant value to the Garda Síochána in tackling the threat from terrorism. Taking into account the provisions of the Act, the number of occasions on which certain provisions have been used and the current security environment, the Garda authorities consider that the Act continues to be one of the most important tools available to them in the ongoing fight against terrorism. The inevitable conclusion must be that the provisions are necessary to counter the threat from terrorism and that their continued availability to the Garda Síochána is truly warranted.
There remains a real and ongoing threat in this jurisdiction and in Northern Ireland from a variety of subversive paramilitary groups. Put plainly, these are gangs of criminal terrorists. I say "criminal" because they are involved in a wide range of organised criminal activities and in many cases their continued commitment to the so-called "cause" is centred more on preserving their personal positions. These groups represent nothing but their own warped views of the world. They display by their actions nothing but contempt for the peace-loving and law-abiding majority on this island. They have nothing to offer but despair.
The Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and other groups remain resolutely committed to using violence in pursuit of their ends, some of which, as I have just mentioned, are personal aims. They continue to seek to acquire and manufacture weapons and to plant explosive devices without any concern for life or limb. In particular, they have targeted members of the security forces in Northern Ireland. The tragic murder of PSNI constable Ronan Kerr in Omagh on 2 April 2011 is a stark demonstration of their murderous intent.
The Act was brought in following the Omagh bombing and was mainly targeted at domestic terrorist groups. However, we should not ignore the threat from international terrorism. The extent of this threat varies greatly within the European Union. However, it would be foolhardy to imagine that Ireland is completely immune from these new forms of terrorism. We must not be complacent in responding to them.
I might mention, at this juncture, the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 which is aimed specifically at the international threat. It enables the application of the Offences against the State Acts, including the provisions which are under consideration today, against the activities of international terrorist groups and individuals.
To return to the provisions which are the subject of the resolution, the report I have laid before the House is based on data received from the Garda authorities and it illustrates and clearly shows the following. Section 2 of the Act was used on 48 occasions. This section provides that where, in any proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, an accused failed to answer or gave false or misleading answers to any question, the court may draw such inferences as appear proper. However, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure; there must be some other evidence which points towards a person's guilt.
Section 3 was used on 12 occasions in the past 12 months. This section provides that, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, an accused must give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his behalf, unless the court permits otherwise.
Section 7 was used on 24 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 8 was used once. This section makes it an offence to collect, record or possess information which is likely to be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the commission of serious offences.
Section 9 was used on 63 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 used on 12 occasions. 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 this regard, the judge must be satisfied, on the application of a Garda officer not below the rank of superintendent, 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 or her behalf. In the reporting period in question, an extension under section 10 was applied for and granted in 12 cases and charges resulted in six of those cases.
Section 11 was used five times. 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 or she was previously detained under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act but released without charge. This further period must not exceed 24 hours and can only be authorised in circumstances where the judge is satisfied on information supplied on oath by a member of the Garda Síochána that further information has come to the knowledge of the Garda Síochána about that person's suspected participation in the offence.
Section 14 is essentially a procedural section that makes the offences created under sections 6 to 9, inclusive, and 12 of the 1998 Act scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the 1939 Act. This means that persons suspected of committing these offences are liable to arrest under section 30 of the 1939 Act. In the past 12 months, the sum total of the uses of sections 6 to 9, inclusive, and 12 was 88.
I turn to those sections of the 1998 Act that were not used in the period under report, those being sections 4, 6, 12 and 17. Section 4 amends section 3 of the Offences against the State Act 1972 in such a way as to expand the definition of "conduct" that can be considered as evidence of membership of an unlawful organisation. Specifically, "conduct" can include matters such as "movements, actions, activities, or associations on the part of the accused". This change simply aligns the definition of conduct in the 1972 Act with the reference to movements, actions, activities or associations in section 2 of the 1998 Act.
Section 6 creates the offence of directing the activities of an organisation in respect of which a suppression order has been made under the Offences against the State Act 1939. Section 12 makes it an offence for a person to instruct or train another person in the making or use of firearms or explosives or to receive such training without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
Section 17 builds on the provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 providing for forfeiture of property. The 1994 provision empowers a court, in its discretion, whenever any person is convicted of an offence under that Act, to order the forfeiture of any property in the possession of the person that was used or intended to be used to facilitate the commission of the offence. The effect of section 17 is, in the case of a person convicted of specified offences relating to the possession of firearms or explosives and where there is property liable to forfeiture under the 1994 Act, to require the court to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made any such order. Although these sections were not used in the period under report, the House will agree that their continued availability is essential to an effective response to the threat from terrorist groups.
On the basis of the information set out in the report and for the reasons I have given, it is clear that the 1998 Act continues to be an important element of the Garda response to the ongoing threat posed by terrorist groups. It would give me tremendous pleasure to be able to attend the House and inform Senators that the Act's provisions were no longer considered necessary. To be in a position to do so, however, will require a significant change of attitude on the part of those criminal terrorist groups. As Minister for Justice and Equality, I could not recommend to the House that valuable legislative provisions be allowed to lapse in the absence of such a change of attitude. The relevant provisions of the Act should remain in operation for a further 12 months. I commend this resolution to the House and hope it will have the full support of the House.
I welcome the Minister to the House. As spokesman for justice and equality on the Opposition side of the House, Fianna Fáil fully supports this re-enactment, so to speak, to ensure these parts of the legislation do not lapse. There is not much to be said on the matter. The last three times the Minister's predecessor appeared before the House in this regard, I spoke in favour of the motion.
The legislation was introduced by the then Minister, Mr. John O'Donoghue, in the wake of the terrible atrocity of the Omagh bombing. The threat of a similar incident, North or South, remains a possibility, although, it is hoped, a remote one. I was surprised to hear from the Minister's speech of the frequency with which these provisions were, according to the Garda Síochána, used during the past 12 months. For example, section 2 was used on 48 occasions, section 3 was used on 12 occasions and section 9, which was most frequently used, was used on 63 occasions, which indicates the necessity to retain this legislation on the Statute Book. Like the Minister, I, too, would like if we lived in a utopia because the need for this legislation would not arise.
I made the point when supporting a previous motion on this legislation that, having regard to the continuing threat posed by either the Continuity IRA, Real IRA or any other such group, the Government should, rather than putting such a motion before the House each year, consider only reviewing the need for this legislation every three or five years. I believe this legislation will continue to be required during the lifetime of this Government, although it would be nice if that were not to be so. Nonetheless, I believe it will be required. Perhaps the Minister will take into account my proposal, although were it necessary to amend the legislation in this regard, it may not be worthwhile so doing. This Government may be in office for another approximately 4 years and 8 months and it might be better, rather than reviewing this order annually, if the order were to remain in place during the lifetime of the Government.
We are living in an era of international and domestic terrorism. The events of Omagh remain clear in my mind. I am sure most people recall that terrible atrocity. If these sections of the legislation are required to keep that threat at bay, they must remain on the Statute Book. Fianna Fáil supports the motion. There is no doubt that it is, unfortunately, necessary they remain on the Statute Book to allay any fears of a threat such as the atrocity in Omagh or any loss of life. The Minister referred earlier to the recent murder of Constable Ronan Kerr. We on this side of the Border must remain alert and ensure these threats are stamped out in so far as that is possible.
I, too, welcome the Minister to the House. I listened with interest to what he had to say. I appreciate that coming from a legal background and given the many issues raised by him across the political spectrum he would love to be in a position to tell Members that these sections of the legislation are no longer necessary. As he pointed out, however, we do not live in an ideal world.
I believe this measure is not a restriction on freedom or liberty within this country but is a necessary means of assisting the defence of democracy. Many colleagues recently attended the funerals of the former Deputy and Attorney General, Declan Costello, and the former Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald, both of whom had fine political careers. When I recall these people and the former Taoiseach, Liam Cosgrave, who thankfully is still with us, and the former Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, I am mindful of the tough legislative measures they had to introduce in the 1970s to protect and preserve this country from chaos. I recall listening to an interesting speech by the former Taoiseach, Liam Cosgrave, when he launched a book on the late Declan Costello some months ago in which he pointed out that the first duty of democrats is to defend the State. We need to reflect on the fact that our first duty is to defend and protect our State. Tough measures were required in the 1970s to defend the Irish State from the chaos and anarchy which some people wished to impose on us. The measures taken then, tough as they have been viewed by some of the more liberal commentators, were necessary. Unfortunately, 40 years later, some of these measures remain necessary.
We all recall with horror the afternoon of Saturday, 15 August 1998 when an unrepresentative group of fascist people murdered and maimed people in Omagh, repeating what had been done on so many tragic occasions across Northern Ireland. The political response at the time, which led to the introduction of this type of legislation, unfortunately was necessary. I listened with interest to the Minister setting out the statistics for the use of the provisions of this legislation. As he said, the people involved in such groups represent nothing but their own warped view of the world. Fortunately, many have moved from that warped view of the world towards the political process. Our aim and aspiration must be to ensure all those outside the political process who believe violence, mayhem and terrorism can work are encouraged to engage in the political process. While the door must always remain open to them we must always have in place firm security and justice measures to protect and defend our State.
I wholeheartedly welcome the motion as put forward by the Minister. Sadly, the statistics speak for themselves. These measures are necessary as a defence against those who, because they fail politically and because their view is not accepted by the majority, opt to bomb, maim, murder and force their agenda into the public arena. I support the continuation of the measures necessary to defend our State. I wish the Minister and the Garda Síochána well in their endeavours. The Garda Síochána has been on the front line in facing down those trying to blow this State apart for the past 40 years. The members of the force have a tough job to do and have been doing it well. The Garda Síochána and Army must always be supported by all true democrats in this House.
I, too, welcome the Minister to the House. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator O'Donovan. We all wish this legislation was not necessary and that we could move on to a better Ireland. We have made substantial progress in that direction. On Tuesday last I heard the Northern Ireland Minister for Education, John O'Dowd, speaking on education matters, in relation to which no one from the other side of the House challenged him because he was an Irish Nationalist. That is the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland. Today, the Northern Ireland Minister for Finance, Sammy Wilson, attended the funeral of the former Minister for Finance in this jurisdiction, Deputy Brian Lenihan. It was stated earlier that the Fine Gael Party in west Cork invited the late Brian Lenihan to address them at Béal na mBláth.
I invite those paramilitaries persisting in this conduct to come into these Houses of Parliament. There is a diversity of membership in the Dáil such as has never existed before and there is a participation in political life in Northern Ireland such as never existed before. Why do they go so far to alienate people? They have killed members of the Gaelic Athletic Association, including Constable Ronan Kerr, whose Nationalist credentials cannot be criticised, and seriously wounded Constable Peadar Heffron, an Irish speaking member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. These extreme Nationalists should reflect on the progress taking place throughout this country, developing the society and ensuring the different traditions respect one another and work together. Even at this late stage, I ask them to find an intermediary and to come into the political system and make this kind of legislation unnecessary. They have isolated themselves and done so much damage through their unlawful activities to so many people in this country, including people of the highest credentials. They should desist and join with some of the other groups in laying down their arms and joining the remarkable political developments on this island, which are in sharp contrast to our economic problems. I look forward to the day when this legislation will no longer be necessary.
I welcome the Minister to the House and offer the support of the Labour Party for this motion. I should declare, as I have in previous years when we debated this issue, my own interest as a practitioner who has worked in the Special Criminal Court and used some of these provisions there. I spoke in the past as a Member who, while not on the Government side, supported the motion, although with the caveat, which I again express today, that each year on the annual occasion when we are asked to reconsider these proposals and consider their renewal, we subject them to rigorous legislative scrutiny. Every speaker has rightly said it is a matter of genuine regret that these provisions are before us once more and that it is regarded as necessary to have them in place, because there is no doubt but they represent a departure from the normal due process rights afforded to those in the criminal justice system.
Others have condemned outright, as I do, the appalling atrocities, in particular the Omagh bombing in 1998 which gave rise to this legislation. Others have rightly condemned the dreadful killing of Constable Ronan Kerr and the attack on Constable Peadar Heffron. I recall two years ago speaking on a similar motion against the relatively recent backdrop of the appalling murders of Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar at Massarene Barracks and the murder of Constable Stephen Carroll. There have unfortunately been, over the years in which we have debated this and even in recent times, appalling atrocities that have confirmed the fact successive Ministers for Justice have sought to renew the provisions of the legislation. We must keep in mind, therefore, the ongoing threat posed by dissident paramilitary groups. I echo Senator Barrett in terms of seeking to address these groups and to ask why they are continuing with these actions. All of us would agree on that.
To turn to the report which the Minister has provided on the operation of the legislation in the past 12 months, while it is very helpful to have that briefing and we had a similar briefing in previous years, I ask that we might get more complete information when debating legislative provisions of this import. When we debated this before, for example, in 2009, we obtained within the report a set of comparisons as to the frequency with which these sections were used in the most recent 12-month period compared with previous 12-month periods, which I found extremely useful. Looking back at my own notes, I am heartened to note it seems the provisions have been used less in the past 12 months than in previous 12-month periods. While the House does not have the information, I know that last year we were told that section 10 of the Act, dealing with the extension of the period of detention, was utilised on 25 occasions whereas it has been used only 12 times in the past 12 months. This time last year, we were told section 9 had been used 117 times in the previous 12 months whereas for the past 12 months, while still being used extensively, it has been used on just 63 occasions. The frequency with which these provisions are used appears to be falling and one hopes that is good news.
There is one other type of information which might be useful, namely, information on the actual outcomes in terms of the convictions and charges that result. In regard to section 10, we are told that charges resulted in six cases whereas for the previous year we were told charges had resulted in 12 cases out of 25. However, we are not told about convictions, which might be helpful.
With regard to frequency of use, I note that section 12 was not used in the past 12 months and has not been used in the past four years, according to the previous reports we have been given. I do not have information for the period prior to 2007. Where a section is not being used or has not been used for, say, ten years, it would be useful for the House to know whether we need to renew it. In 2009, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform expressly said he was not renewing section 5 of the Act because it had been largely superseded by Part 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007. When this legislation is before us on an annual basis, we need to subject it to rigorous scrutiny and we need information to enable us to do that. While we very much support the Minister's case for continuance in force of these provisions, we need to know they are of use and that, where sections are no longer being used or have fallen into disuse, they do not need to be renewed and that this does not prevent other sections being renewed.
Concern has been expressed in the House today on the announcement that training for gardaí in Templemore will not take place next year. It would be wrong not to mention this in the context of this debate as, clearly, it is not just about legislative powers but about enforcement of those powers and policing methods. There is a concern that if a new group of officers is not being trained up, this may affect not just day-to-day policing but also policing of paramilitary activity of the sort we have all been condemning.
I again welcome the Minister to the House and note he is one of the most frequent visitors to the House due to the nature of his portfolio. It was unfortunate that Senator Bradford again used the occasion to give us a distorted history lesson. At some point Senator Bradford and his colleagues might reflect on the involvement of the British state, British authorities and British armed forces in the conflict as well, and we would have a calmer, more reflective discussion on what happened in the conflict, and not just have people make very political speeches, as some Members of the Minister's party seem to do on occasion.
Like Senator Barrett, I would call on all of those armed groups which are still in existence to cease and to disband in favour of the peace process. Senator Barrett asked why these groups are not in either the Oireachtas or the Assembly but people who represent these groups have put themselves forward for election and they have failed to get elected. The Minister spoke earlier about the last elections in the North, where Sinn Féin was returned as the largest Nationalist party. Huge strides have been made for that community in the North because of the good work which was done in the context of the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. I again call on all of those armed groups to disband in support of the peace process and to recognise that the people overwhelmingly voted for the Good Friday Agreement.
It would be remiss of me not to state that the report into the operations of this Act, which the Minister makes on an annual basis, is grossly insufficient for the purposes of scrutiny. Those who read the report will know it consists of a one-page introduction, four pages of appendices and one other page which simply lists the number of times the sections in the Offences against the State Act were used. Given these are supposed to be emergency powers and that we are seeing the suspension of fundamental rights, surely a comprehensive report is required which would highlight the need for the suspension of these powers to continue. The report is derisory and unacceptable.
To turn to the figures contained in the report, during the period covered last year, the number of persons arrested under the Act was 764 yet the total number of convictions secured under the Act for the same period was just 38. This raises serious questions. The huge discrepancy between the annual level of arrests and the annual conviction rate points to the possibility that the provisions are being used for trawling purposes. I am concerned by that, as, I hope, is the Minister. Will he clarify this?
Senator Bacik alluded to the announcement that there will be no recruitment of gardaí for the next two years. The measure we are discussing extends the powers of the legislation and provides draconian powers in certain areas, but it does not address the real issues, such as providing adequate resources to the Garda and ensuring it has the resources to do its job. It is not only politicians but also gardaí who argue that what they need are resources. It is not all about legislation, but also about ensuring gardaí have the resources they need. There is something perverse in extending these kinds of powers on the one hand and on the other having an embargo on recruitment. This does not seem to make sense.
I hope the Minister will agree that gangland and drug crime are also serious issues. We in Sinn Féin have tabled comprehensive proposals to the Minister and the chief superintendents across all of the authorities on which our members serve in terms of the joint policing committees. Our proposals would deal robustly with these kinds of issues. The Minister's attention should be on this area because of the serious problems in cities throughout the State where gangland criminals and drug gangs operate with impunity. The Minister's time would be better used to deal with those gangs and issues.
The context of this discussion has been clearly set by the Minister in the context of the groups to which he referred. It is important for Sinn Féin and all parties in this House to call on those groups to cease their activities. We must convince them that violence is unacceptable. They need to disband in favour of the peace process. We must all engage with these groups to ensure we move them away from violence and get them to accept the will of the people, as expressed in the Good Friday Agreement. That would be a better use of our time. I am concerned about extending these powers again. I do not accept, as previous speakers have accepted, that these powers need to be extended. They should not be in existence. Fundamental human rights and justice issues arise in the context of extending these powers and I call on the Minister to reflect on that.
I thank the Senators who contributed to this debate. None of us should be under any illusion as to the level of threat and difficulty caused by organisations like the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA in the context of subversive activities and general criminality. That was clearly evident in the lead into and during the course of the very successful visit of Queen Elizabeth to this country, when the Garda and the Defence Forces had to deal with various calls made using designated codes. Some of those calls were calls involving the planting of hoax devices, but others involved the planting of devices which posed a threat to people in this State. These threats came from the organisations against whom this legislation is directed. As I and others have said, in a different environment I hope we would not require legislation of this nature. Senator Paul Bradford put it very well, that we have an obligation as democrats to defend democracy and the integrity of this State. This legislation is part of our necessary armoury in doing that.
Senator O'Donovan expressed his support and that of the Fianna Fáil group for the motion before the House. I note his point that instead of us bringing a motion before the House every 12 months, we should, perhaps, extend the provisions in the legislation for two to three years. However, the legislation envisages that there would be an annual report to both Houses. That is a good thing because it gives us, as legislators, an insight into the extent, to some degree, of the activities of subversive organisations and an insight into the extent to which these provisions are being used. I take the point that in a democracy some of the provisions in question are exceptional, but they are designed to deal with the exceptional dangers posed to the community on the whole island of Ireland by the organisations concerned. It is right that we publish an annual report on this and that the Seanad and the Dáil have the opportunity to deliberate on it.
I take the point made by Senators Bacik and Cullinane with regard to the report, that it might be of assistance if, in future years, we included the comparative figures from earlier years. They are available. If one gets last year's report and compares it with this year's report, the information is readily available, as demonstrated by Senator Bacik. I will ensure that if we find ourselves back here this time next year on the same issue, the comparative figures will be included to make them more readily accessible to Members.
I will address some of the issues raised by other Senators. Senator Barrett referred to extreme Nationalists. I do not regard these people as Nationalists, if they ever could have been regarded as such. Senator Cullinane and others are right. We had the Good Friday Agreement, had voting across the island of Ireland and the peace process was accepted. These individuals had every opportunity to stand for election, North and South, if they chose to do so, to seek a mandate. They did not do so, because they know they do not have a mandate. In so far as they present themselves as Irish Nationalists or republicans, they are perfectly happy, on both sides of the island, to play around with explosive devices, threaten people's lives and engage in conduct that is the antithesis of the type of conduct one would expect from a Nationalist, committed democrat or person who believes in republicanism. We should not refer to them as that. "Criminal subversives" is the correct description for these individuals and we should not use any other description.
Senator Bacik raised a number of issues, one of which concerned sections of the Act that may not have been used recently but whose application we wish to extend into this year. She referred in particular to section 12. She is correct that this section has not been used in the past three to four years. However, I regard it as a very important section in the context of some of the activity in which these groups engage. It is a section that may well save lives on some occasion in the future. When we look at the extent to which this legislation is being used and the reference to only 38 convictions, those 38 convictions may well have saved lives. The usage of the legislation in circumstances where it is believed that people are engaged in criminality may have intervened to save lives, without there being, as a result of a particular section being used, a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed to prosecution. Section 12 is an important section. It makes it an offence for a person to instruct or train another person in the making or use of firearms or explosives or to receive such training without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. From events we have seen in Northern Ireland, we know there are people on this island training others in the use of explosives and the use of firearms. As it may well be that in the coming 12 months, this section may well be utilised to great effect, I am loath to remove it from the architecture of the provisions available in the legislation to An Garda Síochána.
In the context of the overall issue raised, it is crucial that the Garda Síochána should have the best possible resources made available to it and that we preserve its operational capabilities in all aspects of its work, whether countering domestic terrorism, or international terrorism as it affects this island, or tackling the drugs gangs and others engaged in criminality.
The reality is that this Government inherited the EU-IMF agreement and is not in a position of choice in regard to Garda numbers. The financial envelope I inherited as Minister for Justice and Equality made provision for a reduction in the numbers of the Garda Síochána, from 14,500 at the end of 2010 to 13,500 at the end of 2011, without there being any mechanism within the agreements entered into with the IMF and the ECB as to how that reduction would be achieved. That presents a difficulty. At present Garda strength is approximately 14,300, a substantially higher number than in many previous years — indeed at the height of the Troubles its numbers did not reach such levels. I have absolute confidence in the capacity and capability of the Garda Síochána to fulfil its duties in tackling all aspects of crime in this State with both the numbers it has now and those that will be available at the end of this year.
It is unfortunate and regrettable that this Government finds itself in a position where we cannot recruit new young people into the Garda Síochána. At the beginning of last year the previous Government advertised places for Garda recruits. There was also a reserve of individuals who hoped to be admitted to Templemore. Last autumn recruitment was effectively cancelled. No new recruits were taken into Templemore and the group of individuals who had hoped to join the Garda Síochána remain on the list. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the funding at this stage for additional recruits. However, given the current numbers of gardaí, the superb training they obtain and the technical and other assistance available to them, I am absolutely confident the Garda Síochána can fulfil its duty.
In no sense, should any message of any nature go out from this House that gardaí will not seek to ensure that communities across this country are protected. We should not suggest, even remotely, that they will not continue to conduct the tremendous type of investigative and preventive activities in dealing with subversives in which they have been engaged. Through the Garda Síochána we will continue to crack down hard on the drugs gangs, those engaged in criminality and those who in recent times seem to think they can turn this city into a replica of Kansas City in the 1860s, engaging in gun law shootings with impunity. Individuals who conduct themselves in that manner will be fully pursued by An Garda Síochána and will be brought before our courts, where appropriate prosecutions will be taken. As matters stand with Templemore in the context of the financial exigencies of this State, it would be regrettable to suggest either inside or outside this House that gardaí will be impeded in any way from fully achieving their objectives and conducting their duties.
I very much appreciate the consideration given to this matter by Members of the House and the very substantial support for the extension of these measures. If I remain as Minister for Justice and Equality next year, as I hope to, I would dearly love to come back to this House at this time next year and announce we have had to use none of these sections, that all subversive activity has ended, there has been no further loss of life, no individual has been injured as a consequence of subversive activity and not one further explosive device has been found in any part of this island nor has there been any threat of planting such a device anywhere on this island. If we could achieve that we would all happily end the annual visit to, and extension of, these sections. However, while we remain in circumstances where this threat continues to exist, as is clearly documented in the report before the House, it is of crucial public importance that we maintain usage of this legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 4.10 p.m. and resumed at 4.15 p.m.