I move:
That Dáil 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, 2008.
Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion.
On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle will be mindful of what was said earlier regarding the renewal of the motion and, with the greatest of respect to the Minister of State, where is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
At a press conference.
The Deputy is out of order. I cannot go into that now.
The resolution before the House seeks approval for the continuance in operation of those sections——-
Our Whip was not informed that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would not be present.
The Deputy is completely out of order.
We agreed to this debate on the strict understanding that the Minister would move the motion.
The Deputy should resume his seat.
It is an important issue. I ask for the assistance of the Ceann Comhairle's office in this matter, which is designed to facilitate Deputies.
The Deputy is completely out of order.
Where is the Minister? Earlier the Tánaiste said he was holding a press conference and she knew this important debate was on the——
The Deputy is completely out of order. He must resume his seat.
The Minister should be in the House.
I ask Deputy Flanagan to leave the House.
The Minister is showing complete contempt for the House.
It is a gross offence to the House that the Minister is not present.
The resolution before the House seeks approval for the continuance in operation of those sections of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) 1998 which would otherwise cease to be in operation after 30 June next.
On a point of order, in addition to what Deputy Charles Flanagan said, I received notice yesterday that the meeting on the immigration Bill scheduled for this morning would not proceed because the Minister would be in the House to deal with this motion. I now find we have been blatantly misled by the new Minister who is apparently giving a press conference while the immigration Bill has been put on the back burner. He has sent his junior Minister to the House to take this important issue. This is not acceptable behaviour from the new Minister.
It is arrogant behaviour.
The Chair is not responsible for that.
Arrogance lost the referendum.
On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle asked for approval by the House of the Order of Business, which includes a debate on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill later. When will the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform attend the House? Is this another example of government by press conference? This is the most important motion of the week. I do not have a difficulty with Deputy Barry Andrews but I have a difficulty with the Minister not being present, especially when we were told he was coming.
I must move on. The Deputy is completely out of order. I will suspend the sitting.
It is arrogance.
No discourtesy is meant to the House.
Deputies
Adjourn the House.
Shame on the Deputies opposite supporting criminals.
The House is suspended for five minutes.
Sitting suspended at 11.40 a.m. and resumed at 11.45 a.m.
I call the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Barry Andrews, to address the motion.
On a point of order, I do not have any problem with the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews. My understanding was that he is Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children.
I am also Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
We must proceed with the debate.
This is an important issue. I would like to see the Ceann Comhairle privately on the matter if I could. I would like to discuss this matter with him privately following the debate.
I will be delighted to accommodate the Deputy.
On a point of order, as Fine Gael Party Whip, I was not informed that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would be absent from the House. We have been pushing for a debate on this important matter for the past number of weeks. As I understand it, the Minister is holding a press conference. The Minister appears to have more respect for people outside this House than inside it.
A Deputy
Hear, hear.
Will this be the carry-on every Thursday? Will Ministers absent themselves from this House every Thursday?
I will clarify the situation for the Deputy.
I have no problem with the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews. However, it is disrespectful to this House for the Minister to send in a Minister of State to take this motion which deals with important legislation while he attends a press conference. The spokespersons on justice are in the House for this debate. They appear to have more respect for the House than the Minister.
I have agreed to meet with Deputy Charles Flanagan on the matter.
(Interruptions).
With respect, it is not the Ceann Comhairle's job to make excuses in regard to the Minister's absence from the House.
No, it is not. I will clarify the situation.
I want the House suspended until the Minister comes in to take this important motion.
That is not going to happen.
I will not take my seat until that happens.
The Deputy will be standing for a long time.
A Deputy
Arrogance.
It is not arrogance.
I will clarify the situation. The Government is entitled to send into the House any Minister or Minister of State to deal with a motion of this kind. It is not necessary that the motion be taken by a Minister or Minister of State from the line Department. That is the position and they are the rules.
The spokespersons were misled.
Members will appreciate that the Chair has no responsibility in regard to who the Government sends into the House. It is important from the perspective of the decorum of the House that the Minister of State be allowed to deal with the motion. Members have made their points, and made them forcefully. It is important from the point of view of the decorum of the House and of parliamentary democracy that the Minister of State be allowed to proceed.
On a point of order, is the Minister having a press conference this morning?
Yes, he is.
Where is he? I have the official pairing list and the Minister's name does not appear on it.
That is right.
The Minister should be paired when absent from the Dáil. He is not in this House to deal with this motion.
That is a matter for——
I call Deputy Shatter on a point of order.
On a point of order, the Minister and the Government are aware that on Tuesday night next the House will take Second Stage of the Fine Gael victims' rights Bill, a measure that will provide substantial protections for victims of crime and will address various important issues in the criminal law requiring to be addressed as a result of recent court proceedings.
That is not a point of order.
It is, in this sense. The Minister is aware that this Bill is being taken in the House next week. It has been confirmed to me that the Minister is, as we speak, engaged in a press conference——
Deputy, please.
——cynically pretending that he is addressing the various major issues in legislation contained in the Fine Gael Bill.
That is not relevant.
The motion before the House deals with important legislation. Do Members want to discuss it or not?
Deputy Coughlan has been a Member of this House long enough to know what is going on.
It is an entirely inappropriate attempt to manipulate journalists, as the Minister has been doing since his appointment——
That is not a point of order.
This is a disgrace, as always.
If Deputy Shatter continues, I will have to suspend the House again, although I do not want to do so.
——and to mislead the public into believing that the Government has or is about to publish legislation in this area.
This motion deals with important legislation. If Members want criminality——
I call Deputy Andrews. Deputy Shatter has made his point.
It is cynical manipulation of journalists whose obligation it is to report to the public. The Minister is playing around with the politic process and undermining public confidence in our system.
I propose that the House be suspended.
The Deputy may not make such a proposal. I call the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews.
(Interruptions).
Perhaps the Members opposite would give me time to address their points.
This is one of the most arrogant Governments in the history of the State. It has no respect for parliamentary democracy and that is what led to the people's negative reaction to the Lisbon treaty.
The House is suspended for a further 15 minutes.
Sitting suspended at 11.45 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon.
I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, to resume.
The motion before the House seeks——
On a point of order——-
Is it a point of order?
I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the Chamber.
Hear, hear.
That is not a point of order.
I am glad to see I was missed.
In doing so, I congratulate him on the most cynical and manipulative act of politics I have seen in about 25 years——
Please, Deputy Shatter is out of order.
He managed to call a press conference this morning to announce legislation he intends to publish in a year's time, in the spring of 2009——
I ask Deputy Shatter to resume his seat.
——which embodies the principles of legislation that this party will bring before the Dáil next week.
I ask Deputy Shatter to resume his seat.
If the Minister is sincere, he should support the Fine Gael Bill instead of waiting for the spring of 2009——
Deputy Shatter should resume his seat.
(Interruptions).
——and holding press conferences about his legislation. He could have the legislation before the House before the end of this year.
Deputy Shatter should resume his seat or leave the House. It is my intention to suspend the House for the entire day if this continues. I do not seem to have much of an alternative.
(Interruptions).
Why is the Minister not addressing the motion?
As a measure of assistance to the Ceann Comhairle and in view of what he said, I ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform why it is intended that he should sit silently beside his junior Minister when dealing with this important legislation.
Hear, hear.
I cannot ask the Minister to reply to that.
It is called delegation.
Deputy Andrews is a Minister of State.
(Interruptions).
It is a gross discourtesy to this House that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, or any Cabinet Minister, should engage in a press conference at a time when——
I will have to adjourn the House.
(Interruptions).
It is a disgrace and arrogance on the part of the Government.
Hear, hear.
Deputy Flanagan should resume his seat. Deputy Andrews has made his point and should not join in.
(Interruptions).
On a point of order——
It is outrageous that a press conference should be held today to announce legislation the Minister might publish in a year's time.
I will have to suspend the House for the entire day if this continues.
It is making a farce of politics and a fool of the Members of the House. It shows contempt for democracy.
I ask Deputy Shatter to resume his seat.
On a point of order——
Is it a point of order?
It is a point of order.
If it is, the Deputy may proceed.
Will somebody tell the House the reason for the Minister's refusal to take the legislation in the House this morning?
That is not a point of order.
There has to be a reason. The Minister promised——
It is a delegated function.
The Minister initiated the legislation and is bound to take it in the House.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
I will resume it but the Minister——
On a point of order——
Deputy Rabbitte, on a point of order.
What the business amounts to is——
A Deputy
Wasting time.
——asking the House to leave the Offences against the State Acts in place on the assertion of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that he has intelligence to the effect that the security of the State warrants the retention of the emergency legislative measures. There are very few Members who know better than the Ceann Comhairle what is involved. We had a committee that devoted a great deal of time to a painstakingly detailed assessment of this matter. It is incomprehensible that the Minister of State with responsibility for children is sitting alongside the man who is giving us the assertions and presenting this debate in the manner——
That is not a point of order.
I know of no precedent for a responsible Minister sitting silently beside a junior Minister who is reading out his script.
Hear, hear.
That is not a point of order.
The issues are too great.
I ask for the last time——
On a final point of order——
The Deputy should resume his seat. He has made no point of order yet.
This is my final point of order.
The Deputy did not even make one.
It is a question of respect for this House and I ask that the Minister——
This is the last time; I will suspend the House for the day if this continues.
——explain to the House why he prioritised holding a press conference today announcing legislation he might publish——
The Deputy is out of order. I ask him to resume his seat.
——over directly moving——-
(Interruptions).
That is disrespectful.
(Interruptions).
It is shameful.
I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, to resume.
The resolution before the House seeks the approval——
It is a scandal and a shameful attempt——-
(Interruptions).
The Minister does not have the guts to stand up and reply. He is sitting there grinning like a hyena and has not the capacity to stand up and defend his disgraceful conduct.
I have no alternative but to suspend the House for half an hour.
The Minister is treating the House with disrespect.
Sitting suspended at 12.10 p.m. and resumed at 12.40 p.m.
I understand the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has agreed to take the motion. In those circumstances, I ask that he be allowed do so and without interruption.
On that matter, a Cheann Comhairle——
No Deputy, to be fair about it.
He has agreed to do it. This is not a concession to the House.
I am not saying it is.
This was an avoidable row which was started by the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and can only be finished by him.
We must continue. The Deputy must allow the Minister to proceed.
This is the most important legislation in which the House will ever engage. This is the main body of all counter-terrorism legislation.
Deputy Charles Flanagan will be allowed speak after the Minister.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform wishes to pull a stroke.
Hear, hear.
I call on the Minister to speak to the motion.
Sir, on a final point of order.
No, Deputy Shatter. You have not raised one point of order yet and you have been up five times already. This is not a point of order.
Will the Minister show the House sufficient respect to explain why he was engaging in what can be best described as premature political speculation at a press conference at 11 o'clock this morning?
I must ask Deputy Shatter to resume his seat.
He was trying to pull a cynical political stroke by pretending he had important legislation to publish when in fact there is no possibility of it being published until spring 2009.
Deputy Shatter is acting like a spoiled child.
If the Minister is so concerned about victims——
I am going to have to ask Deputy Shatter to leave the House. If I do, he will miss his Bill next week. The Minister without interruption.
First, I would like to make the point——
I ask the Minister to speak to the motion.
The Minister must apologise to the House.
The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, is more than entitled to move this motion.
The Minister must at least apologise to the House.
This is not a concession to the House.
The Minister must speak on the motion.
It would be more appropriate if the Minister started with an apology and less of his arrogance.
The Minister must remember his presence is not a concession to the House. It is his constitutional duty.
The Minister of State is more than entitled to move the motion under his powers of delegation from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The sending of a Minister of State to deal with this important legislation highlights the Government's arrogance towards the House. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, epitomises that arrogance.
Any more spoiled childishness from Deputy Shatter——-
Less of the arrogance.
The Minister without interruption.
It is quite clear Deputy Shatter is a like a child from whom someone has taken a toy.
The Minister on the motion.
This is one stroke too many.
The Government is entitled to declare and move any legislation it wishes.
If the Minister had any interest in legislation, he would support the Fine Gael Bill on victims rather than giving foolish press conferences with no credibility.
This morning I spoke on victims. The core issue is dealing with and assisting victims of violence.
If the Minister was really concerned about victims he would not have had that press conference. The Minister has no sympathy for the victims of crime.
The Minister was shamed into coming into the House.
Deputy Shatter's Bill does no justice to this core issue.
The Minister must speak to the motion.
The Minister was shamed into coming into the House.
The Minister had to be dragged into the House.
The motion 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 next. This legislation was enacted in the aftermath of the atrocity in Omagh in August 1998. This was a dreadful act which claimed the lives of 29 innocent people and injured over 200 others.
The callous attack at Omagh was designed to undermine the fledgling peace process and, thankfully, it failed in that aim. Ten years later we can reflect on the great strides made in normalising politics in Northern Ireland, the successful partnership in the devolved Executive and an ever closer North-South relationship.
Given the very exceptional circumstances which surrounded the enactment of the 1998 Act, it was decided that certain sections should be revisited annually by the Oireachtas. The aim is to allow this House and the Seanad to decide if the current circumstances justify the continuation in operation of those provisions. Accordingly, the House must decide if the situation that exists still warrants the continued operation of these provisions for a further period not exceeding 12 months. For my part, I have no doubt that they do.
To support the consideration by Deputies of the necessity 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 resolution being moved. This report covers the period since the last such report was prepared in April 2007 and it was laid before the House on 13 June 2008.
The clear lesson to be drawn from the report is that the relevant sections of the 1998 Act have been of significant value to the Garda in tackling the threat from terrorism. The inevitable conclusion is that they should remain in operation for a further 12 months. The Garda authorities consider that the Act continues to be a vital piece of legislative equipment in the continuing fight against terrorism.
Members will be aware that, although progress has been made within Northern Ireland and the Provisional IRA is committed to following the political path, there remains a real and ongoing threat from a variety of dissident republican groups. We should not be complacent or presume that the success of the peace process has somehow removed this threat. The House will scarcely need reminding of recent attempts to kill members of the PSNI — two shootings of off-duty officers in November last year and a further car-bomb attack in Tyrone only last month.
The 18th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, IMC, published on 1 May 2008, makes it clear that the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, the group styling itself Óglaigh na hÉireann and the INLA all remain committed to violent paramilitary action in pursuit of their ends. These groups continue to seek to acquire and manufacture weapons, to plant explosive devices and to target members of the security forces.
Should we assume these groups are involved in some noble cause for Irish freedom, we must not forget the terrible acts they have perpetrated, including Omagh, which gave rise to the necessity for this legislation. We cannot not forget either the clear evidence, as recorded by the IMC, of the ongoing involvement of these organisations in other serious criminal activities, including extortion, drug-dealing and brothel-keeping. These criminal activities are carried out as much for personal gain and to support particular individual lifestyles. There is also speculation that the terrorist expertise of these groups has in some cases been sought by organised criminal gangs. The Garda Síochána will continue actively to counter such attempts.
These anti-democratic organisations remain active and determined in their opposition to peace and the rule of law. We should not, therefore, underestimate the importance of these legislative provisions in thwarting their activities.
Although the motion is concerned with provisions aimed at the threat posed by domestic terrorism, the wider international, threat cannot be ignored. The extent of the terrorist threat in the European Union varies greatly from one member state to another. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to imagine that Ireland is completely immune to these new forms of terrorism. Ireland cannot be complacent in response to them. There is also the danger of domestic groups forging international links. We should be alert to these dangers and act, in particular, with our EU counterparts to defeat them.
The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 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.
The report I laid before the House deals with the operation of the relevant sections since April 2007. Section 2 was used on 80 occasions. It 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. It 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 4 was used on 13 occasions. This section 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 used in section 2 of the 1998 Act.
Section 5 was used on 34 occasions. It provides for the drawing of adverse inferences in certain circumstances 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 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 used on 16 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 on 14 occasions. 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 127 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 behalf. In the reporting period in question, an extension was applied for in 12 cases; two were granted, charges resulted and convictions resulted in two cases.
Section 11 was used on 32 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 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 a procedural section which makes the offences created under sections 6 to 9, inclusive, and section 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. The sum total of the uses of sections 6 to 9, inclusive, and section 12 was 157.
I will now deal with those sections of the 1998 Act which were not used in the period under report, namely, sections 6, 12 and 17. 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 the forfeiture of property. Essentially, the 1994 provision empowers a court, at its discretion, whenever any person is convicted of an offence under that Act, to order the forfeiture of any property in the possession of that person which 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 such an 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. The information on the use made of the provisions of the 1998 Act is based on data received from the Garda authorities and is contained in the report on the Act laid before this House.
In conclusion, on the basis of the information set out in the report, it is clear that the 1988 Act continues to be an important element of the Garda response to the threat still posed by terrorist groups here. From the advice given by the Garda Síochána on the evident ongoing threat from terrorist groups, particularly the dissident republican groups, I consider that the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act should remain in operation for further 12 months. I commend the resolution to the House.
In view of what the Minister has said, it is proof — if proof were needed — of the importance of having the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform present in the House to move this motion. The manner in which the business of the House was disrupted this morning was shameful because of the Minister's attempt to pull a stroke.
By yourselves.
Not at all. It most certainly was not done by ourselves——
Now that we have order, I hope we will remain in order.
——it was precisely and conclusively because of arrogance on the part of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform——
Hear, hear.
——who refused to come into the House. Indeed, his own script——
The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, is just as entitled to——
I did not make any attempt to interrupt the Minister. The script the Minister put before the House is titled as a speech by the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Barry Andrews. The Minister had no intention of coming in here but I am pleased he did. The Ceann Comhairle referred to the fact that any Minister or Minister of State was entitled to move any resolution on behalf of the Government. That may be the case but this Act is one of the most important pieces of counter-terrorism legislation the State has ever enacted and the House has ever discussed. Resolutions of this type are of fundamental importance, but the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform decided to pull a stroke and go to a hotel to hold a press conference, leaving the Minister of State with responsibility for children in the hapless position of having to bring this resolution before the House. I am pleased——
Under delegated functions, he is entitled to speak. He is attached to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
——that common sense ultimately prevailed and that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, however reluctantly, is here.
It is also shameful that this important business has such a restricted time allocation because in the broader context this motion has both national and international significance. Indeed, for many years, we were all acutely aware of the threat of terrorism to human life and the very security of the State. Throughout the painful decades of the Troubles, parts of this island endured an abnormal, fearful existence. Thanks to the selfless and pioneering efforts of many individuals from North and South, as well as from Britain, America and beyond, we now live in a country where one can turn on the news without hearing about the latest atrocity in the North — as was the case for far too long. These days we turn on the news and hear about cross-party efforts to attract investment to Northern Ireland and secure EU funding and we rejoice in the normality of it all.
However, every now and again, we are reminded that those who have no respect for our laws, and seek to operate outside them, in their own words, have not gone away. This was starkly and brutally evidenced in the vicious murder of the late Paul Quinn. Last October, the 21-year-old was lured to a farm in Oram, County Monaghan, where he was beaten to death by up to 15 masked men using iron bars and nail-studded cudgels. Mr. Quinn's family say the attack was carried out by members of the IRA because of a personal feud between Mr. Quinn and certain south Armagh republicans. Sinn Féin has been alone among nationalist parties in maintaining that it stemmed from a row over diesel smuggling and that it was criminal in nature. The murder of Paul Quinn certainly bore all the hallmarks of a paramilitary-style killing.
The people of Cullyhanna believe that the IRA murdered Paul Quinn and as they have spent all of their lives in an area known to be strongly republican, we can safely assume that they know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, their claims were immediately dismissed by the Irish Government as if they were not entitled to say anything that might antagonise those who have belatedly chosen to abandon the armalite in favour of the ballot box. This attitude on the part of the Government is wholly unacceptable. I agree we must do all we can to protect and nurture the peace process, but we cannot sacrifice justice for people such as Paul Quinn in the process.
Paul Quinn's murder and its aftermath illustrated two facts starkly, the first being that certain parts of Ireland have not yet broken free from the Mafia-style rule of the IRA and, second, that people do not want to live that way. The vast numbers of people who attended meetings organised by the Quinn family were protesting not just at Paul's death, but at the fact that they had enough of republican bullying and intimidation and did not want to live that way. The State and the Minister must protect these people and vindicate their rights. Treating republican thugs with kid gloves is not the way to do this. I wonder if the Minister's absence this morning has anything to do with his own constituency and his role as organiser for Fianna Fáil in Northern Ireland.
There is much evidence to suggest that paramilitary organisations continue to thrive in this State thanks to criminality. In this context, the Government has some difficult questions to answer. Paul Quinn lost his life in a shed used by fuel smugglers. These people smuggle fuel across the Border and authorities on both sides of the Border appear to be doing little to stop them. I welcome yesterday's announcement by the Northern Ireland authorities that belated efforts will be made to combat cross-Border smuggling. Some 43% of diesel sales in Northern Ireland are of smuggled produce. What will the Minister do about this? Deputies McHugh and Crawford and others have consistently made representations for extra Garda resources, particularly in Border areas because of the activities of criminal gangs.
The activity of criminal gangs is not confined to Northern Ireland. In the South, there are individuals and gangs who believe they are above and outside the law. The Government's failure to end gang culture and put a stop to their activities fuels this belief. Even when members of criminal gangs are apprehended and jailed they continue to run their empires from within their prison cells through the use of mobile phone technology, and we still do not have mobile phone signal blocking technology in all our prisons.
Meanwhile, the Government's half-hearted attempts to stem the flow of drugs into the country is met with derision. While our lone X-ray scanner moves from port to port, gangs simply change plans to fit in with the scanner's movements, thereby avoiding detection for the most part. The Government ignores the gaping loophole in security at private airports, checking now and then and citing value for money as a justification for the pathetic security measures at smaller private airports. In the meantime Customs owns one single boat — nothing more than an empty gesture, given the length of this island's coastline.
In this sense, the State is complicit in the progress of criminality in this country. It is guilty of sitting on its hands and being utterly half-hearted in its efforts to remove from circulation the drugs that keep criminal gangs in business. Thanks to our exposed and vulnerable coastline and our poorly monitored smaller airports, drugs can come into this country with little or no difficulty. They then serve as means by which gangs accrue money, power and influence. They help to pay for the guns that gang members use to assassinate one another if their business interests are threatened. In the ten years following Fianna Fáil's return to Government in 1997 there were 150 gangland murders, resulting in a paltry 24 convictions.
It is little wonder the Minister chose to attend a press conference rather than deal with these important issues. It is little wonder that assassination attempts are so often successful when there is plenty of evidence of gang members travelling overseas to avail of training in sophisticated weaponry and then returning to Ireland to use their new-found skills to deadly effect. As we have seen in tragic cases such as the murder of Donna Cleary, sooner of later innocent people get caught up in the gangland bloodbath.
Limerick is a city beleaguered by the activities of criminal gangs. It is estimated that up to 25% of illegal discharges of firearms in the State occur in Limerick city. In 2007 gardaí located 75 guns during raids. A long-running feud was linked to heroin sales running to millions of euro. Limerick has seen its name and reputation dragged through the mire because of drugs and criminal gangs, yet the Government fails to address the root cause of this problem by not dedicating the necessary resources into policing ports and airports, particularly private airports.
In Dublin in recent times there has been a spate of pipe bomb attacks. According to gardaí those responsible are members of the INLA and other paramilitary groups. Already in 2008, the Army has been called out to deal with 20 hoax bomb attacks as well as ten viable bombs. Both the hoax devices and the real bombs are used by rival criminal gangs to threaten particular individuals on an ongoing basis. One of yesterday's papers reported that gardaí were extremely concerned about an ongoing sinister feud between senior INLA figures and well known drug traffickers in central Dublin. Meanwhile, just days ago a dissident republican group attempted to murder members of the PSNI by placing a landmine under a bridge near the Border in County Fermanagh. Two policemen were injured by the device. Therefore, we must sadly conclude that paramilitaries are still thriving on both sides of the border more than ten years after the Good Friday Agreement.
Fine Gael supports the motion before the House. We agree with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that there remains a significant terrorist threat to the State from, inter alia, dissident groups, which warrants the continuance of relevant sections of the 1998 Act.
Dissident groups are now more multifaceted than ever and have a substantial foothold in the drugs empire. However, republican terrorism remains a threat to this State. Last February the Real IRA announced that it was poised to launch a renewed campaign of violence across the North. It claimed that it had streamlined its operations during a three year reorganisation and was ready to attack Britain and representatives of the Stormont power-sharing Executive. These claims were met with silence from this Government. The Government cannot turn a blind eye to the continued threat of dissident republican groups. This year, a report by Europol stated: "Based on capability and intent, the threat from the Continuity Irish Republican Army, CIRA, and Real Irish Republican Army, RIRA, is estimated to moderate to substantial."
The report went on to detail the threat of terrorism in a wider European context, stating that there were 583 attempted or successful terrorist attacks in the EU in 2007, with the vast majority on mainland Europe. Those incidents overwhelmingly related to disputes involving the Basques in Spain and Corsican separatists in France, with only four incidents related to Islamic terrorism in 2007.
It is clear, therefore, that where terrorism is concerned we live in challenging times in both an Irish and a European context. Our membership of the European Union is a great asset to us in countering the threat posed by international terrorism. The Union has also been far more proactive about tackling drug trafficking than our Government, agreeing the establishment of a maritime analysis and operations centre to counteract drug trafficking.
It is time that the Minister took his responsibilities more seriously. It is time to tackle fuel smugglers in the Border areas and INLA drug smugglers in Dublin. It is time to address the threat posed by the Real IRA and to stem the tide of drugs flowing into this country via an exposed coastline and unmonitored private airports.
Renewing this motion once a year is not enough. I appeal to the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, to take the threat of terrorism seriously and to meet it with a coherent policy framework and the resources necessary to end organised criminality in this State.
With the agreement of the House I will share time with Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh.
I received a message on Monday last to say Committee Stage of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, scheduled for this morning, could not proceed because the Minister would be in the House at the same time dealing with this motion concerning the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. Members received very little notice of this motion. I was in my office scribbling a few words, indeed acquiescing in the motion, when I saw the Minister of State on the television screen. I was acquiescing in the motion because the Minister with responsibility for security was solemnly telling the House that, in his judgment, a real terrorist threat was extant. For that reason, my party and I are acquiescing in the motion.
I then found a Minister of State, who has no access to intelligence data, before the House and reading a script for a Minister who is known to be in the environs of the House. We know now that the Minister was not involved in a conflict with the timing of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill but was engaged in a stunt to upstage Fine Gael on a different matter. To add insult to injury, when it became known that he was in the environs he came into the House, sat beside the Minister of State and tried to maintain his peace. The Minister of State, contrary to what the Minister has just said in response to Deputy Flanagan, has no delegated powers in this area. I challenge the Minister to say if a delegation order has been made to this Minister of State giving him responsibility for security or access to intelligence data.
The Minister then purported to lecture people rather than apologise for the unconscionable arrogance, which partly explains the reaction of the people last week, when told by politicians they must do X and Y. The Minister has shown contempt for the House and will have to learn that he must cope with an Opposition. The Dáil is not Iveagh House and he will not be able to run around with a single transferable speech. If he expects to get his legislative programme through the House, he will have to treat Deputies with a little more courtesy.
The only important point about this debate is the assertion by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that in his opinion, relying on the intelligence available to him, there remains a terrorist threat from certain groups which warrants the continuance in force, for the time being, of the relevant sections of the 1998 Act. The Act referred to is the emergency legislation, the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, enacted in the wake of the attack in Omagh, the single worst atrocity of the Northern Ireland conflict.
I suspect most Members would prefer that we did not have to pass this resolution each year. However, we are not in a position to second-guess the Minister on matters that affect the security of the State. The Minister asserts there remains "a significant terrorist threat" from what he describes “inter alia” as “dissident groups”. I am not sure what is encompassed by the term “inter alia” but it appears to refer to the threat of terrorism from sources outside the jurisdiction as well as home-grown sources.
If the House does not endorse the resolution, key sections of the Act will fall. On the face of it, the climate appears to be right to let these very severe sections lapse but that is not a view informed by intelligence advice. I repeat that if the Minister with responsibility for security asserts, with a full sense of consciousness, that there remains "a significant terrorist threat", responsible Members of this House cannot ignore his words. Having said that, the record is one of introducing emergency legislation to confront particular emergencies and leaving it on the Statute Book long after the emergency has passed. For example, I recall the decision of the rainbow Government in 1995 to terminate the emergency declared to cope with circumstances that arose contemporaneously with the Second World War. In addition, the Special Criminal Court, which was reintroduced in 1972, is still in use.
People concerned about civil liberties and human rights will question the reason we need these extreme, gravely illiberal measures, including juryless trials, in a time of peace in a modern liberal democracy with a well established neutral reputation. They will ask if it is correct for Members to repose unquestioning confidence in the assertions of the Minister. Hence, the ludicrous position of having a Minister of State who is not in possession of the information in question seeking to assure the House. In most similar democracies it is possible to tease out these issues in specialist committee whereas in this country these issues are rarely addressed in the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.
We know from the Hederman report that the issues are complex and fundamental. The authors of the report, under the direction of Mr. Justice Anthony Hederman, detailed widely divergent views on the necessity for and use of the Acts under review. The main recommendations included the proposed repeal of the existing Offences against the State Acts and the introduction of new legislation which would keep in place some of their key elements. There was also a minority report, headed up unusually by Mr. Justice Hederman, which favoured dismantling much of the existing legislation because it was seen as incompatible with a modern democratic state. Therefore, having requested the Hederman committee to report, which it did in great detail, we find the substantial measures in the legislation, such as the continued existence of the Special Criminal Court, its use for non-terrorist "ordinary" crime, the statutory provisions for internment, whether inferences should be drawn from a suspect exercising his right to silence and so on, are the subject of different conclusions by the majority and minority in the report.
It seems regrettable that such a detailed and painstaking report has been left largely undebated in the House. Meanwhile, we have an almost casual presumption on the part of Government that the House will nod through this motion in 50 minutes. All we have to go on is a last minute, not very informative report and the assertions of the Minister that there remains a significant terrorist threat. If the Minister is satisfied that there is reality behind such a conclusion, I cannot see how responsible Members can risk not acquiescing in the motion. However, I draw the attention of the House to a statement in the Hederman report:
Emergency legislation may be abused for pragmatic political purposes; special powers, introduced for special reasons, may continue to be used when those reasons no longer justify this, or for purposes extending beyond those that warranted their original introduction; and powers of detention or interrogation may be used cruelly or inhumanely upon innocent (or even guilty) people.
The House received minimal notice of this debate and Deputies did not receive a briefing from the Minister as to the reasons he has concluded that the security of our people warrants the endorsement of the motion. While we have little alternative but to accept his advice, given the progress made since the horror of Omagh and the dispassionate arguments advanced in the Hederman report, the time has come for this House to schedule a proper debate on the sensitive and complex issues involved in keeping the Offences against the State Acts in place. We also need to have a considered debate about the capacity of our criminal justice system to effectively tackle the crime bosses engaged in international drugs trafficking, poisoning so many of our young people and ravaging our most disadvantaged communities. I hope the Minister will indicate the time has come for the House to schedule a proper, structured debate which will allow Members to have a serious discussion on the divergent views in this worthwhile, painstaking, comprehensive, detailed report on complex and sensitive issues.
Bhog mé An Bille chun na hAchtanna um Chiontaí in aghaidh an Stáit a Aisghairm 2008 sa Dáil inné. Dhein mé é sin ní hamháin chun na forálacha atá á phlé againn inniu a scoir, ach freisin chun na hAchtanna ina iomlán a chur ar leathtaobh. Tá gá ann gníomh críochnaithe faoi dhualgaisí Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta a dhéanamh. In Airteagal 3 den Chomhaontú, ghlac an Rialtas leis go bhfuil gá ann fáil réidh le reachtaíocht éigeandála de réir mar is féidir. Sa lá atá inniu ann, tá an deis sin againn, deich mbliana tar éis sínithe an Chomhaontú agus tírdhreach pholaitiúl an oileán athraithe ina iomlán. Is féidir linn é sin a thapú trí an rún seo a dhiúiltiú. Ba chóir dúinn seasamh leis an méid a dúirt an Teachta Finian McGrath i rith na díospóireachta ar an cheist seo i 2005:
For any citizen and democrat, repressive legislation is not the way forward. If we are serious about protecting human and civil rights and if we are lecturing other nations on this issue, everybody should stand up and be counted and vote against this motion and this legislation.
Cúig bliana ó shin, i 2003, dúirt an Teachta Ciarán Cuffe: "the state of emergency is over . . . we should drop the use of the Offences against the State Act". He said his party "does not want to see the use of the Special Criminal Court continue". In every subsequent year, Deputy Finian McGrath and Green Party Deputies opposed the renewal of the relevant sections of the Offences against the State Act. It will be interesting to note what will be their stance when the House divides on the issue.
The Minister has not shown that we have an emergency which could possibly justify the continuation of the draconian measures contained in the sections to be renewed today. The case has not been proven and this legislation is contrary to Ireland's responsibilities under the derogation regimes of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. It is also contrary to the Good Friday Agreement requirement that steps be taken towards security normalisation, including the progressive elimination of the Acts' provisions as circumstances permit.
This year, the Minister's report on the operation of the 1998 provisions is again lacking in the detail required to make an informed judgment of the operation or use and abuse of the 17 relevant sections. Simply listing the number of occasions on which the various provisions have been used does not allow for informed democratic scrutiny of their operation. There is not time available to me to discuss the various sections and the manner in which they fundamentally breach human rights. However, I must note that sections 6, 12 and 17 were not used at all in the year ending April 2008. Even leaving disproportionality and human rights non-compliance aside, their necessity has not been demonstrated.
In fact, section 17 has never been used since its inception. Section 6 has been used only twice and section 12 was only used in 2001. Very few of the arrests under these sections resulted in charges being preferred, never mind convictions gained. That would leave me to believe that these sections, much like the rest of the Offences Against the State Acts, are being used for trawling purposes, or may be abused for harassment purposes by gardaí of the special branch variety, similar to those cases documented in the recent Morris tribunal report. Repression breeds resistance and that is an important lesson the Minister should bear in mind.
Year on year the UN Human Rights Committee has recommended the abolition of the Special Criminal Court and of other powers related to this emergency legislation. Earlier this month in its report to the UN Committee, the Human Rights Commission highlighted the absolute failure of the Government to address the concerns and recommendations of the UN committee.
The Act is in breach of international legal instruments. Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits a state to derogate from certain human rights obligations, but only "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and existence of which is officially proclaimed" and only "to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation". Derogation on the basis of pre-emption is prohibited according to the principle of strict necessity which dictates that each derogation measure "shall be directed to an actual, clear, present, or imminent danger and may not be imposed merely because of an apprehension of a potential danger". Likewise, the European Convention on Human Rights also permits temporary derogations from certain human rights obligations, but it also imposes similar conditions to those of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The time has come for these sections to be confined to the dustbin of history and, as Deputy Rabbitte stated, for us to have a proper debate on emergency legislation so that this State can live up to the commitments it made in negotiating the Good Friday Agreement. If the Government really wants to protect the safety and freedoms of the Irish people, it should look towards the human security approach formalised by the 2001 UN International Commission on Human Security. This approach moves away from viewing security as being an exclusive, invariably militarist focus on states towards the sources of daily insecurity experienced by most people such as poverty, disease, conflict, human rights abuses and economic and environmental uncertainty. If the Government took that approach, one would see a much better security situation on this island.
Repression breeds resistance and that is what feeds some of the groups which were mentioned earlier. It is now time to get rid of the Offences Against the State Act and for the Government to adopt the repeal Bill, which I submitted yesterday.
I thank the Members who supported this resolution or indicated that their parties are prepared to support it. I wish the case for doing away with these provisions was as rosy as Deputy Ó Snodaigh paints it.
I did not paint a rosy picture.
The reality is to this day there still are people running around with balaclavas and batons——
There are many other laws in use to target that.
——and dissident groups and others who are endeavouring to disrupt the peace process and to continue their criminal activities. That is what this is designed to address.
I thank the Members opposite who have supported it. Given its nature, the structure on which it is based and the fact that it must come before the House in a resolution, it is important that Members of the Opposition share the views expressed by the Minister, the Department and the Garda Síochána. It is clear that there are significant issues still to be dealt with in this State, whether we like it or not.
We are working with the PSNI, particularly in the case of Mr. Paul Quinn referred to earlier, to find the people responsible. I do not accept for one minute any suggestion that the Government has made an assessment on its own in this regard. The Garda and the PSNI are solidly of the view that the murder of Mr. Quinn was not a sanctioned IRA activity and this has been confirmed by the Independent Monitoring Commission.
Returning to the Act, its provisions have been used on 800 occasions over the past 12 months, which is significant. Some 34 convictions have been obtained during that same period and 154 persons are currently awaiting trial. Those figures alone demonstrate that there is a need for these provisions to continue in operation.
As I stated earlier, the dissident republican groups are very active and ruthless in their determination. One need only consider some of the recent incidents that have taken place. There was one incident earlier this month and the attack on the two PSNI officers previously. The IMC's recent report refers to actions attributed to dissident groups, including murder, a pipe-bomb attack, a number of shootings and assaults. The Garda Síochána has intelligence that these dissident groups are still very active. As Minister, I can confirm that this is the position. The Garda has made a number of recent arrests of individuals in connection with dissident terrorist activities and we want to continue to resource the Garda to ensure that it can continue that fight.
The State and the Oireachtas has a responsibility to protect our citizens. In an ideal world, we would not like to have this type of legislation. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world because of the continued terrorist threat. The effort by those terrorists to destabilise the peace process that has been put in place on this island is ever present. I strongly urge the House to back this motion. I thank the parties who support the continuation of this legislation.
Question put.
Vótáil.
Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise?
Deputies Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Arthur Morgan and Martin Ferris rose.
As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 70, the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.
Question declared carried.