I move:
That Seanad Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period of 12 months beginning on 30 June 2006.
Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion.
The resolution under consideration seeks approval for the continuance in force of those sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 which would otherwise cease to be in operation on 30 June.
In commencing the debate on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I remind Senators that the 1998 Act was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing of August 1998, which claimed the lives of 29 innocent people, including a woman pregnant with twins, and injured more than 200 others. That appalling act, which occurred a few months after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and was clearly designed to derail the peace process, was perpetrated by people for whom human life holds no value.
The Seanad will be aware that there is an upcoming criminal action against a person in Northern Ireland in regard to these murders. The retrial of another person is also pending in this jurisdiction. The investigation into this atrocity continues on both sides of the Border and there continues to be excellent co-operation between the Garda authorities and the PSNI in this regard.
It will be recalled that, in recognition of the exceptional circumstances surrounding the enactment of the 1998 Act, there was general agreement that the Act be regularly revisited by the Oireachtas. The purpose of this recurring scrutiny is to ascertain if the circumstances then prevailing in 1998 justify the continuance in force of its provisions. Accordingly, by virtue of resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas on 16 June 2005, sections 2 to 12, inclusive, and 14 and 17 of the 1998 Act will cease to operate on and from 30 June next unless a further resolution is passed by each House authorising the sections to continue to operate for a period not exceeding 12 months.
There is a requirement in the 1998 Act to lay a report on the operation of the Act before each House of the Oireachtas prior to any consideration by the Houses of the renewal of the provisions. The Minister laid such a report before the House on Monday. Its conclusion is that the relevant sections of the 1998 Act should remain in force for a further 12 months. In the first instance, this is the firm view of the Garda Síochána, which considers the Act to be vital in the continuing fight against terrorism and which considers it to be of paramount importance that the relevant provisions remain in operation.
The harsh reality is that those responsible for the Omagh bombing and others like them continue to pursue, plan and promote campaigns of violence. Senators should remember that there have been a number of near misses involving the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA since the Omagh bombing, and it is only by dint of excellent police work by the Garda and the PSNI that further tragedy on a massive scale has been averted. The State must be prepared to meet the real threat posed by dissidents, particularly at this very sensitive time, when all our hopes are on a restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland.
No one in this House can be ignorant of the newer and more sinister forms of international terrorism — and in particular Islamist terrorism — which have manifested themselves in recent years in addition to home-grown terrorism. With the Madrid bombings of March 2004, and the London bombings of last July, which together involved the murder of more than 250 innocent commuters, two of our closest European friends and neighbours have had to face the full horror of this phenomenon. It would be naive to imagine that Ireland is completely immune from such threats.
The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 was enacted to deal with this international terrorist threat by enabling the application of the Offences against the State Acts against international terrorist groups and individuals. Chipping away at these Acts would be neither wise nor warranted at this time.
On behalf of the Minister, I will now turn to the individual sections of the 1998 Act which this House is being asked to continue in force for a further 12 months and I will outline the position on the various sections since the end of the last reporting period, that is, from 1 June 2005 to 31 May 2006.
Section 2 was used on 14 occasions. It provides that where, in any proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, the accused fails to answer or gives false or misleading answers to any question, the court may then draw such inferences from that failure or from the furnishing of a false or misleading reply as appear proper. However, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure.
Section 3 was used on nine occasions. By way of explanation, section 3 provides that, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, the accused must give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his or her behalf, unless the court permits otherwise.
Section 4 was used on two 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 now 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. This section provides for the drawing of adverse inferences in the prosecution of a person for any offence under the Offences against the State Acts, any offence scheduled under the Acts and any offence arising out of the same set of facts as such an offence, provided that the offence carries a penalty of five years imprisonment or more. The effect of this section is to allow a court to draw inferences where the accused relies on a fact in his or her defence that he or she could reasonably have been expected to mention during questioning or on being charged but did not do so. As with section 2, however, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure.
Section 7 was used on two occasions. This section makes it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the article is in possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences.
Section 9 was used on 110 occasions. This section makes it an offence to withhold information 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 15 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 was applied for in 15 cases. Fourteen of these applications were granted. Charges resulted in two of these cases.
Section 11 was used on seven 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 was used on 54 occasions. The effect of this section is to make 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. Sections 6, 8, 12 and 17 were not used in the period in question. 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 the Oireachtas.
The Minister, Deputy McDowell, appreciates that some Senators will look at the advances that have been made in the search for peace since 1998, and in the past year, and say that we no longer require this legislation. The Minister disagrees. The full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement remains an ongoing challenge and one this Government continues to pursue with the utmost commitment.
The enemies of peace have not gone away, however. Dissident republican groups remain active, ruthless and determined to strike if given the opportunity. They remain resolutely opposed to the Good Friday Agreement and to the peace it has engendered, determined to destroy that Agreement and prepared and willing to kill indiscriminately to that end. As long as there are organisations dedicated to frustrating the will of the people through violence and mayhem, there must be robust counter-measures available to the State.
The success of the two police forces in thwarting various attempts to take life, some of which I have mentioned, should not be perversely held up as reason to set aside this legislation; rather, it is proof that it is still required. Neither should the fact that some sections of the Act were not used in the period be held out as a reason for jettisoning provisions which provide the Garda Síochána with robust counter-measures against the unscrupulous godfathers of the paramilitary underworld. Both the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA would gladly kill and maim any number of innocent people in the name of their so-called republicanism.
The Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 is one element of the State's ongoing response to the terrorist threat. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform urges Senators not to countenance weakening any of the tools the State has at its disposal in the fight against terrorism. I commend the resolution to the House.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. All of us would agree that the concept of emergency legislation is far from desirable. We should aim to put in place legislation that is responsible and reasonable to stand the test of time and retain its relevance. However, there are clear reasons the legislation was enacted in 1998 with regard to the provisions in respect of terrorist offences and it was necessary and important at the time. Similarly, there are valid reasons the legislation was made time sensitive and why it has become necessary for the House to renew legislation on an annual basis since 2000.
The Minister of State has stated he believes there remains significant threats from, inter alia, the dissident groups which warrants the continuance in force, for the time being, of relevant sections of the Act. I do not want to compromise the ability of the State in any way in the face of the grotesque actions of dissident groups, nor do I wish to hamper any efforts by the Garda Síochána to deal with the perpetrators of horrendous acts such as that witnessed in Omagh eight years ago, but I am compelled to ask the Minister of State some questions.
Does the Minister envisage a time when we could allow these particular provisions in the offences against the State legislation lapse? Will he share the basis for his reasons for retaining these provisions? I understand he may not be able to explain them in this open forum but he should at least be able to discuss it with Opposition spokespersons on justice. There must come a time when we rely on more than the Minister's word for these actions.
It is important that we balance the power of the State to defend itself and the ability of our law enforcement agencies to track down and capture the murderers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe, who remain at large, with reasonable maintenance of our Statute Book. It is also reprehensible and despicable that a Member of the other House would go on public record to say he would encourage people not to contact the Garda if they had any information on the murderers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. Such statements are despicable, especially from Members of the Oireachtas, and should be condemned from all sides of each House of the Oireachtas.
I support the motion because in the absence of a permanent and peaceful resolution to the conflict on this island we cannot compromise the capacity of the State to act decisively to deal with terrorism and dissident groups like the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA and other provisionals. It is an important tool for the Garda in combating crime and offences against the State. We have seen some instances in the recent past in that regard.
Fine Gael supports the measures that promote a strong sense of law and order and we will continue to stand by the provisions in the 1998 Act, which are to be renewed by the motion before the House. Nonetheless, there should be a greater level of interaction by the Minister with this House. The faith we place in him by passing this motion should be reciprocated in some respect.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I support the motion that is before us this morning regarding this ongoing legislation. I also support the arguments put forward by the Minister of State on the need for it to continue. It is a pity we need to do this, but such is life. In this regard I share the sentiment of Senator Cummins's question to the Minister of State. I wonder whether there is light at the end of the tunnel in terms of when we might not have to renew this legislation annually. I realise that is probably difficult to answer, because one never knows what might happen from week to week or from month to month.
We are also aware of the tragic circumstances that gave rise to this legislation in the first instance, namely the Omagh bombing and the terrible hurt and maiming that took place there, which brought communities from North and South together in an arena of disgust. It is one of those milestones in history when we all know where we were at the time we heard the news. It is similar in that regard to recalling where one was when President John F. Kennedy was shot. Most people in Ireland, North and South, will remember where they were when they heard of the Omagh bombing.
It never ceases to surprise me that people with even half-baked intelligence could ever believe that anything can be gained from tragedies like Omagh. I would love to look into the mind of somebody who is responsible for such a tragedy for signs of any semblance of realisation of what was in his or her head when deciding to perpetrate or become involved in such acts. I fully endorse what the Minister of State has stated on the ongoing need for the legislation. The Good Friday Agreement remains in place and I have no doubt we need to be very conscious and diligent moving forward with that. There will be much debate and many meetings ahead. We hope that the restoration of devolved government will be a major step on that road if it happens sooner rather than later.
I am glad to note also the continuing excellent relationship between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána, which is the kernel as regards the period of peace we have enjoyed over the last couple of years. They have provided an effective buttress to the peace process as we know it. That continuing success and what we are doing here this morning are crucial in this regard.
Another compelling point for the continuation of peace is the real threat of international terrorism. There are more than lingering threats from the so-called Real IRA or Continuity IRA, as the Minister of State has pointed out. However, these have been fairly well contained by the Garda Síochána in conjunction with the PSNI. The threat of international terrorism is a new animal and has shown its ability to penetrate the most sophisticated security systems in the world. We only have to look at 9/11, Madrid and London to see how effective it can be.
We must forever be on guard against people who do not discriminate for a moment between an innocent child and their own pathetic objectives. As the Minister of State said, we can never assume for a moment we are immune from such an attack. In an ideal world this type of legislation would never be required. As there are individuals or groups who continue to undermine democracy, however, we must keep in place all the tools at our disposal in order to protect it.
I believe most people have no problem with dissident republicans making their point in a valid manner. Many of them have done that by way of publications in the past and there is no harm in having a critical voice, regardless of the standpoint they happen to be coming from. It is indefensible, however, when they try to push their viewpoint into the mainstream thinking and involve people in an absolutely hopeless campaign.
It is sad in many ways that people who have spent their lives on this island still fail to recognise the existence and achievements of this Republic. Eight years after the Good Friday Agreement was signed, those who cherish the achievement of a united Ireland see lasting peace as a prerequisite. I hope that those who aspire to the objectives and ideals of a united Ireland realise that there is only one way in which this can be achieved, namely, through dialogue and working together in harmony and in trust.
A sinister by-product to our success as regards the Northern Ireland peace process is the fact that so-called dissident republicans are now feeding armies down here with arms and expertise in terms of the drugs situation in particular. I speak for Dublin city, as I am aware of what is happening in the city. It is serious that so-called republicans can provide material for young thugs to kill each other in an attempt to establish who is boss of a drug situation in the city.
We must supply whatever resources are available and more in an attempt to fight this issue. It is a major issue for the cities, particularly Dublin, equal in its threatening capacity to anything that might happen on the other side of the Border. I wish the gardaí well in their pursuit of that and I wish the Garda and the PSNI well in their pursuit of continuing peace. I commend the motion to the House.
This emergency legislation was adopted originally in 1998, so it has been in place almost ten years. Each year it is renewed and that is why we are here again today. It comes around very quickly because it does not seem like a year since we last dealt with it. It is on the Order of Business for both Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Minister of State has mentioned that a report was laid by the Minister before the Houses on Monday. That does not give Members much time to analyse the report. We are not really examining the legislation. There is a need for much more briefing in this regard. We need to ask questions. We do not have the facility in this House to ask questions, revisit issues and tease them out, as perhaps a committee of the Oireachtas might do. I want to suggest that before the decade is up, either this year or next, the legislation be referred to an appropriate committee such as the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.
There is a need to take a longer-term view of this legislation. Should we continue to renew it each year or should other legislation be enacted on a more long-term basis? Is this type of legislation still needed? We must take such an initiative if this legislation is to be properly reviewed. It is not as if the legislation was enacted a year ago. It was put in place eight years ago and will soon be on the Statute Book for nearly a decade. Perhaps the conclusion reached will be to keep it in place. However, rather than just continuing with the present procedure, we need within the next couple of years to have a much more substantial analysis and review of whether it should be renewed or replaced. I urge the Minister of State to consider that proposal.
I thank Senators Cummins, Kett and Tuffy for their contributions. If this was an ideal world, there would be no need for this legislation and we all wish that it was not necessary.
Senator Cummins asked when would the provisions lapse. That is why there is a need to review this on a yearly basis and there is a unanimous view on the issue in this House. The Hederman committee was established to review the Offences against the State Acts from 1939 to 1998. The committee unanimously recommended that 13 sections of the 1998 Act be considered and there was a substantive opinion on eight of them. The committee recommended the retention of seven of the eight sections, either unanimously or in one case, by majority.
We hope that the changing political situation in Northern Ireland will have a positive impact, as Senator Kett pointed out. Unfortunately, the IMC reported on the ongoing threat of the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA and there is still a need for strong legislation for the Garda Síochána, the PSNI and the courts to allow them to deal with a difficult situation.
I am happy to come before the House and commend this resolution. I appreciate the positive contributions Senators have made today.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 11.45 p.m. and resumed at 12.20 p.m.