Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

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.

See this speech in context