Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

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.

See this speech in context