Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

A Private Members' Bill on this area was produced by the former Deputy Barry Andrews while in government prior to he becoming a Minister of State and it only got as far as being taken in committee. Another Bill has now been produced but it only deals with minor offences. The Minister has turned the very argument he made on its head when he said IRA membership was not regarded as a serious offence and that this Bill only deals with convictions for serious offences.

A look back on the history of this State and convictions in the Special Criminal Court in particular would show that most of the convictions were not just for IRA membership. Quite a number of them were for what were regarded by the State as serious offences. It was all part of the same process that happened in the Six Counties and in Britain where the struggle for Irish freedom was criminalised, specifically to try to label those who were challenging British occupation in Ireland as criminal. The very same policy was implemented by the British in this State in the 1920s. There are people who sat on the Government benches who were convicted of very serious offences and went on to become Ministers. History shows us that those who were involved at various stages of Ireland's fight for freedom were awarded medals and pensions by the then Government. There was positive discrimination by various Governments in the past, not only by Cumann na nGaedheal but also by Fianna Fáil which ensured that those who were active were given selective jobs or fast promotion in recognition of the sacrifice they had made, the fact that they had been criminalised and brutalised and that their families had been also.

When the spent convictions Bill produced by the former Deputy Barry Andrews was introduced I spoke on it and I argued the case with that former Deputy, as I have argued in regard to the latest Bill that it does not go far enough because it does not address the legacy of the most recent conflict. The only way to deal with it properly, and the Minister is right in what he said, is to introduce a proper Bill that would expunge those convictions, or something to that effect, which are related to political offences committed before the Good Friday Agreement. It comes down to their being political will to do this. I have raised this matter on numerous occasions in regard to taxis and other issues and have appealed to Ministers to examine it and on every occasion the Minister concerned has said that he or she understands the position but that it is a matter for another Bill and it is always the case that it is a matter for another Bill.

We are considering producing legislation which will provide for what I have sought. However, usually when legislation is produced on this side of the House, that is where it rests. It might be passed but it tends not to be taken in committee. The only true way to ensure that legislation is passed is for Deputies and the Government to take this matter on as a project. Given the history of some of those in government, they might also be happy for some of their former comrades to be covered by such legislation.

I appeal, through the Minister, to the Government and the Tánaiste in particular to examine producing legislation to cover this matter and not to discriminate, legislation that would protect those people and not allow them to be discriminated in the way that this legislation does. For politics to work the message must go out that the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement are intact and are not being shredded piecemeal as seems to happen - reference was made to the A5 and there are other matters in respect of which the full delivery of the Good Friday Agreement still has not happened in this State. The Human Rights Commission is being amalgamated rather than promoted and properly resourced. There is also a range of other issues that have not been addressed.

Apart from those who were convicted of political offences, when somebody has been convicted and has served his or her time, he or she should not be penalised a second time. The judge in deciding whether to hand down a sentence to a person for a serious offence such as one of those that was listed needs to be aware that there are consequences because Minister after Minister is putting increasingly more restrictions on people who have committed serious offences. Some of these people have served ten or 20 years in prison. They have been penalised and now they will be further penalised by having major restrictions imposed on their ability to rebuild their lives and, hopefully, be good, proper and upstanding citizens. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment and to put pressure on Government to accept my proposal and that of my party to introduce legislation to deal with the legacy of political prisoners in this State.

See this speech in context