Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Here we are again. At the same time every year we debate this. Every year we in Sinn Féin oppose it and argue for more time to debate it and every year we are denied and the motion passes.

We all will be aware of the background to the Offences against the State Act and I am not going to rehash it yet again today. This legislation undermines human rights, civil liberties and democratic life in this State. It can no longer be denied that the continued use of draconian provisions such as those up for renewal today is untenable. We are living in a new political reality and there remains a duty for the Minister and the Government to live up to their obligations under the Good Friday Agreement to deliver security normalisation. The provisions up for renewal, and, indeed, the Offences against the State Acts in their entirety, have no place in the present or future of this island.

The apathy of too many in the Opposition and throughout these Houses on this issue, and the ill-advised and wrongly placed enthusiasm of others for these measures, has obvious negative implications for Irish society. We call on every Member in this House to vote against the Government motion and to campaign for the repeal of the Offences against the State Acts in their entirety. There is an onus on us to uphold and implement in full the Good Friday Agreement.

Our international commitments are not the only reason for us to oppose the motion. The Government has certain obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. The agreement places an onus on both Governments to work towards the normalisation of the security apparatus in the Twenty-six Counties and the Six Counties, and, as every Member of this House will be aware, the Agreement was endorsed overwhelmingly by the majority of the people on this island. It needs to be protected and implemented in full.

In the past, many Members have argued in favour of the provisions of the Act because they have played a role. Today, I do not think anyone can truthfully argue that these provisions have a place in the present or future of this State. Sinn Féin believes the legislation is counterproductive in the long run. The retention of these provisions is an admission of the failure of this and previous Governments. The challenge to us is to prove that we have a normal society and that normal policing will convict those who seek to undermine it. There is no place in our society for the emergency legislation that was passed in 1998. Draconian legislation can never be a substitute for robust law and strong and accountable policing.

As Members in this Chamber will be aware, Sinn Féin has consistently opposed the retention of this amendment. We have argued each year that it should be repealed in its entirety. At this time, there is neither a need for such legislation nor an argument in favour of it. The continuation of it will only serve to erode further the human rights ethos in which this State's legislation should be grounded. If Members in this Chamber truly value the concept of human rights, I implore them to vote accordingly and reject the motion. We are a normal society and the existing laws are strong enough if properly resourced.

Sinn Féin has always been in the minority in this House in recent years when we have rightly opposed the 1998 Act. I imagine that we will be in a minority again today. We are not in a minority internationally, however, as we analyse this measure. The United Nations Human Rights Committee shares our stance on it. An Garda Síochána and the courts can convict and ensure that those who carry out acts of violence in this day and age serve a proper sentence for those actions.

We must make every attempt to convince so-called dissident groups to move away from violence, embrace peace and accept the will of the people as expressed in the Good Friday Agreement. We must also convince them of the opportunities that the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process give republicans to further the republican and all-island agenda, and that is where our focus for the next 12 months should be. I ask Members to vote against this measure.

I will speak briefly about the issue of so-called dissident activities. In recent years, there has been virtually zero support for them. There is, possibly, one councillor on the island who would offer any support or succour to them. Unfortunately, considerable elements have resorted to criminality. In essence, they are criminals. They are involved in criminal activities to line their own pockets to enrich themselves. They are not republicans. They could not be further from it. They are criminals. There may well be some among them who hold the republican view. In terms of those who are not involved in activities that enrich themselves, our challenge in these Houses is to engage with them and demonstrate the benefits of the peace process. Frankly, if one looks at the role of the British and Irish Governments in recent years, they seem to have been more interested in their own particular agendas than in driving through the peace process. With regard to the Haass talks, we had a situation in which neither the British nor the Irish Government had engagement.

They allowed a situation whereby two hard-working, well-intentioned, respected international figures came in, yet we were abandoned to the election ambitions of the unionist political parties. There has been a complete disengagement both by the British and Irish governments from the process as regards how we deal with the legacies of the past.

There have been issues concerning on-the-runs where everybody declared they knew nothing about it and had no knowledge of it. Clearly, however, it was a part of the peace process that those who had been caught up in the conflict, and were no longer wanted, could return to normal life.

There has been a lack of leadership in demonstrating the benefits of the peace process. Where are the economic benefits of the peace process for people living in working class areas, including Border areas like County Donegal? What economic benefits have accrued? That is the message to defeat those who would engage in these activities.

These types of laws are self-defeating because they almost make martyrs of some people by avoiding due process. The real challenge for these Houses is to demonstrate to communities that are suffering economically or politically that there are real and tangible benefits from the peace process. Can we have a re-engagement by both governments to deal with the outstanding issues from the past and give victims on all sides answers about what happened to their loved ones? As an Irish republican, I stand ready to play my part, and my party will play its part, in helping that process at any stage. That is the challenge.

I will now turn to the motion regarding the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. Admitting that the ordinary courts are not adequate to deal with individuals who are involved in organised criminal activity is a sad reflection on any government or state. In such circumstances, the state in question has failed to deal with issues like jury intimidation and witness protection.

If we are serious about dealing with organised criminal gangs, we need to put resources in place. I am sure those involved in organised criminal activity see the introduction of legislation to ensure they are tried before the Special Criminal Court as an admission of the State's failure to provide protections and safeguards to those who serve on juries. It is the wrong way to go and we will oppose this proposal for that reason. That is not flippantly to disregard the activities of these criminal gangs. We understand they cause misery and hardship, and have no regard for law and order.

If we examine best international practice, we will see that other countries have found more effective ways of dealing with organised criminal gangs that do not involve institutions like the Special Criminal Court. The Special Criminal Court has been criticised by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, for its procedures and for being a special court which ordinarily should not be used against civilians. Among the criticisms are the lack of a jury and the increasing use of the court to try organised ordinary crimes rather than the terrorist cases it was originally set up to handle.

Amnesty International considers that under international standards and the law of Ireland, the onus is upon the Government to demonstrate that special courts are essential in current circumstances, in the words of the law because "the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order". The Government has not done so.

On the contrary, the jurisdiction of the Special Criminal Court is not restricted to offences related to the extraordinary circumstances which led to its establishment. There is information available which shows that an increasing number of cases, which are not obviously related to offences against the State, are being tried in the Special Criminal Court, largely as a result of the exercise by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the power to certify cases involving other than scheduled offences for trial in the Special Criminal Court. This is simply unacceptable.

The Minister cannot argue for the retention of outdated legislation while at the same time implementing considerable cutbacks to An Garda Síochána and taking away its resources to combat criminality in communities across the State. There is a contradiction in the argument and for that reason, we will oppose both motions.

See this speech in context