Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate which has been extremely worthwhile because this legislation, as Deputy Eamon Ryan and others said, strikes at the heart of the democratic values we all champion and hold dear. Being in government I suspect I now see it a little differently, although I have always been in favour of the Special Criminal Court. However, I recognise the threat as being somewhat more immediate and difficult to oppose without these measures than perhaps I did when I was on the other side of the House. I take Deputy Eamon Ryan's point about what Professor Lee said about how Ireland had achieved so much despite all of its flaws.

It is good that the Government has decided, for the first time, to allow the motion to be taken without the use of a guillotine. It has been passed every year following a 45-minute debate, which was not a debate. It has been rushed through at this time of year as an embarrassment - the Government parties wanted to get it out of the way because they were ashamed that it had to be passed annually and did not want it to be recognised as a big issue, which it is. It is a major issue when a democratic country decides to suspend one of the pillars of democracy to which we aspire and for which many people fought. We all have in common the need to support the right of people to a trial by their peers. Happily, this year the debate will continue until every Member has contributed and we have had a civilised discussion about what the legislation means.

The Government that introduced the original Bill in 2008 and those which used the suspension of human rights ever since did so reluctantly. No Member likes this on the Statute Book. Nobody has an ambition to lock people up at will or to send them to the Special Criminal Court, while suspending the normal democratic values and legal tenets over which we stand, but we do it. The only argument is whether it is right to do so and whether it works. Those who say it is not right say it does not work, while those who say it is say it does work. I am not sure whether it does works, but it is right. When I think of the Omagh bombings which formed the original basis for the Act, I think of something absolutely and utterly horrific. I think of people who have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the rights of others and who are prepared to intimidate witnesses and jurors. When that is the scenario which is not as relevant today as it was, thank God - it applies to organised crime also where people show the same oblivious disregard for the lives of others - we have to ask ourselves whether the people concerned are entitled to the privilege of enjoying democratic rights others have. While 99.9% of people in the country are imperfect and do things to each other, of which we do not approve, they do not go around killing others or intimidating witnesses and jurors at will and get away with it. If we donate that luxury to them, are we legally giving them the green light to do the same thing again? They are living in a world which is completely and utterly different from the one in which the rest of us live. It is a world of total and utter immorality. They have absolutely no respect for the lives or human rights of others, yet some say they should be given the privileges for which they so noticeably have contempt and should be let go for the sake of a sacred democratic principle in which they have no interest whatsoever. It is the kind of luxury we cannot afford. We then have to ask the next question. If we refuse to impose these new laws of evidence and witness protection, will we allow them as a result to walk free and commit more murders? That is a price which is too high to pay.

See this speech in context