Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I start by saying that it is highly ironic that we are sitting here this morning to renew major powers for the State, on a day when tens of thousands of workers will wake up to the realisation that a learned judge of the High Court, who earns more than €220,000 per year, has decided in his wisdom that an electrician who may earn €45,000 per year is possibly overpaid, and has then struck down a sectoral employment order that will affect tens of thousands of workers already on low pay. This is a war on workers and it is time for workers to fight back. Importantly, last night's decision of the High Court must be appealed by the State and those pay rates must be defended.

The reason we are here, however, is for this annual event that is so important to the State, which a previous Deputy called a pantomime of sorts. The Minister makes the same speeches and Deputies do the same hand-wringing and the same solemn commitments are made. This legislation, however, like financial legislation passed in previous years, is based on a myth, namely, that we are in an emergency where there is a threat to the very State and its institutions. The usual vague warnings concern republican or possible jihadist terrorism and now it is the need to combat gangland crime. Those who support this legislation will accept that it is a draconian attack on fundamental rights, rights guaranteed by our Constitution, rights hard won and fought for by citizens, rights that set limits on the arbitrary powers of the State and its institutions. I want to be clear that we totally oppose this legislation. We do not buy into these arguments and they fall apart when examined.

Emergency power and legislation has seeped into the very fabric of this State and it is clear that the State does not want to let go of those. This Act takes away the right to trial by jury, which is one of the greatest rights won by democracies. It replaces normal rules on evidence and the right to remain silent. It allows for citizens to be jailed for years on the word of a senior Garda, based on no other evidence than his or her opinion. It bequeaths a frightening arbitrary power to the forces of the State that are, in reality, unaccountable and unelected.

I will deal briefly with what has replaced terrorism or jihadist threats as the main ideology and bogeyman to justify this legislation, and that is gangland crime. Like other Deputies, I know too well the consequences of gangland crime. It is communities such as those that I represent that feel its effects most strikingly. It is also communities such as the one I represent where young men are killed and do the killing. I have a simple question for the advocates of this Act. Has this legislation, and the emergency measures in it, succeeded in stopping gangland crime? Has it broken down the cartel of guns and the wealth that flows from that? Has it smashed the drugs trade, the rock on which these gangs are based? No, it has not.

If this Act is the answer to anything, then is the question not how do we stop gangland crime? If we want to pull the rug from under gangland criminals, then we should be seeking ways to remove their money and their wealth, which are based on the drugs trade. We would take truly radical measures, such as decriminalising drugs and investing heavily in the communities that breed the alienation and poverty that build the drugs trade. There is ample evidence, in the context of law and prosecution cases, that there are alternatives that this State has refused to look at for some reason. I refer to anonymising the jury service, using technology to hide the identities of jurors etc.. Instead, we invest in the powers of senior gardaí that can see someone jailed with no real evidence.

Last year, Ms Justice Tara Burns acquitted two men of IRA membership after the head of the Garda special detective unit refused to disclose belief evidence to the prosecution. This meant that gardaí were seeking a conviction without disclosing evidence to the defendants' legal team, the court or the DPP. Surely this is a warning that the evidence threshold we give in this legislation is too low and too dangerous and that the threat of a miscarriage of justice is very real. We empower the DPP to make decisions regarding who gets the constitutional right to a jury and who does not.

We have real emergencies in this State. We have a housing emergency and a health emergency, as well as utter failure in our system of childcare and in the care of the elderly. Do we, however, see the State or the main parties in this House rushing to pass emergency legislation and granting major powers to bodies to deal with those crises? No, we do not. We are totally opposed to this legislation; it does not work and it will not work in its intent.

See this speech in context