Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

There is a certain feeling of déjà vuabout this particular annual process when you could really print out last year's scripts and recycle them into the record of the House. That is never a good situation.

Let us start from first principles and ask what we have been asked to do today. We have been asked to continue in force certain provisions of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. Those are the two motions before us. First, those enactments created new offences. Second, the provisions of the ordinary courts were deemed as inadequate to try these offences and they should therefore be tried before the Special Criminal Court. I think the approach of most of us to this now is these were needed provisions in their time. However, even though in the emergency it was inserted into the legislation that an annual renewal would be required, meaning that annually we can pull the plug on this, this has gone on for decades.

As Deputy Martin Kenny rightly pointed out, there have been reviews in the past of this and it is almost as if we can continue doing nothing because somebody somewhere is reviewing. It seems to me the consensus in the House, certainly last year, was if there is a compelling case for particular criminal acts to be treated in a particular way, that should be a permanent feature of our law, that we should have that law introduced here, debate it, take evidence on it and determine by the will of the Houses of the Oireachtas whether that should be part of our permanent law. Instead we do it annually, on an ad hocbasis and, as I described last year in some detail, because we can act according to the law - de réir an dlí - as opposed to setting out the criteria for determining these matters in the statute directly themselves.

That brings me back to the review. Mr. Justice Peart was asked to chair it. We were told when we were reviewing this 12 months ago the interim report was imminent. I think few of us debating last year believed we would be at this point 12 months on, in other words, that we would not have a set of proposals before us by now. We were led to believe the interim report was imminent but 12 months on, the specifics are not before us. Rather than motions for renewal, what most of us had expected would be debated at this stage were specific legal changes that would set aside emergency provisions for good and all and set in long-term permanent criminal justice legislation the matters that are determined should be a feature of our permanent law and setting out if there is a case to be made for the establishment of non-jury trials.

Such trials may be necessary due to intimidation and so on. Let us set that out in permanent law as well, rather than having a recurring motion before the House for debate on the pretext that, every so often, somebody somewhere will review it and that might impinge upon it. A majority of the House probably believes this matter should be continued but I think there that a clear majority of the House also believes this should be the last time this pro formapresentation is made to us in this way, with the simple expectation that the House will nod through these annual motions and, if you like, read the recurring annual script without amendment.

The criminal justice system is one of the most important bulwarks of our democracy and it is constantly changing. The threats to our well-being from the criminal community and subversives are constantly changing and evolving. We have to be as agile in our legal framework, consistent with our human rights and international treaty obligations. I hope the Minister in her concluding remarks will indicate this will be the last time these motions are presented and that, between now and next year, when this resolution will elapse, we will have robust new law debated.

See this speech in context