Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In accordance with the order of the Dáil of yesterday, the motions will be discussed together but decided separately.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30 June 2014 and ending on 29 June 2015.

This democratic State's response was to provide strong legislative powers to ensure that the Garda Síochána and the courts were in a position to meet the challenge laid down by those opponents of peace. In that regard, the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was a necessary and proportionate response. It is right at the outset that I pay tribute to the excellent work of An Garda Síochána and the Police Service of Northern Ireland in countering the threat from the paramilitary organisations.

The Act contains a series of amendments to the Offences Against the State Acts 1939 to 1985 to make them more responsive to the threat from certain groups. Principally, these amendments concern changes in the rules of evidence for certain offences under the Acts, including the drawing of inferences in certain circumstances; the creation of new offences, such as directing an unlawful organisation, possession of certain articles and collecting information; and extending the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the 1939 Act, to 72 hours. Section 18 of the 1998 Act, as amended by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999, provides that sections 2 to 4, inclusive, 6 to 12, inclusive,14 and 17, must be renewed by the Oireachtas at specified intervals if they are to remain in force. By virtue of resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas in June 2013, these sections were continued in force for a period of 12 months.

Prior to moving any motion for renewal, the Act requires that I lay before the Oireachtas a report on the operation of the relevant provisions. The current report covers the period from 1 June 2013 to 31 May 2014 and was laid before the House on 16 June 2014. It also includes, following a commitment given in the House, a table showing the figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation. The table, which was produced on foot of requests by Deputies, is helpful in showing the importance of the Act in equipping the Garda to detect and prevent terrorist actions.

It is the fervent wish of the Government and, I have no doubt, the House that the time will come when these provisions will no longer be required. As Minister for Justice and Equality, however, I must take into account the reality of the situation. In that regard, the Garda assessment, shared by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, of the terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland is that it is severe. We all know that groups vehemently opposed to peace seek to attack the institutions of Northern Ireland and destabilise the peace process. They will never succeed in their objective.

In 2013, 30 terrorist related attacks occurred in Northern Ireland and there have been five such attacks so far this year. They include such serious incidents as the planting of a bomb in a Belfast shopping centre in the run-up to Christmas last year and the fire-bombing of a hotel in Derry on 30 May where continuing scant regard for human life and the targeting of civilians was clearly demonstrated.

While the direct threat level in this jurisdiction may be different from that in Northern Ireland, it is imperative our laws and police are properly equipped to deal with the threat, whether in this jurisdiction or Northern Ireland. Let no one be under the illusion that the groups in question do not represent a threat to this State and Northern Ireland. By way of example, I refer to the discovery by An Garda Síochána of an estimated €10 million in partially forged bank notes in April this year, the detection in May last of a large improvised explosive device in County Louth, which was possibly destined for Northern Ireland, and the disruption of a Real IRA gun attack in Tallaght earlier this month. The Garda must have at its disposal the appropriate measures to meet this threat. The powers available under the 1998 Act are considered paramount in maintaining effective preventative action against the terrorist groups. Consequently, there is a clear need for the continuance of these provisions.

North-South co-operation is vital and I assure the House it has never been better. I intend to keep in close contact with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers, whom I have already met. I am also in contact with the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, David Ford. In addition, the acting Garda Commissioner maintains close and frequent contact with her counterpart in the PSNI.

It is the firm view of the Garda Síochána that the Act continues to be a most important tool in its ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism. The Garda authorities have stated that the provisions of the Act are used regularly, which is evident from the report I have laid before the House. I refer Deputies to the details contained in the report.

Terrorist groups remain a threat to the peaceful lives of people on this island. They are opposed to the benefits that have flowed from the peace process and are determined to undermine it. The State must retain, in its laws, the capacity to defeat them. On the basis of the information set out in the report and on the advice of the Garda authorities, I consider that the House should approve the continued operation of the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act to remain in operation for a further 12 months. I commend the motion to the House.

On the motion to continue in operation section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, I will briefly remind the House of the background to that Act. The legislation was a response to a number of difficulties which were being experienced and where the entire justice system was under serious threat. Organised criminal gangs were behaving as though they were untouchable by the Garda and courts. They even appeared to be taunting those tasked with preventing and investigating criminal acts. The House will recall certain dreadful crimes where the gangs involved acted in a way that betrayed their willingness to undermine the very operation of our criminal justice system. Hand in hand with the disregard for human life was the intimidation, as Deputies well remember, of whole communities who were trying to co-operate with the forces of law and order to bring the thugs in question to justice. If these people were prepared to intimidate witnesses, why would anyone believe they would not also intimidate or kill jurors?

In the circumstances, it was imperative that the Government and Oireachtas took the necessary steps to ensure the criminal justice system was sufficiently robust to withstand the assault launched against it through intimidation of and violence towards witnesses and jurors. The measures contained in the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 were designed to tilt the balance firmly in favour of the rule of law and justice and instil confidence in all that criminal gangs would not be permitted to frustrate criminal investigations or prosecutions of their activities.

The Act provided for a limited number of specific organised crime offences to be prosecuted in the Special Criminal Court. The proposal to use the Special Criminal Court for a limited number of organised crime offences removed the possibility of jury tampering or intimidation of jurors.

The purpose of section 8 is to ensure that organised criminal gangs cannot interfere with the criminal process to determine the outcome of cases. To this end, the section declares that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and preservation of public peace and order in respect of certain offences. The offences in question are the organised crime offences under Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Deputies will be familiar with the range of offences cited in the Act. Section 8 makes these scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the Offences against the State Act 1939. While this means the Special Criminal Court will hear prosecutions for the offences in question, the Director of Public Prosecutions may still exercise her discretion. This is an important balance, as is the requirement that the House pass a resolution in the event of any change being made and to ensure the continuation of the provisions.

The reasons the Government is seeking the renewal of section 8 are clear. Organised crime continues to present a significant law enforcement issue, with a number of criminal gangs continuing to engage in serious crimes. There is, unfortunately, stark evidence of the willingness of these gangs to engage in murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, drug smuggling, counterfeiting and other serious offences. Deputies may wish to note that since 2009 there have been 68 murders linked to organised crime. We are also faced with growing and inextricable links between paramilitary groups and organised crime. It is also clear that age is not a barrier to becoming a victim of gun crime. For example, we had the appalling shooting of a six year old child in Ballyfermot last Friday. I am sure the House will share my revulsion and that felt by the population as a whole in the wake of this dreadful act. I appeal to anyone who has information which could be helpful to the Garda to pass this on immediately.

Those involved in organised crime are ruthless people who will stop at nothing to avoid being brought to account for their crimes. Violence and intimidation are a way of life for these people. The Government and Oireachtas have a duty to make sure the criminal justice system is equipped to prevent them undermining our core values. In all the circumstances, I consider it necessary to continue section 8 in operation for a further period of 12 months beginning on 30 June 2014. I commend the motion to the House.

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to express my support and that of my party for the continuance in operation of section 8 of Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, which is a vital legislative tool in the battle against organised crime. I also welcome and will support the renewal of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. This legislation allows the State to battle against those engaged in terrorism who seek to undermine the very existence of the State.

One of the first duties of the State to its citizens is to ensure their safety and protection. As a nation, we must be able to defend ourselves effectively and comprehensively from those within who seek to destroy our communities through organised crime or destroy the State through acts of terrorism. We must not be afraid to grant the powers provided for in this legislation, which allow us to face down those whose only cause is destruction. Both of the Acts under discussion were introduced by the Fianna Fáil Party in government and, sadly, the reasons for their enactment remain.

It is obvious that this island has been transformed since the Good Friday Agreement was signed and a power-sharing Executive established in Northern Ireland.

11 o’clock

However, the relative peace that we now enjoy cannot be taken for granted. There is still considerable work to be done in integrating the two communities in Northern Ireland. The peace has been won but we must consolidate it. We must not cede ground to those who would seek to destroy that peace.

There is also, unfortunately, a significant threat to the peace as a result of the activities of what are referred to as dissident republicans. These groups do not have any real support on the ground, either north or south of the Border. Their numbers are few. They are groups that are fighting against the democratic wishes of the Irish people, as voted for in the 32-county referendum on the Good Friday Agreement. To a large extent, the actions of these dissident republicans are partly a cover for drug dealing and racketeering. Even though these dissident republicans do not have support, they can inflict terrible damage. It was a dissident republican group that was responsible for the worst atrocity of the Troubles in Omagh in 1998.

The amendments to the Offences against the State Act brought in by the then Fianna Fáil Government after the Omagh bombing were necessary at that time. Unfortunately, they are still necessary today. We as a State cannot lower our guard or lessen our vigilance in response to this ongoing threat. No doubt it would be the wish of most Members of this House for our laws to be normalised and for these provisions of the Offences against the State Act not to be necessary. However, we cannot take that chance, nor do we have that comfort. The only time we should consider lowering our guard is when the dissident republicans have abandoned their campaign of violence and crime. I ask them to recognise the democratic wishes of the Irish people and to lay down their guns and stop their violence. It is for this reason that Fianna Fáil will support the resolutions being brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas by the Minister for Justice and Equality. We believe that the legislation should be extended for a further period of 12 months from 30 June 2014.

There is also a proposal to extend section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. This legislation was introduced by Fianna Fail in government to respond to organised crime. It provides that certain organised crimes will be prosecuted before the Special Criminal Court rather than in front of a judge and jury. The right to a trial by jury is an important aspect of the criminal justice system. None the less, we as a State cannot tolerate a situation in which ordinary members of society who are asked to be jurors are exposed to intimidation and threats of violence from serious gangland figures. For that reason, we believe it is correct that this section should be extended. Gangland criminals will do anything in order to increase their profits and make money illegally. If they thought that intimidating a jury would prevent them from going to prison or would be an interference in their criminal activities, they would intimidate and harass jurors. This is an event that we as a State cannot tolerate. For that reason, Fianna Fáil will support the extension of the resolution to section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. We believe that discretion should remain with the Director of Public Prosecutions to direct whether a person should be sent forward for trial by the Special Criminal Court. We do not believe it appropriate that serious gangland figures should be tried by a jury. Their violence and organised crime has deprived them of the right to a trial by jury and we should not be apologetic about denying them that. The safety of this country and its citizens depends upon it.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the renewal of certain sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009.

I agree with the previous speaker that the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 should be repealed in its entirety. I do not believe there is any room for special legislation such as this to be used in a democratic society that respects citizens' human rights, civil liberties and due process.

Under the provisions of the Offences against the State Act, the Special Criminal Court is being used. That court was established to guarantee convictions. The only reason it was set up was to ensure that those brought before it would be convicted and sent to gaol for long terms. Such mechanisms undermine the human rights and civil liberties of all citizens of the State. They show that the State is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to deal with people it views as being contrary to its own ethos. Such mechanisms, however, undermine citizens' rights across the country.

The operation of the Offences against the State Act goes the same way. In his dissenting view on the review of the terrorism Acts, Professor Dermot Walsh said there was a tendency for these provisions to be used by the State for ulterior motives. There has been, and continues to be, a tendency to broaden out the use of these measures. The report laid before the Houses on the Offences against the State Act noted that last year 331 people were arrested under section 30 of the Act. Do we know who those 331 people were? For what reasons was the Act used? For example, was section 30 used against people associated with protesting against the Corrib gas installation?

In her own contribution, the Minister said is was used regularly by the Garda Síochána. When such provisions and measures are in place, however, the tendency is to over use them because they are easy and convenient. They will be used against people who are not involved in so-called terrorism activity or in trying to subvert the State, but who may use the democratic process to oppose and protest against actions of the State or what private companies are doing. Using such legislative measures widely undermines everybody's civil rights and civil liberties.

The extension of the detention period to 72 hours under the Act shows that it will be used to intimidate people into making confessions. Studies have shown that most confessions take place within the first 12 hours of detention, so extending the period to 72 hours does not serve any purpose other than restricting people's legitimate protests.

The Garda Síochána already has adequate powers under other provisions of the criminal justice legislation to deal with many offences included in the Offences against the State Act. The problem with those powers is that they are subject to too much overview. Nonetheless, a lot of regulation is necessary to protect civil rights.

I think this motion should be opposed. The Offences against the State Act should be repealed in its entirety. We should demonstrate to citizens that the State respects human rights and civil liberties, and will work within due process to ensure that people's rights are maintained. By thus respecting citizens, the State could show that there is no need for subversion or for so-called terrorist organisations to try to overthrow the State.

The same reasoning applies to section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, including the use of the Special Criminal Court to try cases. The court was established to secure convictions, which is why it is still being used. While many crimes by organised criminals are abhorrent to everyone - we have seen evidence of that in the past week - I would question how useful the Special Criminal Court has been. We certainly have not seen any dilution of the activities of organised criminal gangs, so we need to find other ways of dealing with these issues. Those provisions are already within the criminal justice Acts.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I should have said earlier that Deputy Pringle is sharing time with Deputy Clare Daly and Deputy Ruth Coppinger. Is that agreed? Agreed. Both Deputies will have 2.5 minutes each. I will have to be strict because the debate must conclude after 45 minutes.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Draconian law never makes society safer and the "war on terror" has not brought us any nearer to world peace.

In fact, it has destabilised the situation beyond anything we experienced previously. The Minister acknowledged that gangland and dissident activities, as they are described, have not been curtailed by the draconian legislation already on the Statute Book. If she wants to deal with the root cause of gangland and organised crimes, she will have to tackle the social issues that cause them. If she wants to deal with terrorist activities, she will have to deal with the conditions that breed them, including the very difficult conditions in our prisons. The State has opted for a knee-jerk reaction by taking an anti-democratic and anti-human rights stance on curtailing democratic rights. It is never acceptable to curtail democratic rights. Trial by jury is a fundamental human right as far as I am concerned. It is an entitlement of every citizen and it backs up the principle of innocence until proven guilty.

Earlier this year I was involved in a case whereby a conviction from the Special Criminal Court was overturned in the Court of Criminal Appeal. A young man, Sean Farrell, who was a cabinet maker from Crumlin, was convicted under section 3(2) of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1972, which states: "Where an officer of the Garda Síochána, not below the rank of Chief Superintendent, in giving evidence in proceedings relating to an offence under the said section 21, states that he believes that the accused was at a material time a member of an unlawful organisation, the statement shall be evidence that he was then such a member." It is unbelievable that hearsay evidence which cannot be cross-examined could be acceptable in a court. If the evidence has been gathered, it should be examined in open court before a jury of the defendant's peers. In fact, this reveals a lack of confidence in An Garda Síochána. If gardaí were not policing residents in Corrib, they might be able to tackle the gangs who are causing some of these difficulties. The only justification put forward is the idea of jury intimidation, which has not happened and for which different measures have been put in place in other jurisdictions. This is an unfair, unjust, undemocratic and anti-human rights provision, which any right thinking citizen would oppose. It is also ineffective and costly.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to register the Socialist Party's opposition to the renewal of this Act, which was introduced following the Omagh atrocity. The Socialist Party in the North opposed and continues to oppose the cancer of sectarianism. Our efforts against sectarianism include building trade union responses to sectarianism. The basis for terrorism lies in the material, social and political conditions that exist in a society. History has shown us that groups cannot be diminished by repressive laws. To this day, nobody has been brought to account for the Omagh bombing with this legislation. The conditions that give rise to terrorism can only be eliminated through a radical transformation of society, whereby jobs are provided and wealth is used for the benefit of the majority rather than a tiny elite.

I also oppose the legislation because it has considerable potential to be used against peaceful mass protest by citizens, workers and trade unions. This could include people who oppose and challenge the exploitative employers and, in the years ahead, the austerity agenda of this Government. In Brazil, anti-terror legislation was introduced in advance of the World Cup ostensibly to deal with terrorism. That legislation provides for sentences of 15 to 30 years in prison for anyone who causes or incites widespread terror by threatening the life, physical integrity, health or liberty of a person. It is widely feared that it will be used against protestors who have been defending their slums and shacks against the clearances that have taken place for the World Cup and against transport workers. Similar legislation which was introduced in Greece ostensibly to deal with terrorism has been used against protestors, who no longer have the right to wear a mask or hood to protect against tear gas. We have seen how the Patriot Act introduced in America in the aftermath of 9-11 has led to the ridiculous situation where books have been monitored in libraries and the shame of Guantanamo Bay.

We should not renew this legislation. I remind the Minister of the way in which the special branch has been used to monitor left-wing political activists and the use of gardaí to guard water metres in the last week. We can see that policing is being used to erode people's civil liberties.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions to this debate. The substantial threat that remains from terrorist activity, particularly from dissident republican paramilitary groups, warrants the continuance in force of the Act's provisions. The message needs to go out, loud and clear, that the State will not bow to the self-serving interests of such individuals and will continue in its resolve to see them defeated.

I have listened carefully to the points that have been made about human rights by Deputies Mac Lochlainn, Pringle, Clare Daly and Coppinger. Contrary to the Deputies' belief that the Offences against the State Act is anti-democratic, I would argue that democracy was preserved by the actions taken by successive Governments. Democracy is preserved because the legislation acts as a bulwark against anti-democratic forces. I will not take any action which would remove a vital tool for the Garda and the Legislature to preserve democracy and the rule of law. Nobody would accept more than me that the Government must respect fundamental human rights in our legislation. That is why, as Deputy Clare Daly acknowledged, we have an independent Judiciary and court system. As Minister, I have a responsibility to protect the human rights of all citizens. There is no greater human right than the right to life. These Acts target groups who show scant regard for human rights, including that most basic of rights, the right to life. The information available to me from the Acting Garda Commissioner and the reports that I have laid before the Houses, which I recommend that Members read, make it clear why the Government is recommending these motions.

With regard to the need for the Special Criminal Court to try offences relating to organised crime, there was ample evidence of intimidation of witnesses and jurors when section 8 was introduced. I disagree with Deputy Mac Lochlainn that there is any apathy in regard to these issues, whether from Members of this House or citizens in our communities. They see, sadly all too frequently, the threat posed to their communities by the kind of activities we are discussing. There is no doubt that some of the intimidation of witnesses and jurors was blatant. No Government could ignore this behaviour. It is unfortunate that section 8 is still needed. I look forward to the time when it can be permitted to expire. I am sure every Deputy would similarly look forward to its expiry. That is why the courts, the Garda and the PSNI are engaged in their work. However, that time has not yet come. That is why the Government is asking this House to agree to these motions, which I commend to the House.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann resolves that section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 (No. 32 of 2009) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2014 and ending on 29th June, 2015.