Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister. The motion regarding the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the motion regarding the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 are being taken together and are related. I call the Minister.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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 30th June, 2025 and ending on 29th June, 2026.

The two motions seek the approval of the Dáil to continue in force provisions in the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 which are aimed at combating terrorism and organised crime. Given the nature of these important provisions, the Houses of the Oireachtas has decided they should be periodically reviewed and that has happened on an annual basis.

As Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, I am required to lay reports before the Houses of the Oireachtas on the use of the relevant provisions in the two Acts. Reports covering the 12 months up to 31 May 2025 were placed in the Oireachtas Library on 18 June.

I will deal first with the motion on the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1988. Deputies will be aware that it was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in August 1998. The legislation was a necessary and proportionate response to an atrocious and barbaric act and the murder of 29 innocent people by the Real IRA. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach will be aware there is an inquiry ongoing in Northern Ireland into the Omagh bombing. I assure Members of this House, and indeed the public, that the Irish Government is co-operating fully with that inquiry. We do not agree with the suggestion there should be two separate inquiries in both jurisdictions. As Lord Turnbull, chair of the inquiry, said, that would lead to a lot of problems and confusion, so we do not support that suggestion. These provisions of the criminal law provide strong legislative powers to ensure the Garda and the courts are in a position to meet the challenge laid down by these opponents of peace.

Section 18 of the 1998 Act provides that sections 2 to 4, inclusive, 6 to 12, inclusive, 14 and 17 must be renewed by the Oireachtas at least annually if they are to remain in force. The report laid before this House includes information provided by An Garda Síochána on the use of the provisions in question over the past 12 months and a table setting out usage figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation. It is notable that seven of the 12 provisions to be renewed, namely sections 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 17, have not been utilised during the reporting period. Of course, the fact a provision is not used in a particular year does not mean it is redundant or unnecessary as the usage of different sections can vary from year to year.

It is clear that the so-called "dissident republicans", who have their origins in the Provisional IRA and the INLA, continue to represent a threat. Despite the progress towards peace made over the years, they continue to seek to return to the fruitless violence of the past. We must continue to do all we can to deal with this threat. No one should be under any illusion that these groups do not represent a threat; they do, although thankfully it is at a lower level than in the past. They have remained resolute in their opposition to democracy, the rule of law and all that the Good Friday Agreement stands for.

It is also well established that these groups have links to, and operate hand in hand with, organised criminals. We recall the attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell back in February 2023, which is further proof of the ruthless and reckless nature of people who refer to themselves as dissident republicans. Thankfully, they did not succeed and Chief Inspector Caldwell continues to recover.

North-South co-operation is crucial in these matters and I am pleased to say co-operation between the Garda and the PSNI is very strong. In fact, it is virtually automatic co-operation. In recent years, the benefits of that co-operation have been apparent from successful joint operations between the PSNI and An Garda Síochána. There is a long shared history between the two jurisdictions in countering terrorism on the island and it is essential that we continue to build on this strong co-operation in the post-Brexit period. Indeed, the joint Cross Border Policing Strategy 2025-2027 provides a platform for An Garda Síochána and the PSNI to build on existing strategic and operational collaboration and to strengthen policing capacity and capability.

As Minister for justice, I want to pay tribute to the Garda and the PSNI, who continue to co-operate closely and work tirelessly together to keep their communities safe and to counter all threats of terrorism. It is our duty to ensure that those tasked with protecting us from this threat have at their disposal the appropriate measures to meet it. In that regard, I am firmly of the view that the provisions I am seeking renewal of today are necessary to support gardaí in investigating, disrupting and dismantling the activities of terrorists.

The report laid before this House, in addition to providing information on the use of the provisions in question over the past year, also notes the clear view of the Garda Commissioner that the Act continues to be an important tool in ongoing efforts to combat terrorism. Of course, while the 1998 Act was a response to a domestic threat from dissident republican terrorism, as an open democracy it is very important that we should not lose sight of the threat from violent extremism and international terrorism. There has generally been a deterioration in the international security landscape in recent times, in part due to terrible wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Europol, in its most recent terrorism situation and trend report for 2024, sets out the threat situation at EU level. The report confirms that terrorism - particularly jihadist and lone actor attacks - remains a key threat to the EU’s internal security.

The European Union recently published its internal security strategy, ProtectEU. The strategy notes the changed security environment and evolving geopolitical landscape, where the links between the EU’s internal and external security require more action against the range of threats faced, including hybrid threats by hostile foreign states and state-sponsored actors, powerful organised crime networks, the ongoing threat faced from terrorism, technological advancements and more. In response to these threats, the strategy sets out a work plan with a stronger legal framework, better information sharing and closer co-operation. Ireland is not immune from the threats arising in this changed security environment and we must have the capability to deal with the threats arising. As I have said, the views of the Garda are set out in the report and it is that the continuing operation of these provisions is required. It is my strong view that the relevant sections of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act should be continued in operation for another 12 months.

That brings me to the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 and, in particular, section 8, which is also the subject of a motion before the House. It refers to a small number of serious organised crime offences that are set out in Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Section 8 of the 2009 Act makes these offences scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the Offences Against the State Act 1939. Trials for these offences are to be heard in the Special Criminal Court subject to the power of the DPP to direct that the offences be tried in the ordinary courts. The purpose of this provision is to guard against the possibility of interference with jury trials by ruthless criminal groups who seek to behave as though they are beyond the law. It was enacted as a response to a number of difficulties where the justice system was considered to be under serious threat from organised crime. Organised crime groups had shown a particular ruthlessness in their activities, including attacks on witnesses and intimidation of jurors. It was an imperative that the criminal justice system was robust enough to withstand the assault launched upon it through intimidation and violence. I believe most Deputies will agree with that remark and that the imperative remains.

The House will be aware of the threat that society and the criminal justice system face from groups who will stop at nothing in pursuit of their criminal activities. There is no disputing the damage they have inflicted upon communities throughout the country. Their willingness to resort to extreme violence and their flagrant disregard for communities is apparent. Supporting the efforts of An Garda Síochána to combat organised crime, and bring to justice those involved, remains a priority for me and the Government. This is reflected in the record allocation of more than €2.48 billion in budget 2025, which allows for sustained investment in recruitment, equipment, technology and vehicles within An Garda Síochána. An Garda is working intensively to bear down on the criminals involved and it has had a very good record in that regard. It deserves praise for its considerable successes in disrupting the activities of criminals, making significant seizures of drugs, cash and weapons and bringing criminals to justice. I draw attention to a joint task force operation in March that resulted in drugs worth £6.5 million being seized near Belfast and an operation carried out by An Garda Síochána in May that resulted in the seizure of €5.4 million worth of drugs in Meath. Deputies will also be aware of other significant cases in which individuals have been sent forward for trial in the Special Criminal Court in recent weeks.

As Minister for justice, I acknowledge this important work and the brave gardaí who persevere with it, day in, day out. The report that I have laid before the House, in accordance with section 8, covers the period from 1 June 2024 to 31 May 2025. It includes information provided by the Garda Commissioner on the use over the past 12 months of the provisions in question and details of the relevant offences. It is clear from the report that gardaí made a significant number of arrests in respect of the offences relevant to section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, with 11 charges laid before the Special Criminal Court and three convictions recorded there. A further two sentencing hearings were dealt with in the Special Criminal Court during the reporting period. The view of An Garda Síochána are clearly set out in the report and it is that the continued operation of this provision is required. It is my strong view also that section 8 should be continued in operation for a further 12 months.

That deals with the two motions before the House. I now want to deal with the issue that has arisen as a result of the publication of the independent review of the Offences Against the State Acts. The House will be aware that the majority and minority reports of the independent review group were published in June 2023. The majority recommended the repeal of the Acts and their replacement with modern, bespoke legislation. It is my view that it is now time to call time on the Offences Against the State Acts. Those Acts have served the State very well since they were introduced back in 1939 by my predecessor, P.J. Ruttledge. Their enactment and amendment was designed to respond to the very real threats that arose form paramilitarism in Ireland in the 1930s and 1940s and from the 1970s to the 1990s. I believe they now constitute anachronistic legislation that requires modernisation to reflect the current security threats and challenges faced by the State. The Acts were not just reflective of their time, they were also very much moulded by the Treasonable Offences Act 1925.

The proposal of the majority to repeal the Offences Against the State Acts is not new. As well as being recommended by both minority and majority reports in 2023, it was also recommended by the Hederman committee back in 2002. The main reason I believe the Acts should be repealed is that the threats the State faces today from paramilitarism have reduced and significantly altered. These changes should prompt a change of policy while also recognising that any legislation to replace the Offences Against the State Acts must maintain the legislative basis for an effective State capacity to deal with terrorism and organised crime on an ongoing basis, while also being compliant with human rights and the rule of law.

As the Deputies know, the majority report recommended we replace it with modern legislation. As part of this, the assessment of the majority of the review group was that there is, and will continue to be, an ongoing need for a non-jury court, as permitted by the Constitution, to try serious criminal offences in certain limited cases. Sometimes people forget that Article 38.3°of the Constitution sets out rules in respect of when we can have special courts. It provides for special courts within the Constitution. I take seriously an assessment as to whether or not special courts are required.

The majority also devised a suite of proposals on how the court might operate to uphold the rights of accused persons, and to support transparency and maintain public confidence.

While recognising that the right to a jury trial is not absolute and that there may be circumstances where a real risk of jury intimation necessitates a non-jury court, the minority were of the view that there was insufficient evidence before the review group to form a view on the necessity for a non-jury court.

I am firmly of the view that the Offences Against the State Acts have served our country well in combating both subversives and organised crime and have fulfilled a vital role in our criminal justice system. The Special Criminal Court was established to respond to the threat to the State and its people from republican terrorism over the decades and it continues to deal with the threat posed by terrorism and the most serious organised crime cases. It serves to eliminate the very real risk to jurors and potential jurors by subversives and ruthless crime groups who place no value on human life. While it is, of course, my firm view that trial by jury should be preserved to the greatest extent possible, I have a responsibility not to ignore the threat posed by such groups. In accordance with that principle, the Special Criminal Court is used only in very limited circumstances. I am informed that there were three trials last year, involving eight defendants. Indeed, the vast majority of scheduled offences continue to be dealt with in the ordinary courts.

My Department has engaged in detailed consultation on the recommendations of the review group and has examined the reports from a variety of perspectives, including policy, governance and legislation perspectives. I recently informed the Government that I accept in principle the recommendations of the majority report. Accepting in principle the recommendations of the majority report sets a clear direction for reform. However, given the importance of the Acts over many decades, detailed proposals for reform must be thoroughly considered and approached with the utmost care. It is important to emphasise that a non-jury court will continue to be available, in exceptional circumstances, to try serious criminal offences when the ordinary courts are deemed inadequate. A new court would operate on a standing basis, rather than its operation being conditional on a proclamation, and thereby connected to the Troubles.

There is one further matter I wish to address. Deputies will be aware that the majority and minority of the independent review group were broadly aligned in their view that further consideration should be given to the issue of jury reform and the need to improve transparency around the operation of the Special Criminal Court. My Department is currently undertaking a review of jury service. This review is informed by recent research on the topic, the Law Reform Commission's report on jury service, and legislative and policy developments in related areas over recent years.

I am committed to continuing to improve transparency and the availability of data across the criminal justice sector. There is a wealth of information on these provisions available in the reports I have laid before the Houses, and, further, detailed information on the Special Criminal Court available in the annual reports of the DPP and the Courts Service. Initiatives such as the launch of the open data portal for the Courts Service are key to providing better access to and a better understanding of courts data, including data on the Special Criminal Court. My officials will continue to engage with the relevant agencies on such transparency measures.

As set out in the two reports I have laid before the House, it is the clear view of An Garda Síochána that the provisions in the 1998 and 2009 Acts continue to be necessary and effective in ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime. On the basis of the information set out in the reports, and on the advice of the Garda authorities, I propose that the House approves the continued operation of the relevant provisions of the 1998 and 2009 Acts for a further 12 months, commencing on 30 June.

Members will be interested in knowing when I will be able to introduce legislation repealing the Offences Against the State Act. I regret that it will not happen by this time next year. A huge amount of work has to be done in respect of this, meaning we probably will be here next year seeking renewals of the Offences Against the State Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice Act 2009. However, the important thing from the point of view of this debate, which has taken place annually since the 1998 legislation was enacted, is that a policy proposal now being put in place will result in the repeal of the Offences Against the State Act and its replacement with legislation more appropriate to a modern society, taking into account all the threats that exist from terrorism and persons who threaten the security of the State.

We will continue to have circumstances in which we will have non-jury courts. I do not want anyone to think the proposal will result in there being no non-jury courts in Ireland. As provided for in Article 38.3 of the Constitution, we are entitled to have special courts where the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the administration of justice.

I thank the House for its consideration of these motions. I thank all the Deputies for their impending contributions, which I will listen to carefully. The threat from terrorist activity, including from dissident republican paramilitary groups, remains, warranting the continuation in force of the provisions in the 1998 Act. The same applies to section 8 of the 2009 Act.

Every Deputy in this House knows the appalling damage caused by organised criminals, particularly those involved in selling drugs, to individuals, families and communities. Such threats require an effective and strong response from the criminal justice system. That is why we have had the Special Criminal Court to date. As legislators, we have a duty to support the public by supporting the Garda and justice system in tackling the criminals.

Retaining these measures in respect of the most serious crimes associated with terrorism and organised crime ensures justice can be served and is free from any attempts to thwart the criminal justice process.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht cuid dá ama a thabhairt dom. I am supporting the motions although I do not do so willingly. I recognise that the Special Criminal Court and the non-jury court that exists under the Acts to which the Minister has referred and Article 38.4 of the Constitution are a necessary evil rather than good things in and of themselves. As somebody who has practised criminal law for a long time, I recognise the value of juries and the importance of distinguishing their role from that of a judge. A judge, being a former lawyer who may be somewhat jaded by the system and who will have seen it all before, does not bring to the criminal process the fresh, uncontaminated view of an ordinary citizen serving on a jury. The benefit of ordinary citizens serving on juries is enormously important, if not vital, to the operation of our criminal justice system. We should recognise the importance of it also from the point of view of delivering just results in criminal trials. Having said that, I recognise that this is not always possible.

We should use this debate to recognise the jury experience is not necessarily a good one. We still have some work to do to improve the experience that citizens have when they go to serve on a jury. Members of the Judiciary are always at pains to point out to any juror who serves on a jury just how important his or her role is in allowing the trial to take place and giving it the citizens' imprimatur of justice. However, the reality is that people who answer jury summonses and go to courthouses the length and breadth of Ireland to serve on juries will have an uncomfortable week or weeks ahead. If they are not selected, they may spend the whole week hanging around a courthouse waiting to be called, or not, as the case may be. If they are selected, depending on how long the trial takes, they may spend a lot of time out of the courtroom during legal argument. Although I am aware that efforts were made through the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to avoid that and provide for hearings in advance of the main trial to allow issues to be resolved so juries would not be sitting in the jury room for long periods, it still happens. Jurors will inevitably spend a significant portion of the time they serve on a jury sitting in rooms waiting to be called into the courtroom. It is unacceptable. It is disrespectful to the jurors and does not recognise the importance of their role.

More important in the context of these motions, we do need a non-jury court, as the Minister set out. We are aware that there are subversive elements within the State who would use the presence of an ordinary jury to prevent the just course of a criminal trial, be they terrorists, paramilitaries, organised criminals or people who decide they want to intervene in the criminal justice system and corrupt its proper operation. We know that certain cases mean non-jury courts are required.

I will make a couple of comments on that. The Minister referred to the independent report. I think its phrasing is that putting the Special Criminal Court on a permanent footing would be “constitutionally inappropriate”, a term that was very carefully chosen without making an outright statement on constitutionality. We are aware that the Supreme Court has deemed the operation of the Special Criminal Court to be constitutional, although I recognise that my colleague Brendan Grehan, SC, has suggested that putting it on a permanent footing might require constitutional approval from the people of Ireland.

Either way, I am slightly uncomfortable with the notion that we would put the Special Criminal Court on a permanent footing. The fact is that it is still treated as something exceptional, even though I know it would remain exceptional under the Minister's legislative proposals. I applaud the fact that we are required every year, at least in name, to approve the continuation of the operation of the Special Criminal Court. There is something unsatisfying about this process, insofar as we have to accept what the Minister says about the continued operation of the court. We have to accept the reports that come here that deem its continuation to be necessary. I see that but there is still something unsatisfying about this process. Notwithstanding that, the fact that we come together on at least an annual basis to assess this issue and have our say as the democratic representatives of the people is an important step that would be removed if we were to put the court on a permanent footing.

The other difficulty I have, as I have said on a number of occasions in the Seanad in the course of these motions, relates to the manner in which the decision to try a person in the Special Criminal Court operates. At the moment that decision is made uniquely by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who makes the decision as to whether a case is appropriate to go before the Special Criminal Court, in her opinion. I preface these remarks by saying that I have absolutely no doubt about the independence of the operation of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Since the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974, we have had, in the office of the DPP, a function that is operated independently of any politics. It separates that prosecution of offences role from the Attorney General and into a dedicated office, which has retained jealously its political independence from any office, officer, party or political entity. I admire the work that the DPP has done over three generations in this country to take independent views, without fear or favour regarding public opinion, media commentary or anything like that, to do what it feels is the right thing to do about who is prosecuted for which offences, in which court and so on. She and the staff in the DPP's office exercise their duties with great skill, commitment and independence, which is important.

However, one thing that I know must occupy such an independent office is the perception that it is not doing that independently. The problem with the DPP making the decision about who goes to the Special Criminal Court is that she is not a disinterested party. The DPP acts on behalf of the people of Ireland to prosecute people who are suspected of particular offences, but she is the prosecution in that regard, although we should note the excellence of our system insofar as when a prosecutor goes into court in this country, he or she, on behalf of the DPP, is not seeking a conviction but to present the evidence in a fair and lawful manner before the court and jury to allow the jury to make a decision. The job of prosecution counsel is to get that case to the jury and to allow the jury to make its decision in the appropriate way, rather than to achieve a conviction, which is something you see in other jurisdictions and which undoubtedly results in miscarriages of justice, something we do not have a major problem with in this jurisdiction. We have a fair and functional criminal justice system, which is in large part down to the fact that the DPP is not going into court looking for a scalp. She is not going to court trying to get the conviction. She does not have to run for election on the basis of her conviction record or nonsensical things like that which should have no bearing on a criminal justice system.

I make these remarks in full recognition of the independence of the DPP and in awe of the quality of the service that her office delivers, but if she is also the prosecution, she is therefore not a disinterested party. If she is the only person making the decision about whether a case goes to the Special Criminal Court, that is problematic from the point of view of the optics of it, because she is an interested party and is making a decision about which court deals with the case and more importantly whether it is a case that is appropriate for a non-jury court or not. I think that decision-making process should be separated from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There should be an ex parte,in cameraapplication before a High Court judge for the DPP to apply for a particular case to come before the Special Criminal Court, thereby removing any suggestion that she is partisan in making that decision or that she has made it for any reason other than the right reasons. As I say, there is no case I can point to where I think she has not made it for the right reasons, but we should be separating her from any suggestion that she might not be doing that.

My proposal regarding these motions and any legislation that the Minister might bring forward is that, in future, rather than allowing the DPP alone to decide if a case is appropriate for the Special Criminal Court, it should in fact be decided by an independent arbiter. I suggest a High Court judge as the appropriate person. Rather than interfere with that process, because decisions made by the DPP in this space can be very sensitive, that application could be made ex parteandin camerato avoid any complication in that regard.

Regarding the operation of the court, although I have reluctance about the appropriateness of it and think it is regrettable that we do need it, I recognise the need for it, but I also think the Special Criminal Court has served us incredibly well. I have talked about the independence of the DPP and the fact that she makes decisions without fear of public opinion or media commentary. In fairness to the judges of the Special Criminal Court, they have done the same thing. In recent years, we have had decisions to acquit people in the Special Criminal Court which have flown in the face of public opinion, for which the individual judges have received great opprobrium from the public, inappropriately in my view, because when three judges sit down in the Special Criminal Court, their job is to act as judge and jury. Their job is to, in whatever way they can, bring to that particular trial the independence of thought that we expect from an ordinary citizen who goes in to serve on a jury. We have seen them do that, in fairness to them, in a way that is difficult for a single judge to do in the course of a criminal trial. It is a duty that weighs heavily on those who operate in summary courts like the District Court.

Looking at the operation of the Special Criminal Court, one can point to any number of examples where a judicial panel in the Special Criminal Court, sitting without a jury, has made the tough decision that is unpopular in the public mind, because people for obvious reasons see things through a particular lens when they are looking at these cases, that the proof of the prosecution is insufficient in a case or that there is an evidential issue, procedural issue or whatever it might be that has led to the acquittal of the person before the court. That is incredibly important. If a court had a 100% conviction record, we would have to ask how on earth that court was operating justly, properly and in accordance with law. We say that people are innocent until proven guilty but the reality is that in public opinion, the view is frequently that people accused before the courts must have done something wrong. It is sometimes difficult for courts, particularly when it is judges rather than anonymous jurors, to mark out the fact that there is a gap in the prosecution case or the evidence and that there is the reasonable doubt we so often talk about, which should lead to an acquittal. For three judges to make that decision is very difficult.

We should also recognise with some gratitude those judges who have made those decisions to uphold the validity and the integrity of the Special Criminal Court and to show that it operates in a way that is fair and just. We should recognise how difficult it is for them to make those decisions and the fact that they have made them. In all criminal cases, it is so often the case that we look in and hear the allegation that is made, and there may be media commentary and online commentary about that, and we think that that person must be guilty. Of course, that is not the correct starting point for any assessment of a criminal trial. We talk about innocence until proven guilty and about the burden of proof being on the prosecution. We talk about the standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt, but we often look at accused persons and assume they have done something wrong or that they are guilty. In fact, we should be thinking of what, if were in that position and falsely accused, or if our brother, sister, son, daughter, mother or father was in that position and falsely accused, we would we expect them to get. We would expect them to get justice. We would expect them to get a fair hearing from the court. We would expect the court to apply the law without fear or favour, which is what we ask juries to do every day across the length and breadth of this country and which they do with distinction.

The point I really want to make is that the Special Criminal Court has also been shown to do that. That is something in which we can have significant pride as a nation. We have a Judiciary that, notwithstanding pressures in public opinion, commentary in the media and online, and public pressure, still makes those tough decisions to uphold the rule of law in this country and to uphold the principles that we hold dear to have a criminal justice system that is functional, fair and just, with the principle of being innocent until proven guilty and the standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt. They are difficult principles but they are principles that ensure that when you go on trial in Ireland, you can be confident that you will get a fair trial in accordance with law, not in the court of public opinion but before a court of law that respects the constitutional principles and the legal requirements that are set down. That does happen.

I appreciate and recognise what the Minister said about his desire to put this on a permanent footing. I ask that we step lightly in that regard. I think there is a constitutional context that is concerning.

I recognise the ongoing need for a non-jury court in the Special Criminal Court and I recognise there remain elements within the State, whether from paramilitarism or organised crime or whatever threat one might identify. I recognise those elements are there and I recognise the need for us to provide a solution to deal with them into the future. Let us look at the constitutional context. Let us ensure before we embark on legislation that it is going to be robust enough to withstand constitutional challenge, particularly in the context of those members of the independent review group who gave that minority opinion which should give us all pause for thought. Let us also, in the context of any legislation the Minister brings forward, envisage a situation where a decision to proceed with a Special Criminal Court trial is not that of the prosecution, but that of the courts and is done in an independent way to allow us divorce the DPP from any suggestion she is making that decision for the wrong reason. I am happy to support the motions and I look forward to them passing.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1: To insert the following after "ending on 29th June, 2026":

"; and

— calls on the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to bring forward legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review Group without further delay.". The continued use of emergency powers and essentially outdated legislation has long been criticised. It is disappointing we are back once again reviewing provisions in an Act that should have been replaced a long time ago. I welcome the fact the Government belatedly have come round to Sinn Féin's long-held position that the offences against the State legislation needs to be overhauled.

Is maith an rud é go nglacann an Rialtas leis gur cóir an reachtaíocht seo atá as dáta a leasú. Iarraim ar an Aire an reachtaíocht nua a thabhairt chun cinn a luaithe agus is féidir. It is unfortunate it has been two years since the publication of the independent review of the Offences Against the State Act, chaired by Mr Justice Michael Peart, and all we have got to date from the Government is the statement from the Minister last month, repeated today, that he accepted, in principle, the findings of that review. The independent review group report published in 2023 that it recommended the Offences Against the State Act be abolished in its entirety with a majority recommending that a new non-jury court replaces the Special Criminal Court to try serious criminal offences for which a threshold has been reached. Sinn Féin has called for the proposals of this report to be implemented and for legislation to be brought forward without further delay. That is what our amendments to these motions stipulate. That the Offences against the State Acts are outdated at this point is undisputed. The emergency legislation should not be used on an ongoing basis. That is not in question at this stage. Nobody can argue the circumstances that gave rise to the introduction of this emergency legislation exist today. There is widespread agreement that we need a modern legal framework to effectively address organised crime and to properly protect jurors.

It is almost 90 years since the Offences Against the State Act was introduced. In that time, the use of the legislation has moved significantly from its original intention. These emergency powers legislation were expanded with the creation of the Special Criminal Court in 1972 and there was further expansion of the Act in 1998 following the Omagh bombing. The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 was enacted in July of that year to put in place certain additional legislative measures to tackle organised crime. The problem we have and the reason we still have in place legislation that was introduced at the time of the outbreak of the Second World War is that successive Governments have repeatedly dragged their feet on dealing with this issue despite widespread criticism of the continuation of the Offences Against the State Act. I want to be very clear that this should have been dealt with more than 25 years ago in the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement specifically referenced the use of emergency legislation. It states the Irish Government will "initiate a wide-ranging review of the Offences against the State Acts [1939 to 1985] with a view to both reform and dispensing with those elements no longer required as circumstances permit". So, what happened? In the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement, the Hederman committee, chaired by former Supreme Court justice, Mr. Justice Anthony J. Hederman, conducted a review of the Offences against the State Acts. It published its report in 2002. Its recommendation included new legislation and the repeal of existing legislation. Those recommendations were never implemented. That is why many of us feel the Government has to be kept under pressure on this issue so the independent review does not end up gathering dust on a shelf in the justice Department in the same way.

As the Minister may know, Sinn Féin was the only party in the Dáil to make a submission to the independent review of the Offences Against the State Act. In that submission, we called for an end to the Offences Against the State Act, an end to emergency legislation and the replacement of the current Special Criminal Court with a new, non-jury, human rights-compliant system. It is essential such a system be human rights-compliant. The independent review group recommended the Offences Against the State Act be abolished in their entirety with a majority recommending a new non-jury court replace the Special Criminal Court to try serious criminal offences for which a threshold has been reached. Sinn Féin has, since then, called for the proposals of this report to be implemented and for legislation to be brought forward without further delay. We have argued for the legislation to stipulate the courts be provided with the power to decide on whether a non-jury trial should take place. I was very interested to hear Deputy Ward's commentary on that. Our position is distinct from the majority report in that view. I welcome Deputy Ward's support and look forward to him supporting any proposals in that regard.

It is worth recalling when the use of the Special Criminal Court was criticised at the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2001, central to those criticisms was the failure of Ireland to demonstrate the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to certify that the applicant be tried by the Special Criminal Court was based on "reasonable and objective grounds". The UN committee also pointed to the fact the DPP was under no obligation to provide reasons for its decision. It is a wider problem. I heard what the previous speaker said about the independence of the DPP, which is crucial, but there is a question as to accountability mechanisms for the DPP, of which I do not see any.

Sinn Féin has argued the legislation to give affect to the independent review should also include a higher bar than what is recommended in the majority report for a non-jury trial. It is argued the legislation should include a requirement of evidence of real and present danger that jury tampering would take place. Protecting the right to a trial by jury expect in very exceptional circumstances has to be our objective. We have to try to ensure, where possible, a jury trial is provided. To protect that fundamental right we have to protect jurors. The potential for jury intimidation remains the main argument for non-jury courts, yet very little provision has been put in place to protect jurors.

In 2013, the Law Reform Commission recommended a number of steps that should be taken to give greater protection to juries. Unfortunately again, none of these have been implemented. Those proposals included: that the right of inspection of the jury panel, which may facilitate persons who wish to contact or identify jurors, should be restricted; where necessary, the abolition of the daily roll call of serving jurors in open court; and the creation of a single offence of jury tampering. In our submission to the independent review group, Sinn Féin called for the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission regarding the protection of jurors to be implemented and the practices of other jurisdictions to be examined with a view to adopting best practice in line with international standards to protect juries. The independent review group on the Offences Against the State Act has called for this to be done. There is no reason whatsoever for further delay in doing so.

This debate is not taking place in a vacuum. While robust legislation is required to deal with the threat of organised crime, the battle against such criminals starts in the communities and on the streets. The criminal justice system has to be adequately resourced and equipped to tackle organised crime. The ongoing failures in recruitment and retention within An Garda Síochána means there simply are not enough gardaí to fulfil import roles, including in community policing. There is a very specific problem with children and young people being groomed into crime by criminal gangs. Interventions to prevent young people being dragged into crime such as investing in communities, investing in diversion and putting enough community gardaí on our streets are all equally important. We also need to address wealth inequality, poverty and deprivation that create the conditions that leave communities vulnerable and that allow organised crime to thrive.

I am concerned the Government is not showing the type of intention and will to bring forward legislation for the overhaul of the Offences Against the State Act in the short term.

3 o’clock

The Minister's comments that we will most likely be back again here next year having the same debates, conversations and renewal of emergency legislation points to a lack of urgency and willingness to deal with something that should have been addressed immediately after the Good Friday Agreement. The documents laid before the House as part of the renewal process state that consideration will take some time and the Minister will return. There is a need for accountability and the Minister and the Government have to be held to account to ensure the recommendations are implemented without further delay. That is why our amendments have been tabled before the House and it is why I ask all TDs to support them.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I speak in support of both amendments tabled by Deputy Carthy and Sinn Féin. It is clear the Government has been dragging its feet on the Offences Against the State Act. In 2020, Sinn Féin called for a review of this Act. A review was put in place later that year and we called for an end to the Act. Every year there is an extension of this emergency legislation and, based on the Minister's earlier comments, it looks like we will be back here again next year and probably the year after that if urgency is not applied to this. That needs to stop and legislation based on the review needs to be passed immediately.

It has been two years since the report of the review group was published yet we are still waiting for the Government to act on the findings of that report. The report recommended that the Special Criminal Court be abolished and that a human rights-centred non-jury court replace it. This must only be used if the threshold is reached. We need to have 21st century legislation in order to deal with criminal gangs and firm legislation to protect communities and people. This must include jurors, witnesses and everyone involved in the system, including gardaí. We want to see that put in place.

It is often said we need a Special Criminal Court to protect jurors from intimidation by criminal gangs but little has been done by the Government over the years to protect jurors in general. There have been recommendations from the Law Reform Commission since 2013 to set up a single offence of jury tampering and to end the daily roll call of jurors in open court. Sinn Féin included these recommendations in our submission to the independent review of the Act. I reiterate what my colleague, Deputy Carthy said, that Sinn Féin was the only party in the Dáil to make submissions to this review. Last month I contacted the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA, to draft a Bill based on the report on this review. If the Government is unwilling to move forward on this, Sinn Féin will do so. Based on the Minister's earlier comments, we will be here again next year and probably the year after that.

The battle against organised crime starts in our communities. We have to resource our communities. Yesterday, at the committee on justice the Minister admitted to me that he could not guarantee he would reach his target of 5,000 new Garda recruits by the end of the term of this Government. He admitted defeat in that he will not reach 1,000 recruits this year. My calculations show me the Minister will be lucky to get 750 recruits this year. The Minister said he has funding for these positions and I did welcome that yesterday. However, funding alone will not train the number of gardaí needed to keep our communities safe. There is also a crisis in the retention of gardaí and I know of some gardaí who have emigrated to Australia to join the police force down there.

The GRA has raised concerns about the current community policing model, saying that we have effectively lost control of our community gardaí. Communities deserve to feel safe but the situation does not seem to be improving. As Sinn Féin's spokesperson on Dublin and community safety I want my county to be safe, not just the city centre. Dublin city centre has seen an increase in Garda visibility in recent times and I welcome this, as do most Dublin TDs and most TDs in this House. What this does, however, is push gangs and criminal activity further into the suburbs of Dublin and beyond, into the outlying counties, where Garda visibility is not as high as it is in the city centre. I can give testament to that. In my own area of Dublin Mid-West there has been an increase in open drug dealing and antisocial behaviour. I have raised this in the Dáil in the past. Often when constituents call the Garda there is only one garda available. Yesterday, I mentioned to the Minister that at one stage during an incident last year there was only one Garda car available to the people of Clondalkin and Ballyfermot and that is a huge area. It is not good for these communities to be just left waiting for a Garda car and someone to call out. There has to be urgency in addressing these shortfalls.

I am also Sinn Féin's spokesperson on youth justice. We need better resourcing of youth diversion programmes and other programmes that can reduce the number of young people involved in offending and criminal activity. Criminal gangs are grooming young people to go into crime. They are grooming them in my area and taking advantage of young people who are trapped in poverty, growing up in an area they feel has been forgotten about and feel they have been left behind. They see organised criminals as somebodies and they are attracted to the lifestyle. They see the new runners and jackets, the flash cars and the opportunity to be a so-called somebody. I want to put on the record that the organised criminals who operate in my area and other areas are absolute nobodies. They offer nothing to my community. They actually suck the lifeblood from our communities and we need to have every resource available to stop them from operating in my community and other communities in Dublin. As there is a lack of gardaí in the area, however, they are unable to tackle this. To be clear, the fault does not lie with gardaí. There are some really good community gardaí in my area. They operate street leagues. I attended an event for the Clondalkin Equine Club at the weekend and the mounted unit and community gardaí were present and it was really good to see them operating and engaging with the community on that basis and building up relationships. The problem is there is not enough of them and their absence leaves the area open and prey to these organised criminal gangs. We urgently need to see an increase in the numbers of gardaí. To be honest, the Minister did not fill me with great confidence yesterday that we will see those numbers. We might see them in Dublin city but we might not see Garda numbers increase in the surrounding areas of Dublin in the near future. I hope when I come back here next year to have a debate on the same issue that I will be proved wrong and there will be sufficient numbers but, based on the figures given yesterday, I do not see that happening.

Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am addressing these motions on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Kelly, who is chairing a committee at this time. As we debate these motions we cannot be blind to their history, and our thoughts are with the families of the victims of the Omagh bombing and all those who are victims of organised crime and terrorism. It is important to stress the motions are not about the Special Criminal Court or renewing or confirming the existence of that court, which has been in place since 1972. These motions relate to the need for the annual renewal of changes made to the Offences Against the State Act in 1998 and the continuation of section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009.

Over the years, the Labour Party has made clear its view on the need to make changes to these provisions. First, there should be no need for an annual vote on some of these provisions. Rather, these should part of our permanent criminal code. For example, the offence of directing an unlawful criminal organisation should be a crime rather than being regarded as an emergency provision. Withholding information about the commission of a crime should also be a permanent offence. The report of Mr. Justice Michael Peart's review group confirms the position adopted by the Labour Party. It is frustrating that the core recommendations have not yet been acted on.

It is long past time for the Department to extract from the 1998 Act and this annual renewal process the provisions of the Act that are used in practice that are effective and should really be enacted in permanent form. The core recommendation endorsed by the Peart review in 2023 was, as we are all aware, also made much earlier, in 2002 in the Hederman review. The Oireachtas was called upon to repeal the existing Acts and replace them with a single consolidated item of legislation containing significant reforms. The Peart review's minority report went further and recommended the abolition of the Special Criminal Court. The majority report supported its retention but also recommended, as do we in the Labour Party, that there should be no blanket referral of offences to a non-jury court and that, instead, the DPP should use the power it already has to decide on a case-by-case basis whether there is a sufficient threat to the administration of justice to justify sending a particular trial to that non-jury court. Page 12 of the report states:

The current system of “scheduled offences”, under which certain offences are automatically or presumptively tried by a non-jury court, should be abolished. Instead, the decision as to whether a non-jury court is used should, in every instance, be based on an assessment of the circumstances pertaining to the particular case.

The offence would remain in place and be triable in the ordinary way and the DPP would retain its discretion to transfer any particular trial to the Special Criminal Court. The review group also recommended many other reforms and safeguards, including the repeal of many outdated provisions and offences.

The Labour Party has also in the past raised the absence of sufficient information to support an informed finding as to the adequacy or otherwise of the ordinary courts to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order in relation to offences under the Act.

Every year, the Dáil and the Seanad are asked to declare that the ordinary criminal courts are inadequate, and that our treasured and highly valued principle of jury trial is somehow not fit to deal with particular offences. This decision should be based on more evidence than we have ever been provided with when asked to make this declaration. In particular, we have not been given any information as to the adequacy of the criminal courts or the risk of corruption or intimidation of jurors. As we said in our Labour Party manifesto, we need to ensure non-jury trials are the exception and introduce measures to address concerns about jury tampering or intimidation. Modern technology should also be considered in the implementation of reforms. It is welcome that the Minister for justice has committed to acting on the recommendations of the majority report of the independent review of the Offences against the State Acts. The Labour Party will be supporting the substantive motion and the Sinn Féin amendment and we hope to see legislative progress over the next 12 months. We also urge the Minister and the Department officials to carefully consider the proposals outlined in the minority report and how aspects can be incorporated into the proposals the Minister intends to bring forward, particularly on jury reform. The admission of belief evidence from a chief superintendent is a key provision in trials for the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation. The majority Peart report makes important recommendations, while the minority report urges an end to the use of this evidence.

In conclusion, the reason I bring this up is because of the serious concerns about firearms and An Garda Síochána related to a number of issues that have been raised by our justice spokesperson, Deputy Alan Kelly, over recent months. In particular, the case of Evan Fitzgerald has caused deep concern about the use of entrapment and how such operations are carried out. Based on the revelations from Deputy Kenny, and what Senator McDowell said in the Seanad yesterday, it is becoming clear that the judge in the case was misled by sworn Garda evidence. When we confer extraordinary powers on our police force and the courts, we must be assured that those powers are respected and not abused. The Minister cannot ignore what is now emerging if we want to maintain trust in An Garda Síochána and the courts process.

George Lawlor (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In recent years, the landscape of Ireland has begun to shift, with concerns about terrorist offences increasingly emerging in areas that were once considered safe and isolated. While Ireland has historically been associated with a relatively low level of terrorist activity, particularly since the Troubles ended, given the changing global landscape and the rise of various extremist ideologies, we have had to have a re-evaluation of security measures across the country, even in remote regions. One primary factor contributing to his heightened concern is the increasing connectivity brought about by the Internet and social media. These platforms not only facilitate the spread of extremist propaganda but also enable individuals in rural areas to engage with radical groups, often leading to the recruitment of vulnerable individuals. The anonymity provided by online interactions can embolden those with extremist views making even rural communities susceptible to radicalisation. In that context, I certainly believe the renewal of these emergency provisions is very necessary.

The area of criminal justice is also showing shocking levels of increase. The alarming impact of low Garda numbers right across the country is an issue that is having a profound impact on communities. It is draining the soul from many towns and villages. This is not merely a bland statement; it is a reality that affects our daily lives, our safety and our sense of security. In my own town and county of Wexford, we have seen a persistent creeping of antisocial behaviour on the streets; people intent on causing as much disruption as they can, often in broad daylight. The more brazen the better for many of the perpetrators. It would appear that many of the people who are engaging in public order offences on our main streets made these their playgrounds during Covid and have never left. However, if we look at the most recent Garda probationers who were dispatched around the country in June - 120 of them in all - in the Wexford Wicklow division, four went to Bray, one went to New Ross, zero went to Enniscorthy and zero to Wexford town, the biggest town in the county. A county with a population of 164,000 people got no new Garda probationer. The constituents of Wexford and Wicklow-Wexford, with a population heading for 250,000 people, got one Garda probationer. We have Rosslare Europort in the county of Wexford, one of the most strategic ports in the country, pulling Garda resources from right across County Wexford given its 400% increase in traffic since Brexit. It is the gateway to Europe with people coming and going so it is essential that security is a factor and a key feature there. We have seen when resources were made available that the impact is unmatched. Last August, we had in excess of 600,000 people descend on Wexford town for Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann. It was a wonderful weekend where the presence of extra gardaí made it such a wonderful family occasion. We need more Garda resources on the ground to combat these issues.

Mark Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know the Minister is only joining us now but my colleague, Deputy Ahern, has laid this out very distinctly. Realistically, it is vital we have laws and proper functioning courts in place to deal with crime in this country and that is what Deputy Ahern has said. Also important is the fact that non-jury trials should be the exception rather than the rule. I will concentrate the rest of my contribution on Garda numbers. My colleagues across the benches have spoken about the issues with Dublin and I totally respect that but they also mentioned the fact that a lot of that crime is spreading into the commuting communities and rural communities of my own county of Kildare and the counties surrounding the capital. The population of County Kildare at the moment is almost 250,000 people yet our Garda numbers are among the lowest per head of population in the State. Again, the recent allocation of new gardaí from Templemore did not bring much change to this statistic. Kildare and Newbridge Garda stations received only one new garda while my own town of Athy received none. The whole county of Kildare, with a population of 250,000, received just six new gardaí. Kildare, as the Minister well knows, is a rapidly growing county. I believe the Minister was down there today. Not only does it cater for a rapidly growing population but we have a huge amount of commuting traffic and a lot of road and rail networks going through the county daily. We have thousands of people on the move and, thankfully, thousands of people coming to work in the county each day. This is bringing serious challenges to the Garda force within the county and the workload the gardaí have to carry out is increasing expediently every day. When we look at the additional population numbers this country will have to take in the coming years, a lot of the concentration will be in the commuting counties of Kildare, Wicklow, Meath and Louth, yet the Garda figures for these counties are among the lowest per head of population in the State. We must look at the whole social infrastructure. It is great having the roads and the rail network but the social infrastructure must be there and a part of that is having the Garda numbers to protect those who are living in that particular location.

If we take, for example, the town of Newbridge in my own area with a population of 25,000, Newbridge has, according to Garda statistics, 57 gardaí stationed in the town. If you work that out, that is a ratio of 440 people for every one garda. That is not acceptable in any form. My own home town of Athy, where the Minister was today, has a population of over 11,000 people and has just 34 gardaí serving in the town. I know the Minister will come back to me if he gets the chance and will tell me this is a matter for the Garda Commissioner, as have I have been told on numerous occasions in this House and the Seanad before. However, somebody needs to start matching up Garda numbers and population figures. Somebody needs to make that decision very quickly because we cannot continue with what is going on at the moment with Garda numbers not reflecting the population and my own county with 250,000 people not having the Garda numbers. As my colleague, Deputy Lawlor, said, antisocial behaviour is increasing in these towns. We need to see gardaí back on the beat as has been said throughout the debate today. I would really appreciate if consideration could be given to that.

Eoghan Kenny (Cork North-Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, although I did not bring the group in, I welcome the group from Cork North-West, I presume, and some from my home town of Mallow.

This is an extremely important debate. It is very important that we have our courts system and laws in place but ultimately the main focus of my speech is on the issue of Garda numbers and-or Garda stations, in particular across my own county of Cork. The issues are persistent with staffing numbers and while communities continue to expand, we cannot see Garda numbers expanding within our own rural towns and villages, across Cork in particular. I am not placing blame here but this is about supporting gardaí and communities. Three new gardaí were announced for Cork city and 74 for Dublin. In March, there were three for Cork again and 98 for Dublin.

There is crime and there are community needs in every part of the country. I call on the members of the Government to take their heads out of Dublin for a minute. I am not denying that there is crime and there are community needs in Dublin city as well, but we have crime and community needs in Cork city and county. Padraig Harrington, the GRA delegate for the Cork city division, stated that there were three retirements and two promotions in the Cork city division, so even with three new gardaí, we are two short. My colleague, Councillor Peter Horgan, said that gardaí are feeling abandoned and he is absolutely correct.

Regarding my hometown of Mallow, I commend Superintendent Gary McPolin. Having met him, I understand completely the barriers that are before him as a superintendent. I wrote to the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, in February in relation to Mallow Garda station. The issues were passed to the Garda Commissioner, who then passed them to justice liaison, and there has been no response since. One issue I raised was the fact there has been no central heating in Mallow Garda station for six years. Superintendent McPolin told me he is very conscious of the fact that no gardaí have walked out on him. There is just one doctor covering the north-west division. It is extremely important to recognise that while the needs of the many people across the north-west division are high, there is only one doctor covering the area.

In other parts of Cork North-Central, the station in the town of Ballincollig - the village, as it would have been - is manned 24 hours but only opens a few hours a week, forcing the public to go to Togher Garda station. Some 20,000 people are living in Ballincollig. It is a failure of the Commissioner and the Minister, not a failure of the Garda. I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, to work with the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, to assign more gardaí to Cork city.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I intend to speak about the Offences Against the State Act, in particular the continued operation of the Special Criminal Court. This is not just a matter of law. It is a question of principle, of how we, as a republic, administer justice in the most serious cases and of what kind of country we want to be by virtue of that fact. The Special Criminal Court was never meant to be permanent. It was introduced as an emergency measure during a time of deep national threat, a time when the State was under pressure from those who sought to undermine it through violence. Therefore, in response to that threat, we created a court that operated outside the ordinary rules of trial, with no jury, with belief evidence permitted and with cases tried before a panel of judges without the same level of public scrutiny.

That was more than 50 years ago. In 2025, the State is not in that kind of emergency. It is not on the brink of collapse. It is not at war. Yet, year after year, we continue to renew these extraordinary powers. This is not because we still face the same threat but because we have grown used to them. This is the real danger here: the slow normalisation of exceptional powers; the idea that we can keep these measures in place indefinitely and still call it emergency law; the belief that if we just renew them quietly enough, no one will ask why we still need them.

I heard what the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, said earlier. He said that reforms are on the way and that these things take time. I welcome that the Government is now acknowledging the need for change but I also want to be honest. If we are back in this Chamber in 12 months having the same debate, passing the same motion, extending the same powers, then people will rightly question whether reform is genuinely under way or whether it is just being kicked down the road once again. We have been here before. This is not the first time the case for reform has been made. There have now been two major independent reviews, one in 2002 and the other in 2023. Both recommended significant change and expressed concern about the long-term use of extraordinary courts, yet very little has changed.

We have also heard serious concerns from international observers. Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, the former UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, has warned against the creeping expansion of emergency powers. Ireland has been asked again and again to explain why we continue to operate a non-jury court system on a permanent basis. No other EU country does so. Frankly, our explanations have begun to wear thin.

It is worth asking what it says about us as a republic that we continue to rely on a court system that most of our peers consider unacceptable in normal circumstances. Of course, some will say this is necessary, that the threats we face are too serious for the ordinary courts to manage, that organised crime poses too great a risk, that juries cannot be protected or that witnesses might be intimidated. To that, I would say that, yes, intimidation is real, gangland violence is serious and protecting those involved in criminal trials is essential. However, we are not the only country dealing with these threats and we are not the only state that has had to confront the problem of jury intimidation. Other democracies have managed it. They have introduced protected juror identities, created secure courtrooms, established robust witness protection schemes and provided the resources to ensure that their courts can function safely and fairly without abandoning the fundamental right to trial by jury.

That is the real issue here. This is not about distrusting juries. It is about not having confidence in the State to protect them. Every time we renew these powers, what we are really saying is that we do not believe the Irish State can guarantee safety to those who serve on juries and that we would rather bypass the challenge than rise to meet it. That is a failure of ambition, a failure of confidence in our own institutions and a failure to live up to the ideals we claim to hold. In a republic, justice is supposed to rest with the people. The jury trial is not just a legal mechanism. It is a civic act. It is an expression of public confidence in democracy. It is the belief that no matter how serious the charge, no matter how complicated the case, ordinary citizens can sit in judgment and deliver a verdict that is fair.

That principle is not outdated. It is not optional. It is at the heart of what it means to be a republic. When we say that certain people cannot be tried before a jury, we are not just making a technical legal decision. We are sending a message about how much we are willing to invest in our democracy. Right now, I believe we are selling that short.

I represent a community that knows what organised crime looks like. The inner city has seen too many lives lost to gangland violence, too many families destroyed by addiction and fear and too many young people pulled into criminal networks that promise protection but deliver only ruination. Therefore, I am not naive about the risks involved. However, I also know that those communities deserve justice that is not just swift but legitimate. People who are already living with injustice should not be asked to accept trials that take place outside the normal safeguards of the law.

A court that operates without a jury should be a last resort. It should be rare, it should be tightly limited and it should never become the default for dealing with certain types of crime simply because we have not invested enough in alternatives. That is the crossroads we are at now. The 2023 review offered a path forward. Some of its members argued for a return to jury trials with protections built in. That is not a utopian vision and it should never have been seen in that way. It is a workable, concrete reform, and one that aligns with international norms, our constitutional obligations and the values of the Republic. The Minister said that reform will take time but if we keep waiting, the opportunity will pass us by. The more years we spend renewing these powers, the harder it becomes to unwind them. The more normal they become, the more reluctant Governments will be to challenge them and the more distant we will grow from the original reasons they were introduced.

This is the moment to act. It is the moment to put in place the structures that make jury trials safe and sustainable, to invest in the systems that allow our courts to function with integrity, even under pressure, and to send a clear message that Ireland is not a fragile state clinging to old emergency powers, but a confident republic willing to uphold its own ideals. We should stop managing the risk of reform and start embracing the responsibility of it.

Let us be honest about what has happened here. The Special Criminal Court was created in a time of fear but fear is not a sound foundation for permanent law. The longer we keep it in place without challenge, the more we allow fear to shape the justice system in ways that are hard to undo. This should be the last year we stand in this Chamber and renew these powers without serious reform under way. Let us build a justice system that the Republic deserves. Let us trust ourselves to do better and let us show that, even in the face of real threat, we will not compromise on rights, fairness or the democratic values that should define us.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Deputy Gannon that this should be the last year this is ever debated in the Chamber - in fact, last year should have been the last time. From what the Minister said at the outset of his contribution today, even though he now supports the repeal of the Acts, that will not be ready by this time next year, so this will persist. Although we will support the motion this year, we will be coming forward with suggestions as to how we can deal with this in a more concrete way.

What has happened is that 50 years ago, an emergency measure came in to deal with a particular set of circumstances. Not only has that essentially been codified into our criminal justice system, it has been expanded to not just deal with terrorism but to deal with gangland crime as well.

What we have now, in essence, is two parallel criminal justice systems operating within this jurisdiction. This is a travesty of the rule of law. It is hugely problematic that two people can, in effect, be charged and tried for the same crime in two different courts, one with a jury and the other without, and one with a 65% conviction rate or thereabouts and the other with a 95% conviction rate.

When people look at the arguments in this matter, they talk about the types of people who are tried in different courts. However, all of this undermines the primary principle of criminal justice, which is the presumption of innocence. I ask everybody to put themselves in the shoes of a person charged with a crime and expecting to be tried by a jury of his or her peers only to be faced with the Special Criminal Court. That is hugely problematic. We have had this criticism levied at us, as a State, by the Human Rights Council and multiple UN treaty bodies. We had the Hederman report in 2002 and the Peart review in 2023, containing various recommendations for how the system could be reformed. My party and I align much more closely with the minority report of the Peart review, which looked at the human rights gaps. This system is a blemish on the State's human rights record.

I move now to some of the specific provisions we are discussing that are particularly problematic. Jury intimidation is the premise on which the need for the Special Criminal Court is based. As a State, we will never deal with jury or witness intimidation if we do not abolish that court. In essence, we are just hiving off the problem instead of dealing with it. Other jurisdictions with much bigger problems to contend with still manage to uphold a jury court in these situations. There are plenty of new technologies, new methods and new criminal justice techniques that would allow us to have jury courts even in the face of jury intimidation. We will never build those competencies as a State if we do not practise them. It is hugely concerning that we are not facing the problem. This is not to say the jury system in the State is perfect. In fact, it is far from ideal that jurors experience difficulty with the process itself, the logistics of it, the wait times and so on, and even just that it can be such a life-changing experience. The State needs to support people in their service as jurors. All of that, however, is undermined by the fact we have created a parallel criminal justice system that has removed juries completely from the process.

Another issue is the lack of division in the admission of evidence. When juries operate in a courtroom, an admission of evidence policy allows the judge to review that admission of evidence and determine whether it is appropriate for the jury to see it. In the case of the Special Criminal Court, a judge has to determine whether he or she can see the evidence. That is ridiculous. It is an absolute undermining of the principles of criminal justice I would expect to see applying to anybody who enters into our criminal justice system.

Regarding DPP discretion, I am, unusually, in agreement with Deputy Ward in his observation that the DPP has way too much discretion in the referral of cases to the Special Criminal Court. Such referrals should be restricted to offences against the State or there have to be other parameters within which the DPP must operate in making referrals. We need greater independence in the process, with input from somebody who is not in the DPP's office. As Deputy Ward rightly pointed out, the DPP is not without interest in this process and must surely, therefore, be subject to monitoring in these instances.

Overall, there are many ways in which the current system represents a fundamental human rights transgression. This system, which is now baked into our common law criminal justice system, presents a significant differentiation in terms of the conviction rate and the conditions for trial. In essence, it allows us, as a society, to maintain an abolition or undermining of the principle of the presumption of innocence within our courts system. That is hugely problematic.

We will support the motions before us today but I assure the Government that we intend to come forward with ideas and proposals for how we can address the issues I have raised. I ask the Government to reflect on what conditions would have to exist in this State for the abolition of the Special Criminal Court to become a proposition it will consider. That is the question we need to answer. What types and levels of witness protection must we have in place? What are the conditions to be met that will mean we can say goodbye to this abomination within our criminal justice system once and for all?

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before calling on Deputy Brabazon, I welcome to the Gallery a tour group from Ballybay, County Monaghan. Its members, who are guests of Deputy Maxwell, include Stephen and Julie Patten, who were married last week. They are all very welcome.

Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was introduced in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing. That terrible and cruel atrocity by the Real IRA took the lives of 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins, and injured more than 300 others.

The review group tasked with examining the Offences against the State Acts stated:

[W]hile the threat from republican paramilitary groups has diminished, a number of such groups persist in attempting to undermine the State by their efforts to overthrow the democratically expressed will of the people, as expressed in the support for the Good Friday Agreement.

...[Ireland] is not immune from the growing threat which international terrorism has posed in recent years and must play its full role in countering the threats posed by international terrorist groups both here and elsewhere. The activities and international linkages of organised crime groups have

intensified in a manner which challenges the capacity of the State to protect communities from the activities of such groupings.

The report also states:

An Garda Síochána continue to believe that the nature of these groupings is such that ordinary courts are inadequate to deal with them. In particular, there is a strong concern that attempts would be made to intimidate jury members in cases involving members of such groups, thus rendering the ordinary courts inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice in such cases.

The majority and minority reports of the review group recommended that the Offences against the State Acts not be continued. The majority report recommended that new legislation be introduced to establish and regulate the operation of a new non-jury court. The motion notes the Minister's intention to accept in principle the recommendations from that report.

It is our duty as legislators to ensure the necessary provisions and legislation are in place to protect our citizens from the groups identified in the review reports and the threats they pose. The resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas in June 2024 resulted in the continuation of sections 2 to 4, inclusive, 6 to 12, inclusive, 14 and 17 of the 1998 Act for a period of 12 months. In his statement, the Minister acknowledged that there remains a threat from violent and extreme groups. An Garda Síochána continues in its view that the nature of these groups is such that ordinary courts are inadequate to deal with them. As such threats persist, the continuance of these particular provisions of the 1998 Act is necessary.

Threats to the State and its citizens are not confined to terrorist groups. Organised crime groups pose a real threat and an intent to interfere with the administration of justice, including by putting jurors in fear and danger. The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 came into force with the aim of introducing measures to tackle organised crime.

Previous speakers made arguments regarding the lack of democracy attaching to non-jury courts. A lot of of our summary prosecutions are done before District Court judges, without a jury, and I do not hear anybody crying foul in respect of the functioning of those courts. Likewise, I do not hear anybody crying foul when An Garda Síochána issues a fixed-penalty notice in circumstances where the offence is decided without either judge or jury. I urge caution in this regard. We need reform but we also need to think about what should replace the system we currently have. I look forward to seeing the fruits of such discussion in due course.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We move now to the Independent and Parties Technical Group. I call Deputy Connolly. If a third member of her group arrives, I will let her know. If not, she and Deputy Paul Murphy may share the allocated time between the two of them.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I do not support these motions. The legislation to which they relate sets out to tell us that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice. I did not hear that declaration anywhere in the detailed speech the Minister made and I do not see any evidence at all for it.

The Special Criminal Court is based on emergency legislation. We have been told repeatedly that that is unacceptable. We were criticised on foot of it by the UN Human Rights Committee in 1993, 2000, 2008, 2013 and 2014. We had the Hederman report and then, in 2023, the majority and minority reports of the review group.

We have a Minister for justice, who has serious experience in law behind him, telling us we will be standing here again next year, if we are alive, to again pass a resolution saying the courts are inadequate without any evidence or any action on all of that criticism and without even an apology two years after the issuing of a minority and a majority report. That is unacceptable.

It is also unacceptable that human rights and the balancing that must take place are mentioned absolutely nowhere. It is clear that we need to deal with terrorism and serious crime but there must be a balancing exercise. Of course, you will get a hint from the UN special rapporteur. Until last year, that was Professor Ní Aoláin from Galway, while the current rapporteur is Ben Saul. The rapporteur's full title is interesting. The Minister of State might look at it. It is the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. There is a framework there. Yes, there is counter-terrorism, but with a framework.

In the minute and a half I have left, I will ask a number of questions. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties kindly sent us information. When we go ahead and get rid of the Special Criminal Court, will it be done by ordinary legislation or by referendum? If it is to be done by ordinary legislation, how can that be done when we had to have a referendum to establish the Court of Appeal? With regard to placing the Special Criminal Court on a permanent footing, how can that be reconciled with the Constitution, under which the Special Criminal Court arises from emergency powers? The issue of the DPP making the decision rather than a judge is not addressed anywhere. There is then the use of belief or opinion evidence. This has gone in Northern Ireland but we are going to keep it down here. That has not been looked at or teased out as regards equality between Northern Ireland and here. We were promised a period of consultation with stakeholders following the Peart review in 2023. There is no mention of the status of that consultation. I have mentioned that human rights are not mentioned at all.

Of course, the right to a jury is the gold standard. It is unacceptable for a Minister for justice with such experience not to reference that gold standard or tell us why we have to depart from it when a substantial number of the sections of the legislation have not been used at all. It is unacceptable. We will be looking at terrorism legislation again on Thursday without any context when the real terrorists, Israel and so on, which I will be mentioning when I am speaking on Thursday, are not mentioned. There is huge danger in going down a very narrow road regarding security and who the terrorists are without an overall scope.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Here we go again. We are back here again to renew outdated legislation that has been there since the Second World War and that is long past its best-by date. It is very disappointing to see another year has passed by with no movement on it. While it has always been claimed that the legislation is there for the protection of the State, it has also been used for political policing on occasion, although not always. Reform has been demanded for years and Amnesty International, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and numerous others have highlighted the shortcomings of this legislation and how it can be misused. The Government put in place an expert panel in 2020 and this reported in 2023. The majority report of this panel recommended that the court should be abolished in its entirety and yet, two years later, here we are without any legislation having been brought forward by the Department or by the Government and without any credible alternative being put in place.

I can see the need for a non-jury court in extreme and exceptional circumstances but let us look at the provisions of the legislation, which have been changed slightly over the years. On the provision regarding failure to answer a material question, in the past, people have been threatened with being sent to the Special Criminal Court in Green Street if they did not answer a question and told there was a van waiting for them outside. That is what people were told on some occasions. Another provision relates to conduct of an accused person implying or leading to a reasonable inference that he or she is a member of an illegal organisation. That is wide open. Associations on the part of the accused are also mentioned. That could mean anything. It could mean being at the same wedding as somebody else. Section 9 of the 1998 Act creates an offence of withholding information the accused knows might be of assistance. Again, this is all subjective. There are a number of dangers in there.

Non-jury trials should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances. The recommendations of the review panel state that such a trial should not be authorised by one person, the DPP, as is currently the case, but rather it should be left to the judgment of a court. I recognise that there is a substantial degree of gang violence in the State and that this causes a serious threat to local communities, that it damages them and that it threatens people's safety. I understand that and it does need to be dealt with but other methods can be used. As I have said, a non-jury court should only be used where a court of law has decided it can be used. That decision should not be made by one person, the DPP. Methods such as courtroom screening and video evidence could also be used.

Here we are again in a state of absolute paralysis. I would support new legislation in this area. As we improve, reform and modernise the policing service in the North and in the South, this is a necessary step to take. I am extremely disappointed that we are doing this. This is my 15th time to be in the House for these motions. It is outdated and needs to be changed. This should be the very last time this happens.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Another year, another cursory debate and then another voting-through of draconian legislation tonight. I will speak against and vote against the legislation but the Government and the vast majority of the Opposition will vote in favour of curtailing basic civil liberties. The Special Criminal Court was established 53 years ago, supposedly on an emergency basis. The original emergency for which it was established was officially declared over in 1995 and yet these Diplock courts have persisted even after they were abolished in the North. The Minister now wants to make non-jury courts permanent, which is very likely to be unconstitutional. Will he commit to putting this question to the people and holding a referendum on whether we want to have permanent non-jury courts?

This year's reports on the Special Criminal Court shows that the use of non-jury courts is at an all-time high. Right now, they are mainly being used for so-called gangland crimes but there is nothing to stop an increase in their use against a politically motivated definition of terrorism in the future. In the last few days, the British Government announced that a non-violent direct action group in Britain, Palestine Action, is going to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation. This means that anybody who does nothing other than say that he or she supports Palestine Action, as I do, could face time in prison. It is incredible. If the same happened here, we could see protestors against genocide being convicted of membership of a terrorist organisation on the say-so of a senior garda without the right to a jury.

Tomorrow, the Government is introducing the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill. This will criminalise glorifying "(including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity", just as the British State is trying to do with Kneecap. It will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and artistic expression. It shows the authoritarian direction in which this Government, the British State, Trump and the European Union as a whole are headed.

One hundred and fifty-two arrests were made under the gangland provisions of the Offences Against the State Act last year. This is 40 more than in the previous year. Some 90% of these were not for directing a criminal organisation but for participating in, contributing to or committing an offence for a criminal organisation. All of that is automatically tried in the Special Criminal Court with no right to a jury of your peers, with belief or opinion evidence from senior gardaí accepted as fact and with effectively no right to silence. These very basic features of a jury-based and fair justice system are being denied. Regardless of who is involved, that is a travesty of justice condemned by all major human rights organisations, including the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International, the State's own Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the United Nations.

Even the majority report on reforming the Special Criminal Court, which the Minister says he supports, recommended: "The current system of "scheduled offences", under which certain offences are automatically ... tried by a non-jury court, should be abolished." Will the Minister of State tell us now if he supports that recommendation? Can he explain why these draconian provisions are uniquely needed in Ireland but not in all other countries, where jury intimidation and jury tampering can also exist but are dealt with through other means? I refer, for example, to the use of remote juries, which defends the right of people charged with serious offences to a trial of their own peers. No one who supports the most basic principles of democracy should support this motion or should support creating a new permanent non-jury court. It flies in the face of the basic ideas of civil liberties, the basic ideas of justice and the basic ideas of democracy.

Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to support the motion before us to renew the provisions of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 for a further 12 months. These are exceptional measures but also necessary measures designed not to restrict freedoms but to protect lives. The core purpose of this legislation is to give An Garda Síochána and the justice system the tools necessary to deal with a persistent and evolving threat: the threat of terrorism and the threat posed by highly organised, well-resourced and often ruthless criminal gangs.

Let us be clear about the context in which this legislation was born. The Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was enacted in the aftermath of one of the darkest days in our recent history, the Omagh bombing, which claimed 31 innocent lives, including two unborn twins, and injured hundreds more. The atrocity was a grim reminder that the peace is hard won and that the work of protecting the peace is never finished.

This legislation remains necessary in 2025 because, regrettably, the threat has not vanished. While we have made significant progress in reducing paramilitary activity on this island, dissident groups remain active. The threat level in Northern Ireland is currently "substantial". That means an attack is likely. These groups continue to target members of the security forces and they do so with intent and capability.

However, this legislation is not solely about dissident republicanism. It is also a critical pillar in our response to the ongoing and deeply corrosive influence of organised crime. Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, also being considered today, was introduced to address the serious risk posed by criminal gangs. These gangs are not petty criminals; they are transnational operations engaged in trafficking of drugs and firearms, kidnapping, extortion, robbery and murder. They are sophisticated, well resourced and utterly ruthless. These organisations operate in the shadows and their power lies in intimidation. They terrorise communities, they bribe or threaten witnesses and, crucially, they seek to undermine the very justice system that stands against them. This is why section 8 is so important. I have spoken about this before in this House and I felt it important to speak again today.

Section 8 also allows for certain trials to be heard in the Special Criminal Court, where there is no jury, eliminating the risk of jury intimidation and ensuring that justice can be done and can be seen to be done.

These powers are not taken lightly. Non-jury trials are, by their very nature, exceptional. They should be used sparingly and they must be subject to review. That is why each year we come before the House to seek democratic approval for their continuance. This is why we welcome the work of the independent review group and the Minister's commitment to implementing its recommendations in a careful and considered manner. The review group has called for the eventual repeal and replacement of the Offences against the State Acts with a new framework that retains necessary protections while strengthening oversight and transparency. My party, Fianna Fáil, welcomes that direction of travel, but reform takes time. In the meantime, the threat is real, and we must act accordingly.

Let me say a word about the reality on the ground. From June 2024 to May 2025, An Garda Síochána carried out dozens of intelligence-led operations targeting both subversive activity and organised crime. These are not theoretical threats; these are live investigations. They involve arrests, seizures of firearms and explosives, and the prevention of planned acts of violence. The reports laid before the House outline the extent to which these provisions are being used and the challenges they are designed to address. The Garda faces a dangerous and evolving enemy. We owe it to its members and to the public they serve to ensure that they are not fighting with one hand behind their backs.

We also know that the nature of the threat is changing. Violent extremism, radicalisation and international terrorism do not respect borders. Ireland is not immune to this. Whether from lone actors radicalised online or groups acting under ideological banners, the threat of politically motivated violence remains. While we have been spared the worst of such attacks in recent years, the risks have not gone away. Complacency is no option.

It is sometimes argued that the ordinary courts should be sufficient for all cases. That may be a desirable aspiration in theory, but in practice we know that in some trials, particularly those involving organised crime, intimidation of jurors and witnesses is not just a possibility but a probability.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to increasing Garda numbers and the number of prison spaces. However, we now see young people who have been charged with serious offences being released on bail regularly as there are not sufficient places available in the youth justice service facility at Oberstown. Many of these individuals are going on to commit what can only be described as crime sprees. This is completely unacceptable. Clearly, there are issues at Oberstown; staff are facing very significant challenges and risks. Our thoughts are with the staff working at Oberstown, particularly those injured recently. It may be that the service needs to returned from the management of the Department of children under the auspices of the Department of justice. However, it certainly needs to be expanded to ensure there are sufficient places to allow judges remand and sentence individuals when appropriate and necessary, which of course is always a last resort. It goes without saying that we will all press for additional resources to be provided for young people in budget 2026, as has been a hallmark of this Government.

This motion is not about giving the State carte blanche powers; it is about recognising the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. It is about equipping our justice system to deal with threats that are real, present and persistent. It is about ensuring that criminals do not succeed in intimidating our courts, our communities or our country. In the face of intimidation, the State must be resolute. In the face of violence, the State must uphold the rule of law. In the face of those who seek to do harm, the State must stand on the side of its citizens. That is what this legislation does, and that is why I support its renewal.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As there are no other Members here to speak, I ask the Minister of State to conclude the debate.

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

I will not speak. The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, has spoken on the motions.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have to put the question on the amendment. We have a difficulty in that Deputy Carthy has stepped out. However, we have to-----

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

That is the way it goes.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the way it goes.

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

4 o’clock

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, 2025 and ending on 29th June, 2026.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can I move the amendment now?

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry Deputy; you missed both questions.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is there any chance?

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am afraid it is all done. I did not know if you were coming back.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I had to take a call.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that but we could not wait; we did not know. There was nobody else.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With the Minister of State's indulgence can I move the amendment?

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is all done. The motions are done. There were no other speakers and the Minister of State did not wish to speak. That was the issue.