Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)

The resolution under consideration seeks approval for the continuance in force of those sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 which would otherwise cease to be in operation on 30 June.

In commencing the debate on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I remind Senators that the 1998 Act was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing of August 1998, which claimed the lives of 29 innocent people, including a woman pregnant with twins, and injured more than 200 others. That appalling act, which occurred a few months after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and was clearly designed to derail the peace process, was perpetrated by people for whom human life holds no value.

The Seanad will be aware that there is an upcoming criminal action against a person in Northern Ireland in regard to these murders. The retrial of another person is also pending in this jurisdiction. The investigation into this atrocity continues on both sides of the Border and there continues to be excellent co-operation between the Garda authorities and the PSNI in this regard.

It will be recalled that, in recognition of the exceptional circumstances surrounding the enactment of the 1998 Act, there was general agreement that the Act be regularly revisited by the Oireachtas. The purpose of this recurring scrutiny is to ascertain if the circumstances then prevailing in 1998 justify the continuance in force of its provisions. Accordingly, by virtue of resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas on 16 June 2005, sections 2 to 12, inclusive, and 14 and 17 of the 1998 Act will cease to operate on and from 30 June next unless a further resolution is passed by each House authorising the sections to continue to operate for a period not exceeding 12 months.

There is a requirement in the 1998 Act to lay a report on the operation of the Act before each House of the Oireachtas prior to any consideration by the Houses of the renewal of the provisions. The Minister laid such a report before the House on Monday. Its conclusion is that the relevant sections of the 1998 Act should remain in force for a further 12 months. In the first instance, this is the firm view of the Garda Síochána, which considers the Act to be vital in the continuing fight against terrorism and which considers it to be of paramount importance that the relevant provisions remain in operation.

The harsh reality is that those responsible for the Omagh bombing and others like them continue to pursue, plan and promote campaigns of violence. Senators should remember that there have been a number of near misses involving the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA since the Omagh bombing, and it is only by dint of excellent police work by the Garda and the PSNI that further tragedy on a massive scale has been averted. The State must be prepared to meet the real threat posed by dissidents, particularly at this very sensitive time, when all our hopes are on a restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland.

No one in this House can be ignorant of the newer and more sinister forms of international terrorism — and in particular Islamist terrorism — which have manifested themselves in recent years in addition to home-grown terrorism. With the Madrid bombings of March 2004, and the London bombings of last July, which together involved the murder of more than 250 innocent commuters, two of our closest European friends and neighbours have had to face the full horror of this phenomenon. It would be naive to imagine that Ireland is completely immune from such threats.

The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 was enacted to deal with this international terrorist threat by enabling the application of the Offences against the State Acts against international terrorist groups and individuals. Chipping away at these Acts would be neither wise nor warranted at this time.

On behalf of the Minister, I will now turn to the individual sections of the 1998 Act which this House is being asked to continue in force for a further 12 months and I will outline the position on the various sections since the end of the last reporting period, that is, from 1 June 2005 to 31 May 2006.

Section 2 was used on 14 occasions. It provides that where, in any proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, the accused fails to answer or gives false or misleading answers to any question, the court may then draw such inferences from that failure or from the furnishing of a false or misleading reply as appear proper. However, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure.

Section 3 was used on nine occasions. By way of explanation, section 3 provides that, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, the accused must give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his or her behalf, unless the court permits otherwise.

Section 4 was used on two occasions. This section amends section 3 of the Offences against the State Act 1972 in such a way as to expand the definition of "conduct" that can be considered as evidence of membership of an unlawful organisation. Specifically, "conduct" can now include matters such as "movements, actions, activities or associations on the part of the accused". This change simply aligns the definition of "conduct" in the 1972 Act with the reference to movements, actions, activities or associations used in section 2 of the 1998 Act.

Section 5 was used on 34 occasions. This section provides for the drawing of adverse inferences in the prosecution of a person for any offence under the Offences against the State Acts, any offence scheduled under the Acts and any offence arising out of the same set of facts as such an offence, provided that the offence carries a penalty of five years imprisonment or more. The effect of this section is to allow a court to draw inferences where the accused relies on a fact in his or her defence that he or she could reasonably have been expected to mention during questioning or on being charged but did not do so. As with section 2, however, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure.

Section 7 was used on two occasions. This section makes it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the article is in possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences.

Section 9 was used on 110 occasions. This section makes it an offence to withhold information a person believes might be of material assistance in preventing the commission by another person of a serious offence or securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person for such an offence.

Section 10 was used on 15 occasions. This section extends the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act from 48 hours to 72 hours, but only on the express authorisation of a judge of the District Court. In this regard, the judge must be satisfied, on the application of a Garda officer not below the rank of superintendent, that the further detention is necessary for the proper investigation of the offence concerned and that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously. The person being detained is entitled to be present in court during the application and to make, or to have made, submissions on his or her behalf.

In the reporting period in question, an extension was applied for in 15 cases. Fourteen of these applications were granted. Charges resulted in two of these cases.

Section 11 was used on seven occasions. This section allows a judge of the District Court to permit the re-arrest and detention of a person in respect of an offence for which he was previously detained under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act but released without charge. This further period must not exceed 24 hours and can only be authorised in circumstances where the judge is satisfied, on information supplied on oath by a member of the Garda Síochána, that further information has come to the knowledge of the Garda Síochána about that person's suspected participation in the offence.

Section 14 was used on 54 occasions. The effect of this section is to make the offences created under sections 6 to 9, inclusive, and 12 of the 1998 Act scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the 1939 Act. This means that persons suspected of committing these offences are liable to arrest under section 30 of the 1939 Act. Sections 6, 8, 12 and 17 were not used in the period in question. The information on the use made of the provisions of the 1998 Act is based on data received from the Garda authorities and is contained in the report on the Act laid before the Oireachtas.

The Minister, Deputy McDowell, appreciates that some Senators will look at the advances that have been made in the search for peace since 1998, and in the past year, and say that we no longer require this legislation. The Minister disagrees. The full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement remains an ongoing challenge and one this Government continues to pursue with the utmost commitment.

The enemies of peace have not gone away, however. Dissident republican groups remain active, ruthless and determined to strike if given the opportunity. They remain resolutely opposed to the Good Friday Agreement and to the peace it has engendered, determined to destroy that Agreement and prepared and willing to kill indiscriminately to that end. As long as there are organisations dedicated to frustrating the will of the people through violence and mayhem, there must be robust counter-measures available to the State.

The success of the two police forces in thwarting various attempts to take life, some of which I have mentioned, should not be perversely held up as reason to set aside this legislation; rather, it is proof that it is still required. Neither should the fact that some sections of the Act were not used in the period be held out as a reason for jettisoning provisions which provide the Garda Síochána with robust counter-measures against the unscrupulous godfathers of the paramilitary underworld. Both the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA would gladly kill and maim any number of innocent people in the name of their so-called republicanism.

The Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 is one element of the State's ongoing response to the terrorist threat. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform urges Senators not to countenance weakening any of the tools the State has at its disposal in the fight against terrorism. I commend the resolution to the House.