Dan Boyle (Green Party)

As with other speakers there is regret at the necessity for legislation of this type because its existence presumes a victory on the part of those who engage in terrorism and seek to use it as a political weapon. The Government has chosen to renew the legislation annually since the original passage of the Act. There is consensus in the House that this should be the case. A wider debate needs to take place on the circumstances that would obviate the need for the future existence of the legislation. It is clear that the terrorist threat that has existed in this jurisdiction is reduced although it continues to be potent. We should have a wider debate on why we should have the legislation on the Statute Book.

It is interesting to note that in the neighbouring jurisdiction there is a debate on legislation to deal with international terrorism and its effect on civil liberties. It is ironic that the focus of the debate there is on periods of detention and methods of using evidence that are far more draconian than those included in the Act. While we have suffered greatly at the hands of terrorism, we should be grateful that in terms of its limits on civil liberty the legislation is far less draconian than it could be. The very mechanism that allows it to be introduced annually on the basis of a report to Government and a Government decision on whether it should be continued is a safeguard that we do not find in other jurisdictions.

Will the Minister of State indicate in his response whether the Government is considering the scenarios that might develop when we no longer need an Offences against the State Act? I fear that the bogey of terrorism we have experienced on this island over a 40-year period and that exists internationally through other threats is a convenient excuse for those who want to have the strictest possible laws and who want to feel good about themselves by so doing rather than dealing with the nature of the problems. I refer, for example, to why terrorism exists in the first place and how it can be diminished in society. The fear is that if we continue to have such legislation there will be a rolling justification for some type of terrorism activity and for some people involved in terrorism to justify the continued existence of the legislation. Those of us who believe in a safe, democratic society founded on civil liberties yearn for the day when legislation of this type is removed from the Statute Book.