Alex White (Labour)

The Labour Party will not be opposing the renewal of the sections of the Act, as proposed by the Minister of State on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, I have some concerns. They are about the manner in which the proposals are being dealt with rather than with their substance. I strongly disagree with Senator O'Donovan's suggestion that we give up our current minimal level of scrutiny and renew the legislation only every three or five years. I would wholly oppose such a proposal.

The Minister of State referred to normalisation in the North and in the country generally. That is to be welcomed. The normalisation of our law, including the criminal code, should also be clearly in our sights. Horrific crimes have occurred in the last couple of years but this is not, in itself, a reason to continue to operate emergency legislation or special powers. It should be the Government's objective to ensure that we do not operate under special powers but in a normalised environment with a criminal code which is sufficiently robust, strict and punitive to deal with the kind of crimes of which we are talking. Our horror at an act of violence does not imply agreement to any powers which might be sought. I am sure neither the Minister of State nor any Member would agree that our role as scrutineers of legislation should ever be set aside.

There is no copy of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 on the table in the Seanad ante-room, where legislation we are asked to consider is usually placed. Of course, many Senators will have read the Act. However, it is an abrogation of the role of a legislature to nod through legislation which includes considerable powers and serious offences. These powers have been considered necessary by the Government but it would be a complete denial of the role of Parliament to nod such legislation through on a yearly basis or, as is advocated, every three or five years.

The Garda Síochána has a job to do and the Minister must act on the advice of the Garda. A tool may be desirable but this does not mean it is necessary. We should have a greater and longer opportunity to scrutinise each of the sections to which the Minister of State referred. Perhaps this could be done in a committee. Are these measures necessary as well as desirable? The Minister of State reported the number of times each section was used. Reading over the speech made this time last year by Deputy Brian Lenihan, then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I see that while some sections were used more often this year than last year many were used substantially less often. The Houses of the Oireachtas should be in position to question the Minister and an Garda Síochána as to what the gardaí would do if these measures were not available to them. We could then accept that a particular measure is actually necessary. We might want to argue with the Minister and, through him, with Garda advice that a particular measure was not necessary, although desirable to the Garda.

That is the level of scrutiny in which we should engage as we consider the request to extend these sections. I regret that we do not have an opportunity to do so. We have been given 40 minutes. Would it make any difference if we were given four minutes, or even four seconds? The level of scrutiny is not good. It should be better. I do not take from what I said at the outset. The Minister of State, on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has informed the Oireachtas that these powers are necessary in the context of a terrorist threat. I see we have added the question of international terrorism, which was not contemplated in 1998 but has been grafted on to the case for these measures. We need a much more comprehensive and structured debate on these issues. However, I will not oppose the measure itself.