Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I welcome the Minister. As I did last year, I must declare my interest in that I have practised in the courts, including the Special Criminal Court, and used these provisions. In common with other Members, I support the Minister's proposal that they be renewed again. However, there is a sense of déjÀ vu in that Members are back again, as they must be, to sanction their extension for a further 12 months. However, the context for this debate is much more positive. One year ago it took place against the relatively recent backdrop of the appalling murders of Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar at Massereene Barracks, as well as the murder of PSNI Constable Steven Carroll. At the time the outlook appeared to be bleak.

I take the Minister's point that there remains an ongoing threat posed by dissident republicans. The extensive use of section 9 of the Act, in particular - it was used 117 times in the last 12 months - shows there still is a need for at least some measures of this nature. However, as others have noted, the publication of the Saville report this week provides Members with a much more positive context for this debate. It certainly has allowed everyone to see the benefits of having an open and transparent inquiry into events that both had caused immense trauma and heartbreak for the families of the victims and many others at the time and had poisoned the political process in Northern Ireland for a long time. I refer, in particular, to the cover-up in the Widgery report. Members have witnessed in the past week the liberating and vindicating effects of the Saville report and its findings. The report serves as a reminder to Members of the benefits of having such an inquiry.

The report also serves as a reminder that the marchers on what became known as Bloody Sunday were marching for civil rights and civil liberties. As the Minister remarked, it is a matter of genuine regret for all Members that measures of this nature which encroach on the normal due process rights of accused persons remain necessary because they would all welcome a situation where one could rely on the normal criminal justice measures to deal with criminal acts, rather than being obliged to rely on such special or emergency measures. However, one must ensure balance and that due process rights will be protected as far as is possible, given the ongoing threat. Members must be conscious that the provisions of the Offences against the State Act were criticised by former Senator Mary Robinson in a highly influential publication she wrote some years ago about the Act, as well as by the expert committee which reviewed the Act.

When one examines the report produced by the Minister to which he referred, it is important not to perceive it as a rubber-stamping exercise. As Senator Quinn stated, it is of great value to have a report on the operation of an Act such as this. However, I would like to see more information provided. I note that Members have been given information on the extent to which each of the relevant sections was utilised in the last 12 months. However, they have not been given information that the Minister provided last year which provided for a comparison with the figures for the previous 12 months and which I found to be extremely useful. Last year Members received information on the figures in the 2007-08 period and it was very useful to make comparisons with the figures for different years to see a pattern. For example, where the use of a section is not required, should it continue in operation? I refer the Minister to section 12 which was not used in the period 2007-08 or 2008-09 and, according to the report presented today, was not used in the last 12 months. This is the section that deals with the issue of training in the use of firearms. There is a question in that regard. I do not suggest one should simply drop the provision, but my point is that Members must ask the reason it was not used. Is there a problem with the provision, or does it need to be amended or strengthened in some way? Can the Garda assist Members on what the force needs? If the Garda believes training in the use of firearms is taking place, why has the section not been used for the past three years? I note that last year the Minister did not renew section 5 of the Act because it had been largely superseded by Part 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007. Consequently, there is a precedent for non-renewal in cases where a section is no longer necessary.

Other information that might be useful is what is meant by the word "utilise". Are there links with the figures for convictions and charges that have been provided for Members? I note, for example, that the terms of section 10 which deals with the extension of the period of detention by a District Court judge were applied on 25 occasions. While an extension was granted on all 25 occasions, the report states charges only resulted in 12 cases. Again, some information from the Garda on the resultant charges in the case of other sections would be useful for Members. For example, section 9 was utilised on 117 occasions. Does this mean charges were brought on each occasion? How many convictions were achieved as a result?

While the Labour Party does not exactly welcome the legislation, we accept the need for its continued operation. We accept, as the Minister stated, that it is a matter of regret that the renewal of any of its provisions is needed. Clearly, however, there is such a need, as the Garda has outlined. Although the Labour Party accepts this, I ask for sufficient information when Members come to review the position every 12 months to enable them to make an informed decision on whether each individual provision of the Act should be renewed. This is of vital importance. I note the Minister has not provided Members with the same level of information this year as last year. This is a pity, as it is useful for Members to see the pattern of usage of the different sections, as they then can be sure there is a need to renew each individual section.

My final point relates to section 2. I asked last year about the special caution that had been promised to put into effect the section 2 warning for an accused person. Will the Minister indicate whether a caution has been drafted in that regard?