Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

The resolution before the Seanad seeks approval for the continuance in operation of those sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, which would otherwise cease to be in operation after 30 June. Senators will be well aware at this stage that this legislation was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in August 1998. That was a dreadful atrocity which claimed the lives of 29 innocent people and injured more than 200 others. The attack at Omagh was no more or less than a callous and calculated act of mass murder. It was a futile attempt to derail the peace process which was then still in its infancy. If anything, its brutality galvanised the already strong resolve of both communities on this island for a shared future based on peace and democracy.

It is a testament to the strength of conviction and commitment of those parties which supported the peace process that not only did it survive this attack, it also has flourished. The recent Assembly elections in the North are evidence of how matters have developed and matured in this respect.

We can happily reflect on the great advances that have been made in normalising politics in Northern Ireland and the ever closer North-South relationship across a broad range of areas, including justice and policing. We should never forget, however, the cruelly high price paid by so many people who were bereaved by the mindless criminality of the very few.

Recognising the exceptional nature of the measures contained in the 1998 Act, it was decided that certain sections of the Act should be revisited annually by the Oireachtas. The purpose is to allow the Houses of the Oireachtas to decide whether the current circumstances justify the continued operation of these sections. I have no doubt whatsoever that their continued operation is justified and I shall outline my reasons for the benefit of the House presently.

To support the consideration by Senators of the need for the renewal of the relevant sections of the Act, I am required to lay a report on their operation before both Houses prior to the resolutions being moved. The report, which I laid before the House on 13 June 2011, covers the period from when the last such report was prepared, in June 2010, to 31 May 2011. The clear message from the report is that the relevant sections of the 1998 Act continue to be of significant value to the Garda Síochána in tackling the threat from terrorism. Taking into account the provisions of the Act, the number of occasions on which certain provisions have been used and the current security environment, the Garda authorities consider that the Act continues to be one of the most important tools available to them in the ongoing fight against terrorism. The inevitable conclusion must be that the provisions are necessary to counter the threat from terrorism and that their continued availability to the Garda Síochána is truly warranted.

There remains a real and ongoing threat in this jurisdiction and in Northern Ireland from a variety of subversive paramilitary groups. Put plainly, these are gangs of criminal terrorists. I say "criminal" because they are involved in a wide range of organised criminal activities and in many cases their continued commitment to the so-called "cause" is centred more on preserving their personal positions. These groups represent nothing but their own warped views of the world. They display by their actions nothing but contempt for the peace-loving and law-abiding majority on this island. They have nothing to offer but despair.

The Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and other groups remain resolutely committed to using violence in pursuit of their ends, some of which, as I have just mentioned, are personal aims. They continue to seek to acquire and manufacture weapons and to plant explosive devices without any concern for life or limb. In particular, they have targeted members of the security forces in Northern Ireland. The tragic murder of PSNI constable Ronan Kerr in Omagh on 2 April 2011 is a stark demonstration of their murderous intent.

The Act was brought in following the Omagh bombing and was mainly targeted at domestic terrorist groups. However, we should not ignore the threat from international terrorism. The extent of this threat varies greatly within the European Union. However, it would be foolhardy to imagine that Ireland is completely immune from these new forms of terrorism. We must not be complacent in responding to them.

I might mention, at this juncture, the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 which is aimed specifically at the international threat. It enables the application of the Offences against the State Acts, including the provisions which are under consideration today, against the activities of international terrorist groups and individuals.

To return to the provisions which are the subject of the resolution, the report I have laid before the House is based on data received from the Garda authorities and it illustrates and clearly shows the following. Section 2 of the Act was used on 48 occasions. This section provides that where, in any proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, an accused failed to answer or gave false or misleading answers to any question, the court may draw such inferences as appear proper. However, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure; there must be some other evidence which points towards a person's guilt.

Section 3 was used on 12 occasions in the past 12 months. This section provides that, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, an accused must give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his behalf, unless the court permits otherwise.

Section 7 was used on 24 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 8 was used once. This section makes it an offence to collect, record or possess information which is likely to be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the commission of serious offences.

Section 9 was used on 63 occasions. This section makes it an offence to withhold information which 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 12 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 under section 10 was applied for and granted in 12 cases and charges resulted in six of those cases.

Section 11 was used five times. 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 or she 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 is essentially a procedural section that makes 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. In the past 12 months, the sum total of the uses of sections 6 to 9, inclusive, and 12 was 88.

I turn to those sections of the 1998 Act that were not used in the period under report, those being sections 4, 6, 12 and 17. Section 4 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 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 in section 2 of the 1998 Act.

Section 6 creates the offence of directing the activities of an organisation in respect of which a suppression order has been made under the Offences against the State Act 1939. Section 12 makes it an offence for a person to instruct or train another person in the making or use of firearms or explosives or to receive such training without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Section 17 builds on the provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 providing for forfeiture of property. The 1994 provision empowers a court, in its discretion, whenever any person is convicted of an offence under that Act, to order the forfeiture of any property in the possession of the person that was used or intended to be used to facilitate the commission of the offence. The effect of section 17 is, in the case of a person convicted of specified offences relating to the possession of firearms or explosives and where there is property liable to forfeiture under the 1994 Act, to require the court to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made any such order. Although these sections were not used in the period under report, the House will agree that their continued availability is essential to an effective response to the threat from terrorist groups.

On the basis of the information set out in the report and for the reasons I have given, it is clear that the 1998 Act continues to be an important element of the Garda response to the ongoing threat posed by terrorist groups. It would give me tremendous pleasure to be able to attend the House and inform Senators that the Act's provisions were no longer considered necessary. To be in a position to do so, however, will require a significant change of attitude on the part of those criminal terrorist groups. As Minister for Justice and Equality, I could not recommend to the House that valuable legislative provisions be allowed to lapse in the absence of such a change of attitude. The relevant provisions of the Act should remain in operation for a further 12 months. I commend this resolution to the House and hope it will have the full support of the House.