Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House and offer the support of the Labour Party for this motion. I should declare, as I have in previous years when we debated this issue, my own interest as a practitioner who has worked in the Special Criminal Court and used some of these provisions there. I spoke in the past as a Member who, while not on the Government side, supported the motion, although with the caveat, which I again express today, that each year on the annual occasion when we are asked to reconsider these proposals and consider their renewal, we subject them to rigorous legislative scrutiny. Every speaker has rightly said it is a matter of genuine regret that these provisions are before us once more and that it is regarded as necessary to have them in place, because there is no doubt but they represent a departure from the normal due process rights afforded to those in the criminal justice system.

Others have condemned outright, as I do, the appalling atrocities, in particular the Omagh bombing in 1998 which gave rise to this legislation. Others have rightly condemned the dreadful killing of Constable Ronan Kerr and the attack on Constable Peadar Heffron. I recall two years ago speaking on a similar motion against the relatively recent backdrop of the appalling murders of Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar at Massarene Barracks and the murder of Constable Stephen Carroll. There have unfortunately been, over the years in which we have debated this and even in recent times, appalling atrocities that have confirmed the fact successive Ministers for Justice have sought to renew the provisions of the legislation. We must keep in mind, therefore, the ongoing threat posed by dissident paramilitary groups. I echo Senator Barrett in terms of seeking to address these groups and to ask why they are continuing with these actions. All of us would agree on that.

To turn to the report which the Minister has provided on the operation of the legislation in the past 12 months, while it is very helpful to have that briefing and we had a similar briefing in previous years, I ask that we might get more complete information when debating legislative provisions of this import. When we debated this before, for example, in 2009, we obtained within the report a set of comparisons as to the frequency with which these sections were used in the most recent 12-month period compared with previous 12-month periods, which I found extremely useful. Looking back at my own notes, I am heartened to note it seems the provisions have been used less in the past 12 months than in previous 12-month periods. While the House does not have the information, I know that last year we were told that section 10 of the Act, dealing with the extension of the period of detention, was utilised on 25 occasions whereas it has been used only 12 times in the past 12 months. This time last year, we were told section 9 had been used 117 times in the previous 12 months whereas for the past 12 months, while still being used extensively, it has been used on just 63 occasions. The frequency with which these provisions are used appears to be falling and one hopes that is good news.

There is one other type of information which might be useful, namely, information on the actual outcomes in terms of the convictions and charges that result. In regard to section 10, we are told that charges resulted in six cases whereas for the previous year we were told charges had resulted in 12 cases out of 25. However, we are not told about convictions, which might be helpful.

With regard to frequency of use, I note that section 12 was not used in the past 12 months and has not been used in the past four years, according to the previous reports we have been given. I do not have information for the period prior to 2007. Where a section is not being used or has not been used for, say, ten years, it would be useful for the House to know whether we need to renew it. In 2009, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform expressly said he was not renewing section 5 of the Act because it had been largely superseded by Part 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007. When this legislation is before us on an annual basis, we need to subject it to rigorous scrutiny and we need information to enable us to do that. While we very much support the Minister's case for continuance in force of these provisions, we need to know they are of use and that, where sections are no longer being used or have fallen into disuse, they do not need to be renewed and that this does not prevent other sections being renewed.

Concern has been expressed in the House today on the announcement that training for gardaí in Templemore will not take place next year. It would be wrong not to mention this in the context of this debate as, clearly, it is not just about legislative powers but about enforcement of those powers and policing methods. There is a concern that if a new group of officers is not being trained up, this may affect not just day-to-day policing but also policing of paramilitary activity of the sort we have all been condemning.