Donie Cassidy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Seanad Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue operation for the period of 12 months beginning on 30th June 2010.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This resolution seeks the approval of the Seanad to continue in operation for a further 12 months a number of sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. The sections in question, the purpose of which I will outline, will cease to be in operation after 30 June next. An identical resolution will be debated in the Dáil today.

Senators will recall that the 1998 Act was passed in the wake of the bombing in Omagh in August that year. That atrocity was condemned by all right thinking people. The memory of the innocent lives lost on that summer's day is still vivid 12 years on. The impact on the families of those killed and injured in Omagh will never fade. We must always be mindful of the loss suffered by so many families at the hands of hate-filled fanatics.

The bombing in Omagh was a clear and calculated attempt by the people concerned to undermine the progress which had been made in the Northern Ireland peace process. Members of the House will be aware that the peace process was the result of long and difficult negotiations. In 1998 it was still very much in its infancy and required careful nurturing and continuing commitment on all sides to ensure its survival. Those who carried out the bombing sought not only to stymie the peace process but also to destroy it. They sought a return to the bleak sterility of the violence which had characterised so much of the previous quarter century. However, their greatest weakness was to underestimate the determination of those who wanted to move on and build a better, peaceful society. They also underestimated the determination of the Government to counter their activities. The response to the bombing showed the resilience of communities of all traditions throughout the island. It showed that their determination for peace, better co-operation and the rule of law would always triumph over hate and destruction. We saw an element of this in the past few days in the events in Derry.

Let it be remembered also that the Government of the day and the Oireachtas showed that they were equal to the challenge and would not allow the wreckers to achieve their aims. A strong signal was necessary. Part of that signal was the enactment of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Bill. Its main provisions included changes to the rules of evidence in regard to the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation and the creation of new substantive offences. These provisions gave the Garda Síochána the tools necessary to defeat the bombers of Omagh and those who would follow them. The threat which they still pose which I will outline leaves me convinced that these provisions are, unfortunately, still necessary.

It is a matter of regret that no one has been convicted of the Omagh bombing, but the investigation into this atrocity remains open. Senators will share my hope that those responsible may yet be convicted in a criminal court.

The 1998 Act was passed in what were clearly exceptional circumstances. It was natural, therefore, that the Oireachtas should want to reconsider, periodically, particular provisions and decide if they were still necessary. This mechanism affords it an opportunity to consider whether the prevailing circumstances justify the continued need for these provisions. Before I set out the reasons I am convinced of the need to retain these sections, I refer Senators to the report on their use during the past year. The Act requires me to lay before the Oireachtas a report on the operation of the relevant provisions prior to moving the resolutions for renewal. The report covers the period from 1 June 2009, the end date of the previous report, to 31 May this year and was laid before the House on 10 June.

My assessment, as set out in the report, is that the relevant sections of the 1998 Act should remain in force for a further 12 months. I have come to this view after taking into account the current security situation, both domestic and international, the advice of the Garda Commissioner and the information contained in the report. I have also had regard to the reports of the International Monitoring Commission which clearly articulate the continued threat posed by dissident groups.

The principal threat to the security of the State continues to be posed by individuals and groups associated with so-called dissident republicanism. We might well reflect that it is a strange kind of republicanism that pursues its aims through the murder of fellow Irish men and women. For some perverted reason, revealed only to themselves, these groups are determined to destroy the peace that so many have worked so hard to achieve. They wish to drag all of us back into sterile conflict. We know what that entails because we experienced it for so many years. The Government, for its part, is determined they will not succeed. I have no doubt that all Members of this House share that determination. However, we have to be realistic about matters and recognise that despite our own determination, the threat posed is severe.

The Independent Monitoring Commission has reported on the increase in activity by these groups, especially the Real IRA, in the past year or so. No one needs to be reminded of the horrific attacks in Antrim and Craigavon last year which left two soldiers and one PSNI officer dead. The most recent IMC report made a particular point of praising the efforts of the two police forces to counter dissident activities. This is well deserved praise which I am certain we all echo. Their actions have, without question, saved lives, for which we are grateful to them. Some significant interventions have been made. Senators will be aware of the most recent successful Garda operation in regard to a facility in Dundalk that was being used to manufacture explosive devices.

North-South co-operation in the area of security is vital and I can give the House the reassurance that it has never been better. Shortly after his appointment I met the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Owen Paterson, to discuss the security situation. I keep in close contact with him and the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice, Mr. David Ford, who I will meet again in the next few weeks. The Garda Commissioner maintains close and frequent contact with Chief Constable Baggott. This is mirrored by contacts between the two forces at every level.

The Commissioner has made it clear that as far as the Garda is concerned an attack on the PSNI is an attack on both forces. We have never let up on our efforts to counteract the threat from so-called dissidents. In particular, the resources of the Garda have always been maintained to deal with that threat and that will be the case as long as that threat exists.

It is time these thugs stopped opposing the democratic will of the Irish people and gave up their guns. They have little or no support in their communities. In fact they are reviled by the vast majority of the people on both sides of the Border. They need to get that message and cease their hate filled ideology. I can assure them that until they do, we will never let up in our pursuit of them, in our efforts to prevent their murderous attacks and in our determination to apprehend them and put them in jail.

While countering the threat posed by dissident groups is important, it is necessary not to lose sight of the threat from international terrorism. The 1998 Act grew out of our own domestic troubles. However, its provisions form an essential element of the State's response to the threat of terrorism from any source. We cannot ignore the growth in recent years of the international terrorist threat. Senators will be aware of the arrests earlier this year in Cork and Waterford in connection with an alleged international terrorist plot. In co-operation with our EU partners, we must continue to counteract any threat from such sources. The 1998 Act also forms part of the response to that threat.

It is the firm view of the Garda Síochána that the Act continues to be a most important tool in its ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism. The Garda authorities have stated the provisions of the Act are used regularly. Furthermore, given the considerable threat posed by some dissident groups it is essential the Act's provisions should continue in force to support the ongoing investigation and disruption of terrorist activity. The perpetrators of the Omagh bombing, and other dissident groups, continue to pose a substantial threat. They still aspire to commit serious acts of terrorism, including murder, and to pursue other criminal aims.

I would like to turn to the provisions of the 1998 Act which are the subject of the resolution. As I mentioned, I have laid before the House a report on the operation of the relevant sections between 1 June 2009 and 31 May this year. The report demonstrates the value of the relevant sections to the Garda and the necessity for their continued availability in tackling the terrorist threat.

Section 2 allows a court in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, to draw appropriate inferences where an accused person fails to answer or gives false or misleading answers to questions. However, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on the basis of such an inference. There must be some other evidence which points towards a person's guilt. The section was used on 23 occasions in the period covered by the report.

Section 3 requires an accused, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, to give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his behalf. This section was used on four occasions.

Section 4 provides that evidence of membership of an unlawful organisation can be inferred from certain conduct, including matters such as "movements, actions, activities, or associations on the part of the accused". This section was not used in the period covered by the report.

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. This section was not used in the period covered by the report.

Section 7 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. It was used on 30 occasions.

Section 8 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. It was not used in the period covered by the report.

Section 9 makes it an offence to withhold certain information which might be of material assistance in preventing the commission of a serious offence or securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person for such an offence. It was used on 117 occasions.

Section 10 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 following an application by a Garda of at least superintendent rank. Furthermore, the person being detained is entitled to be present in court during the application and to make, or to have made, submissions on his behalf. The section was used on 25 occasions and an extension was granted in 25 cases.

Section 11 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 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 where the judge is satisfied on information supplied on oath by a member of the Garda that further information has come to the knowledge of the Garda about that person's suspected participation in the offence. It was used on 16 occasions.

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. It was not used in the period covered by the report.

Section 14 is, in effect, a procedural section which 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 may be arrested under section 30 of the 1939 Act.

Section 17 builds on the provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 providing for the forfeiture of property. Where a person is convicted of offences relating to the possession of firearms or explosives, and where there is property liable to forfeiture under the 1994 Act the court is required to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made such an order. The section was not used in the period covered by the report.

We have seen tremendous progress and significant advances in the peace process on this island since the Good Friday Agreement. It is a matter of genuine regret that provisions such as those contained in the 1998 Act are still required but so-called dissident groups remain a threat to that progress. They are opposed to the benefits that have flowed from the peace process and are determined to undermine it. Let there be no mistake about the Government's equal determination to prevent them achieving their objectives. The State must retain, in its laws, the capacity to defeat them. Effective police action, supported by strong legislation, is essential to counter their aims. In this regard I commend the work of the Garda, in co-operation with the PSNI, in facing up to these criminal groups. On the basis of the information set out in the report and on the advice from the Garda authorities, I consider that the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act should remain in operation for a further 12 months. I commend the resolution to the House.

Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive report on the use of the provisions of the 1998 Act over the past 12 months. He outlined the use of the different sections and the number of occasions on which they have been used is extraordinary. The facts speak for themselves and this highlights the relevance of the anti-terrorist provisions in our legislation. The Twenty-Second Report of the Independent Monitoring Commission refers to the increased threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland and states that the overall threat from dissident activity in the six months under review had been higher than at any time since the commission members first met in late 2003. The seriousness, range and tempo had all changed for the worst. The report states, "Dissident groups remain highly active and dangerous". It itemises the activities of different republican organisations and their continuation of terrorist activities, including the Continuity Irish Republican Army, CIRA, which claimed responsibility for the murder of PC Carroll in March 2009; the Irish National Liberation Army; the Provisional Irish Republican Army, PIRA; and the Real Irish Republican Army, RIRA.

The report makes an interesting distinction regarding PIRA stating:

We do not believe that PIRA has engaged in terrorist or other illegal activity. Where individuals have engaged in violence or other crime...we believe they did so without sanction or support and that any financial gain was personal.

It is important to make that distinction. Those who engaged in terrorism in the past have honoured their commitments in the Good Friday Agreement and have entered into the political arena, which should be acknowledged. However, terrorist activity is not confined to Northern Ireland and the Minister referred to the incident in Dundalk last month. The Garda operation foiled a suspected major RIRA bombing.

I congratulate the Garda for that work. I believe the co-operation between the Garda and the PSNI is very important in this regard. I was in Cavan at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, and there were presentations there by the Garda Commissioner and the head of the PSNI. They outlined the extent of their co-operation and it is very clear they are working very closely and effectively together. This is proof of that.

The Saville report this week will greatly help in furthering the peace process in Northern Ireland. Terrorism in large measure is bred from injustice, and I believe the injustice of what happened on Bloody Sunday in 1972 gave extraordinary encouragement to republican activity in Northern Ireland, and brought about the resurrection of the IRA. I remember that very well in 1972. I was on that march to the British Embassy in Dublin. It is instructive to note the contrast between the conclusions of the Widgery report in each case of the 14 people killed with that of the truth to emerge in the Saville report. The difference is very telling. When we talk about terrorist activity, we cannot generalise. Where there is injustice, it has to be dealt with, and it is to be welcomed that this has happened this week with the Saville report. It will strengthen those who are attempting to further the peace process in Northern Ireland and ensure there is reconciliation. The response of all the different political sides in Northern Ireland to that report is very encouraging. I have no hesitation in supporting the Government in the implementation of these provisions. The facts speak for themselves.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister. This is an annual occasion, when the House gets to renew the amendments made to the Offences against the State Act in 1998. I recall some of the debate in this House at that time and the support on all sides to the provisions introduced in order to boost the apparatus of the State in bringing to justice people who were involved in such offences.

It is regrettable that it is still seen to be necessary to continue these provisions. However, the Minister has given us his reasons for this and also articulated the opinion of the Garda in this regard. Not alone is one mindful of the killings in Omagh, but the publication of the Saville report is a seminal moment in relationships in both parts of this island, and particularly between the two islands. It is also very significant in terms of the history of the dealings of Britain in these matters. I have been struck by the reaction of the victims and their families. A benefit of the peace process has been that the families were able to pursue this in a manner that to some extent has brought closure and a degree of comfort from the viewpoint that their loved ones have been exonerated. The truth has been published and articulated not alone by the Saville report, but the subsequent comments of the British Prime Minister, who fully acknowledged that the killings were not justified and that, indeed, the whole act was unjustifiable. He apologised profusely on behalf of the state for the fact that it had happened.

I was somewhat concerned yesterday at the reaction of some Unionist politicians, and this was referred on the Order of Business, but I did not comment. I listened carefully to what Senator Harris had to say in this regard, and I understand the position, from my contacts with the Unionist community. However, we must recognise - as I hope they will, as well - that the reaction they have is part of the legacy of the divisions between the communities. In that regard, the remarks of the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Peter Robinson, MLA, were particularly good and significant.

Eoghan Harris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thought that was very good. It showed leadership and courage. Often there is a temptation for all of us in politics to go with the flow, and see what direction public opinion is going. Indeed, we see an example of that in this House this morning. As politicians, however, we need to have the courage of our convictions, and sometimes rather than following, we need to lead. In fact most times we need to do that. That is why I applaud the contribution of Peter Robinson, MLA, as part of the new maturity that is taking place. In that regard as well, the comments of Prime Minister David Cameron were particularly welcome, given that he is a successor to a previous Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath, who may well have been involved in an element of collusion with the Widgery tribunal. There appears to be some documentation which gives substance to that particular issue. As I said yesterday, as the State challenges people who are attempting to subvert it, I should like to see us extending more of these powers. I welcome the fact the Minister has done this in relation to the enormous challenge to the State and society posed by organised criminal gangs. Also politically we need to move in a direction that is all-embracing and inclusive, and slowly we are doing that.

I appeal to the Minister, at this stage, as I did yesterday to the Taoiseach and Government, to use their good offices to try to bring closure, in particular, for the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, whose sense of injustice is as real today as it was following that atrocity in 1974. This State has failed those people, and that was the conclusion of a joint committee of the Oireachtas in that regard. Now that the British Government has shown itself to be much more open in dealing with these issues in a way that helps the victims of atrocities, this should be pursued. It is necessary not only for the victims, but also to provide the platform and foundations so we might move forward in peace, harmony and co-operation on this island.

I shall conclude by saying to the Minister that I am aware of what he has said, and I support his motion. However, I hope the day will come when there will be no need to continue with these provisions. If we are to achieve that, we must learn the lessons as regards how we have dealt with the whole peace process in Northern Ireland. There has to be engagement with dissidents and their organisations. There is a danger, in treating this specifically as a security issue, that we shall fail to get that engagement, which really is the ultimate solution to our difficulties here.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister. I thank him for educating me today. It is the first time I have heard the report as regards the number of times that each section has been used, and this is of great interest. Perhaps all legislation should have to come before both Houses of the Oireachtas every so often. I am not saying every year, but perhaps it could be every five or ten years to avoid legislation running out of date.

The reference everyone has made today to the Saville report yesterday reminded me of 1972, of which I have a full memory. In that year, some months after that event I got a phone call to tell me that my brother-in-law had just been short dead in Northern Ireland. I was obliged to tell my sister that the father of her seven children had just been shot dead. It is a real reminder of the words used by the Minister when he referred to hate filled ideology and the need to fight it. From a distance, it is comparatively easy to count figures. However, I refer to those of us who have experience of what can happen in Northern Ireland when one is involved oneself and when one knows others involved. As the Minister lives so close to the Border, he has an understanding of the closeness of events which have spilled across the Border so many times.

I understand some believe the non-emergency use of this legislation is in violation of Ireland's requirements under the European Convention on Human Rights and other charters. Under the Good Friday Agreement, there was a move towards normalisation of security measures on both sides of the Border. However, recent events to which the Minister referred such as the recent discovery by the Garda of an improvised bomb that was about to be moved across the Border into Northern Ireland by a Real IRA faction demonstrate that the position in the North remains highly volatile. Moreover, PSNI officers believe this event proves that the faction is planning attacks on targets in Northern Ireland in the near future. As the Minister stated, an attack on the PSNI could just as easily be an attack on the Garda here and constitutes an attack on peace.

It is recognised that the unemployment rate among young males in Northern Ireland almost acts as a seedbed for recruitment for some of these illegal organisations. This serves as a reminder that we should ensure the new British Government recognises there is a different need in the North than elsewhere in the United Kingdom to support whatever efforts are made in respect of employment creation.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits a state to implement measures such as this legislation but only "in times of public emergency which threaten the life of the nation [and only] ... to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation". I am unsure whether the legislation conforms with the charter and the Minister might expand on whether this is the case.

Like all Members, I fully support the legislation. The danger is that as one moves further away from the Border and the last horrific event - I am not simply thinking of the bombing in Omagh but also the other events to which Senator Regan referred in Northern Ireland within the past year - one loses sight of how close we are to it and how dangerous is the situation. Therefore, legislation such as this is needed.

Mark Dearey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also support this legislation because, as the Minister stated, the dissident threat is and has been for some time at a high level and recently manifested in a number of highly disturbing incidents. Gun murders have taken place on this side of the Border for the first time in many years and there has been a series of disruptive and sinister events north of the Border, particularly in respect of the train service and so on. I have been caught up in the latter and appreciate that such actions do enormous damage to our name when visitors are discommoded. This happened to me during a conference and it ruined the visit and people's impressions. While these may be soft tissues, they reverberate. The extension of the offences against the State legislation is important, given the current position and the increased dissident threat.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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?