Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For the sake of clarity, there are two motions and there are amendments to each of them. Sinn Féin has tabled amendments to both motions and the Labour Party has tabled an amendment to one. The motions are being discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil 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 in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2024 and ending on 29th June, 2025.

The two motions before the House seek the approval of Dail Eireann to continue in force provisions in the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 aimed at combating terrorism and organised crime. Given the nature of these important provisions, the Houses of the Oireachtas have decided they should be periodically reviewed. As Minister for Justice, I am required to lay reports before the Oireachtas on the use of the relevant provisions in the two Acts. Reports covering the 12 months up to 31 May 2024 were placed in the Oireachtas Library on 18 June.

Deputies will be aware that the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in August 1998. This was a necessary and proportionate response to an atrocious and barbaric act, the murder of 29 innocent people by the Real IRA. Our thoughts are always with the families of those murdered and the survivors of this heinous act.

Last year, the Tánaiste and I met some of the families of those killed to assure them of the State’s commitment to uncovering the truth of what happened. In February, the UK Government established an inquiry into the preventability of the bombing by its state authorities. The Government is anxious to ensure as far as possible, that by the end of the UK inquiry, there are no unanswered questions relating to the bombing that can only be examined in this State. Officials here have already met the inquiry team and look forward to continuing this engagement.

Since that atrocity, there has been significant progress towards lasting peace. I welcome the restoration of the Stormont Assembly and the power-sharing Executive earlier this year. The recent lowering of the threat level in Northern Ireland from severe to substantial by the UK authorities also represents a welcome development. Nonetheless, the level of threat remains substantial, meaning an attack is likely. Regrettably, there remains a real and persistent threat from paramilitary groups. These groups remain committed to violence and are contemptuous of the vast majority of the people on this island who want a future based on peace and founded in the primacy of democratic politics and respect for the rule of law. These provisions of the criminal law provide strong legislative powers to ensure An Garda Síochána and the courts are in a position to meet the challenge laid down by those opponents of peace.

Section 18 of the 1998 Act provides that sections 2 to 4, inclusive, 6 to 12, inclusive, 14 and 17 must be renewed by the Oireachtas at least annually, if they are to remain in force. The report laid before the Houses includes information provided by the Garda Commissioner on the use of the provisions in question over the past 12 months and a table setting out reported usage figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation. It is notable that seven of the 12 provisions to be renewed - sections 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 17 - have not been utilised during the reporting period.

Of course, the fact a provision is not used in a particular year does not mean it is redundant or unnecessary. The usage of different sections can vary from year to year, as we have seen.

The report also provides a brief assessment of the security situation. I should caution that there are clear constraints on the detail of what is and can be reported to ensure there is no danger of prejudice to the investigation or prosecution of crime or to the security of the State.

It is clear that the so-called dissident republicans, who have their origins in the Provisional IRA and the INLA, continue to represent a threat. Despite the progress towards peace made over the years, they continue to seek to return to the fruitless violence of the past so we must continue to do all that we can to deal with this threat. Let no one be under any illusion that these groups do not represent a threat, albeit, thankfully, this is lower than in the past. They have remained resolute in their opposition to democracy, the rule of law and all that the Good Friday Agreement stands for and they remain wedded to brutality and criminality. It is also well established that these groups have links to, and operate hand in hand with, organised criminals.

The attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell in February 2023 is further proof of the ruthless and reckless nature of dissident republicans and that they are continuing in their attempts to maim and murder PSNI officers. Thankfully, this very serious and heinous attempted murder was thwarted by the dedicated medical teams and by Inspector Caldwell's determined fight for life. It is truly wonderful to see his remarkable recovery.

North-South co-operation in this area is critical, and colleagues in Northern Ireland have acknowledged that co-operation from the gardaí is strong and is automatic when needed most. In recent years the benefits of that co-operation have been apparent from successful joint operations between An Garda Síochána and the PSNI. Only in the past few weeks, An Garda Síochána uncovered a suspected improvised explosive device at Ravensdale in County Louth as part of a joint operation with the PSNI. There is a long shared history between the two jurisdictions of countering terrorism on this island and it is essential we continue to build on this strong co-operation in the post-Brexit period.

As Minister for Justice, I pay tribute to the gardaí and PSNI officers who continue to co-operate closely and work tirelessly to keep their communities safe and counter all threats from terrorism. It is our duty to ensure that those tasked with protecting us from this threat have at their disposal the appropriate measures to do so. In that regard, I am firmly of the view that the provisions I am seeking renewal of today are necessary and required to support An Garda Síochána in investigating, disrupting and dismantling the activities of terrorists.

The report laid before this House, in addition to providing information on the use of the provisions in question over the past year, also notes the clear view of the Garda Commissioner that the Act continues to be an important tool in ongoing efforts to combat terrorism.

While the 1998 Act was a response to a domestic threat arising from dissident republican terrorism, as an open democracy it is very important that we do not lose sight of the threat from violent extremism and international terrorism. There has generally been a deterioration in the international security landscape in recent times, in part due to terrible wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Europol in its most recent terrorist situation and trend report, published in 2023, sets out the threat situation at EU level and confirms that terrorism remains a key threat to the EU’s internal security, with lone actors remaining the primary perpetrators of terrorist and violent extremist attacks. Radicalisation leading to violent extremism and terrorism is also an increasing concern across EU member states including Ireland. Many provisions of the Offences Against the State Acts are capable of being utilised in response to such threats and we continue to work closely with EU and international partners in remaining vigilant to the threat posed by violent extremism and international terrorism.

Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 is also the subject of a motion before the House. It refers to a small number of serious organised crime offences set out in Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Section 8 of the 2009 Act makes these scheduled offences for the purpose of Part V of the Offences Against the State Act 1939. That is to say, trials for these offences are to be heard in the Special Criminal Court subject to the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions to direct that the offences be tried in the ordinary courts. The purpose of this provision is to guard against the possibility of interference with jury trial by ruthless criminal groups that seek to behave as though they are beyond the law. It was enacted as a response to a number of difficulties where the justice system was considered to be under serious threat from organised crime. Organised crime groups had shown a particular ruthlessness in their activities, including attacks on witnesses and intimidation of jurors. It was imperative that the criminal justice system was robust enough to withstand the assault launched upon it through intimidation and violence.

I believe most Deputies will agree that imperative remains. Everyone in this House is aware of the threat that society and the criminal justice system face from groups who will stop at nothing in pursuit of their criminal activities. There is no disputing the damage they have inflicted upon communities throughout the country. Their willingness to resort to extreme violence and their flagrant disregard for communities and even family gatherings has been apparent in recent months in the shocking killings witnessed in Blanchardstown and Drimnagh, which have been linked to feuds between rival criminal groups. Supporting the efforts of An Garda Síochána to combat organised crime and bring to justice those involved remains a priority for the Government. This is reflected in the record allocation of over €2.35 billion in budget 2024, which includes investment in boosting surveillance capability with the purchase of new enhanced air support.

An Garda Síochána is working intensively to bear down on the criminals involved, and deserves praise for considerable success in disrupting their activities, making significant seizures of drugs, cash and weapons, bringing criminals to justice and, most importantly, preventing further loss of life. I draw attention to the joint task force operation resulting in the largest drug seizure in the history of the State from the MV Matthewoff the coast of County Cork last year. Deputies will be aware of other significant cases in which individuals have been sent forward for trial in the Special Criminal Court in recent weeks. As Minister for Justice, I acknowledge this important work and the brave gardaí who persevere with it day in, day out.

The report I have laid before the House in accordance with section 8 covers the period from 1 June 2023 to 31 May 2024. It includes information provided by the Garda Commissioner on the use over the past 12 months of the provisions in question and details of the relevant offences. It is clear from the report that An Garda Síochána made a significant number of arrests in respect of offences relevant to section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, with ten charges laid before the Special Criminal Court and three convictions recorded there. A further three sentencing hearings were dealt with in the Special Criminal Court during the reporting period. The view of An Garda Síochána is clearly set out in the report and it is that the continued operation of this provision is required. It is my strong view, therefore, that section 8 should continue in operation for a further 12 months.

The House will be aware that last year I published the majority and minority reports of the independent review group appointed to examine all aspects of the Offences Against the State Acts following their consideration by the Government. My officials have engaged in detailed consultation on the recommendations of the review group and have examined the reports from a variety of perspectives, including policy, governance and legislation. The outputs from this consultation and analysis are informing the preparation of a substantive response to the review which I will bring to the Government for approval in due course.

I am firmly of the view that the Offences Against the State Acts have served our country well in combating subversives and organised crime and have fulfilled a vital role in our criminal justice system. The Special Criminal Court was established to respond to the threat to the State and its people from republican terrorism over the decades and it continues to deal with the threat posed by terrorism and the most serious organised crime cases. It serves to eliminate the very real risk to jurors and potential jurors from subversives and ruthless crime groups who place no value on human life. While it is my firm view that trial by jury should be preserved to the greatest extent possible, I will not ignore the threat posed by such groups. The Special Criminal Court is used in very limited circumstances. I am informed that 15 people were sent forward for trial to the court last year on 35 charges. The assessment of the majority of the review group was that there is and will continue to be an ongoing need for a non-jury court, as permitted by the Constitution, to try serious criminal offences in certain limited and exceptional circumstances.

The report of the review group requires consideration in the context of continuing to safeguard the security of the State and its citizens. Given the importance of the Offences Against the State Act legislation over many decades, any proposals for reform must be thoroughly considered and approached with the utmost care before determining how best to proceed. This is in order to ensure we do not do anything to undermine the efforts of the authorities with responsibility for countering terrorism and organised crime and protecting communities.

Further consideration is, therefore, needed to finalise my considered and bring proposals to Government for approval.

In the meantime, however, and having regard to the clear view of the Garda authorities as noted in the report that was laid before the House that the 1998 Act continues to be one of the most important tools in ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism, the need for the renewal of the existing provisions remains to ensure that they continue in operation beyond 30 June.

There is one further matter which I wish to address. Deputies will be aware that the majority and minority reports of the independent review group were broadly aligned in their view that further consideration be given to the issue of jury reform and the need to improve transparency around the operation of the Special Criminal Court. During last years' renewal debates, I indicated that my officials would be engaging further in relation to these matters, including through consultation with relevant State agencies where required.

On the issue of jury reform, I intend to engage with stakeholders to review progress since the LRC report with a view to considering if further action can be taken. Publication of judgments of the Special Criminal Court was also recommended to improve transparency of cases and makes sense. Following engagement with my Department, I welcome that the Courts Service has now put in place procedures to publish judgments of the Special Criminal Court on its website in a like manner to judgments of the other superior courts, and I expect that this will take place soon.

The review group also recommended greater transparency as to how cases get to the Special Criminal Court - how the Director of Public Prosecutions arrives at a decision to direct a case for trial. I understand that the Office of the DPP has committed to making such narrative information available to the public, both on its website and in future publications, which is also a welcome development. The consultation process on the LRC report will also consider the issue of jury tampering and should aid further consideration of this issue. I am absolutely committed to improve transparency and the availability of data across the justice sector.

The renewal of these Acts is essential as they provide safeguards against those who would seek to undermine the democratic institutions of the State. They are a key part of the State's armoury in tackling terrorism and organised crime. They are considered absolutely essential by An Garda Síochána. There remains a real and persistent threat from terrorist activity, from so-called "dissident" republican paramilitary groups and from international terrorism, which remains a stark reminder of the vulnerability of all open democracies.

On the basis of the information set out in those reports, and on the advice of the Garda authorities, I propose that the House should approve the continued operation of the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act and the 2009 Act for a further 12 months, commencing on 30 June this year.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

":

- 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 in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2024 and ending on 29th June, 2025; and

- calls on the Minister for Justice to bring forward legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review Group as soon as possible.".

Is mian liom cúpla focal a rá mar gheall ar Mhícheál Ó Muircheartaigh. Is é an cuimhne is spórtúla atá agam ar Mhícheál ná na ceithre cluiche in 1991 idir Bhaile Átha Chliath agus an Mhí. Is cuimhin liom chomh maith, cúpla bliain ó shín, bhí sé ag caint ag Siamsa Tíre i dTrá Lá i mo theannta gan nóta ar bith agus bhí sé go hiontach ar fad. Is é an cuimhne is mó atá agam ar Mhícheál ná 12 bliain ó shin ar an Daingean agus é mar Dhaidí na Nollag. Bhí sé ag caint le beirt leanbh a chaill a n-athair. Bhí sé chomh cineálta, deas agus suimiúil leo go raibh an teaghlach an-bhuíoch ar fad. Is cinnte nach mbeidh a leithéid arís ann.

We are going again with another report which recommends renewal of the Offences against the State Act. Four years on from the decision of the former Minister for Justice to establish an independent review group to examine the Offences against the State Act, we have the report but no consequential actions have been taken. The group consulted widely and took submissions from the Bar Council, An Garda Síochána, a UN special rapporteur, the ICCL, IHREC, the DPP, academics and, indeed, Sinn Féin, in that we submitted submissions of our own.

Such a review was also a commitment made during the Good Friday Agreement which stemmed from a recognition that a period of armed conflict, North and South, was coming to an end. The illegal legacy of that conflict needed to be dealt with, and a structured approach to dealing with the past is a non-negotiable part of conflict resolution and reconciliation. The Acts were meant to be in response to an emergency period which was declared as over in 1995. The question remains: does the Government still believe this emergency continues or is it picking and choosing from what is politically expedient?

Sinn Féin recognises that there remains some need for legislation similar to the Offences against the State Act - that is contained also in both the minority and the majority reports of the review group - but it is not sufficient to use this as an excuse to delay the recommendations in the reports. In 2021, our Ard-Fheis passed a motion that affirmed our position that the court is anachronistic and called for a modernisation of the law. The motion also noted the remarks of the UN Human Rights Committee, which has stated that "the trying of civilians by [these non-jury courts] should be very exceptional...".

We also believe the use of any non-jury court must be compliant with international human rights standards; set a high bar on the exceptional circumstances to be met; be subject to judicial oversight; and involve independent human rights oversight to protect the integrity of the process and the human rights of any person tried before such a court. It is over two years since we made a submission to the review. As well as the need for more modern legislation to address the threats to the security of the State from organised criminal gangs, this includes assessments such as the risk of cyberattacks.

I am sure the members of the group must be wondering why they put so much time and effort into the report and they must feel the Government is sitting on the report. The relevant sections are renewed year after year and the Special Criminal Court, which was reintroduced as a temporary measure in 1972, has become a permanent feature of the criminal justice system.

This was reviewed in 2002 by Hederman committee. That committee recommended new legislation and repeal of the Offences against the State Act and yet no subsequent proposals were introduced. Last year the majority in the independent review group recommended repeal. Will there be another 20 years of waiting before another review is sought? The Minister said that she intends to engage with relevant stakeholders in relation to jury reform. That should be done so that we can modernise the criminal justice system.

This debate is somewhat like Groundhog Day, as the Oireachtas should not be discussing the renewal of the legislation again. It is a missed opportunity. The Minister is bringing before the Dáil measures which are outdated, legislation some of which is rarely, if ever, used, and measures which she knows need improvement, and meanwhile is not bringing forward the sorts of reforms and improvements demanded, and recommended by the expert panel which the Government itself established on foot of our calls for change. There is a need for modern legislation to address the challenges facing communities and the State in relation to organised crime.

Of course, this debate is not just about the Special Criminal Court, but an oversight procedure of whatever form should be introduced whereby the DPP must justify their decision to prosecute there in every single case. The exact form needs to be proposed and debated, in committee and in this Chamber.

It is easy to say that cases of jury intimidation is a reason for referral to the Special Criminal Court but that it should be clearly and objectively outlined is a given. There should be a reasonable apprehension of jury intimidation and how safeguards are unlikely to work, and that should be stated.

The DPP should maintain statistics in the exercise of this. The lack of statistics and data on all crime, especially, as we heard earlier today, domestic and gender-based violence, is not confined to this area. We lag way behind neighbouring jurisdictions in our compiling of data in order to manage not only the Offences against the State Act but also gender-based and domestic violence.

The principle of equivalence in the protection of human rights under the Good Friday Agreement should support harmonisation of standards of human rights protection and accountability, but this has not transpired. The Special Criminal Court continues to operate and has actually increased activity over the years. It is obviously hearing criminal cases not associated with armed or proscribed groups. This is another example of inactivity by the Government.

The implementation of CoFPI has not occurred. There has not been enough diversity introduced to An Garda Síochána. Data, as I said, for domestic and gender-based violence has not been compiled. There are nine counties with no domestic violence refuge and the legal aid threshold, in particular, for women seeking legal address, is way too low.

The risk of business as usual for the Offences Against the State Act continues indefinitely. It suits the Government to do as little as possible and then blame political opponents for the issues that arise. The proposals of both reports should be considered in more detail and if the Minister is consulting, we need to see what is being said. In the meantime, we have another year where communities face the scourge of criminal gangs, and gardaí feel under-resourced and under-appreciated.

The most recent expert group, in essence, recommended the same thing.

5 o’clock

There is no legal, operational or moral reason for this to continue. I call on the Minister to implement the recommendations, listen to gardaí and to communities, such as those outside the gates of Leinster House today whose family members died from drug use, invest in community drug teams and clinics, which have been starved of resources, and listen to the community projects, if she is serious about tackling crime and the fear of crime.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government has sat on its hands when it comes to reform of the Special Criminal Court. It has sat on the review for more than a year. There is no sign of any progress. We need a more modern understanding of the threats to the security of the State that originate from organised criminal gangs. We need action and we need reform. I do not see how laws created in the 1940s can possibly be fit for purpose in the 21st century. The societal landscape has completely changed since the 1940s.

Sinn Féin has long argued for improved protection for juries, including a new offence of jury tampering, and to end this nonsense of annual renewal, which will bring certainty to the process. We all want safer, vibrant communities without the fear of drug-debt intimidation. The Government's job is to put tools in the hands of the Garda and the courts to make this happen. If Fine Gael, the so-called party of law and order, were serious about tackling organised crime in our areas, we would not see Garda numbers decrease, gardaí leaving in record numbers, gardaí having no confidence in the Garda Commissioner, and the Fine Gael justice Minister failing to attend the Garda annual conference, despite getting an invitation. What message did that send to the ordinary rank and file gardaí?

We would also not see our communities feeling abandoned by the State and left to deal with the fall-out from organised criminal gangs. We all hear about these criminal kingpins, and they must be tackled head on, but these criminal gangs have a ripple effect in our communities. Young people at the bottom of the criminal food chain are being coerced into gang-related activity. I will give the Minister an example from the area where I live. A dispute is going on between two warring factions from different criminal gangs in the same area. I have lost count of how many homes in my area have been petrol bombed in the past year. Nobody should lose their home like this. In some instances, the wrong or mistaken homes have been targeted. When this happens, the whole community goes on alert. Families and neighbours are terrified. They are thinking, "Am I next? Will the house next door to me be petrol bombed next?" These communities feel abandoned. Shots are being fired at each other across gardens, with no regard for the safety of ordinary workers and families in the area where I live. We have had a recent machete attack, where a young boy was hacked by a machete in broad daylight, on the main road and in public view, outside shops on the Neilstown Road. The Minister should believe me when I say that to add to this fear of lawlessness, this is all played out on social media. The machete attack, the gun attacks and the firebombs are all played out on social media for the world to see.

I grew up in north Clondalkin. It is an area that I am hugely proud of and proud to be from. The ordinary people in my area, including my neighbours, family, friends and people I grew up with have constantly punched up just to get better resources for their community. I have a message for those partaking in the recent violent attacks: they do not represent my community; they do not represent the ordinary workers, families and good people in my community; and they need to stop now before somebody is killed.

I have a message for the Minister. We need to set up a task force in north Clondalkin to tackle this escalating violence. We need to see more gardaí visible on our streets. We need more targeted outreach programmes to reach these young people. I need the Minister to step in and make my community safe again.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I normally welcome the opportunity to speak on legislation. It is a very important part of our democratic process. However, it is beyond belief that we are here once again reviewing emergency powers that were put in place five decades ago. The emergency was declared over in 1995 with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. Twenty-six years later the Government announced a review. This review is still dragging on but, in the meantime, national and international human rights organisations are calling for the abolition of the Special Criminal Court. It is an unfair and unreasonable court system and is also a court that does not work. Throughout the State, criminal gangs are terrorising communities but the Garda, through no fault of its own, can do little to stop them. The Special Criminal Court is not a deterrent to these gangs because it is clearly not working due to what is happening on the ground. We need new modern legislation that will deal with organised crime and take it to task.

I will give the Minister a flavour of what is going on. Last Thursday night, I was at an under-nine blitz match in the area where I live. Different clubs from different areas were there. Boys' and girls' teams were also training there, but a gang of youths on stolen motorbikes and trail bikes, wearing balaclavas, helmets and masks, were going up and down a very busy road in the centre of my constituency. The chairman of the club asked me to ring the Garda, which I did. I was at that club for two hours but I saw no gardaí. I made four phone calls, including two 999 calls, to the Garda. They said to me that resources were being allocated on a priority basis. A couple of hundred people were in this sporting facility who could not get out. Does the Minister know what I had to do? I had to go out onto the road in my own car to go to these gangs to ask them to stop, explain to them what they were doing to the community, and ask them to go away. I am not looking for a medal for that because I know that Sinn Féin activists throughout the State and the island do the same. I then had to go back down, stand on the road and wave the cars out because there were no gardaí to be got. This is the fourth time this has happened in my community. We are now talking about this Bill, but who is talking about Garda resources on the ground?

I will give the Minister another example. In another part of my constituency, two young children, aged nine and 11, were running wild. The damage they were doing was unbelievable. They were vulnerable children. It was not their fault. I contacted the Garda but gardaí said they could do nothing as these children were under 12. I contacted Tusla but nothing came of it. In the end, what we had were two children who were terrorising the community and no one able to act. I will give the Minister a taste of this. In January 2022, there were 734 gardaí in Cork. That fell to 699 in January this year. In February this year, it fell to 673 and on 31 March the number stood at 668. That was a reduction of 66 gardaí in Cork over two years.

We have real problems in respect of justice and Garda resources in the State. I have a list of other things the Minister needs to deal with to protect communities from organised crime.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I express my thoughts and good wishes to all those who have been victims or survivors of atrocities on this island. In particular, as the Minister said, I think of the victims of the Omagh bombing, that horrific bombing that took place in 1998. All of us of course want to ensure there is no return to violence and atrocities on the island.

Before I speak to the motion, I declare my interest as a former practitioner in criminal defence practice before the Special Criminal Court. I acted in a whole series of trials in that court up to 2011. Indeed, I have written on the practice of the Special Criminal Court and the operation of the Offences Against the State Acts in my capacity as an academic. In that context, I move amendment No. 1 on behalf of the Labour Party-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry, the Deputy cannot move the Labour Party amendment until the earlier amendment moved by Sinn Féin has been dealt with.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tomorrow night on the-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When that amendment has been dealt with, the Deputy can move hers.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will move that amendment tomorrow night during the voting block. I thank the Ceann Comhairle. That is useful. I will speak to the amendment in any case, if I may.

It is important to stress that the motion is not about the Special Criminal Court, or renewing or confirming the existence of that court. As we all know, that court was established on foot of a Government proclamation in 1972 and will continue in being regardless of how we vote on the motion or any amendments to it. The motion is about the need for annual renewal of some important changes made to the Offences Against the State Act in 1998. The Minister has described the context for those changes.

Most of those changes created new offences or new rules of evidence. Along with other Labour representatives in this House and the Seanad, I have spoken previously about the need to change our practices in respect of many of these provisions. There should be no need for an annual vote on some of these provisions. They should be part of our permanent criminal code. For example, the offence of directing an unlawful organisation should be a crime rather than being regarded as an emergency provision. On the same basis, withholding information about the commission of a crime should be a permanent offence. It is long past time for the Department to extract from the 1998 Act and this annual renewal process the provisions of the Act that are used in practice, that are effective and that should really be enacted in permanent form.

The focus of our amendment is our problem with section 14 of the Act, which we are also being asked to renew for a further year. This declares that, in respect of each of the offences under the Act, the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice. If the motion is passed, as I presume it will be, for a further 12 months, without examining the circumstances of any individual case, all prosecutions for any of those offences can only be by way of non-jury trial before the Special Criminal Court. It is that prospect of the blanket referral of all such prosecutions that we are targeting with this amendment.

We also need to see a proper review of this legislation. Annual renewal debates in this House and the Seanad to date have generally been cursory and lacking in information. We welcomed the appointment of the independent review group. I note that, in her speech, the Minister said she is preparing a substantive response to that review, but the review reported in May 2023, which was some time ago now. The report of Mr. Justice Michael Peart's group confirms the position adopted by the Labour Party. It is frustrating that the core recommendations have not yet been acted on. The core recommendation endorsed by the Peart review in 2023 was, as we are all aware, also made much earlier, in 2002, in the Hederman review. The Oireachtas was called upon to repeal the existing Acts and to replace them with one single consolidated item of legislation containing significant reforms. The Peart review's minority report went further and recommended the abolition of the Special Criminal Court. The majority report supported its retention but also recommended, as do we in the Labour Party, that there should be no blanket referral of offences to a non-jury court and that instead the DPP should use the power she already has to decide on a case-by-case basis whether there is a sufficient threat to the administration of justice to justify sending a particular trial to that court. Page 12 of the report says:

The current system of “scheduled offences”, under which certain offences are automatically or presumptively tried by a non-jury court, should be abolished. Instead, the decision as to whether a non-jury court is used should, in every instance, be based on an assessment of the circumstances pertaining to the particular case.

The offence would remain in place and be triable in the ordinary way and the DPP would retain her discretion to transfer any particular trial to the Special Criminal Court.

Of course, the review group also recommended many other reforms and safeguards. We need a more substantive debate on the recommendations in that report beyond the very short and curtailed debate we have tonight. We also need an opportunity to interrogate the Government's position on its recommendations. We will support the Sinn Féin amendment on that basis. However, if our amendment were to be passed tomorrow, the Special Criminal Court would remain in being and the offences created would remain part of criminal law but prosecutions would not automatically be referred to the Special Criminal Court. As I have said, that is the issue.

In the brief time I have left, I will address another issue relating to this motion that I have raised in the Seanad before. It is also addressed in our amendment. In that amendment, we refer to:

the absence of sufficient information to support an informed finding as to the adequacy or otherwise of the ordinary courts to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order in relation to offences under the Act

I have raised the lack of adequate information before. Every year, the Dáil and the Seanad are asked to declare, in a somewhat perfunctory way, that the ordinary criminal courts are inadequate and that our treasured and highly valued principle of jury trial is somehow not fit to deal with particular offences. This somewhat pro formadecision of the two Houses on the adequacy of the ordinary courts should be based on more evidence than we have ever been provided with when asked to make this declaration. The declaration amounts to a legislative finding but insufficient information has been provided to Members of the two Houses on foot of which to make such a finding. We should not be making this finding without that information. In particular, we have not been given any information as to the adequacy of the criminal courts or the risk of corruption or intimidation of jurors. It is also on that basis that we are bringing forward our amendment. We ask for a more substantive debate on the Peart review in this House and in the other House because this annual renewal debate is no substitute for that fuller and more informed debate.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. Unfortunately, I did not get an opportunity to read the report placed before the House but I will certainly do so because I hope it will be very informative.

In the speech the Minister gave here today, she said that "The report also provides a brief assessment of the security situation" before going on to outline that there are constraints on what she can say. However, she did say that:

It is clear that the so-called dissident republicans, who have their origins in the Provisional IRA and INLA, continue to represent a threat. Despite the progress towards peace made over the years, they continue to seek to return to the fruitless violence of the past so we must continue to do all that we can to deal with this threat. Let no one be under any illusion that these groups do not represent a threat, albeit, thankfully, this is lower than in the past.

Obviously, I totally oppose violence. I always have. I remember getting involved in visiting republican prisoners back in the nineties because I believe in talk and in persuasion. I believe that those discussions played a role in ensuring ultimate agreement to the Good Friday Agreement. The work done during that period with the prisoners who then became persuaders towards the agreement was key.

Unlike in the other jurisdiction on this island, where totally different circumstances pertain, the situation here is that, looking at the actual record, there were 30 prisoners in the E block at Portlaoise Prison at the end of 2020. As the Minister knows, I am in discussions with the people who are there. I visit regularly and will continue to do so. There is one person awaiting extradition to the North but nobody has been convicted and gone in there. To the best of my knowledge, there is nobody on remand and nobody out on bail from the E block. The likelihood is that, by the end of next month, we will have four prisoners there.

That tells us something and that something is backed up by the work of the IRC, the independent reporting commission appointed by the two Governments and which is taking a two-pronged approach to this whole issue. One prong consists of the arms of justice, An Garda Síochána in this State, the courts and so on, following their procedures. On the other hand, as we all know, if you can persuade people to pursue another road, a political road, it is probably the most powerful road of all in ending violence. I have spoken to the Minister before on the key recommendation of the latest IRC report, appointing a facilitator to enter into dialogue with paramilitary groups, and she has done Trojan work on this.

I am also aware the challenge here was that we needed both states to agree to the appointment of such a person and that the Minister has worked hard to progress this. From all my dealings in this regard - and I am dealing with human beings and dealing with real people - the evidence is there in the figures I have just outlined that progress is being made by persuasion. If it was quite as simple as the very stark picture here it would be hard to see that nobody would have come before the courts and been incarcerated in the E wing in the last number of years. We need to renew our efforts to once and for all persuade all republicans of all colours that the best way forward is through peaceful means. It has been successful in the past and I hope it will be successful in the future.

The Minister’s report is in three sections. It talks about international terrorism. I must confess very little knowledge of that, but I accept an event could take place in this jurisdiction at any time and we would have to have the wherewithal to deal with it. Then there is the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, which is focused on gangland crime. I accept that is a major challenge in our society, especially the scourge of drugs. Drugs are a challenge everywhere. They are a challenge in the prisons. They are a challenge in society. People from all classes and parts of our society are using illegal drugs. I wonder whether they ever question the provenance of these drugs and ask who brought them in and wonder what criminality was involved and what illegal profitability there is and of the misery of people involved in these so-called recreational drugs. I find it very difficult to accept.

I join those who support the implementation of the review of the various Acts involved here. I notice this involved an analysis and the Minister said she is going to bring a response to the review to Government in due course. Whether it is a very trite question or a very serious one, when Departments say "in due course", I ask whether somebody will give me an interpretation of what is meant by "in due course", because it is literally as long as a piece of string. It would be very useful if we were given some indication of a timescale in which we would get this report, what it is intended will change and what new legislation will be brought in to replace the present Acts.

Tá go leor ceisteanna anseo. Creidim féin go bhfuil dul chun cinn nach beag déanta chun cur ina luí ar dhaoine gan a bheith ag plé le foréigean leis an bpoblachtachas a chur chun cinn. Is dóigh go bhfuil go leor eile gur féidir a dhéanamh. Creidim féin gurb í an uirlis is tábhachtaí leis an obair seo a dhéanamh, atá cruthaithe mar seo go stairiúil, ná caint agus caidreamh. Impím ar an Aire coinneáil uirthi, go mórmhór agus muid ag ceapadh go mbeidh rialtas an-nua agus an-difriúil sa mBreatain faoi cheann cúpla seachtain, cur ina luí air an t-áisitheoir seo a cheapadh, mar atá molta ag an IRC, dream atá ceaptha ag an dá Rialtas agus ag an bhFeidhmeannas ó Thuaidh, le comhairle a chur orthu maidir le cúrsaí paraimíleata a bhaineann leis na Trioblóidí. Dá n-éistfeadh muid leis tar éis é a bhunú, bheadh dul chun cinn an-mhaith déanta agus d'fhéadfadh an lá teacht nach mbeadh éinne sa bpríosún i ngeall ar chúrsaí poblachtanacha ó Thuaidh nó ó Dheas.

Tá cúinsí ó Thuaidh atá thar a bheith míshásúil ó thaobh an dlí de. Tá daoine ag fanacht suas le hocht mbliana ar bhannaí. Tá daoine ag caitheamh trí agus ceithre bliana sa bpríosún ag fanacht ar thriail. Tá sé in am deireadh a chur leis na scannail sin. Tá na coinníollacha príosúin go dona. Tá tuarascáil tar éis tuarascála tar éis a rá go bhfuil na coinníollacha príosúin atá i bhfeidhm i dTeach Roe i Maigh gCabraí thar a bheith míshásúil agus níl aon ghníomh déanta. Tá sé thar am gníomh a dhéanamh. Dá ndéanfaí gníomh a dhéanamh, laghdódh sé an foréigean seachas cur leis. Ag deireadh an lae, nach é sin an aidhm atá againn uilig - deireadh a chur le foréigean poblachtanaigh sa tír seo?

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The proposal to renew the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act is another missed opportunity. Last year we had a review that recommended the repeal of the legislation and its replacement with permanent and modern legislation that would be fit for purpose, but here we are again. Unfortunately, the threat posed by organised crime and violence associated with large-scale drug distribution is not a memory from a distant era but a clear and present danger to our society. Too often it is innocent people who are impacted by these gangs and too often it is our communities that suffer.

Fine Gael has had responsibility for the Department of Justice for the last 13 years and in this time organised crime has spiralled. Fine Gael is soft on crime. Its light-touch approach has seen it slash Garda numbers, shut police stations and abandon communities, some in my constituency of Limerick city. In many cases these criminals can run amok in our communities without fear or consequence. They can intimidate and threaten with near impunity because there is not a sufficient Garda presence. Gardaí cannot respond when they do not actually exist. Crack houses operate 24-7 and often stay open for years.

In recent years the focus has been on Dublin’s inner city and the damage that has been done through the murder and mayhem of gangs, but it is not an exclusively Dublin challenge. In every city and large town in Ireland, the sale and supply of drugs has become big business. People regularly travel to Limerick from across the State to buy crack cocaine. In one area of Limerick people can be seen shooting up outside the local crèche and often in full sight of the children. This has been allowed continue for more than a year. In my county, we have seen at first hand the devastation these gangs caused.

While the murders may grab the headlines, it is lower level intimidation, casual violence and antisocial behaviour of these gangs that does significant damage to community cohesion and trust in the role of the Judiciary. In Limerick we have several estates that lie in close proximity to the city centre. These are communities where a huge majority of people simply want to get on with their lives, do their day’s work, raise their family and enjoy the little comforts life should bring. However, those simple and worldly ambitions are often stymied by the use of scramblers, horses and scooters to rip up soccer pitches and dominate the pedestrian pathways. It is impacted by the casual use of drugs and the sale of drugs on public streets. It is damaged by the discarding of drug paraphernalia on public walkways. To be a parent in these circumstances must be incredibly challenging. Would any of us like our children and family members to have to play in such environments?

These situations have been allowed fester because we do not have enough community gardaí. Gardaí who work within the community and engage with stakeholders are often a deterrent to this kind of low-level but highly-damaging antisocial and anti-community behaviour. Organised crime flourishes and grows in areas of deprivation. Organised crime flourishes in areas abandoned by central government. We have seen it up and down the country.

Fine Gael has been in government for years, as I have said, and there have been Ministers in Fine Gael governments who have hailed from Limerick and yet seven of the top ten areas of deprivation in this State are in Limerick.

The recently published European Drug Report 2024 shows that Ireland now has the highest rate of drug overdose deaths in the EU, with 70 deaths per million compared with the EU average of 23 deaths per million. I met some family members of those lost to drugs outside the Dáil earlier. They all have their own stories. It has been the approach of the Minister for Justice to react and to rarely pre-empt. The steps that could and should have been taken to prevent the growth of organised crime in communities have not been taken.

During its time in office, Fine Gael has cut the number of community gardaí. In our battle against organised crime, community gardaí are vital. They embed themselves in communities and the know the families and youths. Their mere presence in communities is a deterrent to crime and often offers a counterbalance to those who peddle drugs. I am often proud of the job gardaí in Limerick do. They have worked tirelessly to try to curb criminality and have done what they can with the resources they have. However, at the recent joint policing committee meeting, Superintendent Derek Smart stated that the Limerick division needs 30 additional gardaí just to deliver a proper service. This is stark evidence of the huge catch-up we need in Garda numbers to deliver a proper policing service in Limerick and ensure that communities feel safe.

When the Garda has been afforded the necessary resources, such as in the case of Operation Cobalt, with which the Minister was involved, we have seen some fantastic results. They have shut down drug supermarkets and, in conjunction with local officials, destroyed the derelict sites used to store drugs. Limerick communities, particularly those close to the city, need community gardaí. Without them being at the heart of the community, trust can be lost. When a community only sees a garda in their area to make an arrest there can be an us-versus-them division. This is a division that can be avoided. The vacuum that exists allows a few criminal characters to thrive.

The presence of a community garda offers reassurance to older members of communities. Importantly, he or she can serve as a role model for people. This important aspect of policing has been cut and cut again. There were 92 community gardaí in Limerick in 2008. In March of this year, there were 22. How can gardaí get to know the communities they serve when they are not embedded in them? How can we reasonably expect communities to trust community gardaí when they only see them when they are coming to make arrests?

Turning briefly to the courts, partly due to a backlog that was caused by Covid, we have seen a significant gap between the investigation of offences and the prosecution of those offences. Long waiting times for justice serve neither the accused nor the victim well. Access to justice that is delayed is access to justice denied. Ensuring the prompt delivery of justice is important to show affected communities that the justice system works.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This annual motion without change happening in between continues to be completely unsatisfactory. Last year's debate occurred very shortly after the independent review that resulted in both the minority and majority reports being published. That review had been ongoing since 2021, as the Minister stated. The six-member group voted four-two - majority-minority. The independent review group reached a consensus on the need to repeal the Offences against the State Acts but, as we know, did not agree on what should replace those Acts. Clearly, this is not a straightforward question, but we cannot continue to ignore that these kinds of emergency powers remain temporary and that we are asked to endorse them year after year.

During last year's debate, the Minister referred to both reports and told us she had asked her officials to consult with other Departments, the Garda Commissioner, the DPP and the Courts Service and seek a substantive response. She also consulted the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission to seek a response. Has the Minister received those responses? If so, when did she received them and how does she plan to proceed with them? What timeframe is the Minister working to? Earlier, she used the phrase "in due course", but that does not really tell us anything. Does the Minister have any legislation planned?

The core difference between the two reports relates to the:

... establishment of the permanent or “standing” non-jury court where the ... (DPP) will still decide on [the] trial venue with no unequivocal recommendation grounding concrete measures to ensure a reduction in the use of non-jury courts.

The majority report saw a need for a non-jury court to try serious criminal offences in certain limited and exceptional circumstances, while the minority report stated:

... we believe that establishing a permanent non-jury court by ordinary legislation is constitutionally inappropriate based on an originalist understanding of the relevant provisions of ... 1937 [Constitution].

The Minister has had these reports for more than a year. Has she had time to seek advice from the Attorney General on that fundamental point? If so, will she share it with the House? If she has not, will she seek such advice? If we need a clear pathway on how the decision will be made, the Constitution is an obvious starting point. If is it a question of a constitutional amendment being required, has the Minister done any preparation for this in the past year? I do not know if the Minister has consulted with the Attorney General on that matter, but it is a point of difference between the two reports. One way or another, we need to know whether it is needed.

Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 is also before us for consideration. It deals with some serious organised crime offences. There is no doubt that, like many other countries, Ireland has a problem with organised crime but how they deal with this in other countries through their courts differs. Since 2005, the Hutch-Kinahan feud alone has resulted in 18 murders. We have also seen armed gardaí on the streets in parts of the capital, which has impacted those living in those areas, including children. It is understandable that citizens would be reluctant to act as jurors or witnesses in cases that flowed from that feud. We must also ask how have these gangs reached such a point as to have become so powerful? The same occurred some years ago in Limerick, and Deputy Quinlivan has just made this point, when the city was held hostage by criminal gangs. Control of the drugs trade was one part of the origin of that feud, which resulted in 20 murders, multiple stabbings and hundreds of shootings. An intense policing response was required in both cases. This was both reactive and proactive. It is not unfair to ask, even at this stage, why it took so long to put this plan and the resources in place. There are still questions about policing. For example, in Dublin is it planned on the basis of overtime. We just heard about the deficiency in that regard. The problem can build up again in places where there are high levels of deprivation and where people can be preyed upon.

We have to have reactive policing. Gang activity and the terror felt by the respective communities to which I refer makes the case for non-jury courts. However, it also gives rise to the question as to whether such non-jury courts would have been necessary if the Garda had been resourced to deal with the issues at a much earlier stage in the context of a better form of reactive policing. We need to see this from a wider criminal justice perspective.

Last year, the Minister told us that, along with her officials, she was seeking to identify any measures that might mitigate the risk of intimidation or other types of interference. Will she provide an update on the progress that has been made, the measures that she is considering and the timeframe that timeframe involved?

The Minister also spoke about the absence of data on this issue and the need to collect and publish data. Will she outline the progress that has been made in this regard, because we all know that what gets measured gets done.

I have been going on about Garda resources for years. The Minister knows about this because, on a per capita basis, Meath has the lowest ratio of gardaí per head of population and Kildare has the second lowest ratio. That leaves both areas very exposed and shows, as I have stated repeatedly, that population increases should not be the only metric but that they are not a metric that can be ignored. Population increases to not bring with them extra resources. This is one case where that can be seen repeatedly over the years. I have met several Garda Commissioners and assistant commissioners and have made this point. I have made submissions, and it really makes no difference. There is a fundamental problem with how Garda resources are allocated and with the adequacy of Garda resources. Population growth is not the only metric, but it is not a minor detail either.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have had a review of and reports on the Offences Against the State Acts.

Everyone supports streamlined legislation that is updated, that is fit for purpose, that is permanent and that deals with what this State faces as opposed to emergency legislation. A considerable number of my colleagues have spoken about the scourge of drug crime and organised crime and about what our communities are facing. An opportunity has been missed. The Minister should provide an update about the outworkings of the review. We need to look at the fundamental issue facing many of our communities, which are absolutely ravaged by organised crime, drug crime, drug debt intimidation and the impact of all of that. We are talking about communities which have been devastated by this, which are generally disadvantaged communities with significant poverty and which have been forgotten for many years.

If we are talking about the issue of drugs, we have seen what the Health Research Board has said about the 200% increase in cocaine use since 2017. Between 2022 and 2023, there were 1,000 extra cases. That tells a tale. We have all seen motions going to GAA congress about cocaine use. We realise just how prevalent it is. It has impacted on communities, whether they are rural or middle class communities or both, that probably felt they were protected. They probably were protected. We are aware of the issue with heroin in Dublin's inner city in the 1980s. Many other parts of Ireland were somewhat removed from that. There was an abject failure by the State to deal with that level of criminality and the detrimental impact on communities. We have not learned any lessons. It is a matter of us addressing the fact that there is a significant issue with drug use in Ireland. There is an element of personal responsibility that needs to be looked at on the part of the people who are buying cocaine on a Friday or Saturday night and think it is a harmless enterprise. Whether we are talking about the Kinahan cartel, the small-time operators or the source of this stuff in South America, the fact is that people are playing a part in all of it. None of this is good enough.

There has been an acceptance of the absolute failure of the war on drugs. We all welcome that the citizens' assembly happened. We all need to see more novel means of dealing with the drugs issue. Saying that, we need to be able to deal with the criminality that impacts on our communities. We have all dealt with the families that come to us about drug debt intimidation. We can talk about under-resourced gardaí until the cows come home but the fact is that we have seen significant effort in particular operations. I would always call on people, whether through elected representatives or directly, to deal with the gardaí when they find themselves in that situation. Christy Mangan, who was previously a chief superintendent in County Louth, said that the difficulty is that when people start paying debts, the criminals will realise that the tap is open and they will always assume that the taps stay open. None of that is good enough.

Many people have come to me in the recent period looking for addiction services for their kids but the services do not exist. Many people have spoken about the families who we met outside. There were representatives from the Family Addiction Support Network in Dundalk. I have spoken to the Minister about it before and about the significant work it does for family support, but it is utterly under-resourced. We are trying to fight against this level of criminality without any of the tools that are needed. I have said before that a holistic approach is required. I have spoken about organised crime and about disorganised crime. We all know of estates where useful idiots have run rampant. Sometimes vulnerable people and families are used by drug dealers, but we do not have the powers, whether it is Tusla, the Garda or the councils, to deal with that. I could go on for hours. My fear is that we will never address the resources and the holistic approach that are needed to deal with the drug scourge that is impacting our communities day by day. None of this is good enough.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Paul Murphy is sharing time with Deputy Barry.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

People should be concerned about how easily, quickly and smoothly this House passes severe restrictions on people's civil liberties year after year, extending supposed emergency powers and denying people basic human rights. There are two and a bit hours of debate, a couple of votes and off we go for another year until we repeat this farce again. We should identify what this debate is about. It is about denying the right of people to have jury trials. Under the Constitution, this is a fundamental right and an aspect of the right to a fair trial, but some people will be denied the right to jury trials. It is about saying that the uncorroborated opinion of a Garda chief superintendent can be treated as fact in a court of law. It is about denial of the right of the accused to stay silent. In the Special Criminal Court, people's right to be silent can be used against them as evidence in a case.

What we have here is a gross abuse of emergency powers and a violation of human rights. We know that human rights organisations of all sorts, including the ICCL, Amnesty International, the State's own Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the UN human rights committee have called over and over again for the end of the Special Criminal Court, yet every year, the Government and most of the Opposition wave it through with a wink and a nod. The ICCL has rightly described this annual debate as an exercise in rubber-stamping. We could also call it an exercise in respectability politics, where the vast majority of the Opposition fails to oppose something that they know is unjust and is a restriction on basic civil liberties simply because they are afraid of being labelled as soft on crime or terrorism. This applies, above all, to Sinn Féin, which used to correctly oppose this restriction and the use of Diplock courts, and which will, after tabling an amendment that will be voted down, abstain on the motion.

The Government and most of the Opposition have presided over a disgraceful situation where so-called emergency powers that suspend human rights have been renewed year after year for 52 years. Every year, I and others point out that the Special Criminal Court has never really been about combating organised crime or terrorism. It is about maximising the repressive powers of the State and its ability to jail potential opponents who might threaten the status quo. We have evidence of that. In the past year, we have seen a wave of far-right terrorism across the State, with upwards of 30 arson attacks against accommodation for refugees, and a riot inspired and led by the far right that caused millions of euro in damage and shut down Dublin city centre, but the Offences Against the State Act was not used. Why? It was because the Special Criminal Court is a deeply political court. It is only used against those whom the State or Government consider as an existential threat to the established order, which clearly does not include the far right. Far from it. The far right got the polar opposite treatment to republican and nationalist dissidents. Rather than being subjected to Diplock courts and imprisonment on the word of gardaí, they are handled with kid gloves. Orders come down from on high to take a softly-softly approach. There could not be stronger evidence that the racist ethnonationalists of the far right support the status quo rather than being a threat to it.

Besides the emergence of the far right campaign, just before the last vote, we had the majority report which recommends the end of this legislation and a minority report which correctly recommends the end of a permanent non-jury court. It does not seem that anything will be done about this. A report was published in 2002 but not one of its recommendations has been implemented. It is just a mechanism to kick the can down the road. I support the campaign of the ICCL and the fact that it has eviscerated the idea that this is the only way to prevent jury tampering, which is complete nonsense. Other methods are used around the world. I hope its campaign can persuade some Opposition TDs to set aside their rubber stamps this year. I am looking at Sinn Féin, the Social Democrats and Labour.

Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

"There is no jury at the Special Criminal Court and it accepts secret evidence from gardaí. This is in violation of our right to a fair trial, our right to trial by jury and our right to equality before the law." Those are the words of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, which is far from the only human rights organisation that has criticised the Offences against the State Act. Amnesty International, the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, are just a few of the others that have done so, too. In fact, when the legislation was introduced in 1998, the then Minister for Justice, John O'Donoghue, described it as “harsh” and the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, described it as “draconian”. All the while, they gave the impression that it was going to be a temporary measure.

Sinn Féin won nearly one quarter of all votes in this State in a general election of 2020. It was seen at the time by many as a radical, even by some, as a left alternative to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Later that year, it abstained on the renewal of Offences against the State Act. It was not recognised by all at the time, but in reality, that marked the beginning of a shift to the right by Sinn Féin. Since then it has become more apparent in the hardline being taken on immigration and has ended up with attempts to prove to the likes of Davy Stockbrokers that it is a safe pair of hands for Irish capitalism and that it is indeed more similar to the Labour Party of Keir Starmer than that of Jeremy Corbyn. Interestingly, this has not increased the support for Sinn Féin, but has had the complete opposite effect.

In conclusion, in politics you have to stand for something and if you stand for civil liberties, you must stand against the Offences against the State Act.

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. I recognise the work that went into the review on the modernisation of our criminal justice laws, but to be brutally honest, there is little or no point in doing this until this Government provides sufficient garda numbers to enforce the laws. It is a missed opportunity. The Government has had this, but it has continued to sit on its hands and has failed to provide sufficient gardaí to staff our Garda stations, so the situation will not change.

Other Members have spoken at length about the gardaí. I will do the same because I am interested in knowing how the Minister is going to solve it. I am proud to represent the people of Kildare South and I have lived and worked there for most of my life. However, I am devastated to see what is happening there, such as in Monasterevin, Rathangan and other areas, due to insufficient or no gardaí. That is an understatement. Open drug dealing is taking place on the streets of Athy and antisocial behaviour is taking place in Monasterevin and the surrounding areas because of the lack of gardaí. This is an issue I have already raised directly with the Minister. She gave me an answer saying I could refer it to the Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris. To be blunt, who I refer it to is irrelevant because the point remains that there is a lack of gardaí.

The Garda station in Monasterevin is more often closed than it is open. Phone calls go unanswered or are diverted to Kildare Garda station. We have one Garda patrol car between Monasterevin and Rathangan, which is nowhere near enough to cover the area. How many emergency calls are missed? How many preventable crimes are committed? How many more will go unpunished because there are not enough gardaí to enforce the law? The people of Kildare South deserve to know that they are being protected by the gardaí and that those who are engaged in a petty crime, drug dealing and other such antisocial behaviour will be dealt with in accordance with the law.

I recently made a report of antisocial behaviour to Monasterevin Garda station on behalf of constituent only to be told that the gardaí could not investigate because there was no CCTV footage of it. We have been investigating for years without CCTV footage. That is a lazy attitude in my opinion, and it needs to be addressed. You cannot suddenly decide you are not going to investigate something because there is no CCTV. It has to be addressed.

There are 17 gardaí per 10,000 people in the whole of Kildare and two thirds of them are located in Kildare North. This means that my constituency of Kildare South has fewer gardaí per 10,000, despite the size of the area. That is unacceptable. We need much more gardaí to address the situation.

It is the 21st century and we need to modernise. We need a modern system that is going to work. We want the same for society. I am pretty sure the Minister wants to see improvements. We do as well. There are real problems in the area of justice and they must be addressed. If you do not get the basics right, there is no point and crime will continue. We must stop that. Going back five or ten years ago, people were being accosted outside the local post offices by drug gangs because debts were owed by their families. The parents were paying debts out of their pensions for drugs that their children were forced to take or get. That is not good enough. It still continues and it has to be addressed. The only way we are going to address that is to cut it off at the throat. Today, we see how more women are looking for treatment and counselling for cocaine use than ever before. We really need to get our act together.

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I very much welcome the opportunity to make some brief comments and contribute to this very important debate. I will say at the outset that I am very much in favour of renewing these two really important Acts for another 12 months, namely, the Offences against the State Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. I do so for the following reasons.

First, they are the very best defence we have against organised crime, serious international drug dealing and terrorism. I do not refer just to domestic terrorism, but to international terrorism as well. It is important that the punishments that are handed down by this court are very severe and that they are appropriate because justice must be seen to be done. I do not want to focus just on the punishment aspect because the deterrent factor and component are equally, if not even more, important.

The Special Criminal Court is the only real court in Ireland that hardened criminals respect and fear in equal measure and it must continue for obvious reasons. I agree with the Minister that it is necessary, proportionate and required. It is essential that the gardaí are able to investigate, dismantle and disrupt these organised networks that have done so much damage to this country through years and continue to do so.

I am glad the Minister mentioned the viable improvised explosive device that was recently found in County Louth because it is true they have not gone away. Members of An Garda Síochána who are on the beat every day of the week must have the appropriate legislative backing from this House to can carry out their functions.

I want to mention safeguards. I am satisfied that there are at least some safeguards in place in this legislation, such as the fact it is renewed in this House every year. I do not think it is a matter of rubber stamping in any shape or form. That is very disrespectful to the Members of the Dáil, who are well capable of making up their own minds having read the legislation. Having safeguards from a legislative point of view is very important as is the fact the DPP can direct that certain cases to be heard in normal courts rather than non-jury courts if it finds it appropriate.

Perhaps the greatest reason I support this legislation is because it is recommended by An Garda Síochána and the Commissioner himself. They are the professionals. They are the people on the ground. They know exactly what they are dealing with it. If they see a good reason for it, that is a very important factor we should bear in mind.

I want to finish on the point of the independent review, which I very much welcome. I welcome all the work that was done by all the people who produced it. The key finding for me is the recognition of an ongoing need for non-jury courts in very limited and appropriate circumstances, as well as the fact that this is done in accordance with the Constitution. That is a very important takeaway. I also agree with the Minister that this is a very important report and that the Government should have a substantive response in due course, and we should not rush this. I am not sure if the Minister mentioned this in her opening remarks, but does she have any idea about when that substantive response will be? It will probably not be anytime soon. Perhaps she might address that in her closing remarks. That is all I want to say.

I am in favour of renewing these two vitally important Acts and I very much look forward to the Government’s substantive response to the independent review group.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Deputy Richard O'Donoghue, who is sharing time with his colleagues.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At the outset, I want to address the lack of policing in this country. In the interim, would it not be possible for gardaí who have retired and who have left the Garda to be brought back on a part-time basis for a certain number of hours so that it would not interfere with their retirement packages? This would mean that specialists, who were trained in the field, could deal with criminal cases that have been delayed in the courts for a long time. They could do ten or 11 hours per week, and this would not impact them.

6 o’clock

It would help Garda investigations, make sure criminals do not remain on the streets for longer and make sure there is accountability. The experience of gardaí could be used to do the research and paperwork to make sure everything fits within the remit of the courts to make sure cases go through. A lot of our gardaí are asked to be on the beat and do paperwork. When it turns around with cases, they often spend more time inside doing paperwork than outside on the streets. Will the Minister look at bringing back retired gardaí on a part-time basis, with the experience they have in the criminal courts, to help with caseloads? It would help Garda resources until we get a proper Garda service back up and running. It would avail of the experience that is there. It would mean criminal cases get to the courts faster and are dealt with faster. We would know that they would actually be convicted, with the right people doing the investigations.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae will follow. I am not supporting the retention of these provisions. There are lots of issues the Minister could deal with rather than having this wheeled in every year. I support the Garda. I am aware of a Garda member at home in Cahir, County Tipperary. He is one of the finest community gardaí ever. He had to go to a case last Wednesday on his own. It was a dangerous case and he was almost killed. This is shocking. It is under the Minister's watch. It happens every day under the watch of the Commissioner, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioners, chief superintendents and superintendents who put these people out there. I should also mention the call centre in Cork that got the call from this dangerous individual, who has a record a mile long. I spoke to the garda on Sunday. I wish him well. He asked me to raise this matter in the House. He was almost killed. There was no backup. He was the only garda on duty - out on patrol - in the Cahir-Cashel district when he got that call. There was also one in the station. This is a shocking situation which happens daily and hourly, day and night, because gardaí are being pulled and dragged all over the country. I spoke yesterday to a GRA representative who told me it already has six requests this week for concerts in Dublin, big games and God knows what. The country area is not being policed. This man is an excellent officer. I hope he recovers. He almost lost his life because he had no backup. He knew going to the callout that he had no backup. I commend him. It happened in Clogheen. The nearest gardaí who might have been available were in Clonmel, which is a different district, or in Mitchelstown. Thankfully, the ERU came eventually and apprehended and arrested the gentleman, who is in jail. He has been in and out of jail. I blame the control centre as well. It saw on the computer who it was dealing with - what kind of individual it was dealing with - and sent a lone garda out to that situation. It is intolerable, unacceptable and disgraceful by the Minister and the Garda authorities. It happens night and day, 24-7. We keep raising it.

The Minister quoted how many recruits are coming into Templemore. She told me last week that 220 are expected. I am told we will be lucky if it is 120. Give over the game and the show-offs in Dublin and the big supports. Out in the country, where we need the gardaí, 99% of them do their best and we must support them. The garda I mentioned has a wife and family. I could have been here talking tonight about the death of a garda. It is not good enough for communities to be terrorised. I canvassed that area three weeks ago and was told that the whole community was living in fear of this individual. These dangerous individuals are not being dealt with. We are expecting a garda to go out on his or her own, and they are doing it. I have spoken to them. They are in patrol cars at 3 a.m., nobody with them and no backup, knowing there is no backup. In an area from Araglin to Ardfinnan to Boherlahan, including the two tourist towns of Cahir and Cashel, there was one garda on duty. I hate having to bring this up here tonight but I have to. It is time that the Minister took responsibility and acted to support that garda and his colleagues.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When it comes to issues like this, I do not like to be negative but I have to remind the Minister that when An Garda Síochána was looking to the Government for support and when the Commissioner wanted support, the Minister sided with one man rather than siding with our gardaí. That did not sit well with me or the hard-working members of the force. One thing I will say about our gardaí is when they get up in the morning, they put on a uniform and they put themselves in harm's way to work for us and for the arms of the State. When they said they wanted help and support, unfortunately, they did not get it from Government Buildings. They did not get it from the Minister and they were left on their own. I am grateful to people like the GRA, the great association, whose conference the Minister would not go to this year because she said it might upset one individual. At the same time, she did not care about the 13,000 members of the An Garda Síochána, their wives, families or any one of them. She sided with one man rather than going to a conference to listen to what An Garda Síochána had to say. I will tell her straight that it was hurtful. It will be remembered for a long time because when you are a Minister, you are supposed to serve the people working with you and for you. I believe our gardaí work very well for all of us. When they wanted political support, quite simply, they did not get it from the Minister or anyone on the Government side of the House.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Deputy Connolly, sharing with Deputy Pringle.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will go first. As I have said many times, it is absolutely farcical that we are forced to debate and extend these Acts year after year. It undermines the House and our justice system to keep working off emergency legislation on a permanent basis. This rubber-stamping exercise is just one of the many undemocratic practices that this Government insists on continuously engaging in. I have been appalled by the blatant disregard for the legislative process that this Government has shown time and time again, often for extremely important legislation being introduced, as well as the constant undermining of the Oireachtas. The yearly extension of these Acts is just one example of this. The current version of the Special Criminal Court was introduced in 1972 as an emergency response to the Troubles. However, this court has been in continuous operation ever since. It has been 52 years since its so-called temporary introduction and here we are looking to extend its operation yet again. The renewal of the Special Criminal Court not only reflects an abuse of emergency powers, but it also raises grave human rights concerns. It is for one reason only that the Special Criminal Court exists, which is to guarantee convictions without proper evidence or due process being awarded. As a democratic society, we have to award due process to all citizens, including those accused of crimes.

I note that the independent review group’s report on the Offences Against the State Acts, published by the Minister for Justice last June, was unanimous in recommending repeal of the Offences Against the State Acts. I note, however, the minority report’s reluctance to recommend the establishment of a permanent or standing non-jury court and its belief that the recommendations in the majority report are not supported by adequate empirical evidence or sufficiently extensive comparative analysis. It is clear that the review group faced a significant data deficit when conducting its research. The minority report highlighted many challenges faced by the review group, such as the impossibility of researching or interrogating assertions made by some stakeholders, especially those assertions that were not supported by testable data or empirical evidence. I echo the minority report’s concerns that a review group appointed by the Minister for Justice could not be facilitated sufficiently by the relevant agencies. It is very worrying. It calls into question the findings of the independent review group, as it is clear that it was not given the necessary and relevant information required to make such important recommendations. The inability to access reliable and verifiable information when reviewing such important legislation is wholly unacceptable. It is clear that the group was unable to know and assess the system as it currently operates. As the minority report rightly states, in a constitutional democracy defined by respect for human rights and the rule of law, this is unacceptable. Constitutional systems cannot run on trust alone. It is clear, given the lack of reliable and transparent information and without questioning the good faith of any stakeholders, that this report is flawed and that definitive recommendations cannot be made. It is concerning that the Minister was either unable to access important information or unable to facilitate a transparent review. Will the Minister consider this and introduce measures to protect jurors instead of resorting to an emergency court?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not agree to the renewal of this legislation. As my colleague said, it is an insult to democracy. I have three minutes and 15 seconds. I cannot do justice or carry out my role as a TD in examining this legislation, seeing what it is based on and deciding on the need for it. Therefore, I relied on what the Government did. It set up an independent review. I have taken the trouble of reading the majority and minority reports. Both agreed that this legislation should not be renewed and should be repealed - some of it brought back, other parts not. Where the two reports differed substantially was in relation to the majority report recommending a special criminal court on a full-time basis. I fully support and agree with that.

The minority report attempted to give an alternative view and provide a counterpoint to what they believe to be an example of becoming overhabituated to the abnormal. That is what has happened here. Successive Governments have become overhabituated to something that is quite abnormal and which is being renewed as a constitutional provision for emergency legislation. There is a need for emergency legislation but not on a permanent basis. There have been no safeguards and no monitoring. When it was recommended to bring in a permanent court, the majority report said to bring in safeguards. I note that the Minister has taken one or two of those on board with the publication of the Special Criminal Court judgment. Something as basic as that has never happened. The majority report said that they were not making recommendations and that one can pick and choose them. It is part of a package including the importance of safeguards in relation to this abnormality. I agree with the minority report. The majority report recommends a Special Criminal Court on a permanent basis, which is saying that our courts are inadequate. That is a very dangerous precedent. I do not believe the Constitution allows for that.

As I went through all of this I was struck that there was no action on the Hederman report 22 years ago, which made very practical suggestions and also recommended - while not getting rid of the legislation - repealing this legislation. There has been no action in the intervening 22 years. In the middle of that, we had the Law Reform Commission in 2013 with no action. An interdepartmental task force was set up and then removed. For years and years we have normalised a most abnormal situation with no facts, no figures, and absolutely no facts in relation to jury tampering. I am all for supporting any Government in relation to temporary legislation to deal with emergency situations but this is not what is happening here. At the risk of repeating myself again, which I do not like doing, the Government is normalising the abnormal with no grounding evidence whatsoever. Up to now there has been no publication of the judgments and no explanation for them while continuing on with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions making the decisions and so on. Both reports say that the Special Criminal Court should be used only in exceptional circumstances. Both reports use different language, albeit different language talking about the jury system as the gold point. We deviate from jury trials at our peril. When we deviate, we should do it on the basis of facts and on reason. I am out of time, and such is democracy in attempting to do my duty in analysing something as important as this.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I did not do so earlier, I would like to offer my sincerest condolences to the family of Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh. I had the pleasure of meeting him on many occasions. I know people remember him fondly for many different reasons, in particular his wonderful and colourful coverage of our national sports. Later on, as the Minister of State with responsibility for older people, I had the pleasure of meeting him at many events where he advocated for and on behalf of the older people's councils and other groups. He always had a particular joke that he said at most events he was at. No matter how many times I heard it, I always found it amusing. He had a great humour and wit. I just want to acknowledge his sad passing. I pass on my condolences to his family.

I firmly believe that the renewal of these Acts is essential in safeguarding the citizens of this country in these turbulent times, internationally. When we talk about the threat of terrorism and terrorist activity, that threat is real and that threat is there. We need to make sure our gardaí have all the tools and the armoury they need to be able to deal with and respond to any potential threat as it may arise. While much of this legislation came about because of historic challenges, the very fact that only a few weeks ago an explosive device was found in County Louth - the county right next to mine - just shows how real this dissident threat still is in our country. We all need to be alive to this and be aware of it.

I am here because An Garda Síochána has said very clearly that it needs this legislation to protect against these types of threats and to protect against the organised crime groups and criminals so many Deputies have spoken about here. I have listened to all of the contributions and in particular to Deputies Ward, Gould and Quinlivan, who all spoke of the devastating impact that organised criminal groups have in their communities, especially on young people. While we all agree that we need to do everything we can to protect communities from these crime groups, at the same time and in the same breath they propose to remove the very structure that is there, which is a strong armoury for the Garda to be able to respond to these groups. What was said here today does not make sense. Yes, we need the tools for the Garda to be able to respond to and tackle these criminal groups but at the same time Sinn Féin will possibly abstain - it has always voted against it - in the vote on the very thing that can actually protect communities from these organised crime groups.

It is important to note that a lot of other work has been done to protect communities and the Garda. The highest budget ever has seen an increase of 23% in the last three years. We are investing in vehicles and in technology. A new Garda aircraft will be used for surveillance in dealing with criminal organised groups. Laws have been passed to deal with the coercion of minors, again targeting criminal groups. We are investing in our youth diversion programmes and the Greentown project. Garda recruitment has been my number one priority, and we have had two recruitment campaigns in the last two years. In the next two years we will have increased the retirement age. We have increased the age at which people can join An Garda Síochána. We are investing in and supporting gardaí through body-worn cameras that are now on our gardaí in Dublin city centre to protect them while making sure any individual who assaults a member of An Garda Síochána receives a higher sentence if he or she is found accountable.

It is quite galling to hear particular individuals point out or suggest that I do not support the Garda when members of their own party have travelled to pick up people from our prisons who have actually killed members of An Garda Síochána. Everything that this Government can do, and that I as the Minister can do, we will do to protect gardaí. We will make sure they have the tools, the technology, the equipment and the armoury they need to deal with criminal gangs, criminal organised groups, and subversive and terrorist threats and organisations. This is why the continuation of the Acts is absolutely necessary. The Garda has made it very clear that this is required.

With regard to the review, when I was appointed as Minister for Justice one of the first things I did was to commit to conducting the review that my predecessor had agreed to. That review was only published last year. It is a really important piece of work. The minority and majority reports set out a number of proposed recommendations and changes. In some cases, they are completely at odds and in others, they completely agree. It is very important that any changes or potential changes are not rushed. This very important legislation has protected people, has saved lives and has helped to keep many of us safe, including jurors. Any rush to change it or to remove what we currently have without anything in its place is not something I would ever tolerate.

Work is under way. A huge amount of work has been done to look at and bring forward proposed potential changes based on the minority and majority reports. Once that work is concluded, it will be carefully considered by the Government. As always, we will have an opportunity to debate it in this House and to bring forward changes. For now it is absolutely clear that this legislation is needed. I call on all Deputies, as there is nothing to replace this, to reconsider abstaining or voting against this. Without it, we are playing into the hands of dissident groups or organised criminals.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 26 June 2024.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann resolves that section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 (No. 32 of 2009) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2024 and ending on 29th June, 2025.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No.1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

":

— resolves that section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 (No. 32 of 2009) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2024 and ending on 29th June, 2025; and

— calls on the Minister for Justice to bring forward legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review Group as soon as possible.".

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 26 June 2024.