2026-06-23

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, 2026 and ending on 29th June, 2027. The two motions before the House seek the approval of Dáil Éireann 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 that they should be periodically reviewed. The Minister for Justice, Home Affairs, and Migration is 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 2026 were placed in the Oireachtas Library on 19 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 and the murder of 29 innocent people by the Real IRA. These provisions of the criminal law provide strong legislative powers to ensure that 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 House 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 usage figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation. It is notable that six of the 12 provisions to be renewed, those in sections 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 17, have not been utilised during the reporting period. Of course, the fact that a provision is not used in a particular year does not mean that it is redundant or unnecessary as the usage of different sections can vary from year to year. It is clear that 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, as evidenced by two recent attempted attacks on police stations in Lurgan, County Armagh, and Dunmurry, just outside Belfast. We must continue to do all we can to deal with this threat. Let no one be under any illusion that these groups do not represent a threat, although we can be thankful that threat is lesser than in the past. These groups have remained resolute in their opposition to democracy, the rule of law and all that the Good Friday Agreement stands for. 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. North-South co-operation in this area is crucial and co-operation between gardaí and their counterparts in Northern Ireland is strong. Indeed, it 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. There is a long shared history between the two jurisdictions in counteracting terrorism on the island. It is essential that we continue to build on this strong co-operation in the post-Brexit period. The joint Cross Border Policing Strategy 2025-2027 provides a platform for An Garda Síochána and the PSNI to build on existing strategic and operational collaboration and to strengthen policing capacity and capability. I pay tribute to the gardaí and PSNI officers who continue to co-operate closely and work tirelessly together to keep their communities safe and to 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 meet it. In that regard, I am firmly of the view that the provisions whose renewal I am seeking today are necessary to support An Garda Síochána in investigating, disrupting and dismantling the activities of terrorists. In addition to providing information on the use of the provisions in question over the past year, the report laid before this House 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 been a general deterioration in the international security landscape in recent times, in part due to terrible wars in Ukraine and in the Middle East. In its most recent terrorism situation and trend report, published in 2025, Europol sets out the threat situation at EU level. The report confirms that terrorism, particularly jihadist and lone actor attacks, remains a key threat to the EU’s internal security. Last year, the EU published its internal security strategy, ProtectEU. The strategy notes the changed security environment and evolving geopolitical landscape, where the links between the EU’s internal and external security require more action against the range of threats faced, including: hybrid threats by hostile foreign states and state-sponsored actors; powerful organised crime networks; the ongoing threat faced from terrorism; technological advancements and more. In response to these threats, the strategy sets out a work plan involving a stronger legal framework, better information sharing and closer co-operation. Ireland is not immune from the threats arising in this changed security environment and we must have the capability to deal with the threats arising. Building on ProtectEU, in February 2026, the EU published its agenda to prevent and counter terrorism and online extremism, which reinforces Europe's collective response to evolving terrorist and violent extremist threats. As I have said, the views of An Garda Síochána are clearly set out in the report. That view is that the continued operation of these provisions is required. It is my strong view, and the strong view of the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, that the relevant sections should be continued in operation for a further 12 months. 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 that are set out in Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Section 8 of the 2009 Act makes these offences scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the Offences Against the State Act 1939, which is to say that 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. The House will be aware of the threat that society and the criminal justice system face from groups that 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 is apparent. Supporting the efforts of An Garda Síochána to combat organised crime and to bring to justice those involved remains a priority for the Government. This is reflected in the record allocation of over €2.59 billion in budget 2026, which allows for sustained investment in recruitment, equipment, technology and vehicles. An Garda Síochána is working intensively to bear down on the criminals involved and deserves praise for its considerable successes in disrupting their activities, in making significant seizures of drugs, cash, and weapons, in bringing criminals to justice, and, most importantly, in preventing further loss of life. I draw attention to a joint task force operation in April between An Garda Síochána and the PSNI, resulting in €5.2 million of drugs seized in Larne Harbour, and a joint An Garda Síochána operation with Revenue which seized €10.5 million in cocaine at Rosslare Harbour in October 2025. Deputies will also be aware of significant cases in which individuals have been convicted and sentenced in the Special Criminal Court in recent weeks. I acknowledge this important work and the brave gardaí who persevere with it, day in, day out. The report that the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, has laid before the House in accordance with section 8 covers the period from 1 June 2025 to 31 May 2026. It includes information provided by the Garda Commissioner on the use over the past 12 months of the provisions in question and details the relevant offences. It is clear from the report that An Garda Síochána made a significant number of arrests in respect of the offences relevant to section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, with 33 charges laid before the courts. One of these was laid before the Special Criminal Court and three convictions were recorded 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, and the strong view of the Minister, that section 8 should be continued in operation for a further 12 months. The House will be aware that the majority and minority reports of the independent review group were published in June 2023. The majority recommended the repeal of the Acts and their replacement with modern bespoke legislation. As part of this, 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. I take seriously that assessment in the context of safeguarding the security of the State and our citizens. The majority also devised a suite of proposals in relation to how the court might operate to uphold the rights of accused persons and to support transparency and maintain public confidence. I and the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration are firmly of the view that the Offences Against the State Acts have served our country well in combating both 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 by subversives and ruthless crime groups who place no value on human life. While it is, of course, my firm view that trial by jury should be preserved to the greatest extent possible, I have a responsibility not to ignore the threat posed by such groups. I highlight the fact that, in accordance with that principle, the Special Criminal Court is only used in very limited circumstances. I am informed that there were 18 defendants brought before the Special Criminal Court last year on 104 charges. Indeed, the vast majority of scheduled offences continue to be dealt with in the ordinary courts and the DPP on her website has set out very clearly the decision-making process involved where An Garda Síochána recommends that a case be tried in the Special Criminal Court. Last year, the Minister informed the Government that he accepted, in principle, the recommendations of the majority report. Accepting the recommendations of the majority report sets a clear direction for reform. Proposals for new legislation are currently under development and the Minister will return to the Government in due course with these. In the meantime, and in conclusion, as set out in the two reports laid before the House, it is the clear view of An Garda Síochána that the provisions in the 1998 Act and the 2009 Act continue to be necessary and effective in ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime. 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 2026.

I move amendment No. 1: To insert the following after "ending on 29th June, 2027": "; and — calls on the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to bring forward legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review Group without further delay.". Tá díomá orm go bhfuil muid ag filleadh ar ais arís anseo ag athnuachan cumhachtaí éigeandála agus reachtaíochta atá as dáta. Ba cheart go ndéileálfadh an Rialtas leis seo roimhe seo. It is disappointing that we are back here once again renewing emergency powers and outdated legislation. Promised proposals on this matter have not been delivered and it seems that Government is either incapable or unwilling to deliver them. Not only has there not been any progress, the prospect of movement to implement the proposals of the independent review seems further away than ever. When the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, who, for the second year in a row, is not here to discuss this motion, first came into office we were told to expect some proposals to be brought forward by the end of last year. When I asked again recently by way of parliamentary question, no indicative timetable could be given. In the Minister of State's speech, she left it until the very end and, within that, there were just two paragraphs where there was any reference to the independent report that was commissioned by the Government at a large expense to the taxpayer. Now, she is saying that the Minister will return in due course. It is as clear as absolute mud. I am beginning to wonder if the Minister has any intention of dealing with this issue during his term of office. That is why it is disappointing that we are back here once again renewing provisions in an Act which we know, because the expert committee we established told us so, should have been replaced a long time ago. Last year, the Government belatedly acknowledged that the offences against the State legislation had to be overhauled, but it is three years now since the publication of the independent review on the Offences Against the State Acts that was chaired by Mr. Justice Michael Peart. There has been absolutely no progress in the time since. In fact, we have probably moved backwards over the past 12 months. To remind the House, the independent review group publication in 2023 recommended that the Offences Against the State Act be abolished in its entirety, with a majority recommending that a new non-jury court replace the Special Criminal Court to try serious criminal offences for which a threshold has been reached. Sinn Féin has repeatedly called for the proposals of this report to be implemented and for legislation to be brought forward. As the Government has not acted and shows no sign that it is going to act, I wish to inform the House that I, along with my colleague, Deputy Mark Ward, will be introducing a Bill complied in conjunction with the OPLA to compel the Government to act on the independent review. That the Offences Against the State Acts are outdated is undisputed. That emergency legislation should not be used on an ongoing basis is without question. Just think about what we do here. On an annual basis, we renew emergency legislation. We have been doing that for decades. We need a modern legal framework to effectively address organised crime and to properly protect jurors. There are serious issues in relation to organised crime that our courts and gardaí must be empowered to tackle. We are all in agreement on that. Recently, we have seen activities in respect of the Kinahan gang. We saw the recent incident involving a Swedish contract killer who died in Limerick. We need a sophisticated modern legal system to deal with organised crime, not outdated legislation that needs to be renewed on an annual basis. These are circumstances and situations that bear no relation to the situation when the legislation was first introduced. We are approaching 90 years since the Offences Against the State Act was initially introduced. The legislation has moved significantly from its original intention. These emergency power legislations were expanded with the creation of the Special Criminal Court in 1972 and then further expansions of the Act in 1998 following the Omagh bomb. The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 was enacted to put in place certain additional legislative measures to tackle organised crime. What we have had is successive Governments repeatedly dragging their feet on dealing with this issue, despite that there is widespread criticism, both domestically and internationally,of the continuation of the Offences Against the State Acts. Logically, the time to deal with this would have been in the immediate aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement. Many would have expected it to be the case. To remind Members of the House what the Good Friday Agreement said, specifically referencing the use of emergency legislation, it said that the Irish Government will "initiate a wide-ranging review of the Offences against the State Acts with a view to both reform and dispensing with those elements no longer required as circumstances permit". Following the Good Friday Agreement, the Hederman committee chaired by a former Supreme Court justice conducted a review of the Offences Against the State Act published in August 2002. Its recommendations included new legislation and the repeal of existing legislation. Does that sound familiar? That was in 2002; here we are in 2026 and of course those recommendations were never implemented. That is the crux of the problem. There is little confidence based on the track record and on the Minister of State's statement today that the Government will actually deal with this issue. There is a real concern with the level of delay and inaction we have seen that the independent review will similarly end up on a shelf somewhere to be cited in 20 years' time by whoever replaces us in these Houses if there is a continuation of the go-slow Governments we have had to date. In our submission to the independent review of the Offences Against the State Act, Sinn Féin called for a number of things, specifically, an end to the Offences Against the State Act, an end to emergency legislation and the replacement of the current Special Criminal Court with a new, non-jury human rights-compliant system. The independent review group recommended that the Offences Against the State Act be abolished in its entirety with a majority recommending a new non-jury trial replace the Special Criminal Court to trial serious offences for which a threshold has been reached. It is unacceptable we are not seeing any movement on the implementation of these proposals. I have said, and I will repeat, I want to work constructively with the Minister on this but we can only do that if we get some movement or real clarity of intention on the part of the Minister. We in Sinn Féin have argued that the legislation should stipulate that the courts be provided with the power to decide on whether a non-jury trial should take place rather than the DPP as proposed in the majority report. The Special Criminal Court was criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2001. Central to that criticism was the failure of the Irish Government to demonstrate that the decision of the DPP to certify that the applicant be tried by the Special Criminal Court was based on reasonable and objective grounds. The UN committee also pointed to the fact that the DPP was under no obligation to provide reasons for its decision. It is my view and Sinn Féin's that the legislation to give effect to the independent review should also include a higher bar than what was recommended in the majority report for a non-jury trial. The legislation should include a requirement of evidence of real and present danger that jury tampering would take place. Jury tampering is often cited as the reason for special courts. While it is a real concern, the argument is a little hollow if no action is taken to protect juries. The right to a trial by jury should be protected except in exceptional circumstances. To protect that fundamental right, we need to protect jurors. The Law Reform Commission in 2013 recommended a number of steps that could be taken to give greater protection to juries, including the creation of a stand-alone offence of jury tampering. In our submission to the independent review group, Sinn Féin called for the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in relation to the protection of jurors to be implemented and the practices of other jurisdictions to be examined with a view to adopting the best practice in line with international standards to protect juries. The independent review group on the Offences Against the State Act also called for this to be done. There is no reason for ongoing delays in doing so. I would like to see the Minister bring forward proposals on this issue in line with what the Law Reform Commission and the independent review group proposed. The debate on the motions before the Dáil today do not take place in a vacuum. While robust legislation is required to deal with the threat of modern, sophisticated organised crime, as I said earlier, the battle against such criminals starts in the community and on our streets. The criminal justice system must be adequately resourced and equipped to tackle organised crime. In addition to the failure to deal with the issue of the Offences Against the State Act since taking office, the Minister has done very little to deal with the recruitment and retention crisis in the Garda. The failure to tackle this crisis means we simply do not have enough gardaí for crucial tasks which are the bedrock of crime prevention such as community policing. Interventions to prevent young people being dragged into crime, investing in communities and diversion and putting enough community gardaí on our streets are all equally important. We know young people who get involved in organised crime are often groomed to be involved at a very young age. Preventable intervention at this age is crucial. We also need to ensure we have proper garda visibility in all communities. What we have seen since the Minister, Deputy Jim' O'Callaghan, took office can give us very little confidence that the long-overdue overhaul of the Offences Against the State Act will be acted upon. If we are to take the Minister of State's speech today, this Government has no intention of moving on this area. The Government should be held to account to ensure the recommendations of the independent review group are implemented without further delay. That is why I tabled an amendment to the motions. I urge all Members of this House to support the Sinn Féin amendment. In time, Sinn Féin will introduce legislation to force the Government to act. When talking about the Special Criminal Court and Offences Against the State Act, it is noteworthy that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Sallins case. It is way beyond time the people involved in that case received the truth and justice for which they have been campaigning for the past five decades.

This is the seventh year I have showed up to vote for something which I profoundly disagree with. I believe fully in a trial by jury. Ordinary citizens should be able to sit in judgment. When the State accuses somebody of a serious crime, one of the strongest protections we possess is the right to be judged by our peers. Yet, seven years in a row I have voted for something I disagree with. This year and last year, I have also been very conscious that if I was to take a stand and say I will not vote for it this time, I do not believe this Government and this State have the capacity to project jurors. That is a sad indictment of the system and a continuity of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments which have left us showing up and reaffirming a collective belief that the ordinary courts of this State are inadequate. That is not hyperbole; it is provided for in Article 38.3.1 of the Constitution which allows for juryless courts in the scenario that "ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order." That is effectively what we do every single year. We show up and say our ordinary courts are inadequate for the administration of justice. That should shame us all. As we talk about the various reforms and reviews such as the Hederman review in 2002 and the Peart minority and majority review, we describe the belief that our courts are not good enough to try the people who appear before the Special Criminal Court. That should be something we all take stock of. It is not a form of strength or a tough-on-crime position to try the worst of the worst in the Special Criminal Court. It is actually a concession; it concedes ground to these people who try to actively instil fear in communities like mine and yours that we do not believe the ordinary courts of this State are adequate or the State has a monopoly on violence for which we protect jurors within the State. That is a sad indictment on all of us. Every year this House renews these powers, we acknowledge inadequacy. This is no longer 1972 or the darkest year of the Troubles; it is 2026. The people who have been responsible for our judicial system the entire time are solely Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. The report laid before the House today tells us how many cases were tried in Special Criminal Courts last year and the year before. One of the things it does not tell us is why the Special Criminal Court was deemed the appropriate court to try these individuals. I do not doubt for a second that some of the people who come before the court, recently and potentially in the future, are vicious criminals who would try to undermine our Judiciary and try to intimidate jurors and their families. All of that is absolutely true but nobody stops and tells me why we do not have the capacity within the State to prescribe the types of protections there are in other jurisdictions. We are an outlier. The Irish State is an outlier in the sense that we do not provide safety for our jurors. In Italy they have dealt with this with the Mafia. Lots of other jurisdictions have dealt with this. Ireland is really only comparable to Denmark at the moment. Everywhere else seems to make allowances in exceptional cases but we are saying that this exception is now becoming the norm. Last year, the Minister said that he believed in the Peart majority report. I would disagree but where are we in terms of the actual legislation? There is an element of basic cowardice here that we continue to renew the Special Criminal Court without justifying the inadequacies of the Government and State as to why we cannot protect ourselves, or what we are bringing in with regard to reform. I would like to see that soon.

It is sad that we find ourselves once again standing up and making statements about the Special Criminal Court without any of the issues that it raises having been advanced by this Government. My colleague, Deputy Gary Gannon, has just mentioned the Peart review. As a party, many of our positions would align more closely with the minority report of the Peart review. Essentially, what we have here is a parallel system within our criminal justice system where people can, technically, be tried for the same crime in different courts that have vastly different conviction rates, one of which is not a jury court. If we want to experience equality before the law, one of the principles we should be upholding is that it is absolutely reasonable for people to expect to be tried by a jury of their peers. This for me is one of the huge issues, but besides that I believe the principle of presumption of innocence is undermined by the continuation of this parallel system. Even if we park all of the principles around it, one of the biggest issues is the actual practical development. As long as we hive off the issue of jury intimidation and remove juries from certain courts so that we do not have to deal with jury intimidation from what we anticipate would happen, and rightly so, we will never actually deal with jury intimidation in our main courts. That is something this Government has to deal with. The Government has to lock horns with it and tackle it. There are a lot of ways in which juries need support in the existing system, never mind getting into intimidation, but right now we cannot get the data around it. We do not really know the grounds on which the decision is made to deal with jury intimidation by creating an entirely separate system for trying those offences. I need to see from this Government the research, the data and the consultation. Consultation was supposed to follow from the Peart review but this Government has not even dealt with the Hederman review, which was in the early 2000s. There is so much work that needs to be done to ensure we do not find ourselves year after year up on our feet talking about the lack of balance between human rights and what is absolutely and rightly preventing gangland crime.

I have very deep concerns about the operation of the Special Criminal Court. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental human right. The lack of juries and the operating provisions of this court are undermining that right to a fair trial. The Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, and her Government are undermining people's human rights here. The Special Criminal Court was set up in 1972 as an emergency provision. Over 50 years later are we still saying that we are in a state of emergency in the State? There are clear examples in this court of mission creep and they should concern the Minister of State. They should concern us all. I urge the Minister of State to read the book Prophet Song by Paul Lynch. It will show the Minister of State how emergency powers are used against ordinary people. It should concern us all that these sit on our Statue Book. In 2022, the co-leader of the Social Democrats, Catherine Murphy, called on the Government to implement reforms over the three-year period up to 2025. The Government absolutely failed to act on those recommendations and it failed to advance any of the reforms. Jury intimidation is not a uniquely Irish issue. Other countries deal with this. They have provisions and they have ways of doing it. The Government needs to look at ways other countries are doing it and implement them here. The Minister of State and the Government have absolutely failed to heed those warnings. They failed to heed the warnings from the UN, from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, from Amnesty International, and from all of the human rights bodies who say they have deep concerns about this court. The Government's failure to change this has backed us into a corner and left us with no choice but to vote for these provisions. I think it is a disgrace. Our call is that in advance of next year's vote the Government would advance reforms to please give us other options here. My vote is not a vote for this court: it is a vote and an urgent call for the Minister of State and the Government to progress reforms. These emergency powers cannot stay on the Statute Book. Citizens in the State deserve a right to a fair trial and the Government is undermining that right.

As this is my first engagement with the Minister of State, I wish her the best of luck in her new role. We will be supporting Deputy Carthy's motion again this year. It is just a few weeks since we debated the Bill to allow the State to support and participate in the work of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. As we debate these motions again this year, it is vital to remember why we have these annual reauthorisations. We remember the victims of the Omagh atrocity and we think of their families, their friends and all those who suffered through the violence of the Troubles. We all know too well the impact of the sale of illegal drugs and the violence that creates and brings to so many communities around Ireland. As the State closes in on individuals hiding away in the Middle East, an issue I raised here in the Dáil fairly directly with then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar on 11 June 2020, this legal framework while outdated and flawed in places provides vital tools to take on organised international crime. While we in the Labour Party will still vote for the final motions, the Minister of State will know that the Labour Party has long argued for and supported the need for comprehensive reform of the law in this area. Others have spoken before about how jurisdictions in other countries deal with jury intimidation. It is long beyond time that we as a country dealt with this issue. That the State is not able to provide safeguards around jury intimidation is, frankly, unacceptable in modern times. To have this legislation on that basis is unacceptable and a failure of the State. Threats from crime and terrorism are constantly evolving and our legal framework must do so too. We said it last year, and no doubt we will end up repeating it next year given the way things are going, that there is no need for an annual vote on some of the provisions we will vote on in relation to this. These should be part of the permanent criminal code. Withholding information about the commission of a crime should be a permanent offence, and directing an unlawful criminal organisation should also be a crime rather than regarded as an emergency provision. In the past, the Labour Party has also raised 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. Every year the Dáil and Seanad are asked to declare that the ordinary criminal courts are inadequate and that a jury trial is somewhat not fit to deal with particular offences. This decision should be based on more evidence than we have ever seen provided when asked to make this declaration. We are never given any information as to the adequacy of the criminal courts or on the risk of intimidation of jurors. It is three years since the publication of the independent review of the offences against the State Acts. Last year, the Minister set out the direction he was going and that he broadly accepted the majority report recommendations to repeal and replace the Offences against the State Act. He indicated that new legislation would not be ready by now but failed to clearly set out what timeframe he would adopt for reform. Maybe in her reply the Minister of State might be able to give us some indication of same. We have had the Hederman report in 2002, the Peart majority and minority reports, various other reports, reviews and recommendations, and the Law Reform Commission report on jury service in 2013. I could go on and on. The Oireachtas was called upon to repeal the existing Acts and replace them with a single consolidated Act containing significant reforms. The Peart review minority report went further and recommended the abolition of the Special Criminal Court. The majority report supported its retention but also recommended that there should be no blanket referral of offences to a non-jury court. Instead, the DPP should use the power it already has to decide on a case-by-case basis whether there is sufficient threat to the administration of justice to justify sending a particular trial to a non-jury court. Page 12 of the report states: the current system of schedule 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 its discretion to transfer any particular trial to the Special Criminal Court. Looking to the minority recommendations, however, in a scenario where there is a permanent standing special court, the Labour Party would therefore support the minority recommendation that decisions on trial venues should be made by a judge and not the DPP. This should be based on clear criteria set out in the legislation that recognises the exceptional nature of a non-jury trial. This will provide an added layer of accountability and indeed, transparency. The review group also recommended many other reforms and safeguards, including the repeal of many outdated provisions and offences. As the Labour Party set out in our most recent manifesto, we need to ensure non-jury trials are the exception and introduce measures to address concerns about jury tampering or intimidation. Modern technology has a crucial role to play in the implementation of reforms and could be used to facilitate such things as remote juries, like Scotland used not so Iong ago. That is why when the Minister and his Department eventually get around to publishing the heads of a Bill or a detailed framework for reform, it is vital that they carefully consider the proposals from the minority report. Significant issues around belief, evidence, prescription, disclosure and the publication of decisions will also need to be addressed in any reforms. This time next year when we come to debate these motions yet again, it would be far more useful for us to use the time to debate the merits of such published draft proposals if they come, and what further steps or reforms are still needed, or what changes collectively we as a Chamber or Oireachtas need to put in place. I also encourage the Minister of State to ensure that when her Department does get around to formulating more concrete proposals, it seeks the technical assistance of the UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights to ensure the draft legislation is benchmarked against the best applicable international standards.

Before I call on the other Deputies, we are very lucky to have dancers from a prestigious, world-champion school of Irish dancing visiting, the dancers of the Cabe Academy of Castleknock, who are here with Deputy Emer Currie. I ask them to stand up and let us see their uniforms. Very well done to them. They are most welcome. I congratulate them at such a young age to be representing us on a world stage. I call on Deputy Murphy.

Fair play to them. Here we go again with another one of these annual farces we have in this place. However, this one is pretty important. It is the nodding through of abolishing the fundamental human right to a fair trial by the Government and the vast majority of the Opposition. It is incredible that we do this on a yearly basis. Shamefully, it is again going to include Sinn Féin. For years, Sinn Féin has been using the promise of a slight reform of this diplock court as an excuse for not opposing it, after decades of correctly being against it. How much longer can Sinn Féin keep that up? The Government has been saying it needs these so-called emergency powers for 54 years now, so presumably this can go on forever. Most of the rest of the Opposition, including those on the left, also engage every year in this, the lowest form of respectability politics, afraid they are going to look bad if they defend the basic right to a fair trial by a jury of one’s peers, even though every domestic and international human rights organisation from the Irish Council of Civil Liberties to Amnesty International, the State’s own Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the United Nations unanimously oppose the Special Criminal Court. The point of civil liberties is not so much to defend the rights of people we agree with, but to defend the rights of those we do not. The Minister said last year we would be here again in a year’s time. Are we going to be here again next year? How much longer is this farce going to continue? The Minister of State has already told us that the only alternative to the Special Criminal Court is a slightly reformed and rebranded non-jury court. Shamefully, the vast majority of the Opposition, including Sinn Féin, is going along with that too, and supporting the idea of making non-jury courts permanent forever. The minority of the independent review group, which not surprisingly was a minority made-up of human rights experts, rightly saw no need for special, non-jury courts. The vast majority of democracies around the world see no need for them either. That is why I urge for a vote to be called on these motions every single year. People have a right to know where the Members of this House stand on fundamental questions of civil liberties. Do TDs believe that everyone has the right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers or do they support convictions in secret courts by a trio of judges based on the say-so of a senior Garda? If that had been the case with the seven Jobstown not guilty defendants, we would all still be in prison right now. These types of draconian powers are always creeping. One day used against criminals which sounds reasonable, the next used against water charges protesters, Palestine protesters, striking workers or whoever else has been wrongly categorised as criminals or terrorists. Just look at the draconian measures imposed on peaceful protesters classified as terrorists in Britain and think that exactly the same thing could happen here and the Special Criminal Court could be used as a part of that cracking down on civil liberties.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this but it is a bit of a charade. It is my 16th year here and year after year, we come in here and it is renewed by Government. The Offences against the State Act was first introduced in 1939. There was an emergency then; there was the Second World War. The fact is that this is renewed annually now, 89 years later. That is a cause of great concern. Numerous legal practitioners and the UN human rights committee, Amnesty International, and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have all called for repeal or substantial reform of this legislation. The Government commission report by Justice Hederman in 2002, and more recently the Government’s report of 2023, recommended changes, including the non-jury dimension. As I said, this is my 16th year for this. It should never be dealt with in this way. Emergency legislation is emergency legislation. I have stated before and I do so again, that the Offences against the State Act was at times used for political purposes. That is a fact. Refusal to answer loaded questions should never be used as a method of implying guilt, nor should the conduct of the accused during interrogation or at other times or by association. They have the potential to be abused, as has the word of a Garda superintendent. The Minister of State’s party trumpets - I was a supporter of it, maybe a reluctant supporter - the Good Friday Agreement, which referred to the Offences against the State Act. The Government stated it was committed to initiating "a wide-ranging review of the Offences against the State Acts [1939] with a view to both reform and dispensing with those elements no longer required as circumstances permit." It is a different world now than 1939 or indeed 1970 or 1980. The Minister for justice said last year that: "The main reason I believe the Act should be repealed is that the threats the State faces today...have reduced and significantly altered." I agree. Is it not time to confine this legislation to the history books or the dustbin? While there is a problem with organised crime, there needs to be adequate legislation for that. There are suggestions around that. There is technology and methods for protecting witnesses. I understand organised crime and drugs cartels are a challenge for everybody, but all of those options should be utilised and we should confine this legislation to the history books. I hope we are not here next year. I welcome the Minister of State as a new Minister and wish her well in her job, but I hope we are not here around this date next year, renewing this outdated, draconian legislation. It has been abused in the past, I am not saying always, but it certainly has been used for political purposes and that has no place in the Ireland of 2026.

Consistently, socialists who have been elected here have come in and expressed our opposition to these powers being extended. We are in agreement with the ICCL, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the UN human rights committee, Amnesty International, and a myriad of legal experts and civil liberties campaigners. The Irish Government likes to portray our country as a liberal democracy, yet it has this parallel legal system where there are no juries. The ICCL highlighted six defects in its submission on this issue, including lack of a jury; the dual role of judges as judge and jury; the extensive powers of the DPP; the claiming of privilege by gardaí; and the acceptance of beliefs and inferences as actual evidence. Nowhere else accepts secret evidence from police officers as being sufficient to send somebody to jail. I find it highly ironic that we were in here about two weeks ago talking about counselling notes and the Minister of State's colleague stood opposite me and told us there was no way in the wide earthly world their use could be outlawed because of the right to a fair trial being paramount in Ireland. One of the women made an excellent point: how come there is a Special Criminal Court then? You can now waive these rights when it suits you, but the Government could not intervene, for example, to do something that actually affects so many victims of crime. It is highly ironic. We have seen in Britain in recent times things that we never thought would happen. Young people have been charged with terrorist acts, when the offence should have been criminal damage at most, for challenging companies that were producing weaponry to be sent to Palestine to kill people. They will be heroes in history in the future but now they are imprisoned as terrorists. This Government last year transposed an EU directive as to what constitutes terrorist acts. There is a definite movement in the direction of repressive legislation by so many governments. That EU directive includes grounds such as receiving training, travelling for the purpose of terrorism and public provocation to commit a terrorist offence - really dangerous stuff that can definitely be used against activists, including Palestine solidarity campaigners, environmental activists and many others in the future. It is time now to abolish the Special Criminal Court, to get rid of the Offences against the State Act and to stop using this as an excuse again and again each year.

Deputy Gogarty's colleagues are not here, so he has the floor until one arrives or until the end of his speaking time

I will not use all the time. This is a mixed bag because we want to protect the citizens of this State from the wrong kind of people but, equally, we want to allow those who are not happy with the State to protest in a meaningful way without being lumped in with them. I support the motion if it is taken in isolation, in the absence of the real reform that others have been calling for, but I want to be entirely clear. As others have said, I do not agree that dragging it on year on year is right. I am very torn - there is no harm in saying you can be torn on weighing up legislation - because there is still a major threat to public safety, whether it is the gangland cartels or lingering dissident groups, some of which could be reactivated depending on how things are going. Obviously, there are also fundamentalists of various persuasions, some of whom are individuals with a propensity to violence. If they want to raise money for their cause through getting involved in robberies or if they want to maim and kill people because of their beliefs, these are individuals the Garda has its eyes on in this country and they are also a danger. They are not just people who want to have their voice heard in a peaceful protest. They are people who have shown time and time again that they are willing to intimidate witnesses and compromise juries. An Garda Síochána is often trying to deal with these groups with one hand tied behind its back, so we do need this kind of support in terms of the types of courts and the Offences against the State Act. Equally, however, we cannot have a legislative vacuum and questions asked about which group is a peace-loving group and which group is a terrorist organisation. This annual event basically brings a sticking plaster in, with renewal under the emergency offences against the State legislation on an ongoing basis. I do support keeping security checks going while pointing out that the current cycle of these extensions is not a sustainable way to run a modern democracy. We need a credible alternative. The independent review group provided a roadmap. If that roadmap is flawed in some way, we can add to it but we need a draconian approach to those who pose a real danger. At the same time, however, we need a system that protects ordinary citizens and their civil liberties and the right to protest.

Our local gardaí are doing Trojan work and deserve the full backing of rural Ireland, including areas like west Cork. They are the backbone of community safety and they are out at all hours dealing with everything thrown at them, often with limited and stretched resources. They know their communities. That is their strength. That is how people keep safe, not just with legislation from Dublin. Let us be honest about this motion. We are again being asked to roll over what are meant to be temporary emergency powers. Year after year it is the same thing. That is not good enough. Of course, there are real threats of organised crime, which is a serious issue, but supporting the Garda is not about giving the State a blank cheque. It is about giving gardaí the resources, the numbers and the visibility they need on the ground. Strong community policing works. People seeing their local garda, knowing they are there - that is what makes a real difference. We will always stand up for our gardaí and the work they do, but I cannot support the ongoing extension of laws like this without proper reform and accountability. When I talk about gardaí, I talk about the lack of garda appointments made to west Cork. I think it has been zero in the past number of years, or there have been very few if any new gardaí into west Cork. That is a very unfair situation we find ourselves in because community policing is all about the number of gardaí in the community. I am a big believer that gardaí should live in the area in which they work, or as close as they can, because they get to know the people, they get to know who is right and who is wrong and they can nip crime in the bud. I have often said that. I see in my own area Garda Jonathan McCarthy in Ballydehob. He and his family live there and there is a very protective community there and care for the community. He is a Trojan garda. He knows when to be there and when not to be there, as such. I see also the Garda Youth Awards. I praise gardaí like Don Davis and Damian White and so many gardaí out there who are really pushing the boundaries and are there for their community and for their people. It is great for young people too to see that and to get an award at the Garda Youth Awards. I refer to Garda Brigid Hartnett and all those who are involved in that initiative. It really sends a very different type of message from that which we hear sometimes hear throughout the country that maybe the long hand of the law is the right way to deal with young people. Sometimes it is to praise them, work with them and be supportive of them, and that is what we need to do. There is definitely a lack of gardaí in west Cork. I am worried about Drimoleague Garda station and places like that which have gone unmanned for months and months because there is a complete lack of gardaí. The Garda cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip. When the appointments are made, no matter where it is, it must be done in a fair manner throughout the country. We cannot have one county like Dublin, which is a big county, with a lot of newly appointed gardaí but west Cork left without. That is something we need to reverse. I have said that to the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, when he has been in here. That has to be looked at going forward if we are to make sure that people are living in a protected and safe area. A fair distribution of the new gardaí when they are appointed should be spun out throughout Ireland, not just the capital.

As we have no further speakers, I ask the Minister of State to make her response in eight minutes.

I am very grateful to the House for its consideration of these motions. I thank Deputies for their contributions, particularly those in support but also those who do not support the motion because their discourse is very important. Many issues have been raised. I know I have only eight minutes. For the benefit of the House and for those watching, the independent review group carried out a comprehensive review of the law in this area and the majority and minority reports of the group were published in June 2023. The main recommendations of the majority report can be summarised as follows: repeal of the Offences against the State Act, with select elements reflective of current or potential threats being re-enacted in replacement legislation; establishing a new standing non-jury court to replace the Special Criminal Court to try serious criminal offences where the ordinary courts are inadequate; and consideration to be given to consolidation of all legislation dealing with terrorist offences. A lot of Deputies raised the issue of the timeline of the implementation of the majority report. I can say that my Department has engaged in consultation on the recommendations of the review group and it has examined the reports from a variety of perspectives, including policing, governance and legislation. It was after completing and considering this extensive consultation that the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, notified the Government that he accepts in principle the recommendations of the majority report. This sets a clear direction for reform. However, given the importance of the Acts over many decades, detailed proposals for reform must be thoroughly considered and approached with the utmost of case. These considerations, as we know, take time and the Minister intends to return to Government with detailed proposals in due course. There is, as we know, significant legislative work under way to bolster our national security, with four Bills currently in the Houses. The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill will address the foreign terrorist fighter phenomenon, which includes offences of travelling to commit a terrorist offence or organising or facilitating travel to commit a terrorist offence, and receiving training for terrorism. The Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill and the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill are before the Houses. The Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will confirm that legal authority of An Garda Síochána to deploy radio frequency jammers for counter-unmanned aircraft systems purposes, where necessary to carry out its policing functions. I refer also to other civil security-related legislation. While work on proposals to replace the Offences Against the State Act is well under way, the threat from terrorism and organised crime very much remains. The renewal of these provisions is necessary today to combat this threat. Many Members raised the issue of lack of information, asking why the ordinary courts are not sufficient. This was raised, in particular, by the Labour Party and Deputies Gibney and Gannon from the Social Democrats. Clearly the review group recommended on the basis of the best information available to it 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 where the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order. It is up to the DPP in any individual case to direct that a trial take place before the Special Criminal Court. That decision is subject to careful consideration on the facts and circumstances of the case. I am conscious of the recommendation for more transparency around the court and the procedure in particular. In that regard, I note that the DPP has placed more information into to the public domain on how that decision-making process currently operates, for the purpose of transparency. The report laid also provides a brief assessment of the security situation. I should caution, however, that there are clear constraints on the detail of what is and can be reported, to ensure there is no longer a danger of prejudice to the investigation or prosecution of crime or the security of the State. Deputy Paul Murphy raised issues in relation to fundamental human rights, as did Deputy Coppinger. Some argue that non-jury courts are contrary to fundamental rights of persons before the law and international principles of administration of justice. I respectfully disagree with that analysis. While jury trial is commonplace here, and is our very much preferred approach, it is not at all commonplace in the criminal justice systems of many other European states, for example, Sweden and Norway. The Special Criminal Court operates without a jury for sound reasons. Trials are heard there by three judges rather than one. The issuing of a reasoned judgment, which obviously would not be available in a jury trial, is one of the benefits of the Special Criminal Court and provides a basis for analysis and for parties to appeal a ruling should they wish to do so. While those judgments have always been available to the parties to the case, I welcome the plans of the Courts Service to facilitate their publication, should a judge so decide in a given case. The rules of evidence that apply in proceedings before the Special Criminal Court are the same as those applicable in trials in the Central Criminal Court. Anyone tried before the Special Criminal Court has a full range of procedural protections available to them, including appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Deputy Coppinger raised the issue of belief evidence. I want to clarify that belief evidence, which is permissible in trials for membership of an unlawful organisation by virtue of section 3(2) of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1972, is not one of the provisions for renewal today. Rather, I am seeking the renewal of section 2 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act. That section provides that in proceedings concerned with the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation, it is permitted for inferences to be drawn by an accused's failure to answer any question material to the offence. It is important to note that inferences may be treated as corroboration of any evidence in relation to the offence, but a person cannot be convicted solely on the basis of inferences. The majority recommended that this provision be re-enacted in any legislation that replaces the Offences Against the State Acts, with the additional safeguard that provision be made in legislation to the effect that an inference drawn under this section should not be capable of providing the sole corroboration for belief evidence. Many Members, including Deputy Carthy, raised the issue of our response to organised crime. The record budgetary resources of over €2.74 billion in budget 2025 allocated to An Garda Síochána have enabled the Garda Commissioner to assign extra resources to the specialist units involved in tackling organised crime. These include the Garda National Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau, the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the armed support unit and the Criminal Assets Bureau. In relation to an explanation as to why we have this temporary legislation today, first, as we know, the Special Criminal Court is provided for in our Constitution. We have to remember that. Part V of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 provides for the establishment of the Special Criminal Court, and the legislation is clear that the Government was entitled to make a proclamation providing for the establishment of the court whenever it was necessary to do so. There is no provision in statute whereby such courts can only be of a limited duration, nor is there any sunset clause providing that the court only last any particular time. The Offences Against the State Acts are not emergency laws. They are complementary to our general criminal law and apply only in the most serious of cases. In relation to a point raised by Deputy Paul Murphy on the minority report, while not endorsing the recommendation of the majority for a standing non-jury court, the minority report did accept that recourse to a non-jury court may be warranted in the interests of justice where there is a real and present danger of jury intimidation. Many Members, including Deputies Gannon, Gibney and Rice, raised the issues of the jury. I note the recommendations of the majority and also the minority in relation to examining the measures, short of non-jury trial, that can be taken to protect jurors. This is in both the reports. In relation to Garda recruitment, the Government is committed to building stronger, safer communities and strengthening An Garda Síochána, and very much supporting An Garda Síochána in that regard. The overall Garda workforce increased from 15,908 in 2016 to over 18,000 as of April. Deputy Collins and others raised Garda resources. Over the previous few years, the focus has been on ramping up funding to provide the equipment, technology and facilities and fleet personnel for An Garda Síochána so that it can keep our communities safe. The Government is committed to building stronger, safer communities. At the heart of this debate, it is about protecting the public, supporting the rule of law and ensuring that those who seek to undermine our democracy and communities are met with a firm and effective response to the State. I commend the motions to the House. A Cheann Comhairle, could I get back to Deputy Carthy on Sallins?

Go ahead. We are within time.

I know Deputy Carthy raised the issue of Sallins. The establishment of a public inquiry is something we can only proceed with in accordance with the legislation governing inquiries. The most important requirement is that the matter be of urgent public importance requiring investigation. In light of developments since 1976, the Minister is satisfied that it is not warranted.

The Minister of State need not have bothered.

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 24 June 2026.

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, 2026 and ending on 29th June, 2027.

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 24 June 2026.