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I raised here in the Dáil fairly directly with then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar on 11 June 2020, this legal framework while outdated and flawed in places provides vital tools to take on organised international crime.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.

Sentiment score: -0.03