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.

Sentiment score: -0.10

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?

Sentiment score: 0.03

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.

Sentiment score: 0.27

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.

Sentiment score: 0.09