Brian Stanley urges end to WWII-era security law
Brian Stanley spoke in the House on 25 June 2025, criticising outdated security legislation dating from the Second World War and arguing it has been misused for political policing. He called for abolition or fundamental reform, citing an expert panel report and criticizing the absence of new legislation or credible alternatives.
Brian Stanley said the legislation is long past its best-by-date and expressed disappointment that another year has passed with no movement. He told the Minister this was not the first time he had raised the issue in the House and said it should be the last time such renewal is required.
He said the law has sometimes been used for political policing and recounted instances of people being threatened with transfer to Green Street and the Special Criminal Court. He referenced Amnesty International and the Irish Council for Serbian Liberties as groups that have highlighted the law's shortcomings.
Brian Stanley noted an expert panel was set up by the Government in 2020, reported in 2023, and that the majority report recommended the legislation be abolished in its entirety. He criticised the lack of legislative action by the Department or Government in the two years since the report.
He argued non-jury trials should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances and should be authorised by a court, not by one person such as the DPP as at present. He highlighted provisions he called subjective - failure to answer a material question, conduct implying membership of an illegal organisation, associations, and Section 9 on withholding information.
While acknowledging serious gang violence and threats to communities, Brian Stanley said other methods - courtroom screening, video evidence and policing improvements - should be used, and praised the need to reform and modernise policing "north and south." He said he would support new legislation but demanded that reform follow the expert review and end the repeated renewals of the outdated law.
Context of the debate
Brian Stanley said the legislation is long past its best-by-date and expressed disappointment that another year has passed with no movement. He told the Minister this was not the first time he had raised the issue in the House and said it should be the last time such renewal is required.
Allegations of political policing and specific abuses
He said the law has sometimes been used for political policing and recounted instances of people being threatened with transfer to Green Street and the Special Criminal Court. He referenced Amnesty International and the Irish Council for Serbian Liberties as groups that have highlighted the law's shortcomings.
Expert panel recommendation and delay
Brian Stanley noted an expert panel was set up by the Government in 2020, reported in 2023, and that the majority report recommended the legislation be abolished in its entirety. He criticised the lack of legislative action by the Department or Government in the two years since the report.
Concerns about non-jury trials and DPP powers
He argued non-jury trials should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances and should be authorised by a court, not by one person such as the DPP as at present. He highlighted provisions he called subjective - failure to answer a material question, conduct implying membership of an illegal organisation, associations, and Section 9 on withholding information.
Call for reform and policing improvements
While acknowledging serious gang violence and threats to communities, Brian Stanley said other methods - courtroom screening, video evidence and policing improvements - should be used, and praised the need to reform and modernise policing "north and south." He said he would support new legislation but demanded that reform follow the expert review and end the repeated renewals of the outdated law.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Richard O'Donoghue
Richard O'Donoghue on Garda Tom Flavin's Acquittal and Seven-Year Delay
Brendan Smith
Brendan Smith Urges Apprenticeship Access for Youth Reach Graduates
Shay Brennan
Shay Brennan questions minister on infrastructure division and costs
Danny Healy-Rae
Danny Healy-Rae: Build Local Authority Homes, Don't Target Airbnb
Michael Fitzmaurice
Michael Fitzmaurice warns quarry closures will deepen housing crisis
Mattie McGrath
Mattie McGrath attacks rising costs, waste and rogue developments
Transcript
Here we go again, back here again, to renew outdated legislation that's been there since the Second World War, that's long past its best-by-date, Minister, and it's very disappointing to see that another year has passed by with no movement on it. While it's always been claimed that it was there for protection of the state, it has also been used for political policing. Not always, but on occasions. Reform has been demanded for years from Amnesty International, the Irish Council for Serbian Liberties, and numerous others have highlighted the shortcomings of this legislation and how it can be misused. An expert panel was put in place by the Government in 2020, reported in 2023, and that recommended the majority report was that it should be abolished in its entirety. Yet two years later, here we are, with no legislation being brought forward by the Department or by the Government, no credible alternative being put in place. And I'm somebody who sees that in exceptional circumstances, I can see the need for an undue record, in extreme exceptional circumstances. But the provisions under it, you know, which have been changed slightly over the years, failure to answer a material question. People have been threatened in the past that they didn't answer a question. They were off the Green Street to the Special Criminal Court, you know, that there was a van waiting for them outside. That's what people were told on some occasions. Another one is that the conduct of the accused person, implying or leading to a reasonable inference, that they were a member of an illegal organisation. That's wide open. You know, also associations on the part of the accused. That can mean anything. It can mean being in the same place at a wedding as somebody else. And Section 9 creates an offence withholding information which he or she knows to be of assistance. Again, it's all subjective. And, you know, there are a number of dangers in there. Non-jury trials, as I said, should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances. The provisions, the recommendations are there from the review, from the review panel. It should only be authorised. It should not be authorised by one person, by the DPP, as it currently is. It should be left to the judgment of a court. And I recognise that there is substantial gang violence in this state. I recognise that it causes a serious threat to local communities and damages local communities and threatens people's safety. I understand that. And that does need to be dealt with. But other methods can also be used. As I said, the use of a court, of a non-jury court, should only be in the case of where a court, or in a court of law, where it's decided that can be used. Not by one person, by the DPP. Also, methods could be used, such as courtroom screening, video evidence, etc. But here we are again, Minister, in an absolute state of paralysis. You know, I would support new legislation on this. You know, I think that, you know, as we improve policing, the policing service in the state, as we reform it, modernise it, north and south, I think that it's a necessary step to take. I'm extremely disappointed that we're doing this for the last... I think this is my 15th time to be here for this in the House. It's outdated, and you need to change it. And this should be the very last time that this happens. Thank you. Thank you.