The Government has accepted an Opposition demand for an annual review of the special anti-terrorist legislation which was passed without a vote by the Seanad last night after a daylong debate.
The Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, said he would accept an explicit reference to an annual review. The review, however, will be catered for in separate legislation - the Criminal Justice Bill.
His acceptance followed a sharply worded intervention earlier in the debate by the Opposition leader, Mr Maurice Manning.
In an apparent disagreement over the principle of reviewing the legislation, the Fine Gael senator said during the second stage debate that his party had been given a commitment when the Bill was going through the Dail that there would be an annual review and "this was specifically conveyed to the Opposition deputies.
"This was not dealt with specifically last evening because the amendments were all guillotined together, but commitments were given. However, the amendment as it appears on the Bill today is very different from what we were told. There will not be the annual review that we had been promised.
"Either this is a major breach of faith on the part of the Minister and his Department or it is the result of a major cock-up. One way or the other, it is not acceptable.
"This party supported the Bill under pressure yesterday on the clear understanding that this provision would be part of the Bill."
He said he wanted Mr O'Donoghue to know that "my party will be dictated to in its vote by whether this commitment is met. A very clear commitment was made by the Minister in the Dail yesterday."
Mr Manning raised the issue again at committee stage when amendments to the legislation were raised. He said it was the "strong view" of his party that the legislation should be reviewed annually.
Mr O'Donoghue replied that he was "of the view that the provision as it stands would allow for an annual review, but we'll do it explicitly. I am prepared to accept a small amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill later to insert the word annual."
After 10 amendments were debated for several hours, the legislation passed through the Seanad, largely as accepted by the Dail.
Mr Shane Ross (Ind) said it would have been "more honest, more appropriate and more effective to introduce internment", although he agreed with the thrust of the legislation.
"There must be times when civil liberties have to be infringed. There is no doubt that this Bill drastically and dramatically infringes civil liberties, but you have to pay a price to pursue those who carried out this atrocity."
He added that "never were conditions more ideal for internment than now" when there was a small group of pathological killers prepared to do anything for their warped views.
Mr Brendan Ryan (Ind) who raised a number of amendments, asked how the authorities were going to ensure that this new legislation applied only to the members of the `Real IRA'. "It only takes one malicious or incompetent member of the Garda to start arresting members of the Provisional IRA who are all over the country, and cause the peace process to unravel."
Mr Joe Costello (Lab) expressed concern about a number of sections and introduced several amendments. The dangers of legislation that could ultimately have a huge cost to the State had to be recognised. They included protecting the innocent, protecting civil rights, and guarding against the potential for legal cases against the State.
Ms Helen Keogh (PD) said no one expected to be in the House to pass this draconian legislation. However, she added that "none of those people in Omagh on August 15th expected to be blasted away".
Dr Maurice Hayes (Ind) said it was important that politicians and people in general should not lose their sense of shock at what had happened in Omagh. It was not laws which would defeat the terrorists but the attitude of the people. Omagh had demonstrated clearly that there was no room for ambiguity. There was no halfway house between a democratic society and the use of violence to secure a political objective. This recognition was at least owed to the victims and the survivors of Omagh.
Dr Hayes said he welcomed the legislation by and large but there were parts of it with which he would find some difficulty.
The legislation, he said, should be monitored on an ongoing basis and he had a great deal of sympathy for the proposal that a Human Rights Commission be established in conjunction with it.