Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Apr 2009

Vol. 195 No. 4

Gangland Crime: Statements.

I thank the House for the opportunity to address it on this important matter. At the outset, I would like to extend my condolences to the family and friends of Roy Collins, a respected member of his community who was so brutally gunned down, and to the family and friends of other victims killed in similar circumstances. An extensive Garda investigation into the killing of Mr. Collins is under way and has made good progress so far, with one person already charged. A person has also been charged with the murder of Shane Geoghegan. Senators will appreciate that I am, therefore, greatly constrained in what I can say about the specific incidents.

Let me first assure the House that tackling organised and gangland crime remains and will continue to remain a primary concern for the Minister, the Government and the Garda Commissioner. One of the priorities the Minister has set for the Garda Síochána is the targeting of serious crime, in particular organised, gun and drug-related crime. The Garda policing plan for 2009 contains a series of measures aimed at reducing the impact of crime and criminal behaviour. These goals are backed up by strategic actions which include a commitment to continue and intensify intelligence-led operations against groups and individuals engaged in serious criminality of this type.

The Minister is very clear that we cannot allow organised criminal gangs to attempt to undermine the functioning of the criminal justice system. Such behaviour demands a response from the State and such a response will be forthcoming.

I make the point that Garda strength has increased very significantly in recent years, with the number of attested members going from 11,895 at the end of 2002 to 14,371 in the most recent figures, an increase of 21%. The strength of the force is scheduled to reach approximately 14,900 by the end of this year. There has also been a significant increase in civilian support staff, with the total number of whole-time equivalent civilian personnel going from 1,688 at the end of 2007 to 2,133 in the most recent figures, an increase of 26%. So, while the moratorium recently announced by the Minister for Finance will have a temporary effect on recruitment into the Garda Síochána, its record strength means that it is in the best possible position to absorb the impact and continue to deliver a top-class policing service.

With regard to the Limerick Garda division, I understand that at the latest date for which figures are readily available, its personnel strength was 634. This is an increase of 211 or almost 50% since the end of 1997.

The budget for overtime in the Garda Síochána for 2009 has been reduced from a record provision in 2008, but is still a substantial €80 million. This includes an increase in the allocation for Operation Anvil from €20 million to €21 million.

Very significant efforts and resources are being directed on an ongoing basis into tackling organised crime and gangland culture, and the State will continue its relentless approach to bringing those involved in such activities to justice. Persons involved in organised criminal activities, including persons suspected of involvement in drug trafficking, importation, sale and supply, as well as the illegal importation of firearms, are being targeted by the Garda Síochána on a number of fronts, involving uniform and plain-clothes personnel overtly and covertly disrupting known criminals in the course of their criminal activities. Such criminals, their operating methods, criminal interests and financial assets are likewise proactively targeted through intelligence-led operations, particularly under Operation Anvil.

Under Operation Anvil, which commenced in May 2005 in the Dublin metropolitan region and was extended countrywide in 2006, almost 2,500 firearms have been recovered throughout the country up to 22 March last. There have also been over 7,500 arrests for serious crimes such as murder, serious assault, robbery and burglary and over 72,000 searches for weapons, drugs and stolen goods. At a time when the public finances are under pressure, the Minister is determined that top priority will continue to be given to front-line policing. Funding for Operation Anvil has, therefore, increased from €20 million in 2008 to €21 million in 2009 to enable it to continue with targeted disruption of serious and organised criminal activity.

One very effective tool available to the State since the mid-1990s has been the Criminal Assets Bureau. The bureau has been extremely successful over the years in seizing the proceeds of criminal activity in a very effective and visible manner. It represents a new form of policing designed to disrupt and disable the capacity of targeted individuals from participating in further criminal activity. As a result, a criminal investigation can continue while a financial investigation, a tax examination and a social welfare examination can also proceed.

The public can see for themselves the effectiveness of the bureau's co-ordinated multi-agency approach in dealing with the assets derived from crime. This model of a co-located bureau focusing solely on the proceeds of crime was one of the first of its type in Europe and the powers given to it are far-reaching. A recent and important development at the bureau has been the rapid expansion in the number of trained asset profilers who are now working all over the country. There are over 100 trained asset profilers working in the Garda Síochána and these have now become an invaluable resource for the bureau in doing the early groundwork on possible targets and in keeping the bureau informed of developments at local level. While the profilers are based outside the bureau, their work is being embedded into the bureau and this means that criminals in every corner of Ireland are within reach of the bureau.

The State is already expending very significant efforts and resources in tackling organised crime and gangland culture and it will be relentless in its approach in bringing those involved in such activities to justice. The Garda Síochána utilises intelligence-led operations in the fight against crime and, in this context, the information and assistance made available to the Garda by the public remains invaluable in ensuring that those who engage in criminal activities can be brought before the courts to answer for their actions.

A significant element of the fight against organised crime and criminal gangs on an ongoing basis involves the use of specialist units. Units such as the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the Garda National Drug Unit, the Organised Crime Unit, and the Criminal Assets Bureau, as well as the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation and the Garda Technical Bureau, each bring with them expertise and skills in specific areas of policing. The Organised Crime Unit, which has been established on a permanent basis, has the specific remit of targeting those suspected of involvement in organised crime, including the trafficking, importation, sale and supply of drugs.

The actions of all of specialist Garda units are co-ordinated by the assistant commissioner with responsibility for national support services in order to ensure that a comprehensive approach is taken to tackling issues throughout the State. The work of these units is at all times guided and supplemented by the security and intelligence section which assists with the provision of intelligence briefings and timely information required for Garda operations.

An Garda Síochána undertakes several multi-agency actions designed to target the activities of criminal organisations involved in the sale and supply of illicit drugs. It conducts targeted operations against individuals and organisations operating in the State which have known links to international criminals, including Irish nationals based abroad. It co-operates on an ongoing basis with the Customs and Excise Service of the Revenue Commissioners in the proactive investigation of persons suspected of being involved in international drug-trafficking.

In addition, the Garda works closely with Customs and Excise and the Naval Service under the umbrella of the joint drugs task force. It exchanges strategic and operational intelligence with other law enforcement agencies, including Interpol and Europol, in accordance with legislation and operational protocols. It assists international law enforcement agencies which are conducting investigations with suspected involvement by Irish nationals, through the mutual assistance agreement in criminal matters. Our involvement in the establishment and operation of the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre, based in Lisbon, Portugal, is a good example of this international co-operation in practice.

The Garda national drug unit is responsible for targeting networks involved in the sale and distribution of illegal drugs. A dedicated section in the unit has been established to liaise with the Criminal Assets Bureau to target in particular those criminals and criminal groupings believed to be deriving profits and assets from drug-related criminal activity.

At local level divisional and district drug units have been established with the specific remit of targeting individuals engaged in the sale and distribution of drugs to local communities. These units are supported by local Garda resources as well as the national unit. This integrated approach adopts best practice in implementing a co-ordinated use of Garda resources and using available criminal legislation to its fullest extent. Operations are reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure their effectiveness. In addition to these specific initiatives, all members of the Garda have responsibility to enforce the criminal law, including relevant drug trafficking legislation. The situation is being closely monitored and kept under constant review by senior Garda management in conjunction with regional assistant commissioners and heads of units.

An Garda Síochána also maintains close liaison with other law enforcement agencies across Europe and elsewhere, exchanging information and intelligence, which has led to several successful joint operations. An Garda Síochána has several liaison officers on secondment to other jurisdictions and to other international bodies such as Interpol and Europol. Through these officers, information is passed between law enforcement agencies to ensure national borders are not, and cannot, be used by criminals as a means of frustrating law enforcement agencies.

It is the duty of every member of An Garda Síochána to enforce legislation, including drug-related legislation. All Garda resources, therefore, can be utilised in specific operations to target drug criminality. Through such a strategy which includes ongoing specific initiatives and intelligence-led operations, the Garda continues to seize substantial quantities of illegal drugs and identify those involved in the importation, distribution, sale and supply of illegal drugs. As a result, drug seizures of a total value of over €168 million were made in 2007 and just under €200 million in 2008.

An Garda Síochána is satisfied that, in addition to this considerable volume of drugs seized in past two years and again this year to date, there has been a significant impact on drug trafficking by the arrest and prosecution of several major players involved and the activities of crime gangs have been disrupted, resulting in several crime groupings being dismantled. However, there is no room for complacency and our drug law enforcement efforts will continue to be vigorously pursued.

Robust legislation is already in place to fight gangland crime. We have made substantial changes to our criminal laws in recent years, many of which are targeted at the fight against gangland crime. The Criminal Justice Acts 2006 and 2007 introduced wide-ranging reforms to strengthen the capacity of the Garda to tackle serious crime. One of the most far-reaching has been the introduction of seven-day detention for offences connected with organised crime, such as murder or kidnapping involving the use of a firearm.

The intimidation of witnesses is an offence pursuant to section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999, which specifies the offence as harming, threatening or menacing or in any other way intimidating or putting in fear another person who is assisting in the investigation of an offence by An Garda Síochána, with the intention of causing the investigation or course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with. The offence is punishable on indictment by a fine or a term of imprisonment of up to ten years. We are examining increasing this penalty.

Since 1997, An Garda Síochána has operated a witness security programme in response to attempts by criminal and other groups to prevent the normal functioning of the criminal justice system, including threats of violence and systematic witness intimidation. Legislation was not required to establish this programme but its operation is supported by section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999, which makes it an offence for any person, without lawful authority, to try to identify the whereabouts or any new identity of a witness who has been relocated under the programme. The offence is punishable on indictment by a fine or a term of imprisonment of up to five years.

An Garda Síochána rigorously enforces the provisions in the law relating to witness intimidation and protection. In circumstances where the senior investigation officer in a case has identified a witness who is crucial to the case and the evidence to be preferred is not available elsewhere, and there is a serious threat to the life of the witness or his or her family, an application can be made, with the consent of the witness, to have him or her included in the programme. Where a threat to or intimidation of a witness or a potential witness arises during the course of criminal proceedings, the matter may be addressed through the trial judge who has discretion to revoke bail or place other sanctions on the accused or suspect.

Our bail laws have been strengthened to allow the prosecution to mount a more effective challenge to bail applications. For example, applicants for bail can be required to provide a statement of their means so the prosecution can highlight any divergence between their lifestyles and their stated means as evidence of their involvement in gangland activity. The circumstances in which inferences may be drawn at trial from a suspect's silence in response to Garda questioning have also been expanded. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will continue to press forward with this work in strengthening the criminal law.

Since his appointment, the Minister has expressed concern at the number of handguns which have been licensed here in recent years. Some time ago, the Minister directed the Department and An Garda Síochána to carry out an urgent and intensive review of the firearms law. Following this, he has brought forward proposals for strengthening the law. These include no new licenses being issued for handguns, subject to limited exceptions in Olympic sports. Existing licenses will not be renewed unless applicants fully meet the requirements of a radically tightened licensing procedure where the safety of the community will be paramount. While a de facto ban on new handgun licences is already in place, the Minister's proposals will also be given legislative form in the criminal justice miscellaneous provisions Bill.

The Minister's proposals for the criminal procedure Bill are also well advanced. While the Bill will be primarily aimed at giving effect to the legislative aspects of the justice for victims initiative, which the Minister announced last June, some elements of it will be of considerable benefit in our fight against serious crime. In particular, the Minister is considering a proposal that will enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to seek a re-trial where an acquittal is tainted due, for example, to intimidation of witnesses or jurors. There will also be a provision on expert evidence to ensure the prosecution is given adequate opportunity to examine and challenge evidence being introduced by the defence. In other words, there will be a levelling of the pitch. The Minister expects to be in a position to seek Cabinet approval for the publication of the Bill presently.

Work is also ongoing in the creation of a DNA database for criminal investigation purposes. Such a database will greatly enhance the intelligence available to the Garda in the investigation of crime. The Minister expects to be in a position to publish legislation in this area by the summer.

While significant legislative changes have been made in recent years and significant operational resources and initiatives put in place, we must constantly monitor the resources, both legislative and operational, at the disposal of the State to fight this type of criminality. Those engaged in such activities are constantly changing their mode of operation. It is incumbent on us to anticipate and respond appropriately and effectively. The Minister is consequently working on a range of measures to combat gangland crime. The Minister published the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009 on 17 April and it began its passage through the Oireachtas yesterday. It is a mark of the importance of the measure that the debate in the Oireachtas commenced so soon after the Bill's publication. Senators will discuss the Bill in due course, but I would like to say a few words about it.

The Bill's primary purpose is simple. It is to facilitate the use in evidence in criminal proceedings of material gained by secret surveillance while ensuring that the encroachment on certain rights relating to personal privacy and privacy of property, particularly a dwelling, which this entails is both limited and proportionate. The Bill provides for the first time a basis in law for secret surveillance by the organs of the State concerned, principally the Garda Síochána in its role as the primary law enforcement and security agency of the State. The Defence Forces are included because of their parallel responsibilities in protecting the security of the State and the Revenue Commissioners are also included as they have a front-line role in guarding against the illegal importation of drugs and firearms. It is easy to see how the interests of these agencies may coincide, for instance in the case of joint operations by the Garda and Revenue to target money laundering and tax evasion, which is a key element in the fight against organised crime.

The Bill sets out the rules that will apply to the admissibility of that evidence. It is generally accepted there are some circumstances in which the State in a democratic society may in the common interest exercise special powers denied to ordinary citizens. The right to privacy is a case in point as it may be interfered with in certain circumstances and subject to safeguards. Another rights-related issue is that which deals with the right to a fair trial and the associated evidential issues such as admissibility and disclosure of evidence. In dealing with these matters, the Bill takes into account the principles of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bill seeks to strike the correct balance between the competing interests of privacy and due process on the one hand and the protection of persons and the prevention of crime on the other. Until now the Garda has been reluctant to use this evidence in court, mainly for legal and operational reasons, but that policy has changed. In the Garda Commissioner's opinion, the changing nature of crime and particularly the growth of organised and ruthless gangs requires the security response to be stepped up. In addition, as I mentioned, the threats to society and to the integrity and effectiveness of the criminal justice system itself that these gangs pose, particularly the attacks on ordinary people going about their daily lives, require a corresponding robust legal response.

The use of sophisticated surveillance devices is now an essential tool in the fight against serious crime in many jurisdictions throughout the world. It provides tactical and strategic information for the agencies concerned in their respective fields of operation and for effective cross-agency co-operation as required. It delivers real-time intelligence on the plans and actions of criminals, subversives, terrorists and other sources, which allows the agencies to disrupt their plans and frustrate their actions. It can identify the perpetrators and facilitate their arrest and it can reveal the existence of new sources from which a broader understanding of the threat from criminals and others can be assessed and preventive strategies developed accordingly. The use of secret surveillance after a crime has been committed can lead to the arrest of the perpetrators and assist with the direct recovery of any proceeds and the unravelling of any related money laundering operations. Crucially, surveillance can prevent loss of life. It is of inestimable value in dealing with ransom cases and crimes of revenge and retribution within the criminal community.

The Bill represents a significant advance in the process of bringing those involved in serious criminal activity to justice and it demonstrates the Government's ongoing commitment to the fight against crime and the safety of citizens. It adds to the measures already introduced by the Criminal Justice Acts 2006 and 2007 in dealing with the prosecution of gangland crime. It provides an appropriate and, more important, a proportionate balance between the competing demands of protecting people's rights to privacy and ensuring we live in a society safe from the threats of crime and terrorism. The Bill respects our obligations under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights while ensuring that effective mechanisms are in place to support the Garda and other agencies in carrying out their work.

Given the continuing serious problems with tackling organised crime gangs and their increasing attempts to undermine the criminal justice system through extreme acts of violence and intimidation against witnesses and ordinary citizens, the Minister is working in consultation with the Attorney General on the introduction of further measures to tackle such gangs. As I said, the information and assistance the public make available to the Garda remains invaluable in ensuring those who engage in criminal activities can be brought before the courts to answer for their actions. Anything that would reduce that assistance is a matter of concern. The gangs are also aware of that, so they have on occasion engaged in intimidation of witnesses and jurors. In light of this ongoing intimidation, the Minister is considering making the powers to combat subversive organisations applicable also to criminal gangs. This would mean that certain crimes involving criminal gangs would be scheduled offences for the purposes of the Offences Against the State Act so they will be tried in the Special Criminal Court unless the DPP directs otherwise.

The Minister is also considering introducing several new organised crime offences with maximum prison sentences of 15 years to life. Under consideration are the creation of new offences of membership of a criminal organisation and directing a criminal organisation and making those offences scheduled offences as regards the Special Criminal Court; simplifying the procedures for extension of time for questioning of suspects; and increasing the penalties for intimidation of a witness or juror. Senators will appreciate that complex legal and constitutional issues are involved in these proposals. The Minister is therefore in close consultation with the Attorney General and will of course take his advice into account before finalising the proposals.

There is no doubt that the scourge of gangland crime is a real concern for the Government, the Minister and An Garda Síochána. As I have outlined, significant efforts are made daily to tackle this problem. The Minister asked me this morning to assure the House that he will continue to make the fight against crime a priority. The substantial changes we have made to our criminal laws in recent years, together with the proposed changes I have outlined, will complement the excellent work that An Garda Síochána carries out daily. I assure the House that the State will continue to be relentless in its approach to bringing those involved in such activities to justice and will adjust that approach as necessary in the light of the evolving challenges.

I thank Senators for their forbearance.

We are assured that everything is in order, that the legislative framework is in place and the resources are available to combat criminal activity and, in particular, organised crime gangs. However, the House has had that assurance many times. There are no results on the ground to substantiate the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's ongoing claim. If we look back to 1997, elections were won on the principle of zero tolerance. It is a bit like the role of economic management in the most recent election. However, if we examine the period since then, there have been 140 gangland murders but only 14 convictions. In 2008 there were 106 incidents in Dublin alone involving grenades, pipe bombs and other improvised devices. That represents a 340% increase in just one year. There have been 171 gun murders in the State in the past 11 years but only 22 convictions. The record of detection and particularly prosecution of gangland crime has been appalling. The criminal gangs clearly have the technology, the equipment and the organisation. The State has not given the Garda and the forces of law and order the resources to combat this scourge, nor have they been given a legislative framework within which they can operate effectively to combat, detect and prosecute these heinous crimes. The facts speak for themselves. The Government has failed to destroy criminal gangs or secure prosecutions. There is no strategy. If there is a strategy, after every new murder of this type or other tragedy the usual announcement is that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has a meeting with the Garda Commissioner. That seems to be the standard response.

The Government has failed to combat the activities of criminal gangs not only outside prisons, but also when they are inside prison. While some corrective action has been taken to address the prevalence of mobile phones, all the evidence suggests that these hardened criminals can continue to run their businesses from behind prison walls. It is true to say that there was an attitude to gangland crime that did not make it a priority for the Government. The attitude was that as long as they were killing each other, who the hell cared. The problem about that as we have seen in many cases in the recent past is that innocent people get caught up in the crossfire and then we have some reaction to the situation.

On a number of occasions we initiated legislation in this House and in the Dáil — Fine Gael has initiated legislation such as the Criminal Justice (Violent Crime Prevention) Bill 2008. I introduced a Bill here in the Seanad entitled the Criminal Law (Admissibility of Evidence) Bill 2008 — and they were all shot down by the Government. Everything was in place. The Criminal Justice Acts 2006 and 2007 were adequate and provided the necessary basis for hitting back at criminal activity and organised crime, and yet some of the provisions of those Acts have not been activated or implemented, including electronic tagging. Recently even the Taoiseach questioned whether the provisions regarding gang membership would be constitutional.

The Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, mentioned the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009 that was recently initiated by the Minister. Fine Gael has called for such a Bill for some time. We welcome its introduction. It is of fundamental importance to the detection of crime, particularly in cases where witnesses are being intimidated. To have direct evidence of this nature, which could be admitted in court in the prosecution of gangland crime, is of fundamental importance. However, if the resources are not provided for the three main law enforcement agencies involved, the Garda Síochána, Customs and Excise, and Revenue, the Bill will not produce the results. It is good that Revenue has been added as an organisation that can utilise the provisions of the Bill. At present under the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 only the Garda and the Defence Forces can do so. That is a welcome development. The fact that the law enforcement authorities have not been able to use evidence in court in the prosecution of crime has been a major hindrance in prosecutions. This is a welcome development albeit coming with undue delay.

There is an aspect of the Bill that demonstrates the lack of co-operation on legislation in these Houses. Anything suggested by the Opposition is automatically shot down. I refer back to the Bill I introduced, the Criminal Law (Admissibility of Evidence) Bill, which provided for the admissibility of evidence in circumstances where it may have been illegally obtained. The Bill provided considerations that could be taken into account by a court in admitting evidence, including: whether the obtaining of the evidence was a result of a mere mistake, accident or oversight; whether the breach was serious or merely technical in nature; the seriousness of the crime which the accused is alleged to have committed; whether there were extraordinary excusing circumstances; and the effect on the administration of justice. The considerations for admitting evidence in the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill included whether the error or omission concerned was serious or merely technical in nature; the nature of any right infringed by the obtaining of the information or document concerned; whether there were circumstances of urgency etc. The idea in the Bill we proposed in this House and indeed some of the language has been adopted. I am happy that aspects of the Bill that I initiated here have been plagiarised by the Minister. However, if we are to work together on these types of problems there should be a sharing of ideas.

Having said that, I welcome the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill. It is important that the resources are put in place to ensure that its provisions are effectively implemented. The national surveillance unit that is to operate the tapping and bugging operations will need to be resourced. The resources for the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions need to be provided. If the Bill is to be successful there will be more work for that office. To have a cutback in this area does not reflect that the combating of gangland crime and criminal activity of this nature is a priority for the Government.

The Minister of State touched on the legislation to provide for a DNA database. Such legislation, which is fundamental to improving the conviction rate for the most serious of crimes, was supposed to have been available before the end of 2008. I now notice that there is a new deadline of the summer. In his speech the Minister of State said that the Minister is working on this legislation and thinking about it. When there is a commitment to legislation of this nature, which is of such fundamental importance and which we are implementing in co-operation with other European Union member states, the Minister should just get on with it.

I mentioned the Criminal Justice (Violent Crime Prevention) Bill 2008 presented by my colleague, Deputy Charles Flanagan, in the Dáil, which contained our suggestions for improving the legislative framework for combating organised crime. Again it was rejected by the Government. However, the Minister might have regard to some of the proposals in that Bill. If he wished to implement them, we would welcome that and would support any initiatives in that regard.

Regarding Garda resources, the technology of criminals is very sophisticated. However, the Garda's communication technology is such that, given its radio system, more eavesdropping is done on the Garda than on criminals. Rolling out the Garda's digital radio system is important. Perhaps the Minister of State can clarify the position.

The Minister of State mentioned how the number of gardaí has increased in recent years. Recognising our problem with criminal activity, to suggest that garda numbers would stand still would be a step backwards in terms of the resources available for the detection and prosecution of crime. There must be adequate garda numbers if they are to carry out their current duties as well as the increased surveillance duties and so on mandated by this legislation.

The Minister of State referred to special operations and units. Operation Anvil has a budgetary allocation this year of €21 million. While the operation has gone nationwide, a recent "Prime Time" programme highlighted the fact that it has run down in certain areas that are the focus of criminal gangs and criminal activity. Given its allocation, there is no higher capacity within the Garda Síochána to implement it and to combat the most serious forms of gangland crime.

I will discuss drugs, to which the Minister of State referred. In recent years, the amount of drugs that have entered the country by the south-west coast is extraordinary. In 1996, cocaine valued at £120 million was found on a boat in Cork Harbour. In 1998, cocaine valued at £61 million was found during a search in Kinsale. In July 2007, cocaine valued at €440 million was found in Dunlough Bay in west County Cork after a boat capsized. A short while ago, a yacht was traced to a position 200 miles off the south-west coast as part of a joint EU task force. It was carrying cocaine valued at an estimated €500 million.

We cannot tackle this problem on our own. The recommendations at European level for a police border force were shot down by the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The only way to succeed in significantly curtailing the flow of drugs into the country and through it to the rest of Europe is through co-operating with other European law enforcement agencies. This requires a co-ordinated and integrated response. It would be in Ireland's interest to taking the initiative in promoting an integrated approach to combating the flow of drugs into the EU. Given Ireland's location and its use as an entry point, we have a national interest in securing EU support. Customs and Excise and the Garda have done fantastic work in detecting the landings to which I have referred, but I imagine that these only constitute a sample of the volume of drugs entering the country.

I welcome the Minister's surveillance Bill and the fact that other measures, such as those outlined by the Minister of State, are being contemplated. This side of the House will give its full support to measures that will strengthen the legislative base, thereby enabling the Garda, Customs and Excise and Revenue to deal with the different forms of gangland crime, an issue that has become more complex, sophisticated and dangerous. I thank the Minister of State for attending.

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit. Gabhaim comhghairdeas leis as ucht bheith athcheaptha ag an Rialtas. Tá an onóir sin tuillte aige. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go maith leis sna blianta atá amach romhainn. I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on his re-appointment. He brings to his office a practical mind honed on good local government experience.

Senator Regan should try to resist being proprietorial about parties' policies.

That is a bit rich.

This issue poses a serious challenge. If someone comes from the Blueshirt wing of a party, he or she obviously would feel proprietorial about security issues.

This is silly stuff.

The Minister of State has clearly pointed out the growth in the number of organised and ruthless crimes and the need to step up our security in response. We have recent and unfortunate experience of the threat posed by gangs to society and to the integrity and effectiveness of the criminal judicial system.

Unlike Senator Regan, I believe that much has been done in recent years. The number of gardaí has increased from 11,000 during my earliest debates in the Seanad to in excess of 14,000. The Garda reserve force has also been introduced, although that process may be moving more slowly than we would have liked. When a previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform introduced it, it received much support in the Houses because it would release gardaí from mundane duties to tackle serious crime.

Organised criminal gangs around the world have become sophisticated. As a consequence, there has been an increase in the co-operation between various jurisdictions' police authorities. This is essential if we are to combat the crimes committed by those who have no inhibitions about crossing frontiers.

Drugs comprise a significant factor in the growth of crime worldwide. Various states have taken strong initiatives, but none has overcome the difficulties. I share the opinion that, to some extent, we are merely trying to match or contain crime.

The Minister of State alluded to Operation Anvil, which has enjoyed significant success. However, while the figure of €200 million in seizures certainly is high, it probably only constitutes a fraction of the value of the annual market for drugs, which in Ireland is an industry that is worth well in excess of €1 billion per year. This of course will entice people into crime and the drugs trafficking trade. As a consequence, the incentive for such people to participate in that business and to be absolutely ruthless in controlling their market areas must be matched with an equally committed and absolutely unwavering fight by the State against those involved in this trade. This is not easy because so doing has led to much introduction of and change in legislation. The Minister of State has outlined a number of initiatives that will come before the House in the next few months.

Whenever Members have such debates, some raise issues with regard to civil liberties infringements and so on. This point must be kept in mind because balance must be achieved in this regard. However, the judicial pendulum must tend to lean more towards the protection of society than towards the rights of such serious criminals in particular, who have no respect for the rights of anyone else. Some of the aforementioned initiatives have taken place against the backdrop of serious and high profile crimes and murders in this State. The obvious example is the introduction of the Criminal Assets Bureau on foot of the horrendous murder of Veronica Guerin. While I can be highly critical of some issues pertaining to the media, I extol the fact that they are very much part of our democratic process and therefore must be so perceived and protected. Moreover, individual citizens also have such a right to be protected by the State. The Criminal Assets Bureau has been extremely successful and interestingly, representatives from other jurisdictions have come to investigate the operation of the Criminal Assets Bureau in Ireland and have introduced similar provision within their own jurisdictions.

In the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in 1998, provisions were made to tackle subversive crime in Ireland that were regarded as draconian at the time. That was in response to people's great abhorrence of the killing of so many innocent people in that bombing. Measures pertaining to the right to silence certainly were introduced and allowing judges to make an inference and enabling superintendents to give evidence to which the courts were obliged to give regard were positive steps. Members have begun to recognise that the threat posed to society and the State from those who are involved in serious criminal activity and criminal gangs is at least comparable.

One measure that has been introduced in the intervening period and to which the Minister of State referred is the witness security programme, whereby families and witnesses are relocated, identities are changed and financial aid is forthcoming. It appears that for whatever reason, this measure is not used as widely as Members had anticipated at the time. It does not appear to have been as effective a tool as was thought initially. In previous debates, it has been suggested that this is because people do not wish to be relocated or to go abroad and be completely separated from relatives, friends and the like. Moreover, those involved do not welcome the lifestyle change and this may be an inhibiting factor. However, whatever measures are taken must ensure the protection of witnesses and any intimidation of witnesses at whatever level must be tackled with the most vigorous efforts and with all the resources of the State. A sad instance in this regard was the recent murder of Roy Collins in Limerick. However, it followed other murders, such as that of Shane Geoghegan and of Brian Fitzgerald a number of years ago. The latter case probably did not receive the same profile as the murder of Veronica Guerin. He was a man who performed security duty, in the course of which he prohibited some gangs from selling drugs in the premises for which he had security responsibility, and they cold-bloodedly murdered him.

Apprehensions have arisen with regard to some of the murders that have taken place and I share Senator Regan's concern that only a small number of those who have committed such murders or assassinations have been brought before the courts. However, I also recognise that it is extremely difficult to so do. Such gangs are highly professional operations with significant financial resources at their disposal and are completely ruthless in the manner in which they apply such resources. In this regard, I welcome the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009 to which the Minister of State referred. Any initiative that has been taken regarding subversive crime also should be applied in this respect and the Government now appears to be going down that route. The record will show that I advocated so doing in the past. It is only right that such evidence as may be acquired through secret surveillance methods can be used. I am aware of reservations on the part of the Garda. While Members will have the opportunity to debate this Bill, it contains certain precautions, such as the requirement for authorisation by a District Court judge and the fact that such authorisation must be renewed after three months. Moreover, it will be subject to a judicial review, to be carried out by a High Court judge, and I understand the report will be laid before these Houses.

Like Senator Regan, I would greatly welcome the introduction of the Bill to establish a DNA database that is in preparation because use of DNA has proved to be useful in the detection of crime. A number of issues arise in this regard. Obviously one must have in place the legislative framework but one also must have in place resources that are equipped and honed to meet the challenges of such sophisticated groups and operations, bring them before the courts and be able to prosecute them effectively through the courts. Anything that Members can do by way of legislation would be done willingly by practically everyone in the Houses.

One subject that has not yet been mentioned and that I have raised previously concerns the infiltration of gangs by the Garda. I do not know the extent to which this happens and I understand the need for secrecy and absolute confidentiality in this regard. However, from following some of the cases through the courts, my perception is that such infiltration is not used as widely here as it might be. My second reason for making this point is that I have seen no attempt in Ireland to move in the direction of the Canadian model. The Canadians legislated to grant immunity from prosecution to undercover police operations, except in cases in which those involved may have been involved in murder or sexual offences. I wish to expound on the Canadian model a little further. I met the group responsible for public safety and emergency in Canada a number of years ago and the Canadians amended the criminal code in 1997 to acknowledge crimes committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organisation. In January 2002, organised crime legislation made participation in a criminal organisation an offence and expanded this provision to anyone who knowingly becomes involved in activities that further an organisation's criminal objectives. They also simplified the definition of criminal organisation and reduced the number of people required to constitute a criminal organisation from five to three. These were effective measures taken by the Canadian State. Some of the success that country has had should be examined. Apart from responding to high profile crimes it is important to keep ourselves au fait with what is happening in other jurisdictions where effective initiatives are being taken, which we could replicate. I wish the Minister well in his efforts. I look forward to the two items of legislation, which will be a significant addition to the armoury of combatting crime in this country.

I am a welcoming person and I welcome the changing of the guard, noting that there is a different Minister of State in the Chamber. I welcome the support of my colleague, Senator Ivana Bacik, with whom I will share time.

This is a serious situation, particularly with regard to violent organised crime involving firearms. I am now boasting of my age, almost 65 years. When I was younger there was no such thing as organised crime in this country. Gun crime was virtually unknown and comparatively small crimes were headline news. We went to the cinema to see the mob in Chicago but it did not appear to exist in our community. There was less violence.

I am not sure how it happened. Partly, it is our culture. There may not have been a mob but there was a culture of violence. It was embedded in the songs sung, glorifying violence, murder and explosion. That was part of our background. The IRA softened people up to the idea of violence through its campaigns, particularly in recent years. I listened to a reporter in Limerick on RTE, who interviewed a man who was limping because he had been shot. The precise method by which he was shot, through the back of the knee, was used by both sides in the north of Ireland. There is political currency there. I remember warning that if we did not manage the transition from violent events to a more democratic situation, we ran the risk of creating a mob situation, which we now have. There is a direct relationship.

The recent cases in Limerick are extraordinarily worrying. The catalyst for this appalling violence appears so trivial. The refusal to admit a young girl to a pub because she was under age and not in a position to produce evidence of her age was treated by the criminal fraternity as a capital offence for which someone was sentenced to death. That is absurd and a previous case was similarly trivial but people were hired to murder on the basis of this tiny provocation that escalated like a 16th century Italian vendetta.

The ages of some of the murderers and gun toters are 14, 15 or younger. Where does this come from and in what manner have these people been desensitised? The conditions of poverty and squalor in which these people live and the areas where this takes place are limited and easily definable. This is part of the reason. I never thought I would say the following because I remember speaking on the Video Recordings Bill where I was so much in favour of freedom of speech. People are acclimatised to horrendous violence by violent video games. This must be examined again.

There are absurd effects of this. I do not want to be bloodthirsty but I recall the phrase in the Bible that those who live by the sword die by the sword. The case of the man who blew his head off while showing an accomplice how to murder somebody is absurd to the point of laughability. My mother's favourite joke was a cartoon of a man who lost his index finger who was explaining to his workmate how it happened and the other four fingers were flying up in the air. It happened because the man was so stupid. One regrets every death but if anyone asks for it, it is someone from a gang. It shows they are not quite as clever as they thought they were. We must use these circumstances quite callously to illustrate the lack of intelligence. These people are admired and have promoted themselves. Consider the insensitive way a young female member of one of these gangs discussed on the Internet her favourite gun, among other fashion accessories. That is a deliberate provocation of society.

The Minister of State referred to the CAB and Senator Walsh approvingly referred to how other countries have admired it. I hope they knew it was Tony Gregory who suggested it and I who supported him in this House. The Government was not the slightest bit interested at that stage so there is no point in the Government taking credit for it now. Let the credit reside where it belongs, with the late Deputy Tony Gregory, who pointed out there was no co-ordination between the inland revenue, the social services and the Garda Síochána, and who consistently made the plea for co-ordination.

There is a relationship between drugs and guns. Frequently, guns come in as part of the drugs shipment for a variety of reasons. We are vulnerable to drugs because of our island geography. It is extremely difficult to police this area, even with European assistance. We were very foolish to allow ourselves, in an unsophisticated way, to be set up for this. One of the ways we did this was by ignoring heroin, despite what people like Tony Gregory were saying. We concentrated on cannabis, a recreational drug, which was a stupid diversion from the real target. They should have considered legalising cannabis.

The Minister of State, in his speech, mentioned Mr. Collins. I saw his father on television and I salute him and his family. It was immensely moving to see his grief and hear that, even though he knew that the same might happen again and he might lose a son, he would still do it because these people must be stopped. We need not look for support from the people; while we have magnificent, courageous, decent people like that in Limerick, we have the support of the people and must build on it. I honour and salute that extraordinary man.

The figures in the Minister of State's speech are a complete waste of time and are utter garbage. I remember being in the House when Michael McDowell produced the same figures. The Fianna Fáil Members analysed the figures and argued that the only reason an increase could be shown was because the figures took this or that starting point. They are not impressing anyone with that. We need to know not whether there was a percentage increase between 1997 and today but whether there are enough gardaí concentrated in the areas where they are necessary. There is a clearly demonstrable correlation between the numbers of gardaí and a drop in crime. The Minister of State should not try to fob us off with massaged figures that impress nobody.

I was interested in what the Minister of State said about trained asset profilers. I would have liked some more information on this as it was not explained, meaning it was just a phrase. I assume it means that people are professionally trained to detect, for example, if there is a sudden efflorescence of luxury in a working class estate, a Lamborghini is parked outside a door or people appear outside the front door looking extraordinarily tanned after a period of poor weather conditions and so on. I presume such people find anomalies and are able to profile and track people who could not afford items such as houses, boats or holidays on the social welfare they claim, for example. Can we have more information about what is involved?

There is the question of witness protection, which is very important. Can a programme be achieved and are there resources to do it? There should also be protection for gardaí and I ask the Minister to introduce special penalties for those who attack the emergency services.

Is there a proper register for handguns and is it updated regularly? May a person with a criminal record ever have a handgun? They should not be allowed to have one. With regard to the use of surveillance evidence, how would this be gained? How would long-distance voice recording be proven, for example, and is there a form of voice profiling? Mobile phone tracing has been useful in the past.

There is a clear need with regard to definition, for example, of members of a criminal organisation. Previously, there had been great difficulties in defining "gang" and the process came unstuck with that before. Will the Minister of State reassure the House that we have an appropriate definition of criminal organisation? How is that defined and how can people be deterred or prosecuted for that?

I thank Senator Norris for sharing his time with me and I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I echo the words of Senator Norris in expressing sincere sympathy for the families of Roy Collins and, before that, Shane Geoghegan. Those two people in particular have in recent months come to symbolise the real problem that so many communities, not just in Limerick but around Ireland, particularly in inner-city areas, face with so-called gangland crime.

With regard to the language, the term "gangland crime" is an unfortunate term and, like the term "joyriding", it does not get across the serious, very sordid and damaging nature of this crime to communities. It is a somewhat sensationalising word to use which has echoes of the streets of Chicago in the 1920s and so on. It is perhaps better to speak of organised crime rather than gangland crime. That is not strictly accurate either because the term comes from the US and a criminal context where there are very organised so-called street gangs. In Ireland we see a different sort of structure within the organised crime world, with some examples based on family allegiance and others based on commercial ties, drug running etc.

We must be conscious in any debate like this that the majority of crime is not of an organised nature; most crime is committed in a much less organised way. As the Garda has indicated on many occasions, a great deal of crime, particularly inner-city crime against property, is committed by people addicted to heroin. There are very different methods to tackle that sort of crime. I am glad to say that for some time the official policy has been to encourage more people who are addicted to heroin on to methadone maintenance programmes and there has also been a pilot drug court, which has been a good initiative showing great potential. Will the Minister of State give a commitment to rolling out the drug court further as this is an obvious way of trying to remove from the system a large core of people who will become persistent offenders?

Research has been done to show that the drops in property crime throughout the 1990s could be linked to an increased Government commitment to putting funding into methadone maintenance programmes and we must be conscious of different methods used to tackle forms of crime other than the so-called gangland or organised crime.

There is a particular problem for the Garda in prosecuting gangland crime with regard to gathering information, evidence and having witnesses willing and able to come forward. We should all pay tribute to the very brave individuals who have come forward over the years and enabled prosecutions to be taken against persons engaged in organised crime. As gangland crime is organised, there is potential to organise intimidation of witnesses and jurors, although we have not seen that in Ireland. We have seen serious and worrying cases of witness intimidation and that is where our legislative response must keep its focus.

I welcome two initiatives in particular, including that which allows statements of witnesses to be used in court as evidence even where the witness has been intimidated or is no longer able to come into court to give evidence in person. Subject to safeguards, particularly where the evidence is videotaped, it is a welcome change to the rule of evidence. I also welcome the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009 which is on Second Stage in the other House, given that all of us, particularly those of us working in the courts, know that the Garda already operates surveillance measures and uses covert methods to gain information. Anybody who has been in criminal courts will be aware of the formula gardaí use where, on the basis of confidential information available to them, they went to a certain house and arrested a certain suspect. We know such information is obtained through covert surveillance and gardaí may not want to reveal how information was obtained in all cases. It would be useful and important that where judicial authorisation is obtained, such information may now become admissible evidence in courts. I stress the need for safeguards and to ensure that the constitutional rights of privacy and inviolability of the dwelling are protected. We have seen a large body of case law built up over the years on search warrants and the courts have held a line against undue encroachments on those rights, which is important.

We cannot lose sight of other means which have been adopted to try to tackle organised crime where it has been a specific feature of specific communities. It is important to welcome the regeneration project in Limerick, which I hope will bear fruit. That is a more long-term prospect. I also welcome changes in community policing and ask the Minister to guarantee that it will be one of our priorities. A Minister of State gave a speech earlier in which he spoke about increased Garda numbers but I saw nothing in the contribution about an increased commitment to community policing. To build trust in communities, community policing is the best way forward.

Some measures have already been introduced through the Criminal Justice Acts 2006 and 2007 and there are some proposals for the future apart from the electronic surveillance Bill. In the raft of legislation introduced in 2006 and 2007 we have seen sweeping new measures such as mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences, on top of those which have been passed for drugs offences, new definitions around organised crime and new offences in Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 where persons commit offences for the benefit of or in association with a criminal organisation.

Everyone acknowledges that the definition of criminal organisation is problematic. It is different to the organisation which is at issue in the Special Criminal Court where we have scheduled offences under the Offences Against the State Act. By their nature, these organisations are much less clearly defined so I urge caution on that.

I welcome the proposed DNA database, which is long overdue. The Minister will be aware of the Marper decision in the European Court of Human Rights which requires that DNA databases operate within particular parameters and that they cannot be too widely drawn or they will breach civil liberties. I generally welcome proposals to deal with the matter but warn against the widening of nets. With any measures introduced to deal with organised crime, the danger is that they will spill over to the ordinary and opportunistic crime and thereby encroach unduly on civil liberty.

As Senator Bacik stated, the context and even the language of this debate is very important. The term "gangland crime" lends itself to what some might see as a glamorised or romanticised vision of desperadoes taking on an establishment. The reality is that these elements in society, outside their use of arms, have intimidation as their chief weapon in enforcing their will on reluctant individuals and communities when they threaten to hurt, maim or even kill. The fact they have done so means that society is faced with a problem with which it must deal.

The Minister of State referred directly to events that occurred in Limerick city. This is the most unfortunate aspect of the type of crimes we are discussing. The overwhelming majority of people in Limerick have nothing to do with the crimes that are being perpetrated there, the number of individuals involved in committing these crimes is pitifully small and the communities where they occur are geographically tiny. However, the activities of criminals in Limerick have cast a pall over the city and, as a result, it requires access to all the relevant resources of the State to overcome its problems.

The Minister of State referred to areas in which resources are being provided, highlighted proposed improvements to legislation and outlined further proposals to put in place appropriate legislative measures. I acknowledge Senator Regan's comments in that regard. Those in Opposition have played a constructive role in identifying how these problems should be defined and how we should frame our responses to them in legislative form. There will be much agreement among us in the context of how the problems to which I refer should be tackled.

Some of the crimes that have taken place include recent atrocities such as the deaths of Roy Collins and Shane Geoghegan. I welcome the fact that a process is in train in respect of the latter and we can only hope that this process will reach a successful conclusion. Neither the existence of legislation nor the provision of resources provide all the answers. In the context of the overall response to this issue, what is lacking is confidence among the people living in the communities to which I refer that the problems they are experiencing are being dealt with, that the intimidation they are forced to endure will become a thing of the past and that the substantial resources that have been allocated can be targeted in such a way that they will have the best possible effect. This is not a matter for political dispute, it is one which we must discuss and respond to in the way the people to whom I refer desire.

Many of the measures that are already in place go some way towards meeting the gaps in provision that previously existed. We are in a difficult legal and constitutional area in the context that we are dealing with individuals who have no regard for common rights and decencies. However, the State has a responsibility to ensure the rights of all its citizens are protected. We must ask how a balance can be struck between dealing with the individuals to whom I refer and protecting the rights of others. How can the State intervene to ensure the former can no longer engage in their invidious activities? Whether the balance to which I refer can be achieved depends on future circumstances.

There is a common belief that certain people who were suspected of the commission of crimes, who were charged and brought before the courts and who are still intimately involved in many of the negative activities that constitute gangland crime were able to avoid taking responsibility for their actions as a result of their use of intimidation. We have witnessed the collapse of particular court cases and we are aware that, in certain instances, justice was not served. This does not help in inspiring public confidence or ensuring a long-term solution to these difficulties might be identified.

When the relevant legislation comes to the House, we will have a better opportunity to deal with these various matters. I look forward to many Members having the opportunity to debate that legislation in detail. We must ask difficult questions of ourselves with regard to how we can strike a balance between maintaining the rights of all in our society and protecting those whose rights have been compromised by the type of nefarious activities in which criminals engage. If, as legislators, we are successful in that regard, we will be doing our job well. However, it will not be easy and a great deal of reflection and hard talking will have to be done by Members before we reach that stage.

I thank the Minister of State for his contribution. This debate provides Members with an opportunity to indicate what they believe needs to be done and to outline the improvements that must be made. In light of the way it is proceeding, I am confident that, within this Chamber at least, there is a common purpose with regard to how we should proceed and what we need to do to be successful in combating gangland crime.

I welcome the Minister of State. As the economic health of the country deteriorates, it is easy to forget there are many issues of real importance which have not gone away. Gangland crime and the gun culture are but two of those issues. It is great, therefore, that we are debating this matter today because some of the issues to which I refer require legislative attention. Senator Norris referred to growing up in the 1930s and 1940s when there was no gangland culture in this country. At the time, that culture only existed in places such as Chicago. Now, however, gangland crime is to be found in all our cities and in many of our towns.

I welcome the introduction of the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009, which could serve as a useful weapon for the Garda in its fight against gangland crime and criminals in general. Placing Garda surveillance rights on a lawful basis and allowing surveillance to be used as evidence in courts of law will remind the gangs and criminals who plague our society that we will not be intimidated by the increasingly brutal way in which they mete out what they consider to be gang justice. It is vital to send a message that regardless of who is in government, anyone who inflicts pain on law-abiding, decent people will be pursued and punished to the full extent of the law.

Measures such as those contained in the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009 will be of assistance but, more importantly, they will send a signal that where specific legislative measures or provisions are inadequate, the State will adapt and introduce tough legislation that will confer on the Garda the powers and resources necessary to address the reality of the situation with which we are faced.

I am concerned about some of the suggestions relating to the Bill. I refer, for example, to expanding the Special Criminal Court in an effort to counter witness intimidation. As the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, recently pointed out, an expansion of these powers is unnecessary and would make very little difference in tackling the problem of witness intimidation. I fully support the ICCL's assertion that while intelligence-led policing is welcome, human rights should be an integral element to our policymaking process.

I have stated previously that I favour a two-pronged approach in dealing with the broader issue of gangland and gun related crime. Such an approach must at once be tough but must also be soft in respect of certain issues, such as investing in individuals and communities that are at risk from gangs and organised crime. It is my view that in terms of concrete powers, considerable ground will have been gained by the end of the year. The reform of handgun licences, coupled with the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009, can assist in rebalancing the burden of fear from the innocent law-abiding member of society, back to the gangs, the criminals and the murderers.

It is difficult to speculate about or lend unqualified support to legislation relating to gang membership without seeing specific proposals. The drafting of such legislation requires time and at present we would merely be debating the issue in a vacuum. The Labour Party will not support dangerous and highly polarising initiatives that equate young people hanging around on street corners with hardened, dangerous criminals. Any legislation to deal with gang membership must be approached carefully and in a manner that does not criminalise some of the more transient and naive characteristics of youth.

When I spoke on gun crime recently, I emphasised the need to invest in the elite Garda units that have expertise in dealing with gun and gang-related crime. On Sunday, I read reports that commended the innovative work practices that are evolving at the crime and security section in the Phoenix Park. By all accounts, detectives and specialised gardaí are trained to a level that meets international standards and these developments are welcome. I was disappointed, however, to read this morning that plans to build a new Garda centre for training in firearms have been abandoned as part of cost-saving measures.

I was also disappointed that the Minister of State gave no commitment to put the witness protection programme on a statutory footing. Many Members of this House and of my party have been calling for this for some time. It has been supported by experts and would be a useful tool for gardaí so the programme should be reconsidered.

These harder measures will help but it is crucial that we follow up with soft power. Investment in communities and intervention in the lives of young people at risk of joining gangs or engaging in criminality are essential if we are serious about eradicating gangland crime into the future.

We also need to look at how we treat our prisoners. Currently our prisons are overcrowded and the situation is so bad that according to the Prison Officers Association, prisoners are now sleeping on mattresses in the reception area in Mountjoy Prison. Conditions such as these will not help rehabilitation and I worry that recidivism rates will rise.

Hard power must be used to neuter the abilities, means and resources of the current generation of gangs and criminals. Soft power — intervention, education, training, rehabilitation and the provision of hope — will provide the necessary follow through to dissuade future generations from choosing a life of criminality.

As I mentioned previously, it is crucial that we deploy resources, including early intervention strategies, towards high crime regions and areas with lower socio-economic demographics. While it is essential that we tackle and punish the perpetrators of crime, it is also our duty to show a generation of potential criminals that there is a better way of life.

There are some interesting examples of this approach in Britain at the moment. Last month, a charity based in Derby was given a £70,000 grant to help young people at risk of joining gangs by improving their access to jobs and training. Interestingly, the money came from the private sector — Lloyds TSB issued the three-year grant that will cover workshops, support classes and after-school development courses. Not everything has to come from the State, but the State can certainly provide leadership and incentive. Given how much money the taxpayer has now poured into our banks, it would be appropriate to see these kinds of schemes included in the small print of the recapitalisation deals.

We cannot tackle these problems in isolation and brute force alone simply will not work. A two-pronged strategy that builds trust, fosters hope and opportunity and provides a route away from crime, while also pursuing and punishing those who do choose that life, is the most effective way to save and intervene in these troubled communities.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about gangland crime. As previous speakers have mentioned, I do not think gangland crime is an appropriate term, it is organised crime.

It is never a good idea to single out one event that led to changes where we decided people deserve better protection from these thugs but I agree with Senator Norris that the reaction of Roy Collins's father on the death of his son was extraordinary. His courage and dignity were remarkable and we must protect such people. In spite of the loss of his son in such brutal circumstances he still insisted he had done the right thing and would not make any changes. It is incumbent on the authorities and the State to protect individuals who show courage like that. Their immense bravery should be supported.

Society will fall apart completely if we allow these thugs to parade around Limerick city and other areas. In news reports after that incident it was clear that the good people of Limerick have had enough so we must introduce changes and I welcome those the Minister is bringing forward, particularly in terms of surveillance measures to counter these people. They are a threat to society and the State and have the potential to cause communities to rot.

Thankfully most Members and officials of the Houses are not subject to the level of intimidation that some people must bear on a daily basis. In my constituency in Dún Laoghaire we frequently dealt with constituents' complaints of anti-social behaviour from lively kids or cars but there was never anything like what some communities are subjected to in terms of violence, drugs and guns. The power of these people to intimidate their communities through their swagger is most destructive. Gardaí are even reluctant to get involved sometimes so I welcome the new measures that will allow the State authorities to operate effectively against these criminals.

We must get real. I am a proud liberal but while basic human rights must be offered to every citizen, if that means we must have draconian measures in place, so be it. We have a good history in the use of laws and legislation when the State was under threat from paramilitary subversives. We have used and employed such legislation to good effect. When the Oireachtas and the Government concentrate, good legislation that protects the people is enacted. We have a good record in the area and we must employ all necessary tools to curtail the prevalence of gangland crime.

Senator Norris referred to peace in Northern Ireland and the idea that these thugs would be idle and would want to control areas through drugs and violence. It was noted that they would probably come down to the South to ply their trade. That is what they did. The Garda is aware that many paramilitaries got themselves involved in territorial battles, particularly in Dublin, whereby they own crime areas or control the supply of drugs to areas. That has had a detrimental effect. As Senator Norris pointed out, that might be why the level of organised crime really took off in the South.

I am glad the Minister is applying himself to introducing draconian measures to ensure that good, ordinary citizens are protected. The intimidation of witnesses is a particular problem and the Minister is introducing measures to safeguard the conduct of trials. If jurors are going to be intimidated and interfered with, we must dispense with the need for them. That worked successfully previously. We must be firm about this because these criminals must be tackled head-on if we are to be successful against them.

Senator Regan did not give gardaí much credit for the level of success they have achieved. That is somewhat unfair. I recall hearing a senior member of the Garda discussing the level of drug seizures. He said that gang members would pay a price as a consequence of these successes and, indeed, many of these gang members were murdered. That is why the incidence of murder has increased so much. The internecine strife between these gangs is such that if one is responsible or perceived to be responsible for having tipped off the Garda or having led the Garda to intercepting the delivery of a drug shipment, the price to be paid is one's life. It is a vicious community and must be shown up for what it is.

It is a worry that with increased unemployment, youngsters might be persuaded, due to the large amounts of money involved, to become involved in gang culture. One of the major weapons we have against that culture is very harsh laws. They must be applied rigorously to try to stop this conduct. However, many preventive measures can also be introduced in communities that are ravaged by drugs to help move people away from the gang culture. I look forward to discussing that in more detail when the legislation proposed by the Minister is before the House.

I welcome the Minister. I agree with most of what Senator O'Malley said. These thugs will have to be tackled head-on and the full rigours of the law must be put in place to tackle them. The gangland criminals are not just a threat to communities but also to the State and the institutions of the State. They must be treated accordingly.

I attended part of the Garda Representative Association conference in Killarney this week. I was heartened to hear the Garda Commissioner state that the Garda is to launch a new series of initiatives to tackle the murdering thugs in Limerick. That is to be welcomed. The Commissioner also stated that gardaí in Limerick are also being intimidated. One wonders what the country is coming to when gardaí are being intimidated. The Commissioner said they would not be deterred from doing their duty and that although these thugs are prepared to take on the State, the State will prevail eventually. In the meantime, however, communities are being torn asunder by these criminals, thugs and murderers.

As has been mentioned by a number of speakers, the threats to Stephen Collins less than two weeks after his son, Roy, had been shot dead are absolutely despicable. People throughout the country would compliment the man but they wonder what we can do. We should be doing more to protect such people and communities. That is the situation in Limerick. On the radio recently I heard about the ongoing situation in Dolphin House. The community was meeting to discuss anti-social behaviour and the serious damage that has been done to many cars in the area. In the course of the meeting there was a bomb scare, and a pipe bomb had to be defused. This type of incident is happening mainly in Limerick and Dublin but it is happening on a lesser scale in other counties. People are being threatened and intimidated.

Drugs are behind the situation in Dolphin House. It is understood there are four or five major criminals there and they have 15 to 20 runners. They intimidate people. Gardaí are present but when they go away the community is left with the problem. We must have regard for those people and make the punishment fit the crimes.

Senator O'Malley said that gangland crime should really be classified as organised crime. In its programme for Government the Government committed to taking two actions to tackle organised crime. The first is to introduce divestitures, which would require defendants to divest themselves of interests in tainted enterprises, impose restrictions on the future activities and investments of an individual, and order the dissolution or re-organisation of any enterprise. The second is a commitment to introduce trusteeships which would allow the courts to empower trustees to run organisations where they are infiltrated or controlled by criminal elements. There has been no progress whatsoever on both points.

Fine Gael welcomes the publication of the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill. We urge that it be implemented immediately. We have been calling for such a Bill for some time and we will certainly support its provisions, which we hope will make inroads into tackling gangland criminals. The conviction rate of just 12% in the 171 shootings that have taken place in the last 11 years emphasises the need for an urgent overhaul of the law. Covert surveillance legislation is essential in the fight against organised crime. The gardaí currently monitor criminals under targeted operations such as Operation Anvil but they cannot rely on the material they gather in a criminal trial. The Minister of State will agree that is an unsustainable position. We welcome the Minister's commitment to address the problem but we hope it is acted upon as a matter of urgency.

The Garda Reserve was mentioned. Currently, there are 322 reserve gardaí in place. That is slow progress, given that the initial target in March 2006 was that we would have the full strength of 4,000, with 900 in place by September 2006. Those targets have not been met and at this stage the Minister should forget about the Garda Reserve. It is not playing any part in the prevention of crime and helping gardaí. We need more gardaí rather than people in the Garda Reserve.

The witness protection programme was mentioned by a number of speakers. I do not know how effective the programme is but the Garda Commissioner conceded it was difficult to ask people to give evidence and relocate abroad. The former Garda Commissioner, Noel Conroy, said many people are simply too scared to give evidence against members of armed drug gangs and in recent weeks the Director of Public Prosecutions, James Hamilton, expressed his doubts about the programme, saying it was of limited use in tackling gangland crime because the demands on people entering it were fairly drastic. That comes back to the point Senator O'Malley made that if juries have to be taken out of the equation and we have to have special criminal courts without juries, let us do it. Whatever is necessary must be done to tackle crime of this nature.

Fine Gael has been calling for legislation to be expedited for the introduction of a DNA database for some time. The heads of the criminal justice (forensic sampling and evidence) Bill 2007 have been published but I understand the legislation has not been drafted yet. That Bill provides for a central database of DNA samples. DNA collection would be mandatory for suspects and people convicted of a crime and would be voluntary in the case of mass screenings. I am aware the Irish Human Rights Commission of Ireland has raised some concerns about the DNA database and called for further safeguards to be introduced when the Bill is published but those fears can be acted upon. When will that legislation come before the House because it is another tool in tackling organised crime and should be put in place as a matter of urgency?

The myriad loopholes at ports and small private airports must be addressed also. Currently, they are subject only to random, if not rare, customs visits and searches.

I could speak for much longer on this issue but we must act on behalf of the people in communities. They are depending on us to put the legislation in place but when the legislation is in place we want it acted upon to protect ordinary decent people in communities throughout the country.

There are two and a half minutes remaining. I understand Senator Burke wishes to contribute.

Yes. Are there two minutes remaining?

There are two and a half minutes left and then I must call the Minister of State.

I welcome the Minister of State. I cannot say much in two and a half minutes; I understood there was more time remaining.

One gets the impression at times that the Government is saying, "What can we do about this problem" but there is a great deal that can be done. The former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Nora Owen, brought in the legislation establishing the Criminal Assets Bureau. When Máire Geoghegan-Quinn was Minister for Justice O'Connell Street was a no-go area and she sorted that out. To this day O'Connell Street is a very safe place compared to what it was in the past.

There are measures that can be taken but it is a shame that at this time the Garda budget is being cut by €85 million. In the two years since this Government took office, violent burglaries have increased by 48% and knife crime has increased by 38% yet the Garda budget has been cut by €85 million. That does not add up. The Government said it would bring the force up to its full strength of 16,000. It is not near that number and as Senator Cummins said, the civilianisation programme is rolling out very slowly.

There is much that can be done also in terms of the film industry. Violent films are being shown throughout the world, including in our country. Young people in particular are viewing those films which depict violent crime involving hand guns, machine guns, other types of guns and drugs and there is no doubt that they act out those films. Something must be done in terms of censorship of those type of films. Very few of the films I watch do not portray some form of crime. One would wonder why films without very violent crime cannot be made. No form of crime is acceptable in my view.

As Senator Cummins and Senator O'Malley said, whatever has to be done must be done to tackle this problem because we cannot let the position in Limerick get out of hand and be repeated throughout the country. That is happening because the people involved are moving out of Limerick to other towns and cities and repeating what is happening in Limerick. The slogan, "whatever has to be done must be done" is a good one to come out of this debate and the Minister of State should take it back to the senior Minister.

We have had a very useful debate. I was fortunate to hear the second half of the debate which was opened on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform by the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney.

A number of interesting issues were raised which I would like to summarise. As Minister for children the last point made by Senator Burke is something I would be cognisant of but violent video games in particular are difficult to police. One person's taste is different to that of another. One could describe the old cowboy and Indian films as a graphic depiction of violence. Should we censor those? Should we censor the John Wayne movies which depicted bar room brawls? Are they a graphic depiction of violence? Do we censor Arnold Schwarzenegger or Clint Eastwood films, or Tom and Jerry? I do not mean to be facetious about it but there is a difficulty in that regard.

I accept that we are clear about the graphic depiction of sex, which would be described as illegal content in regard to the Internet and so on, but there is a much more equivocal approach to the graphic depiction of violence. An argument could probably be made for us to consider more seriously the limits and borders we set for our children in particular because as other Senators have said, it desensitises children. There is no doubt about that, and it is all caught up in violent settings that are the very settings we are discussing, namely, gangland crime. It is something we must try to tackle.

I am Minister of State with responsibility for children. The children of the families involved in gangland crime are seldom mentioned but, clearly, those who are brought up in this setting are at risk, inevitably will engage in a life of crime and, at the very least, they will have the lowest regard for the State and its authority and will be completely desensitised to violence. I refer to whether the child care services should take a more proactive approach to the children of those involved in drug and violent crime and intimidation and whether the issue should be more honestly addressed by the HSE, which has responsibility for the care of our children. We are quick to take children from a family if they are at risk, neglected or being abused and the proper criteria are established. Children brought up in violent settings in Limerick, Dublin and elsewhere are being exposed to risk and the criteria leading to the HSE considering care orders in their respect have been met prima facie . These parents love their children very much but it is arguable whether they are fit to bring up children in those scenarios. I visited Limerick recently and gardaí and social and community workers pointed out that children under the age of 12 who are not subject to the criminal code are used by families for the purposes of intimidation, knowing that the Garda cannot reach them. These are serious issues.

Reference was made to the categorisation of young children who hang around as being engaged in anti-social behaviour. Young people like to hang around in groups but that does not necessarily mean this should be categorised as criminal activity. They engage in high jinks and horseplay that can sometimes be described by over-sensitive adults as drifting into the arena of criminality. Young people are critical of the way they are always depicted by adults. They are always depicted in a negative light whether that is because they are drinking too much or engaged in anti-social behaviour. It is in their nature to want to hang around together. They to not engage in activities that are criminal and sometimes we can be over-sensitive to those issues. We must pay particular cognisance to that.

Senator Regan claimed gangs in prisons are not being tackled. The Irish Prison Service devotes significant resources to tackling gang members in prisons. It is an offence to have a mobile phone while in prison and convictions have been secured. The number of searches has been stepped up in our prisons using X-ray facilities and dog units. I reject the Senator's characterisation of the Irish Prison Service as being inert on this issue. It is important that our prisons are used for rehabilitation as well as punishment, as Senator Hannigan said, and that people have an opportunity to change their ways.

Senators Regan and Walsh mentioned the Bill to establish a DNA database while Senator Bacik pointed out that progress has been made. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case will be significant in the context of how we progress the issue.

Senator Norris inquired about CAB's asset profilers and referred to fellows with sun tans who in poor climatic conditions may present as an anomaly in the context of their declared income and their perceived wealth. His description is accurate. CAB officials try to identify such anomalies and prepare cases accordingly. He also referred to the debate about who set up CAB and whose idea it was. He mentioned the late Tony Gregory, while Senator Burke referred to Nora Owen and Senator Walsh referred to the Ceann Comhairle's role. Everybody had a role, including the Labour Party through Deputy Quinn, who had a significant role working with Nora Owen at the time, the Garda, community workers and Tony Gregory. They all identified that co-ordination between the Garda and the Revenue was missing. That issue was addressed and it was redounded to the credit of the State. Officials from other jurisdictions have visited to observe that model. Many people had a significant input.

It is an offence to attack a member of the emergency services, including gardaí and fire brigade personnel. Senator Norris raised this.

Senator Bacik referred to using statements in court that witnesses recant. This provision was introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2006 in the context of the Keane trial following significant intimidation of witnesses. Statements given in the police station were resiled from by the witnesses and the trial of one young man collapsed. I vividly recall him showing the fingers to photographers on his way out of court. The former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, introduced the measure, which was a significant development in our criminal law because it meant the statement could be accepted into evidence, although it cannot be cross examined in the normal way. It is presented as evidence subject to a number of warnings contained in the Act.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Commissioner launched a new model of community policing in January, which is being rolled out nationally. I agree with Senator O'Malley that we must respond to the evolving challenges, including, if necessary, draconian legislation. The Constitution protects many fundamental freedoms and rights, as she said, including the right to one's bodily integrity. That was not afforded to young Mr. Collins or Shane Geoghegan and we have a duty to protect people from intimidation and violence. That may require tougher legislation, about which there seems to be a consensus in this House. We cannot make excuses to do nothing in this area. The Garda is devoting the resources necessary in Limerick. I visited there recently and community workers and community gardaí say the Garda is doing fantastic work there. The regeneration model will, hopefully, benefit Limerick in the long term.

Legislation is in preparation and it is not correct to state we are doing nothing. Yesterday the Minister introduced the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill in the Dáil. This will step up the security response to the changing nature of crime by providing a basis in law for secret surveillance and facilitating the use in evidence in criminal proceedings of material so gained. He is also working in consultation the Attorney General on the introduction of further measures along the lines of those in place to deal with paramilitary groups to tackle organised crime gangs and, in particular, their attempts to undermine the criminal justice system through extreme acts of violence and intimidation. This includes issues such as membership of crime gangs, a difficult and abstract concept to prosecute. These measures are in addition to work under way on further tightening the legislative provisions relating to guns, knives and similar weapons. A de facto handgun ban is in force. Work is also ongoing on the creation of a DNA database and the Minister expects to seek Government approval to publish a Bill shortly to give effect to his justice for victims initiative as well as to introduce further elements of considerable benefit in the fight against crime.

Reference is made from time to time about the comparatively low level of convictions in gangland type killings, to which Senator Cummins referred. The Garda has made significant progress in the investigation of a number of killings but members of the force face considerable difficulties in obtaining evidence in shootings that are the result of gangland activities. It must be accepted that associates of a victim of a gangland killing who have information of value to the Garda often do not co-operate, even where they have been the victims of violence. A number of changes to the laws of evidence have been made to address this. It has also to be accepted there is often no connection or personal association between the victim and the perpetrator, which makes it difficult for the Garda to investigate such a murder. Witnesses may also be subject to high levels of intimidation. The witness protection scheme is in place to assist such witnesses.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has expressed his concern at the number of handguns licensed in recent years. The majority of licensed firearms holders act responsibility and pursue their interests legitimately. It is regrettable the more handguns that are held by the population, the greater is the risk these guns will find their way to people not licensed to hold them. Following a series of judicial decisions, there has been a significant increase in the number of handguns licensed. As there was no public policy decision to bring about this, the Minister has brought forward proposals which include no new licences being issued for handguns, subject to limited exceptions in the case of Olympic sports.

I thank Senators for their contributions.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 6 May 2009.

Top
Share