Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I have tabled quite a few parliamentary questions on the subject over the years and, coincidentally, I have tabled one or two questions today.

This legislation is a balancing act and it is necessary to meet the threat presented to us. I am referring to crime levels and the degree to which organised crime can seemingly operate with impunity, to which organised criminals can thumb their noses at the authorities and are blatant in the way they display themselves, and to which they have resources at their disposal and can launder those resources. I refer also to the number of locations in which they can launder them. It is not always in underdeveloped countries that this occurs. We must balance our considerations against constitutional rights, first against those that obtain in this country and then against those observed by the countries with which we are dealing and which are cosignatories to the legal instruments.

Let us consider the necessary steps we must take. The drug barons have control over an industry worth many millions of euro or dollars. They have achieved a certain degree or respectability and are now recognised as half-legitimate players in the business sector. They can invest in real estate and are doing so regularly. Using modern technology they can, within seconds, transmit their money electronically to countless locations throughout the world. They have been doing that regularly for some years. They even managed to gain information by intercepting their own transmissions. They intercept the authorities' transmissions, including those of the Garda, very effectively. We all depend on mobile phones and sadly they are being used by criminals as tools of their trade. They rely on them heavily because they facilitate instantaneous, handy, easily available and high-tech communications. Mobile phone technology is improving all the time. Why should they not resort to mobile telephony? Some means must be found to deal with them.

As stated previously, their activities can, in my view, be countered through the technology, as well as via the home affairs or the justice areas. The development of the technology is advancing at such a pace that it is easier to develop the mechanisms through the technological area than through interceptions at a later stage. This can be developed into the area of the Internet in the context of child abuse and everything else. Incidentally, that is another area where there is also major organised international abuse. However, I will return to the trafficking of people.

Based on my reading of the issues involved, it is not sufficient to rely on the enforcement or justice area, that is, the policing of the work. It is much more effective to intercept at the technological level and to be able to provide a system that is not so readily accessible from the viewpoint of those who should not have access to it. In other words, some type of registration system must be devised to throw these particular clients off the track. Not only are these criminals organised, they are also heavily armed. They tote their guns about on a regular basis and shoot each other up in the streets. They travel up and down motorways shooting at each other. We have become very complacent as regards how matters have developed in this jurisdiction in recent years. It is fine to talk about the legislation that is needed. We can have as much legislation as we like but if it is not enforced visibly on the streets, nothing will happen. The time has come when innocent citizens going about their normal business are at risk and in fear of their lives. It is not unusual to meet constituents who will readily express their fear to one. Such fear is generated by thugs with guns and sometimes those without them. They extort, intimidate and threaten and they behave that way all the time.

There was never as much intimidation of witnesses, for example, as is the case at present. That undermines the entire system of law and order. There are protection rackets, which are quite evident in this city and several others, where thugs, again with or without guns, visit businesses and offer so-called protection for a price. I do not know whether everyone in the country knows what is going on. I presume that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister are aware of what is happening. Certainly, the Minister has talked about it a good deal in flamboyant terms. The time has come to take issue with some of these matters because the rights and entitlements of ordinary citizens are being undermined and put at risk. I am conscious of people's entitlements in terms of civil and human rights.

I recall being apprehensive years ago when the Criminal Assets Bureau was being set up lest it be abused. It was not abused, actually, and probably should have been introduced a couple of years earlier. I fully recognise and accept that my fears at the time were without foundation. Now, however, there is a much more serious threat. Not only does it exist in Ireland, it is widespread internationally. We must be careful not to get mixed up between anti-terrorism, which is also rampant worldwide, and what I have dealt with as regards the ordinary common or garden criminal who is working and living here and who takes his or her family on occasional holidays to very exotic places. They would that claim such adventures occur at no expense to the taxpayer, but boy do we pay for their holidays.

Intimidation is quite common in this city and in several others throughout the country. A previous speaker referred to the growth of the drug industry. He was quite right in saying that no one can evaluate the full extent to which it has grown in Ireland in recent times. It so serious and so few resources are being deployed to confront it. This is particularly worrying. If one speaks to any garda working on the ground, he or she will indicate how slender are the resources available for overt or covert reaction to the drugs problem. It is nothing by comparison with what is required, particularly when one considers the magnitude of the problem. Due to the fact that big money is involved, the drug problem will continue to grow. I am not one of those who proposes the legalisation of various forms of drugs. I know the notion was trotted out years ago that legalisation would remove the problem. Prohibition in the US is often quoted in this regard by enthusiasts. They are wrong, of course, because the consumption of alcohol increased by 5,000% when prohibition ended. It was the way it was controlled, and big money was involved. We should be absolutely clear about this nonsense. I do not go down that route at all.

In my opinion, the international community must tackle the problem at source. The way the European Union has dealt with set aside should be the model to be employed for dealing with the production of the types of drugs coming into Ireland from Colombia, Afghanistan or wherever. That is the only way to deal with the problem. The people who are producing should be paid not to produce. It is a tough solution and it would cost money. However, that is what the international community will be obliged to do if it wants to deal with the problem. If we do not face reality, the problem will get worse.

It can come as a shock to learn that even a person one knows quite well, and who might never have been involved in misdemeanour, could have a serious drug problem. Such a person, as an addict, can be used by drug pushers to ensure that not only does his or her habit continue, but that it is spread. It is a type of pyramid system that is self-serving and contains clear objectives. This undermines the entire fabric of our society. We had better challenge that and we must use every means at our disposal to do so. We have a written Constitution and we must observe that. Other countries have written constitutions and some do not. Regardless of whether we like it, in so far as we are concerned, we should ensure that the countries with which we have agreements recognise and fully accept the problem with which we must deal and their obligations to co-operate with this jurisdiction. It is not just one-way traffic. They must co-operate with us as well. If they do not do so to the fullest possible extent, there is no sense in having the legislation in place.

My colleague, Deputy Coveney, who is a member of the European Parliament, will also contribute to this debate. I remember quite a frenetic debate that took place at a meeting of a sub-committee of the European Parliament many years ago at which I was a member of a delegation. I recall that some countries had rigid laws but few rules as to how they dealt with various crimes, petty crime in particular, and they were involved in the pursuit of offenders across borders. The participants in that debate were not prepared for the debate that ensued. Criminal activity across borders creates major problems. Notwithstanding the legislation and the agreements in place, irrespective of how important a case may be, if such legislation and agreements do not stand up constitutionally, the case falls.

The most likely people to bring a case challenging legislation are those with resources, as opposed to an innocent citizen. Those who have resources can afford to go to court to fight a constitutional case. They can do everything possible to ensure that the criminal gets his or her rights, but the same rights may not necessarily be available to the ordinary private citizen who may accidentally have come down on the wrong side of the tracks and be guilty of having committed a misdemeanour.

I wish to refer to what I regard as misdemeanours. In some jurisdictions in Europe and in some states of the US a serious attitude is taken to petty crime offences. There is a theory — it was known as zero tolerance here a few years ago and there were high notions about how it would operate — that, for example, if the person who throws a cigarette butt on the footpath is punished severely, all crime will cease, but life does not work that way. The serious message that must be put across is that crime does not pay. To ensure that, we need to start by taking on the big guys at the top and working down from there. It is not as if their operations are not big or not visible. They are well established. Dealing with those operators in an effective fashion will send a message down the tracks, as has happened in other jurisdictions. Those authorities in those jurisdictions also pursued minor criminals involved in petty crime. However, they hit the real targets in terms of criminals.

In the ten months from 1 January to 1 October 2005 €7.5 million was taken in armed robberies here, of which €38,000 was recovered. Risk assessments are readily available from various financial institutions, including insurance companies. An evaluation of the risk involved in such criminal activity would conclude that there is a fairly good risk that the person involved in such crime will not be caught and will not have to pay the price for it. That is the message being sent to the people on the street and to criminals throughout the country.

This kind of legislation, if properly used, can be effective. There is no point burying our heads in the sand and pretending we do not have a crime problem. We also have an international crime problem, and it is increasing at an alarming rate. It is up to us as to whether we will deal with it. If we continue to focus on the rights of the criminal, we will not resolve the problem. It will come down to the effectiveness of the legislation when its provisions are implemented on the streets.

See this speech in context