Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

Section 43 also provides for a new section 183A of the 2006 Act. Section 183A concerns the possession of cash, in the amount of at least €5,000, in circumstances giving rise to the reasonable inference that it is for use in, or in connection with, the commission of an offence. As in section 183, it will be a defence if the person can show they did not have it for that purpose. The offences listed in section 183A are murder, capital murder, drug trafficking offences, kidnapping, false imprisonment, blackmail, extortion, demanding money with menaces, and robbery. The penalty on conviction under either section 183 or 183A is up to five years' imprisonment.

These offences are being created because they will be useful in tackling those who assist and facilitate major gang bosses. People who have large sums of money stashed away for the gang bosses will find that they themselves now fall under the rubric of this law. In other words, I want Deputies to understand that this Bill aims to tackle gangland crime at all levels and at the edges. It is essential that we attack the support systems employed by the main players and these new offences will assist greatly in that respect.

Section 44 updates section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 by adding robbery to the list set out in that section and to bring the defence of innocent possession under section 15 into line with sections 183 and 183A.

Section 45 amends section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. Section 6 deals with the taking of samples from arrested persons. The first amendment permits the taking of second or further samples where the first are damaged or are otherwise unsuitable. The second amendment involves a change in the rank of a garda who may authorise the taking of samples, from superintendent to inspector. However, I should point out that in the case of intimate body searches — involving, for example, the removal of underclothing — only a superintendent may authorise those searches.

A new section 6A is being proposed, which will permit the use of reasonable force in the taking of samples — finger or palm prints, or photographs — under section 6. The person must first be cautioned and the use of reasonable force must be authorised by a superintendent and supervised by an inspector. It must also be video recorded. Unfortunately a provision such as this is necessary because some people refuse point blank to provide fingerprints and must be subjected to physical coercion to do so. Deputies will agree, however, that this section contains strong and verifiable safeguards, particularly the video recording of the incident.

Section 46 replaces section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. In its current form, that section deals with the destruction of samples and similar records after 12 months, where no prosecution is taken or, in the event of a prosecution which ends in a dismissal or acquittal, within 21 days of the acquittal or dismissal. In other words, only samples or records relating to convicted persons may be retained. I am satisfied that such a limited approach is no longer justified in this day and age. The new section 8 is therefore based on the principle that all samples and records are to be retained indefinitely but that, in the interests of natural justice, some provision needs to be made for the removal and destruction of samples in individual cases. The new section 8 therefore provides a mechanism for the removal of samples. The result of this change will be that gardaí will be able to develop a comprehensive databank of information, which can be searched for intelligence purposes. This is essential for modern policing. Similar proposals are contained in the legislation being drafted on the establishment of a DNA databank.

Section 47 introduces new detention arrangements for persons arrested in connection with murder where firearms or explosives were used, capital murder, false imprisonment where firearms were used, or possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life. These offences are frequently linked to gangland activity and the extended detention time is, in the view of prosecuting authorities, necessary to locate and interview witnesses and suspects as well as to provide adequate time for the forensic examination of crime scenes. Some recent offences have seen people, arrested due to ongoing Garda surveillance, released from Garda custody at a time when new evidence relevant to their detention was only coming to light.

In the cases coming under this new section, persons may be detained for up to seven days. This is already the case under the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act 1996. This means a person trafficking drugs is currently subject to these laws but not someone a drug trafficker sends out to shoot people, such as individuals who have not paid debts. Detention under that Act is under judicial authorisation and supervision after the first 48 hours and it will be the same under this new provision.

I have decided to limit the new power to the serious cases I have mentioned because I could not justify the use of such an arrangement for what are known as domestic murders. I believe we must tread carefully when authorising extensions to detention periods.

Section 48 provides for the rearrest of persons detained under section 47, in the same way that section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 allows for the same.

Section 49 ensures that certain sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 apply to persons arrested and detained under the new powers. The relevant sections provide, for example, for access to a doctor, if required, and access to a solicitor, and provide that a person must be released once the detention is no longer required or justified. Sections 50 and 51 make technical amendments to the 1984 and 1996 Acts.

I conclude by commending this Bill to the House. It is major legislation with transparent origins that is justified by and aimed at addressing the scourge of gangland crime. It is, as we have seen, a diverse Bill, covering many aspects of the criminal law. However, each part, other than Part 8, of course, has its own part to play in the fight against organised crime. There is, therefore, a unity in the Bill around the aim of defeating organised crime.

This Bill cannot defeat organised crime by itself. I do not wish to intrude on anybody's grief but last December I had occasion to stand at the foot of a bed in which a young man lay dead and to speak to his family. I made a firm promise to myself that the law would be adequate to deal with gangland crime, in as far as I can bring this about. I believe I speak for most Deputies when I say that by passing this legislation this House is doing its duty by people who would otherwise find their loved ones murdered or lying in mortuaries around the country, a scenario we cannot accept.

I am most worried that gangland criminals will turn their attention to the unarmed members of the Garda Síochána, an unarmed force. This is the nightmare we all face and if we do not give the Garda the legislative and physical resources to deal with this issue, members of the Garda Síochána may fall victim to the murderous intentions of these gangs. This legislation is proportionate to the threat faced by society and is in line with what I said I would do last December and the scheme I published in February. The right to silence issue has been canvassed and this legislation is in line with developments relating to other serious offences. I believe that this legislation should be passed.

I have been accused of putting forward this legislation in the run-up to an election. I could have left it, claiming it to be an inappropriate time and had another Dáil deal with the matter. If the events of last December were repeated during July, August, September and October the finger of accusation would point, not at me alone — I can take it — but at us collectively because we did nothing when everyone was agreed last December that legislative action was needed. The fact that an election is pending is not reason for any of us to give up on our day jobs and I know the House agrees. We must continue to do our jobs and I hope that over the next three weeks this legislation will pass. I look forward to a good debate on the legislation. I have always been amenable to persuasion in respect of all legislation that has come before this House and the other House when provisions can be improved. I have always made it my habit to listen carefully to the arguments of Deputies from every side of the House on improving legislation and I will adhere to that standard.

I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading and request that all Deputies in this House with a specific interest in this issue come forward with their views and participate in the debate on Second and Subsequent Stages over the next three weeks.

See this speech in context