Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I do not expect the Minister to accept my Bill given his form in this area and for this reason I have not even pressed it as a priority for Private Members' time. The Minister's forthcoming miscellaneous provisions Bill should tighten up loopholes in the matter of sentencing. It should remove automatic remission and provide that remission be granted where good conduct has been observed. Persons convicted of serious crime, specifically gangland activities, should not have automatic remission unless they are, in the opinion of the parole board, less likely to engage in recidivist behaviour.

The forthcoming legislation should also increase penalties for the possession of blades and firearms to make them more of a deterrent. The Minister should also consider introducing criminal organisation civil restriction orders, under which a judge can restrict the movement of gangsters and their association with certain individuals. Electronic tagging, which was provided for in legislation enacted under the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. McDowell, has not yet been activated. The Minister should address this matter. I will discuss criminal, jury and special courts in the context of gangland crime later.

While we will have an opportunity on Committee Stage to examine the exclusionary rule, I note the Minister has embarked upon an amending process. As he will be aware, earlier this year my Seanad colleague, Senator Eugene Regan, published a Bill dealing specifically with the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials. It is extraordinary that the Minister urged his Fianna Fáil troops and their Green Party colleagues in the Seanad to vote against the Bill. While I welcome his subsequent decision to introduce changes in this area, it is a monument to his political pride that he had a proposal designed to do exactly what is proposed in his subsequent legislation voted down in the Seanad. Despite the approach taken by the Minister, I do not have a difficulty in supporting his Bill and I do not propose to take the narrow, politically partisan line he so favours.

In light of the significant increase in criminal activity, particularly in the organised crime area, it is important to ensure certain evidence in criminal trials can be admitted in court. Criminal gangs are running the show in certain communities, terrorising localities and intimidating individuals and families. It is extraordinary that evidence is ruled inadmissible in court when it has been obtained by chance or when a minor clerical error is identified. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle, as coined by the Federal Supreme Court in the United States, is the basis for such rulings. It is unsustainable that numerous criminal cases have been thrown out of court on technicalities, with the result that criminals have been granted permission to remain at large and perpetrate further acts of violence against communities and individuals. While I regret that the Minister's pride has taken precedence over combating criminal activity, I will nonetheless support the measures in the Bill which were first proposed in Senator Regan's legislation.

Zero tolerance was the major electoral platform which swept the Fianna Fáil Party back into office in 1997. It is important, 11 years on, to assess the commitment the party made in this regard which has not materialised along the lines promised. Gangland figures have no fear of the law. Convictions have been secured in 14 of the 140 gangland murders committed since 1998. In 2008, the number of incidents involving pipe bombs, grenades and improvised devices in Dublin increased from 24 in 2007 to 106, a staggering rise of 340% in one year. Of 171 gun murders committed in the State since the Fianna Fáil Party promise to implement a policy of zero tolerance was first placed on billboards throughout the country, only 22 convictions have been secured. The average time served by those who have been convicted and put away for murder, the most serious crime on the Statute Book, is 15 years. A minimum mandatory sentence of 25 years is required for persons convicted of murder, save in the most exceptional circumstances.

To date in 2009, there have been 12 gangland murders. It is clear that gangland criminals have stepped up a gear and possess superior technology and equipment to that of the Garda, which still awaits basic vital resources such as the roll out of national digital radio about which we have been hearing for 11 years. The legislation affords the Minister an opportunity to ensure, for the first time, that modern equipment and communications technologies are available to assist the Garda, Naval Service, Revenue Commissioners and Customs and Excise in the fight against organised crime.

Ten years ago, the Government gave a commitment to provide a national digital radio service. The contract was only awarded in 2007. It is still, in spite of a number of press conferences held on the issue, only available in parts of Dublin. The current analogue radio system is unsafe and has been known to have been intercepted by criminals and gangland figures, so the digital radio service would provide increased protection for gardaí on operational duty.

Increased radio coverage will help and assist in this Bill. If gardaí are to monitor criminals on a covert basis, they also need to have the basic overt equipment, such as a radio that works, rather than having gardaí using their personal mobile phones to pass on vital information in the area of intelligence gathering and detection. This Bill will ensure the national unit dealing with it is given greater armoury by this House.

The freeze on recruitment will mean a decline in Garda numbers from the end of this year onwards. Perhaps the Minister, Deputy Ahern could put on the record the situation regarding Templemore and the Garda college. There are some 160 gardaí in the training unit there providing necessary training. Approximately 100 recruits will come in early next month and then, I understand, the college will be mothballed for at least two years and perhaps more. This matter needs to be addressed and we need to know the Minister's plans. Jobs are currently being lost. Staff have been let go and others have been notified to the effect that their future is uncertain. I want to know what is happening to the full-time Garda training force in Templemore and what future plans the Minister has for its employment or re-deployment.

There is also an expertise and experience drain that the 1% pension levy has imposed on the Garda Síochána where, I understand, many experienced and loyal members of the force at all levels, including some at very high ranking levels, are opting for retirement, given the adverse personal consequences of the levy. The pension levy on gardaí will force people into early retirement, thus introducing something of an experience drain on the force which will have serious consequences.

Operation Anvil has been in operation since 2005 and has been in place nationwide since 2006, the primary aim of which is to target active criminals. In 2008, €20 million was ring-fenced specifically for Operation Anvil. However, only €21 million is ring-fenced this year. I find it difficult to see how new legislation can assist in the waging of war against gangland criminals if there is not an appropriate matching by the State of the necessary resources. I heard what the Minister, Deputy Ahern and senior gardaí said about Operation Anvil.

RTÉ broadcast a "Prime Time Investigates" programme on gangland and drug-related murders on 2 March. A community garda in Finglas is quoted as saying Operation Anvil was operated in the "K" district, mainly in Finglas, seven days a week until recently, where, in the last number of weeks, it has been cut from seven days a week to four days a week, from Thursday to Sunday. It now operates only at night time, whereas it had run from Monday to Sunday, day and night. This is a direct result of the cuts inflicted by the Minister, Deputy Ahern on the Garda. The area referred to in west Dublin is one which has seen gangland activity of the most vicious type, with a number of murders in recent times.

In a response to a recent parliamentary question I tabled, the Minister, Deputy Ahern denied any reduction in activity by Operation Anvil in the Finglas area. What is happening here? The Minister is not giving the full picture to the House and is withholding information or he is not aware of what is happening on the ground, because what he said to me in response to a question is in direct contradiction to what community gardaí and officers of the Garda Síochána are saying on the ground.

In the context of this Bill, there is the ongoing matter of bail. Serious criminals, some of whom are gangland figures, are being granted bail from the courts with some ease. A review, which may have been referred to by the Minister on a number of occasions, does not appear to be forthcoming and we do not know where he stands on the matter of bail and the changes, if any, to bail. He might let us know what are his views.

Regarding the witness protection programme, I accept the Bill provides for the Garda to place covert audio and visual recording equipment in the homes of criminals and other places which they may, from time to time, frequent. This is good and may also lesson the need for the Garda to rely on witness evidence in court. It may reduce the number of witnesses who need to avail of the witness protection programme.

Notwithstanding that, the success of the witness protection programme has been extremely limited. The Garda Commissioner conceded that asking people to give evidence and relocate abroad was difficult and I accept that. We are a small community and family, friends and neighbours are important and it is not easy to expect people to uproot and leave communities where they may have lived for generations and set up abroad, often with a different identity.

Former Garda Commissioner, Mr. Noel Conroy, goes further and has said many people are simply too scared to give evidence against armed drug gangs. That may be putting the finger on the matter. Recently, the DPP, Mr. James Hamilton expressed his doubts about the witness protection programme and said it was of limited use in tackling gangland crime because the demands on people entering the programme were fairly drastic. The number of people who have passed through the witness protection programme is unknown. In 1999 we spent £41,000 on the programme and this year €1.2 million has been set aside for it. The spending on it has grown enormously but the fund remains modest. It seems to me relatively few people are being maintained under the programme. Perhaps the Minister could let us know what is the situation.

There is also the question of bench warrants which, if we are serious about a comprehensive attack on gangland and organised crime, needs to be looked at. This matter has been raised here on a regular basis. There are some 30,000 outstanding bench warrants, some of which are in respect of fairly senior, well known gangland figures. We had a totally unacceptable situation in Limerick earlier this year, when a known gangland figure, against whom a bench warrant had been issued and perhaps for his own protection, walked into a Garda station asked gardaí to execute the warrant as he had come in.

It seems an extraordinary lapse, which has happened under the Minister's watch, if there can be 30,000 outstanding bench warrants, some against serious gangland figures and well known criminals, and there is not the wherewithal on his part to deal with the matter in a satisfactory way. I remind him of the programme for Government commitments on organised crime in 2007, only two years ago.

The Government committed itself to the fight against organised crime. The Fianna Fáil-led coalition made two specific commitments on gangland crime. The first one has probably been used in Cork, the home of the Acting Chairman. It involves the introduction of divestitures under which defendants would be required to divest themselves of interests in tainted enterprises, restrictions would be imposed on the future activities and investments of individuals, and the dissolution or reorganisation of any enterprise could be ordered. This has not happened; I have not actually heard much about it.

The second commitment was to introduce trusteeships which would allow the courts to empower trustees to run organisations that are infiltrated or controlled by criminal elements. The Minister might update us on the progress made on these measures.

Before I conclude I will mention special courts, to which the Minister made reference in a press conference announcing this legislation. He may have been referring to this in the final couple of paragraphs of his speech earlier, when he stated he had other measures to introduce. If the Minister is thinking of using the Special Criminal Court for gangland offences, I wonder about the legal advice in respect of constitutional concerns. What has changed since last November when the Taoiseach, responding to such calls from me and my party, referred to section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006? This section provides that a person convicted of gang membership may be sentenced to five years in prison. The Taoiseach said this was inoperative and might in effect be unconstitutional. This was based on legal advice he had received, presumably from the Attorney General.

The Taoiseach then, instead, addressed the possibility of using the Offences Against the State Act and the Special Criminal Court against organised crime. He rightly said that the Supreme Court had declined to accept the word of a superintendent where a person had denied involvement on oath and where there was no corroborating evidence to support the original allegation. The Minister is on record as having indicated he intended to introduce a law which would try alleged gangland criminals in the Special Criminal Court. How can that be reconciled with the statement of the Taoiseach? Was the Taoiseach badly advised with regard to this matter? The Attorney General might wish to clarify the situation. This is of some importance.

For Committee Stage, we need to deal with the issue of self-certification and what constitutes urgency. Somebody is on record as saying an authorisation would be granted on an urgent basis where it would be or might be authorised by a judge. We need to tease this out, and we will do so on Committee Stage. The matters of the right to privacy and judicial oversight are also important, as are the forms and procedures, under section 7, which must be carefully crafted. Perhaps the House will have the opportunity to see these before they are in common use by the Garda Síochána. I also referred earlier to the exclusionary rule.

I acknowledge the work the Minister has done on this Bill. He will have the support of Fine Gael in this and other initiatives he undertakes to change the law on gangland crime. However, it is one thing to change the law; it is another to provide adequate resources for the relevant State agencies. I hope this will not suffer unduly in the context of the current economic crisis.

See this speech in context