Brendan Kenneally (Waterford, Fianna Fail)

I warmly welcome this legislation which is long overdue but I well understand the hesitation up to now to introduce what many people might regard as an extreme measure. Everyone in Ireland accepts we have an extreme situation on our hands in certain parts of the country in regard to organised and violent crime and that we need stronger than normal measures to combat it. Everyone wants, and is entitled to, his or her privacy. In an ideal world, we would not introduce or support such a measure as this. However, we are responsible for, and accountable to, every citizen of this State and it is our duty to see they are protected by every reasonable measure and by taking whatever lawful action is deemed necessary at any given time.

The people are crying out for action against the growing criminal element which is seeking to take over areas of our cities and towns. This is one more step in what has been a progressive programme of action in passing legislation, providing resources and signalling through the law enforcement agencies of the State, that gangland violence is totally unacceptable and will be opposed with every resource at our disposal.

I congratulate the Garda on the fine job it has done under very difficult circumstances. We have seen the level of threats these criminals have levelled against innocent people and the level of violence, including murder, which they employ to maintain their evil empires. The Garda is not exempt from these threats or immune from their actions and yet they go out on a daily basis and place themselves in harms way on behalf of every citizen. If there is something we can do or some measure we can enact, it is our bounden duty to do it.

Having grown up against the background of violence in Northern Ireland that occasionally spilled over into this jurisdiction, it was one of my happiest days when the Good Friday Agreement was signed which signalled the beginning of the end of paramilitary violence. I do not wish to see that violent regime replaced by an equally violent criminal one and that is why I have no reservation in supporting the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill. I congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill forward and my only questions are those seeking clarification of certain points.

It is time we further tipped the scales in favour of those who support a lawful society. I have no sympathy for the position held by those who say this is an infringement of civil liberties. Our freedoms are, by necessity, dictated by the society in which we live. While we all aspire to the perfect society, in which everyone is treated equally, it is the criminals who introduce inequality into our system, unfortunately. Intruding into people's privacy is not something we should or do take lightly. Certain measures have been forced on us. We must react accordingly. CCTV cameras have been installed in many towns, including Dungarvan in my constituency. Those who were uneasy when CCTV facilities were first proposed have come to accept them. They give a measure of assurance to those who use our streets at night. They offer a general feeling of security to everyone. The vast majority of our citizens, who are law-abiding and guilt-free, have nothing to fear from CCTV cameras. If such facilities help to catch a rapist or a murderer, or to thwart criminals in the areas they cover, they are worth every penny invested in them and the minor unease they might cause.

While the provisions of this Bill might be seen as intrusive, they will deliver beneficial returns over the years to come. People will come to accept them as they have accepted other legislation about which they were originally concerned. Law-abiding citizens do not need to have any fears. The Garda Síochána has proven itself to be a trustworthy organisation. It is an honest custodian of the wide-ranging powers it has been given over the years. I am more than willing to trust the Garda with the latest tool we are giving the force to help it to fight serious crime. It is up to us to ensure that sufficient safeguards are built into the system. Civil liberties and rights are for everyone, including those who live in daily terror of the gangs that keep them in subjugation and in constant fear of their lives. Such people are entitled to walk the streets without the threat of being hit by a stray bullet. They have the right to live in peace without trembling at the sight of well-known criminals when they cross their path. The people to whom I refer should not have to wonder if they will be the next victim of retaliation for a real or imagined slight or offence. A recent revenge attack took place over five years after the incident that prompted it.

Those of us who are familiar with the problems in Limerick know how easy it can be for feuds to start. We know how difficult it can be to get people into the witness box to testify against known gang members or their lesser partners. Feuds and criminality are inclined to dominate our law-enforcement agenda. It is our duty to discharge to the fullest extent our role in combating the rise in the power of the gangs. We acknowledge and applaud those who have taken a stand by stepping back into the witness box at great personal risk and giving valuable testimony to contribute to the reaching of a guilty verdict. Some of those people have paid a supreme price for their bravery in doing their civic duty. It behoves us to vindicate their courageous stand by doing all in our power to ensure that everyone involved in criminality is brought to justice.

While I laud those who intervene to try to stop violence, I cringe when I see newspaper headlines declaring that a feud has come to an end, accompanied by photographs showing known gangsters shaking hands for the benefit of the cameras. We need to be a little more responsible, for example by ensuring that we do not reward criminals by giving them cosy column inches. They should not be applauded for not murdering each other and not beating up their so-called rivals, particularly when they continue to terrorise innocent people in housing estates. Criminals, by their very nature, are secretive people. They are not particularly intelligent, however, in many cases. In the case of Limerick alone, more than 50 serious criminals have been successfully put through the legal system and lodged in prison for varying lengths of time. They have generally received long sentences as a result of good policing on the part of the Garda. I do not doubt that this process has saved many innocent lives in the community. How much more effective might this campaign have been if the Garda had been able to acquire vital information about the movements of gang members and the potential for crimes to be committed? How much more effective might it be in the future as a result of this legislation, which deals with such scenarios? I have no doubt about its success. The Garda is entitled to our active support, where we can provide it through measures that are justified.

This country's drug culture, which has long since started to pervade all levels of society, is destroying communities. It has been pointed out previously — it bears repeating — that those normally law-abiding citizens who purchase so-called "recreational" drugs each weekend represent, perhaps unwittingly, a significant part of the problem. If there were no drug users and buyers, there would be no drugs trade, no financing of greater criminality, fewer guns and fewer deaths on our streets. Everyone has a contribution to make in this respect, including people in comfortable suburbia who think the ills of society are other people's problems and are well away from them.

Evidence is a requirement of our criminal justice system. I have no problem with the gathering of evidence through secret surveillance, as long as the proper safeguards are in place and are adhered to. I note that the Bill requires the District Court to give its approval to any surveillance operation, so that the evidence that is gleaned can be used in court. I am happy that this will be the case. Secrecy is paramount in all such matters. I wonder who, other than the relevant judge, will know that a surveillance order has been made. Will the decision of the court have to be typed up and filed by a junior member of the court's administrative staff, thus widening the circle of people who know about it? Is it the Minister's intention that the Garda will generate such records? After all, the Garda has an established record of confidentiality, as proven by the multiple dawn raids it has kept secret and implemented in recent times. The Garda has been able to co-ordinate searches of up to 30 premises, involving 100 officers, without prior word of the operation leaking out and tipping its hand.

The Bill makes provision for surveillance to be authorised in the absence of a judge in cases of emergency — for example, if it is deemed likely that a suspect may abscond or destroy evidence or, more seriously, if the security of the State is threatened. In such circumstances, a senior Garda officer of superintendent rank or above may authorise such surveillance. I note that such an order would last for 72 hours only, which should be sufficient to allow evidence to be placed before a proper court and the order extended, if appropriate. What if a judge later decides that there had not been sufficient urgency to warrant the making of such an order by a senior Garda? Will all the evidence that was collected under such an authorisation be null and void? What will happen if an order is made allowing a bug to be placed on foot of a suspicion that a person is dealing seriously in drugs, but evidence of a different crime, such as gun smuggling or sex trafficking, is uncovered? Will that evidence remain valid? Will it be allowed by the courts even though it was discovered during surveillance that was originally authorised for a different reason?

Section 11 is important because it provides for a system of complaints, which will initially be made through the Circuit Court. It is essential for people to be clearly seen to have access to their records, to a review of their cases and to compensation if it is found that the surveillance was not justified. Access to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission is also possible. Perhaps that will give the best guarantee of reasonable behaviour on the part of the force. I am pleased that it is proposed to give the High Court the power of oversight of the orders that are made. It will be an avenue for complaints. I am happy to note that safeguards will exist in respect of the justification of the surveillance, the duration of the operation and the level of intrusiveness in each case. The secure storage of documentation and other records that are generated by the surveillance will also be required. The Minister has gone to some lengths to ensure that the intrusion into people's private lives, and the resultant risks to people's character and good name, are kept to a minimum.

I ask the Minister to clarify whether the tapping of the telephones of Ministers, Members of the Oireachtas, serving gardaí of all ranks and judges will be permitted under this Bill. Will everyone be subject to this legislation? Does the Minister propose to nominate exemptions? Does the Minister intend to make available some sort of general information about the number of orders made, or the general extent of the surveillance carried out, on an annual basis? Will a tally be kept of the bugging devices that are installed, the telephone lines that are tapped or the other means that are used to gather intelligence? I do not think people would look for specific details, but it would be valuable to provide for an indication of the level of usage of this process. It seems odd that we would not use all the modern electronic means available to us to gather information. These days of Google Earth and the most up-to-date electronic technology are a far cry from the days when employees of the then Department of Posts and Telegraphs had to climb poles to use what was known as a "spare pair". In those days, spare telephone lines were used to eavesdrop on telephone conversations.

We live in dangerous times, as I have already said. Society is under threat and must be protected. People live in fear, which must be eliminated. I wholeheartedly support this reasonable method of trying to achieve that.

I note that the Bill specifically mentions the Defence Forces which include the Naval Service, the Garda Síochána and the Revenue Commissioners. The National Fisheries Protection Authority about whose activities I have serious reservations is not mentioned. Its members go about their duties in a heavy-handed manner and adopt an unreasonable stance in some situations. One person described them to me as the "gardaí of the sea". However, they behave differently to gardaí who are mainly willing to adopt a degree of flexibility and common sense in policing, recognising that they are there to serve the people as well as to implement the law. They have rightly earned and enjoy the respect of the majority of people which is hard won and not easy to retain.

I am less than happy about the approach and unreasonable attitude of the National Fisheries Protection Authority whose attitude to policing is best described as blind justice at its worst. I have recently come across cases in which its approach was heavy-handed and its obdurate attitude imposed the distress, expense and hardship of a lengthy trial on hardworking and law-abiding fishermen before the trial was prematurely ended by a judge who clearly sympathised with the fishermen's position. Such cases bring the justice system into disrepute and generate hostility and disrespect for the agencies of the State and do more harm than good. I would like the Minister to outline what role, if any, this body has in respect of this Bill.

There is a serious threat to our social framework. No society can allow organised crime to dictate to the State. There is a history in the past century of governments taking the kind of action, sometimes violent, which would otherwise not be entertained. This Bill thankfully does not propose any such approach. It proposes measures designed to be effective in gathering evidence so that the criminal justice system can work as it was designed to do. This discommodes only criminals and it is hoped that it may lift some of the onus to testify in court from ordinary people. If law-breakers can be convicted by their own words and recorded actions I am quite happy and unreservedly support this measure and thank the Minister for bringing it forward.

See this speech in context