Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I am not opposing every section but I oppose the Bill as a whole. Although action is required, I do not believe the Bill is required in its entirety, particularly with the method by which it has been introduced without the normal structured debate. Such debate would allow time between stages for all those willing to participate to regroup and to reconsider the matter having assessed information from the Minister, or in the Minister's case from the Deputies. That time has not been made available and while the Minister has said this is urgent and the increase in the rate of gangland crime requires action, this is not the right step at the right time, particularly in regard to this section, which deals with the definition of a criminal organisation contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2006.

The Minister is misleading the public into thinking that this section is either necessary or useful in tackling gangland crime. The definition is almost identical to that in the 2006 Act and other Deputies have spoken about that. I stand to be corrected, as I heard the Minister say there was one conviction, but I was led to believe there were no convictions. I do not know how this change will make the process any easier, less complicated or more effective given the existing legislation from 2006.

I argued on Committee Stage of the 2006 Bill and warned that the definition to be introduced at that time would be unworkable, and what has transpired since seems to have proved that. I contended that any effort to use it would eventually lead to a legal challenge. I do not encourage people to challenge the 2006 Act but the 1937 Constitution demands certainty in law, and the European Convention on Human Rights demands foreseeability in law. The definition introduced in the 2006 Bill and now being slightly amended is loose and vague.

The then Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, former Deputy Michael McDowell, was in charge of the 2006 Bill and we discussed during the long debate on Committee Stage the ability of legislation to define a loose group of people which did not necessarily have a hierarchical structure or constitution and were not bound by a loyalty. People could be in one group on one day and in another by the next day. We debated how legislation would deal with the issue of an organisation not having a formal structure. The Minister at the time admitted the dangers on Committee Stage but continued with the Bill.

I recall at the time highlighting a case from the Supreme Court in British Columbia, as that type of definition had been used in Canada. The then Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform based the part of the 2006 Act which deals with this issue on the definition contained in the Canadian criminal code. That definition was eventually found to be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

We are all aware of the activities of the various criminal gangs. The constituency I represent is still greatly affected by the activities of such gangs, particularly in the context of their supplying illegal drugs. It appears that even the Garda Síochána cannot admit that these are criminal gangs. A senior officer from the Crumlin addressed a conference recently and stated that, despite the fact that 13 people have been killed, there is no feud in the Crumlin-Drimnagh area. It is strange the Garda cannot seem to see that two feuding gangs are operating in the area. It is obvious that a series of vicious, premeditated crimes have been carried out by a group of individuals acting in concert.

There is a great deal of existing legislation which could be usefully employed in the area to which I refer. The difficulty is that action was not taken in the past. The reason for this lack of action has sometimes been that gardaí in the area did not have access to either the intelligence necessary or the resources required to properly target and tackle the individuals who have destroyed communities or held them to ransom. Most of the wealth of these individuals comes from the drugs trade. They also have at their disposal vast quantities of weapons with which they can intimidate communities. Such weapons enter the country in virtually every shipment of drugs that arrives here. In another era, the Provisional IRA might have been proud of some of these weapons. However, if one considers the type and amount of them that the gangs possess, it is clear that the only purpose to which they can be put is to intimidate and hold communities to ransom.

The only way to deal with the availability of these weapons is to tackle the drugs trade and to intercept drug shipments entering the country. That is why I supported the passage of the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009 last week. I am of the view that the Garda Síochána should be provided with proper resources. The roll-out of the radio system which it has long been demanding should be accelerated and the freeze on recruitment and promotion should be lifted in order that there will be nothing to hamper the force in carrying out undercover investigations against the drugs gangs in our communities.

If one asks the Garda authorities, they will indicate that the most effective units within the force are the drugs units. Given that this is the case, the number of these units must be increased and additional resources must be provided in order that the drugs trade might be destroyed and the profits being used by these gangs to keep some of their associates in line or which are encouraging certain individuals to feud with each other be removed. As stated previously, we should see this as a national crisis and we should get all hands on deck in order to deal with it.

I am opposed to section 3 because I cannot see the benefit of changing the existing definition, particularly because it has not worked and is not likely to.

See this speech in context