Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)

I thank the Senators who contributed to the debate. I am especially grateful for the thoughtful and insightful nature of many of the remarks. The comments made and issues raised have been carefully noted by the officials and they will be brought to the attention of the Tánaiste. As was mentioned at the outset of this debate, this Bill is very wide in its scope but it can be best understood when considered in the context out of which it has emerged and the objective it seeks to address, namely, the unacceptable activities of organised gangland crime.

In so far as the Government is concerned, the threat posed by these activities needs to be tackled at several levels. Legislation is certainly important in so far as it will overcome legal impediments that may exist and will generally ensure the law is updated to match the changing nature of crime. Good police work is also clearly essential. Good police work requires not only skill and dedication but also resources and manpower. It also requires patience and long-term commitment to the task. It will have been clear from my colleague's opening remarks that this Government has invested heavily in the Garda Síochána and will continue to do so, not only by means of general increases in staff, equipment and other resources but also through special programmes such as Operation Anvil.

I congratulate the Garda on the success of last weekend's operation in Cork when a very significant weapons seizure took place. I know I speak for the whole House when I say that was a most welcome and significant achievement. I will not comment further on that case other than to say it surely removes any doubt there might be about the ruthless and frightening nature of gangland crime.

Legislation and Garda resources are but two elements in the fight against gangland crime. I remind people that we can all play a role, not only by co-operating with the authorities but also in our own lifestyle choices. Many people, often our best and brightest, but perhaps without realising it, make it possible for gangland activity to persist and expand. People who engage in what they see as occasional or recreational drug use or who are prepared to buy goods without asking or caring where they came from contribute significantly to the gangland threat. Those people make gangland activity profitable and worthwhile. They allow it to spread and gain hold throughout the country and in all strata of society. It is not enough that we condemn gangland activity. We must also ensure we do not contribute in any way to its continued existence. People should have no doubt in their minds about the major role they can play in defeating organised gangland crime. They also should reflect for a moment on the situation that could exist several years from now if we fail to mobilise to face this threat.

The Bill will enable law enforcement agencies to confront much more effectively the threat posed by criminal gangs. As a result, the prospects of successful investigations and prosecutions are enhanced by extended detention periods, new arrangements for taking and retaining samples, new clarity about the law on the drawing of inferences from a suspect's silence, new powers to deal with possession of cash or articles intended for the commission of an offence, new arrangements for taking statements by electronic means, and restrictions on access to tapes of interviews. It will also be possible to mount more effective challenges to bail applications. In addition, there are several useful technical improvements to the operation of the bail laws that will address concerns about non-collection of forfeited bail moneys and other operational matters.

The courts will have more powers to deal with repeat gangland offenders, including post-release supervision arrangements. It is important to note that two types of order are being proposed. One order will protect victims and other vulnerable persons by limiting or prohibiting access or contact. The other order will enable gardaí to monitor the offender, establish whether he or she is likely to re-offend, and build up intelligence on gang movements and membership. Further clarity is provided on the circumstances where the minimum mandatory sentences for drug trafficking and firearms offences are to apply. I remind the House that all powers and changes in the Bill are in addition to the successful legislation already in operation to deal with the proceeds of crime and the confiscation of illegally acquired assets.

Concerns were expressed that the measures we are enacting could impact unfavourably on the personal rights and freedoms of people who have nothing to do with gangland crime. Much of the concern may have arisen because the target group — namely, gangland criminals — is difficult to define in legal terms and therefore there is a fear that measures directed at that group may impact unfavourably on others. I agree that "gangland crime" is a difficult thing to define, given the obscure world in which it operates and the unstructured nature of the gangs. Nevertheless, we can all recognise gangland crime when we see it and we have no difficulty in distinguishing between it and other crime.

It is right to be vigilant about any such unintended effects. The Tánaiste has paid serious attention to the views expressed by a range of bodies and individuals. As a result, he has amended the Bill not only to ensure it was more clearly focused on achieving its target, but also to ensure the scope for unintended impacts was reduced in so far as possible. This was done, for example, by reviewing the scope of Schedule 2, the addition of a subsection to section 25 that gives the court discretion in the application of mandatory sentence provisions for repeat offenders and raising the threshold in that section which triggers the imposition of the mandatory sentence provision for repeat offenders. In addition, an amendment makes clear that the expression of an opinion by a chief superintendent in bail cases does not interfere with the ultimate discretion of the court in deciding whether or not to grant bail. As a result of those and other changes, the Bill is more tightly structured, with a clearer focus on its main target — the gangland criminal.

There are occasions when we are all rightly concerned for the health of our democracy when we see the excesses of organised crime. However, the debate on this Bill both within and outside the Oireachtas demonstrates a lively interest in constitutional and legal affairs. It also demonstrates a clear conviction that what happens in this and the Upper House does matter. We can take heart from such a strong belief in the role and relevance of the Oireachtas regarding our rights and freedoms. I am also reassured by the strength of civil society and by its sense of public duty, which all amounts to a healthy democratic balance.

I thank Senators for their contributions and assure them that their comments have been well noted.