Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I join others in welcoming the Minister to the House. I also welcome this opportunity to speak on the Criminal Assets Bureau, and on its 2007 report in particular. This is a topical issue today as we are all still recovering from the news of the heinous murder of Shane Geoghegan in Limerick at the weekend. His murder has shocked people in communities across Ireland. None of us can imagine the dreadful trauma and bereavement his family have suffered and will continue to suffer. Many have drawn a parallel between his murder and the 1996 murder of Veronica Guerin, which led to the establishment of CAB and to the passage of legislation on the proceeds of crime and drug trafficking.

The 2007 report illustrates the work CAB has done, most recently in 2007, and during the 12 years since its establishment, in targeting those engaged in crime at a different level not within the criminal trial process but in the recognition of the source of money procured through criminal activity. It is a recognition of a certain reality, namely, that our drug laws, drug trafficking legislation, our law that provides for a seven-day detention period prior to being charged and so on tend to criminalise those on the lowest rungs of the chain of drug trafficking activity. They tend to target the mules, those who are often addicts and vulnerable to being intimidated and persuaded to bring quantities of drugs into Ireland or to carry them on their person. The drug trafficking legislation can be of only limited success because those highest up the chain in drug trafficking activity tend not to be the ones in possession of controlled drugs. To that extent, CAB has been successful in targeting those higher up the chain in a different way. The model for CAB was the anti-racketeering and corruption laws in the US, the laws which targeted the Mafia in a different and more effective way than the previous use of standard criminal legislation.

At the time CAB was instituted some of us were critical of the procedures it ushered in and of the change in focus. The workings of CAB have been subjected to numerous court challenges over the years and some of those are documented in the 2007 report, yet all of us must acknowledge the effectiveness of CAB in targeting a different level of criminal activity and in targeting those who had not been previously caught through standard criminal justice legislation.

I must also acknowledge that CAB has been a useful model for other agencies, particularly the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland. The workings of CAB have been subjected to a good deal of study by law enforcers from other jurisdictions, such as the US. Therefore, CAB has been successful. I am glad its focus has moved from targeting only those at the highest ranks in terms of criminal activity to, in 2007, specifically targeting those who were described as the more middle ranking criminals. I accept, as the Minister said, that CAB is not about making money for the State and that its success or effectiveness should not be measured purely in monetary terms of the net gain to the State. Rather, it exists to protect communities and to target those who routinely escape prosecution through other laws. I accept the middle ranking criminal may be the sort of person who should be targeted in order to protect and reassure communities who live in fear and intimidation of drug gangs.

As everyone has said, the work of CAB is clearly not enough, and the murder of Shane Geoghegan has shown us that. It is not enough to have measures in place that target only finances. Paragraph 5.7 of the CAB report acknowledges that in the period since its inception, "Tracing criminal assets has become more difficult over the years, with criminal proceeds being held by nominees including friends, acquaintances, family members etc., or alternatively laundered through businesses with the appearance of legitimacy." Clearly, the means of escaping the powers of CAB have become more sophisticated as CAB has developed its strategies and techniques.

How then are we to deal with gang crime, if CAB can be of only limited effectiveness, although it clearly has managed to target those not previously caught? As we have seen with the murder of Shane Geoghegan and the murder of other innocent bystanders in previous years through gangland crime, there is a serious difficulty for gardaí in prosecuting these offences. The difficulty stems from the problem with gathering evidence. The Garda Commissioner acknowledged yesterday that it is not a problem of insufficient legislation, but of getting witnesses to come forward.

Much of the political response has focused on the need for more legislation, tougher sentences, new powers for gardaí and so on. We need to be clear that we have in recent years passed extensive criminal justice legislation aimed at making prosecution easier and sentences tougher. The Criminal Justice Acts of 2006 and 2007 in particular introduced mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences. We previously had tougher sentences imposed for drugs offences. The 2006 Act includes Part 7 on organised crime, including the offence of commission of an offence in association with a criminal organisation, the sort of gangland offences about which people have been speaking. The Criminal Justice Act 2007 brought in encroachments on the right to silence, enabling juries to draw inferences where an accused person remained silent under questioning and later sought to rely on a material fact he or she had not mentioned. We have seen a number of the reforms for which people are now calling already introduced in legislation. We have seen legislation passed allowing the statements of witnesses to be used as evidence even where the witnesses are no longer prepared to stand over them in court. This provision was relied on in a recent case.

We have also seen the special Criminal Court used over the years to try those accused of organised crime under the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer "or other" crimes there. There are legislative tools and tough sentences available. As the Garda Commissioner has said, the difficulty for the Garda has been in gathering the evidence and bringing a case before the court in the first place. Clearly there are no easy answers to resolving this problem.

No legislative remedies and no amount of information gathering can restore Shane Geoghegan to his family or undo in any way the terrible bereavement they have suffered. We need to consider how to prevent other murders from occurring in the future. Key will be law enforcement and, in particular, reassuring potential witnesses that they will not be subjected to threats, intimidation or worse by those against whom they give evidence. We need to review the witness protection scheme. One year ago a Private Members' Bill was introduced in this House aiming to put the scheme on a statutory footing. The then Minister said the Garda had not called for this to be done and that it would be too inflexible. Will that now be subject to review and would a more formal witness protection scheme be useful in the quest to gather evidence in a more efficient manner?

Others spoke about the need to change the law on the use of surveillance evidence in trials. Clearly the Garda already uses surveillance in its investigation of crime. Mobile phone data are used quite routinely in criminal trials. We already have power to retain data from mobile phones for a very long period — I believe up to three years, which is longer than the EU requirement. While we already have some of what is needed, does the Minister propose to do anything further to allow this evidence be used in court?

Law enforcement can be more effective, but only if enormous resources are put into it. In the past the emergency response unit has patrolled the streets of Limerick 24 hours a day, seven days a week. However, unless it continues to do so, which is clearly very resource intensive, it will be very difficult to prevent similar tragedies happening in the future.

In the long term the link between disadvantage and crime must be addressed. I am glad to see the regeneration programme in Limerick will proceed. While it is too little, too late, it is an important first step. In the long term that might represent the best hope of a way out of this sort of tragedy. Fr. Peter McVerry has made this link. It is often not seen as fashionable to talk about it. However, there is a clear link between the most deprived communities and those most intimidated by gangland crime. We also need to review our long-term approach to drugs policy. The CAB has shown that the focus should be on the finances. Let us consider ways to remove the enormous profit opportunities from this trade. Let us consider imaginative and creative ways to address this through our drugs policy. We should consider, for example, distinguishing between soft and hard drugs, as has been done in Britain. Let us consider having drugs courts allowing addicts to be rehabilitated rather than facing prison sentences. All of these methods may represent a long-term prospect of an end to such gangland crime. We have much to learn from the lessons of the CAB in focusing on finances.