Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

We are assured that everything is in order, that the legislative framework is in place and the resources are available to combat criminal activity and, in particular, organised crime gangs. However, the House has had that assurance many times. There are no results on the ground to substantiate the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's ongoing claim. If we look back to 1997, elections were won on the principle of zero tolerance. It is a bit like the role of economic management in the most recent election. However, if we examine the period since then, there have been 140 gangland murders but only 14 convictions. In 2008 there were 106 incidents in Dublin alone involving grenades, pipe bombs and other improvised devices. That represents a 340% increase in just one year. There have been 171 gun murders in the State in the past 11 years but only 22 convictions. The record of detection and particularly prosecution of gangland crime has been appalling. The criminal gangs clearly have the technology, the equipment and the organisation. The State has not given the Garda and the forces of law and order the resources to combat this scourge, nor have they been given a legislative framework within which they can operate effectively to combat, detect and prosecute these heinous crimes. The facts speak for themselves. The Government has failed to destroy criminal gangs or secure prosecutions. There is no strategy. If there is a strategy, after every new murder of this type or other tragedy the usual announcement is that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has a meeting with the Garda Commissioner. That seems to be the standard response.

The Government has failed to combat the activities of criminal gangs not only outside prisons, but also when they are inside prison. While some corrective action has been taken to address the prevalence of mobile phones, all the evidence suggests that these hardened criminals can continue to run their businesses from behind prison walls. It is true to say that there was an attitude to gangland crime that did not make it a priority for the Government. The attitude was that as long as they were killing each other, who the hell cared. The problem about that as we have seen in many cases in the recent past is that innocent people get caught up in the crossfire and then we have some reaction to the situation.

On a number of occasions we initiated legislation in this House and in the Dáil — Fine Gael has initiated legislation such as the Criminal Justice (Violent Crime Prevention) Bill 2008. I introduced a Bill here in the Seanad entitled the Criminal Law (Admissibility of Evidence) Bill 2008 — and they were all shot down by the Government. Everything was in place. The Criminal Justice Acts 2006 and 2007 were adequate and provided the necessary basis for hitting back at criminal activity and organised crime, and yet some of the provisions of those Acts have not been activated or implemented, including electronic tagging. Recently even the Taoiseach questioned whether the provisions regarding gang membership would be constitutional.

The Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, mentioned the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009 that was recently initiated by the Minister. Fine Gael has called for such a Bill for some time. We welcome its introduction. It is of fundamental importance to the detection of crime, particularly in cases where witnesses are being intimidated. To have direct evidence of this nature, which could be admitted in court in the prosecution of gangland crime, is of fundamental importance. However, if the resources are not provided for the three main law enforcement agencies involved, the Garda Síochána, Customs and Excise, and Revenue, the Bill will not produce the results. It is good that Revenue has been added as an organisation that can utilise the provisions of the Bill. At present under the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 only the Garda and the Defence Forces can do so. That is a welcome development. The fact that the law enforcement authorities have not been able to use evidence in court in the prosecution of crime has been a major hindrance in prosecutions. This is a welcome development albeit coming with undue delay.

There is an aspect of the Bill that demonstrates the lack of co-operation on legislation in these Houses. Anything suggested by the Opposition is automatically shot down. I refer back to the Bill I introduced, the Criminal Law (Admissibility of Evidence) Bill, which provided for the admissibility of evidence in circumstances where it may have been illegally obtained. The Bill provided considerations that could be taken into account by a court in admitting evidence, including: whether the obtaining of the evidence was a result of a mere mistake, accident or oversight; whether the breach was serious or merely technical in nature; the seriousness of the crime which the accused is alleged to have committed; whether there were extraordinary excusing circumstances; and the effect on the administration of justice. The considerations for admitting evidence in the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill included whether the error or omission concerned was serious or merely technical in nature; the nature of any right infringed by the obtaining of the information or document concerned; whether there were circumstances of urgency etc. The idea in the Bill we proposed in this House and indeed some of the language has been adopted. I am happy that aspects of the Bill that I initiated here have been plagiarised by the Minister. However, if we are to work together on these types of problems there should be a sharing of ideas.

Having said that, I welcome the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill. It is important that the resources are put in place to ensure that its provisions are effectively implemented. The national surveillance unit that is to operate the tapping and bugging operations will need to be resourced. The resources for the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions need to be provided. If the Bill is to be successful there will be more work for that office. To have a cutback in this area does not reflect that the combating of gangland crime and criminal activity of this nature is a priority for the Government.

The Minister of State touched on the legislation to provide for a DNA database. Such legislation, which is fundamental to improving the conviction rate for the most serious of crimes, was supposed to have been available before the end of 2008. I now notice that there is a new deadline of the summer. In his speech the Minister of State said that the Minister is working on this legislation and thinking about it. When there is a commitment to legislation of this nature, which is of such fundamental importance and which we are implementing in co-operation with other European Union member states, the Minister should just get on with it.

I mentioned the Criminal Justice (Violent Crime Prevention) Bill 2008 presented by my colleague, Deputy Charles Flanagan, in the Dáil, which contained our suggestions for improving the legislative framework for combating organised crime. Again it was rejected by the Government. However, the Minister might have regard to some of the proposals in that Bill. If he wished to implement them, we would welcome that and would support any initiatives in that regard.

Regarding Garda resources, the technology of criminals is very sophisticated. However, the Garda's communication technology is such that, given its radio system, more eavesdropping is done on the Garda than on criminals. Rolling out the Garda's digital radio system is important. Perhaps the Minister of State can clarify the position.

The Minister of State mentioned how the number of gardaí has increased in recent years. Recognising our problem with criminal activity, to suggest that garda numbers would stand still would be a step backwards in terms of the resources available for the detection and prosecution of crime. There must be adequate garda numbers if they are to carry out their current duties as well as the increased surveillance duties and so on mandated by this legislation.

The Minister of State referred to special operations and units. Operation Anvil has a budgetary allocation this year of €21 million. While the operation has gone nationwide, a recent "Prime Time" programme highlighted the fact that it has run down in certain areas that are the focus of criminal gangs and criminal activity. Given its allocation, there is no higher capacity within the Garda Síochána to implement it and to combat the most serious forms of gangland crime.

I will discuss drugs, to which the Minister of State referred. In recent years, the amount of drugs that have entered the country by the south-west coast is extraordinary. In 1996, cocaine valued at £120 million was found on a boat in Cork Harbour. In 1998, cocaine value at £61 million was found during a search in Kinsale. In July 2007, cocaine valued at €440 million was found in Dunlough Bay in west County Cork after a boat capsized. A short while ago, a yacht was traced to a position 200 miles off the south-west coast as part of a joint EU task force. It was carrying cocaine valued at an estimated €500 million.

We cannot tackle this problem on our own. The recommendations at European level for a police border force were shot down by the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The only way to succeed in significantly curtailing the flow of drugs into the country and through it to the rest of Europe is through co-operating with other European law enforcement agencies. This requires a co-ordinated and integrated response. It would be in Ireland's interest to taking the initiative in promoting an integrated approach to combating the flow of drugs into the EU. Given Ireland's location and its use as an entry point, we have a national interest in securing EU support. Customs and Excise and the Garda have done fantastic work in detecting the landings to which I have referred, but I imagine that these only constitute a sample of the volume of drugs entering the country.

I welcome the Minister's surveillance Bill and the fact that other measures, such as those outlined by the Minister of State, are being contemplated. This side of the House will give its full support to measures that will strengthen the legislative base, thereby enabling the Garda, Customs and Excise and Revenue to deal with the different forms of gangland crime, an issue that has become more complex, sophisticated and dangerous. I thank the Minister of State for attending.