Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

The Minister of State has clearly pointed out the growth in the number of organised and ruthless crimes and the need to step up our security in response. We have recent and unfortunate experience of the threat posed by gangs to society and to the integrity and effectiveness of the criminal judicial system.

Unlike Senator Regan, I believe that much has been done in recent years. The number of gardaí has increased from 11,000 during my earliest debates in the Seanad to in excess of 14,000. The Garda reserve force has also been introduced, although that process may be moving more slowly than we would have liked. When a previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform introduced it, it received much support in the Houses because it would release gardaí from mundane duties to tackle serious crime.

Organised criminal gangs around the world have become sophisticated. As a consequence, there has been an increase in the co-operation between various jurisdictions' police authorities. This is essential if we are to combat the crimes committed by those who have no inhibitions about crossing frontiers.

Drugs comprise a significant factor in the growth of crime worldwide. Various states have taken strong initiatives, but none has overcome the difficulties. I share the opinion that, to some extent, we are merely trying to match or contain crime.

The Minister of State alluded to Operation Anvil, which has enjoyed significant success. However, while the figure of €200 million in seizures certainly is high, it probably only constitutes a fraction of the value of the annual market for drugs, which in Ireland is an industry that is worth well in excess of €1 billion per year. This of course will entice people into crime and the drugs trafficking trade. As a consequence, the incentive for such people to participate in that business and to be absolutely ruthless in controlling their market areas must be matched with an equally committed and absolutely unwavering fight by the State against those involved in this trade. This is not easy because so doing has led to much introduction of and change in legislation. The Minister of State has outlined a number of initiatives that will come before the House in the next few months.

Whenever Members have such debates, some raise issues with regard to civil liberties infringements and so on. This point must be kept in mind because balance must be achieved in this regard. However, the judicial pendulum must tend to lean more towards the protection of society than towards the rights of such serious criminals in particular, who have no respect for the rights of anyone else. Some of the aforementioned initiatives have taken place against the backdrop of serious and high profile crimes and murders in this State. The obvious example is the introduction of the Criminal Assets Bureau on foot of the horrendous murder of Veronica Guerin. While I can be highly critical of some issues pertaining to the media, I extol the fact that they are very much part of our democratic process and therefore must be so perceived and protected. Moreover, individual citizens also have such a right to be protected by the State. The Criminal Assets Bureau has been extremely successful and interestingly, representatives from other jurisdictions have come to investigate the operation of the Criminal Assets Bureau in Ireland and have introduced similar provision within their own jurisdictions.

In the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in 1998, provisions were made to tackle subversive crime in Ireland that were regarded as draconian at the time. That was in response to people's great abhorrence of the killing of so many innocent people in that bombing. Measures pertaining to the right to silence certainly were introduced and allowing judges to make an inference and enabling superintendents to give evidence to which the courts were obliged to give regard were positive steps. Members have begun to recognise that the threat posed to society and the State from those who are involved in serious criminal activity and criminal gangs is at least comparable.

One measure that has been introduced in the intervening period and to which the Minister of State referred is the witness security programme, whereby families and witnesses are relocated, identities are changed and financial aid is forthcoming. It appears that for whatever reason, this measure is not used as widely as Members had anticipated at the time. It does not appear to have been as effective a tool as was thought initially. In previous debates, it has been suggested that this is because people do not wish to be relocated or to go abroad and be completely separated from relatives, friends and the like. Moreover, those involved do not welcome the lifestyle change and this may be an inhibiting factor. However, whatever measures are taken must ensure the protection of witnesses and any intimidation of witnesses at whatever level must be tackled with the most vigorous efforts and with all the resources of the State. A sad instance in this regard was the recent murder of Roy Collins in Limerick. However, it followed other murders, such as that of Shane Geoghegan and of Brian Fitzgerald a number of years ago. The latter case probably did not receive the same profile as the murder of Veronica Guerin. He was a man who performed security duty, in the course of which he prohibited some gangs from selling drugs in the premises for which he had security responsibility, and they cold-bloodedly murdered him.

Apprehensions have arisen with regard to some of the murders that have taken place and I share Senator Regan's concern that only a small number of those who have committed such murders or assassinations have been brought before the courts. However, I also recognise that it is extremely difficult to so do. Such gangs are highly professional operations with significant financial resources at their disposal and are completely ruthless in the manner in which they apply such resources. In this regard, I welcome the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009 to which the Minister of State referred. Any initiative that has been taken regarding subversive crime also should be applied in this respect and the Government now appears to be going down that route. The record will show that I advocated so doing in the past. It is only right that such evidence as may be acquired through secret surveillance methods can be used. I am aware of reservations on the part of the Garda. While Members will have the opportunity to debate this Bill, it contains certain precautions, such as the requirement for authorisation by a District Court judge and the fact that such authorisation must be renewed after three months. Moreover, it will be subject to a judicial review, to be carried out by a High Court judge, and I understand the report will be laid before these Houses.

Like Senator Regan, I would greatly welcome the introduction of the Bill to establish a DNA database that is in preparation because use of DNA has proved to be useful in the detection of crime. A number of issues arise in this regard. Obviously one must have in place the legislative framework but one also must have in place resources that are equipped and honed to meet the challenges of such sophisticated groups and operations, bring them before the courts and be able to prosecute them effectively through the courts. Anything that Members can do by way of legislation would be done willingly by practically everyone in the Houses.

One subject that has not yet been mentioned and that I have raised previously concerns the infiltration of gangs by the Garda. I do not know the extent to which this happens and I understand the need for secrecy and absolute confidentiality in this regard. However, from following some of the cases through the courts, my perception is that such infiltration is not used as widely here as it might be. My second reason for making this point is that I have seen no attempt in Ireland to move in the direction of the Canadian model. The Canadians legislated to grant immunity from prosecution to undercover police operations, except in cases in which those involved may have been involved in murder or sexual offences. I wish to expound on the Canadian model a little further. I met the group responsible for public safety and emergency in Canada a number of years ago and the Canadians amended the criminal code in 1997 to acknowledge crimes committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organisation. In January 2002, organised crime legislation made participation in a criminal organisation an offence and expanded this provision to anyone who knowingly becomes involved in activities that further an organisation's criminal objectives. They also simplified the definition of criminal organisation and reduced the number of people required to constitute a criminal organisation from five to three. These were effective measures taken by the Canadian State. Some of the success that country has had should be examined. Apart from responding to high profile crimes it is important to keep ourselves au fait with what is happening in other jurisdictions where effective initiatives are being taken, which we could replicate. I wish the Minister well in his efforts. I look forward to the two items of legislation, which will be a significant addition to the armoury of combatting crime in this country.