I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 31, after "state" to insert "concerned".
Criminal Justice (Illicit Traffic by Sea) Bill 2000: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
This is a bona fide attempt to improve the drafting of the Bill which we have considered carefully and on which we have sought advice from the parliamentary counsel. It seems clear from the construction of section 4(1) that the convention state referred to in line 31 is the same convention state referred to in line 26. The word "concerned" would, strictly speaking, be unnecessary and would not add any additional clarity to the meaning of the subsection. For that reason I am unable to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (2), line 33, to delete "prevent or".
Article 11.4 of the agreement on illicit traffic by sea, implementing Article 17 of the United Nations convention, provides that the master of a vessel boarded in accordance with the terms of the agreement shall be entitled to communicate with the authorities of the vessel's flag state as well as the owners or operators of the vessel for the purpose of notifying them that the vessel has been boarded. The article also provides that the authorities of the intervening state may prevent or delay any communication with the owners or operators of the vessel if they have reasonable grounds for believing this communication would obstruct the investigation into a relevant offence.
Section 4 reflects the provisions contained in Article 11.4. If this amendment was accepted, it would mean that the provisions of the agreement would not be accurately transposed into our law. In fact, it would mean there would be a substantial difference between what is stated in the agreement and what the legislation states. Unfortunately, for these reasons I cannot accept the amendment.
My concern is that to provide for the prevention of communication gives too much power to the enforcement officer.
The section provides, based on Article 11.4 of the agreement, that the intervening state, the state which arrests the vessel, may allow for communication home. However, it also may not allow or delay it. While I cannot think of situations where the intervening state may consider it necessary to prevent information from being communicated home on the basis that it might affect a subsequent prosecution, the advice we have received from those who are skilled in this area is that there are certain circumstances in which it may be necessary. If the Deputy resubmits the amendment for Report Stage, I will explain the circumstances to her.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (2), line 34, to delete "it" and substitute "such communication".
I pointed out that amendmentNo. 2 was not in line with the terms of the agreement. However, this amendment, which is essentially a drafting amendment, is more in line with the agreement and improves the original provision set out in the Bill. In view of this, I propose to accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, subsection (2), line 25, after "means" to insert "or otherwise".
The Bill provides that a request under section 7(1) may be transmitted by facsimile or other electronic means. The amendment provides for other means of transmission, including hard copies. It seeks to clarify matters.
Article 19 of the agreement, implementing Article 17 of the relevant convention, provides that all communications under Articles 4 to 16 of the agreement, including requests for surrender, which is provided for in Article 15 of the agreement, to which this section of the Bill refers, shall be made in writing. It also provides that modern means of telecommunications, such as tele-fax, may be used. The explanatory memorandum to the agreement indicates that the purpose of the provision in relation to modern means of telecommunications is to permit an evolution if techniques change. While it goes on to indicate that the term "telecommunications" should be interpreted broadly, there is no intention that communications should be in some form other than writing. In other words, the intention is that all communications must be in some form of writing. In view of this, the amendment would not be in accordance with the terms of the agreement. For these reasons I cannot accept it.
The general intention is that the information will be communicated in writing, such as a facsimile message. Other developments in technology may provide for the use of other forms of writing. The legislation cannot provide that requests may be communicated orally, such as by telephone.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 30, to delete "it" and substitute "that court".
The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the drafting and make it more appropriate.
I accept the Deputy's bona fides in this regard. We have considered the matter and our advice is that it is clear from the construction of the sentence that the word "it" can only refer to the High Court. If the term "that court" is substituted for the word "it", there is duplication, as there is also reference to "the Court" later in the section. I am of the view, therefore, that, on balance, the present wording reads better as there is no confusion as to what the word "it" refers. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
If it is clear, as the Minister of State says, the word "it" refers only to the High Court, I will withdraw the amendment but may return to the matter later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
Sections 10 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 14, to delete "or with" and substitute "or any other offence arising from".
I am grateful to the Deputy for raising this matter. While it is clear that the agreement is primarily aimed at dealing with drug trafficking, there will be some instances when officers board vessels in pursuit of evidence of such offences and come across other offences, for example, the smuggling of arms. The agreement provides that in those circumstances the states involved should consult each other since consultations may, for example, lead to extradition or mutual assistance requests under appropriate conventions or agreements in force between the parties. However, it may suit the flag state to allow the intervening state to prosecute for the offences discovered which are not related to drug trafficking. Once the flag state gives permission to the intervening state, that state may take proceedings against those concerned for the other offence.
The amendment adds clarity to section 14(1) and reinforces the provision already set out in subsection (2) providing for the other offences. For that reason I will accept it.
In drafting the amendment I was especially concerned with situations where firearms are found on board.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 23, after "be" to insert "conveyed to the frontiers of the State and there."
As drafted, this section closely follows the wording of other sections in Irish legislation which also make provision for the surrender of persons such as section 33 of the Extradition Act 1965 and section 18 of the International War Crimes Tribunal Act 1998. The corresponding provision in the Extradition Act is clearly a long established one which the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel felt did not require to be changed and for this reason, as well as for reasons of consistency, it has been replicated. Accordingly I cannot accept the amendment.
I accept what the Minister of State says.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
Sections 18 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 10, line 34, after "Minister" to insert "and the High Court".
The amendment would make a substantive change in the legislation. The wording of the section, as drafted, follows the wording of section 19 of the Extradition Act 1965. It is important that the process be stopped at the earliest possible stage. The right to refuse surrender unless certain assurances are given should therefore be dealt with at the initial stage when the request for surrender is received by the Minister and before he or she certifies, according to the High Court, in accordance with section 8 of the Bill. In this way unnecessary court proceedings are avoided. For those reasons I cannot accept the amendment.
Is the Minister of State satisfied that persons would be surrendered only to a Council of Europe state where the death penalty is not an issue?
Yes, that is the intention of the section, as drafted. What we are saying here is that it is the Minister who decides, who gets the assurance, but if a person whose surrender is requested does not agree with the Minister's assurance, he or she can then have recourse to the High Court.
What if there is a doubt?
If there is a doubt, the person can question the Minister's conclusion that this is a country where the death penalty will not be applied. I would make the point that non-European states can also accede to the agreement but if they do, they will be bound by its terms. Such states will not only have the rights given to states under the agreement, but will also have the obligations - there are two sides to the coin. Any such state which accedes must give the assurance to the Minister that the state concerned is one where the death penalty will not be applied if the person is handed over.
That was my concern. I may return to the matter on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22 agreed to.
Sections 23 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea, and his officials for attending. Does anybody want to add anything?
When I spoke to the Naval Service initially one of the concerns it raised had not occurred to me. It felt that one good aspect of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was that it suppressed the drugs trade in that area. Since the end of the Taliban regime many more thousands of tonnes of heroin, in particular, are available and are coming into Europe. Does the Minister of State think we have adequate resources to deal with an extra influx of drugs from that part of the world and does the Naval Service have adequate manpower and ships to deal with this? To a certain extent, we rely on schemes like Coastwatch, which have been very effective. Are the available resources adequate?
We are dealing with the legislation. On the provision of finance, of course one has to finance the Naval Service, the Customs, the national drugs team, etc. The Government is committed to providing finance for those organisations as resources permit.
Judging by the figures for seizures made available to me, it would appear that the Naval Service has a very high degree of success. We are committed to putting as many resources as possible into that because we have a particular vulnerability to drugs coming in by sea.
The Naval Service flotilla is now larger than at any time in the history of the State, mainly due to its fisheries protection role, and the availability of this flotilla provides broader maritime capabilities. The Government has decided that the Naval Service will be developed around the provision of a modern eight ship flotilla. There will be a process of continuous investment in vessel replacement to ensure that the flotilla is capable of meeting military and other requirements.
This is something the Government will keep under review. I do not think we will be out campaigning to reinstate the Taliban in Afghanistan to cut off the supply of drugs to Ireland, but we will keep building up the Naval Service.
Will the Minister mediate?
That is fair enough. The flotilla has never been larger, but the amount of drugs in Ireland has never been larger. There is an incredible amount of drugs coming into the country. They are swamping every small town and city. It is the case, as the Naval Service has explained to me, that the flotilla has never been greater but there are concerns within Customs and within the Naval Service that they may not have adequate resources to deal with the massive influx of drugs occurring throughout urban areas in particular.
Having spoken to the people and the gardaí involved in the drug squad, particularly in the north-side of Dublin, I do not accept we have the resources to intercept these drug shipments. Eight out of ten of the shipments of the north inner city crime gangs get through. It is only every now and again that the Garda, the Naval Service or the Customs get lucky.
There is a massive problem with drugs on the north-side of Dublin and it is getting out of hand. I do not accept the Minister of State's response, that the Government will put the resources in place. The reality is that the resources are not in place and most of the drugs are getting through. Most of the drug pushers seem to be getting away scot-free.
To add to what the Deputies have said, in my experience drugs are not a problem in urban areas only. There is a drug problems in small villages in rural Ireland. The availability of cannabis is widespread, with ecstasy following closely on its heels. I do not know how the Minister is going to tackle the problem but it must be tackled. It is leading to other problems such as violence on the streets at night. I realise the Minister cannot give us the answer today, but he might acknowledge his awareness of it and perhaps look again at how it can be tackled.
I acknowledge my awareness of it but I also live in the real world. The figures available for the past six years show that the Customs Service has examined 2,087 vessels. In the five year period ending December 2000, 970 kilogrammes of cocaine and 3,280 kilogrammes of cannabis resin, with a total estimated street value of €202 million, has been seized at sea.
A national drugs awareness campaign will be launched in early to mid-March. In total, the Government has allocated more than €51 million to date in implementing the projects established under the Lough Derg task force initiative. The Government has committed €130 million over the lifetime of the national development plan to the young people facilities and services fund, which targets areas of disadvantage and greater risk of drug misuse among young people. I take careful note of what committee members have said and I will communicate their views to the Minister.
I wish to follow up Deputy McGrath's point. We can scream and shout about this but all of us experience the problem on our doorsteps. I come from a small town and I have never seen as much drug activity. We expend a great deal of money and Garda resources dealing with the drug problems that exist in towns, villages and cities but if we spent more on resources for the Customs Service and the Naval Service, we might solve more problems down the line. Deputy McGrath is absolutely correct. Most of this stuff gets through and we spend tens of millions of euro dealing with the drug problem that exists on our streets. If we applied those resources to the Customs Service and the Naval Service we would solve many of the problems that exist down the line.
Does the Minister of State accept drug trafficking and so on is not only an Irish problem but a worldwide problem, especially in the developed world? Over the past decade significant inroads have been made by the Garda, Naval Service and Customs Service given that the coastline is so exposed. We have only limited success in comparison to EU member states and, in particular, America. Israel is run by a tough and strong regime but suicide bombers still get through. There is a need for drugs in our society and while that is the case it will be a difficult problem to resolve.
I agree with Deputy O'Donovan. I recall when President Reagan was elected in the early 1980s, one of his commitments in terms of domestic policy was a war on drugs. Billions have been spent trying to eliminate the drugs problem in the US and the best that could be done was to contain it. President Bush came along and he renewed the war on drugs at twice the cost in terms of prevention, cure and policing but the problem increased. Unfortunately, I agree with Deputy O'Donovan's contribution. We are a small country with a long coastline on the western periphery of Europe. I take Deputy Deasy's point absolutely and I will communicate his views faithfully to the Minister but there must be a European-wide response, now that we are EU members in more than just name.
The Bill provides for co-operation with other EU countries in the fight against drugs. Discussions are ongoing between the Minister and his counterparts in the EU as to how the EU will fight the drugs scourge because much of the drug supply emanates from Asia and Africa and a co-ordinated European response is needed. I take on the board the Deputies' comments and I will communicate their views to the Minister.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending.