I call Deputy Creed who was in possession.
Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I wish to share my time with Deputy Shortall.
I am sure that is in order.
As the Gold Cup has been won by a fellow Macroom man, I beg the Chair's indulgence to avail of this opportunity to congratulate Fergie Sutherland and all involved. I am sure there will be a good night in the Angler's Rest in Carrigadrohid.
I do not know how relevant that is, Deputy.
It may not be relevant to the legislation but it is relevant to the people involved.
There is a need for a comprehensive response from the State, voluntary agencies, parents, teachers and the gardaí to address the escalating drugs problem. This problem exists in every city and town and all parts of rural areas.
I note that an interesting recent indicator of the extent and seriousness of the problem is the number of taxis in which security barriers have been installed to protect the drivers from increasing attacks by crazed drug addicts looking for money to feed their habits.
This legislation is part of a comprehensive package drafted by the Government to respond to the drugs problem. It is important that the gardaí and all State agencies involved in this battle should have the confidence of all Members of this House. It is unfortunate that in dealing with events in recent weeks personal gain and promotion were put before the welfare of those agencies. I refer the Urlingford issue. We must take seriously the statement from Garda headquarters that personnel have been put at risk by the reckless disregard of Members of this House. That is extremely regrettable. Given that sensitive information is being leaked from the Garda and other agencies, it is essential that the promised legislation, to deal with the problems in the GRA and provide for a cohesive Garda force, be introduced as quickly as possible. It is important that rank and file gardaí are united in their pursuit of the criminal. There is a perception that a disproportionate amount of time is consumed by the internal politics of the Garda.
The question of deploying gardaí to the maximum benefit of the community must be considered. I welcome the Government decision to abandon proposals to extend the rural policing scheme, which was introduced in certain areas on a pilot basis, because it did not work. One of the critical aspects of good detection, detention and prosecution of offenders is intelligence gathering. There is a significant body of evidence to suggest that the rural policing scheme, where a garda from a neighbouring town drives to a village to open the local Garda station for two hours or so and expects the people to provide information, has not worked. The rapport necessary between the Garda and the people is lacking in circumstances where there is not a local Garda presence. I have grave reservations about the effectiveness of this scheme, which operates in parts of my constituency.
There should be a study of the crime detection rate in areas where this scheme operates. The policy whereby gardaí live and work in the local community should be pursued by the Minister and those responsible for the deployment of Garda personnel. If a garda lives and works in the local community, is involved in local organisations and is on first name terms with many of the people it is a significant deterrent to crime. There should be incentives for gardaí to live in the area in which they work and a commitment should be given by the Garda authorities that gardaí will remain in one area for a certain length of time.
A large number of gardaí from rural areas stationed in the Dublin metropolitan area are anxious to be transferred to their local areas. Perhaps consideration could be given to those willing to give a commitment to live in the area to which they are assigned, and a clause relating to such a commitment could be included in the recruitment contract. These are essentially matters for the Garda authorities, but they should be taken on board. This proposal may not be as simple as it sounds in that other factors must be taken into consideration such as a spouse working or children attending college, but the principle is a good one. From constituency experience I believe — perhaps the Minister will contradict me in this regard — there is a lower level of rapport between local people and gardaí in communities where gardaí are not living in or familiar with the area in which they work, and consequently a poorer level of crime detection.
I welcome the measures which provide for increased powers of detention, search warrants and so on. It is important that the Garda is armed with the necessary resources to enable it to deal with the menace of drugs, and this legislation is an important step in that regard.
I thank Deputy Creed for sharing his time with me. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. The drugs issue is undoubtedly the biggest problem facing my constituents in Dublin. Progress has been made in many areas, but in spite of the tremendous growth rates in the economy in recent years, developments in Northern Ireland and availability of Structural Funds, the feel-good factor is missing because of the overwhelming effect of the drugs problem and associated crime, particularly in the Dublin area.
Recently I attended the funeral of a teenage girl from my constituency who died as a result of heroin abuse. Present were many of her young friends, some of whom have drug problems and are on the brink of being sucked into the drugs culture, which is prevalent throughout Dublin. Successive Governments and State agencies have failed those people. We offer them very little in terms of life opportunities. In many cases they are condemned to a life of misery and sometimes to death because of our failure to tackle the drugs problem.
I am not making a personal attack on the Minister for Justice or the Government. The heroin problem has existed in Dublin for many years and it is only now we are starting to take it seriously. Part of the reason we are only beginning to deal with the problem now is that it is starting to affect rural areas. That is an indication that Dublin issues are neglected and overlooked and do not receive the attention they warrant until similar problems affect the wider community in rural Ireland — there is a very strong rural bias in all parties.
This Bill is part of the Government's overall package to deal with the drugs problem. It is the first step in tackling the problem in a co-ordinated way, with the involvement of a number of Departments. Having said that, the provisions of this Bill fall very short of what is required and are utterly inadequate to tackle the huge drugs problem in Dublin. Having read press releases and listened to various Ministers on the subject, I do not detect the sense of urgency required to tackle this problem which is affecting so many other aspects of our lives.
This overall package is designed to cater for treatment of drug addicts. We know there are approximately 7,000 heroin addicts in this city. It is my firm belief that the key to tackling the crime problem is to eliminate the drugs problem. There is very little point in placing somebody with a serious drug addiction problem in a prison like Mountjoy where it is more likely to be exacerbated than treated or eliminated.
The package before the House on the treatment of drug addicts is very short on specifics. Of the 7,000 known drug addicts in this city, some 2,000 await rehabilitative services. They want to avail of services to help in dealing with their addiction, yet such services are not available to them. The package is very vague on the number of additional places to be provided on drugs treatment programmes.
While there is reference in the package to the problem of those who smoke heroin, we have no idea precisely what is proposed. Members' attempts to elicit such information by way of parliamentary questions to the Minister have been unsuccessful. I am not at all sure that problem is being taken seriously. I wonder whether some people dealing with this problem at departmental level are aware of or understand the dynamics of the drugs problem.
I have no difficulty with the provisions of this Bill but I must ask whether it will cater for those most in need. This week the Incorporated Law Society expressed its concern that the real drug barons will not be caught under the provisions of this Bill. While it may be successful in tackling smaller drugs dealers, generally referred to as the stuffers and swallowers, many more important criminal justice measures need to be implemented immediately.
Our first priority must be to tackle the operations of the large drug barons who have extremely luxurious lifestyles, the most intimate details of which can be read daily in our newspapers. Journalists appear to encounter no difficulty in ascertaining the details of their lifestyles, the types of cars they drive, the jewellery they wear and the holidays they take. To all intents and purposes they appear to be untouchable. Why is that the case? We know that the necessary powers to tackle this problem are vested in officials of the Revenue Commissioners and Department of Social Welfare and that many of these drug barons are signing on for the dole and receiving other social welfare benefit. What is being done about it?
Such lack of action is the most appalling example for anybody living on the fringes and considering a career in crime. It is quite clear to every young person in Dublin city that crime does pay, that ill-gotten gains from drug dealing enable criminals to enjoy luxurious lifestyles. These people appear to be untouchable. Why should that be the case?
Recently an official of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners attending a committee of this House remarked that they are very concerned for their safety and that of their families. The drugs problem has reached such a level we must decide whether to tackle it or give in to these drug pushers and traffickers.
The Government must examine urgently the establishment of a special unit comprised of hand-picked officials of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners prepared to undertake this type of very dangerous task with the full backing of the Garda. All such tasks must be undertaken with guarantees of personal safety, through Garda protection and so on. If that special unit is not established urgently, we might as well give in to these criminals.
There is also urgent need to increase the numbers of garda in the drugs squad. Gardaí inform us that 80 per cent of all crime is drugs-related, yet it is impossible to understand why 1 per cent only of Garda personnel are allocated to that squad. Since the work of the drugs squad is slow, tedious, intelligence gathering and so on, it must be strengthened and made more efficient, particularly in operational matters. What is needed is better quality rather than more policing. For example, we must examine the amount of Garda time wasted in court awaiting the hearing of cases. This must affect their morale.
In addition we need to examine the matter of bench warrants recently raised by all parties in this House. There has also been much recent talk about bail, another issue on which we could have made much progress had we in place a proper system of collation of bench warrants which could be implemented more quickly. This would improve the position overall.
We must also seriously examine the chaotic position in our prisons and the toxicology ban. It is ludicrous that it is impossible to obtain an analysis of any illegal substances picked up by the Garda. These substances must be submitted to a laboratory for analysis which can take up to six months. I hope I have put across my frustration at our utter failure to tackle this problem and to protect young people in our cities from the ravages of drug abuse.
I thank those Members who contributed to this debate for their general welcome of the Bill. Today I listened, either on the monitor or in the Chamber, to the contributions of Deputies Deasy, Frances Fitzgerald, Mulvihill, Kemmy, Davern, Callely, Eric Byrne, Theresa Ahearn and Shortall. The number of contributors to this Second Stage debate is ample testimony to people's concern at what is undoubtedly a national tragedy. The number of contributors, the depth of their research, their personal insights and the excellent quality of their contributions demonstrate their collective concern and the consensus that this problem must be tackled nationally. I am delighted there has been broad welcome for this Bill which comprises only one facet of the overall task of dealing with crime, in particular drugs-related crime.
Before dealing with some specific points, I want to reiterate what was said by the Minister for Justice in the Adjournment Debate on Thursday last, 7 March 1996, concerning the major drugs seizure at Urlingford last November, to which Deputy Michael McDowell referred once again. This matter has been raised in the House on a number of occasions by way of parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance.
As well as the Customs and Excise authorities, the Garda have full seizure powers to intercept and seize illegally imported drugs. That seizure is still the subject of a major investigation by the Garda Síochána. It is being conducted at an international level, involving people who are suspected of being top players in the international drugs trade. It is essential that this investigation should not be hambered in any way.
I pay tribute to Deputy O'Donoghue, one of the people to whom a confidential briefing was given. As should be the norm in such circumstances, that confidential briefing was respected by him. It was not respected in the case of another person who was party to a briefing and the consequences of that may be rather dire in the long-term. The battle against major drug criminals requires that our law enforcement agencies be in a position to play a part and that their capacity to do so be totally beyond doubt. Anything which could hinder the fight against these criminals must be avoided and in view of the sensitivity of the issue and the ongoing investigations, we should not say anything further at this stage.
On the broad subject matter of the Bill, I would impress on Deputies that the Government has emphasised that the drugs issue will be approached in a comprehensive way. In this regard the proposals represent one facet, albeit an important one, of the Government's overall approach to the problems posed by the trade in illegal drugs.
Deputies will recall that the Minister for Health recently announced proposals for a comprehensive range of measures to prevent drug misuse and for the treatment of persons already misusing drugs. These measures recognise the overriding need for a co-ordinated response by all agencies. There will be a series of measures aimed at reducing the demand for drugs, including a recognition of the crucial role which local, voluntary and community groups can play in co-operation with their local health boards. Education and the provision of information will also be central. A special study by a task force will seek to understand the root cause of drug misuse.
The Government recognises that education and the promotion of healthy lifestyles can play a crucial role in the prevention of drug misuse. In this connection the Minister for Health announced a range of initiatives and incentives which will be undertaken in conjunction with the Minister for Education which demonstrate a clear commitment to approach the problem from a number of different angles, while at the same time ensuring there is no relaxation in the current laws relating to the possession and consumption of controlled drugs.
The need for education was one of the areas alluded to by Deputies Kemmy and Davern. We are conscious of this and what we are talking about here is a comprehensive approach of which this Bill is but one facet. The Bill must be seen in the context of a global approach by the Government to the problems which confront us as a result of the activities of those who trade in the misery which accompanies drug abuse.
Some Deputies referred to section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994 which enables a sum to be prescribed by regulations for the purposes of seizure and detention of cash under section 38 of the Act. I am pleased to say a draft of such regulations has now been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas for approval. The regulations will enable Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act, which provides for the seizure and forfeiture of drug trafficking money being imported or exported in cash, to be given full effect.
Deputy O'Donoghue sought to suggest that the provisions in the Bill were watered down because of the attitude taken by the Labour and Democratic Left parties. Such allegations are par for the course now and they are as tiresome as they are inaccurate. A supposed defect identified was that after 48 hours in detention a suspect must be brought before the courts if detention is to be continued. In making this point the Deputy ignored the fact that the Minister made clear at considerable length in her opening statement the reason the Government had taken this approach; essentially the advice the Minister received was that provisions along these lines are necessary if we are not to fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights.
If on Committee Stage ways of tightening up the section can be suggested, while keeping it within the bounds of what is likely to prove acceptable under the terms of the convention, I am sure the Minister will be happy to discuss that. It serves no purpose, however, for the Deputy to ignore our obligations under the convention and seek to pretend that what is in the Bill derives from some imagined dispute between the parties in Government.
The public will not be impressed by an attempt to turn a debate on a fundamental reform in our law in relation to one of the gravest issues facing society, into an opportunity for political point scoring. To suggest we were putting the rights of the accused above those of the victim has no basis. To advocate the introduction of measures which would be likely to fail because of legal challenges would be to do a great wrong to the community in general and victims of crime in particular. The obligation on a Government in bringing forward legislation is to ensure, as best it can, that the measure will be effective and will withstand subsequent challenge.
An analogy was made with the operation of section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 in so far as detention is concerned. That analogy does not seem to be appropriate. A regime which provides for detention up to a maximum of 12 hours and one which provides for detention for up to seven days are clearly different and greater safeguards are required the longer the potential period of detention.
Deputy O'Donoghue painted a picture of the legal regime he believed necessary to implement the proposals in section 2 but it is difficult to see how these are well founded. It is unlikely that the analogies he draws with procedural arrangements in criminal cases generally would apply in their entirety to a measure dealing not with the prosecution of offences but the question of detention. What is at issue in the Bill is a stage before any charge has been made. In any case, it would be wrong to allow a person to be detained in a Garda station for up to seven days without that person being brought before a court, for the reasons which the Minister explained. On Committee Stage the Minister will be happy to consider amendments which might improve the Bill but there is little point in putting forward amendments which ignore realities.
The Incorporated Law Society suggested that the seven day detention provision in section 2 was a risk to civil liberties and should not be introduced. The Minister, in her opening statement, recognised that the seven day detention may seem rather draconian but she set out the reasons which justify its provision and laid great emphasis on the various safeguards which accompany it, which should allay any fears that it is excessive in the context of the evil we are trying to eliminate.
At any rate it was made clear that the provision is aimed at the major players. It should also be seen in its proper context, namely, the international nature of the trade in illegal drugs and the need to have adequate time to make inquiries, for example, of police forces abroad.
There was also mention of the suggestion made by the Commission chaired by Judge Martin concerning the video-recording of interviews. The present position is that a pilot scheme was established to examine this recommendation. The pilot scheme only became fully operational in the spring of last year. A steering committee under the chairmanship of Judge Esmonde Smyth, which is overseeing the pilot scheme, is of the view that a two year period will be needed to produce the necessary data on which results can be assessed. The steering committee have made certain recommendations to the Minister with a view to increasing the number of suspects who participate in the scheme and these are under active consideration.
Some further points of detail in relation to the Bill were made which we can also tease out more fully on Committee Stage but there is one point in particular which Deputy O'Donoghue made which should be mentioned at this juncture. He criticised the approach taken in the Bill to the question of additional powers for customs officers. Customs officers already have certain powers in relation to questioning in their own right persons suspected of drug smuggling offences. In this regard I would refer Deputy O'Donoghue and Deputy Noel Davern to section 29 of the Finance Act, 1971, as amended by section 19 of the Customs and Excise (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1988, which states:
(1) A person entering the State shall, at such place and in such manner as the Revenue Commissioners may direct, declare to the proper officer of Customs and Excise any thing included in his baggage or brought with him which on importation is subject to any prohibition or restriction or to any duty or tax.
It is clear that drugs would come within this category.
(2) A person entering or leaving the State shall answer such questions as may be put to him by any officer of Customs and Excise with respect to his baggage and any thing included therein or brought with him, and shall, if required by the officer, produce that baggage and any such thing for examination.
Without the presence of the Garda Síochána there are clear rights of search in relation to any aspect of any person's baggage which in the case of drugs is adequate.
What is proposed in the Bill is a sensible step to enhance the level of co-operation between the Garda and customs officers in the area of drug trafficking. The Bill will enable additional powers to be given to customs officers allowing their participation in interviewing persons detained in Garda custody for drug trafficking offences. The reality is that the Garda have a special role in relation to the collection of evidence for prosecution in the types of cases dealt with in this Bill. The Deputy seems to envisage a separate parallel system operated by customs in relation to prosecutions in such cases. Perhaps on reflection he will accept that that would not be a sensible way to proceed particularly in the context of the need for the closest possible co-operation in these cases between customs officers and the Garda.
The Bill will allow customs officers to participate in the questioning of persons detained by the Garda in relation to drug trafficking offences. It does not go beyond that and it is difficult to see in the circumstances how Deputy O'Donoghue's suggestion, that as a result of this measure existing powers of customs officers arising in an entirely different context will be somehow called into question by the provisions of this Bill, is valid.
In relation to preliminary hearings the Minister is considering this whole issue but Deputy O'Donoghue is somewhat inaccurate when he suggests that the Progressive Democrats' proposals in this area are broadly similar to his own inasmuch as the Progressive Democrats' proposals appear to envisage an alternative to preliminary hearings which could take place in the court of trial itself.
While obviously one could not agree with much of what Deputy O'Donnell had to say during her contribution, it is to be welcomed that she acknowledged that the Bill was carefully drafted to ensure its constitutionality and that it embodies the necessary safeguards to allow the provisions to survive a constitutional challenge.
There has been widespread acknowledgement that, while the terms of the Bill are harsh, they are — regrettably — necessary to deal with the realities involved in the evil trade of drug trafficking. Too many young lives have been destroyed, too many families made miserable because of the activities of drug traffickers.
The Bill is a major step forward in the fight against this deadly menace and I commend it to the House. I thank Membeers for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.