Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Jul 1996

Vol. 468 No. 4

Proceeds of Crime Bill, 1996: Report and Final Stages.

An Leas-Cheann Chomhairle

Amendments Nos. 1a, 2, 4, 9 and 26 are related to amendment No. 1. These amendments may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 10, after "incorporeal property" to insert "and references to property shall be construed as including references to any interest in property".

Deputy O'Donnell tabled an amendment to section 16 on Committee Stage, which has been resubmitted on Report Stage, to provide for the addition of the words "or an interest in" after the word "property". The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, undertook on Committee Stage to look at whether it was necessary to tidy up all references to an interest in property. My amendments deal with the matter, first, by spelling out in the interpretation section that references to property include any interest in property and, second, by deleting all references to an interest in property wherever they occur in the Bill.

Amendment No. 1a is consequential. It provides for the deletion of subsection (2) from section 1, which is made redundant by the expanded definition of property. I trust the amendments are acceptable.

The amendments will enhance the legislation. They are technical amendments and we have no objection to them.

I thank the Minister for accepting the principle of my Committee Stage amendment and for changing the Bill as suggested by my party.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 1a:

In page 4, to delete lines 18 to 20.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, line 16, to delete, "or of an interest in,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, to delete lines 35 to 37 and substitute the following:

"(b) shall provide for notice of it to be given to the respondent and any other person who appears to be or is affected by it unless the Court is satisfied that it is not reasonably possible to ascertain his, her or their whereabouts.".

This is a drafting amendment, the purpose of which is to align the wording in section 3 (2) (b) with a similar provision in section 2 (2) (b). The substance has not been changed in any way.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, line 40, to delete ",or of an interest in,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, line 43, after "applies," to insert "or that the order causes any other injustice,".

This amendment arises from a point raised by Deputy O'Donnell on Committee Stage. Its effect is to specify a further ground upon which the court could, on the application of the respondent or any other person claiming ownership, discharge or vary an interlocutory order. Under section 3 (1) the court is prevented from making an interlocutory order "if it is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice". It is logical to provide for the discharge or variation of an interlocutory order on the grounds of injustice where the serious risk of injustice is a ground for not making the order in the first place. The amendment makes clear in section 3 (3) that where it is shown to the court's satisfaction that an interlocutory order causes injustice, the court may discharge or vary it as appropriate. The amendment meets the point raised by Deputy O'Donnell on Committee Stage.

I dealt with this matter in some detail on Committee Stage. The principal non-semantic difference between the version contained in the Bill drafted by Fianna Fáil and the amendments tabled by the Minister were contained at the end of section 3 (1) of the amended version which states: "Provided, however, that the Court shall not make the order if it is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice".

It is part and parcel of our jurisprudence that the High Court should never make an unjust order. The High Court is not there to make unjust orders; it will surprise nobody to learn that it is there to make just orders. That is not, however, my principal concern about section 3. It concerns me that it is not explicitly stated that the onus of establishing that there would be a serious risk of injustice rests on the respondent.

I suggested on Committee Stage that inserting the words, "by facts adduced in evidence by the respondent", after "is satisfied" would meet my concern. The provision would then read: "Provided, however, that the Court shall not make the order if it is satisfied by facts adduced in evidence by the respondent that there would be a serious risk of injustice". The legislation as it stands is not explicit in this respect. This amended wording should be considered. If it cannot be accepted in the Dáil, I ask the Minister to bring forward an amendment in the Seanad.

It is of considerable importance that the Bill be explicit about where the onus of proof should lie. The onus of proof at freezing order stage under this legislation is on the respondent. The Minister moved an amendment to provide that it would also be on the respondent when the disposal order was being made. I welcomed that amendment, provided it was within constitutional parameters. In the case of Clancy and McCartney v Ireland and the Attorney General in 1985, the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1985, was tested in the courts. Mr. Justice Barrington held that the legislation represented a delimitation of property rights but did so for the common good and, as a consequence of it being done for the common good, it came within the parameters of the Constitution.

It would be remiss of me not to point out that aside from the extension of the terms of the legislation to include all criminal assets or assets gleaned or obtained by means of criminality, the provision whereby the onus of proof was shifted on to the respondent at disposal order stage represented and does represent the highest possible compliment that could have been paid to the constitutionality of the legislation. In that context some unattributed person leaked to newspapers that the legislation was unconstitutional and that the Attorney General had advised the Government this was the position. I am not pointing the finger in any direction as to who was responsible. It would not matter much now if it was not for the fact that it has implications for worthwhile legislation introduced by any Member in future. It is of fundamental importance to our legislators and axiomatically the people — that legislation which is constitutional, which is worthy of consideration by the House, irrespective of its origin should not be undermined by a person or persons unknown in that fashion.

Mr. Gleeson is one of the finest legal brains of this or any other generation of Irish lawyers. I know full well there are no circumstances under which he would advise the Government that the legislation was unconstitutional. I know that few are as well acquainted with the 1937 Constitution as Mr. Gleeson because he lectured me on the subject and did so extremely well.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Did the Deputy learn much?

I learned a considerable amount——

He tells us about it every day.

——but I would not for one moment suggest or imply that I know as much as Mr. Gleeson, I do not. I know he did not advise the Government that the Bill was unconstituional as if he had we would not be debating this legislation. The attempt to undermine the legislation in this manner was what I can only describe as an act of national sabotage and whoever was involved should be ashamed.

I reiterate the importance of a clear and implicit statement in the legislation on whom the onus of proof should lie when we are considering whether there would be a serious risk of injustice. It not only enhances the amendment, it would be of considerable assistance to the Judiciary in dealing with the legislation because it is important to have certainty in statute law. In so far as one can achieve that objective it would be my wish and request that this be achieved where it can. I humbly suggest that the form of words I put forward on Committee Stage and now on Report Stage gives the type of clarity which the legislation deserves.

I thank the Minister for accepting the principle of my amendment which we discussed at length on Committee Stage.

Deputy O'Donoghue again rehashed much of what he said on Committee Stage regarding the involvement of the Attorney General in the matter. It is most unfair, as it was on Committee Stage, to speak of the Attorney General's involvement in the manner which Deputy O'Donoghue has done. Is he saying the Attorney General gave advice on this matter or is he saying the Attorney General did not? He has been skirting around some type of smear campaign on both his Bill and on the Attorney General without producing a shred of evidence. We are dealing with amendments to the Fianna Fáil Private Members' Bill, originally the Proceeds of Crime Bill, permitting the Garda and the Revenue Commissioners to seek a High Court order to freeze and subsequently dispose of certain assets by applying the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal standard of reasonable doubt.

I refer Deputies O'Donoghue and Ahern and members of the Fianna Fáil Party to what happened when the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn passed the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, a few short years ago. I am sure it has not escaped the collective memory of the Fianna Fáil Front Bench. This Act provided for the confiscation of assets after, and only after, a criminal conviction had been obtained. The freezing of assets by way of court order, in anticipation of confiscation, which could be applied for even before a charge was made, could be granted by the court only if it was satisfied that proceedings would be brought and confiscation might consequently be made. This Criminal Justice Act introduced by the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, followed the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission report on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime which was published as far back as January, 1991. The Law Reform Commission did not recommend the freezing of assets separate from a criminal conviction. It stated it was somewhat fearful in advising that the civil standard of proof would be applied and used.

So why is the Deputy supporting it?

The Law Reform Commission stated there may have been serious constitutional difficulties. In 1994 in the passage of the Criminal Justice Act, the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, followed the advice of the Law Reform Commission. One and a half years later all that has changed is that the Fianna Fáil Party is in Opposition.

We are in power. This is our Bill. We are leading, you are following.

One and a half years later we have a Private Members' Bill which is attempting to do what the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, neglected to do because she was prepared to follow the expert advice of the Law Reform Commission. Since the Fianna Fáil Bill was published it has been substantially rewritten and amended in the Select Committee on Legislation and Security to ensure it is not only effective legislation but that its constitutional soundness is definite. It is extraordinary that we should have this debate on the constitutionality of the Bill and that the Attorney General can be quoted, and misquoted, quite liberally——

By the media.

——by the Fianna Fáil Front Bench without producing a shred of evidence as far as this matter was concerned. I asked Members opposite when considering what has been written and quoted as coming from the Attorney General, without attempting to play politics with the matter, to consider what happened in 1994 when Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn held the Justice portfolio.

The Deputies opposite stated that there was no basis for suggesting that the Attorney General was in any way concerned about the Bill. Deliberate efforts have been made to downgrade the Bill presented by Deputy O'Donoghue.

It certainly was not done by anyone on this side of the House so it must have been by someone on the other side of the House. A Minister or his or her handler spoke or whispered to reputable journalists who have given their reports. The 7 July edition of The Sunday Business Post——

The Chair would prefer if the Deputy addressed the amendment before the House.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): He is making a Second Stage speech.

This relates directly to the constitutionality of the Bill——

There is no foundation——

Let us hear the Deputy in possession, please.

——which is one of the key points raised by the Government. In her article in The Sunday Business Post Emily O'Reilly, a renowned and respected journalist, states: “The Fianna Fáil Bill to confiscate the assets of criminals which passed its Second Stage in the Dáil last week is unconstitutional according to the Attorney General”. Which handler gave her that story and why? Every time articles like these are published we are told we know what the papers are like.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy was given an explanation at the committee.

The purpose of the article was to undermine the Fianna Fáil Bill.

If we accepted it why would we undermine it?

The draftsman redrafted much of the Bill — this is his job and we accept it — but, as Deputy O'Donoghue said, the five pillars of it are as sound as ever. It should not be forgotten that my party leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern, said he did not mind whether the Bill was a Government or Opposition one but our Bill was ready at the time of the tragedy.

The Deputies now mind whose Bill it is.

Afterwards the Government attempted, through sleight of hand, to try to undermine our Bill instead of honourably coming forward and saying it had concerns and was prepared to work on the Bill to ensure these were met.

I want to make it clear that the concerns expressed about the legislation did not fall off the back of a lorry or come from this side of the House. The Government went further on Committee Stage and put down amendments to ensure that the Bill was as wide as possible in its application, and we accept this. If there was a question mark about the constitutionality of the Bill then the Government would surely not have introduced those changes.

I agree with Deputy O'Donoghue that the onus of proof should clearly lie with the respondent where the seizure of a person's assets is in the interests of justice. The case made by Deputy O'Donoghue is effectively unanswerable and the Minister should take it on board.

I was surprised by Deputy Flanagan's references to the 1994 legislation.

Does the Deputy remember it?

The Law Reform Commission reported to the then Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, who took the recommendations on board and introduced legislation, the Criminal Justice Act, 1994. That legislation was innovative and radical in that for the first time it gave the authorities the right to seize and confiscate the assets of criminals. The legislation would have had much more effect by now if the Minister for Justice had not, for an unconscionable period, neglected to introduce the appropriate regulations.

(Interruptions.)

That is an historical fact. I deny Deputy Flanagan's suggestion that my party is in some way engaging in a smear campaign against the Attorney General. Despite 16 and a half pages of amendments to a five and a half page Bill, the substance of the legislation is still in place. The Government introduced a number of changes to the Bill on Committee Stage, which I welcome. These include the expansion of the definition of crime to include all crime and not just organised crime and the expansion of the definition of the assets which can be seized. The connection between the owner and the assets is even more tenuous as a result of these changes. At the disposal stage we put the onus of proof on the State but this has not been shifted to the respondent.

I agree with those changes but I think Deputy Flanagan will accept that they make the legislation more draconian. The legislation has been cleared by the Attorney General, Mr. Dermot Gleeson. However, in spite of this there was a report in the 7 July edition of a Sunday newspaper to the effect that the Attorney General had described the less draconian Fianna Fáil legislation as unconstitutional. Emily O'Reilly, the journalist who wrote the article, did not make up that story.

The Deputies should vote for Emily O'Reilly so that she can come in here and answer questions.

Someone told her that the Attorney General had given the opinion that the Fianna Fáil legislation was unconstitutional. That information, communicated in secret to Emily O'Reilly by an anonymous handler, is seriously slanderous and libellous of the Attorney General, Mr. Dermot Gleeson.

Deputies are raising the wider issue of the constitutionality of the Bill and I want to bring them back to the amendment before us.

If anyone is guilty of a smear campaign against the Attorney General it is the anonymous Government handler who misused the Attorney General's name when speaking to a journalist with a Sunday newspaper. The Minister for Justice should have the gumption to come into the House and apologise to the Attorney General for the activities of that anonymous Svengali who was dispatched to the media as part of a campaign of guerrilla warfare against this legislation simply because it emanated from Fianna Fáil.

I am totally confused. Did the Deputies want the Bill to be accepted? Almost all the Bill required substantial amendment. In recognising the need for these amendments Deputy O'Donnell clearly has good legal advice which highlighted the many flaws in the legislation. I do not know who the Fianna Fáil legal advisers are and I will not cast any aspersions on them. Suffice it to say that in order to ensure that the legislation was effective I had to substantially amend it and increase the number of sections from eight to 18.

The Law Reform Commission reported in 1991 but it took until the end of 1994 for the then Fianna Fáil Government to introduce the legislation. I took a lot of stick for taking a few months to consider the Law Reform Commission report on bail. I have made an announcement about it. The Opposition has some check to complain when the Law Reform Commission report on criminal assets was on the desks of Deputies O'Dea and Geoghegan-Quinn's for three and a half years. Some people have forgotten that Deputy O'Dea was a Minister of State in the Department of Justice. I found very little trace of him or his activity around the Department. The Opposition must make up its mind.

The Government, in a spirit that was not manifest when Fianna Fáil was in Government, decided to take the principle of that party's Bill on board but we made it clear that the immediate advice to us was that it required substantial redrafting. The Law Reform Commission, after studying this issue, warned that using this particular method might cause constitutional problems. My job, and that of the officials in my Department and the Attorney General's office, was to introduce amendments to ensure the efficacy and constitutionality of this Bill as far as possible. It does not want to bring legislation before this House, from any source, if there is any doubt about its constitutionality.

The final word on constitutionality rests with the courts. The President has the power to refer any Bill to the courts. It is unfair to imply that somebody was trying to diminish the Fianna Fáil Bill by suggesting that there were flaws in it. That was not the purpose of any amendments. I said openly from the start that I was very concerned about sections of the Bill and my concerns have been well founded. The amendments have been passed. If my amendments were so bad why did Fianna Fáil not vote against them? Perhaps eminent lawyers, such as Deputy Lenihan and others, told them the Bill the party presented was flawed.

It is regrettable that Deputy O'Donoghue would use this debate to cast aspersions on the eminence of the Attorney General. This morning he did so again. He criticised the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and described it as a hotch potch Bill, that it was thrown together. No legislation that I bring into this House is thrown together. It goes through the full rigours of the Attorney General's office. By criticising that Bill, the Deputy is criticising the Attorney General and casting aspersions on his expertise. Shame on the Deputy for doing that to any Attorney General, particularly this Attorney General who is so eminent. I do not pay any attention to the Deputy quoting articles from a newspaper for which I have no responsibility. I am not Emily O'Reilly, I never will be an Emily O'Reilly and I do not know what Emily O'Reilly wrote on that day.

When Deputy O'Donoghue proposed this amendment on Committee Stage he received an answer. Perhaps he is using it as a way to attack the Attorney General. It is clear that the amendment I am proposing covers Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment by the use of the expression, "if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court". There is no danger that it will be the State's responsibility to do what Deputy O'Donoghue says will be necessary. I am satisfied that I do not need to accept his amendment. The Bill, as drafted, puts the responsibility on the court.

I do not see the need to introduce an amendment when I go to the other House tomorrow with this legislation. I am hoping there will be no further amendments so the legislation can be signed into law. Deputy O'Donoghue may think an amendment is necessary but I may not think so. The Deputy is essentially saying that he does not mind if this legislation is not enacted until the next session because as the Dáil will not be sitting, it will be impossible to return with amendments from the other House.

I am satisfied that the amendment is not required so I strongly recommend that the House accept amendment No. 5, as Deputy O'Donnell has. The advice to her on Committee Stage and now is that the Government amendment is sufficient to satisfy all the requirements of this section.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments No. 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, line 35, to delete "transferred" and substitute "transferred,".

These are drafting amendments, which simply add punctuation to an amendment of Deputy O'Donnell's which the Minister of State accepted on my behalf on Committee Stage. Some punctuation marks were left out and I am amending the Bill accordingly.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, line 36, to delete "specify" and substitute "specify,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 8, line 7, to delete "shall" and substitute "may be used to promote awareness of the dangers associated with controlled drugs within the meaning of section 2, subsection (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, or may".

I tabled this amendment of Committee Stage and it gained the support of all members of the Select Committee. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any proceeds seized and disposed of by the court under section 4 should be ploughed into programmes to promote awareness of the dangers associated with controlled drugs within the meaning of section 2, (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977. The section currently provides that money raised from the sale of assets to be paid to the Exchequer. Such seized proceeds of crime should be used for something more directly related to the issue of crime, such as educational or rehabilitation campaigns relating to drug abuse.

In February 1994 the Dáil passed the Criminal Justice (No. 3) Act, 1993, which permits the confiscation of the proceeds of crime and, in particular, of drug trafficking when a conviction has been secured. I wonder how effective this has been, how many orders of confiscation have been made and where the money, if any, has gone. When debating that legislation, proposals were made on Committee Stage by Fine Gael, Democratic Left and the Progressive Democrats to the then Minister for Justice, and again on Report Stage, to stipulate the use to which such confiscated money could be put. All Deputies supported this principle and felt that money confiscated should be used in the fight against drug abuse through a combat drugs fund. The argument made then is as valid now in relation to this legislation. I am revisiting this concept today to ensure that any proceeds seized and disposed of by the court should be ploughed into such programmes.

This concept was rejected by the then Minister for Justice in 1994 in relation to an earlier Bill on the grounds, amongst others, that the Minister for Finance saw difficulties from the point of view of departing from the normal Estimates procedures and that it would create accountability difficulties of concern to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, when dealing with this amendment on Committee Stage, and responding to the unanimous support of the members of the select committee present, referred to the compelling logic represented by this concept and indicated that he would endeavour to respond favourably to my amendment on Report Stage. I regret that I see no indication by way of amendment by the Minister to reflect that endeavour, but perhaps I will be surprised.

On Tuesday, the Minister of State was obliged to read out reasons why this was not possible and they were identical to those heard in 1994. This is an example of bureaucracy and a blind adherence to the status quo which so bedevils our efforts in this House. Such designated funds are widely used in other jurisdictions — in the United States for example. Why is it not possible to have such flexibility on this amendment now?

Those, and there are many, who would condemn our efforts today as representing a one-sided approach to the drugs problem by saying, for example, that the criminal justice response is a one-sided response on the supply side, have the opportunity to vote for an amendment which seeks to integrate the efforts on the criminal justice side with the chronic needs on the demand side.

Today Deputies were invited to the Dublin city-wide drugs crisis campaign which launched a comprehensive set of proposals aimed at tackling the drugs abuse crisis in a meaningful way. They recommended that the problem should be dealt with in a co-ordinated fashion, including the treatment and rehabilitation of existing addicts, addressing the conditions that create a drugs culture and adopting a realistic approach to removing drug profiteers from our communities. The best way to respond to the call for an integrated approach is to support this measure.

The proof of this legislation will be in its implementation. If it is successful a sizeable amount of money will be collected, but why should it flow into the black hole of the Department of Finance? Why not devise a relevant plan for the use of seized moneys? This compelling logic was supported by every member of the committee on Tuesday. The Government recently gave the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, responsibility for proposals and initiatives on the demand side. This is long overdue and I am sure he will do a good job.

A total of £7 million has been allocated this year for drug rehabilitation purposes. Why not allow the proceeds of crime to help drug victims? The real victims are the generations of young people and their families who have had to live with the drugs epidemic for more than a decade. The 1994 empirical research carried out on people receiving treatment in Dublin demonstrates the links between drug abuse and poverty. It showed that more than 80 per cent were unemployed, 60 per cent had left school without a minimal education and that 20 per cent lived in the north or south inner city. We also know the high percentage of offenders who are drug addicts.

There is no doubt successive Governments have failed to respond adequately to the needs of communities that have suffered from the drugs epidemic since the 1980s. There are waiting lists for treatment and inadequate health and rehabilitation programmes, particularly on the residential side.

If this legislation is to be successful and a product of integrated political and administrative thinking, the systems and status quo in Government Departments should bow to the common sense which underlies it. Similar legislation was introduced in the UK.

It is imperative that we adhere to the amendment, the Deputy appears to be embarking on a Second Stage debate.

I am not making a Second Stage speech. I am trying to convey the purpose of the amendment which is to provide for an integrated approach to the problem. In the UK £20 million was confiscated between 1986 and the last date for which figures are available. We could do a great deal with such funds if they were confiscated. That is the purpose of this amendment which was supported by all parties on Committee Stage. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Because the legislation was presented in a spirit of magnanimity, I indicated at the outset that my party would be open to accepting any constructive amendments and our leader reiterated that on many occasions. The fact that it was accepted with begrudgery is now a matter of history, but the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Donnell is worthy of support. The victims of ruthless criminals and traders in human misery should be the benefactors of assets seized under the legislation. In most cases we are talking about run-down areas and the underprivileged in society. It is in keeping with the spirit of this legislation that moneys seized should be utilised for those who have suffered at the hands of drug dealers, traffickers and traders in human misery.

As the former Garda Commissioner, Mr. Culligan, stated recently, the Department of Justice alone cannot resolve the drug problem. The Departments of Education and Health have responsibilities in this area, but they are not being discharged in a proper fashion. The Department of Education should have sufficient resources to enable it to implement an education programme in primary schools on the dangers of illegal drugs and this amendment supports that concept. The importance of a stay safe programme in our schools has been recognised by many politicians and commentators on this subject. It is equally important that primary school children are educated on the horrific dangers of illegal drugs. It is a sad fact of life, whether through a lack of resources or otherwise, that treatment centres are insufficient and that we as a society have presided over a State institution, Mountjoy Prison, a haven for illegal drugs. If we cannot control illegal drugs in our prisons one might be forgiven for asking whether we are capable of controlling the supply of drugs on our streets.

It is vital that more funding is provided to tackle the drugs problem and this amendment would go some way towards achieving that objective. This society — certainly the Government — has not woken up to the fact that the subculture of drugs and organised crime requires a response that reflects a much different society from that which existed 30 years ago. Deputy O'Donnell's amendment would assist in achieving the intent and principle of the legislation, the five pillars of which are fully intact, despite the parliamentary prolixity of certain sources.

Despite the what?

The Minister should ask the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, for a loan of his thesaurus. He will tell the Minister what the word means.

The Deputy has been speaking with prolixity for the past ten minutes.

It was the Kerry accent.

I make no apology for my accent.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I could not hear the word because the Deputy swallowed it.

Deputy O'Donoghue, without interruption.

I can take as many personal insults as the Minister wishes to throw. However, that does not take from the fact that every word I have spoken today is true. I support the amendment.

I feel so intimidated.

I support the amendment, as I did on Committee Stage, for a number of reasons. I very strongly support the principle that the assets of drug dealers should be used for the benefit of their victims. Their victims are the thousands of young heroin addicts, particularly in Dublin, whose stories were heard by any Members who took the trouble to go to the meeting in Buswells Hotel today by the city-wide campaign against heroin.

They heard the tragic stories of the parents of young people who committed suicide due to their appalling situation and who saw no way out because there was no treatment or support agencies available to them when they went for help. Similar stories were told to us last week about mothers and other relatives bringing young addicts who were in a suicidal state to hospitals and being turned away, and being told by one agency after another that no emergency facility was available to them. In that context this amendment is very important.

There is a strong belief, particularly among voluntary and statutory groups working in disadvantaged areas, that the emphasis of the Government's approach is one of law and order based on legislation. There has been little or no reference to what must be the other half of the fight against drugs. There has to be a parallel programme of health and support services in the areas where heroin has become virtually part of young people's lifestyle because of its ready availability. If the Government accepted this amendment it would, at least, be a gesture of recognition of the need for such a parallel programme.

I have argued for a long time for many of the provisions in these Bills. I support them and am delighted they are being brought in, although I very much regret that some of them probably would not have seen the light of day but for the awful murder of Veronica Guerin. Nonetheless, I believed that, used effectively, they can achieved justice in the context of getting after the drug barons who flaunt their wealth on the streets of this city while their victims are dying.

If this amendment is rejected it will add to the view that the Government is only interested in a law and order approach and does not recognise that the problem of young addicts, in particular, who go looking for treatment is the same today as it was a year ago when the Minister launched her first package to deal with the drug problem. If there is any difference today, it is that the waiting lists at the treatment centres are longer, the availability of heroin in Dublin is more widespread and the number of young people smoking heroin in disadvantaged communities throughout this city is far greater than it was a year ago.

I know what we will be told in relation to the difficulty of achieving the objective of this amendment because we were told it on Committee Stage and at other times in the past. However, I strongly believe that if the political will is there to achieve this — and there was consensus by all parties on Committee Stage — a mechanism can be found to achieve the objective set by this very worthy amendment. Such measures have been introduced and used effectively in the United States, as have many of the initiatives in the Bills which came before the House today. I fail to understand why, if there is agreement that this is a correct course of action to take, a mechanism cannot be found to achieve it.

I also wish to draw attention to the fact that some of the community and voluntary groups have been carrying the fight against drugs without any support from the State. Many of these groups have a greater and deeper understanding than any of us of the problems of drug addiction and how to deal with it, yet they are not represented on any State structure or on the national coordinating committee set up by the Government. There needs to be direct representation of these voluntary agencies and community groups because they confront this problem, know its extent and how to deal with it much more than any of the specialist agencies involved in the battle against drugs.

Two very simple measures should be taken to give recognition to the work of people outside this House who are organising and trying to draw attention to the other aspects of the drug problem which need just as urgent an address as the law and order side. If members of the Government had listened in Buswells Hotel to the stories of mothers whose children had died or committed suicide and to the awful anguish they expressed, then perhaps we would have what I have asked for — a parallel programme of treatment services and backup support in the areas which have a serious heroin problem.

It took the murder of a journalist to get some of the measures we have before the House. It can equally be said if we really listened to what is happening in the disadvantaged areas of Dublin and really cared about the victims of drug dealing, we would make sure that when a parent or an addict look for help and treatment that it is readily available to them. However, that situation is no nearer to being achieved today than it was a year or five years ago.

For those reasons, I support this amendment. It is the only aspect of all the legislation before the House today which addresses, or even points in the direction of, the need to recognise the role of community groups which are fighting the drug problem alone. The amendment also recognises the need to provide treatment support facilities in areas of major heroin addiction.

Resources must be invested in disadvantaged areas in Dublin and this amendment is a gesture in that direction. I drew the attention of the House to a disadvantaged area in the north inner city where the Department of Education under the present Minister is reducing the allocation of teachers to schools. The measures being debated in the House today will be ineffective because a reduction in the allocation of such resources fuels social disadvantage and that leads to heroin addiction.

I compliment Deputy O'Donnell for taking the initiative and tabling this amendment, which I strongly support.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): This could be an academic discussion on the disposal of money from the sale of assets given that section 4 states that subject to subsection (2), where an interlocutory order has been in force for not less than seven years in relation to specified property, the court may make a disposal order. That suggests that a disposal order does not come into force for at least seven years.

We will still have drug addicts in seven years.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Under section 3 (3) a person can challenge an interlocutory order to establish his or her innocence. It does not seem proper that assets should be left in the possession of such a person for seven years during which time he or she may not make any effort to prove his or her innocence. Should people who acquire illegal goods through illicit means be allowed enjoy the comfort of a luxury house with, perhaps, a swimming pool, for seven years? There is no punishment in that. If one of those people has a luxury car is he or she entitled to use it? The section provides for freezing such assets. If such a person had a car, he or she would most likely use it and after seven years it would not be worth a great deal. Similarly a person who owns a yacht could sail around the world for seven years. Will the Minister explain why seven years was chosen? Surely two years would be sufficient time to seize goods technically regarded as illicit. The provision would appear to encourage the people concerned to enjoy the use of illicit assets for seven years. We were told previously that under Department of Finance regulations the Minister could not accept money to help those suffering from drug addiction, but if she could accept it, I would support such a measure.

I support this useful amendment to the Bill introduced by Deputy O'Donoghue. While it refers to promoting awareness of the problem, more treatment support facilities are needed in communities who are facing up to the problem in a much more realistic way than they did in the past. Today Members met groups from the north, centre and south west of the city outside the gates of the House. Anyone who took the trouble to go to Buswells Hotel had the opportunity to have further discussions with the groups involved. I am familiar with a number of them as they come from my constituency and I know the reality of the problem they face. It stems from difficulties within the community relating to family, lack of self-esteem, education, disadvantage and a plethora or other problems within those communities but which they are facing up to.

The former Fianna Fáil-Labour Government left substantial money for the health board to expand its services in this area and this Government has continued to provide funding. In the short-term the main problem was to establish treatment centres, not one of money. Following a good deal of work at community level, especially by community groups and health board officials as well as the input made by officials in the Departments of Justice and Education, an increasing number of treatment centres were established in communities. People have agreed to the principle of the establishment of treatment centres in their communities. This has overcome a major problem, the rejection of the rehabilitative programme which provided for the establishment of such centres. Addicts are now seeking initial and follow-up treatment and there is a healthy development among communities spearheaded by themselves but they require additional resources to develop their work.

The intent of this amendment is to target additional funds in that direction and to promote development of an awareness of this problem and the distribution of information. In the early eighties the Health Education Bureau was established under the Department of Health and a great deal of the bureau's work was concentrated in this area. That bureau was considered not to be sufficiently targeted and that aspect of its work transferred to the Department of Education which has a unit that promotes awareness of this problem. It is time to establish an independent health awareness and education unit that would have a clear function, that would work with communities and have a set brief and resources. A great deal of work must be done in this area. We need a more focused approach to it.

We need to adopt a holistic approach, that of providing the necessary services, and information and education which will prepare people for employment and we also need to provide assistance to enable them obtain jobs. That is being undertaken by some community groups with considerable success. One must address community issues, the real issues underlying this problem. The money could not be put to better use. I appeal to the Minister to consider the approach suggested by Deputy O'Donnell whose amendment I support.

I will not repeat what other Deputies said, although I am aware that the points made by Deputy Gregory are particularly important. The devastation of our youth is something that people thoughout the country do not understand. The Bill is a focal point around which many of these developments are taking place. One might not think so, but there is co-operative work across the House even though there might also be constructive criticism. In that context we must now use this opportunity to do all that is necessary to tackle the problem. Deputies on both sides of the House realise that it does not all rest with the Minister for Justice.

This amendment is not about treatment centres or treatment programmes. It is about promoting awareness. It is not about the things Deputy O'Donoghue mentioned.

Can the Government find a better one?

It is not about most of the things that Deputy Gregory mentioned, or many of the things Deputy O'Donnell spoke of. If the Deputies opposite really wanted to do that they should have said it in the amendment. While many of the speeches we heard are very much to the point in dealing with drugs, they are not to the point in dealing with the Bill.

All the uses of public funds the Deputies mentioned are ones in which we should engage and they should certainly be undertaken. They should not depend on the arbitrary happenstance of revenue being available on the seizure of assets provided for in this Bill. We should have more funding for awareness programmes and treatment centres but we should vote the money in this House, the way we do with all public expenditure. I fully support all the Deputies who want more money to be made available. I would like to see it done as a matter of course, not depending on whether we happen to have assets available from people who are suspected of having revenue from illicit activities.

It is wrong of Deputies to pretend that an amendment is part of the solution to the groups they spoke about earlier. It is not. The way to meet the needs identified by those groups is to vote public moneys whether they come from road taxes, income tax or VAT. If we want money to be spent it should be voted in the normal way all expenditure is voted. Let us get rid of the notion, attractive as it may seem to Deputies who want to make a superficial political case, that there is any particular virtue or point in using earmarked taxes or revenues opportunistically like this.

If money becomes available to the State from the operation of this Bill, and God alone knows whether it will or not——

——it is part of the public Exchequer in the same way that motor tax, income tax and other funding sources are.

And the Garda.

Let us not fool people by saying that a Bill like this will produce a concerted campaign of action of any kind, either to raise awareness or to provide treatment. That is a smear, a delusion and a total side-show as far as the main operation of the Bill is concerned.

I appeal to Members not to stray too far from the subject matter of this amendment. For some time we have had contributions which might be regarded as Second Stage speeches rather than ones on the Report Stage of this measure.

My speech will be very short and I will not repeat anything said by previous speakers. I supported the amendment on Committee Stage and I am happy to vote for it tonight. Deputy O'Donnell has made, in effect, an unanswerable case. It is almost as compelling as the case made by Deputy Gilmore in relation to a similar proposal in 1994.

The amendment simply states that the sale of assets seized under this legislation may be used to promote awareness of the dangers associated with controlled drugs. There is no compulsion. Deputy Dukes is concerned about whether this Bill will give rise to any revenue for the State. I would not be as pessimistic as that because if no revenue is yielded to the State as a result of this Bill then it will not work and will be ineffective, but I do not believe that.

I am not worried about that. I just have no patience for the kind of cosmetic rubbish the Deputy and his colleagues come up with.

I think the Bill will make a difference. If I can anticipate the Minister, the excuse she will probably advance is accounting difficulties in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, that is a pretty poor alibi for refusing to accept this amendment when one considers we are dealing with assets of the overlords of drug related crime.

In so far as we can identify them, those people originated in deprived inner city areas. Their rise to wealth and opulence has been fuelled by creating a generation of addicts, mostly in the same areas. What could be more appropriate when the assets of those people are seized and sold off by the State than that they should be disposed of in such a way as to prevent the army of addicts from growing further? Young people in these areas should be made aware of the dangers associated with controlled drugs.

Deputy O'Rourke put it eloquently when she said that if people in deprived areas have no jobs and no hope they are easy prey to drug pushers and peddlers. Surely it is fitting that assets nefariously acquired by these people at the expense of the addicts should be disposed of to prevent more people from turning into addicts. There is an unanswerable case for that.

It is intellectually dishonest of Deputy Dukes to talk about awareness campaigns depending on arbitrary happenstance. Nobody is suggesting that. No reading of the amendment could lead one to the conclusion that normal funding would not also be there for drug awareness programmes.

My point exactly.

The amendment is simply saying that if some big drug baron is put out of business, his assets frozen and ultimately sold off, the Government will have discretion to apply the proceeds of that in addition to ordinary funding to help promote awareness.

They already have that discretion over any taxes.

They do not exercise it.

They may have that discretion but they do not exercise it. We are specifically targeting it to be exercised in that way and nothing could be more appropriate. I am gravely disappointed that Deputy Dukes should put up spurious arguments to justify his opposition to this worthwhile amendment.

It will be like the road tax fund.

In case anybody is under any illusions, let it be said that, while I know the amendment did not appear in the original measure, the original Bill produced by Deputy O'Donoghue is the one that is, in substance, being passed tonight. Deputy O'Donoghue is to be complimented for coming up with an excellent Bill but even he cannot think of everything.

Deputy O'Donoghue is perfect. How can the Deputy say that?

When Deputy O'Donnell and the Progressive Democrats examined the Bill they found disimprovements in it. We are happy to support it. We are magnanimous and constructive enough to support it.

Shame on Deputy O'Dea for criticising Deputy O'Donoghue.

Deputy Rabbitte who dealt with this Bill on Committee Stage will confirm that he agreed with the logic of what we were saying. He promised to approach the Government to see if they could find a way to accept this amendment. That is on the record of the committee. I had every confidence in the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, succeeding since, when he chooses, he is very persuasive. When the Minister replies I hope it will be revealed to this House that the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, has indeed found the means of persuading the Government to accept this amendment with which he agreed on Committee Stage.

I rise to record my support for Deputy O'Donnell's amendment which I too recorded on Committee Stage. Every Member present at that meeting of the select committee indicated his or her broad support for it. Some of the points made by Deputy Gregory on funding may not be covered by this amendment. Deputy O'Donnell no doubt will recognise that promotion of the awareness of and dangers associated with controlled drugs may not allow for the implementation of some of the measures which would have been possible were her amendment accepted.

We are dealing simply with where the proceeds of seized assets should go, whether they should be channelled directly into the Exchequer — provided for in the Minister's amendment — or whether they should be ploughed into tackling problems associated with drugs. Those moneys should be expended on additional law enforcement measures, perhaps to better equip the Garda Síochána to deal with these drugs problems and, equally important, in reducing the demand for drugs by helping local communities who suffer from their adverse effects, so eloquently stated by Deputy Gregory.

I would not like to see the proceeds of seized assets being expended on filling potholes in south Kildare or in funding farm subsidies——

Or filling the potholes in Offaly.

We are talking about pigeonholing. In so far as legislators can statutorily pigeonhole funds, we should do so now, since this amendment provides us with that opportunity. This has proven to be effective in other jurisdictions. Whatever about pigeonholing, the bottom line is represented by the hard decisions to be taken by the Government on the allocation of finance to deal with cutting the supply lines and reducing demand for drugs.

We hear much about tax concessions in the next budget, about allowing for the voting of varying amounts of annual funding. The hard decision to be taken by Government this week — since this House will have devoted so much time to dealing with the crime issue — will be of little use unless it is also prepared to vote appropriate funding to deal adequately with the problem, in which exercise this amendment will be helpful. I hope the Minister can see her way to pigeonhole the proceeds of forfeited assets; I do not know anything about the amounts involved — and, perhaps, Deputy Browne is correct in saying that they will be negligible.

As many Members have said, the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, said on Committee Stage he would re-examine this amendment to ascertain whether there was any technical method to achieve the intent of this amendment. I have had discussions with him about this issue. As Members will know, the Government has acknowledged the importance of promoting awareness of the dangers of drug abuse.

As it evoked, the debate moved into aspects of health and education. Since I am neither Minister for Health nor Education, I shall be unable to reply definitively to a number of the points raised.

Suffice to say that, since this Government took office, the Ministers for Health and Education, have taken a number of actions to tackle that aspect of the drugs problem. As many Members said, it is not simply a matter falling within my remit as Minister for Justice. Despite the type of criticism to which I have been subjected, the more thoughtful contributions here, the more thoughtful articles in newspapers and presentations by people such as the former Garda Commissioner, Mr. Patrick Culligan, recognise that tackling our overall drugs problem needs much more than legislative provisions to lock people up or seize their assets. It also requires the thoughtful, careful implementation of policies on the treatment of drug addicts, for which purpose the Ministers for Health and Education have been putting proposals and resources in place.

A programme is being introduced in primary schools to warn children of the dangers of drugs and of the extension of treatment facilities. Deputy Woods referred to a problem about the latter. Funds are available to the Eastern Health Board for the extension of treatment centres, some of which have been extended in addition to new ones being opened. The Minister for Health has also arranged for the involvement of more general practitioners. It is a slow process; doctors are not always willing to take on drug addicts, nor are communities always able or amenable to having a treatment centre opened in their area, thus leading to yet another problem. The congregation of drug addicts around a treatment centre presents problems for local people. Despite the best efforts of the Garda and health board officials to keep treatment centres clear of people who should not frequent them, people do congregate at them and cause trouble for local people.

Tackling this problem involves all members of sociey taking responsibility; it is not merely a matter of throwing money at it or taking decisions. Some decisions have been taken and improvements implemented.

For example, since the Minister for Health took office, the number of pharmacists involved in assisting drug addicts in Dublin alone has risen from three to 21. In addition, the number of general practitioners providing treatment in their clinics — which I consider to be the direction in which we should be going — has arisen from approximately ten to 55 over the past six months. The Minister proposes, with the co-operation of the IMO, to get approximately 400 doctors to prescribe for and deal with drug addicts in order to dissipate associated problems and ensure that people do not have to travel great distances to obtain treatment.

I have great sympathy with Deputy O'Donnell's amendment. Indeed, she was right to remind me that a similar amendment was tabled in 1994 when I was in Opposition and for which I voted. She also reminded the House that at that time Deputies O'Donoghue, O'Dea, Power and Woods — I cannot remember whether Deputy Moffatt was a Member — voted against that amendment. I am sure that was done on the advice of their then Minister which was to the effect that that type of ring-fencing was very difficult to achieve in such a Bill.

Deputy O'Donnell's amendment has been based on the premise that demands for funding of drug awareness programmes can be segregated from competing demands for other Government funds. While the concept and motivation behind this amendment are worthy, unfortunately I have a problem with it since, as tabled, it would not achieve Deputy O'Donnell's desired objective. There is no point in accepting such an amendment if it will not achieve its desired intent. Deputy O'Donnell has not proposed the amendment of another section which specifies that all of the assets from implementation of the provisions of this Bill will be allocated to the Exchequer. The result is that this amendment merely states generally that some money may be used to promote awareness of the dangers of drug abuse. While the spirit behind the amendment is laudable and worthy of support, it would not allow for a court to transfer any property to the Exchequer or Minister for Finance. It simply provides that the proceeds may be used to promote awareness or paid to the Exchequer. In the amendment the Deputy is content to give any proceeds of criminal assets to the Minister for Finance and leaves it to the Minister to decide whether to pay the money into the Exchequer or to use it for drug abuse programmes. Let us be absolutely clear about this. I do not know whether that is Deputy O'Donnell's intention, but that is what would happen.

From what I imagine to be the objective of the supporters, the amendment would not advance the position in any real sense. Any proceeds paid to the Exchequer would be at the disposal of the Minister for Finance for whatever purpose the Government decides. Any additional moneys coming into the Exchequer would give the Government the potential to provide equivalent resources to drug programmes or other worthy crime-related programmes such as victim support and other areas that require funding. The Government has shown, not only in the recent past but previously, its commitment to give funding to drug programmes. There are not enough of those programmes and that matter is being acted upon. Deputy Gregory, probably more than anybody else in this House, is living day to day with the results of inactivity and inaction of recent years, but action is being taken during the term of this Government.

Nobody can object to the intent of the amendment. I asked my Department to look at other areas of legislation such as the Road Traffic Acts to see is there is any mechanism I could copy in this regard. I have been a member of a council for 15 years, like many Members, and on occasion it has been stated that road tax should go directly to county councils to be spent on roads, but instead it goes to the Exchequer and is then given back to the various local authorities.

It pays for programme managers and special advisers.

That facility exists under this legislation.

The funds of suitors is an example.

That is a totally different matter.

It is not right to say that drugs awareness programmes and others not covered under this amendment should depend on whatever money comes in under this legislation. Deputy Browne is right in that following passage of this legislation there will not be a single brass penny for a number of years because assets cannot be confiscated until after seven years to allow people to go through the proofs and so on. In Deputy O'Donoghue's Bill there was provision for two periods, five and seven years, and on examination I have provided for seven years.

Deputy O'Donnell's intention is not clear from the amendment. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, is chairman of a special ministerial task force on the whole issue of the demand for drugs. That is further proof that the Government recognises the multifaceted approach needed to tackle drugs. Deputy Rabbitte has assured me that this issue will be examined by the committee to see if there is a mechanism to ring-fence some of the moneys from criminal justice legislation. No Act ring-fences money, nor would Deputy O'Donnell's amendment ring-fence money in the way she intends. Deputy Dukes, as a former Minister for Finance, put his finger on it.

The dreaded hand of Finance.

He said that the money can go to the Exchequer and be allocated for the kind of programmes Deputy O'Donnell is talking about.

Just as Castlerea fell by the wayside.

We have to be clear about this matter. Why did Deputy Ahern, a solicitor, vote against a similar amendment in 1994? He did so because he knew there was no mechanism to make it work. Deputy Rabbitte will examine the desired intent of this amendment. Between now and seven years' time when the first money will become available for this legislation perhaps there will be a change in the way the Exchequer is run. There is no precedent for ring-fencing money. Perhaps when the assets are sold and the money comes on stream in six and a half years there will be a mechanism to amend this legislation, but I have not found a way to do so at this stage. As a Government we will deal in September with Deputy Rabbitte's report on the reduction of the demand for drugs.

Lest anybody thinks that because I am Minister for Justice and not for Health and Education I am not fully aware of the problems outlined to Members by the groups they met across the road today, last week I met ICON, with which Deputy Gregory will be familiar, as well as the new umbrella group formed under the trade union movement. The Department of Justice is giving funding to ICON and to other people dealing with drug addicts. It is also funding a large number of youth diversion schemes to try to stop young people getting into a life of drugs. More needs to be done and as part of my crime package I have got more money to extend those schemes.

I gave a commitment at the meeting with the umbrella group that I would seriously recommend that the representatives of those groups become members of the national co-ordinating committee. Those people will be members of the under strategy committees that will be set up and the time has come for them to be members of the national co-ordinating committee as well as the regional committees. Progress has been made. I listen to groups who come to talk to me and I have made it my business to invite a number of groups and individuals to the Department of Justice so that I can get an overall view of the problems they face.

Although I understand the intent behind the amendment, I cannot accept it. It would not do what the Deputy says. I have not been able to find a mechanism which would ring-fence the money, which I think is the Deputy's intention. The money will go to the Exchequer in seven years' time, but by that time I hope this Government, and the next, of which I hope to be a member, will have made great strides in this regard, which were not made in the late 1980s and 1990s when Deputy O'Donnell's party was in Government. Very little was done at that time about the drug awareness programmes, in which Deputy O'Donnell and Fianna Fáil are now so interested, and there is proof of that. It is not today we should be teaching our children of the dangers of drugs; that should have been done many years ago.

I started a programme in 1982 for all schools.

That may be so. In dealing with amendments from Deputies I have been open and willing to examine them, as did the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte in the few days that have passed since Committee Stage. We have examined the matter to see if we can find a mechanism to provide for the intent of this amendment, but we have not been able to do so. I strongly urge Members to reject the amendment and allow us to come back after examination of the matter by the ministerial committee.

The Minister said that the drafting of my amendment is defective, that because there will be a lapse of seven years before any money is disposed of by the court, to go into the big maw of the Exchequer, my amendment would achieve nothing. She knows well, and has indicated such by tabling and accepting amendments to meet the principle I put forward in other amendments, that if there was political will, that side of the House would accept in principle the terms of my amendment, which would allow the proceeds seized from crime to be ploughed back into assisting on the demand, rehabilitation, prevention and awareness sides.

The Minister knows full well the intent of this amendment — she has indicated such by accepting and tabling amendments to meet the principle I put forward in other amendments — that if there was political will on her side of the House to accept in principle the terms of my amendment, which seeks to allow the proceeds seized from crime to be ploughed back to assist in the areas of demand, rehabilitation, prevention and awareness, she would table an amendment of her own. The Minister knows well the principle and intent of this amendment. If she really agreed with it and if there was some clout behind that support, she could have tabled a Government amendment to match the principle I sought to achieve by way of my amendment.

The Department of Finance has given the same old tired and unimaginative response as when this measure was proposed in 1994. On that occasion, all sides supported the establishment of a combat drugs fund out of the proceeds of assets seized under the 1993 Criminal Justice Act.

Fianna Fáil voted against it.

I am sick of the Minister heckling me. I have had a year of her doing so.

On a point of order, Deputy O'Donnell said that all sides of the House agreed to such fund. I have the voting record here and all sides did not agree to it.

It was supported in principle.

That is not a point of order.

The Deputy in possession must be allowed utilise her time without interruption.

Here is the voting record.

I would appreciate speaking without interruption because I have really had it from this Minister for Justice.

This Minister is nitpicking through the terms of my amendment to allow her to vote down the principle. If the Minister and the Government supported the thrust of my amendment, which is plain and has received the unanimous support of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security, including its chairman, she could have brought forward her own amendment to tidy it up. I am no genius at drafting amendments but the principle in my amendment is clear. The principle of putting down an amendment on Committee and Report Stage is to press the Government to come forward with better alternatives if it can. It cannot come forward with better; it has come forward with nothing. It is the product of a lack of imagination and a failure to have integrated thinking, which is the whole purpose of this Bill, and I regret that this Government has taken that approach.

Having heard the contribution of the Minister of State to the Government, Deputy Rabbitte, I had expected more. He will do a good job in his new brief to work on reducing the demand for drugs and is a good person to be chosen for that role. However, this was an opportunity for the Government to show some integrated thinking and imagination.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 58.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and E. Walsh; Níl, Deputies M. McDowell and Callelly.
Amendment declared carried.

As it is now 8 o'clock I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day:

That the amendments set down by the Minister for Justice and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed.

Question put and agreed to.

Fianna Fáil is pleased that this legislation has been passed through the Dáil. We did no less or no more than could have been expected of us. We said more than once that if the Government did not introduce legislation which was required, we would introduce it and that where legislation was introduced by the Government and was required, we would support it.

I thank the Government for accepting the legislation and the Minister for Justice and her staff. I thank all Deputies who contributed to the debate, which was constructive, and we will have fine legislation on the Statute Book as a result. It was an historic moment because it was the first time an Opposition Bill was taken in Government time and accepted.

In thanking the Government I am reminded of the words of the founder of Fianna Fáil, the late Eamon de Valera, who, when subjected to a verbal assault in this House, said that he would break stones but that if he ever got any assistance he would not regard it as charity. In the same way, while we thank the Government for accepting our legislation, we recognise how important the legislation was and we do not regard the actions of the Government in accepting our legislation as representing any form of charity. However, we appreciate the precedent which has been established and hope it will be a happy one.

I congratulate Deputy O'Donoghue on this Bill, the principle and substance of which have remained intact, despite substantial amendment by the Government and indeed by myself. It was Deputy O'Donoghue and Fianna Fáil's Bill and I congratulate them on having it accepted and passed by the House.

I also congratulate Deputy O'Donoghue on his legislation. It is such a rare occasion when Deputy O'Donoghue ever says anything of thanks to this Minister that I am bowled over and speechless.

Is the Minister overcome?

The Bill will go to the Seanad tomorrow. It is necessary and, I hope, effective legislation which will be worked by our courts and do the job it sets out to do.

Top
Share