Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Apr 1997

Vol. 478 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Licensing (Combating Drug Abuse) Bill, 1997: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

On a point of clarification, the earlier order of the House has been amended so that we are only taking Second Stage this evening. The Committee and Remaining Stages will be taken next Wednesday.

The Licensing (Combating Drug Abuse) Bill, 1997, is strong legislation. It focuses specifically on the problem of drugs in places such as dance halls, pubs and other licensed and unlicensed premises. It will help protect the health, safety and ultimately the future of a section of our young population, young persons who are vulnerable to the latest fad and to peer pressure and whose lives may be blighted by drugs, including the so-called recreational and designer drugs. The aim of the Bill is to prevent or to disqualify persons involved in the drugs trade from promoting dances or other entertainments or holding intoxicating liquor licences. It should go a long way towards ensuring that dance halls, pubs and other places of entertainment are safe places where young persons can enjoy themselves in a drugs-free environment.

Within a short time of becoming Minister for Justice, I set in train a programme of legislation to tackle drug abuse. It remains my view that a successful assault on the drugs trade must come from many sides. The Bill is another step in this direction. My colleagues in Government and I are determined to use every means at our disposal to take on this evil trade which has destroyed so many lives and threatens to destroy others. The Bill arises from the comprehensive anti-drugs package which the Government announced in 1995. A thorough examination of the licensing laws has been undertaken by my Department, in conjunction with the Garda Síochána, to identify what new powers gardaí require in order to tackle the scourge of drug abuse in dance halls and public houses. The examination was also concerned with Garda powers to prevent or halt unlicensed rave type dances, whether held indoors or out of doors, at which drug abuse was almost certain to take place. The Bill represents the outcome of that examination. It gives the Garda clear, unambiguous powers to deal with drug abuse in dance halls, public houses and other places of entertainment by getting court orders to close down the offending places.

Furthermore, it will prevent persons with convictions for drug trafficking from becoming involved in the licensed trade. This will be an important means of preventing money laundering through dance halls and public houses.

Before outlining its main provisions I wish to place the legislation in context. Last year the Oireachtas passed the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996. That Act, which is one of the strongest anti-crime measures ever enacted, illustrates the Government's determination to do all in its power to thwart the deadly trade of drug trafficking. The Oireachtas also passed last year the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, which covers the proceeds of all crime and not just the proceeds of drug related offences, and the legislation under which the Criminal Assets Bureau was established. I am maintaining the legislative pace of last year. Already this year I have brought forward the non-fatal offences legislation, major reforming legislation which, among other things, deals with the use of syringes. That Bill was debated earlier this evening. The Bill now before the House approaches drug trafficking and drug abuse from a different perspective and in so doing adds a further weapon to the arsenal of measures targeted by the Government for use against the drugs trade and those involved in it.

The Bill tackles three main problems. First, it deals with drug abuse in dance halls and other entertainment venues. Second, it deals with drug abuse in public houses and other places licensed to sell intoxicating liquor. Third, it gives the Garda greater powers to deal with unlicensed dances such as raves which, almost inevitably, involve drug abuse. I am not claiming that there is widespread drug abuse in those places but what abuse there is can have serious consequences and a very effective way of defeating the problem is through the licensing system.

The Bill deals with drug abuse in dance halls, other places of entertainment and public houses in three ways. Under section 2 any person who has been convicted of a drug trafficking offence will be prevented from ever holding any intoxicating liquor licence, any public dancing licence or any public music and singing licence. Clearly such persons would be regarded as being unfit by reason of character from holding any such licence and the Bill will ensure that involvement in any of the trades requiring such a licence is barred to them. In other words, this provision will ensure that undesirable elements are kept out of the relevant licensed businesses.

Sections 3 and 17 deal with the revocation or forfeiture of licences held by persons who, as licence holders, have been convicted of a drug trafficking offence or an offence under section 19 (1) (g) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977. Drug trafficking offences are set out in the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, and include offences such as the manufacture, production, preparation, importation, exportation, supply, distribution or transportation of a controlled drug. Section 19(1)(g) of the 1977 Act makes it an offence for a person to knowingly permit or suffer the sale, supply or distribution of a controlled drug on any land — and this includes buildings — which he or she controls or manages. In the case of a public dancing or public music and singing licence the Garda Síochána can, under the Bill, apply to the court to have the licence immediately revoked and, unless the judge is of the opinion that there is good reason for not revoking it, it will be immediately revoked and the person concerned disqualified for ever from holding such a licence.

The premises to which the licence attached would also be prohibited from ever again having such a licence attached to it. Provision is made for the owner of such a premises to apply to the court to have the premises again licensed. In such a case the owner must not have been the holder of the licence and he or she must satisfy the court that he or she did not know and had no reason to suspect that the licence holder would be involved with drugs. This will ensure fairness in cases where, for example, a person may have leased a premises to another person in good faith for the purpose of holding dances. In the case of an intoxicating liquor licence the licence will be forfeited rather than revoked, which amounts to the same thing.

Sections 4 and 18 bring the process a stage further. These sections, arguably the most important in the Bill, are concerned with the situation that would arise where the court was satisfied that the holder of the licence permitted or suffered the use of the premises in respect of which the licence was granted for the sale, supply or distribution of a controlled drug or did not exercise proper control over the place to prevent such sale, supply or distribution. In such circumstances the judge can order that the licence be immediately revoked, in the case of a public dancing licence or a public music and singing licence, or suspended, in the case of an intoxicating liquor licence. The revocation or suspension would be for five years. We are dealing here with persons who have not necessarily been convicted of any drugs offence but who run dances or other entertainments or hold intoxicating liquor licences in premises where drug abuse is known to be taking place.

In the normal way, when the Garda become aware of such abuse they bring it to the notice of the licence holder who would be expected to take measures to counter it. If it continues the Garda can apply to the court under these sections to have the licence revoked or suspended. The licence holder could have been actively involved in permitting the premises to be used for the sale, supply or distribution of a controlled drug or could simply have failed to exercise proper control in the knowledge of the possibility of such sale, supply or distribution. Either way, the end result is the same — drug abuse on the premises — and if the only way to prevent the abuse is to close the premises, so be it. Similar safeguards to those in sections 3 and 17 in relation to applications by owners of premises are also incorporated into these provisions.

Section 21 is an important provision concerned with persons who have been disqualified from holding a licence. There is always the danger that a person so disqualified will seek through another person or a company to continue to benefit from the operation of a licence. This section will prevent that in two ways. First, a disqualified person will be prevented by reason of any understanding, arrangement or direction with or to another person from enjoying or profiting from the operation of a licence. This could happen, for example, where a disqualified person sets up another person as a licence holder and creams off a percentage of the profits from the operation of that licence. Such a person would not necessarily control or conduct the activities under licence but would simply take a share of the profits. Section 21 also deals with the person who controls or conducts the activities under these licences that are held by another person or body corporate. Such a person could, for example, establish a company to run the licensed business of which he or she would not be a director. However, he or she could be what is known in company law as a "shadow director" and such a person is also disqualified from being a shadow licence holder under the provisions of this section.

Sections 5 to 11 amend relevant aspects of the Dance Halls Act, 1935 and the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act, 1890, under which the public music and singing licence is granted. The 1935 Act has comprehensive safeguards dealing with the grant of a public dancing licence. For example, section 2 of that Act lists the matters to which a judge must give consideration before granting a public dancing licence. Section 6 of this Bill adds a further consideration, that is, the arrangements, where appropriate, that have been made to ensure that persons entering or making use of the dance hall are not in possession of any controlled drug and that the place will not be used for the sale, supply or distribution of any controlled drug. Under section 4 of the 1935 Act, the court, when granting a public dancing licence, may insert such conditions and restrictions as the judge thinks proper. Section 7 of this Bill obliges the judge, where appropriate, to insert a condition in the licence that the person to whom it is being granted makes all reasonable arrangements to ensure that persons entering or making use of the place are not in possession of any controlled drug and that the place is not used for the sale, supply or distribution of any controlled drug.

Section 5 amends the definition of "place" in the 1935 Act, that is, a place for which a public dancing licence can be granted. At present, a licence would not be required for a dance held in an unenclosed place out of doors. It would not have been envisaged in 1935 that commercial dances could be held in remote, unenclosed places or on places like beaches. Apparently nobody thought of doing things like that in 1935 — a far cry from today. It is necessary to recognise there are changes in the way people entertain themselves these days.

However, it is a feature of the so-called rave culture that payment is made in advance and the location is kept secret until the last minute. Such dances do not currently require a licence because they are held in unenclosed places. The amendment to the definition of "place" will remedy that situation and the importance of that amendment will become even more clear when I refer to new Garda powers under sections 12 and 13.

The measures I have outlined so far are comprehensive and tough, and are meant to be so. They deal in general with premises that are licensed. Sections 12 to 16 are equally tough and comprehensive but in this case they deal with what are described in the Bill as "unlicensed dances". For the purposes of this Bill an unlicensed dance is defined in section 1. The main feature of the definition is that a member of the Garda Síochána of at least superintendent rank must have a reasonable belief that the dance will be an occasion for the sale, supply or distribution of a controlled drug. These provisions are drugs focused and cannot be used for any other reason. Section 12 allows the gardaí to direct persons who are preparing to hold an unlicensed dance to leave the place where the dance is to take place and to bring any sound equipment or other property with them. Once such a dance has started, the gardaí can direct the persons who organised the dance or prepared it, or are using the sound equipment at it, to similarly leave the place bringing their sound equipment or other property with them. This would have the effect of bringing the dance to a halt.

Section 13 gives the gardaí power to stop a person proceeding in the direction of an unlicensed dance. This power can only be used within two miles of where the unlicensed dance is taking place or is due to take place unless it is due to take place on one of our offshore islands, in which case there is no distance restriction. Once a dance has commenced on an island it would be almost impossible for the gardaí to deal with it. It is important, therefore, that the gardaí have the power to stop persons on the mainland from going out to the island. Deputy O'Donoghue is smiling. Perhaps he is thinking of islands off the Kerry coast. I must emphasise once again that these powers can only be used where the gardaí have a reasonable belief that drug abuse will take place at the dance.

Section 14 gives the gardaí power to enter any place being used for public dancing without a licence or at any other time to make any inspection, examination or inquiry thought proper to prevent or detect a drug trafficking offence or to give a direction under section 12. This provision will plug a gap in the law relating to Garda powers of entry to places where dances are held. At present, gardaí only have this power in relation to a premises to which a public dancing licence applies. Sections 15 and 16 deal with the powers of the court to forfeit sound equipment seized by the Garda Síochána from a person at an unlicensed dance and with the retention of such equipment.

Section 19 is a technical provision that provides a mechanism whereby a person whose licence has been suspended under section 18 can apply to the Revenue Commissioners to have the licence renewed. The earliest this application can be made would coincide with the annual licensing sessions of the fourth year following the suspension.

Section 20 provides for an appeal to the Circuit Court against the forfeiture or suspension of an intoxicating liquor licence under this Bill. It also provides an appeal procedure for the owner of a premises who has unsuccessfully applied to the court under section 17 or 18 to have the ban on the licensing of his or her premises lifted. Section 8 provides for similar appeals in the case of public dancing licences and public music and singing licences.

The music and singing licence may not be as well known as the public dancing licence and the intoxicating liquor licence. Section 51 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act, 1890 provides a licensing system for public music or public entertainments other than public dancing. This licence is generally called a public music and singing licence and is required in two circumstances. First, the place where the entertainment is to be held must be ordinarily used for public singing, music or other entertainment of the like kind and, second, the place must be situated within the area of a local authority which has passed a resolution adopting section 51 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act for that area. The licence would normally be held by hotels, restaurants or public houses wishing to provide music, singing or like entertainment for their customers.

There is no constitutional right to a licence or to a renewal of a licence. There are only such rights as are given by statute subject to the limitations and conditions prescribed by statute. A person applying for a licence knows or ought to know that it can be forfeited or revoked in certain eventualities. When these eventualities occur, the licence holder cannot complain. Every licence holder will now know exactly what the legislators and the people think of persons who allow, connive at or turn a blind eye to drug abuse on their premises. They do not deserve any sympathy and if, as a result of their activities or negligence, they lose the licence they have only themselves to blame. This may seem a harsh judgment but we in this House have a duty to protect our young people from exposure to the sale or supply of illegal drugs in situations where it is often difficult for them to say no.

We know there are young people who say they have dabbled in drug taking and that it has done them no harm. However, there is always the one young person for whom the first drug is the last, either because they have received a bad drug or their physical make-up is such that they do not survive taking it. The Bill I am introducing this evening is tough and strong. It may give rise to criticism because of that, but it is an appropriate measure to protect our young people from the sale and use of drugs on entertainment premises.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Parts of the Bill are tough and strong but, as an entity, the legislation is half-hearted and half-baked and will not adequately address the problem of rave parties and the taking of drugs on licensed and unlicensed premises. The Bill contains a certain amount of window dressing and is a pathetic attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes. The Minister is not hard on crime, but she is difficult to believe.

The Bill refers to the offence of drug trafficking on licensed and unlicensed premises. It does not appear to make any change in relation to the possession of drugs such at ecstasy and other amphetamines, and to that extent it is ineffective. There is little point in promoting legislation directed at the licensed trade and publicans exclusively when that legislation is woefully inadequate.

The Bill is an illustration of the fact that we have truly arrived at the end of the rainbow. It would have been unthinkable a short two and half years ago that this Government would legislate to prevent the sale and supply of drugs in licensed and unlicensed premises. They were the days when the Government believed there was no problem. It would have been equally unthinkable a couple of decades ago that it would become necessary in 1997 to organise the regulation of something as simple as a dance so that the penalties for holding a public dance without a licence or permitting a place to be used for that purpose have been increased from a fine of £10 for every day of such use to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or up to 12 months' imprisonment or both, and that is only on a summary conviction. On conviction on indictment the fine has been increased to a sum not exceeding £10,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years or both. It raises the question about what has gone so seriously wrong with society that we are obliged to bring in draconian measures to deal with a desperate situation.

Section 7 of the legislation is a further reminder of the omnipresent threat which drugs and drug pushers pose to the future of young people. The purpose of that section is to ensure that when a public dancing licence is granted it will, where appropriate, contain a condition that the person to whom the licence is being granted will make all reasonable arrangements to prevent drug abuse at the dance. In this context I am not convinced of the appropriateness of the Minister's legislation to tackle the problem. It is clear that anybody accused of allowing the sale and supply of drugs on his or her premises will strongly deny that this ever happened or, at least, that it ever happened to their knowledge. To that extent the Bill is seriously deficient.

I have stated in the past that the most appropriate way of tackling this problem would be to serve a notice on the licence holder to the effect that the Garda Síochána are of the view that illegal drugs are on sale or being supplied on the premises and directing the individual concerned to put his house in order, if he or she does not do so, the court should have the power to close down the premises for a limited time. Following a number of such closure orders, the number to be decided, the licence could be forfeited. It would be extremely difficult for the prosecution to establish that an individual is not managing his premises properly and thereby allowing the sale or supply of illegal drugs. Serving a notice on the licensee would be the preferred way forward and would ensure a watertight, pragmatic approach by the State. That was not to be, but in future it will have to be because unless there is a procedure for notification the standard of proof which is needed in court will, in all probability, be unattainable.

Earlier this week it was reported in the national newspapers that gardaí in County Wicklow had to chase around the countryside after groups of young people being ferried in cars to outdoor rave parties. The Garda are completely powerless to take action under existing legislation unless these young people are found in possession of drugs. While the Bill before the House suggests that these people can be diverted or arrested en route to the rave parties, this provision in itself is defective. I refer to the practicalities of the operation of the legislation by those who are empowered and obliged under statute law to enforce it. What is to stop any person who is challenged to say they are not going to a rave party, that they are meeting friends in the locality? The Minister speaks about young people going to a rave party on an island; there is little to prevent them from saying they were island hopping.

The Minister has proposed what I would describe as a polite solution to a serious problem where politeness is the last thing desired or required. The Bill does not appear to contain a power of search and arrest for such persons who are known to the Garda to be travelling to a rave party. It would appear, therefore, to skirt the issue.

The Minister has proposed that any licensed premises known to have hosted or facilitated rave-type parties for the supply or distribution of drugs should lose their licence for approximately five years. That is unacceptable. The restriction should extend to ten years, and not only to the publican concerned but to any nominee to whom he might attempt to transfer the licence. We must ensure, in so far as we possibly can within the confines of this legislation and within the parameters of the Constitution, that licences which are adversely affected by virtue of drug related offences being committed on the premises to which they are attached will remain adversely affected and that the holders of those licences will remain away from young people and cannot provide the facilities which would enable young people to become involved in a cycle of death and destruction.

I fear it might be possible under this legislation for a licence holder to avoid the terms of the legislation by various mechanisms which are well known to company law. The fines under the legislation are paltry. The suggestion that a £1,500 fine on summary conviction or £10,000 on indictment is adequate is a joke. The profits to be made from drug sales, particularly the sale of ecstasy at rave parties and other gatherings, are potentially enormous.

In Cork Fr. O'Donoghue recently outlined that a 14 year old boy was in a position to make an enormous amount of money from the sale of ecstasy tablets. That is not an uncommon feature of life today among teenagers. We know from the manufacturing costs of these drugs that huge margins are to be made — for example, a profit of £10,000 for an individual at a rave party would not be uncommon.In those circumstances a fine of £1,500, When weighed against such a potential profit, is an incentive to those involved in the sale and supply of such drugs to continue to openly flout the law.

The Bill significantly fails to deal with unscrupulous licence holders who sell water at £1 per pint to young teenagers who are exhausted and dehydrated from the effects of ecstasy tablets.This must surely rank as one of the most disgusting crimes, where young people craving for liquids are preyed upon by licence holders in whose premises they are situated. We have heard of incidents where taps are turned off in the toilets of certain premises to ensure young people have to buy water at the bar, thereby further lining the pockets of unscrupulous promoters.

These people understand only one answer, tough penalties which will put them away for a long time. Until we wake up to the fact that that is the only language they understand, this scourge will stalk the land and prey upon the health and lives of teenagers. It is time to wake up to this plague and understand that the people involved in this despicable business have no mercy, nor should mercy be shown them by the State. There is only one place for these people, behind bars for a very long time. The opportunity should have been taken in this legislation to ensure the message was driven home, but unfortunately that was not done.

We have seen here and across the water in recent times the deaths of a number of teenagers from the effects of ecstasy. It happened at well known dance venues in Dublin and throughout the country. The time has come to call a halt and to introduce far-reaching and restrictive legislation.This is not the time for cynical window-dressing, nor is it the time for electoral stunts.

Mrs. Owen

This legislation does not stand alone. It does not prevent people from being convicted under other legislation.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I am aware it does not prevent convictions under other legislation. I am merely pointing out that the opportunity should have been taken in this legislation to introduce measures to deal with the unscrupulous people whom I have described.

Mrs. Owen

They are available under other legislation.

Mr. O'Donoghue

In our crime policy document, Leading the Fight Against Crime, we stated that in Government we would "amend the licensing laws to permit the suspension or forfeiture of the licence of any premises, club, pub or disco where controlled drugs are distributed". In our policy document, A Radical Approach to Drugs and Drug-related Crime, we stated that the Garda Síochána will be given power to apply to a District Court for an order revoking the licence of a pub, club or dance where drugs are being distributed and that this application will be on notice to the licence holder. On the rare occasions when sheer pressure of time and work has prevented us from drafting legislation for the Minister, we have provided the inspiration.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy took it from me.

Mr. O'Donoghue

That is not to say the Minister for Justice or the Government have always had the time or inclination to implement our proposals and legislation. For example, on three occasions we proposed a mandatory minimum ten years sentence for those caught in possession of controlled drugs with a street value of £10,000 or more, but on each occasion we were voted down by the rainbow coalition Government. We are determined to give this House the opportunity to pass that law. The reason is as plain and simple as it is necessary.

In 1977 the Oireachtas provided the maximum sentence for drug pushers of 14 years' imprisonment.In 1984, recognising that the problem was getting worse, that sentence was increased to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In 1993, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 71 people were convicted of possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, in other words, they were convicted of drug pushing. The following sentences were imposed by the courts: in three cases, less than three months; in six cases, between three and six months; in 20 cases, between six and 12 months; in 29 cases, between one and two years; in four cases, between two and three years and in five cases, between three and five years. In only three of the 71 cases of drug pushing a sentence of between five and ten years was imposed and in only one case a sentence of more than ten years was imposed.

What signal does that send out in the international community to people who become involved in drug trafficking to and within this country? It sends out the wrong signal that the punishment in the Republic of Ireland will not fit the crime. Because that is the clear view of those involved in international drug smuggling, there has been a proliferation of the problem. The number of seizures has increased — the authorities are to be congratulated on that — but international experience is that the greater the level of seizures, more often than not the greater the level of successful smuggling. The time has come to send out a different signal.

The time has come to tell people that if they become involved in drug dealing, pushing or trafficking in the Republic of Ireland and if the drugs in their possession have a street value of £10,000 or more, the court will have no alternative but to send them to prison for at least ten years. That is the type of message we should send out to those involved in this evil and pernicious trade and that is the message the parents of teenagers in this city and country want to hear from this House. They recognise the seriousness of this type of crime to people's health, future and lives. In 1993 convicted drug dealers received prison sentences averaging less than two years. What kind of weak and spineless message is that to send out to those who prey on young people?

It remains to be seen if the Minister realises the need to send out a clear message to drug dealers. A mandatory ten year prison sentence would be a sobering thought for anyone contemplating getting rich overnight on the misery, destruction and death of young people. Such a proposal would not be unconstitutional. It was suggested that the 1996 proceeds of crime legislation was unconstitutional, but that was not the case. There is ample precedent to support the argument that there would be no transgression of a separation of powers, as postulated by the 1937 Constitution. The Criminal Justice Act, 1990 provides for a minimum sentence of 40 years imprisonment for persons convicted of killing a garda and minimum sentencing is not confined to section 3 of that Act. A minimum sentence of 20 years imprisonment has been set by statute for attempting to murder a garda. The 1876 customs consolidation legislation provides for mandatory minimum penalties of a multiple of the value of the goods unlawfully imported.

If, as I believe, there is no academic or legislative reason a drug dealer found in possession of drugs with a street value of £10,000 or more should not be punished by a minimum sentence of ten years, why is the House refusing to legislate for it? Why is this proposal rejected every time it is put to the Minister for Justice and the rainbow coalition?

Mrs. Owen

Why did the Deputy not implement it when he was in Government?

Mr. O'Donoghue

The reason is simple. The Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare will not agree to it.

Mrs. Owen

Why did Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, Commissioner Flynn or Deputy Collins not implement it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let the Member in possession proceed without interruption.

Mr. O'Donoghue

This is an example of tough talk and vote soft policy which is the Government's stock-in-trade. The Minister for Justice asked why others did not implement this proposal.When one is appointed Minister for Justice one's job is not to reflect on the merits or demerits of history. One's objective should be to deal with current problems and prepare for future ones. The Minister should have learnt that lesson at the outset. While I am sure she would make a fine historian, that is not a substitute for substance and action.

We do not want more of the same. The Bill's recognition of the need for tougher measures should be accompanied by a recognition that our criminal justice system needs to be adapted to deal in an effective and radical way with drug addicts. We need a new approach so that the criminal justice system can be used to greater effect when dealing with the problem of drugs. The time has come to establish a drug court programme because the traditional system has not worked. Prison is doing little to break the cycle of drug-related crime.

The drug court, which we will establish on return to office, will offer the drug addict a choice of proceeding to trial or participating in a court supervised treatment and rehabilitation regime. The programme will be aimed mainly at non-violent offenders whose involvement with the law is primarily due to their drug addiction. Accused persons accepted on the programme will be subject to a structured and supervised treatment regime under the authority of the court and treatment will entail counselling, therapy and education.

An assessment of the US drug court experience has shown that approximately two-thirds of participants successfully complete the drug court regime, most of whom cease to abuse drugs. Less than 4 per cent of those who complete the programme return to crime and in the case of all participants the figure ranges between 5 per cent and 28 per cent, significantly less than under the traditional system. A rigorous court supervised treatment programme would be a significant alternative to the revolving door syndrome, which has become an open door syndrome under this Government. We would introduce a drug court programme within the existing courts system and it would be assigned responsibility for applying the programme in the case of non-violent offences due primarily to drug addiction. There is no reason such a system would not work here.

In fairness, if the Minister had time she would have photocopied and implemented this proposal with the others in our policy documents. Like the patience of the public, time has run out for the Minister and the rainbow coalition. Thankfully, the charade is coming to an end. The Opposition, which has led the fight against crime, will soon be in Government and the Government, which spent most of its time in Opposition on this issue, will go where it should have been all along. When that day comes, we will be the first Government in history to bring down the Opposition.

Ms O'Donnell

In welcoming the Bill, I am pleased the Government conceded the Opposition's request not to take all Stages tonight. It is a well known precedent that rushed legislation makes bad law.

This well motivated legislation could prove to be defective if it is passed through the House with indecent haste to allow the Government face the electorate with the pledge that it has put this legislation on the Statute Book. This Bill comprises radical and strong measures to deal with the availability of drugs in licensed premises and dance halls or raves. It comprises 22 sections and deserves proper evaluation and circulation to persons who are experts on licensing law. I do not claim to be an expert in that field. The Bill was published only recently, it has not received an airing publicly or any evaluation by persons involved in the licensing trade, by persons in the justice field generally or those who are skilled in the art of licensing law. It would be a shame if it was passed without being properly evaluated and scrutinised.

I welcome the Bill. It is a belated proposal. I recall that about three or four years ago when I was a member of Dublin Corporation raves were being held in the Mansion House. They caused concern because of reports to councillors on Dublin Corporation by many parents and citizens who were outraged that drugs were being sold in and around the environs of the Mansion House. There was a great responsibility on us to put an end to those raves, and we did. Gradually over a period of years it transpired there was an anomaly in our law; the 1935 Act which governed the holding of dances needed to be updated to deal with the phenomenon of raves.

This Bill deals with the interaction of drugs and organised music events, which are a fairly recent phenomenon here. The Bill recognises implicitly that drug traffickers are not the only people to benefit and profit from the sale of drugs to our young people in particular. Many people have made a good deal of money from organising and staging events which they know will specifically attract young people in search of drugs. Many people were surprised and shocked to learn that one promoter at a rave turned off the water supply in the public toilets knowing that the young patrons, in a desperate effort to hydrate themselves, would have to pay a large amount, in their terms, for mineral water available at the bar. That is a most cynical example of how commercially-minded such people can be when they know the vulnerability of patrons. Drugs are an intrinsic part of the rave and dance culture and this Bill recognises that.

I also welcome the announcement today by the Licensed Vintners' Association at its conference in Galway that its members are willing to co-operate fully with the authorities and the gardaí in intelligence gathering to combat drug dealing, which is widespread in some licensed premises around the country. Ecstasy has been blamed for the deaths of up to 20 young Irish people in the past three years. The long-term effects of ecstasy are largely unknown. Some research indicates long-term psychological problems resulting from its continued use. It affects memory, can have long-term mood altering effects on users and the fact that so little is known about it is dangerous because it is prevalent here for so-called recreational use. Last year alone gardaí seized about 124,000 tablets, an indication of the scale of the problem we face in dealing with the trafficking of that drug.

The Bill empowers the gardaí to take tough action for the purposes of investigating suspicious events and prevents those convicted of drug trafficking offences from becoming involved in the staging and promotion of dances or in the licensed trade. The Bill properly anticipates that front men might be used by organised drug traffickers to run such events. While section 21 provides that a front man will also be barred from holding a licence, it should also be an offence to assist a shadow licence holder to operate a licence. Such measures would go some way towards tackling the drugs crisis. As we deal with the supply side of the drugs crisis, we must put in place measures to provide real long-term solutions to the demand side of the problem. During the passage of the Criminal Assets Bureau last July, I tabled an amendment to provide that all assets seized from drug barons and organised criminals should properly be ploughed into the provision of therapeutic rehabilitative services for addicts. I argued it was an appropriate way in which the proceeds of those ill-gotten gains could be used to provide direct assistance to the communities and individuals who have been destroyed by the activities of the drug barons. It is inexplicable that proposal was voted down on the bureaucratic and unconvincing argument that it was up to the Department of Finance to make such allocations to the Department of Health. That failure to integrate the Departments of Justice, Health and Finance shows a lateral thinking and an unwillingness to adapt an integrated approach to deal with the problem, but that is not new. The Departments of Justice and Health have not adopted an integrated response to the drugs crisis.

Tragically, drugs are an integral part of growing up in large areas of the country. Some children do not know a life outside heroin addiction or the abuse of other substances. A long-term drugs policy cannot simply be built on a "just say no" approach, given that so many thousands of our young people have already said yes. A purely penal approach does not provide the full answer, although a very strong penal approach is required. There is a difficulty in dovetailing the two approaches to the problem. The response to the problem must take account of education, therapeutic services and other measures, such as the provision of long-term therapeutic services to those addicts who, tragically, have already said yes. They need counselling over the long-term.

I question, as I have before, the continued use of methadone maintenance as the main plank of the Government's response to drug addiction. There are still addicts presenting for treatment in Dublin and elsewhere who are put on waiting lists. That should not happen. Recently at a meeting of our subcommittee on drugs we expressed great concern that, despite the crisis and the rhetoric about drugs being top of the agenda, there were still waiting lists for addicts presenting for treatment with their parents or other members of their families. That is not acceptable. The existence of such waiting lists highlights a failure to recognise the urgency of the response required. The Government is making a mistake by adopting methadone maintenance as the primary plank of its response to the drugs crisis. Methadone maintenance is a vital tool in stabilising chaotic drug abusers, but essentially it is a short-term response. It contains the problem, but it is not a long-term response. Neither has methadone maintenance, as a therapy, been evaluated as to its success compared to the proven success of long-term residential drug free recovery programmes, such as those provided in the Coolmine centre.

They have a very high success rate and are always full. They have long waiting lists for persons who want the sort of long-term therapeutic drug-free approach to treatment, which is provided at Coolmine, the Rutland and other such centres.

A focused public education campaign about ecstasy is needed because so many recreational users of the drug are unaware of its dangerous side effects. A clear campaign listing the dangers of using ecstasy must be made available to the public in a digestible way that will reach out to young people who use it.

In August 1995The Irish Times reported that “drug agencies estimate that at least 25,000 tabs of ecstasy were sold to recreational users in Ireland each weekend”. Earlier, Hot Press, which is close to the music scene and a good indicator of use, estimated that “at least 50,000 tabs of ecstasy are sold in Ireland every week”. It is not only a dance based phenomenon, although I know this Bill deals with the impact of ecstasy on the licensed dance trade.

There was a tragic quote by a young teenager from a deprived area of Dublin who, when asked by a journalist, said: "My idea of a great night out is to get a takeaway, drop an "E" and watch a video". It is a pathetic indication of the poverty of that young person's aspiration that that sort of an evening represents his idea of a great night out. "E" can lead to brain damage, hepatitis, panic attacks, mania, depression and, in some cases, death.

The single most dangerous effect of "E" relates to body temperature. MDMA or ecstasy interferes with the body's thermostat, allowing users to overheat without feeling any personal discomfort.Nearly all the deaths attributed to ecstasy have been as a result of heat stroke. There is an urgent need for a focused campaign to appeal to those young people who use ecstasy as a recreational drug to know what they are dealing with.

Young users often mix ecstasy with alcohol, which can be fatal. Users now find it cheaper to buy an ecstasy tablet than to go on a night's drinking. These issues are frightening for most parents who know drugs are widely and easily available to young people at all sorts of venues. We have heard of a 14 year old in Cork who was making plenty of money dealing ecstasy to other young people. A hard-hitting public information campaign would alert those young people to the dangers of using the drug. There is an immediate danger of death if the drug interferes with a person's metabolism and if it is mixed with alcohol. We have heard that some persons who died used only half a tab of ecstasy, yet it had fatal consequences.

I welcome the measures proposed in the Bill. As the Minister said, it will go a long way towards making it more difficult for persons to continue to make money from the misfortune of young people wrapped up in the drugs culture.

Sections 4 and 18 need careful scrutiny. These sections provide for the revocation of dancing, singing and drink licences and consequential disqualification for a number of years. This approach is, of course, correct in principle, but we need to look at the basis on which the court will make such an order. One of the grounds on which the order can be made is that the licence holder did not exercise proper control over the premises to prevent "the sale, supply or distribution of controlled drugs". We need to be careful whether this test of proper control is not imposing an unsustainable test, particularly on publicans. We must be fair-minded and take a rational approach, which is achievable.

I do not think, for example, it would be fair for a publican to face disqualification simpliciter for four years simply because drugs were sold on his premises. The test should cover a situation where members of the Garda pointed out to the licence holder that known dealers were on the premises and the licence holder failed to do anything about it. That would be fairer. To remove a licence is quite a strong and radical penalty on any business person. To be fair to publicans, we cannot place unsustainable obligations on them. The test must be fair, acceptable and reasonable.

I am glad that many publicans have stated they are willing to become involved in the front line, combating the distribution of drugs on their premises. Of course, they are interested — they are parents, as are their customers. Every effort should be made across society to make an impact and to help the authorities in whatever way we can.

Conferring extra powers on the Garda in relation to unlicensed dances, known as raves, is welcome. Gardaí will be able to order the organisers and DJs to leave the scene and remove their equipment. Gardaí will be able to stop people on their way to the rave, seize sound equipment, if necessary, and enter premises without warrant for the purpose of investigation.

All these measures, in themselves, are good and properly motivated. They respond to the public who are asking for tough legislation. We have a duty to legislate but we must do so carefully.Licensing laws are traditionally tricky and constantly challenged. If we are to get it right it is important to spend a good deal of time making sure the Bill is properly balanced and will achieve its stated purpose of combating drug trafficking, given the modern prevalence among young people for using drugs.

I welcome the Bill. I am glad we will have a gap between Second Stage and Committee Stage, which I believe will be taken next week. It is useful to have the Minister's Second Stage speech, which outlines her thinking and intentions behind the various sections, because that provides an invaluable aid when framing amendments on Committee Stage.

I congratulate the Minister for bringing forward the Bill and I thank the Government Whip for persuading the Government to grant time for a proper debate.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

I thank Deputies O'Donoghue and O'Donnell for their contributions to the debate. The Government has agreed to take Committee Stage next week and, as Deputy O'Donnell said, it will give Members a chance to look at the legislation to see if amendments need to be made.

This legislation deals with a particular problem which has arisen. It is not the total measure of legislation available to deal with drug abuse or drug trafficking, including that by owners of premises who may themselves be involved in selling drugs.

There is a gap in existing drug legislation. The climate was different when the Public Dance Halls Act, 1935, was passed. I and the Government felt it was necessary to tackle the problem of easy availability of drugs in places of entertainment.

This legislation deals with the owners of licensed premises or places of entertainment who knowingly allow their premises to be used to sell drugs. If the owner is involved in drug trafficking but does not allow his premises to be used for such purposes, he can be convicted under other legislation. This is additional legislation to strengthen the hand of the gardaí. During my discussions with gardaí, I was told that if they convicted a licence holder of drug trafficking, there was nothing in our laws to stop that person continuing to run his business once he served his sentence.However, this legislation does not cover the panoply of existing powers which gardaí have to deal with drug abuse and drug trafficking. This legislation was introduced to tighten the gap in existing legislation.

As Deputy O'Donnell said, this is tough legislation because it allows a person's licence to be revoked. Under it he will not get it back after five years and in some cases could be denied the right to run a licensed premises again. That is a severe penalty to impose on anyone. I hope we do not need to use that power too often.

I also welcome today's statement by the rural publicans that they will undertake a nation-wide campaign in co-operation with the Garda Síochána to combat drug abuse. Most licence holders are responsible people who do not knowingly allow their premises to be used for any form of crime. It is self-defeating for them to turn a blind eye to crime in their premises because their law-abiding clients will drift away if fighting occurs or handbags are stolen.

We all know the gardaí cannot tackle the scourge of drug abuse on their own. They require the co-operation of people such as the vintners and those who organise music events, etc. However, when people gather in a crowd, a crime can be committed by stealth without the owner's knowledge. I have tried to build a safeguard into this legislation so that people who lose their licences when this occurs can clear their names. Although these measures are tough, their sole target is the unscrupulous individuals trying to turn our children into drug addicts and destroy their lives. The law-abiding publican and licence holder will have nothing to fear as long as they maintain a "clean house", as it is called in the business, and do not become involved in drugs dealing. I am aware of only one person currently serving a sentence for allowing his premises to be used to sell drugs or contraband substances.

It is important to send a message to people who make money out of young people, particularly those who do not have the burdens of family life and have high disposable incomes to spend in pubs, dance halls and entertainment venues. It is important that the owners of such establishments do not allow them to become the death beds of young people, as happened recently with the increased use of ecstasy.

This Bill is part of a matrix of measures to give the gardaí additional powers to deal with drug abuse. Deputy O'Donoghue mentioned the current powers of the gardaí when he referred to an incident in Wicklow where they disrupted a rave and seized drugs with an estimated street value of £10,000. The gardaí also broke up a rave in a derelict building in Bellevue wood, Glen of the Downs, which was attended by 200 people. They seized 1,500 LSD tablets and 100 ecstasy tablets and arrested a number of people. Although the party involved in that rave broke up the rave later regrouped elsewhere. However, the gardaí were able to enter the second location where they arrested 11 people and seized more LSD tablets and cannabis resin.

The gardaí can object to the grant or renewal of a licence and they also have certain powers under anti-drug and public order legislation. However, there is nothing to prevent a convicted drug trafficker trying to get into the public house or dance hall business. I am talking about someone with a conviction for drug trafficking who buys a public house and sets up business or who uses someone else who does not have a conviction, to set up the business. This legislation prohibits the appointment of a "shadow director", as it is known in the business world.

Under present legislation, the gardaí cannot apply to the court at any time of the year, not just at the annual licensing sessions, to have a licensed premises closed down because of drug abuse. This is a lacuna in the legislation. The licensing courts are held in September each year. However, if something happens in a licensed premises in March or April, there is nothing the gardaí can do to revoke the licence until the court period in September. These are important new measures.

I have amended the drug trafficking legislation to allow gardaí enter premises in plain clothes which, heretofore, they could not do without a warrant. Specific powers are also being given to the gardaí in relation to unlicensed dances. They will now be allowed to stop people on their way to dances or to a place where it is suspected drug abuse may occur.

When this legislation comes into operation the Garda will no longer be depending on the existing public order law to deal with specific problems. They will have this legislation to strengthen their hands in getting at the problem before it develops. It will have an effect on the way young people gather in places of entertainment. We will probably see an end to the holding of raves once this legislation is brought into effect. I will not weep if these rave dances, which have been prevalent for four or five years, come to an end because there are grave dangers attached to allowing that sort of large gathering of unsupervised young people in a place where anything can happen. Because parents do not know where their children are going they have no way of arranging to collect them or checking the company their children are keeping.

Such gatherings are not quite as common now; their glamour seems to have disappeared. Perhaps the reason is that so many other premises have access to late licences and young people can frequent bona fide venues. We have all seen what happens in cities such as Dublin in places where young people gather and drink late into the evening. We have a responsibility to ensure that when having fun they are not at risk of death or serious illness from drugs.

A number of Deputy O'Donnell's points had to do with the general drug treatment facilities which should be available. I will not go into issues such as methadone treatment because we are dealing specifically with a section of the licensing laws which relates to who should hold licences. We are not dealing with opening times and other such matters. I cannot accept amendments about seven day licences, Sunday opening, etc. This legislation deals with a particular problem where drugs are openly sold on licensed premises.

Deputy O'Donoghue stated that the £1,500 fine was inadequate. On summary conviction of using a premises without a licence, a person is fined £1,500 or 12 months' imprisonment. The £1,500 fine is the maximum permissible in the District Court. To impose a larger fine could be unconstitutional, being in breach of the minor offence provisions of the Constitution. Of course there are more stringent penalties where it is found that drugs are on the premises — the loss of a licence for life is a very stringent penalty. If it is found that the licence holder not only has allowed his or her premises to be used but is involved in drug trafficking, that person will be prosecuted under other legislation. The person may be punished twice; he or she will lose the licence under the provisions of this Bill and may receive a penal sentence under other drug trafficking legislation. To marrying this Bill with existing drug legislation involves a good, but difficult, day's work.

I hope the vintners will see this Bill as necessary, that it protects their premises as well as the young and not so young who use them.

Question put and agreed to.