I wish to share time with Deputy Joe Higgins.
Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, 1997 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I suggested on the last occasion that the Bill does not distinguish between drugs, it treats all drugs as if they were the same. I am reluctant to oppose a Bill that is a response to the drugs crime crisis — I have raised the issue and sought responses long enough — but the Minister must focus specifically on the heroin crisis which is the main cause of the crime and human misery associated with drugs.
Anyone who is not an addict and who supplies heroin solely for profit should be imprisoned for at least ten years. I would have no difficulty with that. However, the Bill does not recommend the imposition of such sentences. Under the Bill, mandatory sentences of ten years will be imposed based on the value of drug found, and not, as they should be, on the degree of harm, devastation or crime caused by that drug. Heroin valued at £2,000 will be the cause of more human degradation and misery, devastation of communities and criminal activity than that caused by £200,000 worth of other drugs. That is a fundamental flaw in the Bill.
If the Minister persists in pursuing the Bill in its current form, he will do a disservice to the war against drugs because fundamental to that war is our ability to identify and target the main cause of the problem. Heroin should be our main target. Other countries are beginning to direct resources against those who supply heroin. I am sure the Minister of State will convey my views on this matter to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. When in Opposition, the Minister brought forward this idea to the then Select Committee on Legislation and Security and I expressed my views to him on it at that stage. However, it is clear that he has not changed his mind.
When the Bill passes through the House, will it suffer the same fate as the bail restrictions which have not yet been implemented? I am concerned that it merely represents another PR response and that its provisions will not be implemented. When the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, announced plans for a bail referendum I fully supported her proposal, specifically on the basis that it was essential to restrict access to bail for those involved in drug dealing at a time when heroin was being sold openly on the streets of Dublin, causing havoc in communities and bringing misery to thousands of addicts.
In recent weeks, highly publicised raids by gardaí which resulted in the charging of dozens of heroin pushers has again focused attention on the need to implement the bail restrictions as a matter of urgency. Those restrictions have been available for implementation since the referendum. The heroin pushers to whom I referred who were charged in the courts a week ago are out on bail and are continuing to push heroin. Dozens of heroin dealers similarly charged — some were charged a number of times during the past year or more — are also back on the streets selling heroin. This is frustrating for the Garda, local communities and public representatives such as myself who represent areas where heroin is the cause of crime and social problems.
I spoke to gardaí in my area about named individuals who supply heroin in places such as Sheriff Street. I was informed that in some instances these people have appeared before the courts on several occasions and they are currently out on bail and continuing to supply illegal drugs, an offence punishable under our laws by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In a recent parliamentary question I asked the Minister if the bail restrictions could be implemented on a phased basis with initial emphasis placed on crimes that are most likely to be repeated if the individual concerned was granted bail. I cannot think of any other category of serious crime where persons, as soon as they are charged, leave the courts and return to the streets to continue with their criminal activities until the date of the next court appearance. That is the reality of heroin dealing in Dublin.
Surely there is a case for special separate court sittings to deal specifically with people involved in the heroin trade where bail can be refused when gardaí give evidence that a person is likely to continue to re-offend. I understand that, at present, bail can be refused only if there is evidence that a person is likely to abscond or that witnesses might be intimidated. In that context, I was appalled to read recent newspaper reports that a person charged in connection with a serious offence relating to a contract murder had, when arrested, been found in possession of several false passports and other forged documents. Incredibly, the reports indicated that he was granted bail on his third court appearance. The individual in question promptly left the jurisdiction without any difficulty. Will the Minister indicate if this really happened?
I am interested in discovering the facts surrounding this case because I do not believe the media reports to which I referred have been refuted. I have tabled a parliamentary question to be answered tomorrow in respect of this matter. Was the judge who granted bail aware of all the aspects surrounding this case? The Minister should seek clarification in respect of such cases. The case to which I refer is that of a Christopher "Bud" Dwyer which featured in articles concerning the sale of his house to the then Assistant Garda Commissioner. Those articles raised important questions, some of which remain unanswered. I emphasise that I am not suggesting or inferring wrongdoing on anyone's part, but issues such as this which are legitimately raised by responsible members of the media should be fully clarified by the Garda press office and, where necessary, by the Commissioner. This would clear the air and it would be in the interests of the Garda Síochána and our democracy.
I feel obliged to raise my concerns on matters of this sort in the House. Since I entered the Dáil in 1982, I have raised every aspect of the drugs-crime issue and I would be entirely inconsistent if I did not express my concerns in respect of this matter. I will say no more about this except to reiterate that questions put by reputable members of the news media should be answered in full. I say that in the context of public servants who regularly call for the removal of the right to silence for ordinary citizens.
I am aware the Minister is concerned about the causes of crime. These are fundamental to the Bill which is a response to the drugs-crime crisis. On four or five occasions in recent weeks I stated that it is incredible that so much time is being spent on developing responses to the crisis involving drugs and crime. At the same time in the Dublin north inner city drugs task force area six primary schools will lose teachers. It is a scandal and an absolute disgrace. Those schools and the children need more teachers to deal with the social deprivation that fuels the heroin crisis. I hope the Minister will convey that message to the Government, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Education and Science. The teachers must be allowed to remain in the schools and additional resources given to them. The most critical resource which the schools have should not be taken from them.
(Dublin West): This Bill is seriously flawed. It is a blunt instrument to deal with a very serious problem and, unfortunately, it will not deal with it in the correct way. It is typical of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who takes an axe to a problem when a scalpel would suffice. Heroin is a nightmare for thousands of people, particularly in Dublin, and for the communities devastated by the problems that go with it. It must be fought relentlessly.
Some of the methods adopted in the Bill will achieve the opposite effect from that which, presumably, the Minister intends. Putting heroin on a par with cannabis and making no distinction between them is dangerous. There are great differences between heroin and cannabis. Heroin is a drug that kills. It reduces people to the level of vegetables and when it gets people in its grip it turns them into unthinking criminals who wreak devastation on their own communities, families and friends to feed their habit. Heroin takes everything away from people.
The Bill effectively considers cannabis to have the same effect. Cannabis is an entirely different drug, especially in the way it is perceived in society. According to surveys carried out by serious elements in the media many thousands of people regard cannabis as a recreational drug and use it as such. It is time we debated cannabis in an honest and non-hysterical way, considering medical and sociological evidence in a rational fashion.
Society would be better off without drugs of any description. It would be a happier state of affairs if people did not use drugs. Unfortunately, we live in a drug-ridden society. Most of the drugs infesting society are legally available — alcohol and nicotine being the most widely used. In that context, some of the biggest drug pushers are pillars of society pushing alcohol and cigarettes legally in fancy packaging with fancy advertising.
Young people are increasingly cynical about this state of affairs. The millions of young people in Europe who use cannabis as a recreational drug face the Minister's proposal in the Bill for an obligatory ten year sentence for being caught with a large amount of cannabis, whereas deadly drugs such as alcohol and nicotine are pushed freely and are the source of massive profits. The Minister's message to young people is that heroin and cannabis are drugs of equal dimensions. The Minister must address this matter and, hopefully, change the provision. It is a seriously dangerous message to portray heroin and cannabis as equally damaging and dangerous drugs. It is not the case and young people do not believe it is.
There is another danger in regarding these drugs in the same way. The same gangsters who deal in heroin also deal in cannabis. In the nether world where young people meet drug pushers to buy cannabis they meet the same people who push heroin — one night cannabis is for sale and the next it may be heroin. The issues must be discussed rationally and openly. However, the Bill sends out a dangerous message that must be corrected.
People who push heroin must be dealt with ruthlessly. Local communities have dealt with them most effectively. It was only when working class communities fought back that they forced the Government to take belated action. Many pushers have been forced out and many young people saved from heroin because of the brave actions of working class communities. Social problems, such as poverty, bad homes and a lack of recreational facilities, are the main reasons heroin is such a problem in certain areas of Dublin. Addressing and solving those problems is the solution to the heroin nightmare rather than this crude legislative instrument.
I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Flynn.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
During last year's general election campaign Fianna Fáil committed itself to implement a policy of zero tolerance against criminals. The people support such a policy because they feel that the criminals have had the upper hand of the authorities for too long. The law enforcement agencies needed stronger powers to ensure criminals are brought to justice and prosecuted. While this is recognised as a general principle for all activities that breach the State's criminal codes, it is more acutely required in the ongoing battle to defeat drug trafficking.
The Bill is a strong legislative provision which gives the law enforcement agencies the power to tackle the drug barons head on and ensures that stiff penalties can and will be handed down to those involved in drug trafficking and pushing. The Bill is practical and substantive evidence of the Government's commitment to pursue a vigorous policy of zero tolerance against criminals, in particular drug traffickers, who continue to bring so much misery to so many people and to upset the social fabric of rural and urban communities.
New drug related offences are included in this Bill. A person convicted of having drugs with a value of £10,000 or more will face a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years and, at the discretion of the court, unlimited fines can be imposed by the court, except in certain circumstances. The circumstances include whether the person pleads guilty, at what stage the person pleaded guilty and the circumstances surrounding the plea. The Bill distinguishes between those involved in drug related crime for profit and those who are merely drug addicts. In the majority of cases where the minimum ten year penalty applies, the power conferred on the Minister under the Criminal Justice Act, 1951 to remit or commute a punishment will not be exercisable until the minimum period specified by the court has been served except for grave humanitarian reasons. Confiscation orders can now also be served by the courts following a conviction for drug trafficking offences. This provision can also be described as a tough crime fighting provision.
Drug traffickers have been warned in advance that if they are caught peddling drugs with an estimated value in excess of £10,000 they will face a mandatory jail sentence of ten years. Due to the severity of these provisions, it is possible that many people may reconsider their involvement in drug trafficking. I strongly advise them to do so unless they are fond of long prison sentences. We must not allow toleration of a drugs culture in Ireland. We all know of the health and social effects of what are deemed hard drugs such as heroin. However, we must remember that soft drugs, which are known as designer and synthetic drugs, continue to cause problems in our society and must remain illegal and banned substances. There are some elements in Europe, particularly some members of the Green group in the European Parliament, who recently pushed for the legalisation of synthetic drugs such as ecstasy, LSD and amphetamines in Europe. The strongest message possible must be sent out to young people that the use of synthetic drugs is not only dangerous but illegal and punishable as a criminal offence.
Clubs where drugs, whether soft or hard, are tolerated must have their licences withdrawn and appropriate prosecutions must ensue. While I acknowledge that there is a need for social and educational interventions to tackle the root causes of crime, we must also deter the greedy, the evil and the selfish from pursuing criminal activities that wreak havoc on the lives, health and property of others. These people must be deterred, and this Bill is to be welcomed as a package of deterring measures which is long overdue. It is a well known fact that much crime that takes place on our streets is a direct consequence of people being hooked on drugs committing crime, as well as people who are in need of money to feed their drug addiction.
It is worth commenting on the provisions of this Bill which refer to confiscation orders. By means of this Bill a court, following a conviction for a drug trafficking offence, can determine whether the convicted person benefited from drug trafficking, and confiscation orders can be issued by the courts. I welcome this provision because we have seen the total and real success of the Criminal Assets Bureau in confiscating the proceeds of illegally generated drug money. The setting up of the Criminal Assets Bureau, which was initiated by Fianna Fáil when in Opposition, has proved a total success in giving the Garda Síochána the power to confiscate assets, whether revenue or capital assets, from known drug traffickers. The provisions in this Bill relating to confiscation orders are complementary to those enacted for the Criminal Assets Bureau and mean that such orders will be issued by the courts if drug traffickers are unable to account for their ill-gotten wealth generated on the backs of those who are tragically addicted to drugs.
There is the international dimension to drug trafficking and the need for greater co-operation between the member states of the European Union if drug importations into Europe are to be detected and confiscated at source. We live in a frontier free territory of the European Union with 15 member states, a population of more than 370 million people and an operative Internal Market where free movement of goods, persons, services and capital exists. Ever since the Internal Market was completed by the European Union there has been the urgent need for enhanced co-operation between all law enforcement agencies in Europe so that all information relating to possible movements in Europe can be disseminated to the appropriate police agencies so that prosecutions can issue. The recent Amsterdam Treaty which was passed by the people on 22 May last gave enhanced new powers to EUROPOL, the European police agency in the Hague, to oversee the battle against the drug barons at European level. I strongly welcome these provisions in the treaty and hope that EUROPOL will use its new powers to intensify the co-operation that already exists between the member states of the European Union on the issue of defeating the drug traffickers.
I admire the Minister's positive stance on the evil of the drug trade that is rampant in this country. The initiative taken by the Minister is timely. We are all aware of the urgent need for this Bill. All parties must unite and support the Minister's aspirations and not attempt to score cheap political points, of which we have had several examples in this Chamber today.
Drug abuse is widespread in Ireland. It is causing immense damage to those who are unfortunate enough to be caught in the grip of this deadly habit. It is ruining their lives and the lives of those who love and look after them. It is inflicting mortal damage on the fabric of today's society. How often do we hear of people being attacked and seriously hurt by people who commit crime to feed their drug habit? How many times have we, as politicians, been invited by constituents, whose lives are being made a misery by dealers who operate in their area, to see the devastation that is caused in those areas. They make a living hell out of the neighbourhoods where they ply their trade and dispose of their filthy merchandise. I am sick to the heart of listening to elderly people who cannot live their lives in peace because of the threats and intimidation they suffer from locals who are involved in drugs. This must be stopped. The machinery is at hand to bring the battle to the drug barons. The scourge of drug trafficking must be stamped out through the type of decisive action exemplified by the Bill. There should be total cross-party support for the laudable aims of the Bill which seeks to curb this trade.
I am deeply disappointed at the attitude of some members of the Opposition to the introduction of this vital legislation. Some of the comments during the Seanad debate and here were not exactly helpful or constructive. Deputy Upton's premise is a totally mistaken one. It would give one the impression that he has not seriously studied the terms of the Bill. I was surprised to read in the Official Report remarks made by Deputy Higgins, a Deputy for whom I have tremendous respect. Deputy Higgins questioned the expertise of the Garda Síochána and the customs officials in giving evidence. He obviously has very little faith in them and little appreciation of the Trojan work they are doing in their battle against the sale of illegal drugs. He also seems to imply that judges are incapable of assessing the credibility of the evidence of those bodies. His attitude amazes and disturbs me. He quibbles about the differing value of drugs in different areas of the country. I know that those who operate in the law enforcement area will not suffer from the problem of being unable to establish drug values. There have been major drug hauls in the past. There were no comments from the Deputy as to the capacity of those who made the seizure to assess the value of the drugs confiscated. He had to wait until the Minister was seriously addressing the problem to express his doubts.
The Opposition says this Bill is not an example of the zero tolerance the Minister set as his standard. I say it is an important milestone on that road. I ask again why must they always criticise. I would not object to serious critique of the Bill but I object to knocking the Minister for the sake of criticising him. It would be nice to see some support for this Bill, the contents of which are vital to addressing the drug problem.
There is too much at stake. This is much too serious a matter to be used as a forum for word games or Minister bashing.
The Deputies might have a slightly different slant if they had attended a recent function in Carrignavar College in my constituency. I was proud to be asked to be present when the college was declared a drug free zone. This was a positive step by the pupils of that institution to ensure that the evil of illegal drug sales will not hold in their own locality. They did not seek to find out if the problem was being addressed by others. They acted on their own initiative with the help and advice of the local gardaí and other schools who had taken similar action. They rejected ecstasy tablets such as "doves", "elephants" and other branded illegally produced drugs. I commend them for their action.
That is the road we should follow in this House. We should listen to the message the Minister is giving and not shoot the messenger. The Bill adds a new offence to the existing Misuse of Drugs Act. It relates to the possession of drugs for resale valued at £10,000 or more. In future, drug related offences will carry mandatory minimum sentences with a limited discretion in certain cases. There will be a mechanism for a second chance for those who have proven they have mended their ways. This discretion has already been granted in certain circumstances and has been instrumental in helping people to embark on a new life.
I must highlight the importance of the section of the Bill which lays down that the court has the discretion to recommend the seizure of assets. This was previously the prerogative of the Director of Public Prosecutions who had to bring the application. There will be unlimited fines which should be channelled to fund the treatment of those unfortunate enough to have a drug problem. Those moneys should not be used for any other purpose. The treatment of drug abusers should not be an additional burden on the taxpayer.
One of the reasons I wish to see this money used in that manner is that it would damage the drugs trade and the fines imposed on dealers would reduce their ill-gotton profits. It is proper that we should use this money to put them and their associates out of business. It would please the PAYE sector to see those who are causing such horrendous damage to our society paying for the rehabilitation of drug users through fines and the seizure of their property. Let those who cause the problem fund the cure.
Drug programmes could be organised both in and out of prison. Funds should also be allocated to the Department of Education and Science to ensure there are ongoing drug awareness courses in schools. Those programmes must play an important part in combating the drug problem. Prison terms are not the only answer. The introduction of legislation in the absence of education is a waste of time.
This legislation is a major step in the fight against the drug barons but it must be fully enforced by the Judiciary, the Garda and the customs service. I am pleased that when a guilty plea is entered, under the new Bill a maximum sentence can still be applied. Up to now, any defendant who took this course of action invariably received a reduced sentence. This will no longer obtain. There should be no loopholes for perpetual offenders who abuse the law in this manner.
The Bill also states that persons in custody can be remanded to the nearest court. They do not have to travel to the original court in which they were sentenced. This will result in a major saving of Garda time and expense to the State.
The menace of drugs has touched many families in every community. I hope the measures we are taking today will help remove this cancer from society. That is the reason I give my full support to the Bill and to the Minister for introducing it.
I commend the Minister for introducing the Bill. Drugs are one of the biggest threats we face as a society. I was struck by some of the earlier contributions from Deputies like Deputy Gregory who have first-hand experience of the way whole communities can be absolutely devastated by drugs. I do not want to cover ground already covered by other Members but this is an issue on which we cannot be equivocal.
I am surprised by some of the carping criticisms levelled at the Minister. It seems there is a concerted effort to demonise this Minister for the most base political reasons. That is very foolish and it is a disingenuous, backhanded attitude to the communities which are devastated by drugs.
The drugs problem is a lively issue in my own constituency. There are families in Bray, for example, who have been involved in criminal activity for some time and who have moved into the drugs scene in recent years. They seem to be able to operate with an extraordinary degree of impunity. It is bizarre that gardaí can arrest people, bring them to court after a lengthy delay during which time they engage in further criminal activity, yet the courts issue the most ludicrous sentences where, within a week or sometimes days of going to jail, these people can again walk around the community.
Some of these people are unfortunate in that they have become hooked on drugs. I have some sympathy for the argument that there are varying degrees of venality but the reality is that as a society we cannot begin to equivocate. We will have to clamp down hard on this particular problem.
In one portion of my constituency we have had five or six drug related deaths. These are young people whose lives have been destroyed as well as those of their families. In the majority of cases these young people have perhaps innocently got into the drugs culture but they become part of the problem when they begin to trade. Whatever sympathy we may have for the way they entered this business, we cannot cloud the fact that they have helped to destroy, not just themselves, but their own families and communities.
I commend the Minister because he has single-mindedly attached himself to this issue but I am concerned about the manner in which our courts handle it. I listened to Deputy Gregory earlier and I could give as many examples as he gave of bizarre behaviour by judges where people with long records of criminal activity, some of whom were involved in the most extraordinary crimes, walked out of court with a grin on their face because the judge, for whatever reason, was prepared to be more than sympathetic to them.
The issue of the competence of some members of the Judiciary will have to be addressed. The Minister knows my views, for example, on the manner in which judges delay cases. I highlighted one particular case recently involving a very senior judge who should be dismissed from the Bench. I have done some research on this matter. Recently in Britain, for example, a High Court judge was asked to "take a walk" because he delayed a case for 18 months due to his own incompetence. A delay of 18 months would be regarded by my constituents as intolerable.
I am aware of cases where constituents have been denied justice for up to eight years, yet I cannot find any way of raising the issue in this House. I cannot ask a question in this House about the competence of a particular judge or the issue of the destruction of family life because I will be ruled out of order. The Minister cannot raise it with the courts because the Executive and the Judiciary are separate and I fully appreciate that the Minister's hands are tied in this matter. Even the Attorney General, who is supposed to represent the interests of the citizens and uphold the Constitution, is in a position where his hands are also tied.
This problem has been highlighted dramatically by injustices visited on families who have been subject to——
Acting Chairman
I remind the Deputy that there is a well established practice in this House in relation to such comments. I know the Deputy is not being specific about any member of the Judiciary.
I could be specific but I will not be.
Acting Chairman
It would be most inappropriate and I would not allow it. I merely want to advise the Deputy in that regard.
The Chair need not worry about that. I will not mention the particular judge I have in mind. I have already done so and the judge is aware of my views about his behaviour and his fitness for office, as are other members of the Judiciary, but I operate under privilege and I would not abuse it.
The general issue I want to raise is the competence of some of our judges in the manner in which they handle their office. They are in a privileged position, and rightly so. The independence and autonomy of the Judiciary is properly defended because that is the best defence of our civil liberties. At the same time, however, the judicial establishment cannot be unaware of the bizarre behaviour of one or two of its members. Deputy Gregory rightly pointed out the extraordinary behaviour of judges who seem to have little sympathy for gardaí who are hard-pressed to get evidence. This is a symptom of a wider problem. Rather than cause distress to the House, however, I will move away from that aspect of this issue.
This Bill is long overdue. It is strong legislation aimed at combating a problem we have all analysed in recent years. It is a good example of the zero tolerance attitude adopted by the Minister. We cannot be tolerant of drugs. There is no such thing as hard and soft drugs. The point was eloquently made by a previous speaker that most drugs are legal drugs. If we knew years ago what we know now about cigarettes and nicotine addiction, I doubt that cigarettes would be accepted. That society was blind in the past is not a good excuse for society being blind now. We should learn from the past.
I welcome the fact that a person convicted of having drugs to the value of £10,000 or more can face a mandatory sentence of ten years. Any person who has £10,000 or more worth of drugs in his or her possession is not a hapless individual who has become addicted. That person is involved at commercial level in dealing in death and it is right and proper that the State should adopt a strong attitude to that case. While I have difficulty from time to time about minimum sentencing, it is necessary to give the Judiciary a strong indication on how we, the representatives, believe this matter should be dealt with. I strongly support the idea of minimum sentencing of ten years. I hope the discretion the court has in the issue will not be used to frustrate the wishes of society. Unlimited fines should be imposed by the courts. At the end of the day it is wrong that the perpetrators of the evil of drug dealing should be able to live handsomely, as many of them do, on the misery they have visited on others.
I welcome confiscation orders which will be served by the courts following a conviction for drug offences. The film "The General" portrays the extraordinary lifestyle of one person, that he owned highly valuable property while being a tenant of a council house and signed on while showing all the trappings of wealth. There is something bizarre about a society where that happens. In that case I would draw attention again to the extraordinary and horrific injuries visited upon a public servant who helped to combat crime. Public servants, whether gardaí or servants in any of the other arms of the public service, who suffer because of their selfless devotion to the fight against crime should be handsomely compensated and there is no better way to do so than through the proceeds of confiscated assets of the people whom they seek to bring to justice.
The severity of the provisions in the Bill is entirely appropriate. I am not normally regarded as one of the "hang 'em and flog 'em" brigade. The opposite is the case, I would normally be regarded as a person who would take a very lenient view on civil liberties issues. The drugs culture has, however, taken a deadly grip on parts of society and I see the results of it daily. It is a problem that must be addressed and I commend the Minister and the Bill on doing so. Drug trafficking offences which we are addressing are the biggest single threat to our civil liberties. The Minister is right in not only giving encouragement to the courts to take a strong view of this matter but providing back-up to the Garda, the forces of law and order, and the Criminal Assets Bureau.
I was struck by a point made by Deputy Collins, the necessity for us as a society to make up our minds where we stand on this issue. I mentioned the film "The General". It is astonishing that one of the worst criminals in the history of the State should be eulogised. I am sure there is a good side to everybody, but I cannot see the good side to a person who behaves in the manner he did. It is astonishing there is equivocation as to what is meant by a person who is involved in the drugs issue. For example, should we legalise cannabis? The point was made that cannabis is used by a significant number of people. If we pass laws to the effect that drug use is wrong, we should not tolerate equivocation on that issue. It is either illegal or it is not. The Minister prudently responded to the entreaties of those who argue we should judge between soft and hard drugs. If a person has £10,000 worth of cannabis in his possession, he either has a great smoking problem or he is involved in trade. It is necessary that that drug is treated as a drug.
The greatest problem over the years has been the revolving door syndrome in our prisons, which are chock-a-block. I support the Minister in his efforts to bring that extraordinary system to an end. There is no point in gardaí arresting people or risking life and limb to bring people to justice and there is no point passing laws that force the courts to take realistic views in sentencing unless there is in place a sufficient number of places for criminals. The Minister has operated in a way that is entirely praiseworthy. Rather than talk about creating space, about putting new laws on the Statute Book, he has tried to put in place the mechanisms where those laws are supported by way of sufficient places for people who receive custodial sentences and I commend him on that.
I will go back to a point made by Deputy O'Flynn. I cannot understand some of the Opposition harking on this Bill. This is an issue on which we should be united. There should be cross-party support for this legislation. In his operations in the past 12 months, the Minister has not taken a partisan view but rather he has indicated he is more than willing to listen and take on board good suggestions. I hope issues such as this can in future be handled in a manner which crosses all boundaries. This is a problem we must solve together rather than on a partisan basis.
I commend the Bill. It will be a pleasure to vote for it. As a person who serves in a constituency where there has been a drugs problem, I am grateful to the Minister for this timely legislation.
In the very short time available to me I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill before the House. While Fine Gael is not entirely happy with it, it supports its general thrust. Everyone is deeply concerned about the drugs problem which threatens the future prosperity of our youth. The Minister will have the support of the majority of people in bringing in these measures designed to lock away for a long period of time the people who are wrecking the lives of the young and the not so young. A concern on this side of the House is the fact that the Bill leaves the door open for lawyers to argue in court about the street value of the drugs and the Minister should rethink that issue. A notional value is put on the drugs by gardaí and clever lawyers are bound to contest that on behalf of the criminals they represent in such cases. Nevertheless, I have heard calls for the introduction of a ten year sentence over the past 16 years from all sides of the House. This should not be a political issue and there should be consensus. I like to think that we will arrive at a consensus in this House on certain issues and crime comes to mind.
Gangsters have got away with murder for too long and the zero tolerance policy adopted by the Government is a step in the right direction. It has faults, nevertheless we must home in on gangsters who supply drugs. Serious drug barons should be locked up and the key thrown away. Deterrents are needed in society and it is the absence of them that gives gangsters the opportunity to ply their horrific trade at the expense of our youth at a very impressionable time in their lives. The introduction of a mandatory sentence is commendable and I wish to see that applied to other wrongdoers in the community. Obviously, because of the nature of politics we will have to nit-pick on this side of the House, but the Minister is moving in the right direction and I congratulate him for having the courage to bring that in. I hope his measure will receive support in the House and that it will do something to stem the awful trade in drugs. I also wish to see him examining other transgressions in society and the possibility of introducing mandatory sentencing, particularly in regard to hit and run and drink driving offences which result in fatalities.
I thank Deputies for contributing to this extremely important debate and I assure them the views expressed will be fully considered between now and Committee Stage. It is obviously right that undoubtedly strong legislative measures which are introduced to combat our crime problem should be subjected to the closest scrutiny. Each of these measures must be justified by reference to the threat which it is trying to address and we must ensure what is proposed is proportional and balanced.
Understandably, there are different views on how best to address these issues, but the Government believes that the measures contained in this Bill are justified. It may well be regrettable that the Government feels obliged to introduce some of them, but it would be much more regrettable if we failed to take whatever action is reasonably open to us, particularly in terms of tackling organised crime.
Zero tolerance was mentioned during the debate. Ultimately, the test of zero tolerance will be at the end of the term of this Government as to whether people feel safer on the streets and in their homes than they did before. The people will be the judges of that and I am confident they will judge the Government favourably in this respect. To talk of the abandonment of zero tolerance makes no sense in the context of a Bill which contains some of the toughest measures ever introduced in this State against those involved in the drugs trade. Mandatory sentences will be imposed, trials will be speeded up and the courts will automatically initiate asset inquiries.
It is understandable that concerns were expressed about the introduction of mandatory sentences. The traditional approach to sentencing is for the Oireachtas to lay down the maximum penalty and for a court, having considered all the circumstances of the case, to impose an appropriate penalty up to that maximum. There are, of course, already exceptions to this, particularly in the case of murder where there is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. The Government has no plans to depart generally from existing arrangements, but it believes that because of the unique nature of the drugs trade and the widespread harm it causes to the community, mandatory sentences are warranted. Certain limited exceptions are included in the Bill to avoid injustice, but these exceptions are by no means general as suggested by some ill informed comments.
A number of Deputies asked about the manner in which the drugs were to be valued in the context of the provision of a mandatory ten year sentence for the possession of drugs with a value of £10,000 or more. There were suggestions that there is a difference between soft and hard drugs which warrants different treatment. The only concession I make is that there is no doubt that the availability of heroin and the activity which surrounds this represent the worst aspect of our drugs problem.
The issue is not new and in bringing forward this legislation I gave a great deal of thought to whether a distinction might be made in terms of various types of drugs, but for reasons which I will explain I came to the firm conclusion that such a distinction would not be warranted or appropriate. First, the provision of mandatory sentences is primarily geared towards those who trade in illegal drugs as part of an organised criminal enterprise. We are not talking about, for example, a person who purchases enough cannabis just for herself and a friend and then sells it on to a friend. We are talking about someone involved in the possession for supply of illegal drugs to the value of £10,000. We are dealing by definition with someone who plays a substantial part in the supply of illegal drugs.
Second, the nature of the organised drugs trade with which we are dealing is that many of those involved trade in hard and soft drugs as part of a ruthless criminal conspiracy which wreaks havoc in many communities. We must bear in mind that the activities of these gangs are not confined to simply supplying drugs. Their activities have involved murder and intimidation. In those circumstances it seems only right that a person whose activities are a mainstay of that criminal enterprise should face a mandatory sentence in regard to the possession for supply of £10,000 or more of illegal drugs, irrespective of the type of drug involved.
Even if these were not valid considerations we would enter a quagmire in trying to make distinctions in the context of this legislation on the basis of the type of drugs at issue. Not to put too fine a point on it, is it seriously suggested that a person who has £10,000 worth of ecstasy tablets to supply to school children should not face the mandatory sentence provided for in the Bill, simply on the basis that ecstasy might not be regarded as harmful as heroin? In the light of these considerations it was decided the best approach to take on the question of mandatory penalties was to define the offence by reference to the value of the drugs involved. I emphasise that no one involved in the supply of drugs to the value of £10,000 or more is anything other than a substantial player in the organised trade in illegal drugs. Deputy McGahon and others have questioned whether the value concept should be applied. The answer to criticisms of it is surely that the Director of Public Prosecutions will only bring a case where he is of the view that it can be successful. He knows better than most he will have to be in a position to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In this context, the expert opinion of a garda working in the field, for example, would be required to establish the value of the drugs.
Essentially what is at issue here is the Oireachtas taking a view that the unique threat posed by drug trafficking is such that special measures in relation to sentencing need to be taken. Gangs are not concerned primarily with the type of drugs in which they deal. They are interested in profit. In those circumstances the approach taken in the Bill is to link the new drug trafficking offence to monetary amounts. The unfortunate reality is that it is hard to imagine a more corrosive threat to the quality of life in our community than that posed by those who engage in the evil trade of drug trafficking. Their activities have brought about death and destruction in an incalculable fashion and on an incalculable scale. Families have been destroyed and communities have been placed under siege. There is probably no greater fear among parents today rearing children than that their children will fall prey to drug abuse.
It behoves the Government of the day to face up to that threat. The Government is committed to tackling drug abuse in a comprehensive way. We will take steps to reduce the demand for drugs through education and community based initiatives. We will offer services to those who have become addicted to drugs to help them break their habit. We clearly recognise that a criminal justice system on its own cannot comprehensively tackle the problem of drug abuse. The criminal justice system has a crucial role to play in curbing the activities of drug traffickers and this Government will ensure that that role is played fully and relentlessly. As part of this approach we ask the House to support this legislation in providing for minimum sentences in serious drug trafficking cases. It has been pointed out that preliminary hearings have been part of our law for a considerable period and that we should be careful about making changes to them. What the Bill proposes in this regard takes into account modern realities. A person cannot be tried on indictment without the consent of an independent director of public prosecutions and it contains the essential safeguard that a person will be entitled to apply to the court of trial to have the charges against him or her dismissed on the basis that the book of evidence would not support a conviction.
There was — deservedly — praise in the debate for the work of the Criminal Assets Bureau. This Bill attempts to build on the work by providing further provisions relating to the confiscation of assets. In particular, there will be automatic asset inquiries where people have been convicted of drug trafficking offences. There was also a welcome for the abolition of the year and a day rule. This rule has been focused in the context of the BTSB issue. Other changes may be required in the law in the light of that and this is being examined.
Deputies are correct in saying this Bill can only be part of the response to drug trafficking. In this context it might be useful to set out some of the other justice related issues which arise. Co-operation on the drugs issue, nationally and internationally, is the key to successfully fighting the evil merchants of the drugs trade. Drug traffickers know no borders. It is only through effective action at a national level, complemented by wider measures at European and international level, that we can hope to tackle drug trafficking and those who perpetrate such a despicable crime.
Significant strides have been made to enhance co-operation both nationally and internationally, ensuring a sustained co-ordinated attack on those people who amass vast wealth at the expense of so much human misery. Recently I attended an important United Nations Conference in this regard. I take very seriously the duty of the State to protect the citizen's right to live in peace, free from the fear of criminal intrusion. The most menacing form of criminal intrusion today is, without question of doubt, generated by drug dealers. The stark reality is clearly highlighted by recent research which shows that drugs are responsible for 66 per cent of all detected crime in the Dublin Metropolitan Area.
Inevitably matters were raised during the debate in relation to the treatment of drug addicts. This is a key issue in the overall strategy of coping with the drugs problem. I will bring the specific points made by Deputies to the attention of the Minister for Health and Children. We all recognise that a criminal justice response in itself is insufficient but it does have a key role to play and that is the issue on which we have been concentrating today.
One of the principal provisions of the Bill, the provision for a mandatory sentence of ten years, was voted down in this House by the Opposition, the then Government, not once or twice but three times. We have reached a watershed, we either adopt the right approach now or the problem escalates out of control. There is no room for hurlers on the ditch. There is no room for prevarication or equivocation. The message must go out loud and clear to those who would become involved in the pernicious trade of drug dealing that if you do so and are apprehended, charged and convicted, you will not only lose the illicit assets you have acquired but also your liberty for a very long time. The message must be sent to these people that the net is tightening, that we will meet them at every turn and at every crossroads and that there can and will in future be no hiding place for them. We must close off their options. This legislation represents a milestone in that regard, it complements other recent innovative legislative measures which have been taken and will serve future generations of people extremely well.
Acting Chairman
As it is now 12.30 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the Order of the Dáil of this day: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Question put and declared carried.