Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Oct 1996

Vol. 148 No. 14

Criminal Assets Bureau Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Finance (Mr. R. Quinn)

First, I express my sincere thanks to Members of the Seanad for agreeing to take this Bill early so as to expedite its passage. This co-operation is much appreciated and reflects the priority which the Bill is seen to have in tackling the crime and drugs problems.

Senators will know that the Bill was one of a series of measures introduced by the Government in the Dáil on 25 July last and it received a Second Stage reading at that time. The general approach in the Bill has received wide approval. Since July some of its provisions have been amended significantly on both Committee and Report Stages following the extremely useful and cogent examination it received as it passed through the other House. In addition the Criminal Assets Bureau itself has been set up on a non-statutory basis and is operational. The Bill, therefore, benefited from suggestions made by Members of the Dáil, as well as from advice and suggestions made by the bureau, by Revenue, the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General, on how it could be improved and attuned to the operational needs of the bureau. Staff in all these Departments and in my own have put a lot of effort in a short time in dealing with difficult policy, legal and drafting issues in the Bill. I will go into further detail on the Bill when I come to an explanation of its provisions.

Senators will know that, for some time now, there has been a clear determination to ensure that the resources of the State are better co-ordinated to combat crime. In particular, there have been many demands for a major initiative involving the establishment of a special agency with specific powers to take decisive action against professional criminals and drug barons. All parties in both Houses have shown that they fully support such measures. There is also keen interest and support among Independent Members in both Houses for measures along the lines now being proposed.

For too long many people whose families or communities were ravaged by the havoc caused by drug abuse saw that known or suspected criminals enjoyed a life style which was not based on any real job or business. They and their families appeared to enjoy the rich proceeds of crime and drug dealing with immunity from the law — they appeared to be untouchable. This Bill will end that. From now on, the families, friends and partners of criminals will not be able to enjoy with impunity the proceeds, the property, the assets and the money which the criminals obtain illegally. All such assets will be capable of confiscation if they are connected, directly or indirectly, to criminal activity.

In this context, I congratulate the Customs Service of the Revenue Commissioners, the Naval Service and the Garda for the huge seizure of cocaine that took place in Cork last week. The seizure was one of the biggest made in Europe. It represents a major success for our strategy and will have inflicted a major loss on the evil people behind the operation.

The essential purpose of the Bill is to establish the Criminal Assets Bureau on a statutory basis. The setting up of the bureau followed a detailed review by a special working group consisting of officials from the Departments of Justice, Finance and Social Welfare, the Revenue Commissioners and senior Garda officers. The Government appreciates the speed and efficiency of the group of officials in clearing the way for, and putting in place, the necessary arrangements to allow the Government to set up this bureau in July pending its formal establishment through the enactment of this legislation.

The head of the bureau and the bureau legal officer were appointed at the end of July and the bureau is up and running with a staff of 27 people, comprising Revenue Commissioners and Department of Social Welfare officials, gardaí and support staff. The bureau has been concentrating on intelligence gathering, targeting suspects, organising its affairs and, in certain cases, pursuing tax assessments. However, it is vital that the Bill is enacted as soon as possible so the bureau can swing fully into action with a firm statutory backing using all the powers at its disposal under the new legislation.

All three agencies — the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social Welfare and the Garda — are committed to the success of the bureau and to a concerted effort to deliver on the Government's anti-crime measures. There has been no lack of commitment in the past but the difficulties which have arisen from different agencies tackling the problem within their own functional remit and in accordance with existing legislation has become apparent. Nothing less than a fully co-ordinated approach by the bureau will work.

The illegal activities of major criminals are multi-faceted and our response to these requires new ways of directing the resources of the State and new structures through which the dedicated and determined efforts of the Garda, the Revenue Commissioners and Department of Social Welfare can be channelled most effectively. The challenge of finding new structures for more effective team work between Departments and agencies is a broader issue which is being tackled as part of the strategic management initiative. It could be seen as an obvious and crucial strategic results area. This is a model which is capable of being replicated where a concerted response is required from the State. The essence of the bureau is that each of the three agencies will bring their own powers and expertise to the bureau and, under section 8 of the Bill, will exercise these powers in a mutually supportive and concerted manner.

It may be helpful to describe the role of the head of the bureau and the bureau legal officer. The management of personnel, the determination of priorities, co-ordination of activities and direction of operations will be the responsibility of the chief of the bureau. The legal officer, who reports directly to the chief bureau officer, is responsible for providing legal expertise to the bureau. This role involves full participation in the work of the bureau in formulating strategies, not only to ensure that the criminal assets are successfully tracked and targeted but, equally importantly, to process matters for prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions so that legal action to deprive the persons in question of the criminal assets, or to deny them the benefit of these assets, will produce the results desired.

As I said earlier, the Garda, the Revenue Commissioners and Department of Social Welfare personnel will bring to the bureau their own powers under the relevant criminal, taxes and social welfare legislation. The assignment of non-Garda staff to the bureau has been on a voluntary basis as decided by the Government at the outset. The voluntary approach is clearly appropriate in a situation of this type. There has been no difficulty getting volunteers who have shown commendable dedication and determination to make the bureau a success. This applies at all levels in the bureau.

I will give a brief resumé of the principal content of sections. Sections 1, 2 and 3 deal with the interpretation of the Bill and provide for the statutory establishment of the bureau. The bureau will be a corporate body in its own right. Section 4 sets out the objectives of the bureau which are: to identify assets, wherever situated, which derive or are suspected to derive, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity; to take whatever action is necessary under the law to deprive criminals or suspected criminals of their assets or to deny them, in whole or in part, the benefit of those assets and to carry out investigations and the preparatory work for legal proceedings in pursuit of these objectives.

The mandate of the bureau is proactive and interventionist. Under the functions assigned to it by section 5, the remit of the bureau involves confiscating, freezing or seizing criminal assets, ensuring that criminal proceeds are subjected to tax, and investigating and determining certain claims for benefit or assistance under the Social Welfare Acts. Section 5 also makes it clear that nothing in the Act will interfere with the powers and duties of the Garda Sióchána, the Revenue Commissioners or the Minister for Social Welfare. It is also made clear that the bureau may cooperate with foreign law enforcement, tax and social security agencies in carrying out its mandate.

Section 6 allows the Minister for Justice, by order after consultation with the Minister for Finance, to confer such additional functions on the bureau as the Minister sees fit. It is important to have this power in order to ensure that the bureau can respond to new situations or circumstances that may emerge in the conduct of its operations. Given the nature of what we are dealing with, we must equip ourselves with a speedy and flexible response mechanism.

Section 7 provides for the appointment of the chief of the bureau, to be known as the chief bureau officer. The chief officer is to be appointed by the Commissioner of the Garda Sióchána from amongst the officers of the Garda of the rank of chief superintendent. The chief of the bureau is responsible for the carrying on, management and control of the administration and business of the bureau. Provision is also made for an acting chief to be appointed by the commissioner in the event of the illness or absence of the chief officer.

Section 8 provides for the powers and duties of the officers of the Garda, Revenue Commissioners and Department of Social Welfare who will be appointed bureau officers and is a key provision in this Bill. Each will have their own powers as a garda, revenue or social welfare officer. The powers will be exercised in the name of the bureau and the bureau officers will be under the direction of the chief bureau officer. Section 8 enables the bureau officers to assist each other and, while giving such assistance, to share in each other's powers as appropriate. Provision is made to ensure that information, documents or material obtained by officers or officers assisting each other may be admitted in evidence. The bureau officers will be able to share information with each other and to disclose this information or material to their "parent" authorities. It is important for the effectiveness of the bureau to maintain these links especially in the case of the Garda, as such information on the activities of criminals or suspected criminals will be of material use to the Garda authorities generally in discharging their responsibilities for combating crime. Provision is also made in section 8 for bureau officers to retain their powers and responsibilities in relation to non-bureau matters. Being a member of the bureau will not, therefore, prevent a garda officer from exercising his general law enforcement powers.

Section 9 provides for the appointment of other staff, for example, accountants or technical staff of the bureau and for the appointment of the bureau legal officer to whom I referred earlier.

Section 10 provides for the granting of anonymity to bureau officers when, for example, making tax assessments, visiting premises or residences, conducting investigations and giving evidence, whether written or oral, in court and appeal proceedings.

Section 11, which was inserted on Committee Stage in the Dáil, makes it an offence to identify a bureau member, or a former bureau member, or the fact that an individual is a member of his or her family and the address of any such member or their family. This section does not apply to Garda members or to the chief bureau officer or the bureau legal officer.

This approach of protecting the identity of particular bureau members and their families as far as possible is clearly necessary in the light of the mandate of the bureau, the events of the recent past and the voluntary nature of the assignments. The approach was fully endorsed in the other House. Contrary to some suggestions in parts of the media, it does not represent a reluctance on the part of officials to undertake this difficult task. It is, rather, a responsible precaution in all the circumstances.

Section 12 makes it an offence to delay, obstruct, impede, interfere with or resist a bureau officer in the exercise or performance of his or her powers or duties. Sections 13 and 15 make it an offence to threaten, menace or assault a bureau officer or member of staff or their family. Substantial penalties are provided for in the case of each of these offences, but under section 17, the consent of the DPP is required to proceed with a prosecution, given the severe nature of the penalties involved.

Section 14, which was inserted on Report Stage in the Dáil, provides the bureau with an effective search warrant power to aid its investigation into suspected criminal assets. Clearly, a great deal of the work of the bureau will involve complex and painstaking investigations to uncover the existence of criminal assets and to gather evidence sufficient to support criminal or administrative proceedings in relation to those assets. The circumstances in which funds of this nature are acquired are of their nature particularly secretive and the manner in which they are held is designed to avoid detection. It is vital that the bureau should have adequate powers to investigate reasonable suspicions of the existence of criminal assets and to uncover financial trails of evidence leading to and from those assets.

The section provides that a district judge, on application from a garda who is a member of the bureau, may issue a search warrant if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence of, or relating to, assets or proceeds deriving from criminal activities, or to their identity or whereabouts, is to be found in any place.

There is also a provision for emergencies, similar to that provided for recently in the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996, permitting the issue of such a warrant by a garda in the bureau not below the rank of superintendent. This is strictly limited by circumstances of urgency, where a search warrant is needed immediately and it would not be practicable to apply to a district judge. A search warrant under this section applies, inter alia, to persons and to private dwellings.

Section 16, which was also inserted during the passage of the Bill in the Dáil, is designed to ensure that gardaí working in the bureau have adequate powers of arrest without warrant in respect of serious offences relevant to the work of the bureau. The offences covered by the section, that is, sections 12, 13 and 15 of this Bill and Revenue offences under section 94 of the Finance Act, 1983, are all serious offences which, particularly in the context of the bureau's work, justify a power of arrest without warrant. A reasonable measure of the seriousness of any offence is the maximum penalty which it attracts. In fact, as Senators will be aware, the Criminal Law Bill, 1996, proposes a general power of arrest without warrant for gardaí in respect of any offence punishable by five years imprisonment or more. This penalty applies to all the sections, except one, mentioned above.

Section 12, dealing with obstruction of bureau officers, provides for a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment. However, so as not to hamper the work of the bureau, it is proposed to specifically provide for the power of arrest in the Criminal Assets Bureau Bill and for consistency, to apply the power of arrest to offences under section 12 also.

Section 18 sets out the arrangements for the transfer of staff to the bureau and the application of compensation arrangements under the Garda Síochána compensation schemes to bureau members and to solicitors from the Chief State Solicitor's Office who are involved in the bureau's work. The compensation scheme will also apply to former members of the bureau in connection with their work with the bureau.

Section 19 authorises the Minister for Justice to provide the bureau with its own budget. It will be important to enable the bureau to be resourced to whatever level is necessary to discharge its functions. Section 20 provides for all tax collected by virtue of the bureau's operation to be paid to the account of the Revenue Commissioners and accounted for to the Collector-General. There are already provisions in the other relevant legislation as regards the disposal of the funds that may arise from other actions, such as confiscation, that may be taken by the bureau.

Section 21 requires the bureau to provide a report each year to the Minister for Justice, through the Garda Commissioner, on its activities and for this to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. The Minister for Justice may also require the bureau to furnish information at other times on the general operations of the bureau. Section 22 is the usual standard expenses clause in all Bills and needs no elaboration by me.

Section 23 amends the anonymity provisions of the Disclosure of Certain Information for Taxation and Other Purposes Act, 1996, to bring it in line with similar provisions in this Bill as were amended by the Dáil. The amendments make it clear that a bureau officer need only be accompanied by a garda where the officer might otherwise be required to identify himself or herself as a bureau officer. The previous text may have been open to an interpretation that Garda accompaniment was required on all occasions. This would be an unrealistic and unworkable requirement.

Section 24 amends certain provisions introduced by the same Disclosure of Certain Information for Taxation and Other Purposes Act, 1996, to remove the references in these provisions to protecting Garda sources of information. The Minister for Justice felt on reflection that such a reference was unnecessary and inappropriate. The deletion of the particular text in no way affects the ability of the Garda authorities to pass relevant information to Revenue or for Revenue to use such information as provided for in the disclosure Act itself.

Section 25 arose out of a detailed exchange of views on the tax amnesty on Second Stage in the Dáil and on how the waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Act, 1993, applied to proceeds of illegal activities. The section was inserted following detailed and extensive legal advice from the Attorney General. The position is that money from illegal sources is, and was always, clearly outside the scope of the incentive amnesty under the 1993 Act. There is no disagreement on this point. The only question which arose related to the procedure by which such funds were to be excluded.

Section 5 of the 1993 Act provides that an inspector will be debarred from continuing an investigation into a tax-payer's affairs in respect of a pre-5 April 1991 period if the taxpayer concerned produces an amnesty certificate received from the chief special collector. However, that barrier to the continuation of an investigation does not apply if the inspector can satisfy the appeal commissioners that there are reasonable grounds which indicate that the declaration made by the taxpayer did not contain a full and true statement of the declared amounts.

Any suggestions which might have been made elsewhere that the tax amnesty had effectively closed off the pursuit of criminals who had used the amnesty to bury, conceal or launder illegally gotten money do not stand up. This legislation will make it possible for the bureau, people working for it or the Revenue Commissioners to go after such people in the manner I outlined.

The effect of section 25, therefore, is that there will no longer be a barrier to the pursuit of an investigation if the appeal commissioners are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to show that the declaration regarding the source of amnestied funds made by a taxpayer to the chief special collector is false.

This Bill is a forceful measure that, together with the other measures already in place, will deliver a coherent and focused response against organised crime. We owe it to those who look to the State to protect their lives and property to make sure that the Bill succeeds in its objectives and defeats the drug barons and other perpetrators of serious crime in this country. I am sure the House will want to go into some detail on the provisions of the Bill on Committee Stage. I look forward to that examination.

I recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Roche

I thank the Minister on behalf of my constituents and people throughout the country looking for a forceful measure to combat what is one of the most extraordinary scourges facing our nation. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that this Bill is a forceful measure. I would go further by saying that in the debates which have taken place on the Bill since it was introduced there has been an effort from all sides to expand and improve it and to dispel certain myths about potential bolt-holes which existed as a result of the tax amnesty. I thank the Minister for taking so much time and trouble to put before us the realties we now face in this regard.

I am a wholehearted supporter of this Bill but I have an area of serious concern which I will address to the Minister. This is an important Bill which comes at a time when the nation is looking for strong measures to show that we are serious and that our resolve is absolute when it comes to combating crime. Some critic said it is ironic that we require legislation to bring together officials from different agencies but that is not really the purpose of this Bill. Its purpose is to create a task oriented agency which will focus the resources, skills and courageous public service of people from a variety of agencies on the task of combating crime, specifically to ensure that people who have gained from crime are not allowed to hold those gains. I accept the reasons which have been put forward for the establishment of a specific, single stand alone agency in this case. If ever a problem required a task oriented approach to its solution, this is one and I commend and compliment the Minister on that.

In the immediate aftermath of the murder of Veronica Guerin, my party responded by proposing a Bill that was designed to separate criminals from the proceeds of their crimes. That Bill aimed at empowering the High Court to freeze the assets of persons suspected of being in possession of the proceeds of organised crime. After some initial querying, the Government accepted the principles outlined in that Bill and incorporated it in the Proceeds of Crime Bill, 1996. It showed the people that, across the political divide, there is a single-minded attitude to resolving the problems we now face.

I see this Bill, therefore, as a direct follow up of that initiative earlier this summer. A primary focus of the new bureau will be to target criminal assets and hit the lords of crime in one of the most sensitive areas, their pockets.

When the Bill was first introduced, the Minister spoke of legal obstacles which obstructed co-operation between State agencies. I was amazed that there are still such obstacles. Perhaps having looked at the type of obstacle which prevents inter-agency activity which is in the public interest in this regard, we could look at arrangements which prevent inter-agency co-operation.

This Bill has created an agency which will allow public servants to transcend old bureaucratic territoriality and displace it with a singleminded crossagency co-operation at the highest level. The people expect nothing less. As the Minister said, the people in those parts of our community which are blighted by crime, and particularly drug related crime, have an absolute right to nothing less than that.

While the bureau will be to the forefront in that area its success will, of course, depend on the wholehearted co-operation of all official agencies not just the officials who are taken temporarily into the agency. We must have a more proactive interagency support for this bureau and the general fight against crime.

We should also state today that we have a right, as the representatives of the people, to expect that the private sector institutions and the legal professions would be far more proactive in this regard than they have been in the past. I realise that the professions have a responsibility to their clients but this does not exonerate them from their responsibility to society.

We are seeking to create a structure in which there will be the most active official interagency co-operation and we have the right to call on all persons to co-operate with the agency we are creating. The fight against crime, and drug related crime in particular, requires not just the creation of a new agency, but to be successful it requires goodwill, co-operation and encouragement from all law-abiding citizens.

As I have said, the objectives of the Bill have my full support. It is time we showed we are serious about crime and that the ambivalence which has existed historically in society has no place in modern Ireland. It is also time we showed we find it intolerable that criminals should not only be allowed to win near celebrity status because of their criminal activities but that they should be able to afford lifestyles which are an affront to the ordinary hardworking women and men of our nation. I find it hard to believe that well known criminals could operate with such apparent impunity in a developed nation but that has been the reality for the last five, six or ten years. Hopefully, this Bill and the asset legislation will send out a clear message and help bring about an end to any historical ambiguity that existed.

Turning to the Bill and an area of personal concern, I wholeheartedly welcome the principles of the Bill and the Minister and everybody who knows me would accept that without question, but I have a small problem with the way the Bill was amended after its introduction. I may be speaking against my own as well as against anybody else.

Section 3, as the Minister knows, was amended by the specific statement introduced in section 3(2) that the bureau would be a body corporate with perpetual succession, official seal, and the power to sue and be sued in its own right. In effect, this cross-party suggestion, both the Minister and the all-party Dáil committee were involved, creates a fairly standard stand alone ring-fenced public service agency which is, in fact, removed from the concept of ministerial responsibility for very good reasons. We do not want the situation to exist whereby this agency could be subject to political interference at any stage in the future and we want to create an agency which feels absolutely free in pursuing of its activities. The problem in the creation of such an agency has shown itself from time to time and it is one of a deficiency in democratic answerability. This is not to speak against the agency but to highlight a problem, which, for example, the tragedy in Mrs. McCole's case involving the Blood Transfusion Service Board highlighted in stark detail recently. The Minister for Health, for example, in responding to his critics and queries made the point that there is a legal distinction, to take the analogy, between the Minister for Health and BTSB. The Minister is correct in a legal sense. The BTSB was created as a legal stand alone agency for all the good reasons that we create such agencies. This bureau will be a legal stand alone agency also.

In that particular case, the Minister is a legal entity and the BTSB is a separate legal entity. In theory, the Minister is responsible to the Houses of the Oireachtas for the policies which have been implemented by the BTSB but he does not have responsibility for day to day operational detail. That has been well highlighted in the recent past. In the case of the BTSB it means that, for women who have been infected by blood products used, this legal point has become of more than simple academic importance. It has played a defining role in their lives and it has determined the approach which has been adopted by various Ministers and agencies in the McCole case. It has provided the legal basis for some considerable and regrettable legal obfuscation where there should have been clarity. It lies at the very heart of an injustice.

Section 3 of the Criminal Assets Bureau Bill was amended by the addition of section 3(2) which establishes the bureau in the standard format which we have used time and again since 1927 as a body corporate in its own right. I accept the Minister's bona fides and I am not querying his intentions in this regard. I accept that the bureau must be protected against political interference and that the Bill must create an agency which has the maximum possible independence. However, the bureau is being given the same indemnity against democratic scrutiny in the section which has been given all too freely to State agencies in the past.

In other contexts, the Minister has shared my view in contributions made over the years because he has drawn attention to the conundrum we face in creating a truly independent agency while protecting democratic answerability. If, at some future date, there were some suspicion the agency had acted wrongly or unjustly or had injured an innocent party, we in the Oireachtas could be in the same position as in the tragic case of the hepatitis C victim. Ministers in those circumstances will have no option but to deny any ministerial responsibility and an innocent party could find herself or himself faced with the nightmare of endless and expensive legal actions to breach a Chinese wall of official secrecy. Irish people need the agency which the Bill creates. I do not question that. We must pursue drug barons in the most systematic way possible. There must be no safe havens and no loopholes in the law they can exploit. At the same time, we cannot be forced by the urgency of current problems to repeat mistakes made in the past. In a democracy, no public agency should be exempt from democratic scrutiny. The reality, as seen in many cases and most recently in the Blood Transfusion Services Board case and other similarly established agencies, is that democratic scrutiny is severely limited by creating bodies with no immediate day-to-day answerability or direct ministerial responsibility.

The narrow interpretation of ministerial responsibility is something against which I have fulminated over years. It is often an impediment to efficient administration. However, if Ministers are not answerable, who is? The buck must stop at somebody's desk. Unfortunately, in all too many of our commercial and non-commercial State-sponsored bodies, it is difficult to find not just at whose desk the buck stops but a desk.

It will be argued that section 18 of the Bill provides for the publication of reports and that deals with the problem of answerability. Before accepting this line, we must remember that the Blood Transfusion Services Board also published reports which have been of little use to women and their families who have been seeking the truth in the hepatitis C scandal. I make these points but do not have a ready made answer. It is a problem, particularly in a modern and fast-moving administrative world, which administrations from the foundation of this State have failed to solve because of the restraints of ministerial responsibility. I do not know the answer. I am sure the Minister, before incorporating section 3 (2), gave this his full attention.

I agree with everything the Minister has said about this Bill. I have no caveats or problems with it. There are, however, two small areas to which I wish to refer. In several sections a fine of £1,500 for a variety of offences from intimidation to outright obstruction is mentioned. That level of fine and the accompanying imprisonment is probably too small. I realise a later portion of the same section treats it more seriously, particularly the offence of intimidation. I wonder from where we plucked the figure of £1,500. There are probably good reasons, but I cannot recall them being mentioned in the debate. It is probably limited by the courts, but we should have a minimum fine of £1,500 because I do not want to see a court hand down a fine of £150 to someone who has behaved in an outrageous way and is frustrating the principles of this Bill. I wish to see a minimum fine of £1,500 and the sky could be the limit after that.

The Minister has dealt with my query on anonymity because there has been public recognition of the name of one senior appointment to the bureau.

I wholeheartedly support this Bill. I do not have an answer to the conundrum I raised but the Bill is an important step forward. With the right of seizure of assets and the proposed changes in the bail laws, which have the wholehearted support of both sides of the Oireachtas, we are showing criminals we are serious about crime.

I commend the Government for moving in this direction and, when positive progress has been made, it would be churlish and politically selfish not to recognise it. I commend the Government for the steps it has taken, not just in this Bill, but for its general approach. We have tremendous evidence from our customs service, the Garda and Revenue Commissioners that a real and well-focused effort is being made. In this and other Bills, we are putting in place agencies that fight the criminals directly.

One aspect of the fight against criminality and drugs which I fear is being lost sight of is addressing the demand for drugs. The Eastern Health Board recently brought forward a programme aimed at assisting and providing extensive counselling, methadone treatment services and community counselling. In the war against crime we must look not just at the supply of drugs or the manipulation of society by crime barons but at ways to support people and take them away from the clutches of the drug barons. As Chairman of the community care branch of the Eastern Health Board I recognise that the Government has been generous and has supplied some additional resources. We need to examine the issue of the demand for drugs further. There needs to be better public education, particularly of young people in the traditional sense. We need more resources ploughed into counselling and services, particularly the provision of special methadone treatment services. The Minister for Finance is always being asked for money, but I cannot think of a better way to fund those services than by removing the resources from the barons who created the problem and using them for that purpose.

With the caveat I entered, I welcome this Bill. It is a progressive move and I thank and commend the Minister.

Mr. Burke

The Criminal Assets Bureau was set up following the detailed review by a special working group consisting of officials from the Departments of Justice, Finance and Social Welfare, the Revenue Commissioners and senior Garda officers. This Government is committed to establishing a special agency with specific powers to take decisive action against professional criminals and drug barons. We have been talking in this House for far too long about the "untouchables", people who drive around in fast cars such as Mercedes and BMWs, live in large houses and enjoy a lifestyle which is not based on any real job or business. In most cases they receive social welfare. Ordinary people ask how those people could be living those lifestyles and receiving social welfare. No one could answer those questions. I am delighted this Bill will end that. From now on, the families, friends and partners of criminals cannot hide behind their own names while enjoying the proceeds, property, assets and money which the criminals obtained illegally. All such assets will be capable of confiscation if they can be proven to be connected, directly or indirectly, to criminal activity. I hope this Bill, when passed into law, will, in the Minister's words, "defeat and impoverish the criminal drug barons".

We appreciate the difficulties which have arisen in the past. I believe there was no lack of commitment and effort in dealing with this problem in the past, but difficulties have arisen from different agencies tackling the problem within their own functional remit. The essence of the bureau is that each of the three agencies will bring their own powers and expertise to it and will ultimately exercise these powers in a supportive and constructive manner.

There are many sections in the Bill but sections 4 and 5 are important. Section 4 gives power to the bureau to take whatever action is necessary under the law to deprive criminals or suspected criminals of their assets or to deny them in whole or in part the benefit of those assets and to carry out investigations and the preparatory work for legal proceedings in pursuit of the above objectives.

Under the functions assigned to it by section 5, the remit of the bureau involves confiscating, freezing or seizing criminal assets, ensuring that criminal proceeds are subjected to tax and investigating and determining claims for benefit or assistance under the Social Welfare Acts by criminals or suspected criminals. Section 5 also makes it clear that nothing in the Act will interfere with the powers and duties of the Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners or the Minister for Social Welfare. This means the gardaí, Revenue personnel and social welfare officials in the bureau will retain their ordinary powers and responsibilities. Being a member of the bureau will not, therefore, prevent a garda from exercising his general law enforcement powers. These sections will give power to the authorities to do whatever is necessary to apprehend or to put an end to the misery and misfortune criminals bring into the lives of many people, particularly young people.

There is openness and transparency in this Bill. Section 17 requires the bureau to provide a report each year to the commissioners and to the Minister for Justice on its activities. The report must also be put before each House of the Oireachtas. There is an onus on the Minister for Justice to account to this House each year. This will give us the opportunity to speak about the illegal activities that are taking place and how best the laws can be changed to take whatever steps are necessary to put an end to them.

For too long we have been hearing about the activities of the main players in the drugs and crime trades. The criminals are well known to us; we know their nicknames and hear about their properties, fast cars and foreign holidays. Veronica Guerin devoted much of her career to exposing those people. One must also recognise the role that many other courageous journalists have played, and are still playing, in this regard. Reading about these criminals the public is confronted by the fact that while all the details about their criminal activities and careers are known, they appear to be untouchable. This has rightly and understandably angered and incensed most ordinary people.

Over recent years there has been much talk in this House and elsewhere about the need for greater co-operation between the various agencies involved, the Revenue Commissioners, the Garda Síochána and the Department of Social Welfare. Unfortunately, much of this has been only talk. The Revenue Commissioners have been less than enthusiastic about getting involved in this area and that is understandable. We must recognise the type of people about whom we are talking. They are dangerous and life means little to most of them. In many ways it has been dangerous and unrealistic to expect personnel in the Revenue Commissioners to get involved with such people. This Bill will provide the requisite back-up for them to take the necessary steps to see that justice is done and to ensure that these people are brought to justice. It should go without saying that the question of funding should not arise. The bureau will be a dedicated unit which will have to do extremely dangerous work and it should be provided with whatever resources are necessary.

The Criminal Assets Bureau when fully operational will target all known criminals and drug dealers. It will make it much harder for those people to operate. We are taking the right approach in setting up this unit. It will have the same powers as the Revenue Commissioners and the Garda Síochána. Criminals and drug dealers should be asked about the property and assets they have accumulated over the years and to provide evidence of the sources of their wealth. I have no doubt that as time passes the strength of the unit will have to be increased and this is provided for in the Bill.

As Senator Roche said, drug addiction is a huge problem. At one time the use of drugs was associated mainly with Dublin and the larger cities. However, the use of drugs and drug addiction have spread to rural communities and towns. A recent survey, which is highlighted in today's Irish Independent, shows that a staggering 61 per cent of Irish addicts are less than 25 years of age; up to one in five people under 35 has tried drugs at some stage and in Ireland the average age of an addict is 23.

There are up to one million heroin addicts in the EU and one in four prisoners is in jail for drug related offences. Ireland has by far the youngest average age for addicts seeking help to get off drugs. The average age is just under 24 years compared with an average age of 32 in the Netherlands, 38 in Spain and 33 in Sweden. Eight out of ten Irish addicts seeking help are male; six out of ten are injecting heavy drugs such as heroin and one in ten is seeking help for problems with the alleged soft drug, cannabis. Curiously, according to the report, cocaine — the subject of several high profile seizures in Ireland recently for which we must congratulate the Garda — appears to rank low in the drug use league. However, EU officials claim that in most countries cocaine use is under-estimated. The report goes on to say that Ireland, sadly, can hold its own among the hardest cases when it comes to drugs. Various reports and surveys have been conducted and they show that the drug problem in this country is huge.

I am delighted with the strong tactics adopted by the Government. It is committed to putting new measures in place to deal with the drug barons and the underworld of drug related crime. I have no doubt that the Government will succeed in its efforts to bring many of these hard criminals to justice.

Section 11 deals with the identity of members of the bureau and applies to a person who publishes those names or causes them to be published. Does this refer to the printed media and television?

Mr. R. Quinn

Yes.

Mr. Burke

I presume that when cases come to court the names of the bureau members will be given as they will give evidence. Does that mean the press cannot publish the details?

Mr. R. Quinn

Just their names.

Mr. Burke

I appreciate the point Senator Roche made about section 3, particularly in the aftermath of the hepatitis C cases. He outlined the possible consequences very well and I do not have an answer.

I do not intend to prolong the passage of the Bill. The quicker it becomes law the better and I compliment the Minister on bringing it before the House. My final point is not within the remit of the Department of Finance but it is related to this legislation. The identity of members of the jury should be kept secret. The Government should take steps to deal with this issue because wholesale intimidation of members of juries is taking place. The identity of jury members should be withheld.

Mr. O'Toole

I compliment the Minister, his Department, the advisers and the draftspeople who worked on this legislation. When I was first elected in 1987 the drugs problem was rampant in the north inner city. Time and again in the following years I raised this issue and a number of Ministers pointed out that the private property provisions in the Constitution would render legislation in this area unconstitutional or make it liable to constitutional challenge as it would involve the State taking the private property of criminals.

There was a sense of outrage and abandonment among people in the north inner city when a well known criminal, Mr. Felloni, was convicted and jailed — he was in the news again this year — because they knew that, even though he was jailed for a year or two, he had £500,000 salted away and could live on that money when he came out. There is, therefore, a sense of justice in this legislation.

I want to put the legislation in the context of the signals it gives. This legislation gives out the correct signals. This is not the time to pass judgment on local neighbourhood initiatives against drugs. I fully understand the frustration of people in those areas and I understand that nuances of aspects of the law would not be clear to them, but this is the kind of legislation that gives ordinary people a sense that somebody is watching, trying to close loopholes and entrap these people who are a scourge on society and are wrecking the lives of generations.

I fully support of this legislation and I was happy to help get this Bill through as quickly as possible today. Time is of the essence. As we saw over the weekend, these people move their assets out of the country daily. It would be easy to look at sections of the Bill and say they should be written differently or that the Bill should take a different approach but it would be churlish to do so considering the huge level of public demand and the fact that the Bill addresses the drugs issue.

I sat on a number of State committees on drugs in the 1980s and organised Europeanwide discussions on drugs among young people on behalf of the European trade union movement on a number of occasions. I am delighted with the approach this Bill takes to assets. Things could be done in other areas of the Bill, but in that area it is superb.

Every commentator on the drugs situation has asked time and again why there was not more co-operation between and among the State agencies and arms of the State. To me that is as important as the seizure of assets. The creation of an effective communications network and a set of relationships which allow a legal, effective and free but properly controlled flow of information between the arms of the State will improve the effectiveness of the State in eliminating aspects of the drugs problem. It does no harm to remind ourselves that after spending so many years trying to convict gangsters in America in the 1930s and 1940s, the US Government finally convicted Al Capone on legislation similar to this. Co-operation between tax officers, the FBI and others finally convicted him.

I gulped when I looked at the censorship provisions in the Bill. One of the necessary qualities of an independent Senator is that we always gulp twice on civil liberties issues. Any provision which begins with words which make it an offence to "identify by publication" is serious and problematic for us on the liberal wing. We will just have to gulp twice on this occasion.

Mr. R. Quinn

The Senator will be able to deal with his reservations if he puts on his general secretary's hat.

Mr. O'Toole

General secretaries have to do this regularly. This provision is essential.

We have seen a worrying development towards the intimidation of individuals who are acting on behalf of the people and who do not have the protection of uniforms. In one high profile murder case recently it was suggested in the media that the murder could have been related to the fact that the person's daily life involved the seeking out of people who were not paying their taxes. I am sure that makes sense to somebody. We saw the threats to Veronica Guerin before she was tragically killed. This seems to have become part and parcel of the daily lives of those who make their living out of drug trafficking and the whole drugs area.

It is right that we are creating a net that, I hope, will entrap some criminals. However, this legislation is not to be judged on the number of convictions to which it leads. This Bill will work on its own because it makes it difficult for these people to carry on their business. I am not saying that it closes all the loopholes; it does not. However, it closes the obvious ones. I was given a commitment by the Minister of the day some years ago that legislation dealing with the seizure of assets would be brought forward but it never was. However, it is being brought forward now.

As independent public representatives, we listen to people asking what the politicians are doing about the fact that criminals can take the lives of journalists and we have had to sit and take it. We are all equally responsible and I shared responsibility although I have never been and never will be in Government. We are all public representatives and we have to listen to that sort of comment. It is important that the apparatus of State is used to make people aware of this legislation, not to buy votes for the Minister for Finance or for the Government, but to give the correct impression. The Minister has often spoken about the necessity of letting it be known that this problem is being dealt with properly.

This legislation may not have been there on the first week in July when people were clamouring for it, and we all share the blame for that. However, it is here now and it deals with the future. It is not an emergency, fire brigade measure. It is considered, planned legislation which will be effective and constitutional. Far lesser Bills have attracted a charge of unconstitutionality but I have not heard it levelled against this one to date, so I would say that this is the way forward.

I hope this legislation will be effective and that it catches its prey. I hope it will give a sense of relief to people who are suffering in communities where drugs are a problem. We are beginning to close in on the profits of drug trafficking, on the luxurious lifestyles and the big houses of people who apparently have no assets, who have addresses in local authority houses and who keep £500,000 in suitcases. I hope this legislation will lead to convictions.

Mr. Calnan

I compliment the Minister and his staff and others who worked on the Criminal Assets Bureau Bill, 1996. I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution. The legislation before us is undoubtedly the most important anti-crime measure to be introduced by the Government since the sad and brutal murder of Veronica Guerin.

Prior to the publication of this Bill my party launched a policy document entitled "The Drugs Menace and Organised Crime". The key recommendation of that document was the establishment of a unit such as the Criminal Assets Bureau. In the immediate aftermath of the murder of Veronica Guerin there was an understandable level of outrage in the press and among the public. To assuage this panic the Government could have introduced legislation tightening up the law in certain areas and making it more punitive. To some extent, it did this but it went further. Anyone who has monitored the fight against drugs and drug related crime, such as drug trafficking, will say that one of the reasons we have fallen so far behind the traffickers was not that the law itself was inadequate but that the forces of law and order had operational difficulties. The Government is to be congratulated on recognising that and for introducing this Bill as part of the solution.

We need to concentrate resources on attacking those responsible for the vile drug trafficking trade. We have passed drug trafficking legislation but most of the charges seem to be made under the Offences Against the State Act. Perhaps I am incorrect but that is my impression from reading recent newspaper reports.

In recent months we have seen the frustration of communities which have been ravaged by drug problems spill out onto the streets. That is an understandable reaction to the drug problem and might, in the short-term, have some positive benefits. However, it is not an appropriate way to police communities in the long-term.

I welcome the Garda response to this problem through operation Dóchas. This level of surveillance must be continued until there is a substantial reduction in drug use in our cities and rural areas. I come from west Cork and the problem in rural areas is not any different from that in cities such as Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Drugs are freely available in towns and villages at any time of the day and night and cause misery for individuals and families. Those who take drugs suffer a massive loss in their quality of life and often, tragically, lose their lives. The people involved in this awful trade, many of whom do not take drugs, live a life of luxury and have big houses, cars and great wealth. They are not concerned about the misery they bring to others.

Ireland has a long and jagged coastline with many sheltered coves and harbours into which boats can slip. We need careful surveillance and anybody co-operating in the landing of drugs must be treated harshly by the law. I am glad that some large hauls of drugs were seized in Cork recently. Cannabis is growing freely in this country and it can be the start of addiction that leads people into the hands of drug traffickers.

The Garda is very active in sorting out undesirables, such as new age travellers, who have recently settled here. Many of them are deeply involved in the drug culture. The Garda is beginning to question these people. I hope that will continue because they are a bad influence on young people. There seems to be an inordinate number of them in west Cork.

The Garda and the authorities have had their successes and there is some basis for believing they are beginning to get the upper hand on drug barons. We are now more likely to read in the newspapers about the arrest or questioning of drug barons on their ostentatious wealth. The raid on a Dublin solicitors' office, which was allegedly acting for drug barons, was important in that it sent out a message to those people that no stone will be left unturned to bring them to justice.

The criminal assets bureau will be a key weapon in our fight against crime. It will not be an easy task. Those who control the drug trade on our streets are ruthless. They are determined to do everything in their power to protect their wealth. The fight against them will be tough and dangerous. I commend the law enforcement officers who are prepared to take up the task. I welcome the provisions in this Bill which will afford to them and their families the full protection of the State.

The principal tasks of the Bill are set out in section 4. They are to identify the assets of persons which derive directly or indirectly from criminal activities, to take whatever actions are necessary under the law to deprive criminals or suspected criminals of their assets or to deny them the benefit of those assets. I welcome section 5 which defines the bureau as a proactive rather than reactive force.

The drug problems of the 1980s and 1990s have disturbing similarities. In both cases there has been a significant time lag between the emergence of the problem and the appropriate response from the authorities. Let us learn our lesson on that score, at least. I do not want to see a time when the activities of this bureau are scaled down. The provision in section 6 whereby it remains within the remit of the Minister for Justice, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, to assign additional powers to the Bill is most welcome and will add to the effectiveness of the criminal assets bureau in the long-term.

I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill. I am glad to see the co-operation between the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social Welfare and the Garda. We need to deprive these criminals of their assets and to show that crime does not pay.

I am glad that much of the Bill is highly technical. The more technical it is the better because we do not want to find legal loopholes in it later. We need to close such loopholes now before criminals — some of whom draw social welfare payments in order to hide their other activities — who live a life of luxury off the misery of others are brought to justice for their crimes. We need to combat this in the way the Minister is going about it.

The Minister stated: "We owe it to all those who look to the State to protect their lives and property to makes sure that the Bill succeeds in its objectives and defeats the drugs barons and other perpetrators of serious crime in this country". That sums up what the bureau is about. I welcome the Bill. No Member of this House should underestimate its importance because it marks the culmination of a difficult and costly process. In addition to the countless number of teenagers whose lives have been crippled by the drug barons, we also lost one of our bravest journalists. We have learned lessons which we cannot forget. The fight against crime is a difficult and complex one which requires the dedication of and co-operation between our law enforcement agencies. The Bill marks the beginning of a new era in cross departmental co-operation and I wish it well.

Mr. Mulcahy

I join with my colleague in thanking the Minister for coming to the House today. Fianna Fáil supports this Bill, as it has supported almost every proposal in the law reform and criminal justice area since the formation of this Government. The Government, perhaps in its panic after the terrible murder of Veronica Guerin, accepted Opposition legislation, which is quite rare. However, that is to be supported rather than criticised.

I am sorry if the Minister considers that this political point sours my contribution, but for how long did he consider the proposals in this Bill? For how long did it form a part of Government thinking? The Minister was not present, not that he would be expected to be, for our debates on crime after the murder of Veronica Guerin. The Government introduced its anti crime package, for which we are thankful, shortly after that terrible murder. However, there is an impression abroad and I am not the only one saying this that the Government's response to crime has been reactive rather than proactive.

The first paragraph of an editorial in The Irish Times of Wednesday, 3 July 1996 stated:

The public will be understandably sceptical about the Government's anti-crime package announced last night. There will be suspicion that the Government has simply cobbled together a response to the murder of Veronica Guerin in order to save its own face — instead of working to frame a long-term strategy to combat crime.

My colleague, who is always fair, said I should read out the second paragraph which is, perhaps, slightly more generous to the Government. It states:

That said, the Government's package appears to be more considered than might have been expected. There is the traditional emphasis on more resources and more law but there is also an important acknowledgement that the efficiency of the Garda Síochána itself needs to be examined.

If the Minister was fair with us today he would accept that, in appearance, the Government's response to what we on this side of the House consider a crisis appears to be reactive as opposed to proactive. That is why I am concerned that this Bill, which was initiated on 24 July 1996, in the aftermath of the murder of Veronica Guerin, is reactive.

At the beginning I said we support this Bill. As the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Justice in this House I have consistently said that the tools and machinery, as well as the legislation, of our law enforcement officers has not been equal to the tools and machinery of those involved in professional thuggery and gangsterism. In so far as the Minister is today putting in place solid and tough machinery to meet forces on the battlefield with equal vigour, we are supporting it.

We do not want to end up with a police state; we do not want to go too far to the other side. Let that not be misunderstood as a liberal plea because I am not in the mood to make any liberal plea.

Mr. R. Quinn

We would never accuse the Senator of that.

Mr. Mulcahy

The Minister never would and I am content not to be. Perhaps at the end of his contribution the Minister could tell us what we might call him in that regard.

In so far as this puts solid machinery in place for dealing with the professional thugs it is to be welcomed. I am not so sure I would want the bureau involved in ordinary policing activity. We do not necessarily want heavy handed tactics on all our citizens. Why not? Because invariably this bureau, like any other, will make mistakes. It is a traumatic experience for anybody to be investigated wrongly in a heavy handed way by a bureau like this. Hopefully they will not make mistakes but we want to keep a sense of balance in the fight against crime.

I am glad to see the Minister here but is this not the responsibility of the Department of Justice? The Minister mentioned in the Bill is the Minister for Justice. The bureau will report to the Minister for Justice. I understand that the Minister for Finance has certain functions regarding the co-ordination of various aspects of the public service.

Mr. R. Quinn

It was income tax that got Al Capone.

Mr. Mulcahy

That may be so but it does not seem to be the central thrust of this Bill that this bureau is searching for unpaid revenue and taxes. The Revenue Commissioners already have substantial and very farreaching powers without this legislation to go after people in arrears with their taxes. In so far as the Bill, for example, provides for anonymity and the disguising of people in the fight against hardened criminals, it is to be supported. The provisions relating to the Garda Compensation Acts will also apply to persons working for this bureau.

I might digress by raising the point of compensation and indemnity for those involved in public service. As far as I am aware, there is no indemnity for Members of the Oireachtas whose property rights or personal health might be interfered with as a direct result of any contribution to the law and order debate. That is something the Minister for Finance or Minister for Justice might have considered if they had had the time.

There does not seem to be indemnity for judges. During the summer there were perceived and public threats made to judges who then made public statements. The Leader of the House commented on this in the course of some of the law and order debates. I ask the Minister to look at the question of compensation and indemnity for people involved in the administration of justice and other public duties where they may be the targets of criminals, particularly the Al Capone type.

I will make one more political point as politely as I can. As the Minister is here I would like to know if he decided, in concert with others, to cancel the Castlerea Prison project in January or February 1995. This is relevant.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Henry)

I do not think it is.

Mr. Mulcahy

I will come to its relevance. There is an excellent Garda exercise in the investigation of the Veronica Guerin murder. They have had startling results. It is not inconceivable that, with that operation and Dóchas, the Dublin inner city operation, large numbers of people will face charges or prison. If the bail referendum is passed in November many people could be affected. I will drop that political point now but I wanted to mention it as the Minister is here. If there was no money in February 1995 to build a prison it should be stated clearly here why and if there is money now, we should be told when that prison will be built. That is of the utmost concern to all those, including myself, who want to see results in terms of criminals behind bars.

We do not believe in capital or corporal punishment but we do believe that people who commit crime should pay. It is very frustrating and undermines confidence in our justice system when people are seen to be getting out of prison on early release or committing crime while on bail. I know it is not the Minister's brief but he is the money man and I would appreciate hearing his views.

This side of the House fully supports this Bill. As drafted and designed, it is a good Bill. It is the right road to travel. We must protect the people in the law enforcement business and have regard to their personal safety and welfare. The effort of searching for the proceeds of crime has to be co-ordinated. That is what we are trying to do. It is time that Revenue, the Garda Síochána and the Department of Social Welfare act together in a co-ordinated unit to search for the proceeds of crime.

It was not the policy of the previous Government to support a drugs enforcement agency, but it is current Fianna Fáil policy and has been stated as such by Deputy O'Donoghue and I. We are moving to a situation where there will be such an agency, perhaps under another name. Indeed, perhaps this bureau will evolve into one.

The reason drug enforcement agencies have evolved and been created in other countries is because the criminals involved at the top of the drugs business are incredibly organised, utterly vicious, totally cynical and professional. Normal policing activity has not been the equal of it. Highly paid, skilled, well protected, motivated and fully funded groups must be established who can take on these criminals on an equal footing. In so far as the Criminal Assets Bureau will start on that type of work I commend it.

There has been controversy about a recent raid on a solicitor's office. Nobody is above the law. There are specific provisions within the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, regarding reasonable suspicions by professionals if their clients are involved in money laundering. There is, therefore, an obligation on all of us. For example, if somebody arrives at a house with £1 million and asks the householder to buy a yacht with the money, the householder must ask where the money came from.

The unfortunate aspect of some of the media publicity at that solicitor's office was the public is not used to such activity. The solicitor had good reason to be miffed because some may have thought that he was not of the highest integrity which he may well be as are the vast majority of professional people.

Fianna Fáil believes that the drugs problem is a national emergency. The gardaí and the enforcement authorities must be free to go wherever they wish. Sometimes a little publicity on raids such as the one that took place recently sends signals to the criminal fraternity. They must know that these agencies will be tough and, in the word of Garda Assistant Commissioner, Tom King, "confrontational". They must also know that the gardaí on the beat will be "confrontational".

It is a part of the Irish psyche that we are gentle people. We do not like to disturb people too much. We are not normally aggressive and like to live and let live, probably because, as a nation, we were put upon for so many hundreds of years. However, the people who peddle and push drugs do not respect that gentleness or the integrity of communities. The bureau and the gardaí who work on the streets and get at the pushers and the dealers must, therefore, be confrontational. I hope the Minister will encourage the bureau to be confrontational if necessary.

I also hope the legislation will not be on our Statute Book forever. Reports are to be submitted to the Oireachtas at least once a year. In two, three or four years time we may be able to declare the end of this emergency and return to a more normalised system for the administration of justice and policing. That is the hope of all of us but, in the meantime, a tough Bill, which this is as is other legislation, especially our own, is to be welcomed and we support it.

Mr. Sherlock

Democratic Left welcome the Criminal Assets Bureau. Its establishment together with other measures designed to strike at the profit base of organised crime represents a milestone in the development of our criminal justice system. For the first time, we as a society have sent a clear message to the crime bosses that their activities will be countered with all the technical, personnel and intelligence resources which the State can muster.

Last weekend an individual suspected of involvement in the drugs trade was arrested at Heathrow Airport carrying £330,000 in cash. That probably represents a fraction of this individual's liquid assets. It is petty cash with which the drug barons undertake their lethal trade.

The need to conceal and launder illicit cash should make organised crime especially vulnerable. In the past, however, the laundering of illicit gains has not only been tolerated but facilitated by the State. In 1993 the tax amnesty introduced by the then Fianna Fáil led administration provided organised crime bosses with a crook's charter enabling them to launder the proceeds of their illicit assets. The bargain base 15 per cent incentive amnesty yielded a colossal return. Given the confidentiality clause that applied to the amnesty it is almost impossible to ascertain what proportion of this sum related to profits from illegal activities.

The tax amnesty came as manna from heaven to the country's criminals. Indeed, Ireland's criminals have been well served in the past. Let us not forget Fianna Fáil's howls of outrage when section 153 of the Finance Act was first proposed. Thankfully, the party has undergone something of a Damascus type experience and supported similar provisions in the legislation on the disclosure of certain information when it was debated in the Dáil.

Mr. Roche

Would it be churlish to point out that the Minister has given the lie to everything said by the Senator?

Mr. Norris

Yes.

Mr. Sherlock

The Government has firmly shut the stable door, but many of the criminals bolted with their assets years ago. Crime bosses can rarely be linked to the execution of a crime. However, they can be linked to the enormous profits generated by their crimes. Establishing that link demands a multi-pronged approach, highly intensive policing, targeting their financial resources and the use of sophisticated intelligence by infiltrating their ranks and converting former associates to informers. Such an approach must also include highly sophisticated electronic surveillance methods.

We must ensure that the technical resources of those fighting crime match and exceed the resources of those committing crime. The drugs trade is a multi national and highly profitable business. Like any other business, the day to day operations of organised crime have focused on the bottom line. The Criminal Assets Bureau, in conjunction with other relevant measures introduced by the Government, strikes at the financial jugular of organised crime in general and the drugs trade in particular.

This legislation has been thoroughly debated, not only in the Dáil but also in committee. I welcome the amendments to the Bill, especially those providing protection for bureau members and their families. In this regard I appeal to the media to play its part in guarding the anonymity of bureau members and to ensure they are neither visually nor verbally identified.

I welcome the legislation but the drugs trade cannot simply be legislated out of existence. The drug barons who are paraded in our daily newspapers did not emerge from a vacuum. The chief executives of organised crime sit at the top of a pyramid created by neglect over a long number of years, a pyramid whose foundations are long-term unemployment, social and economic exclusion, school abstentionism and widespread drug abuse. We must address those foundations.

In this regard I look forward to the report of the ministerial task force on measures to reduce demand for drugs, chaired by my party colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte. I hope its recommendations will be implemented with the same speed and determination which has characterised the law and order response. Unless we adopt a long-term integrated approach to the underlying social problems which have spawned the drugs crisis, we may find ourselves in ten years time debating the same issues and feeling the same frustrations.

Mr. Norris

In general terms I welcome the Bill. It is seen as part of the so-called war on drugs but as such it is a complete and utter waste of time because that war will never be won by continuing to make all drugs illegal. I accept the principle which is partially applied in this legislation, that the only way to fight against this evil in our society is to tackle its economic base. However, while I support this Bill it is by no means radical enough, although that is not the fault of the present Minister.

Until the profit incentive in the drugs trade is removed or substantially reduced, we simply will not win the war on drugs. The proof is all around us. Governments all over the world are spending hundreds and thousands of millions of pounds, dollars and yen on this war but the net result is to drive the street prices of these commodities into the stratosphere. It also has the effect of increasing the profits of the drug barons. Those who think this legislation will win the so-called war on drugs are not, alas, living in the real world. I wish that a Bill such as this, after being passed in this House, could stop the spread of drugs but I do not believe for one minute that it will.

Before expanding on that point I will explain that I support the Bill because within its modest ambitions it probably will succeed in doing something useful; it will prevent those who have accumulated enormous amounts of money from the misery and suffering of their victims from enjoying that ill-gotten wealth in peace. That is the reason I support this Bill, not because it will win the war on drugs — it will not — but because it is useful legislation in those terms.

I want to see a global approach to the drug problem and I believe it will happen, although perhaps not for some decades. One country cannot tackle it alone, particularly a small island on the fringe of Europe with an extraordinarily vulnerable coastline. We have a valiant and professional navy but it is seriously under-resourced for such a war. We cannot protect our coastline in any practical sense. Our geography, the limitations of our Naval Service and the enormous incentive to land drugs here are all against us.

I am happy to hear the gardaí and the coastguard being congratulated for effectively stumbling across an enormous consignment of cocaine. They stumbled across it quite intelligently; once they found it they recognised exactly what it was, which was good detective work. Nonetheless it was an accident of fate that this seizure took place, it was not as a result of a carefully conceived and well executed operation. I congratulate the authorities for making this haul but we cannot call it a run of the mill exercise and even if it were it would not capture more than a small fraction of the drugs involved.

Drugs of every kind are coming in and will continue to do so. I am unaware of many of them, I have never seen them and am not familiar with their effects but they are available within 100 yards of my house and within a quarter of a mile of this House. Within two minutes, people in the know can buy any drug they want. That is happening in the middle of this massive offensive against drugs, which indicates how well it is working.

The drug barons are not interested in drugs as such — they do not want to give people a trip or to peddle drugs for the sake of it. The point of selling drugs is that it turns otherwise innocent, young, vulnerable people into stooges who will do the work by remote control. The criminal mastermind no longer has to expose himself or herself to risk by engaging directly and personally in criminal activities, such as breaking and entering. They use young people with a habit that needs to be fed at a cost of £100 to £200 per day. At some point it becomes a medical necessity to feed this habit and to do so, the young people must steal. At one remove, by which they are protected, the drug barons collect the proceeds not so much of the drugs — which are an incidental mechanism by which large sections of the population of the north inner city are controlled — but of robbery.

For this reason it is better to examine the question of making the substances available. At least as an interim measure there should be a considerable increase in the money available for methadone maintenance programmes. At present if someone wants to get off heroin — and it takes courage to go through cold turkey — they are told by the clinics they must wait for a year and during that time they will inflict considerable damage on other citizens. It is unacceptable that anyone who makes this decision should be put on a waiting list for a year because of the suffering occasioned to that person and the damage he or she may do to others.

There are provisions in the Bill for any tax collected to go directly into the general pot; on other Bills we argued about this matter with the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, and this Minister. We suggested that, because similar sums were coming from those who organised the abuse of drugs, some of it should be earmarked for investment in target areas in the north inner city. We were told that for technical reasons that was not possible and presumably that is still the case. Nonetheless, even if it is not possible directly to ensure that money generated from this Bill in terms of additional tax collected is targeted in these areas, I ask the Minister to bear in mind the sensitivity of this matter and ensure adequate funds are directed to the north inner city. I wish to comment on the remarks made by Senator Mulcahy. Although he did not directly mention the legal firm, it was unfortunate that he referred to it in the context of stating that nobody is above the law. The inference of this remark could be that the law firm felt it was above the law. I have had dealings with that firm over a number of years and I know the principals well. They are honourable people and it is most unfortunate that impression could remain on the record, although the Senator later attempted to clarify his point.

I approve of the powers generally but I hope the Garda will also be watchful. Nobody is above the law, but one must be concerned about the manner in which the operation was handled. It appears to outsiders that prior notice was given to the media that material, including records of property transactions, etc., were about to be requested by the Garda. I understand people from the newspapers arrived before the gardaí and this suggests remarkable clarity of second sight on the part of the media, unless they were informed. The fact that gardaí were in the office for up to four hours was reported in the newspapers as if to suggest there was some resistance on the part of the firm of solicitors. However, this was not the case, rather that material had to be photocopied. When the Garda has such wide powers, it must be sensitive to the fair application of them in dealing with firms such as the one to which Senator Mulcahy referred.

Under sections 13 and 15 it will be an offence to threaten, menace or assault a bureau officer. This is correct in terms of intimidation, but average citizens should also be protected in all circumstances against serious assault, threats or intimidation. Perhaps there is room for specific legislation in relation to intimidation, covering not just the intimidation of bureau officers but members of juries and people who speak their minds on various subjects.

I have been subjected to intimidation from time to time although it did not worry me unduly. On occasions when it occurred in the street, I immediately called the Garda. They dealt with it expeditiously by scooping the people involved off the pavement, taking them away and, I presume, giving them a lecture. Although I said on every occasion that I was prepared to press charges, nobody ever came back to me. I have a strong suspicion that the law is weak in this regard and perhaps the entire issue of threats, menaces and assaults, particularly against jurors and average citizens, could be examined. Every citizen is entitled to the full protection of the law because if, as Senator Mulcahy said, nobody is above the law, then nobody should be beneath it either.

The penalty on conviction on indictment under section 13 is a fine of £100,000 or a prison term not exceeding 10 years or both. There may be cases where both are necessary because, given the astronomical sums involved in drug dealing in particular, a fine of £100,000 is a flea bite. I can envisage circumstances in which a person, who felt he or she was threatened by the investigations of the bureau, would consider it economically justifiable to spend £100,000 on intimidating or physically assaulting a bureau officer.

Mr. R. Quinn

Those penalties are on top of confiscation.

Mr. Norris

Realistically, they could not be much higher but there may be people to whom £100,000 is not too high a price to pay. However, I accept those penalties are on top of confiscation and one could be imprisoned for ten years. They are severe measures but the sums of money involved in this area are enormous and the price of crime is low. I was told recently that one could have somebody bumped off in the city for £2,000. This is a very low price to put on the life of another human. It is shocking that we have reached this point.

Mr. R. Quinn

I suppose we should not ask why the Senator made the inquiry.

Mr. Norris

Exactly.

Mr. Roche

Who did the Senator have in mind?

Mr. Norris

The Minister indicated that the amnesty does not cover people who made profits from crime nor does it render such profits immune. This almost appears to suggest that another look can be taken at certain cases under the tax amnesty and if that is the case I welcome it. There could be a case for a healthy dose of retrospection in terms of this legislation but I am not sure whether provision is made for this in the Bill.

I do not usually favour retrospective legislation because it vitiates a general principle. Retrospective legislation is never favourably looked on; I complained about it when it retrospectively stuck the late and greatly lamented James Joyce regarding copyrights. Having allowed him to escape for three or four years, it was mean to push him back in that manner. However, with regard to the Bill, if somebody can be retrospectively penalised, that avenue should be followed. It should be possible to monitor and track the movement of money historically through bank records and solicitors' accounts.

If this is the case I hope it will happen not because attempts should be made to try to rake up tiny amounts from 30 years ago but because, in common with many other citizens, I am concerned about newspaper reports that in recent months since the murder of Veronica Guerin when it emerged the State would take substantial action, led by the Houses of the Oireachtas, a number of major criminals have expended much energy in moving enormous sums of money through the banking system and out of the country. I presume that if these movements of capital have left a trace, they can be gone back over and historical records provided. If this is the case, I hope the legislation will be applied retrospectively and the money may be sequestrated by the State.

Mr. Dardis

I welcome the legislation and support the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau. It is not our intention to delay the passage of the Bill because we realise its importance and necessity. Regarding a point made by Senator Norris, nobody suggests the legislation will solve the problem. However, it is a welcome plank.

It is the experience of many Members that legislation which comes before the House following a tragedy or major event in society is not well drafted and sometimes requires significant amendment. However, the people who drafted this Bill should be commended. There are many officials in the House and I hope as many resources are allocated to the bureau as appear to have been allocated to the drafting of the Bill.

Deputy McDowell, in particular, identified a deficiency in the Bill in the Lower House. I welcome the fact that this has been rectified by section 25. It would have been an appalling omission if someone had availed of the tax amnesty under the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interests and Penalties Act, 1993, to dodge the intention of the Bill. I welcome the inclusion of that section and the fact that there will be powers to reopen cases on the basis of a false declaration regarding the legality of the income.

In his opening remarks the Minister referred to co-operation between agencies. In many areas of society the State's effectiveness is greatly reduced by the inability of some of its agencies and departments to co-operate. This is not just the case in the fight against drugs. I would have been highly critical of the establishment of extra layers of bureaucracy as in the FORFÁS/ Forbairt issue. However, the argument has been well made that there is a need for an agency which will bring together the various arms of the State and ensure they co-operate. I am satisfied that the commitment of the people who are in the bureau will be such as to overcome some of those rivalries. I note what the Minister said about the strategic management initiative. I hope it will ensure that agencies co-operate rather than protect their territories.

During the Second Stage debate in the Dáil there was much comment on the difference between law and order and I subscribe to that. We can have as much law as we like but unless we have the means to implement it there is not a lot which can be done. In that respect, order is very important.

Senator Norris remarked that this Bill will not solve the problem. One of the things which it attempts to do is to get at the benefits which accrue to those who purvey this trade in death. If those benefits can be cut off then that is the most effective means of cutting off the trade itself. These purveyors do it for financial gain and no other reason. If that can be stopped then this legislation is to be welcomed.

We must accept that there is only so much we can do within a democratic society to tackle these problems. There are penalties associated with being a democracy which we must accept because we value our democracy. There are freedoms and rights and we have to be circumscribed by law. The hang them and flog them brigade must accept that their rights must be protected and I would wish to do so.

It has been represented that the learned judge did not reach any conclusions in the report on the beef tribunal. Of course, he did reach some firm conclusions one of which was a very serious tax fraud had been perpetrated by the Goodman organisation and senior management knew about it. This is not saying something under the protection of privilege. It raises a serious question. What action has or should have been taken to ensure that those people were made accountable for that fraud? Under the Companies Act, 1990, the Director of Public Prosecutions could make a direction as to the eligibility of directors of a company. It is very easy to say to young people that they should not break the law, use ecstasy or steal cars. Then they see what happens at the top levels of our society. How do we reconcile those two things? I am sure the bureau will be as rigorous in its application at the top end as at the bottom. I know that is the intention.

The Minister also promised an end to the spectacle of criminals and their families appearing to enjoy the rich proceeds of crime and drug dealing with apparent impunity from the law. I hope he is right. If he is, I will be the first to congratulate him. It will depend on how the law is applied and enforced. Assets which are capable of confiscation should be confiscated.

We have all heard of cases where people in the Revenue Commissioners and elsewhere have been intimidated from doing their duty. It is very easy to say that these people should stand up to their intimidators but it is not as easy as that. Someone with a family, living in a quiet suburb, expects to do a job in a non-confrontational area of public life. We should not be surprised that they are intimidated. We must sympathise with them. Our wrath should be directed at those who intimidate them. Some people pointed to the problem of defining the families and how that should be covered in the ambit of the Bill. I am pleased that this matter was dealt with at the outset of the Bill. If threats are made, and we know of such cases within the Revenue Commissioners and gardaí, those who make or imply them must be dealt with extremely harshly. For that reason, it is appropriate in certain circumstances to circumscribe the freedoms which I spoke about earlier by powers of arrest without warrant. That is also encompassed within the Bill. It is reasonable to do that even though it is an infringement of rights. It comes back to the question of balance. The balance that is required now is one which protects the innocent citizen from this trade in death.

There is a slight inconsistency in the wide group of people under section 8 who can be provided with material or information and the transmission of same. Section 10 ensures that their identity is not revealed. There is a certain contradiction in terms of widening the number of people who can have access to information and ensuring that anonymity is preserved. It is extremely important that the anonymity of those in the bureau and those who have to implement this law be protected.

Would it be possible under the Criminal Assets Bureau Bill to seize the assets of people who have been convicted of offences, for example, those who were caught in possession of cattle growth promoters? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that. In my view, they are also the proceeds of criminal activity. I refer to the legislation under which a person was apprehended and arrested at Heathrow Airport by British police. Do we have the same powers and would it be possible for us, assuming this person returned to this jurisdiction, to arrest him on a similar charge? It strikes me from the nature of the Bill that it would be possible for us to do so but it is a point which needs to be clarified.

Something which applies not only to this but to other legislation is the fact that society and the means available to the people who perpetrate these crimes have become so sophisticated that it is difficult to keep up with the pace of change. There are electronic means to transfer funds across frontiers and we have the Single Market, which is welcome. How great is our capacity to deal with these sophisticated systems of laundering and moving money? We have a perception that the criminals involved wander about with suitcases full of cash but, of course, the people at the top are far more sophisticated than that. I am sure they have more sophisticated ways of transferring money and I hope the bureau will be able to prevent that.

I wish to refer to the matter of professionals assisting criminals. This goes back to a point I made that it is not helpful in terms of trying to control petty crime, vandalism and so on, if people see professionals assisting criminals to get away with illegal acts. That is something which must be addressed. We come back to the question of balance, which the Bill achieves. We have a serious problem on our hands and it is up to the State to respond effectively. I hope this is one of the planks by which that effective response can be given.

In the absence of that response, people purporting to protect society will hand out, as they have done, summary executions and justice to those alleged to have traded in drugs. It will be the person living in the housing estate, the person on the lowest rung of the system, who will be the victim of that summary execution and justice, not the people at the top. It strikes me as appalling that, on the one hand, we have an organisation which is prepared to blow people up while, on the other hand, it proclaims to protect communities by dealing, on a summary basis, with those who it alleges are responsible for dealing in drugs.

Mr. Farrell

I welcome this important Bill. I would like to correct a point made by Senator Sherlock, who I am sorry is not here. He referred to the Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Act, 1993, as a crook's charter. If he had listened to the Minister——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Calnan)

It is not in order to refer to another Member in his absence.

Mr. Farrell

He referred to my party as one which passed a Bill to which he referred as a crook's charter. I am entitled to correct that. He would have seen that the Minister corrected that point if he had cared to read his speech. He said that money from illegal sources is, and was always, clearly outside the scope of the incentive amnesty under the 1993 Act. I am glad the Minister included that in his speech but I am sad that Senator Sherlock did not read it.

Mr. Burke

He was in transit.

Mr. Farrell

If he was in the House I might have something more harsh to say but I will not as he is not here to defend himself.

Will we be able to seize vehicles bringing drugs into this country? I too pay tribute to the Garda, the Customs and those who have seized drugs. A ship worth £40 million brought a large consignment of drugs into this country. We seized the drugs and arrested some of the crew who are to go before the courts but we allowed a £40 million ship to sail away. If that happened in America, the ship would be seized. It is important that such ships are seized because if shipowners knew they stood to lose their vessel worth £30 to £40 million, they would be careful about what they would allow on board. They get paid for transporting cargo, but they do not take a risk.

Previously, we confiscated yachts so why can we not do the same with ships? If such a provision is not in the Bill, I ask the Minister to amend it to allow for the confiscation of all vehicles carrying drugs, including the humble motor car, container trucks or large ships. That is important because we would be putting an end to the carriers by air, sea or road. I would like the Minister to do something about that.

While I congratulate the Minister on what he is doing, I feel very strongly that vehicles which carry drugs — ships, airplanes, helicopters, etc. — should be seized. If a mistake was made letting the ship sail away, an inquiry should be held to discover the reason a vessel, which brought in millions of pounds of drugs which would have resulted in the deaths of many young people, was let go. When we seize drugs we should not talk about the number of tonnes but about the potential number of lives saved. We save thousands of lives by seizing drugs. Every effort should be made to ensure that those involved in drug haulage and distribution do not get away scot free.

Like other legislation, the Bill provides for the number of years a person must spend in jail. Unfortunately, when we read the newspapers we see that people who have been given ten years in jail are released after ten days or are going to the cinema, to football matches or having a drink in the local pub. Why sentence them to ten years if they are released after ten days? It would be better to sentence them to two years and make sure they get two years hard labour. This must be tightened up. If we put criminals behind bars it must be for the period the judge says. Nobody should have the right to interfere with that decision because by doing so, we are making a mockery of the courts, the legal system and the laws. Again, I congratulate the Minister on the work he is doing.

Minister for Finance (Mr. R. Quinn)

I would like to respond to what has been a constructive and positive debate. I will respond seriatim to most of the points raised. Any point on which I do not touch can be picked up on Committee Stage. Senator Roche, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, raised a number of issues. Specifically, he spoke about the task oriented agency. There is a need — the Strategic Management Initiative identified this — for the coming together at a particular time of different agencies of the State to form a lateral organisation as distinct from the traditional vertical one. The Departments of Justice, Education and Health deal with what they see as their territory, yet child vulnerability, sex abuse and criminality is a horizontal problem which cuts across the responsibilities of the three Departments. This is clearly necessary for a specific time — we tend to organise our affairs in a vertical rather than horizontal manner — to address these problems comprehensively. This particular horizontal linking together in a formal structure of three Departments — Justice, Finance, through the Revenue Commissioners, and Social Welfare — and the Garda is an indication of how that agency might function.

Senator Roche referred to section 3(2) of the Bill, the lack of accountability and the implied democratic deficit. We found that it is clearly necessary to establish separate agencies to give them executive powers and freedom which a Department of State cannot have, and we have moved away from the Department of Post and Telegraphs, for instance, to Telecom Éireann and An Post.

At the same time there is a deficit. We thought that the semi-State sponsored bodies would address that and most people would feel that their operation has been less than perfect. We do not have compellability of witnesses yet the Bill is at Committee Stage at present and I urge all parties to look at how we can address that because Ministers are compellable in this House; they must account and answer but until such time as we have that legislation in place the full effectiveness of the scrutiny role of Oireachtas committees is diminished. One can counterbalance what is clearly a potential, if not real, democratic deficit by having better powers of scrutiny and investigation for committees and one can separate the executive policy responsibility of the Minister of the day from the operational responsibility and efficiency through the Committee of Public Accounts and the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs in terms of value for money or through a social affairs or crime committee with regard to how well they are doing a particular job.

With regard to his question about fines, those are the limitations which relate to the jurisdiction of the courts involved.

Senator Burke, in welcoming the Bill, made a number of positive comments with which I agree. He talked about the level of drug abuse and, indeed, Senator Norris referred to the question of the demand for drugs and dealing with that side of the matter as distinct from the question of dealing with the criminals. We have very high levels of drug abuse in this country and the Senator read into the record statistics, some of which were in yesterday's newspaper, which are quite frightening.

The second point the Senator raised related to the anonymity clauses. They are there to protect officials. I will deal with the question of anonymity and intimidation collectively on this matter. Senator Dardis and others referred to the fact that there is intimidation of people who traditionally and conventionally were and are doing a job which was never previously associated with exposure to intimidation. Anybody who volunteered and was called to service in the Garda Síochána understood and recognised that there was a hazard associated with that job. Likewise, Excise and Customs officials recognised that their job involved a certain level of potential exposure. That was reflected in both the compensation package and the money they were paid, but that would not be the case for many ordinary public servants, if I can use the word "ordinary" in that sense, who, therefore, need protection. We cannot expect them to be heroes on behalf of the State. That is not fair. It is not reasonable or practicable. One protection we can give them is anonymity, and it is essential.

Returning to one of the points Senator Roche made about the corporate status of the body, one of the reasons for it was to reinforce, from a legal point of view, the right of a body to be corporate so that it could sue in its own right anonymously without specific officials being named.

On the question of intimidation, my colleague, the Minister for Justice, is looking at the question of updating the Offences Against the State Acts and that will address some of the points which other Senators raised in that general area.

Senator Burke also raised the question of the publication of names, which was an amendment we introduced on Report Stage. This was provided to make it an offence for any instrument of the media, radio, television or newspaper, to publish the name and address or otherwise break the anonymity of an individual. The logic of what we are trying to do is consistent; we are trying to protect officials because the beast with which we are dealing is very brutal and we have seen the extent of that brutality in all its manifestations. That is the reason for the provision. It could appear to be a curtailment of the freedom of the press and if one wants to make that case, one can do so but there are rights to privacy and protection and we believe this is one of them for people undertaking this task.

In generally welcoming the Bill, Senator O'Toole referred to criminals, the seizing of property and the threat to life. He referred to a man who is now a convicted criminal, Mr. Felloni. Some people believe he should have been behind bars many years ago. He is now at last behind bars because there has been a change in the culture of toleration which existed for criminals and criminal classes among certain groups of people.

That culture has changed for a variety of reasons, the first of which is the Provo legacy, and it is a legacy. Senator Norris referred to the possibility of a contract being available for £2,000. Before 1969, the idea of armed conflict, robbery or murder of that kind was totally alien to our society North or South of the Border. One of the legacies of the Provisional IRA, which is clearly documented by various crime reporters and others who have written extensively about this, is the gun trail. It has brought to everyday life a level of murder and intimidation with the use of guns and violence which simply was not there before.

Senator O'Toole also spoke about the balance of the rights vis-a-vis private property and the seizure of assets. The purpose of this Bill, as I have said in the other House and in public, is to impoverish criminals and take from them the wealth and assets which they and their families have acquired and which they continue to enjoy, and for that impoverishment to be made manifest in public terms so that it is clearly seen as a major deterrent and punishment. It must be seen that crime does not pay and one cannot live comfortably from the proceeds of crime and be untouchable. To that extent, this Bill sends the sort of welcome signal to which the Senator referred.

Senator Calnan referred to the frustration of many communities because of the impact of drug abuse, and I welcome the points he made. He is correct in saying that the proposal for this Bill, in the sense of it being a separate executive agency, was contained in a Labour Party policy measure but different groups and Members of this House and the other House suggested similar approaches so nobody is claiming ownership of the originality of this idea. Everybody, I am glad to say, welcomes its enactment in this form.

He referred to the need for greater co-operation and I agree with him. In terms of the pursuit of criminals, he questioned the use of the Offences Against the State Acts. It may be the case that with this Bill, the use of that legislation may not be necessary but that would be a matter for the Garda and the director of the bureau to decide.

Senator Mulcahy raised a number of points in welcoming and supporting the Bill. He wondered whether the background to the Bill was one of reaction to the murder of the journalist. Veronica Guerin. I can say quite categorically, that it was not. We were all spurred into greater action as a result of that murder but as far back as July 1995 there was a major meeting of senior Government Ministers, Revenue Commissioners, the Garda Commissioner and others in Government Buildings in which we looked at the whole question of greater co-operation between different agencies. A working party was derived from it and an agreement on co-operation was signed following that meeting. It was not found to be working as successfully as possible because there were legal constraints on what the Revenue Commissioners could do with the information they had and the manner in which they could transfer that information to the Garda, for example. It was not that people were deliberately not co-operating. Public servants found that were they to apply the letter of the law — we are and will remain, a republic which is governed under the rule of law and a written Constitution — they could only co-operate in a manner which was legal. Senator Mulcahy would be the first, in his other professional capacity, to find on a technicality that a prosecution was frail because information had been obtained in a manner which was not legal. It was for that reason that we constructed this horizontal agency. We sought interconnecting ways of transferring powers held by officers of different organisations so they could share them while remaining employees temporarily seconded from the Department or the Revenue Commissioners to this body. That deals with the question of reactive and proactive posed by Senator Mulcahy.

I am the person who proposed postponing Castlerea prison because, at the time, the programme for its construction would not have created extra prison places until 1998. We also thought we were to receive a peace dividend by releasing a wing of Portlaoise prison. I speak from memory but I will write to the Senator with the details. I ask him to bear with me in my approximations. Four or five Provisional IRA prisoners in Portlaoise occupied a space which would have been occupied by 100 civilian criminals. In response to the shortage of prison spaces, we improved the situation in Limerick, the Curragh and Mountjoy. It is intended to build a remand centre in the spare space in Wheatfield when the number of remand prisoners presumably increases if and when the bail referendum is passed by the people. If we are smart and sensible and the Law Library does not pose too many objections, a court will be installed there so that there will not be the waste of resources of gardaí escorting criminals around the country for them to be remanded for another week. A District Court or other appropriate one will be installed within the confines of the prison so that someone on bail can be remanded at the end of a 100 metre walk and be suitably contained so there will not be the wastage of resources we have at present. I apologise for lapsing into Department of Finance mode.

Mr. Mulcahy

The Law Library has never objected to the building of a courthouse.

Mr. Dardis

They do not wish to travel there.

Mr. R. Quinn

That is my point. I have dealt with most of the points raised by Senator Mulcahy. I ask him to feel free on Committee Stage to return to anything I might have missed or to which I have not adequately responded.

Senator Sherlock welcomed the Bill. I support the comments made by others. He is not correct in suggesting that criminals who availed of the tax amnesty can escape punishment. There was a doubt in the interpretation of the law; Senator Dardis is correct in that. We listened to the learned and free legal advice from his colleague, Deputy Michael McDowell, and added the additional definition to do a belt and braces on the interpretation of section 25. We listened with respect because the Deputy had a good legal point. I have examined this at length with senior officials in the Revenue Commissioners and my Department and we are satisfied that if, in the course of an investigation, a financial trade leads an investigator to suspect a declaration signed under the tax amnesty to be false, that the moneys declared were illegally or criminally obtained, they can go to the appeals commission and say they have reasonable grounds to investigate the declaration.

Mr. Mulcahy

To the appeals commissioner or the special appeals commissioner?

Mr. R. Quinn

The appeals commission.

Mr. Mulcahy

There were special appeals commissioners before that.

Mr. R. Quinn

No, it is the appeals commission but I will obtain definite confirmation on that for the Senator. The point is that, if criminal Joe Bloggs used the amnesty to legitimise or launder money and that action comes to the notice or suspicion of an investigator, they can raise it with the appeals commissioner and obtain the right to investigate whatever may lie behind it. I am sorry Senator Sherlock is not present to hear that. I welcome the his party's support for this.

Senator Norris, as befits a quintessential liberal, gave the argument The Economist gives on numerous occasions which is the economic solution to every problem; perhaps I should include the Progressive Democrats as well.

Mr. Dardis

I was afraid the Minister would not.

Mr. R. Quinn

I am sure the Progressive Democrats will not go down the same road as The Economist which is to decriminalise all drugs, to let the market regulate them, to bring down the price and increase the supply and for the State to impose a duty.

Mr. Dardis

Certainly not.

Mr. R. Quinn

I do not suggest the Senator's party is and neither was Senator Norris going that far. He is too long in this House to make that statement. There is a logic to the argument but it is neither legal nor practical. A global solution is not a possibility. There are countries where it has been tested. Geneva had a designated area for free needle exchange which they closed down. Amsterdam has begun to tighten up its liberal laws on cannabis.

Mr. Mulcahy

The Minister is becoming conservative. He is welcome.

Mr. R. Quinn

I am not. Spain has also changed its drug laws. We must adopt a different approach to the market mechanism involved by not making it worthwhile to accumulate wealth from this activity. The confiscation and seizure provisions in this and other legislation will enable us to do that. I have dealt with the other points raised by Senator Norris, particularly intimidation. He also spoke of the level of penalties which is the jurisdiction of the courts.

Senator Dardis spoke of the changes made to the Bill in the other House. He asked if people involved in angel dust activities would be covered. The answer is yes, they would. They are engaged in criminal activities which come under the remit of the Criminal Assets Bureau. He also asked if the person remanded in custody in the UK could be remanded in custody here if found in similar circumstances. Under this legislation, the answer also is yes.

He referred to the Second Stage debate in the other House on the application of orders as distinct from the enactment of law. That is an important observation. We may put all the laws on the Statute Book in this republic but, if they are not properly and effectively implemented, the quality of the law is diminished. We must ensure that we provide the resources and flexibility to implement the law so that we achieve the civic order the law is designed to provide. Establishing the bureau in this manner will enhance the prospects for such an improvement in the application of law.

Regarding Senator Dardis's other comments, it would be lovely to think that every State agency, medical institution and school——

Mr. Dardis

Or solicitors and the Bar.

Mr. R. Quinn

——would co-operate. However, we know the human condition in its many manifestations frequently prevents that from happening. People may think the best interests of their school is served by not co-operating with another. It is sometimes necessary to change the culture in addition to changing the law. It has been found in other jurisdictions that one way of changing the culture of loyalty to various Departments is to create a new agency with a designated purpose to which everyone can give an additional loyalty. This overcomes those organisational difficulties which are a reality of the human condition as we understand it.

I covered the points raised by Senator Farrell when I answered Senator Sherlock. He raised the question of confiscating the vehicles which carry the drugs as well as the drugs themselves. The Revenue Commissioners or Customs and Excise have that power. We had a case recently where, on foot of United Nations sanctions, a jet aircraft was impounded in Dublin Airport. The trouble is that one must be sure about what one is impounding. One also must be sure that the owners of the vehicle to be impounded are culpable for the offence for which it is being impounded. If one gets it wrong one can find oneself in a difficult situation, as Senator Mulcahy is aware and as I am acutely aware following one incident.

Mr. Mulcahy

It strained our relations with one country.

Mr. R. Quinn

It also nearly strained the taxpayers' pockets because of the damages associated with wrongful impoundment. There is a balance in how it is done. There is no question about confiscation of the criminal material, that is, the drugs. Where a small craft is involved, such as a yacht, it is self-evident that the owner of the yacht is directly involved in the activity. However, a group of shareholders or a corporation that owns an ocean liner cannot necessarily be culpable or deemed culpable in a court of law if somebody has smuggled cannabis or heroin onto the liner. While the power exists, it is exercised against that background of constraint.

I thank Senators for their welcome and support both for the Bill and for the Government's response to this problem. I pay particular tribute to the two Opposition parties for their co-operation here and in the Lower House in dealing with this measure. This is not a party issue; it is at the heart of the problems confronting every citizen, and particularly every parent. We must demonstrate the robust strength of this Republic by showing that on some occasions that which divides us can be overcome and we can unite with clear and firm Executive action.

Question put and agreed to.