Amendments Nos. 2 and 13 form a composite proposal and No. 14 is related. Therefore, Nos. 2, 13 and 14 may be taken together.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following definition:
"‘Combat Drugs Fund' means a fund established under the terms of this Act for the allocation of certain moneys raised under the Act to organisations or groups working to combat the medical or social effects of drug abuse;".
It is widely accepted nowadays that large sums of money are being made by drug barons, that the international drugs trade is very organised, and that money laundered through financial institutions is frequently used to establish what may appear on the surface to be legitimate businesses, providing lavish lifestyles for people who make large sums of money from the misery caused by drug trafficking. If this legislation works — we all hope it will — we can anticipate that considerable sums will be confiscated. My amendment seeks to address how that money should be used.
Money or assets confiscated as a result of this legislation should not simply disappear into the great maw of the Exchequer in the same way the proceeds of the national lottery tend to disappear into the general finances of the State and are very difficult to trace. I propose that arising from the moneys and assets confiscated as a result of this legislation a combat drugs fund should be established to provide additional money that could in turn be used by the Minister for Health to fund programmes to deal with the misery and problems caused by drug addiction.
For many years there has been a substantial drugs problem in the Dún Laoghaire area. One of the main problems is that there is no drugs treatment centre in the area. People from that area who are addicted to drugs and need treatment have to travel to the city centre for such treatment. Members of their families are concerned that travel from their homes for treatment purposes in some cases brings them back into contact with the drugs culture. A combat drugs fund could be used for the establishment of a wider network of drug treatment centres and education programmes.
Similar legislation was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1986 but no provision was made for the use of the money seized. By 1990 they had seized approximately £27 million as a result of the legislation and a wide ranging debate began as to what the money should be used for. Various suggestions were made along the lines of my amendment and the British Government eventually dedicated some of the money towards the combating of the drugs trade at an international level. In my view the assets seized here should be used to undo some of the damage to people, families and communities as a result of drug pushing and the drugs culture generally. I am not suggesting that the moneys seized would eliminate the drugs problem or its consequences, nor am I suggesting that it should be used as a substitute for funds and programmes which would be funded from the Exchequer in any event. This should be an additional source of funding for combating the consequences of the drugs culture and for dealing with a problem from which drug barons profit.
My amendment is slightly different from Deputy Gilmore's but the intention is similar. There are two parts to amendment No. 14. In subparagraph (3) I propose that "proceeds may be applied in whole or in part to satisfy such judgment or order as the victim may obtain". I have stated repeatedly in various debates on the criminal justice system that the victim of a crime is often regarded as no more than another witness in court.
He or she is summoned to appear in court and not treated very well, apart from receiving some financial assistance from the Department of Justice. The victim must be brought to centre stage if we are serious about the criminal justice system. We must ask ourselves what effect the crime has had on the victim. Funds confiscated from convicted drug pushers in particular should be made available for application by the court in support of the victims of crime. That may be the mother of a child who has been deliberately introduced to drugs or who may have picked up a syringe in a flat complex and injected himself or herself with a very serious virus.
The second part of my amendment is similar to Deputy Gilmore's in that it proposes to allow the Minister for Health access to some of the confiscated funds for use in treating drug addicts and for setting up a well financed drugs rehabilitation programme. This should not seek to supplant the money available through the Estimates for the Department of Health rather it should be used to supplement it. What happens in the case of moneys confiscated by the courts is they can take two routes into the Exchequer. First, they can go in as an extra Exchequer receipt in which case they go directly in to the Central Fund and are drawn down from that fund just like any other funds with the approval of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The other route is that they can come into the Department of Justice as an Appropriation-in-aid, into the Department of Health as an Appropriation-in-Aid, or into both of those Departments and be used to fund the Vote of that Department. I believe part of the confiscated assets should be allocated as an Appropriation-in-Aid to the Department of Health to be used to supplement the programme for rehabilitation of people who are participating in a drugs programme.
Since this Bill deals with two types of criminals but leans particularly in the direction of those who are involved in drugs money laundering, it is likely to give rise to very large amounts of money. Just by way of comparison, I understand that in 1992 the US customs seized $54 million in cash partly hidden in freight and partly carried on the person, according to information supplied to me. That is merely what they confiscated in cash with people endeavouring to export it at that particular point, leaving aside altogether what the courts might discover by way of investigation. Therefore, if the courts were to vigorously go after some of these barons one would be taking about megabucks, very large amounts of money. In fact they could afford to lose shipments of their drugs because of the sort of mark-up they get from selling on the street where people have to spend up to a couple of hundred pounds for a fix. I contend there is the potential for a lot of money being recovered in this way. I would like very much to see some of that money finding its way to the victims of crime and to the rehabilitation of drug offenders. If the Minister cannot accept my amendment I hope on Report Stage she will find it possible to table an amendment of her own. However, I feel that the general thrust of what I am saying should be incorporated in the Bill.
I support these amendments. As Deputy Gay Mitchell has said, the amount of money or the potential bounty of money that is available if we can enforce the provisions of this Bill is enormous. When I was doing research on this Bill I read than in 1989 the international financial action task force set up in Paris by the G7 countries, the world's leading industrial powers, to co-ordinate action on money laundering, estimated the proceeds from drug trafficking in Europe and the United States then awaiting laundering at approximately $85,000 million. Generally speaking, when dealing with international criminality on this scale in terms of drug trafficking we must remember that the amounts of money are enormous. Likewise, in the case of the various racketeering that is going on in this country on the part of subversives, huge amounts of money are involved.
It is timely to congratulate the antiracketeering unit of the Department of Justice on their substantial successes despite recent controversies. They have had considerable successes in the overall area of piracy, video tapes, snuff movies, beer and a whole range of other things. They might appear to be small-time compared with the international type of telephone number money about which we are talking in terms of international drugs syndicates.
If the provisions of this Bill are properly enforced I predict the State will be in receipt of substantial sums of money. Therefore, it is only proper that we should be thinking about and have plans in place to ascertain to what good purposes such seized funds could be put. Legislation is in place in Florida where any funds seized in that State — from where most of the drugs emanate and where there is a great currency in drugs and money laundering — are ploughed into a law enforcement trust. Perhaps that is the same sort of idea the Minister has in mind. I note from the provisions of section 18 that the Minister intends that moneys paid will be used "to meet expenses incurred in exercising the powers under this Act"— in other words, the seizure agencies will be remunerated, the costs of enforcing the provisions of this Bill, it is envisaged, will be paid from funds seized and the balance will go into the great jaws of the Exchequer.
This would be an ideal opportunity for the Minister to indicate her intention perhaps to set up a fund to compensate the victims of crimes for their pain and suffering. As I said on Second Stage, because the facility to be recompensed for pain and suffering have been removed, the only social response in this State at present to the victims of crime is through the Irish Association for Victim Support. I acknowledge that the Minister has increased their funding this year, which is to be welcomed since that is the only body meeting that demand for counselling and support of victims of crime.
I support the amendment in so far as it suggests that perhaps a fund would at last be established to support the victims of crime.
In relation to Deputy Gilmore's amendment, it would be very laudable — and I would support such suggestion — that money be set aside in a special combat drugs fund to help directly the victims of drugs and criminal activity relating to drugs. This would be another way of compensating the victims of crime of whom there are very many. We heard on Second Stage from Deputies representing inner city constituencies of the real and harrowing effects both on young people and their families. After all the money laundering has taken place, of course, the real victim is the child who is offered heroin and crack when merely 14 or 15 years old. Our drug agencies and drugs support agencies in this city always are looking for money. I think of the Merchant's Quay project, the Coolmine project, always short of funds. They spend their time fund raising. Therefore it would be money well spent and a good purpose for which seized assets could be used if such a fund could be established to support the drugs support agencies. I support both these amendments.
I empathise with the sentiments expressed in the two amendments which do have some merit. Looking at section 18, I am sure that privately the Minister would be happy that any money made available out of enforcement of the provisions of this Bill would be recouped to her Department. But I suppose the all embracing Department of Finance, as always, will see its way to claw back any money that comes into any Department. One need only look at the massive amounts of money going into the Exchequer from fines, even though much of it is not collected.
Unfortunately, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal was abolished in 1986 when Deputy Gay Mitchell's party was in power. It was a retrograde step at that time. Unfortunately, whenever a Government abolishes a body, future Governments are very reluctant to reinstate that body. Despite the fact that the Victim Support Association is doing excellent work, nothing would replace compensation for people injured as a result of crime.
I would ask the Minister to examine the possibility of relaunching, perhaps in some reformed way the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal with the proceeds of the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill. I accept that a battle would ensue with the Department of Finance. Obviously, it would necessitate a Government decision. While we pay much lip service to the victims of crime, there are people in this State, some very seriously injured, who receive nothing by way of compensation for the pain and suffering they have borne as a result of acts of violence through no fault of theirs. I would ask that a general look be taken at this suggestion. It would be my hope that if the Minister was lucky enough to convince the mandarins in the Department of Finance, some of this money would be made available for that purpose.
I support both amendments. I hope that the optimism expressed by some speakers that large sums of moneys will be raised in this manner will prove to be justified, I am sure it is possible that that will be the case. It is really a disgrace, given the huge drug problem and the efforts of some voluntary agencies and statutory groups to work with people who have been victims of drug abuse that most of them are constantly in need of additional funds. In some instances, they are starved of resources and in others they are forced to beg for finances to maintain a very meagre service.
I want to pay tribute to some of those agencies who, despite the inadequacy of the moneys available to them, are doing tremendous work. I often wonder just how bad the position in Dublin would be were it not for the work of such agencies. The health board in my area in the north inner city set up a drug treatment centre recently but, because of the inadequate resources and staffing available to them, there are as many addicts on a waiting list for that service as there are availing of the service. It is a pity that such groups will have to depend on moneys raised in this manner. Nonetheless, it is the most appropriate manner in which moneys of this type could be used. I warmly welcome both amendments for that reason.
Deputy Gay Mitchell's amendment No. 14 raises a very specific point, as he said in relation to compensation or actions for compensation but the remainder of that amendment and Deputy Gilmore's amendment Nos. 2 and 13 relate essentially to what should be done with the proceeds of confiscation orders. Like Deputy Gregory I hope the optimism we have all expressed in relation to the amounts of money that can be raised will be realised. I do not think there is any great difference in the thinking behind the two amendments. I should explain immediately that the Department of Justice does not have an anti-racketeering unit. I know Deputy O'Donnell did not mean to say that there was one in the Department of Justice but, just in case anybody might have thought that something strange had happened over there, I should point out that there is no such unit in the Department of Justice.
Under the provisions of section 18 of the Bill, the proceeds of confiscation orders may be applied to meet expenses incurred under the legislation and, subject to the payment of these expenses, the money will then go to the benefit of the Exchequer.
In addition to what has been said here today by Deputies from all sides, I recall that it was argued by a number of Deputies that it would be very appropriate that the proceeds of drug trafficking was used in a manner that had a direct connection with the drug problems to which the activities of the traffickers themselves had given rise. I see some attractions in that argument. But in looking at it we have to ask whether it would be a case of something looking good rather than, in reality, achieving anything.
It is easy to paint the Exchequer — or, if you like, the Department of Finance — in the role of the big bad wolf but in reality, as we all know it is simply the fund of taxpayers' money which is used to provide, among other things, for our criminal justice system and the health service. When put in those terms I do not think there is much wrong with the idea that proceeds from confiscation orders should be returned to that fund.
Most Deputies would accept that difficulties can arise, in practice, in relation to the funding of organisations where there is no certainty about the funding arrangements. If there is a strong case for a body to be funded in the area of drug rehabilitation or whatever, then it seems to me that, as far as possible, the appropriate way to do so would be by Exchequer funding rather than any specific body relying on some sort of special fund, the income of which would not be known for one year to another; in other words one could have a very good year or a very slack year, and the amount would be unpredictable and could fluctuate.
Perhaps I might be very practical and give an example. In a good year when a substantial amount of money is available from what we might call the confiscation fund from which the Minister for Health would make various disbursements, it would be logical — I say this from my experience in Government, and other people around the table will have had similar experience — that, in the following year's Estimates, the Minister for Finance might not be disposed to continuing to fund from the Exchequer something that had been funded very generously, as he or she might see it, from a special combat drugs fund as is referred to in Deputy Gilmore's amendment. I think the Minister and his officials might not be easily persuaded by the Minister for Health of the day to overlook the existence of such a fund. I would perceive that as an inherent danger. We must ask ourselves again whether, in reality, we would be achieving anything by establishing such a fund. I emphasise that, of its nature, the potential income from a confiscation fund would be unpredictable and could fluctuate widely.
Having said all of that, I have not got a closed mind on the subject. I would be grateful — I think Deputy Gay Mitchell suggested that he might give me time to consider the matter — for that time because it would afford me an opportunity of examining its feasibility within the Department of Justice. However, it might also be necessary for me to examine it in consultation with a number of my colleagues in Government.
I am sure the committee will understand why I want to put down one marker: if, on balance, it were to be accepted that the proceeds should not go to the Exchequer, I am aware of no basis on which all the money should go to the Department of Health.
The Department of Justice, particularly through the probation and welfare service, is involved in a number of very worthwhile community-based initiatives of which Deputies will be aware. Therefore, I can see no good reason the full benefit of such funds should go to one Department. I think Deputy Dermot Ahern made a similar point in relation to that. Indeed, I think Deputy Gay Mitchell would also accept that argument.
Another part of amendment No. 14 raises a separate issue in relation to a court directing that money paid under a confiscation order be paid into court in connection with legal proceedings which a victim may have initiated and the use of such moneys to satisfy such judgment or order as the victim may obtain. I have sympathy with what Deputy Gay Mitchell is endeavouring to achieve, but I think the matter is covered, to some extent, in some of the other provisions of this Bill.
First, we should draw a distinction between a civil suit for compensation where victims, on their own initiative, take separate proceedings for compensation and compensation payable under the Criminal Justice Act, 1993. Under the 1993 Act, as everybody knows, a court — on conviction of any person of an offence — may make an order requiring that person to pay compensation to any person who has suffered such injury or loss as the court may decide as a result of the offence. As we know, normally that order would be made at the time of sentencing. Confiscation proceedings arise after sentencing and therefore, are separate proceedings. Under section 8 (3) of the present Bill it is provided that an obligation has priority over a confiscation order where it is to pay an amount due in respect of a fine or other order of the court, where the fine was imposed, or an order made before the confiscation order. That would mean in practice that, in assessing the amount of realisable property of a defendant, a deduction would be made in respect of a compensation order which had been made under the 1993 Act.
In relation to pending civil actions for compensation, section 10 provides that, when considering whether to make a confiscation order, the court may take into account any information placed before it showing that a victim of an offence to which the proceedings relate instituted or intends to institute civil proceedings against the defendant in respect of loss, injury or damages sustained in connection with the offence. That goes some way towards safeguarding the interests of third parties who initiate civil proceedings. However, I appreciate that it does not go as far as Deputy Mitchell and others might wish. I would like time between now and Report Stage to look again at what a number of Deputies are suggesting.
I think there is a general acceptance by all of us that the money which might be raised by way of convictions under this legislation should be used to help the victims of the individuals we are trying to get under this legislation. I wanted to set out the potential difficulties in doing that. I do not have a closed mind and I would like to look at the matter between now and Report Stage to see if there is a way of doing it. I would also like to consult a number of my Government colleagues whom I am sure have various suggestions and strong views on this matter. While I cannot accept the amendments I would appreciate if Deputies would give me time between now and Report Stage to look at the question of setting up such a fund.
In relation to the criminal injuries tribunal referred to by Deputy Ahern, everybody here would accept that once a Government discontinues a scheme it is difficult for a subsequent Government to reintroduce it. I would not hold out any hope of being able to reintroduce such a fund in the immediate future. Deputies should be aware that my officials put a case to the officials in the Department of Finance and I put a case to the Minister for Finance for the reintroduction of this fund. We might have won a number of battles but unfortunately, we did not win that one. I would not hold out any immediate hope of this fund being reconstituted or reintroduced. As I said, I would like time to consider amendments Nos. 2, 13 nd 14 between now and Report Stage.
I am happy with the Minister's reply. The Legislature can, by law, allocate these funds as an appropriation-in-aid to one or more Departments. I agree with the Minister that if we go down that road all the money should not go to the Department of Health, because the probation service could play a major role in the areas of rehabilitation and prison reform. I will be happy to withdraw my amendment and to reconsider the matter on Report Stage.
I welcome the Minister's general acceptance of the intent of these amendments. My amendment proposes to give the Department of Health exclusive rights to this largesse. I would like to assure the Minister that that amendment was not tabled to raise her hackles. I have no problem with the idea of this fund being availed of by a number of Departments. In my amendment I was simply trying to emphasise the dimension of the problem of using the money to deal with the consequences of drugs, rehabilitation and treatment, and the health dimension was probably uppermost in my mind.
With regard to the practicality of the administration of the fund, the Minister seemed to assume that the assets seized in any given year would be spent in that year. Of course, that would not necessarily have to be the case. Obviously this would be a matter for whatever agency is administering the fund. These additional moneys accruing to the State should be used to deal with an area where we accept there is a need for additional resources — treatment, rehabilition and dealing with other problems arising from the drug trade. It is not simply a question of seizing the money made by the drug barons: tackling the drug problem is a complex matter that needs to be approached from a number of different angles and for which additional resources are badly needed. I am happy to wait on until Report Stage to see the formula the Minister will produce.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 9, subsection (9), between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:
"(b) the court considers it appropriate in all the circumstances to take the gift into account, or".
This amendment proposes to include in section 3 (9) a provision similar to that in section 3 (10) so that the court has the power to take a gift into account where it considers it appropriate in all the circumstances. I do not understand why this provision is included in section 3 (10), but not in section 3 (9). It seems reasonable that the court should have the power to take a gift into account under section 3 (9).
The general approach taken in the Bill is more severe in relation to drug trafficking as opposed to other indictable offences, particularly in the assumptions which the courts must make when dealing with confiscation. Given the nature of drug trafficking offences and the features which characteristically surround them, such an approach is well founded. This amendment relates to the factors which must be taken into account by the court in assessing the realisable property of the person against whom a confiscation order is being considered, in other words, in assessing the assets available against which such an order might be made. Obviously it is important not to allow a criminal to insulate himself or herself against a potential confiscation order by allowing him or her to make gifts to third parties. For that reason under the Bill confiscation orders can be made not just against the property held by the defendant but also against any property held by a person to whom the defendant has made a gift.
Section 3 (9) sets out the circumstances in which, for the purpose of the provisions of the Bill dealing with drug trafficking a gift is to be regarded as caught by the Bill. Section 3 (10) sets out the circumstances in relation to other offences. In line with the distinctions contained in the Bill between the approach of drug trafficking and other offences, the factors to be taken into account by the court as to whether a gift is to be caught by the Bill also differ. For example, in the case of drug trafficking a gift is caught by the Bill if it was made by the defendant at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted, whereas in the case of non-drug offences it refers to gifts made after the commission of the offence. In the case of non-drug offences there is a saver in the sense that the gift will only be taken into account where the court considers it appropriate in all the circumstances. This saver is not included in drug trafficking offences and Deputy Mitchell's amendment would provide such a saver.
Given the stricter approach to drug trafficking offences taken in the Bill there are reasons for not giving the court the same latitude as for non-drug offences, as this amendment would do. On balance section 3 (9) is stronger without the wording proposed. Accordingly, I would not be disposed to accepting the amendment.
I do not see why the court should not have the power to take a gift into account where it considers it appropriate in all circumstances. I do not see why the Minister would take such a stand in principle in allowing the court that latitude. However, I am not going to the wall on this amendment. It would tidy up the Bill if that provision was included and if the courts did have that latitude. I will not press the amendment but I feel this provision should be included. I do not understand the reason it is being opposed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister confirm that the term "using any ship", contained in section 3 (1) (e), covers helicopters, planes, submarines, vessels and vehicles. On page 7, lines 30 and 31, what does the term "choses in action and other intangible or incorporeal property" mean.
Under section 3 since the term "property" includes money and all other property, real or personal, obviously houses are included. In relation to both categories of offence — i.e drug trafficking and non-drug trafficking — would the rights of a spouse in a matrimonial home take precedence over the confiscation order? I note what the Minister has said in relation to property which has been given by way of a gift. If that was covered by the Bill that would be the end of it because of the tough measures being introduced for drug trafficking. In relation to the matrimonial home, who would have the prior right of ownership, the court or the spouse?
In reply to Deputy Mitchell's questions the term "ship" means all the vessels he mentioned. I am informed that the term "intangible or incorporeal property", means property that is not tangible, for instance, a debt, which is probably the best way of explaining it. In reply to Deputy O'Donnell's question as to whether the rights of a spouse take precedence, I am told it depends on how the property was acquired.
Would it be up to the court to look to when the house was purchased and when it became a matrimonial home?
Yes, if the court felt the house had been bought out of the proceeds of crime, it would have to satisfy itself as to when the property——
The defendant would have to prove that it was not bought out of the proceeds of crime?
Yes.
Will the Minister please explain the term "choses in action"?
It is a debt.
Do the terms "incorporeal property" and "choses in action" mean the same thing?
Yes.
Will the Minister consider the rights of the spouse in relation to the matrimonial home and, at a later stage, the Department might look into the possible implications in relation to common justice for the spouse.
Yes, we can do that.
Earlier I mentioned interpretation and some people may have felt I was not pushing it. When one is dealing with drug barons one is dealing with potential mass murderers. We are not talking about fools; we are talking about geniuses of the most heinous kind who are fully aware of the implications of their actions to acquire ill-gotten gains. There are grounds for the Minister considering on Report Stage the definition of what "drug trafficking" means. In fact, the Minister is addressing a problem that is contributing, directly or indirectly, to mass murder. If one was dealing with a mass murderer in other legislation one would ensure — I am open to correction on this — that the criminal was put away for life without remission of sentence. Perhaps an amendment could be proposed by the Minister on Report Stage?
: The Bill does not deal with sentencing. I appreciate the points Deputy Fitzgerald is making and I am sure everybody present and all Members of the Oireachtas would agree that the sentence has to match the crime. We have discussed sentencing at great length both in this committee and in the Dáil in reply to parliamentary questions, etc. As Deputies will be aware, the Law Reform Commission will be making their report in relation to sentencing available to me and I hope to bring in specific legislation on sentencing.
I appreciate what Deputy Fitzgerald is trying to do. It probably would be more appropriate to discuss the issue he has raised when we come to discuss sentencing policy generally.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 11, before section 4 (but in Part I), to insert the following new section:
"PART II
4.—The Minister is hereby authorised to create, by ministerial order, a Drugs Enforcement Agency which shall have responsibility for co-ordinating Government activities in combating drug trafficking and in promoting and assisting greater international co-operation in relation to criminal law enforcement procedures related to drugs offences, such body to involve the Garda Síochána, the Customs and Excise, the Defence Forces, the Department of Health and other agencies as the Minister deems fit. The Drugs Enforcement Agency will have a maximum of 15 members and will come into existence by ministerial order following the publication of regulations to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.".
This amendment seeks to create a drugs enforcement agency. This is something for which I have argued in the past. This is a very important amendment and it is also important that we make a decision. I put down this amendment because I believe the objective of the Bill will fail unless we have the courage and determination to pursue drugs barons to their sources, that is, to those countries which continue to export illegal drugs with impunity. Some countries are exporting more in illegal drugs, in terms of GNP, than in all their legitimate products added together. In 1991, the last year for which I can obtain figures — the Minister might have more up to date figures — almost 4,000 tonnes of opium, for example, was produced in ten countries: Burma, Thailand, Laos, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iran. I have here in a table the amount produced in each of those countries. The reason I read them out is that it is known where these drugs are produced. Everybody knows who produces heroin and the marijuana and the distribution network. There is nothing secret about this information. It is a matter of record. There is no secret about where the drugs come from, how much comes from particular countries, where the drugs are grown, where they are refined, and how they are distributed. There are maps which show the precise routes taken through these countries. For example, there are clear indications that Colombia, the largest producer of illicit optium, is now going into the heroin business. Some countries are producing more in GNP from illegal drugs than from all other legitimate products.
We are spending £550 million this year on the criminal justice system, not to mention what we are spending on the health system, and much of that is drug related. Not all of the money spent in the Department of Justice is related specifically to drugs but many of the muggings, beatings, burglaries and car thefts are drug related because addicts have to pay a huge price for their daily fix. It is like a fire brigade service trying to fight the fire; they put it out and another fire is blazing all the time. It is far too late. We need to go after the arsonists. We need to have a co-ordinated body here who will highlight this problem. We must then highlight the issue in the European Community.
These exporting countries are well known. Some of them are very wealthy countries who are using portions of the funds from drugs to purchase arms. The European Union should not continue to allow those countries export their legitimate products to the Union if they continue to turn a blind eye to the export of illegal drugs.
Not all countries are turning a blind eye. In the case of Colombia, for example, many courageous judges and politicians have condemned this activity. Unfortunately, some of them and their families have been murdered. Many Governments around the world are simply prepared to turn a blind eye to this problem. They do not care about its effect. It is time we made them care. We are not an isolated country; we have a seat in the single biggest political and economic grouping in the world. Would it be wrong to advocate a European drugs enforcement agency which would cooperate with the American drugs enforcement agency or other agencies to take on these people? We are only wasting our time as legislators if we do not take this problem seriously. We do not go to the source of the problem, which is known.
The people who left £12 million or £14 million worth of marijuana on the seabed off Cork did not care that it was found. All they have to do is get the odd shipment through which they buy for half nothing and sell for huge amounts of money. That money has to be brought above ground in some way to compete with the legitimate business community. The business community is providing jobs to people and it has put a lot of honest effort into building up businesses. Having paid their taxes they now have to compete with this corrupt money. We should be prepared to go to the source of the problem. We should set up a drugs enforcement agency and let them tell us what needs to be done. That agency could be questioned on a cross agency basis with the Departments of Health, Justice, and Foreign Affairs, if necessary, about the steps it is taking to deal with this problem. Is the problem being raised in the European Community, the UN and the Council of Europe? What action is being taken in co-operation with other countries? Why are these countries allowed to continue producing and exporting these drugs? The "golden crescent" is well established as a source of many of the drugs. Why are these countries allowed to continue behaving in this way? They are allowed to do this because we are not geared to tackle them.
There are many agencies in charge of this issue. We must have one agency that can supply information. As legislators we need this information on behalf of the people of Ireland whose children are being attacked on the streets as drugs are openly being sold. The world is awash with drugs. Unless we get to the source we are only wasting our time trying to deal with this problem. The cost of this epidemic is frightening. We should use the stick and the carrot approach. It is not just a question of saying to these exporting countries that we will not allow their legitimate products in here. We should offer them economic aid to tackle the problem. It would save us money to do that on a European basis. An agency of this kind is necessary.
The head of the United States Senate sub-committee investigating drugs trafficking, Senator John Carey, said five years ago: "NARCO dollars are buying entire countries and altering geopolitics". He was speaking at that time of the Colombian cartels which have come to dominate the cocaine trade. Other countries are seeing how easy it is and are getting in on the act. We need a co-ordinated approach nationally and European wide. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. It gives her the power to set up a 15 member drugs enforcement agency. I recommend this amendment to the committee.
I assume Deputy Mitchell's amendment is intended to bring about greater co-ordination among State agencies dealing with drug trafficking. To that extent the idea is a good one. Members are aware that corresponding legislation in the United Kingdom imposes an obligation on financial institutions to report suspicious transactions to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The service is jointly run by police and customs officers and recognises the equal role played by each of these parties in the detection and prevention of money laundering. I understand that records in the UK in 1992 indicate that the total number of financial disclosures to the National Criminal Intelligence Service was approximately 10,000 and that the distribution spread of information for further investigation was 60 per cent to the police and 10 per cent to the customs officials.
Everybody will agree that the Garda, the customs and the Naval Service deserve tremendous credit for the work they have done in relation to this problem, particularly in recent years. I recall a very wild, wet and windy day when the Minister visited my constituency in relation to a drugs haul of £20 million in Ballinskelligs Bay and personally congratulated and thanked the Garda for the work they had done.
While the work of the Garda in that particular case was outstanding, the role played by the Irish customs services is something which must also be taken into account. It is fair to say that the customs service has a major role to play in the detection and prevention of money laundering and drug related offences. There is a need for greater co-ordination between the agencies involved in tackling this extremely serious problem and that cannot be doubted. I have little doubt, however, that the Minister's Bill, as presented, will ensure that this co-ordination, even in the absence of a drugs enforcement agency, will be achieved, particularly in relation to the role of the customs service. I would endorse the view of the customs service regarding certain provisions which can be inserted in the Bill in order to bring about greater co-ordination. Specifically in relation to the section dealing with disclosure of information of section 44, I recommend that the custom service be included. Second, in relation to access to information, I recommend that the custom service be included in section 50 and be granted powers similar to those granted to the English customs and excise service by the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, 1986 in respect of obtaining access to information in the instances outlined in that section. Third, greater co-ordination can be achieved by ensuring that the customs and excise service is granted powers similar to those of the custom and excise in England under section 25 of the Criminal Justice International Co-operation Act, 1990, which empowers them to seize and detain cash in excess of a stipulated amount entering or leaving the country. Finally, in relation to the authority to search premises I recommend the customs service be included in section 43 of the Bill and be empowered to apply for a search warrant in the circumstances outlined in the Bill. I believe that if these measures are implemented the co-ordination which Deputy Mitchell seeks to achieve in his amendment can be realised.
I sympathise greatly with Deputy Mitchell's viewpoint and I understand the objective of his amendment, however, I think it is too all-embracing in its scope and includes to many outside bodies. I agree with Deputy O'Donoghue that we need proper liaison and co-operation between the Customs and Excise officers and the Garda Síochána. I agree with Deputy O'Donoghue that the powers contained in sections 43, 44 and 50 should be extended to the customs officer as well as to the Garda. It does not make sense to exclude the customs officers from the provision of these sections. Indeed, the effectiveness of the Bill will be diminished unless the powers are given to customs officers to allow them to correspond and communicate with their counterparts across Europe, and the world if necessary. In effect, unless we give customs officers these powers we may as well tie the officers hands. I am surprised also that the Naples and Nairobi Conventions of 1974 and 1977, the provisions of which were implemented by our Government, are not mentioned in the Bill. Other conventions were mentioned and I wonder why these two were omitted.
I agree with Deputy Mitchell that we must have effective enforcement of the law and proper co-operation between the customs officials, the Garda the Naval Service and the Army in combating this terrible crime. It may be a mistake to concentrate too much on the coastline. I know the Cork coastline is wide open for this but there are other means of bringing drugs into the country and modern aircraft can drop hauls of drugs at small airports or even fields at all times. Fishermen boast about the ones that got away, we hear about the seizure of drugs in our society but we never hear about those who have got away with dealing in drugs on our streets. All drugs are not landed from the sea. Drugs are dropped from aircraft throughout our country and therefore we need a broader approach to this. I agree with Deputy Mitchell but creating another body in addition to what we have already creates a huge infrastructure. I would prefer, as Deputy O'Donoghue has said, greater co-ordination and co-operation between the customs officers and the Garda. The powers in those three sections I mentioned should be extended to the customs officers. There should be co-operation between our Defence Forces and Naval Service at national and local levels. I suggest we build a pyramid structure with the customs and Garda on top right down to local level. If that were done I would be satisfied enough with the Bill.
I am in sympathy with the sentiment and the principle expressed in this amendment. One would support greater co-ordination of the various authorities responsible for policy, procedures and regulations in relation to drug trafficking and international trafficking of drugs between countries. Like the previous speaker, I think to dilute the Minister's responsibility in this area by setting up a new agency would be a retrograde step and one which I would not support. I have no doubt the Minister will indicate the type of co-ordination that exists and indeed she might indicate improvements in co-ordination between the various Departments and Ministers in addressing the problem to which the amendment refers.
I support the amendment mainly because anything that has been done to date has failed. There is no doubt about that. We have a major drugs problem. While I support the idea of a drugs enforcement agency, it has to be said that if the very serious hard drug problem which we have has no connection good, bad or indifferent with the hauls of hash found in Cork or whatever, which does not make any impact on the crime-ridden streets of Dublin. The problem in Dublin is as a result of heroin and hard drugs.
If the Garda do not have the manpower and technology, the drug treatment centres do not have the resources, and if the courts and Judiciary do not use the powers they already have, the problem will continue to get out of control. I would like to be able to say that since the Minister first took an interest in this problem — and I congratulated her then and I compliment her now on continuing to show a serious interest in the problem — and since she went down into central Dublin and went round and saw the situation for herself and authorised the setting up of a local taskforce — maybe it is too short a time since that happened — that the situation has been improving. Unfortunately it has not. Dublin is flooded with heroin as it never was before.
I do not say that lightly. I am not saying that to get a couple of lines in some newspaper. I am saying it because it is the case. I am saying this because teenagers in my area who are not yet drug addicts are smoking heroin simply because of the wide availability of drugs. Smoking heroin very rapidly leads to very serious addiction to heroin. That is the case because there is no difficulty getting heroin into Dublin. Deputy Mitchell said that the sources of the drugs are all known. I have always made the point in my contributions on this problem that the sources of the drugs, in other words the heroin dealers in Dublin, are all known. In my area they are household names, the Garda know them far better than anybody else. There seems to be a difficulty about catching them. During Second Stage debate on this Bill, I referred to a case that was highlighted in the Sunday World— probably the only recent case where an individual in the inner city was caught with £60,000 worth of heroin. It is an interesting case: the Garda when carrying out their reconnaissance saw where the heroin was being hidden and removed it from its hiding place to ensure that it did not reach the streets — a precaution in the event of not managing to catch the people in the act. They replaced it with a harmless substance sprinkled with a pinch of heroin and then succeeded in arresting the individuals concerned. The main perpetrator was brought before the courts. Through the wisdom of the courts system, or the jury, the accused was convicted of being in possession of the substance with the sprinkling of heroin, but they could not connect that with what the Garda had told them, namely, that they had replaced a huge amount of pure heroin with that substance. As a result that individual, whom I felt should have got life because of the damage he caused in my constituency for many years before he was eventually caught and convicted, got five years and the judge reprimanded theSunday World for its coverage in regard to that heroin dealer. In cases where the Garda use all their resources and experience to convict someone dealing in a huge amount of heroin, heroin that might have caused untold damage to young people in Dublin, and light sentences are imposed, the message goes out that the courts, the Judiciary and the whole criminal justice system is completely ineffective.
I want to use this opportunity to bring the drugs problem in Dublin to the attention of the Minister. The Garda are well aware of the position. We were told in the early eighties about the major heroin dealers who were responsible for the drugs problem, people like the Dunnes and so on. They were caught and put behind bars. Then for a number of years small dealers, mainly addicts, who travelled to London and Liverpool to bring back small amounts of heroin were causing the drugs problem. Now that position has changed dramatically and has reverted to that of the early eighties since the release last year of three individuals, some of whom have served as much as ten years in jail for heroin pushing in the early eighties.
It would not serve any purpose to name those three dealers because they are well known to the Garda. Those dealers having served their full sentence, are now back in operation in Dublin supplying heroin within a few weeks of being released. One garda who is heavily involved in the prevention of drug trafficking admitted to me that any one of those three dealers could easily supply the whole market in Dublin, leaving aside the pushers of whom Deputy Mitchell is aware on his side of the Liffey and dealers operating the north side who are bringing in heroin.
There is therefore a very serious heroin problem in Dublin city and it is getting worse. The drugs problem at present will have nowhere near the effect that large amounts of heroin could have on a largely impoverished community, not just in Dublin city centre but in other disadvantaged areas of Dublin. The drugs problems is increasing and every effort must be made to apprehend those dealers. Through the Guarda's network of contacts and so on they know those who are active heroin dealers and those who are bringing in drugs, but they do not appear to have the resources to put those people away.
Deputy Mitchell's amendment would have the effect of creating another statutory body to deal with drugs control, enforcement and so on. I am not sure that another statutory body is needed; but, like most of the previous speakers, I am absolutely convinced of the need for greater coordination between the many services that are currently involved. As we have discussed earlier, the international drugs business is a very complex and multifaceted business. It probably involves relatively few people; but there are particular difficulties, as Deputy Gregory outlined, in accumulating the evidence and intelligence needed, both at a local level and, at the other end of the scale, international level, to secure convictions and to stop the business.
Deputy O'Donoghue made an interesting case for giving extra powers to customs officers. Those are powers which, the Garda already largely have. I question if that would be a good idea. I wonder about the whole role of the customs officers since the Single European Market came into play. Previously they were deployed at ports, airports and along the Border; but that, largely, is no longer the case. Perhaps some human frailty is being encouraged here, some unhelpful competition between the Garda and the customs service. It is obviously in everybody's interest that the primary responsibility for enforcement of the law in this matter and in areas not directly related to the law — for example, in respect of gathering intelligence — should be clearly defined. I would be interested to learn how the Minister sees those two bodies relating as matters stand. I do not know if we need a statutory body to co-ordinate the whole effort, but I think we need a greater degree of co-ordination than appears to be in place at present.
There is a need for greater co-operation and co-ordination of the services in this area. I note what Deputy Mitchell's amendment seeks to achieve. It is wide public knowledge that tensions exist among those bodies involved in this area. Deputy McDowell talked about unhelpful and unnecessary competition. From the information I get around the city, I agree with him that while competition may not be a problem in the city, in other parts of the country it is a problem and is not good for morale or in the interests of the services.
As stated by previous speakers, I do not know if we need an agency to resolve this problem. On the Second Stage debate I recall Deputy Gregory asked the Minister if she was aware of the position in relation to competition and if she was addressing the matter. The Minister announced that she had appointed a senior official in her Department to consider the matter and produce a report on it. All speakers here today urge and encourage the Minister — she has already admitted publicly that she is an impatient person — to use her impatience to bring forward this report as quickly as possible and in the course of the implementation of the provisions of this Bill to ensure that co-operation and co-ordination of services to the greatest extent possible is available. Will the Minister indicate if she has set a deadline within her Department for the publication of this report, the terms of reference given to the senior official and the anticipated recommendations of the report?
Complementary forces.
This amendment has been tabled because of frustration in respect of the measures in place for tackling on-street crime, which are not working. Deputy Gregory always produces good evidence to this committee, from his first hand experience in his constituency, that the existing system is just not sufficiently effective. I agree that in the context of the entirety of this Bill we need a dedicated group to enforce the legislation and there would need to be a centralised system of reporting. We will have to co-ordinate the resources of the Garda Fraud Squad, the Garda, the customs officials and the financial institutions. There will be need for coordination of the various bodies charged with the administration of justice and security in all of those areas.
Deputy Mitchell's amendment is particularly focused on the enforcement of legislation in relation to drugs and I agree with him that there is need for more action to make our present system work. As Deputy Gregory said, we have laws in place but there is widespread dissatisfaction that the sentences given to people found dealing in drugs are not severe enough. A general system of fines as well as prison sentences should be introduced. I tabled two amendments in that regard which have been ruled out of order. We should allow the courts to levy fines in a general way. For example, rather than people who are convicted of drug dealing offences being sentenced to ten years imprisonment they could be sentenced to five years and fined £100,000. In some cases people opt for prison because it does not hurt as much as a tough fine. We must examine the area of fines as a way of beefing-up our sentencing policy in relation to drug trafficking.
The Law Reform Commission in their report on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime, which spawned this legislation, homed in on the law relating to fines as being an example of one of the structural deficiencies in the system. That is why I put down my amendments to give the courts power to levy fines for drug-related offences. It is regrettable that they were ruled out of order, but perhaps they can be considered at a later stage.
In relation to the amendment before us, I believe there will be calls from, say, the financial institutions to establish a steering body to co-ordinate the money laundering aspects of the legislation. There will always be calls for supervisory bodies and steering committees. It is precisely because of the need for international co-operation, to which Deputy Mitchell referred, that the Council of Europe Convention which covers this whole area was signed in November 1990. We are the last country in Europe to introduce legislation such as this. All other countries have introduced the necessary legislation required under various Directives and international agreements. It is recognised that the problem of drug trafficking and money laundering cannot be dealt with on the basis of national frontiers. Money laundering is a very sophisticated practice. It involves three stages which are well known in the international community. Money is placed in bank accounts and layered by the international transfer of money around the world by computer which can take place in 24 hours. It is then clean money and can be used in legitimate business. In recognising that we cannot deal with the problem at national level this legislation will allow us comply with international obligations.
A drug enforcement agency is necessary. It may not be appropriate in the context of this legislation because this legislation also deals with non-drug trafficking offences and money laundering; we would be dealing with terrorists if we were dealing with other indictable offences. Because the traditional sources of funding for subversives here from the United States and Libya have dried up the subversives are getting more and involved in racketeering. As this Bill deals with drug trafficking and non-drug trafficking offences, it might be more appropriate to table this amendment when dealing with legislation relating only to drugs.
I support the amendment and the motivation behind it because I accept the views expressed by other Deputies, particularly Deputy Gregory, who has on-street knowledge of the problem, that our existing procedures are not sufficient to wipe out the problem at local level.
I welcome the Bill. It is evidence that there will be further attempts by the State to tackle this major problem. This is quite a comprehensive Bill. This section deals with confiscation. Deputy Mitchell's amendment calls for the setting up of an enforcement agency. I agree with the sentiments of the amendment, but the question is whether or not we need an agency. We are dealing here with one of the most unusual crimes. It is not like normal crime involving individuals who operate independently of each other and decide on a particular occasion to commit an offence and it is then dealt with. This area of crime involves many strands of society and is so complex that one person or one body of people cannot come to grips with it. It is an international, a national and a local problem. It is so local that it is almost like a neighbourhood problem.
I am sure we all know people who deal in drugs. Because so many people have a knowledge of who is doing what, it is a question of at what level should we attack the system. Some of those involved in enforcing the law are not in the position to decide at what level that attack should be made. They operate on the basis of what they see and that consumes them while dealing with the problem confronting them. For example, how much of the street activity should we allow to continue while dealing with the supply route? At what level should we strike a balance? Those are difficult decisions to make and the Garda are not in a position to make such decisions.
A drug enforcement agency may not be necessary but some professional person should take responsibility for guiding the process of an attack on this type of enterprise and deciding at what level the policy decisions should be made for the attacks and what effective measures need to be taken. For example, if we cannot track down arms being brought into the country by subversive organisations and where they are stashed it is unlikely that we will find the supply routes for drugs. Those two problems are closely linked. Perhaps some routes are intertwined with paramilitary organisations and the intelligence obtained over the years by those organisations in getting supply routes is an area we should be addressing.
I do not know the answers to those questions. Perhaps we should establish a drugs enforcement agency as referred to by Deputy Mitchell. It is a question of deciding as a committee at what level we need to have an input into the management of the whole situation.
The question of fines or imprisonment is another important issue. Big business people involved in drugs will not care a damn about fines because the prize is so large. If a fine is too harsh for a supplier it can be compensated for by way of a subsidy passed down by the leading authority — the main supply route — the damage is repaired and the drug trafficking continues. The only thing that will take account of what is happening is to take people out of the system. There must be a major upheaval in the supply network before it will break down. That would involve a major intervention in the area of prisons, taking people out of society and confiscating assets.
It is regrettable that our lighthouses are no longer manned. In the past people in lighthouses physically watched our coastline whereas we now have a lighthouse system which is merely capable of dealing with the problem it was set up to do. If we had known we would face a serious crime problem in drug trafficking we might not have made that decision and our lighthouses could have formed part of the network about which we are talking. Perhaps there is a good reason for reconsidering that matter.
I support the amendment for many reasons. A drugs enforcement agency could have the effect of concentrating the attention of all enforcement agencies on a particular area. As various other speakers outlined, the drugs problem here is much more serious than we are prepared to recognise. That is not the fault of anybody, it is a fact of life and the problem is escalating. A drugs enforcement agency would have a psychological impact on those involved in drugs because they would recognise that the authorities intend going the whole mile in this area. That would have the effect of putting them on their guard and dissuading them from becoming involved to the extent that they have. It would send a signal also to the other states in Europe and throughout the world that this country had taken the drugs problem seriously and concentrated the necessary forces and resources to deal with it. This proposed agency would be in a position to co-ordinate the efforts of the Garda, the Naval Service, customs agencies and so on and bring them under one umbrella, which would be of considerable benefit.
Deputy Kemmy referred to the possibility of air drops. There is obviously a recognition in some quarters of the pivotal location of this country as part of a distribution network. The size of the recent hauls indicate that they are certainly destined for other places. Otherwise the entire country would obviously have a serious problem.
I do not believe that we have kept pace with the criminal world in terms of making available to the forces of law and order the necessary technology to deal with the problem. The drugs enforcement agency that Deputy Mitchell proposes in this amendment would give the Government the opportunity to make available the necessary technology through the agency to the law enforcement authorities. If we do not call on stream resources at that level it is unlikely that we are going to pass them down along the line for general use. There are more and more signs of a growing need for such services in this country.
There is no doubt the drug barons have available to them all the technology that is necessary. They have unlimited resources, not having to answer to anybody. We know of specific instances where the advances in technology have been utilised by criminal elements to good effect to frustrate the Garda. One could assume the same is happening in the drugs area. I believe very strongly that Deputy Mitchell's amendment can constructively be taken on board.
I also support the amendment. Deputy Mitchell has made an effort to try to co-ordinate all the agencies to have an effective control of drug abuse and the laundering of illicit money. The agencies involved already in the fight against drugs will observe in the Bill as it stands an absence of emphasis on the role of the customs officers. Customs officers have international obligations as well. They have to implement international conventions which we have not taken into account in this Bill for example the Naples Convention and the Nairobi Convention. Deputy Mitchell tabled this amendment to bring all the promoting and assisting agencies together. I believe if such an agency existed the various bodies involved would have an opportunity to exchange views. This is an opportunity the Minister should not let pass.
I am against quangos. I have seen the creation of expensive quangos one after the other since this Government came to power.
The Deputy should explain what a quango is.
Is it an interpretation for an interpretative centre?
We will come to deal with interpretative centres in our own time.
Deputy Carey, without interruption.
I do not know how the Government will get out of that one because they are divided about the one in Clare.
(Interruptions.)
Is it not the case that this is urgent? I do not know of any open co-operation between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health. Can the Minister say there is instant co-operation between her Department and the Department of Health and that on a daily basis, there is effective co-ordination? All the Deputies are speaking loudly about the lack of co-ordination, the lack of co-operation and the breakdown in communication. I believe that Deputy Mitchell should be praised for his efforts in suggesting a system which he believes could be worked. If the Minister wants to refine this amendment, I think Deputy Mitchell would take that on board.
The seizure of drugs off the Cork coast was a complete accident. They were found by fishermen and God only knows how many more of these bales were dumped around our coastline. Our laws governing the Naval Service need to be amended. At present Naval Service personnel cannot board foreign vessels off our coastline without a customs officer or a Garda. The Naval Service is supposed to patrol our seas, the Customs and Excise officers are supposed to patrol our borders and the Garda are supposed to patrol the land. The customs officials do not have facilities at our airports or shipping areas to take people into custody, whom they suspect of having drugs concealed on their person. They cannot hold them for longer than an hour or two and these people can hold the drugs on their person for up to 24 hours. One of my constituents whom I knew since he was six or seven years of age died last year carrying drugs from Britain to Ireland when a condom he swallowed containing drugs burst. There are many cases of people carrying drugs in this manner. The Garda and the customs officials try to out do one another in their efforts to stop drug trafficking. The customs officials in Cork knew of people coming to Cork carrying drugs but the gardaí pulled up beside them and said, "OK, we are taking over now". This practice cannot be allowed continue. There will have to be more co-ordination between the three bodies. The setting up of a new independent drugs unit is not necessary but some umbrella department must co-ordinate activities among the three organisations, including the Air Corps, to detect air drops of drugs around our coastline. I ask the Minister to consider this area. If the Naval Service could stop the drugs coming ashore this would save much investigation on land.
The Minister's decision to introduce this Bill has been widely welcomed. Deputies have described the devastation caused here as a result of drugs. Deputy Mitchell's amendment puts forward a strong case for the creation of a drugs enforcement agency, but I would have serious reservations about the creation of such a body. State bodies or State services are dealing with the prevention of drug trafficking at present. While they have enjoyed great success, particularly in the last 12 months, I call on the Minister to ensure that collectively they would show greater interest in obtaining results rather than headlines. If that can be achieved Deputy Mitchell's amendment is not necessary. Will the Minister indicate what effect she envisages the Bill will have when enacted? Will it reduce or contain the drug problem here?
That is an important question.
There were 13 constructive contributions and I thank the Deputies for them.
I thank Deputies who contributed to the discussion on this amendment. Is shows the concern that all the members of this committee and all of us as politicans have in relation to the drugs problem on our streets, in our cities and in many rural areas throughout the country. It is one of the matters I addressed when I became Minister for Justice.
Deputies will remember — indeed Deputy O'Donoghue reminded us, lest we should forget it — that I went to Ballinskelligs earlier last year following the huge haul of cannabis on The Brine. On that occasion I had an opportunity to talk to the officials of the two primary agencies involved in day-to-day operational matters on the ground, namely, the Garda through the Garda Drugs Squad and the National Drugs Team through the customs officials. I was very impressed with Garda Inspector Jim Fitzgerald who headed up the operation and under whom there was total co-operation between both agencies on the ground, which resulted in the huge capture we had.
Last Friday, while visiting Cork, I had an opportunity to go to Halbowline and I was equally impressed with the Naval Service and their sophisticated technological on board equipment which enables them to track and trace vessels as they move in European and international waters. They are anxious to play an even greater role than they do at present in the area of combating drug trafficking. Having heard Deputies' contributions around the table, particularly those who mentioned the Naval Service I believe Deputies would be supportive of a greater role for the Naval Service in this whole area. I am consulting with the Minister for the Marine, and the Minister for Defence, Deputy Andrews, in relation to how we might move towards providing a greater role for the Naval Service. That can be undertaken by the investigation taking place in my Department at present.
Deputy Fitzgerald is correct. On the Second Stage I said I had appointed a senior official of my Department to carry out an investigation following a number of public debates and media comment in relation to lack of operational co-operation on the ground between two of the agencies involved, namely, the National Drugs Team and the Garda. That report will be on my desk within the next few weeks and hopefully, decisions will be made by me no foot of its recommendations.
Deputy Mitchell will be well aware that in response to parliamentary questions I have said on a number of occasions that I am in favour or would have been in favour of a single agency being responsible for the co-ordination of activities. In December last year I met executives from the American Drugs Enforcement Agency and I was interested to hear how that agency came to be set up in 1973. At that time in the United States four or five competing agencies were involved in this whole area of operation and they were dealing with three levels of a police force — a federal, a state and a local police force — among whom there was virtually no co-operation, particularly on this issue. At that time it was considered necessary to co-ordinate their activities and set up a specific and separate enforcement agency to deal only with drugs enforcement.
If we were to do down that road it would involve not what is proposed in the amendment, which is more or less a co-ordination of Government and agency activities, but a separate force. Such a force would comprise not just members of the Garda and customs officials but separate specific officers dealing only with drugs. Having talked to the DEA people I am convinced that that would not work here, because there is a danger that all the policing in relation to drugs would be left to that agency and the day-to-day police activities by the Garda and customs officials would not concentrate anymore on drugs. I do not think Deputy Mitchell is suggesting that we would go down that road.
However, we need to consider the three agencies involved here — the National Drugs Team, the Garda National Drugs Administration Office and the Naval Service — to see how we can best co-ordinate their operations on the ground, because we have tremendous co-operation at top and middle management level. The lack of co-operation would appear to be confined to the south and south west of the country. We have specific examples at our ports and airports — in particular, Dublin Airport — where there has been effective co-operation between the National Drugs Team and the Garda Síochána which has resulted in not just the seizure of the drugs but in the successful prosecution of those who were attempting to bring them into the country. The Garda are looking for the people, the National Drugs Team are looking for the substance and there are competing tensions in their activities. What we need is a cohesive and co-ordinated effort that gives us the utmost level of co-operation between the agencies involved.
We also need to share intelligence. A number of Deputies have talked about the lack of sharing of intelligence. From the feedback I got in both Cork and particularly Ballinskelligs was that in certain instances there has been a lack of sharing of intelligence between the two principal enforcement agencies, the Garda and the National Drugs Team. The DCA people told me that the situation in Ireland is unique. We have a single police force under a single command and that is virtually unique in the European Union and in many countries throughout the world. We also have one national customs service and the DEA people strongly recommended that it should not be fragmented and that we should keep what we have together. Whether we deal with this by way of a co-ordinating committee or a memorandum of understanding I agree that this needs to be done quickly. As I said, a specific statutory agency that would be involved in nothing else except drugs enforcement would virtually wipe out the work of the drugs team and the Garda and I do not think anybody is recommending that.
As I said, a senior official is reviewing operations here and has consulted with the DEA, EUROPOL, CELAD and, indeed, the NCIS in the UK. That official will make specific recommendations to me as to how intelligence information can be shared and trust restored and how we can improve co-ordination and cohesion and ensure co-operation between the three agencies involved. I would like to wait until I have the report before I make any commitment in this matter. Having said that, I do not think it is necessary to establish a specific statutory agency. This can be done by way of ministerial regulation; that would be the better way to go about it. This is an urgent problem and it has received my full attention. I appreciate that members of the committee and members of the public, the parents of young and teenage children in particular, are concerned about this matter and want to help in putting the best possible facility in place to ensure co-operation. In this regard resources have been made available in the crime package for technology to help the Garda in this and other areas. As I said as soon as the report is made available I will make proposals in this area. I appreciate the urgency of the problem. In the meantime, as Deputy Mitchell will have gathered by now, I am not prepared to accept the amendment.
I would like to respond to Deputy Carey who raised a specific question. As Deputies will be aware, there is strong co-operation between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health in the area of drugs and drug abuse. We have a national drugs co-ordination committee on drug abuse which is comprised of representatives from my Department and the Department of Health and chaired by Deputy O'Dea who is Minister of State at both Departments.
While the Minister's response did not surprise me — her Department would advise her to show caution — the response of many members of the committee did. It is obvious they have not given much thought to the arguments in support of establishing a drugs enforcement agency. The serious drugs problem is at the heart of the crime problem. There is little point in dealing with this problem only when it has manifested itself.
The Minister has informed us that an official in her Department, having reviewed the matter will make recommendations — not this committee — and that the American Drugs Enforcement Agency, who took a cursory look at our unified Garda force and our unified customs service, also made recommendations. I know more about the drugs problem in this city than the American Drugs Enforcement Agency. I represent Dublin South-Central and I can tell the committee that drugs are being sold openly in flat complexes in my constituency. Families have been devastated; in some instances two and three members of the same family who had been abusing drugs died from AIDS. I do not need the advice of the American Drugs Enforcement Agency. What I and people like Deputy Gregory, who represents an area which is probably bearing the brunt of this problem, are telling the Minister is that it is going to get worse and that it is our job, as legislators, to do what is right.
If one were to approach this matter with an open mind one would find that co-ordination is poor, that it needs to be improved and that we need to trace the source of the problem, the countries which, with impunity, produce and distribute these drugs — some of the distributors are located within the European Union. However, the necessary structures are not in place.
If any Deputy wants to get the full picture he must table parliamentary questions to the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Defence and for the Marine, the Minister for Finance in relation to the customs serivce, the Minister for Health and perhaps other Ministers. There should be one agency which should be able to tell us precisely what the problem is. This agency could be dissolved if it got on top of the problem. It would be wrong to flippantly allow one official or a foreign agency to decide for us. The kernel of this proposal is that if we are to get on top of the drugs problem we must establish an agency of this kind. I intend to press the amendment.
Question put: "That the new section be there inserted."
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 14.
|
Tá |
|
|
Barrett, Seán. |
Gregory, Tony. |
|
Carey, Donal. |
Kenny, Enda. |
|
Clohessy, Peadar. |
Mitchell, Gay. |
|
Deasy, Austin. |
O'Donnell, Liz. |
|
Durkan, Bernard. |
O'Keeffe, Jim. |
|
Níl. |
|
|
Briscoe, Ben. |
O'Donoghue, John. |
|
Callely, Ivor. |
Power, Sean. |
|
Fitzgerald, Liam. |
Shortall, Róisín. |
|
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire. |
Smith, Brendan. |
|
Kemmy, Jim. |
Upton, Pat. |
|
McDowell, Derek. |
Wallace, Dan. |
|
Mulvihill, John. |
Walsh, Eamon. |
Question declared lost.
The Select Committee adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 19 January 1994.