I move amendment No. 37:
In page 9, subsection (1), line 10, to delete "and 6" and substitute ", 6 and 7".
The aim of this amendment is to consider making section 7, authorising the issue of search warrants by a member of the Garda, subject to annual review like many of the other substantive sections in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's response to that.
I realise, as Members have said, that this is a serious section in the Bill and we have indicated in this legislation that section 9 will lapse after 12 months unless renewed by the Oireachtas. That will give us an opportunity to examine how those serious sections in the Bill are working. The effect of Deputy O'Donnell's amendment would be to apply this to section 7 which deals with search warrants. Section 9 was included as a recognition of the grave nature of the new powers of detention albeit that they are protected through various court measures etc. It is difficult to see that the same considerations apply in relation to the extra powers to issue search warrants or that there would be any circumstances arising in which the Oireachtas would wish to remove those powers.
I could see a circumstance when the legislation would be examined to consider section 9 after it had been in operation for a year but I am not sure that anybody in the Oireachtas would want to remove Garda powers in relation to search warrants in drug trafficking cases. We do not need this amendment. I would prefer to leave the Bill as it is. If section 9 were not renewed, that part of the legislation would be defunct.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 9, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
"10.—(1) Any person who has in his possession, whether lawfully or not, a controlled drug for the purpose of selling or otherwise supplying it to another, in contravention of regulations made under section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 and 1984, with intent to obtain substantial monetary benefit shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purpose of this section "substantial monetary benefit" means a payment of £10,000 or more whether made in money or goods or otherwise.
(3) A Court or jury as the case may be shall be entitled to hear in evidence the opinion of any Garda or Customs Officer as to the street value of the controlled drug in question in any case notwithstanding any rule of law or evidence to the contrary.
(4) Section 15(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977 shall apply to an offence under subsection (1) of this section.
(5) In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) of this section, where it is proved that a person was in possession of a controlled drug he shall be presumed, until the court is satisfied to the contrary, to be in possession of that controlled drug with intent to obtain substantial monetary benefit.
(6) A person found guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of this section shall be liable on conviction to a fine of such amount as the court considers appropriate and/or at the discretion of the court to imprisonment for life or to such lesser period, subject to the provisions of subsection (7) of this section, as the court shall determine.
(7) Where a person (other than a child or young person) is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) of this section, the court shall in passing sentence specify as the minimum period of imprisonment to be served by that person a period of not less than 10 years imprisonment.
(8) The power conferred by section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, to commute or remit a punishment shall not, in the case of a person serving a sentence on him on conviction of an offence under subsection (1) of this section, be exercisable before the expiration of the minimum period specified by the court under subsection (7) less any reduction of that period under subsection (9) of this section.
(9) The rules of practice whereby prisoners generally may earn remission of sentence by industry and good conduct shall apply in the case of a person serving a sentence passed on him on conviction of an offence under subsection (1) of this section and the minimum period specified by the court under subsection (6) shall be reduced by the amount of any remission which he has so earned.
(10) Any powers conferred by rules made under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960 (including that section as applied by section 4 of the Prisons Act, 1970), to release temporarily a person serving a sentence of imprisonment shall not, in the case of a person serving a sentence passed on him on conviction of an offence under subsection (1) of this section, be exercisable during the period for which the commutation or remission of his punishment is prohibited by subsection (8) of this section unless for grave reasons of a humanitarian nature, and any release so granted shall be only of such limited duration as is justified by those reasons.
(11) A prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) of this section shall not be commenced without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions."
This amendment would provide for a new offence of trading in drugs for substantial monetary gain. It would provide for a minimum 10 year sentence for drug pushers convicted of having drugs for sale or supply with a street value of £10,000 or more. Where a person is in possession of a substantial quantity of drugs for sale or supply, there is a need for a minimum sentence of imprisonment.
In 1977, the Houses of the Oireachtas provided a maximum sentence for drug pushers of 14 years imprisonment. That was in recognition of a growing drugs subculture in the country. In 1984, the Oireachtas recognised that this problem was getting worse and it increased the maximum sentence from 14 years to life imprisonment.
An examination of sentences handed down by the courts to drug pushers shows that the true intent of the Oireachtas is not being reflected in the sentences imposed on individuals by the courts. The most recent year for which statistics are available is 1993. In that year, 71 people were convicted of possession of a control drug with intent to supply. The following were the sentences imposed by the courts: in three of the cases the sentence handed down was less than three months; in six of the cases the sentence was three to six months; in 20 of the cases the sentence was between six and 12 months; in 29 of the cases the sentence was between one and two years; in four of the cases the sentence was between two and three years; in five of the cases the sentence was between three and five years; in three of the cases the sentence was between five and ten years; and in 1993, when it was clear that drugs had become a major problem, there was only one case in which the criminal courts imposed a sentence of more than ten years. It is abundantly clear from these statistics that the majority of convicted drug dealers received prison sentences of less than two years. It is abundantly evident that this sends out the wrong message to drug dealers.
My amendment would impose a minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment on drug dealers convicted of possession of drugs with a street value of £10,000 or more. It would mean that a court would have no alternative but to impose a sentence of at least ten years on a person convicted of the sale or supply of drugs for substantial monetary gain. It makes perfect sense. For too long, criminal laws on our statute books have not effected the gravity of our drugs problem. I suggest that no common law jurisdiction has laws on its statute books dealing with an issue such as this which are as soft and it is time our laws were strengthened.
I cannot see why any Member of the House would oppose this amendment. It does not deal with minor drug pushers but with people who play for big monetary stakes the price of which is other people's health and lives. In those circumstances, it behoves each Member of the House, irrespective of his or her political persuasion, to support the amendment.
For fear it would be said that it is not possible to provide for a minimum sentence in Irish law, let me be quite clear; it is possible. The Criminal Justice Act, 1990 was passed while Deputy Ray Burke was Minister for Justice and it provided for a minimum sentence of 40 years imprisonment for persons convicted of killing a garda. Accordingly, there is no constitutional problem with my amendment. It remains to be seen, however, whether the House has the political will to deal with people who deal in drugs for substantial monetary gain. In this respect, all I ask is that the punishment for this heinous offence in future would reflect the gravity of the offence.
I support Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment. He has made a compelling case for its acceptance by all Members of the committee. Deputy O'Donoghue's statistics are worrying and an indication of the inadequate state of the laws against the drugs menace. No doubt this information was acquired by way of parliamentary question but it is an interesting audit of imposed sentences. We have not been successful in imprisoning the big players, either by way of detection or prosecution through the courts. When the majority of convicted drug dealers receive prison sentences of less than two years, we should reflect on the adequacy of the law with regard to the big players. I agree that it sends out the wrong message to society. It is not reflective of the mood of the Oireachtas which, in turn, reflects the mood of the people.
It is a reasonable amendment and the Minister should consider accepting it or a variation on it on Report Stage so that a clear message will go out to the big players in the drugs world that they will receive severe sentences if they are caught. It is worth pointing out, as Deputy Gregory has on many occasions, that we have legislated already for long sentences for drug offences and they are not being imposed. A review of this aspect of dealing with the drugs menace is timely.
The Government has indicated that the drugs crisis is at the top of its political agenda. It has indicated that it will seek the co-operation of our European partners to put the drugs menace at the top of Ireland's European Presidency agenda. It is appropriate, therefore, that the Minister consider accepting Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment now or on Report Stage.
I have raised this issue on a number of occasions in the context of specific court cases and the matter concerns me greatly. However, I am not sure that this is the way to deal with it. There is clearly a problem with the Judiciary. I do not know how critical one can be of the Judiciary in this forum, but we have heard the sentences and they speak for themselves. They give the impression that some members of the Judiciary are totally out of touch with the effect of drugs on disadvantaged communities in particular and the fact that the Oireachtas introduced life sentences for drug dealers in 1984. A drug dealer has never been given a life sentence. Clearly, the Government's message is not getting through to the Judiciary. The message from the Government is that the drugs issue is the number one priority.
Significant drug dealers, not the major barons, appeared in court in recent months and were given two year sentences while others got less than that. This amendment does not take into account the seriousness of a particular drug. Somebody, not necessarily a major drug baron, could be caught with a certain quantity of hash and be given ten years, yet someone caught with a lesser amount of heroin, who plays a significant role in a network which causes deaths and untold damage to young people, could get two years. If Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment related specifically to a minimum sentence for possession of heroin, I would fully support it. However, this amendment could allow the Judiciary to give stiffer sentences to people caught with cannabis than to those caught with heroin, as was seen in the courts recently. This shows no understanding of the effects or the nature of these drugs.
I am reluctant to say I am opposed to the amendment because I have raised this issue on many occasions. I support Deputy O'Donoghue's attempt to ensure that proper sentences are given to people who make money out of the misery of young people. I am concerned about the amendment because it could have the wrong effect and it could ensure that people in the drug dealing business concentrate on the more serious drug, heroin.
I support the amendment. Deputy O'Donoghue is trying to reflect what the people want. He is dealing with the sale and supply of drugs for a substantial profit of £10,000 or more for which a minimum sentence of ten years in prison should apply. That suggestion was made here in the 1980s when we mentioned life sentences in this area. We hope more substantial sentences will apply to show that the Oireachtas wants to crack down on dealers and to create a social environment in which it is unacceptable to deal in drugs. We have a small population and we want to create an environment in which drugs will not be sought and drug dealing will not be tolerated. The message we want to send is that there will be no place here for dealers and that they will receive the most severe treatment under the law. That is why life sentences were included earlier. The majority of these sentences are for less than two years and that is why there is frustration in the community about what we and the courts are doing.
People are attracted to dealing in drugs because of the large sums of easy money that can be made. That is why young people are used to carry drugs on airplanes or ships and to act as dealers for the drug barons. We want to stop this now and to put the dealers out of action.
We have discussed other measures and ideas, involving the Customs and Excise and the Revenue Commissioners. The Oireachtas must set out minimum sentences because substantial sentences are not being applied by the courts. Deputy Kemmy mentioned a taxi man who came up from Limerick with £100,000 to buy drugs. People must be told that if they want to get involved they will be caught and put out of business. There is no point in putting them out of business for a year or two; it must be for a substantial period. That is why I support Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.20 p.m.
