Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996

Vol. 462 No. 5

Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

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

The Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Bill, 1996, is one of the strongest anti-crime pieces of legislation ever introduced in this House. The Government believes that these measures, with the appropriate safeguards which have been included in the Bill, are a necessary and proportionate response to the grave threat posed to the community by the activities of drug traffickers. This Government is determined to do all in its power to thwart this deadly trade.

The Bill is part of the comprehensive anti-drugs package which the Government announced last year. The measures contained in the Bill will increase the powers of detention in relation to persons suspected of drug trafficking offences to provide for a maximum period of detention of up to 7 days; provide that further periods of detention after the first 48 hours may be authorised by a court before whom the person detained must be brought; allow for the detention of persons arrested for a drug trafficking offence where it is suspected they have concealed drugs in their persons, so-called "stuffers and swallowers", in places of detention specified by the Minister; allow members of the Garda Síochana not below the rank of superintendent to issue search warrants in drug trafficking cases where the warrant is urgently required; allow customs officers to be present at, and participate in, the questioning of suspects detained by the Garda in relation to drug trafficking offences.

Because of the nature of drug criminality and the efforts which are made to frustrate measures to defeat it, I am convinced that comprehensively tackling drug trafficking can only be achieved by providing a legislative framework which enables the Garda to take effective action. Consequently I believe that the provisions in this Bill, which give increased powers to the Garda to detain suspected drug traffickers for up to seven days, as well as the other measures contained in it are a necessary and proportionate response and provide the Garda with the armoury to deal with this deadly menace. Because of the large profits to be made through this vile trade in drugs, those who engage in it are constantly evolving new ways to evade detection. As well as that, the international nature of the trade is well documented. Primarily for these reasons I consider it necessary to provide for a power of detention which will give the Garda the means which are necessary to investigate suspected drug trafficking and which reduce the possibility that suspected drug traffickers could frustrate those efforts.

I have provided, in section 2, for a power of detention of up to seven days in cases of suspected drug trafficking. I know that seven days detention may sound like a rather draconian response but I believe it is a response which can be justified given the gravity of the problem which we are addressing once we insert specific and substantial safeguards in terms of the procedures under which it will operate. To that end the Bill provides that the detention permitted under section 2 will effectively be kept under regular review by breaking up the seven days into five separate stages. At the beginning of each of these stages there is a requirement that the person authorising the detention is satisfied that the detention is justified.

It is, of course, the case that the courts here would be unlikely to hold as constitutionally sound a provision which purports to allow seven day detention unless appropriate safeguards are included.

As well as having regard to requirements which arise under our Constitution we must have regard too to our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. As a party to that convention we must keep under review the jurisprudence which emerges in that regard. It is especially as a result of that jurisprudence that we have concluded that an essential safeguard which must be included in the legislation is that a person detained under section 2 for lengthy periods must be brought before a court during his or her period of detention. There is a significant corpus of jurisprudence under the convention to the effect that failure to bring a person, the subject of a lengthy period of detention, before a judicial authority is contrary to the convention.

The basis for this is found in Article 5 of the convention. Article 5 (1) states: "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person." However, deprivation of liberty is justified, according to Article 5 (1) (c), in cases of "the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so". Article 5 (3) states that everyone so arrested or detained shall be brought promptly before a judge.

Having regard to the relevant case law concerning Article 5, it would appear that an arrested person would have to be physically brought before the court and must be given an opportunity to be heard. The advice available to me is that to do so at the expiration of 48 hours after the arrest would not amount to a contravention of Article 5 (3). At that time the prosecution authority would have to be in a position to establish to the satisfaction of a judge, in relation to a person held on suspicion of having commited an offence, that there was a reasonable suspicion of the person having committed the specified offence, and that reasonable grounds existed for the continuance of that suspicion.

The main purpose of Article 5 (3), in relation to Article 5 (1) (c), is to afford to individuals deprived of their liberty a special guarantee, namely a procedure of a judicial nature designed to ensure that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty and to ensure that any arrest or detention will be kept as short as possible. Article 5 (3) impliedly stipulates that the detention must not exceed a reasonable time. The reasonableness of the grounds on which the detention is permitted becomes central to any consideration of whether Article 5 (3) is being observed.

The European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights have defined the powers and qualities required of a judicial officer to comply with the provisions of Article 5. These are that there should be complete independence when performing in the judicial capacity, the detainee should be present at the hearing and have the right to make representations, all the circumstances for and against release should be reviewed and there should be the power to order immediate release where continued detention is no longer justified.

Having regard to the European Convention and the jurisprudence which has built up in respect of Article 5, the approach being taken in the Bill is that a person arrested under section 2 must be brought before a judge after 48 hours. Even though the investigation will remain under Garda control, the involvement of the court at various stages of the investigation should satisfy the requirements of Article 5 in the context which I have outlined.

I believe that the provisions in section 2 for the involvement of a judge in the extension of the period of detention beyond 48 hours, together with the requirement that the detained person be brought before the court, will be seen as conforming not only with our obligations under the European Convention but also the constitutional imperatives which arise in this area.

Under section 2 there will be an initial period of detention of up to six hours, which may be extended for a further period of up to 18 hours and subsequently for a further period of up to 24 hours on the direction of a chief superintendent who, on each occasion that the extension is granted, has reasonable grounds for believing that the further period of detention is necessary for the proper investigation of the offence. Any periods of detention thereafter will involve the intervention of the courts so that a detained person must be brought before the court on the hearing of each application for his or her further detention beyond the first 48 hours and will be given the opportunity to make submissions or call evidence on his or her behalf. The court, if satisfied that the detention is necessary for the proper investigation of the offence and that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously, may extend the period of detention for up to a further 72 hours and for a final period of up to a further 48 hours. The garda who makes the application, who must be of the rank of at least chief superintendent, must, at the time of each application, have reasonable grounds for believing that the further detention is necessary for the proper investigation of the offence.

If the judge decides to issue a warrant for the further detention of a person he or she may at the same time order that the person be brought before the court again at any time or times during the specified period of detention and if the judge is not satisfied at that time that the detention is justified he or she shall order the immediate release of the person.

This approach, taken with other safeguards contained in the Bill, should allay any fears that the detention provisions are excessive or open to abuse. In this context I should mention specifically that Garda custody regulations will apply to persons detained under the Bill. The proposals are a measured response to the unacceptable threat posed by these so-called drug barons.

I mentioned earlier that those involved in the trade in illegal drugs are constantly evolving new ways to try to avoid detection, including the concealing of drugs within one's body — the problem, as it has become known, of "stuffers and swallowers". To provide for such cases the Bill makes provision for the making of regulations by the Minister for Justice to prescribe a special detention facility where a person who is suspected of concealing any controlled drug in his or her body may be detained. Such a place would be especially equipped to deal with cases of bodily concealment.

I have spent a considerable amount of time dealing with section 2. However, it is important for everyone to appreciate and understand the reasons for it. Section 2 will probably be seen as the most significant provision in the Bill and I am sure that when Deputies have had an opportunity to study its provisions in the light of what I had to say, in particular about the European Convention on Human Rights, they will agree that the way I have dealt with the issue is in accord with the convention, constitutional requirements and represents an appropriate response to the evil we want to be rid of.

Section 3 amends sections 2 and 4 of the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act, 1990, which deal respectively with the taking of bodily samples and the destruction of records and samples. The effect of the amendment of section 2 of the 1990 Act will be to allow for the taking of bodily samples in the case of a person detained under section 2 of the Bill. These powers are essential for the full and proper investigation of alleged drug trafficking offences.

I have mentioned, in relation to the detention powers to be permitted under section 2, that there are significant safeguards built into those provisions. Safeguards are also in place in section 4 in relation to the rearrest of persons suspected of drug trafficking. Section 4 generally prohibits the rearrest for the same suspected offence — or an offence which should have been reasonably suspected at the time — of a person previously detained under section 2 who has been released without being charged. Rearrest will only be permitted on the authority of a judge and only in cases where new information has come to the knowledge of the Garda Síochána since the person's release. Furthermore, the judge when authorising a rearrest may also order that the person be brought before a court on arrest or at any other time for the purposes of being satisfied that the detention is justified. If the judge is not satisfied that the detention is justified then the person will be released.

Section 4 also provides for a significant change in the procedures which follow detention on foot of a rearrest in that the intervention of the court is provided for at an earlier stage than is the case under section 2, which I outlined above. Thus, under section 4 the rearrested person may be detained initially for up to six hours which can be extended by up to 18 hours on the authority of a chief superintendent. Thereafter the detention period may be extended for periods up to 24 hours, 72 hours and 48 hours only on the authority of a judge, following procedures identical to those provided under section 2. Furthermore, if a person is rearrested on the authority of a judge for an offence which is not a drug trafficking offence that person will be dealt with, not under the provisions of this Bill, but under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984. In addition, the section makes it clear that where a person has been arrested under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, or detained under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, and is released without charge, that person cannot be arrested again under section 2 of the Bill for the same offence or for an offence which he or she was, or ought reasonably to have been suspected of having committed.

Here again my intention is to ensure that the legislation contains appropriate safeguards. As I explained, section 4 will enable rearrest only when certain conditions are satisfied, including a condition for further information to have come to the knowledge of the gardaí since the person's release, as to suspected participation in the alleged offence. This approach should help to remove any concerns that the provisions of the Bill are open to abuse. The section will not, however, prevent the gardaí from rearresting a person without a warrant for the purposes of immediately charging that person with an offence.

Section 5 applies various provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, to persons detained under section 2 so that, for example, when there are no longer reasonable grounds for suspecting a detained person of having committed an offence he or she must be released. It also covers such matters as the requirement that a person be charged when there is evidence to do so, the provision of medical attention, access to a solicitor and the destruction of records where a detained person is not prosecuted or where he or she is acquitted.

The Government announcement of July last on measures to combat drugs indicated that increased powers would be given to customs officers in relation to questioning of persons detained on suspicion of importing drugs. To this end section 6 is aimed at enhancing the co-operation between the Garda and the customs service in the fight against the trade in illegal drugs by providing that regulations may be made for the attendance of, and participation by, an officer of customs and excise in the questioning of a person detained under section 2 of the Bill or under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, where the offence is one related to drug trafficking. Section 6 also provides, importantly, that where officers of customs and excise are invited to participate in such questioning they will be subject to the same conditions as apply to gardaí under the regulations made under the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, for the treatment of detained persons.

The fight against the drugs menace is not an easy one and it is essential that we as legislators give the Garda all the necessary powers to respond to existing realities. The nature of the menace often requires quick action by the Garda. That is why I am providing, in section 7, for the amendment of section 26 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, to confer power on members of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent to issue search warrants in circumstances where a particular urgency arises and where this is necessary for the investigation of a drug trafficking offence. Because, as I say, such warrants will issue in circumstances of particular urgency, they will cease to have effect after 24 hours.

Section 9 is an important section in that it limits the period of operation of sections 2, 3, 4 5 and 6 to 12 months from the date of commencement, unless a resolution is passed by each House of the Oireachtas resolving that a section or sections shall continue in operation. This will give the House an opportunity to debate the effectiveness of these sections after they have been in operation for 12 months and at the end of any further periods for which the sections by resolution of the Oireachtas are coutinued in force.

I am sure that Deputies, and the public, will appreciate why we need to give the powers proposed in this Bill to those charged with the investigation and detection of crime. We must do everything in our power to isolate and remove the malignancy which those who trade in ilegal drugs bring to our society. I accept that the powers contained in the Bill are, by any standards, harsh but I hope that it will be understood that they are necessary and that any fears that they might be abused in any way will be allayed by the emphasis which has been put on providing safeguards, such as those in extending periods of detention against such abuse.

I again pay tribute to Deputy O'Donoghue for the work which he put into the Misuse of Drugs Bill and, indeed, all Members who contributed to the debate on that Bill. On the Order of Business the morning after that debate had concluded, Deputy Bertie Ahern requested that the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Bill should be incorporated in the Government's Bill. I hope Deputy O'Donoghue can agree that the broad thrust of much of what he proposed in his Bill is addressed in the Bill before the House today in a manner that should prove effective in practice and withstand legal challenge. Any differences of opinion which we may have can be discussed fully on Committee Stage. During the Second Stage debate of Deputy O'Donoghue's Bill, I indicated a number of infirmities in it which could be open to legal challenge. I have implemented in this Bill many of the matters which Deputy O'Donoghue set out to do but I ensured the infirmities in his Bill will not weaken this one.

I intend on Committee Stage to bring forward an amendment to deal with a particular problem in the law as it relates to Garda powers of entry to premises where a public dance hall licence is in force. At present, section 13 of the Public Dance Halls Act, 1935, gives any member of the Garda Síochána in uniform power to enter such venues to make such inspection, examination and inquiry as he thinks proper. In the context of investigation of drug related offences, the requirement that the garda must be in uniform is unhelpful to efforts to obtain evidence of drug dealing in dance halls. To remedy this, I propose to amend the 1935 Act to give power to members of the Garda to enter such places, whether in uniform or not, in connection with investigating suspected drug trafficking offences.

I want to refer to a matter raised on the Order of Business — I know at least one Member will raise it today because she flagged it in a statement she issued to the newspapers yesterday. The Deputy will be well aware that the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána is responsible for the day to day operations of the Garda Síochána. In keeping with precedent set down by all previous Ministers for Justice, I do not get involved in the day to day operations, nor do I direct operations, of the Garda Síochána. That is a matter for the Garda Commissioner. On the issue raised during the Order of Business, the investigation is ongoing and spans more than this country. It would be inappropriate, and has never been appropriate for any Minister for Justice, Taoiseach or Member of this House to in any way jeopardise an ongoing investigation or cause danger to people involved by seeking to get operational details exposed here or anywhere else.

Deputies O'Donnell and O'Donoghue raised questions about this operation. There is a precedent set down by previous Ministers where, on rare occasions, a Minister of the day may decide to make available to the Opposition spokespersons, who may be Ministers in waiting, an opportunity to get briefing from the Garda even if an operation and investigation were still continuing. That briefing was given to Deputy O'Donnell last Saturday and Deputy O'Donoghue today; it was offered to him last Saturday.

Deputies must be realistic about what information they can expect me or any other Minister for Justice to make public about an ongoing investigation without demanding information that would force me or any other Minister to jeopardise it. I say those words in anticipation of being pressed to break with precedent and somehow expose and outline the full day to day operations and investigations of the Garda on any crime committed. I do not want to keep information from this House, but it is utterly inappropriate for me or any Deputy to seek to expose such information.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I also want to refer to the matters dealt with during the Order of Business. To correct the Taoiseach, I received a private briefing from the Garda which was offered and accepted. This offer came from the Minister for Justice. I also appreciate that one must not breach a confidence and I would not do so under any circumstances. Anything which has been said to me on a confidential basis would remain so.

There had been a considerable number of newspaper articles concerning the seizure of illegal drugs at Urlingford, County Kilkenny, on 8 November 1995. Some of these reports, one as late as last Sunday, referred to the possibility of this having being a sting type operation. While what happened in Urlingford is confidential, in so far as it came out into the public domain such a matter could not be regarded as being confidential. In this context, the hard political questions which must be asked in the House relate to what happened subsequent to Urlingford.

On 9 November 1995, my party leader, in congratulating the Naval Service, the Garda and the other arms of State involved in this operation asked the Taoiseach why it appeared that the drug barons seemed to have escaped once again.

The Taoiseach said in reply:

Obviously, one would not expect to find the drug barons in the lorry. That they were not apprehended on the spot should not warrant the significance Deputy Ahern attaches to it.

This appeared to indicate that the Taoiseach felt Deputy Ahern attached undue significance to the fact that neither the drug barons nor the driver or drivers of the lorry were captured. If he gave weight to the question asked by Deputy Ahern, the only question he had to answer is whether the information he gave to Deputy Ahern that morning was correct.

When I raised the matter on the Ajournment later the same day the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Deputy Burton, said in reply at column 135, volume 458 of the Official Report: "I take the opportunity to congratulate the Garda on the success of the operation yesterday which resulted in the largest ever seizure of cannabis in the State." It is a matter for the Minister and Minister of State in due course to tell the House whether a misleading impression was conveyed.

Mrs. Owen

In what way was it misleading?

Mr. O'Donoghue

On 14 December I put some questions to the Minister, as did Deputy O'Donnell. In response to a question from Deputy O'Donnell about drugs seizures the Minister said at column 1803, volume 459 of the Official Report: "I have already raised that question following the massive haul of drugs found at Urlingford..." I then put it to her:

I do not believe it would hinder any investigation if the Minister were to say whether the identity of those who purchased the drugs found at Urlingford is known to the Garda. Further, is the identity of those who transported the drugs into the country and handled them also known to the Garda?

The Minister said in reply:

I regret that I cannot make any comment about a case that is under investigation by the Garda. It would be inappropriate for me to say anything about an ongoing investigation lest I do damage to the integrity of the investigation process.

Mrs. Owen

The investigation is ongoing.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The question she has to address in the context of media reports, in particular the report in the most recent edition of the Sunday Business Post, is whether the seizure of drugs at Urlingford on 8 November amounted to a haul and whether an investigation was ongoing, as stated on 14 December.

Mr. Creed

Trial my media.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I will not push the matter further other than to say that, in the light of these reports, it would appear a misleading impression was conveyed to the House by people who knew otherwise.

The introduction of this Bill, which has been long promised by the Minister, brings to an end the legislative drought which has beset the Department of Justice since the formation of the rainbow coalition. It is the first crime prevention measure to be introduced by the Government in its 15 months in office and I hope it signals an end to the intellectual famine which has been the hallmark of this administration's criminal justice policy. In so far as it provides much needed powers for the Garda, it is welcome.

It is, however, regrettable that a prolonged process of Cabinet guerrilla warfare has taken its toll on the Bill and, as published, it contains many diluted ideologies. The Minister is not responsible for this dilution, although she has the unfortunate task of standing over aspects of the Bill which, as a result of enforced Cabinet compromise, are legally unsound and, in some instances, intellectually absurd. Credit for the dilution of the Bill must go to her colleagues who place the rights of the accused above the rights of victims, who believe that the Constitution is a shield to protect the guilty rather than a sword to avenge the victim.

Chief among those who have waged an insidious campaign against this Bill is the Tánaiste ably abetted, as always, by his multilingual sidekick, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, whose many friends in the recent past survived as long as they did by subverting the wishes of the majority. This follically enhanced faction has done everything in its power to undermine and subvert the wish of the vast majority in this House to clear the undergrowth in which the drug dealers lurk and return the streets to the people. Whatever the merit of their argument, their methods have been reprehensible. I disagree profoundly with their crime protectionist policies. The rights of victims ought to be to the fore.

The clear light of parliamentary debate has been shunned by this Machiavellian couple who have been afraid to make their arguments in public. They have remained in the shadows, furtively whispering and scheming, seeking to achieve by innuendo what they cannot achieve by open debate and smirking in smug satisfaction as another political ambush is executed.

The Tánaiste has become the master of unattributed comment, an off-the-record maestro — Mr. Anonymous himself. I invite him to shed his cloak of secrecy and step into the clear light of day. I invite him to explain his opposition to the plans as first announced by the Minister and justify his veto on the bail referendum. He should speak in the daylight what he whispers in the shadows and discard his Svengali mode. He should be manly and speak for himself openly, transparently and publicly. Does the Minister have his full support and, if so, will he release journalists from their ethical duty not to disclose what he has said to them concerning her?

This House has seen sufficient political vampires — men who, in the secrecy of the dark and the shadows, try to inflict political wounds on their partners in Government which they have neither the political character nor the courage to attempt openly. The Tánaiste is such a man. So, too, is the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa. He has shown as little regard for the victims of crime as he once showed for the victims of his political mentors, the Communist Party of the old Soviet Union. His conduct in this House in recent times amply demonstrated his disregard for fair dealing and accountability. As he sits in Cabinet, scheming the downfall of the Government on its next budget, he represents a permanent impediment to progressive criminal justice legislation. His veto is absolute, as we know, from the formation of the Government. He awaits an excuse to depart and, lamentably, Fine Gael is not prepared to face him down. No price is too high and no compromise too exacting. What Democratic Left wants, it gets.

An Ceann Comhairle

It seems the Deputy is deviating considerably from the subject matter before the House.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I am speaking about its gestation, as opposed to its publication. What is the point in having any Fine Gael Minister in the Government? If Fine Gael cannot implement a law and order policy, what is the point in being in Government? It is a party which has abandoned the substance of power in order to wear its trappings. Fine Gael Ministers exist to implement cosmetic socialist policies. On the rare occasions such as this when a Fine Gael Bill survives the attrition process of political treachery in the corridors of power it has been diluted into virtual insignificance. It is regrettable that the Bill carries all the signs of having been through such a mill.

An example of the manner in which the Bill has been rendered virtually unworkable can be seen in section 2, the provisions of which are intended to permit the detention of certain suspects for up to seven days. For reasons presumably known to the Minister and certainly to the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, a decision has been taken to the effect that a detained person must be brought before a court and afforded the opportunity to give and call evidence and make submissions before a period of detention can be extended. This will render the detention section of the Bill virtually unworkable.

On 12 October last when the Minister expanded on the details of this previously announced package she said the increased power of detention was necessary as "due to the international dimension which often exists in such cases, it may be necessary for the Garda to make extensive inquiries in other countries when a person has been detained in connection with a suspected offence of illegal importation of drugs". Without additional powers many persons detained in connection with serious offences may have to be released before investigations are sufficiently advanced.

How does the Minister propose to advance the interests of the Garda in investigating international drug trafficking by compelling them to go to court and disclose to the detained person and the public at large the extent of their knowledge? It is possible to envisage anything more damaging to the interests of justice than an open public court hearing at an early stage of an investigation where the Garda are forced to disclose their hand? It flies in the face of logic and reason for such a provision to be included in the Bill.

It is particularly baffling that this provision was inserted without legal justification. Suspects detained under the provisions of section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 do not have to be given the information on which gardaí base their suspicions. Suspects detained under that Act whose period of detention is being extended by a superintendent do not have to be given the information on which he reached his decision. They do not have to be given the opportunity to make submissions as to why they should be released. A similar position pertains to persons detained under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939.

The Minister must accept that for the detention powers to be effective the application to the court must be ex parte as provided for in Part I of the Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1996 which Fianna Fáil introduced some weeks ago. The Minister's Bill gives rise to more questions than it seeks to answer. What provision has she made for a detained person to be informed of the case to be made for his or her further detention? What time frame does she envisage suitable for the accused to consider the information, consult a solicitor and instruct counsel before the hearing? What provisions have been made for the application of the legal aid scheme to such a contested hearing? Does the Minister envisage that a detained person will not have a right of appeal from a decision of a court at such a hearing? If power of appeal does not exist, why? The Minister chose to take detention out of the realm of supervised administrative law and to insert it needlessly in the mainstream of criminal law. That decision will have consequences the Minister's advisers have not foreseen. Fair procedures, as set out in a series of decisions by the High and Supreme Courts, must apply to a hearing as envisaged by the Minister. I would remind the Minister of the words of Mr. Justice Gannon in the case of the State (Healy) v. Donoghue (1976), page 335 of Irish Reports 325, at page 335 where it is stated:

Among the natural rights of an individual whose conduct is impugned and whose freedom is put in jeopardy are the rights to be adequately informed of the nature and substance of the accusation, to have the matter tried in his presence by an impartial and independent court or arbitrator, to hear and test by examination the evidence offered by or on behalf of his accuser, to be allowed to give or call evidence in his defence, and to be heard in argument or submission before judgement is given.

There is no doubt the scheme envisaged in this Bill is one whereby a suspect is a person whose conduct is being impugned and whose freedom is put in jeopardy. In the same case, Chief Justice O'Higgins stated:

If the right to be represented is now an acknowledged right of an accused person, justice requires something more when, because of a lack of means, a person facing a serious charge cannot provide a lawyer for his own defence. In my view the concept of justice under the Constitution requires that in such circumstances the person charged must be afforded an opportunity of being represented. This opportunity must be provided by the State. Only in this way can justice be done, and only by recognising and discharging this duty can the State be said to vindicate the personal rights of the person charged.

By acceding to the demands of the Tánaiste and the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, the Minister agreed to create a complex maze through which hapless gardaí will have to stumble blindfolded before the detention provisions can be utilised.

In seeking to grant customs officers powers to question and detain suspects, it is regrettable the Minister exacerbated rather than improved the existing position. Section 6 demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge of the realities of drug importation on the part of its authors. Customs officers are often to the fore in this area of law enforcement. They are frequently the first to encounter drug smugglers. At present they do not have adequate statutory power or authority to question suspects in the first vital minutes. I had hoped the Minister recognised this and would move towards providing such a statutory power. I was puzzled by her somewhat confused comments on section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1996, which I introduced. It is clear she failed to grasp its significance. The publication of this Bill, without granting any such power to customs officers, is a cause of concern. In the debate on the Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1996 she stated:

I have to confess that this provision is a mystery to me. While it is the case that the Government indicated that it was the intention to provide an increase in the powers of customs officers in relation to the questioning of the person detained on suspicion of importing illegal drugs, we did not envisage bringing about a situation where the role of the gardaí in putting together evidence for use in a prosecution might be supplanted.

Those comments confirmed my earlier suspicion that she was badly briefed on this topic. For the avoidance of doubt and the assistance of the Minister's advisers, I will spell out in detail why it is necessary to give customs officers the powers contained in my Bill, rather than the somewhat strangled ones contained in this Bill.

Customs officials are frequently the first persons to encounter drug traffickers. At present there is no adequate statutory power to enable them to question suspects in the first few vital minutes. In the People v. Farrell [1978], Irish Reports 13, Chief Justice O'Higgins described the Judges Rules as follows:

The Judges Rules are not rules of law. They are rules for the guidance of persons taking statements. However, they have stood the test of time and will be departed from at peril.

Widespread confusion exists as to whether the Judges Rules apply to customs officers. They are, however, utilised by officials in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry when investigating breaches of the animal remedies Act. The existing legal confusion can render comments made by suspects after detention by customs officials inadmissible at trial. A statutory scheme to enable customs officials to question suspects in the absence of gardaí is necessary. As the Minister's Bill, if passed, will be a criminal statute, it will have to be construed strictly. Thus, courts will be compelled to take the view that the only power which customs officials have to question is the power contained in the Bill. This will result in potentially relevant answers being ruled inadmissible. I hope the Minister will ask her officials to reexamine this oversight as it has potential to create serious mischief in the immediate future.

The most disappointing features of the Bill are not the measures included in a diluted form but those that are omitted. The legislation, which has had a gestation period approaching that of the average elephant, is profoundly disappointing. It fails to address the horrendous delays occasioned by our present system of preliminary examination. In the recent debate on the Fianna Fáil Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1996 the Minister stated that "there would have to be strong grounds for doing away with a procedure which ensures that in the early stages of proceedings an opportunity is provided to have a court assess, in effect, whether there is a case which should be brought to trial". With due respect to the Minister, her comments display a detachment from courtroom reality. She has been made to throw up excuses for inaction which have neither substance nor reality. Does she know that in only a tiny percentage of criminal cases a District Court judge refuses to return an accused for trial? This fails to justify the retention of an expensive, time consuming and cumbersome system.

Can the Minister seriously contend, in the latter part of the 20th century, that it is in the interests of justice that every accused person should have the absolute right to have every word of evidence dictated to a District Court clerk and transcribed in longhand before a trial can commence? Are the people well served by this procedure? Do victims applaud it as a manifestation of a fair and reasonable system or is it a nonsense? I believe it is the latter and I have manifested my view by introducing legislation which would remove the nonsense and speed up the preliminary stages of a criminal trial. The Progressive Democrats followed by introducing broadly similar legislation.

There is an onus on the Government to act. The Minister's protestations in this House recently that this is a matter which she is examining at present in the context of measures which would speed up the trial process and that this, in turn, arises from the formulation of proposals in relation to bail amounts to a statement that nothing can be done until the Minister does something. It is a frank admission that the Government's criminal justice policy is in a tangle, with no discernible plan for any one area. We know there will be no progress on bail — the Tánaiste has vetoed the referendum and the Minister has stated that no progress can be made without a referendum.

There is no sense in spinning forever in concentric circles. The Government's policy is that nothing can be done about criminal procedure until something is done about courts; nothing can be done about courts until something is done about bail and nothing can be done about bail because the Tánaiste will not agree to it. He sent his anonymous ventriloquist to speak to the Sunday Independent last week to insist that the Cabinet is preparing the ground to drop the referendum proposal. His spokesman insists that any response will be legislative. Why is the Tánaiste permitted to publicly contradict the Minister for Justice on her area of responsibility? Why has he been given the power to publicly rubbish the Minister's proposals? Why has he a power of veto and who gave it to him?

Crime will continue unabated as long as the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare hold their veto. That has the effect of paralysing the Government. It has already succeeded in having a full 15 months pass before the first crime prevention measure was introduced by the Minister. This is incontrovertible fact. The claim by the Minister that the Court and Court Officers Act, 1995 is a crime prevention measure is nonsense. What crime does it prevent? What power does it give to the Garda?

Equally her claim that the Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) Act is a crime prevention Act is patently incorrect. It is a regulatory Act and, if the Minister were to examine it in detail, she would accept that its principal sections were lifted from the corresponding Fianna Fáil Bill. These were the two measures instanced by the Minister as achievements in the area of criminal law reform when she spoke in the House recently. They represent the sum total of the claimed achievements of the Minister in the area of crime prevention legislation after 15 months in office — one Act which prevents trials being transferred from Cork and one Act which represents 45 minutes of legal transcription.

As always, the Minister is knee-deep in committees and promises. Six months after its publication the Minister claims to be still studying the Law Reform Commission report on bail. Many Members believe that the Minister has had an opportunity to memorise the report. What is delaying progress is not the Minister but Cabinet warfare.

The Minister has said that she proposes to introduce a criminal law Bill dealing with statutory powers of arrest, a Non-fatal Offences against the Person Bill, a Juvenile Justice Bill, a Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and a Fraud Bill. Members will believe it when we see the Bills. It is indicative of the reign of confusion which exists under this Government that when I asked the Taoiseach at the start of this session what legislation would be introduced he was of the view that the Minister was well advanced in working on a Criminal Insanity Bill. It is probably too much to hope that the Taoiseach might have a grasp on legislation which his Government proposals to introduce.

The bottleneck of promises and the instances of talk but no action confirm the existence of a legislative veto. In 15 months which saw savage criminality we have been given one diluted Bill. The issue of bail, which is top of every other agenda, is receiving "consideration", "study", "is being assessed", "is under review", "is nearing completion", "is being contemplated", and "is under active management". Proposals will emanate from the Government "soon", "in the near future"; they are "imminent", "awaited" and "advanced". The Minister has run out of adjectives and excuses. No progress can be made until the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare lift their veto.

While they seek a philosophical solution, reality continues unabated. The bail system is in a shambles. Last year the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court dealt with 831 new cases. Warrants for arrest were issued in 189 cases. Only one application was made to estreat bail — it appears this Government views bail as a licence to abscond. Who will accept responsibility for this scandal? Who is in charge of this Government's criminal justice policy? The answer to both questions is the same — nobody. As the buxom singer, Dolly Parton, said: "The way I see it, if you want a rainbow you have got to live with the rain".

The investigation of drug trafficking offences is a serious and onerous task for the authorities. It is of paramount importance that they be given every protection and the legislation and resources it is feasible to give them to help them destroy the peddlers in death, to destroy their operations and the methods of destruction which they distribute. It is also of fundamental importance that people in public life must never count the success of the authorities' operations as being a personal, political success. The success of those operations is obviously a cause of great joy and pride to everybody and it behoves politicians and Ministers to ensure that a misleading impression is never created in this House or elsewhere about seizures or fines by the Garda Síochána. If this happened in the recent past, in light of reports we have seen in newspapers, it certainly behoves those who created that misleading impression to correct it and, where and when necessary, to correct the Official Report.

My party is totally committed to the work of the Garda Síochána, the customs service and the Navy in this area. In so far as we can, if we are in office at some future date, we will exhibit that materially. Meanwhile, they will have our full support in their work.

Ms O'Donnell

The Bill's explanatory memorandum makes it clear that this Bill is the legislative element of a package approved in July 1995 by this Government. The Bill deals with increased Garda powers of detention in drug trafficking cases, the issue of warrants by members of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of Superintendent and includes participation by customs officers in the questioning of persons detained by the Garda in connection with drug trafficking offences.

Drug trafficking has presented the State with problems of a type, scale and sophistication which our present laws are not equipped to confront. The Bill responds to this exceptional problem by conferring exceptional powers on the Garda. The principal way this is done is by extending the power to detain a suspect for the purposes of investigating the offence. Previously the limit was 12 hours in the case of offences carrying a sentence of five years or more or 48 hours in the case of offences to which the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 applied. Under this legislation, detention without charge for up to two weeks is possible in the context of a drug trafficking offence.

Since 1983 there have been many instances of large drug consignments coming into Ireland. Gradually the powers of the Garda and the Customs and Excise branch of the Revenue Commissioners have been built up to deal with crime and smuggling, as this was then known. These procedures have been criticised by many as they are bound by the general right to silence, the lack of any realistic powers of interrogation and the adversarial system of prosecution. Given the limitations of the common law and the existing statute law, it has proven extremely difficult to successfully prosecute any substantial drug dealers.

There has been increasing evidence of sophisticated drug smuggling into Ireland, particularly along the south coast. A drugs offence becomes a statistic when drugs are found or a person is convicted of one of the drugs offences. The problem appears to have grown quicker than our procedures have developed. Highly organised armed criminal gangs control the drugs trade and, despite the welcome recent successful seizures by the Garda and Customs and Excise officers, it is clear that a range of procedural and legislative measures is required to ensure prosecutions and convictions.

The Progressive Democrats Party supports the measures in the Bill which will strengthen the arm of the investigating authorities in bringing people suspected of drug trafficking and other drug-related offences to justice. Apart from its tragic effect on young people, including death from heroin and ecstasy, drug addiction has an enormous impact on crime. The introduction of a new viciousness into crime as a result of drug abuse makes it imperative that radical measures be introduced and given the sanction of Dáil Éireann. However, the Minister has said she views the comprehensive reforms proposed in the Prosecution of Offences and Punishment of Crimes Bill, 1996, as unrealistic and is determined to vote them down tomorrow evening. We have proposed that the absolute right to silence should be curtailed and support the measures for increased detention of suspects as proposed in this Bill. The time has come to carry out an examination as to whether the legal system should be made more inquisitorial in nature. There is a public perception that the guilty use the adversarial nature of the criminal justice system to escape justice. In other words, sophisticated criminals with sophisticated lawyers are taking advantage of the rules which have been built up over many years to protect an accused to such an extent that the pitch of the law is now balanced too much in their favour and not sufficiently balanced in favour of the public interest, which must be the overriding concern.

The Bill is carefully crafted to ensure its constitutionality and it embodies the necessary safeguards to allow the provisions to survive a constitutional challenge. As far as I am aware, no public study or assessment has been carried out to ascertain the extent to which drugs are being smuggled into the country for transhipment elsewhere or the quantities being imported for local use. As an island nation we are susceptible to being used as a major transhipment facility for large quantities of drugs to the United Kingdom, continental Europe and America.

There was an impressive series of drugs seizures in 1995 which culminated in the largest ever seizure of illegal drugs in Ireland and, possibly, the United Kingdom on 8 November when cannabis resin to the value of £150 million was seized by Garda at Urlingford. This seizure was presented to the public in a blaze of media publicity. Despite all the euphoria and worthy congratulations on the successful joint operation, the first in which the National Drugs Task Force was involved, many questions about the details remained unanswered. It appears that much of the information given by Garda sources surrounding the circumstances of the seizure was misleading. I would like to know to what extent the Minister was aware that misleading information was given to the very experienced political and security correspondents covering the story. It is very difficult in the field of justice and the related security issue for an Opposition Deputy to tread the narrow path between public responsibility on the one hand and the public's right to know or at least not to be actively deceived on the other. I am very conscious of the need to be supportive and not to criticise the Garda Síochána or anyone else in the discharge of their duties in this area. It is important to maximise public confidence in our ability to tackle major crime issues, particularly highly organised and sophisticated crime such as drug trafficking.

Last week I tabled a question to the Minister for Justice on foot of information I had received about the Urlingford drug seizure in November 1995. Extensive briefings concerning the background to the seizure given to newspaper correspondents were widely carried in the newspapers. It was stated that the surveillance operation was prematurely ended because of an alleged leak to the media, that the shipment was loaded onto a trawler from a "mother" ship a few hundred miles off the south-west coast — this was according to intelligence — and that despite the surveillance at sea and a close watch on all ports the smugglers apparently managed to off-load the shipment from a trawler onto a 40 ft. container which was ultimately seized yards inside the Tipperary border on the main Dublin-Cork road. It was also stated that the size of the shipment shocked gardaí at the scene — 15 tonnes were seized in a single swoop — that the Naval Service had been keeping suspicious movements of trawlers under radar surveillance and that three men and a woman from Finglas detained in connection with the consignment were carrying £230,000 in cash.

At the time I joined in congratulating the Garda on their success in the drugs seizure. However, I found it disturbing that the entire operation could have been sabotaged and prosecutions jeopardised by a leak to the media, which was the spin put on it. I immediately raised the matter in the Dáil at Question Time on 9 November. When I asked whether an investigation was ongoing into the alleged media leak the Minister of State, Deputy Currie, tried to portray my legitimate questions as criticism of the Garda, which they were not. Surely such a leak would warrant a full investigation, given that it has allegedly sabotaged the entire operation and jeopardised prosecutions. Surely it would constitute a major breach of security and could have jeopardised the lives of the gardaí involved in the operation, not to mention the possibility of prosecutions. We now know that the drugs were subsequently destroyed by the Garda and that no prosecutions were brought against any person. What has happened to the £230,000 in sterling seized by the Garda and in respect of which no person has been charged? Will this money be returned to those persons?

On Monday, 25 February I tabled a question for written reply to the Minister as follows:

To ask the Minister for Justice if her attention or the attention of any person in her Department has been drawn to any Garda sting type or entrapment operation involving the importation of a large quantity of illegal drugs into the State; if so, if the Garda Commissioner is aware of the operation; if such an operation existed, the person who authorised it; when it was initiated; the outcome of the operation; if she or the Garda Commissioner were informed of such Garda operation, if any, prior to, during or subsequent to the completion of the operation; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

The purpose of this question was to ascertain the extent of the Minister's knowledge of any Garda sting type or entrapment operation and to elicit from her whether she had been aware of such an operation and, more importantly, whether she was aware that misleading information had subsequently been given to the media about the motivation, outcome etc. of the entire operation. The reply was unusually and suspiciously delayed and after several inquiries with the General Office and the Department of Justice the carefully worded reply — changes were made to it at the last minute — was faxed to my office after 6 p.m.

Mrs. Owen

How does the Deputy know that?

Ms O'Donnell

I know because I was in contact with the Minister's office.

Mrs. Owen

I still have parliamentary questions to check and how quickly this is done depends on my workload. Does the Deputy have any idea of how the system works?

Ms O'Donnell

Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle protect me from the Minister?

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy will not get much protection from me in the future. I will not offer her anything again.

Ms O'Donnell

My simple question had been tabled in the usual way with notice and I would like to know why it was so difficult to reply to it. Was this the first time the Minister had been made aware of the detail of the operation? Had the Garda Commissioner briefed her on the matter and, if so, when? Did she approve of misleading information being given to the media and did she willingly participate in the charade of the seizure at Urlingford? Was she aware that the Garda had not, as had been stated, merely watched the unloading of the drugs but had been involved in the handling as part of an elaborate separate operation? Why was it necessary to so mislead the public and the media? Why were the drugs not seized at the point of entry or at the point where the Garda took possession of the consignment on the high seas? What was the Customs and Excise involvement in this matter and did it approve of this style of operation? How was the vessel which delivered the shipment to Ireland via a mother ship permitted to escape without trace while under surveillance by the Naval vessel the LE Deirdre? Why were no charges brought against any individuals given that the shipment was under surveillance from the moment it entered Irish territorial waters and was landed in Cork? Was the Customs and Excise service involved in the seizure, given that its job is to stop the importation of drugs at the first perimeter of defence, that is the Irish border. How much did the entire operation cost and who or what agency defrayed the cost? Were Garda lives put at risk by this operation?

On the difficulties experienced by the Minister and her officials in answering my question, I would like to know if this was the first time the Minister's attention had been brought to the truth of the operation. I note the Minister did not deny that there had been a sting type or entrapment operation. She failed also to answer the specific question as to who, if anyone, authorised the operation, and whether she or the Garda Commissioner had any knowledge of it at a relevant time.

On Friday last the Minister offered me a briefing on this matter before which I made it clear that I was not prepared to be compromised into silence by a confidential briefing. After that briefing I am still of the opinion there are serious questions to be answered. The Minister must account for the fact that the public were misled over a prolonged period of time in the handling of the matter.

Mr. L. Burke

I do not think the Deputy will get another similar offer from the Minister.

Ms O'Donnell

Before I raised it in the House, the matter was speculated upon in The Irish Times in December last and over the weekend in the sunday Business Post.

Was the consignment of drugs in question imported to Irish territory with ministerial authority? At what level was the importation operation authorised? When were the Minister and the Taoiseach informed of the importation proposal? Were the Revenue Commissioners prepared to go along with the operation? Was this truly an operation which had the unanimous support of the National Drugs Task Force?

The Garda Press Office had disputed media claims that the drug shipment in question was a sting which went wrong, but was it a sting which went right? If so, why all the cloak and dagger carry on? Suggestions have been made that the operation was compromised by leaks to the media by customs officers in Cork. However, Revenue sources have denied this and said they had only been involved in the operation at a later stage. What is the truth? We know that the cannabis was burned in an ESB power station in December and that nobody has been charged in connection with the Urlingford find.

It would be better if the Minister clarified to the House the extent of her knowledge and involvement and approval of this operation. I would like her view of the subsequent media handling of the matter. If it was part of an elaborate international operation, why not just seize the drugs at the point when they came into the possession of the Garda? What was the need to do so in a blaze of publicity at Urlingford? If secrecy and confidentiality are essential, warranting misinformation for the media, why have a blaze of publicity about the seizure? Surely that might compromise an international operation. Was there ever any hope of bringing prosecutions against anybody in this whole episode? Would the drugs have been brought into the country without the co-operation of the Garda and Naval authorities?

There are various reports of 13 tonnes of cannabis and, in other places in the media, 15 tonnes of cannabis. What is the correct figure? Was this the figure which was intended to be intercepted, and was it all safely transhipped and landed in Ireland and subsequently seized? Are there dangers of breaches of security in relation to such dangerous operations? What does the Director of Public Prosecutions feel about the propriety of such entrapment operations, if they exist?

The Minister opened her reply with a preamble as to Garda operations being subject to the rule of law, constitutional rights, public interest and the law of evidence. What is the point of this lecture? One would have thought that went without saying. Has the legality or propriety of this operation been challenged by the Attorney General, the DPP or anybody in her Department? Is the reference to evidence a suggestion that the modus operandi may have jeopardised the possible prosecutions of persons by the inadmissibility of evidence acquired in such circumstances?

The reply also states that the Minister "is informed by Garda authorities", significantly not the Garda Commissioner. Was the Garda Commissioner made aware of this operation, and did he fully brief the Minister at any material time?

Is the investigation ongoing? The Minister today indicated that the reason she could not give any information to the House was because the investigation is ongoing. That answers that question.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy was told that. She knows the answer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy in possession, without interruption.

Ms O'Donnell

If the investigation is not ongoing, why not, given that a major amount of drugs was involved? If it is ongoing, why were the drugs destroyed, since the evidence would be material to any prosecutions pending? Who originally paid for the drugs? Was it criminals and, if so, how was it passed to the supplier of the drugs? How was the balance to be paid? Why have there been no prosecutions so far? Why can the evidence of the source not be used? Surely he could identify the persons who were purchasing the drugs. What is the connection of the persons in possession of large amounts of money who were arrested but not charged?

There are many questions. The more one asks questions the more questions proliferate. My role as Opposition spokesperson on Justice is as clearly defined as that of the Minister. It is my job to hold her accountable and hers to be accountable to the Dáil. I have no interest in getting involved in any dispute with the Garda——

Mrs. Owen

Not half.

Ms O'Donnell

——in the media or elsewhere, in any analysis, critical or otherwise, of the rights and wrongs of this or any other operation. The Garda are not accountable to me. They are accountable to the Minister and, through her, this House.

I am most unhappy with the process whereby the Minister invited me, by way of a briefing, to become politically trapped in an entrapment operation.

Mrs. Owen

That is disgraceful, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Ms O'Donnell

I understand that senior security correspondents in the Irish newspapers——

Mrs. Owen

On a point of order——

Ms O'Donnell

It is not a point of order.

Mrs. Owen

That is a very serious allegation about my character and my reasons.

Ms O'Donnell

I withdraw any such allegation.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy knows that there is a precedent in offering from time to time a briefing to the Opposition spokespersons. I did that with all responsibility, hoping they would be similarly responsible.

Ms O'Donnell

It was unsolicited.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy is now implying that I somehow set her up in a trap.

Ms O'Donnell

Not at all.

Mrs. Owen

That is a maligning of my character——

Ms O'Donnell

I meant no such maligning of the Minister's character.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has already set the record straight on that matter.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy should not accuse me of trapping her.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Allow the Deputy in possession to continue.

Mrs. Owen

Will the Chair protect me?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Political charges are political charges. The Minister can be assured of protection from the Chair when personalised issues are involved. It has been said before from this Chair that Members should not be oversensitive about political charges.

Mrs. Owen

It is not a political charge. It is a charge of entrapment.

Ms O'Donnell

I made it clear prior to this briefing——

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy is a disgrace.

Ms O'Donnell

I am just being heckled by the Government side.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us hear the Deputy in possession.

Ms O'Donnell

I made it clear when I agreed to this briefing, which was unsolicited, that I would not be compromised into silence by it. I understand that senior security correspondents in the Irish newspapers were similarly persuaded not to raise this matter and that enormous pressure was put on a Sunday newspaper not to print a piece last Sunday.

In particular, I regret the Taoiseach's suggestion on the Order of Business that the matter should not be raised because the Opposition had been offered briefings. I made it clear that I would not be compromised or fitted out with "concrete boots" on this important matter. The briefing offered by the Minister was unsolicited, and its contents have not changed my mind. I will not permit myself to be silenced by it or prevented from pressing very serious questions which I had already tabled before I was offered the briefing.

Is all this secrecy really necessary in the public interest? If secrecy is so vital, why was there a blaze of publicity and media briefings organised when the drugs were seized at Urlingford? Why were we all involved or invited to be involved in this charade? What is so very wrong with telling the truth?

At this stage, there are so many versions of the truth, starting with the media spin and the massive publicity in the newspapers at the time and the off-the-record spin that was given to journalists who had raised legitimate questions arising out of the first briefing.

Mrs. Owen

By whom?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us hear the Deputy in possession.

Mrs. Owen

Is the Deputy accusing me?

Ms O'Donnell

I never mentioned the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No accusations have been heard.

Ms O'Donnell

The Minister is looking for a fight.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us hear the Member in possession.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy is trying to leave the impression hanging in the air that I gave that briefing. Why else would she raise it?

Ms O'Donnell

Sting operations are very much part and parcel of the strategy adopted internationally against drug trafficking. What is wrong in admitting that it was a sting operation designed to outfox criminals importing drugs to this country. I am sure the public would not disapprove of such a measure. Unusual methods are necessary and, perhaps, essential in trying to bring sophisticated international drug traffickers to justice. Why was it not simply said that this was an elaborate internationally organised sting operation which yielded the successful seizure and interception of a large quantity of illegal drugs? Why was it necessary to hide the operation? If it had to be secret, why the blaze of publicity and the attempt to blame a leak to the media for the premature ending of the operation?

If the truth of the Urlingford seizure is that the Garda made a rendezvous with a ship using a disguised trawler, took possession of the drugs, landed them in Ireland and permitted or arranged for them to be brought into Urlingford, then there are very serious questions for the Government. Was the largest drugs haul here landed by the State? Was it a seizure in the true sense of the word or a massive deception which went badly wrong? Are people still being duped by some members of the Government who are too embarrassed to reveal the truth not only to the people but to their colleagues?

It is one thing to keep secret the detail of an operation in the interests of security and it is particularly appropriate when the forces of law and order are dealing with subversive or organised activities such as this, but it is another thing, and quite wrong, to deliberately feed lies to the media——

Mrs. Owen

That is unfair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would appreciate if there were not that level of interruption. Deputies should exercise caution in their use of language, particularly in regard to the word "lie".

Ms O'Donnell

It is quite wrong to deliberately feed misinformation to the media, for the Minister to collude with the misinformation and dine out on it by posing for photographs and other media events which formed the basis of the misleading package to the public. It could be that the Minister knew nothing of the true facts and that she was given the story line carried in the newspapers. If this is so, is the Minister happy that she should have been kept in the dark? If gardaí had been killed or injured in this operation would it be acceptable that it went ahead without ministerial approval? I will not make any allegations but pose questions. The answer to my question last week was a masterpiece of ambivalence and shows yet again the futility of tabling questions in the House, our only method of securing public accountability.

The Garda stated through its press office that this operation was legal. I am prepared to accept that is its bona fide opinion. However, I would prefer to hear the Minister explain it. I have a right to raise the issue in the House with the Minister who has responsibility for the Garda. My focus relates to political accountability. Was there lawful authority to land these drugs in the State? Did those who landed them have ministerial approval for the operation?

On the Order of Business on 9 November Deputy Bertie Ahern congratulated the Garda on the seizure, in common with other Deputies, and expressed regret that, yet again, the drug barons behind the haul had escaped. The Taoiseach replied:

Obviously one would not expect to find the drug barons in the lorry. That they were not apprehended on the spot should not warrant the significance Deputy Ahern attaches to it.

He continued:

However, we should congratulate the Garda Síochána, Revenue Commissioners and all of the State's security offices on the biggest drugs find in the nation's history rather than trying to make much of the fact that the drug barons were not found in the cab of the lorry when it was found.

The same kind of put down was repeated when I expressed concern that, as a result of the alleged leak to the media, prosecutions might be jeopardised. The Minister of State, Deputy Currie, said:

"I would have thought today was a day for congratulation and encouragement of the Gardaí,

to which I responded:

"Nobody wishes to take away from the well deserved congratulations due to those involved for the success of the cross-agency co-operation in the haul. If such reports are correct, will the Minister accept the need for an examination of the circumstances surrounding such a leak of information?

Deputy Currie stated:

I note the Deputy said "if such reports are correct". I do not wish to enter into conjecture. This is an operational matter...

He then invited me to table more questions on the matter. I have done so but the evasive nature of the reply begets more questions. I am within my rights as a Deputy in putting these questions. Indeed they should have been put earlier but I wonder if it would have made any difference. One was made to feel churlish raising questions in face of the flaming media blitz on the success of the seizure.

As far as I am aware no prosecutions have been brought in the interim although the passage of time has allowed for the possibility of prosecutions to be considered and worked on. Will the Minister inform the House whether prosecutions are in train? Will she reply to the questions I posed or will this matter continue to fester and be open to speculation? It is claimed in a Sunday newspaper that the largest drug seizure in this State was an aborted Garda sting operation. This was disputed by the Garda press office according to the article which stated that a press office spokesman said it was incorrect to suggest that the 13 tons of cannabis resin seized at Urlingford, County Kilkenny, on November 8 last was purchased by the authorities to entrap drug dealers.

I am sure no such payment was made by the Garda, but with such prolific and colourful speculation, surely it is better for the Minister to set the record straight in the House. What can be so problematic about that? Why is the Minister distancing herself from this matter? No one is suggesting she has a day to day hand in the operations of the Garda, but in a major operation such as this, I would expect her to receive a full briefing from the Garda Commissioner. It is not good for the Garda to be involved in disputing allegations made by newspapers or answering questions put by me when the proper place for questions to be answered is in this House, particularly when the Minister for Justice played such a major role in the media publicity surrounding the seizure and subsequent to it. I await the Minister's response.

Mrs. Owen

I was not near Urlingford.

Ms O'Donnell

I am not saying the Minister was there.

Mrs. Owen

I did not have a photograph taken in connection with this. The Deputy's information is false.

Mr. L. Burke

I wish to share my time with Deputy Boylan. I compliment the Minister on the proposals in the Bill. Illegal drugs affect people across the board. The trade knows no boundaries. It is taking a grip in rural counties in a way one would not have thought possible a decade ago. I know the Government, through the Minister for Justice, is tackling the problem head on, but it still remains a headache. It is as devastating as the ending of the peace process and far more insidious. It is ensnaring our greatest asset in a trap of self-destruction. If we do not put all our resources into solving this problem our youth will not have a chance to grow up in a normal, civilised way. Too many of them have been trapped. Community after community reels against the onslaught of people high on drugs, many committing dastardly offences against people and property. We cannot allow it to continue. I commend the Minister and the Government for the measures it is proposed to introduce.

We cannot be too hard on the lords who import the deadly goods or the foot soldiers who peddle the product not caring to whom they distribute it. Money is their god and the way to inflict most pain on drug dealers is to hit them in their pockets. Al Capone was not apprehended because he had a gun in his hand but as a result of the diligent efforts of the tax inspectors. He went to jail for that as should all here who deal in drugs.

I know of Deputy Owen's concern to beat this menace and how much the Government is willing to commit in this regard. I agree with the proposals though it would be my desire to commit the Army to the battle where and when necessary. We are talking about security. If we cannot beat this evil our country will stagnate. We all have a responsibility in this matter and no one should shirk it. We must be vigilant, observant and willing to help the Garda in its battle against this deadly peril. The Garda and the authorities will not be found wanting, but they must have the full co-operation and support of the public to be in a position to rid us of such an alien culture. I compliment the Minister on this Bill.

Mr. Boylan

I join earlier speakers in complimenting the Minister for introducing serious legislation which we, as public representatives, will be called on to approve. Drug trafficking is an epidemic which affects every section of society. The Minister must be supported and I am confident she is the right person to deal with this serious problem.

I am not put out by the attack by the Progressive Democrats which surprised and disappointed me. It pointed to one incident and tried to throw enough mud so that some would stick, but it will not. I am not worried by the author of the 20 questions put to the Minister — the same person could probably not get a road tarred in County Cavan.

The Garda is doing excellent work but it must be given the power to deal with ruthless people who have no regard for the welfare of young people who will use every opportunity available to get drugs and to peddle them. Unfortunately, they use weak-will people in financial difficulties who believe they can redeem their debts by getting involved in once-off operations. There are many sad cases like that. As the previous speaker said, drug barons and the dealers must be dealt with. The Minister can be assured of public support for the introduction of necessary powers to deal with these people. If they were locked up for all time without remission I would not lose any sleep because they do not deserve consideration.

The Garda is clearly coming to grips with this major problem. Some £130 million worth of drugs were recovered in the haul in Urlingford, County Kilkenny. It was asked if the Garda went about it in the right way. Should the Garda have sent a telegram to these people to tell them that they were under investigation? I have never heard such nonsense and such a suggestion would be repudiated by the people. There have been other major hauls of cannabis resin and hash, but drugs in tablet form are causing more serious problems and young people are becoming addicted to them. Although I have no evidence, I understand these drugs are being manufactured in factories here. People must understand what is happening. It is not good enough to say that community leaders must be involved and must take responsibility — parents must know where their children are and with whom they are mixing. Young people spend £7 to £9 on three or four pints of beer to become good humoured, but for £5 the effect of one of these tablets will last the entire night. This terrible state of affairs must be addressed and I have confidence that the Minister will do so and that parents will thank her for her efforts.

Debate adjourned.