Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 20 Oct 1998

Vol. 1 No. 13

Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill 1977 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendment No. 1 is consequential of amendments Nos. 36 and 37. Amendment No. 34 is related to amendment No. 37 and amendment No. 38 is consequential of amendments Nos. 36 and 37. Amendments Nos. 1, 34, and 36 to 38 inclusive may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, subsection (2), line 11, to delete "sections 30 to 35" and substitute "Part VI".

These amendments are linked because amendment No. 1 deals with the commencement provisions and the proposed amendment is drafted on the assumption that the other amendments which insert new sections and amend the Long Title will be accepted. Subsection (2) provides, in effect, that sections 30 to 35 will come into operation when the legislation is passed. The other sections will come into operation on such day or days as may be fixed by Order made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This type of provision is standard and is intended to allow time for the necessary arrangements to be made before particular sections are brought into force. The amendments I propose will insert new sections into Part VI. These allow the present sections 30 to 35, or standard old provisions for which no time lapse is either necessary or desirable before they are brought into force, to come into operation once the legislation is enacted.

Amendment No. 36 addresses a technical difficulty which has come to light with section 15 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998. That section was intended to provide for unlimited fines to be available to the courts as a sanction in relation to the major offences of possession of firearms and explosives. However, an erroneous technical reference was made in section 3(15) where it purports to substitute, in section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1883, "a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for life or both" for "imprisonment for life". Section 3 of the 1883 Act does not refer to a penalty of imprisonment for life. The penalty provided for is for a period of imprisonment not exceeding 20 years. I am taking this opportunity in this amendment to correct the reference to the penalty under section 3 of the 1883 Act. Obviously, the amendment does not affect the substance of what we sought to achieve in section 15 of the 1998 Act.

Amendment No. 37 fulfils a commitment I gave during the passage of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998 to meet concerns which had been expressed that an amendment I had already made had not given full effect to the desire of Fine Gael that if provisions of the Act were to be renewed they would be subject to an annual review. The effect of the proposed amendment is that no resolution passed renewing the legislation would be for a period longer than 12 months. Of course, further renewals of periods less than 12 months would be permissable.

Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 would be outside the Long Title of the Bill as it stands. Accordingly a motion passed in the Dáil on 15 October instructed the Committee to consider these amendments together with a consequential amendment of the Long Title which is the subject matter of amendment No. 38. It amends the Long Title to include references to the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998. These amendments are worthwhile and I hope the House will support them.

Amendment No. 34 in the name of Deputy Upton raises an issue in relation to section 9 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998. Deputy Upton's amendment arises from a concern that the offence of withholding information contained in the 1998 Act may have adverse implications in tort law. The fear is that failure to comply with a statutory obligation to report an offence might prejudice a person's civil proceedings arising from the facts of an offence. Advisers from the Deputy were in touch with my officials late last week. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that very complex issues arise. The point which has been made requires further investigation including consultations with the Attorney General before I would be in a position to indicate my response. I assure the Deputy that I will have the matter fully examined between now and Report Stage and in those circumstances I would be grateful if Deputy Upton would withdraw the amendment until then. I will not move substitute Amendment No. 38 but I will moveAmendment No. 38 as it appears in the original list.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 9 are related to amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 4 is related to amendment No. 5, amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are consequential on amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 11 is an alternative to amendment No. 9. Amendments Nos. 2 to 9 inclusive and amendment No. 11 may be discussed together, by agreement.

NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, before section 4, but in Part I, to insert the following new section:

"4.-Where it is proposed to make regulations under this Act a draft of each regulation shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulation shall not come into effect until such time as a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each House.".

I have two reasons for proposing this amendment. An important general point must be made on how we develop legislation. Where regulations follow on from legislation there is no satisfactory mechanism for the Houses to assess them. This concerns me first, because a basic principle of accountability must be addressed and second, because when such a mechanism is put in place a level of control of the regulations can be established. Regulations flowing from legislation have been found to be deficient. Our task as legislators does not stop when legislation is passed. It applies to regulations and it is in the public interest that such regulations be subject to scrutiny and agreement before they are implemented. The publication of regulations pays some lip service to this principle but it is not sufficiently effective. The case for this kind of regulatory mechanism is stronger than ever in this Bill. I do not wish this debate to descend to the level of measuring who cares more about apprehending drug dealers. Everyone of us wishes to deal with the serious menace of drug dealing but we must ensure we are effective in doing so.

This Bill is crude in its approach. There is a random element in it. It sets out an offence of being in possession of £10,000 worth of drugs based on the market value, whatever that is, the punishment for which is ten years in prison. Why ten years? I am sure the Minister is unable to say other than that in his view this is the correct number of years and correct value. It is not a targeted way of dealing with a serious matter.

The second area which is crude relates to where the regulations should come in. I have tabled an amendment, as others have, in relation to the categorisation of drugs. Anyone familiar with the drugs world knows that in talking about illegal drugs one illegal drug is not the same as another. The £10,000 worth of hash does not do the damage £10,000 worth of crack cocaine does. It is important that differentiation is introduced into this Bill, or at least that there is a capability of introducing it by way of regulation. If we ignore that reality we will disregard an essential part of the illegal drug industry which is destroying young lives. If we do not have a targeted, effective approach to getting at the people who are the masterminds - this Bill does not get at those directly, although it may do so indirectly - all we will end up doing is putting into prison the pawns and couriers, who often have addiction problems and who are two a penny when it comes to how the drug business operates. There is always another courier to be found.

We have to differentiate between the type of drugs we are talking about and the circumstances we are talking about. To be strong and effective it is important that the Minister use the mechanism of regulation so that at least it offers that opportunity and that if we introduce regulations there would be an accountability to the House.

I am not in a position to support these amendments. They relate to the ingredients of the offence which is created by section 4 of the Bill. What the Bill says is that any person trafficking in drugs, where the value of the drugs is £10,000 or more, will be guilty of the new offence and liable to imprisonment for a minimum of ten years. While I appreciate the thinking behind the amendments, I do not believe they are necessary or desirable. It might be helpful for me to summarise the approach being taken in the amendments.

The amendments in the names of Deputies Upton and McManus would require that the Minister make regulations specifying the controlled drugs to which the new sentencing regime would apply. In other words, distinctions would be made between so called "hard" and "soft" drugs. Another of Deputy Upton's amendments is to the effect that the £10,000 threshold may be changed from time to time by the Minister by regulation. The amendments in the name of Deputy Higgins take a different approach. He wants to define the offence by reference to specified quantities of drugs rather than by reference to monetary value. These amendments, taken together with those dealing with the nature of the sentence to be imposed, will have the effect of substantially watering down the provisions of the Bill and for that reason I cannot accept them.

On the question of making a distinction between soft and hard drugs, if that distinction should apply, its implications are so far reaching that it is a decision which should be made by the legislature in primary legislation rather than by the Minister of the day by way of regulation. I doubt whether this proposal would be constitutional. I know there is power for the Minister for Health and Children, under the Misuse of Drugs Act, to specify controlled drugs by regulation but what is at issue here is somewhat different. The mandatory provision should apply to all controlled drugs and in those circumstances I could not support the amendment. I have strong sympathy for the thinking behind the amendment to the extent that the availability of heroin and the activities which surround this represents the worst aspect of the drugs problem. In bringing forward this legislation, I agreed to give a great deal of thought to whether some distinction might be made in the various types of drugs, but for the reasons which I will explain I came to the conclusion that such distinction would not be appropriate.

The provision in relation to mandatory sentencing is primarily geared towards those who trade in illegal drugs as part of an organised criminal enterprise. We are not talking about a person who purchases enough cannabis for himself or herself and a friend and then sells it on to that friend. We are talking someone involved in possession for the supply of illegal drugs to the value of £10,000 or more. In other words we are dealing with someone who is playing a substantial part in the supply of illegal drugs.

Second, the nature of the organised drugs trade with which we are dealing is that many of those involved will be trading in both hard and soft drugs as part of a ruthless criminal conspiracy which has wreaked havoc in many of our communities. We have to bear in mind that the activities of these gangs are not confined to supplying drugs. Part and parcel of their activities has involved murder and intimidation. In those circumstances, it seems to me right that a person whose activities are a mainstay of that criminal enterprise should face a mandatory sentence in relation to the possession for supply of £10,000 or more of illegal drugs irrespective of the type of drugs involved.

Even if these were not valid considerations, we would enter a quagmire trying to make distinctions in the context of this legislation on the basis of the type of drugs at issue. Not to put too fine a point on it, is it to be seriously suggested that a person who has £10,000 worth of ecstasy tables for supply to school children should not face the mandatory sentence provided for in the Bill on the basis that ecstasy might not be regarded as being as harmful as heroin?

Another point which should not be lost sight of is that the terms of this legislation will not apply retrospectively. When this legislation is enacted it will be clear, in advance of deciding to traffic in drugs to the value of £10,000 or more, that a mandatory penalty will apply. It seems to me that if people go ahead anyway, then, to an extent, that is their own look out.

In the light of these considerations it was decided that the best approach to take in the question of mandatory penalties was to define the offence by reference to the value of the drugs involved. No one involved in the supply of drugs to the value of £10,000 or more is anything other than a substantial player in the organised trade in illegal drugs.

I accept that a distinction needs to be made between a person involved in the supply of £10,000 of cannabis and the person involved in the supply of £1 million worth of heroin. The best way to make that distinction is not through disapplying the mandatory ten year penalty for the former, instead it is to allow even heavier penalties to be imposed on the latter. That will be the position in our law.

At present a person convicted of a drug trafficking offence can be sentenced to up to life imprisonment. That will remain the position under the new legislation. In that way the court will be able to mark the gravity of the offence subject to specifying a minimum period of ten years.

In relation to Deputy Upton's amendment No. 5, I have no difficulty in accepting that from time to time the £10,000 threshold would have to be reviewed. However, it is clear that for the foreseeable future £10,000 will represent a very considerable sum of money. When this legislation is passed, it will be important for a very clear message to go out to those who are tempted to indulge in drug trafficking, that new mandatory penalties will apply where the value of the drugs is £10,000 or more. It is essential that this information becomes widely known both within and outside the jurisdiction. I will do everything I possibly can to ensure this will be the case. Of course, I am not saying that the £10,000 sum is set in stone forever, but when it becomes clear that there is a case for changing it then clearly that can be done.

Given the debate which has been generated on this issue, any change in the monetary value that is contained in the Bill should be made by way of primary legislation following a full debate by the Oireachtas. In this context as well as very substantive criminal law reform measures, which I will be introducing, it is intended that Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills will be quite frequently introduced. In the circumstances, there will be no shortage of legislative vehicles to change the £10,000 threshold when it becomes appropriate to do so. That seems to be a much more sensible approach to take.

Deputy Higgins' preferred approach is that we should specify quantities of drugs rather than a monetary value. I should mention initially that there are substantial technical difficulties with his amendments. For example, they seem to refer to quantities of drugs set out in the Schedule, but no such measure for specifying quantities is provided for. In any event, I disagree fundamentally with Deputy Higgins' approach. In this Bill we are going after those who profiteer from drug trafficking. It seems the most relevant criterion in that regard is the monetary value of the drugs involved, not their quantity. In all the circumstances, it would be counter-productive to the fight against the drugs menace to accept any of these amendments. I hope the committee can accept the thinking I have outlined, which represents the philosophy behind this approach.

The general point made by Deputy McManus in relation to the House approving regulations may be a fair one. However, it would only arise on acceptance of her amendment allowing regulations to be made making distinctions between types of drugs, or a similar amendment in the name of Deputy Upton of the Labour Party. Otherwise, there are no provisions in the Bill which involve the making of regulations.

I agree with the Minister's suggestion that it is desirable that the modification of the £10,000, upwards or downwards, should be done by way of primary legislation. Perhaps the Minister has a certain validity in making the case based on his own track record. Having heated up the legislative track to the tune of generating something like 50 per cent of the Bills enacted in the first part of his period in office, he has now dropped down to a rather modest 25 per cent of all legislation going through the House. Given the way he is going, I presume he will continue at that pace.

This amendment was drafted on the assumption that the Minister would not remain in power forever and that other Ministers would follow him who would be less energetic and would not be able to generate the type of legislative performance he has achieved so far. There are very few marathon Ministers with the same capacity as the present one. It was with those concerns in mind, based on the trend in legislation rather than what has happened since the Minister came to power, that we tabled this amendment. It is to cater for eventualities and the reality that we are unlikely to see the present pace of legislation coming from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform as has been generated by the Minister.

In relation to mandatory sentencing, I disagree with many of the points the Minister made. There is a body of evidence which suggests this is highly undesirable. The Law Reform Commission's report on sentencing comes out strongly and definitely against it and says it should be abolished. It is a pity the Minister did not accede to the content of the report.

In relation to the distinction drawn between so-called soft and hard drugs, I agree that none of them is desirable, but no one can dispute that there are clear differences. That is already embodied in the Misuse of Drugs Act which draws a distinction between cannabis, which attracts lesser penalties than hard drugs. The precedent and framework are there to make those distinctions but it is a pity the Minister did not do so. It is unsatisfactory that the Garda are primarily responsible for determining the value of the drugs. That should be done in a more objective manner. Ultimately, the effect of drugs on the individual who takes them, and the damage done, will be primarily caused by the amount of drugs consumed and not of their value.

As regards those who import drugs or are otherwise involved in supplying them, there will be an element of flexibility in the severity of the offence which will be related to the value of the drugs rather than their effects. That is highly undesirable. It would be far more appropriate if the amount of drugs was measured on some objective basis rather than their value, which will vary with the law of supply and demand. That is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with this problem.

If there is any support for this Bill from the general public it has been very muted. That is the case even from people who are strongly opposed to drugs. We largely support the thrust of what the Minister is doing. To use the Taoiseach's terminology, the policy in relation to dealing with those people who are managing the drugs scene should be as draconian as it can be. I have not seen, however, any compliment passed in public in relation to this legislation. On 21 November 1997, in the wake of the publication of the Bill, Dr. Paul O'Mahony, a former official of the Department of Justice, a recognised criminologist and someone who was commissioned by a sub-committee of this committee to carry out work on our behalf in relation to crime, ridiculed this tenet as being totally unworkable. We would support it if it were workable, but it is not. It is a hangover from something that was promised by the Minister when he was in Opposition and majored in crime. He selected a few areas and put pressure on the then Minister for Justice. He signalled a sentence of ten years for possession of £10,000 worth of drugs as one of his flagship proposals. There were no ifs or buts about it, there would be an absolute approach. However, how do you determine the market value of a drug? We are not talking about the Stock Exchange or the free, open and legal market. We are talking about an illegal substance that is traded underground in a market that is both variable and volatile. Its value can change from street to street and from day to day, depending on supply and demand. There is no definitive market or gauge for values.

I doubt if Customs and Excise officers or members of the Garda Síochána, who will be hauled into court to verify the value of the quantities of drugs possessed, will be very happy with this situation. What degree of consultation has there been with the Garda Síochána or the National Drugs Unit, who will be at the cutting edge presenting the case in court? They will be grilled by solicitors as to how they arrived at their determination that the amount seized was £10,000 or more.

There is also the argument about the difference between soft and hard drugs. I see no distinction in terms of the approach to dealing with drugs. For example, I do not favour legalising so-called soft drugs. As Deputies McManus and Upton stated earlier, however, there is a vast difference in the damage that can be done by £10,000 worth of soft drugs and the same amount of hard drugs to the people who consume them.

In pursuit of something that was promised in Opposition, the Minister is opening up a legal minefield. A good solicitor - in most cases he or she will be paid at the expense of the State - will be able to find a loophole in the legislation. For example, how will the authorities differentiate between drugs in terms of purity? Are we concerned here with drugs before or after they are doctored or processed? Does the value of £10,000 relate to the time at which the drug is possessed or does it relate to its potential value if it is diluted, distributed, doctored or processed? What consultation was carried out by the Department with members of the Garda Síochána such as Assistant Commissioner McCarthy and his national drugs squad in respect of the wisdom of this section?

My amendment seeks to insert a provision with an air of certainty or definitiveness about it. It is aimed at trying to obtain certainty in terms of the amounts in question by suggesting that the Schedule should state the relative amounts to which a particular penalty will apply. The Minister was correct to state that I made reference to the Schedule but I did not include it because I do not have the expertise to do so. However, the Department has at its disposal several thousand civil servants and a number of people with expertise in this area who should be capable of drawing up a Schedule which will set down relative quantities of drugs for which particular penalties would apply.

I am not making these points out of political malice, I am making them because orthodox advice, public opinion and legal expertise cannot form a solid argument in support of the Minister's statement. I have heard the direct opposite, namely, that what the Minister is doing in pursuit of a hard-line, zero tolerance approach to drugs is opening up the possibility of a raft of legal challenges to charges brought under the provisions of this section of the legislation. Any solicitor worth his salt defending a person caught in possession of a so-called amount of drugs that exceeds £10,000 or more in value will use this subsection as a loophole. It will be extremely difficult for the Garda Síochána to defend the provisions of this section.

I agree with Deputy Higgins about the remarkable lack of enthusiasm among people in support of the legislation. If it were seen as being a major progressive Bill which would deal, even in part, with the problem of drug dealing, there would have been a tremendous amount of goodwill expressed by the public and those involved in dealing with the ill effects of illegal drugs. However, that is not the case. I have discussed this matter informally with a number of gardaí and they expressed considerable unease because they believe they will be obliged to stand over the idea of "market value" in a court of law. They are probably conscious of the fact that the legislation will place them in a difficult position which could undermine their status and their connections with the public.

As sure as eggs are eggs, if we use market value as the yardstick, as happened in the past, when large quantities of drugs become available and the price drops through the floor, students in Trinity College will be aware that it costs less to get high on illegal drugs than it is to get drunk. Everyone should be aware of the fluctuation in market values. In effect, when drugs are rampant it will be harder to pin down or penalise people who are dealing in drugs because they will have to have in their possession larger amounts of drugs before they hit the ceiling of £10,000. There are many reservations about using this yardstick.

I return to the point about categorisation. It does not mean that one approves of soft drugs, it means that one is stating that an entire range of drugs are now being peddled to young people which have different effects. Crack cocaine is not cannabis. President Clinton was able to say that, even though he did not inhale, he smoked a joint in his youth. People in general smiled at his admission and perhaps recalled their youth. However, there would have been a different response if he had stated that he experimented with cocaine or had injected himself with heroin.

It must be accepted that, because of the varying effects involved, we take a different approach to different drugs. That must be reflected in the Bill. With respect, it is not the responsibility of the Opposition to figure out how this should be achieved. The Minister has in his Department people who are able to work on the basis of experience and existing legislation. However, this is the first occasion on which market value will be used as a measure of sentencing. I am aware that gardaí can state in court they estimate the value of a quantity of drugs at £100,000. However, that is different from the approach advocated in the Bill which will be used to determine whether a person receives a mandatory sentence. It is a question of being aware of the complexities of illegal drug dealing rather than adopting a crude, naive approach to those complexities. We must be more intelligent in terms of how we deal with this issue.

I will not go over ground which has already been covered. We are treading on dangerous ground when we deal with a problem in such a rigid and crude fashion. To try to apportion guilt and responsibility for damage caused on the basis of quantity or market value - knowing the changes that come about in respect of the mix of drugs, the importation of drugs and the appearance of new drugs - does not go to the nub of the problem. Everyone is geared towards achieving the same aspiration, namely, getting at those who deal in and distribute these deadly drugs. However, there are huge differences and complexities involved.

Difficulties exist in the context of using the term "mandatory" because the flexibility of and changes which come in what Deputy Higgins called a "volatile" market must be taken into consideration. We must be careful because we could find ourselves amending legislation which could prove unworkable. That would work to the advantage of the drug dealers and distributors whose activities we are trying to stop. It must be taken on board that using the market value as a yardstick will not solve those problems. It is interesting that in every major drug bust gardaí first publicise the weight of drugs involved before an attempt is made to place a value on them. Such values often vary greatly. Given the incredible complexity and quantities of illegal drugs coming on the market, there are probably mixes of drugs with which we are not yet familiar and which could play havoc with this section of the Bill. I understand what the Minister is attempting to do in this legislation but I hope we would not get caught up in a strait jacket like this because it would create far more problems than the ones we are trying to solve.

First, I assure Deputy Upton that there is no question of the legislative prowess of my Department going through the floor, quite the opposite. As I said earlier there will be an opportunity to amend the law. In this regard I hope to introduce the mechanism of a criminal provisions Bill which will allow us to up date the criminal law and procedures on a regular basis and enable us to cope with a rapidly changing situation.

Some Deputies felt no compliments were being paid to the Bill. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the people who would be complimenting you know that when Opposition Deputies were in Government they voted against the Bill three times. This whole issue was a very major plank of Fianna Fáil's policy in the general election and the Fianna Fáil Party is now in Government while the rainbow coalition is in Opposition. Deputies can interpret public opinion any way they wish but I have received a considerable number of compliments on this legislation. Perhaps people might think it rude to tell you that they felt this Bill was an excellent idea when they know you were totally opposed to it.

There is a glaring inconsistency in at least one of the arguments put forward by Deputy Jim Higgins. On the one hand he says he does not know how one is to decide upon the purity of the drug concerned while on the other hand he says the matter should be dealt with in accordance with the weight of the drug concerned. It must stand to reason that the same question would immediately apply more so as to whether the weight of what we are weighing is entirely pure or only partially so. We are using a monetary value of £10,000 because that is a more reliable yardstick. It is not as if someone will be prosecuted if the DPP has a doubt as to whether the proof can be put forward relating to the value of the drugs. As we all know, the DPP will only bring a case to court if he is of the view that the case will succeed the test of the criminal burden of proof which is beyond a reasonable doubt. In those circumstances it is hardly conceivable that the DPP would take the chance of bringing a case to court where the value of the drugs might be £9,999.99 or £10,000.01.

The reality of the position is that the DPP would only put the case before the court if he felt it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In that respect there is provision in the legislation for what I would consider to be expert evidence. I would respectfully submit that there is no finer expert on the market value of drugs on the street than a garda or an officer of the Customs and Excise who has knowledge of the unlawful sale or supply of controlled drugs. It is that individual who would enter court and give evidence from his own practical working knowledge of what the value of the drugs is. To the best of my knowledge, expert evidence is a feature of all legal systems. Whether talking about an engineer, a doctor or an architect, expert evidence is accepted by courts in all cases every day of the week. There is no reason anyone should suggest the position should be any different in relation to assessing the market value of a controlled substance.

The argument that the value of drugs will fluctuate depending upon the supply in the marketplace was put forward, and it is possible that would happen, but the law is quite clear on this matter. It is not as if there was no provision in our laws at present in relation to penalties of imprisonment for the supply of large quantities of drugs. Under the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 to 1984, the position is quite clear. The court is empowered to impose a sentence of up to life imprisonment at any time. The court does not have to impose life imprisonment but it has the discretion to do so. The change which is being brought about here is that if the value of the drugs exceeds £10,000 the court will be obliged to impose a sentence of not less than ten years' imprisonment. Nobody denies that is a tough sentence.

The argument has also been made against mandatory sentencing on the basis that people would not agree with it. Mandatory sentencing already exists in our law. As we all know, in the case of murder there is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. In cases of capital murder, which means the killing of a member of the Garda Síochána, there is provision in our law for a minimum sentence of 40 years' imprisonment. Therefore, there is no reason to suggest that a minimum ten year sentence would fall in the eyes of the higher Supreme Court. In those circumstances and if it is accepted that the Oireachtas is empowered constitutionally to provide for this kind of sentence, the only question which remains is whether the Oireachtas is right to do so. At this point in our history society wants the Oireachtas to legislate for a mandatory sentence for serious drug dealing offences and that is precisely what this legislation will do. It is facile to argue that the legislation is crude and unworkable. This legislation has been carefully examined by experts. Members cannot on the one hand indicate to me that experts in my Department are quite capable of drawing up schedules and other matters but not expert enough to examine the proposals which are now brought forward. In addition, this legislation has been examined by very experienced senior counsel from outside the Department. It has also been examined by the Attorney General's office and the parliamentary draftsman. I do not accept that a coach and four can be driven through the legislation. It is a measure which society has the right to impose.

Deputy Higgins expressed the view that a former official of my Department was opposed to the legislation. That person is entitled to express his opinion but I am also entitled to my opinion. That person was not involved in the operation of the criminal justice system. I take the view that it is right, given the unique problem drugs create in our society, to make special provisions to deal with drugs trafficking. I do not believe anyone would argue that being involved in supplying £10,000 worth of drugs is not playing a major role in the illegal drugs trade. I believe it is and that ten years imprisonment is an appropriate response.

When I spoke a few minutes ago I asked about the workability of this section. The Minister has just cited legal experts from outside the Department and a host of other unnamed people who subscribe to the view that this is sensible legislation. I could name one or two of them, but I have heard no names quoted.

Names cannot be mentioned. Someone's name was mentioned earlier and I should not have allowed that to happen.

What degree of consultation took place with the National Drugs Unit and the Customs and Excise authorities? Has the Minister and his officials been assured by the Garda authorities that this is a viable, workable and defensible section and that the insertion of £10,000 as the cut-off point is fundamentally sound in terms of prosecuting a case in court? We are talking about a definite rigid cut-off point. The words "about", "average", "I think" or "approximately" will not do in this case; we are talking about £10,000 on one side of the line or the other. It is one thing to propose this in Opposition, but it is another to insert it in a Bill and to discuss with the experts and those in the Minister's Department who will have to put it into operation how precisely it will work. Does the £10,000, for example, relate to the day of possession? Drugs that might be worth £10,000 on the day of possession might be worth £12,000 or £9,999 on the day of the court. It is inherently dangerous to insert a figure of £10,000 in relation to a highly variable, volatile and unregulated illegal underground trade.

The Minister promised mandatory minimum sentencing. There is a time to pull back and this is an issue on which the Minister should have pulled back . I received a letter from the Minister dated 25 September 1998 which reads as follows:

The complex question of sentencing policy was addressed at length by the Law Reform Commission both in a consultation paper and their report on the matter. Action has already been taken on a number of recommendations contained in the report. For example, the Criminal Law Act, 1997, abolished the concepts of penal servitude and imprisonment with hard labour and substituted imprisonment in their place. Other recommendations remain under consideration in this Department and any proposals which emerge will be announced in the usual way. It must be pointed out, however, that the report specifically recommends against the introduction of statutory sentencing guidelines.

The letter is signed by the Minister and would seem to have his endorsement and imprimatur. Where is the consistency in this? The Minister's letter seems to endorse the Law Reform Commission report and, on the other, he is introducing legislation to remove all discretion from judges.

The Deputy is straying from the amendments before us.

I am focusing on the £10,000. I am asking the Minister, in relation to the determination of this section, how exactly will it work? Before we decide whether or not to withdraw the amendments, we are entitled to know how precisely this will work. I am also addressing the question of mandatory minimum sentencing in this context because it was referred to by the Minister. We must know how this will work, otherwise we cannot proceed with a rational discussion on this matter.

I am concerned that the Chairman has indicated he will not allow members to drift off. Admittedly this is not a meeting of Clare County Council. I am sure everyone is aware of the award which has been initiated there. Given the nature of Irish society, I imagine an appropriate philanthropist would make a similar but much larger award available for Members of the Dáil and Seanad.

Will the Minister admit it would be much better to have a cut-off point determined on the basis of the amount of chemical in the drugs? One way or another a chemical analysis would have to be done to indicate the type of illegal drug. It would seem more appropriate to do that on the basis of the weight of the illegal compound. Analythical chemistry has advanced to the stage where it is possible to be quite precise about the various substances, their sub-divisions and so on. It would make more sense to do it on that basis rather than on a basis which is much more prone to change vis-à-vis the value of a given amount of drugs.

What the Deputies said is very interesting. However, the workability of this section is beyond question. The reason I say this is that section 4.15A.(1)(b) provides that if at any time while the drug or drugs are in the person's possession their value is £10,000 or more and all the other conditions are fulfilled, the person can be convicted. The important words are "at any time". The provision applies once the drugs, at any time while they are in the individual's possession, exceed the value of £10,000. If they do not exceed that value for much of the period, but at some stage they do, the certainty of the legislation catches the offender. The claim that the section is unworkable is wrong.

The market value will be determined by expert evidence given before the court. There is the major safeguard that the Director of Public Prosecutions, in bringing a case, must be mindful that it has to pass the criminal law standard of proof which is beyond reasonable doubt that the value of the drugs in the individual's possession at any time exceeded £10,000. I repeat that for Deputies Upton and Higgins.

The evidence before the court relating to possession of the drugs at any time by the accused person will come from experts. Nothing could be clearer than that. Deputy Higgins asked what kind of consultation was involved. There is no obligation on the Minister to consult with anyone. That, however, would be a presumptuous thing to do. It is a matter for this House, not for the Garda Síochána or any other group outside of the House, to pass legislation. That is what Members of the House are elected to do. There would, however, have been wide consultation prior to bringing the Bill before the House. The Garda would have been consulted in appropriate circumstances. That is something which would have been expected. Irrespective of the view held by any group, it is a matter for the House to decide to pass the legislation. The provision before the House is clear. There is no need for me to go over the same arguments again. That would only frustrate TDs.

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Reluctantly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, lines 33 to 37, to delete all words from and including " the market" in line 33 down to and including "more" in line 37 and substitute "the quantities of the controlled drugs shall be those as set out in the Schedule to this Act".

Deputy Higgins is pressing an amendment to a Schedule which does not exist.

It will exist tomorrow because the Minister and his officials will work overnight on it.

That is an extraordinary situation. Deputy Higgins is pressing an amendment regarding a Schedule which does not exist and which he insists be put into the Bill.

A Schedule can be introduced at any point in time.

Earlier today the Minister was trying to introduce amendments to the Bill which had nothing to do with it. It ill becomes him to criticise an Opposition amendment when he tried to introduce amendments which had nothing to do with the Bill.

I am pointing out a matter of pragmatic fact that the Deputy is trying to introduce an amendment by bringing forward a Schedule for insertion in the Bill when it does not exist.

The Minister introduced an offence against the State amendment in this legislation.

It is extraordinary.

Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 8.

  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Belton, Louis.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Upton, Pat.

Níl

  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • O’Donoghue, John
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 7, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"(3B) Subsection (3C) of this section shall apply only to those categories of controlled drugs as are specified for the purposes of that subsection by a regulation made by the Minister.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 are related, amendment No. 13 is an alternative to amendment No.12 and amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are related to amendment No. 13. All may be discussed together. Is that agreed?

I move amendmentNo. 10:

In page 7, lines 44 to 46, to delete "as the minimum period of imprisonment to be served by that person a period of not less than 10 years imprisonment" and substitute "the minimum period of imprisonment to be served by that person".

This amendment relates to the insertion in the Bill of a clause which gives no discretion to the Judiciary. This is unwise and is seen as too restrictive. It is a slight on the Judiciary to tie its hands to this extent. It gives no discretion to a judge or jury. Nobody can predict the circumstances which may arise during a court case. Last week there was a great deal of criticism of sentences passed which were glaringly inconsistent. An eminent senior counsel stated on "Questions and Answers" last night that one would have had to be in court to hear what went on and the nuances of a trial. Therefore, anyone who was not in court should not put their head above the parapet to make criticism.

The Minister made a convincing argument against his insertion in this section. He spoke about the various Misuse of Drugs Acts and said the option was there to impose life imprisonment. If this option is there, why is there a need to be so specific in stating that where a person, other than a child or young person is convicted of an offence under section 15(a) the court shall, in imposing a sentence, specify as a minimum period of imprisonment to be served by that person, a period of not less than ten years imprisonment. This is another folly imported from the Fianna Fáil manifesto and the Minister made great play of it when in Opposition. He could have backed down when in Government because we would have supported him.

The Minister said the court had the option to impose whatever sentence it wanted, including life imprisonment. He is forcibly striking down the argument he seeks to make in this section. In the long-running Dutchie Holland trial, he was charged with the possession of drugs, although another offence was in the background. He got the full sentence of 20 years. If it is possible to impose sentences of life imprisonment for the possession of drugs, why is there a need to insert in the Bill a stricture like this which ties the hands of a judge and jury and gives them no discretion as to the level of sentence to be imposed? This is a political hangover from Opposition and it should have been debunked in the Seanad, where the same arguments were probably made.

Deputy Higgins's points are valid. In both Houses we have always been careful to ensure a clear and complete separation of the Judiciary from the Oireachtas, but this provision ties the hands of judges. The point made by senior counsel last night was that complex and unexpected aspects of a case may come forward in court and judges have the discretion, expertise and experience to use their power of sentencing. Mandatory sentencing removes this power from judges and could lead to injustice in an area which is supposed to provide justice and where such matters are teased out. The US experience of mandatory sentencing has proved extraordinarily unfortunate and there have been cases where, because of the rigidity of the system, small cases were treated extremely severely, even where compassion and consideration were demanded, and miscarriages of justice resulted. We must be careful about the separation of powers and trusting the expertise of the Judiciary to deal with a court case as it unfolds, and about tying the hands of judges and not allowing them to exercise mercy, which must also be part of the justice system.

There is a general issue about mandatory sentencing but neither does the section as it stands discriminate between different circumstances. For instance, in a number of cases, a person brought before the court for possession of or dealing in drugs may have done so because family connections determined his or her role in carrying out the offence. That relates to small amounts of drugs but some cases involve possession of up to £10,000 worth. Compulsion may also be involved - one young person in jail for acting as a courier had an addiction and was used as a decoy while a major transportation of drugs was carried out. The person convicted may be a relatively minor player in a much larger offence, a person of limited intelligence may have been duped, a drug addict or AIDS sufferer may have been pressurised, or a woman may have been pressurised by a family member or partner in circumstances where she was terrified about doing other than as she was directed. All these messy, normal, real life circumstances are taken into account by the courts at present - the person is still convicted and punished but the complexities of life are taken into account. In this instance the likelihood is that the mandatory sentence will ensure that the dupe or the person dragged or coerced into breaking the law will be treated the same as the ruthless, experienced criminal, except that the latter is less likely to be caught.

This returns us to the question of whether there should be mandatory sentencing. The Minister said it is being introduced because he made a promise when in Opposition but many promises in the programme for Government have not been implemented. No one would have anything but the highest respect for a Minister who acknowledged that things can look rather different in Government and that a greater understanding is more likely when one is looking from the inside out. In this instance, blindly to adopt an approach followed in Opposition and to deliver it in a crude legislative instrument which will not deal with the drug dealing problem is not a sensible approach.

I ask the Minister to acknowledge that things move on. He now has greater knowledge at his disposal than he had in Opposition and no shame attaches to that. We will see more duped young people in jail and there is no guarantee that will make any difference to the big drug dealers who are making vast profits. Their couriers are often weak, inadequate, addicted, frightened people.

I cannot accept these amendments and make a similar point in this regard as I made on amendments Nos. 2 to 9, inclusive. The intention in specifying the minimum ten year penalty is to make clear the offence is of such gravity that the imposition of an exemplary penalty is justified. Section 5 provides that a person convicted of the new offence will incur a penalty commensurate with the gravity of that crime. In view of the unique nature of the trade in illegal drugs and the great misery inflicted on so many people by those who deal in that deadly trade, we must as legislators do all we can to rid ourselves of this scourge. A minimum sentence of ten years is undoubtedly a harsh punishment but I am satisfied it is warranted and proportional. It should send an unequivocal message to those engaged in the illegal drugs trade and to those who might be tempted to engage in it that we are serious about doing all we can to eradicate this blight.

The effect of Deputy Higgins's amendment would be to delete the ten year minimum sentence - in other words, the appropriate penalty to be imposed in a particular case would be left entirely at the discretion of the courts. I am sure he would be the first to accept that this would defeat the purpose I am seeking to achieve. We should not lose sight of the fact that the Bill allows the courts to depart from the requirement to impose the minimum period in exceptional and specific cases and where it would be unjust in all circumstances to impose the minimum ten year sentence. I was mindful of constitutional considerations in drafting this provision. Relevant factors the court may consider include whether the person pleaded guilty, taking account of the stage where such intention was indicated and the circumstances surrounding the indication, and whether the person materially assisted the investigation of the offence.

Deputy McManus's amendments would expand on the grounds stated in the Bill which allow the court to depart from specifying a minimum ten year period of imprisonment. The effect of her amendment No. 13 would be that a court, rather than having regard to whether a sentence would be unjust in all the circumstance, would have regard to whether it was unjust, inappropriate or would cause undue hardship to the person. The concept of "unjust in all the circumstances" seems to me to be the most appropriate one to use in the legislation, and encompasses, to the extent that they are relevant, the concepts of inappropriate or undue hardship.

The other two amendments tabled by Deputy McManus would involve a court assessing whether sentences are unjust in all the circumstances, having regard to whether a person was subjected to any unreasonable pressure or compulsion in committing an offence and assessing the person's health, age and mental capacity. The approach in the Bill is better because it allows a court to have regard to what are referred to as "exceptional and specific" circumstances relating to an offence or the person convicted of an offence, which would make a sentence of ten years imprisonment unjust in all the circumstances. To the extent that duress or mental capacity might be relevant, these can be taken into account by the courts. There are no advantages in including references in the legislation to these specific issues.

The Bill attempts to make a distinction between those who are cynically involved in the drugs trade for profit and those who, because of a problem with addiction, have become caught up in that trade. While it must be emphasised that feeding a habit is no excuse for engaging in this trade, it would be futile not to recognise the part which addiction can play. Therefore, the Bill gives a court the power, when imposing sentence on a person convicted of a new drug related offence, to inquire whether the person was addicted to drugs at the time of the offence. If satisfied that he or she was addicted and that this was a substantial factor leading to the commission of the offence, the court may list the sentence for review after half the mandatory period specified by it has expired. When the review takes place the court may, having regard to any matters it considers appropriate, suspend the remainder of the sentence on any conditions it considers fit. This provision is appropriate and just. However, even where these mitigating circumstances arise, the person involved will still face a long period of imprisonment.

Deputies Higgins, Barnes and McManus oppose the approach contained in the legislation. They have urged me to ignore the promise made to the electorate and follow the approach they propose. I am not prepared to do that, not only because it would be a breach of faith but because I am firmly of the opinion that society wants the ten year minimum penalty inserted. Society has the right to express its outrage in respect of offences as dangerous drug trafficking. As stated earlier, the penalty is appropriate and proportional.

Deputy McManus argued that a person could be caught up in the commission of an offence by reason of duress or coercion. The question of the mens rea of an accused person before a court is a matter for that court. The issue of sentencing is not a matter for the jury, it is a matter for the trial judge or the judge of the criminal court in the case of a plea of guilty. What I am proposing strikes the right balance and in those circumstances I cannot accept the amendment.

The Minister's final point effectively highlights one of the difficulties in this area, namely, it is not the responsibility of a jury to impose sentence. Is he not in a position to see that a situation could arise, such as that illustrated by Deputy McManus, where certain factors relating to a case could be presented in court which showed that a person was a puppet or a pawn, was being exploited or utilised or whose intelligence was below normal? In such a situation a jury sitting in court watching the proceedings in an objective manner which sees that the accused person is a victim who may face a ten year sentence may decide to enter a verdict of not guilty.

The so-called maximum punitive measure and deterrent of mandatory ten year sentences does not allow for the kinds of facts which may come to light in certain circumstances - under cross examination, etc. - in a court of law. Rather than seeing a person who is innocent and who has been exploited - he or she may not be a drug addict but they may have impaired mental faculties - being sent to prison for ten years because there were no mitigating circumstances, a jury may decide the individual in question is not guilty and set him free.

I support the amendments. I will not restate the arguments because they have already been adequately put. The concept of mandatory sentencing is inherently dodgy. There is a body of opinion which opposes it, namely, the Law Reform Commission which is chaired by a member of the Supreme Court. It is retrograde to continue with this proposal and I ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude. If his objective, which everyone agrees with, is to diminish drug abuse, etc., it might be better if he sought other ways to achieve it.

As I understand it, the greatest deterrent to criminals is the likelihood of being apprehended not the ferocity of the sentence. It might be more appropriate to consider the introduction of a fast track approach in the courts rather than relying on the deterrent offered by the draconian measures proposed by the Minister. Everyone accepts the concept underlying those sanctions - to which there will be major downsides in practice - but the prospect of being caught is a more effective deterrent.

There are constitutional parameters within which one must operate. There is a certain amount of limited leeway allowed to the courts to have regard to what are referred to as "exceptional and specific" circumstances. These are clearly laid down in section 5(3C) which states that subsection (3B) - which deals with mandatory sentences of ten years - "shall not apply where the court is satisfied that there are exceptional and specific circumstances relating to the offence, or the person convicted of the offence, which would make a sentence of not less than 10 years imprisonment unjust in all the circumstances and for this purpose the court may have regard to any matters it considers appropriate". The subsection goes on to state the nature of the matters a court may consider appropriate, namely, whether a person pleaded guilty to an offence, the stage at which he indicated the intention to plead guilty, the circumstances in which the indication was given and whether the person materially assisted in the investigation of the offence.

As already stated, it is clear that the mens rea of an individual is considerably important in any criminal case. There must be intent for a person to be found guilty and if intent cannot be shown that is a different kettle of fish. The provision to which I referred and that which states that account must be taken of the fact that an individual is a drug addict are significant safeguards, despite the fact that they operate within confined parameters.

The reality is that we have to take into account an individual's addiction. For that reason I asked Mrs. Justice Denham of the Supreme Court to examine the question of introducing drug courts into Ireland. She reported back to me and was impressed, as was the commission, by the concept. I have already indicated my intention to introduce such courts in Ireland for the first time in 1999. This will mean, for example, at the outset at any rate, that people convicted in the District Court of non-violent offences which are drug related and who are addicts may be remanded for treatment instead of custody. That will represent a significant breakthrough and is recognition by the criminal justice system of the reality of addiction and the need to treat it. It is an important innovation. We shall see how it progresses beyond the District Court to the other courts. We will crawl before allowing ourselves to stand and walk because from experience that is the way to proceed.

At the criminal justice level this Administration takes the view that we should do something of significance for addicts. However, there is also a widespread view that we must do something about drug traffickers. This tough legislation does that. We need to send a signal to those involved or who would become involved in the drugs trade, nationally or internationally. If they get caught in this jurisdiction they will get a minimum of ten years for involvement in substantial drug trafficking. In addition, their illicit assets will be frozen and disposed of by the State and they will pay on all fronts. That is the reaction society expects of us.

What I propose here is balanced and proportional. Deputies on the Opposition side of the House may take a different view, that is their right. However, I fundamentally disagree with the suggestion that I should water down the legislation in the manner proposed, which would be to delete the mandatory sentence. I refuse to do that.

On the one hand the Minister is proposing ten year sentences, yet on the other hand he lists the diluting qualities which entitles one to mitigation. However, there is more to it than that.

I would have thought that is what the Deputy is looking for.

The purpose of putting Bills into committees is to ensure they will be fully debated. The proposal to restrict the discretion of judges in choosing the most appropriate sentence for an offence is the most radical aspect of the Bill. It breaks new ground in a prescriptive manner and in the absence of empirical evidence - the Minister has not advanced a scintilla of such evidence - that existing sentencing policy is unsatisfactory. Will the Minister show the House how existing sentencing policy is unsatisfactory? Where have the courts handed down sentences that, in terms of severity, were less than that demanded by the public?

Referring to the drugs courts, the Minister said one should crawl before walking. Yet, in proposing this fundamental change in sentencing he has charged at the gate. It is regrettable the public has not been afforded the opportunity to hear the views of the judges because a fundamental change in the judicial system is being proposed in an information vacuum. The House is entitled to a detailed explanation of the reasons for the Minister's proposal, other than that a pledge was given in Opposition. We are entitled to know how the courts have functioned in an unsatisfactory manner in the past two to five years in terms of dealing with the drug managers.

We support the Minister's introduction of stringent, draconian and tough measures in dealing with the managers, the people who exploit the vulnerable on the streets. However, before we move towards changing the existing procedures on judicial discretion we are entitled to know where and how the courts have erred. Will the Minister provide four of five examples so that we can be assured we will not do something that will be perceived as being unwise and unnecessary tampering with the powers of the Judiciary?

The circumstances where the ten year sentence would not apply are exceptional and specific, and they are not general, as Deputy Higgins appears to think, although he argued for that earlier. In view of this, it is difficult for me to follow this maze. The Deputy has decided to make the argument in reverse and I do not understand why.

There are exceptional and specific circumstances which the court can taken into account. This is being done because of constitutional requirements. It is also a question of being pragmatic. I want to be just. It is important we are just, balanced and proportional. What the courts did or did not do in the past with regard to sentencing drug traffickers is one thing, however, this legislation sends the message that if one becomes involved in major drug trafficking one will get a minimum sentence of ten years on conviction. That is a very important signal to send out and I believe it is the correct thing to do.

This is not new in Irish criminal law, as I explained earlier with regard to another amendment. I have already explained, for example, that murder attracts a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. In considering sentencing policy, the Law Reform Commission recommended that the mandatory life sentence for murder should be eradicated or eliminated. I do not believe Deputy Higgins would agree with that. There are also mandatory sentences for manslaughter and mandatory orders apply across a range of provisions. For example, it is mandatory upon a court to disqualify a person for drunken driving because this House said so. It took the view this measure was what was required to tackle the problem and it is being implemented very successfully by the courts.

This House is entitled to include a mandatory ten year sentence on those involved in the trafficking of illegal drugs. The House is entitled to do that because society, in so far as can be gauged, wishes to express its abhorrence of this heinous offence and wishes the House to eradicate it. I am not suggesting this legislation is a panacea to the drug problem in Ireland. However it is a definite signal that anyone apprehended dealing drugs in Ireland will pay a very dear price. Society will support this measure. It already approved it during the general election when this was a major element of our criminal policy.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

No, the amendment is certainly not withdrawn. Before the amendment is put, will the Minister give an indication to the House of where sentencing policy has failed? My statement regarding the information gap is valid unless he can advance to us a series of instances where the court erred or was unduly lax in giving just sentences to drug traffickers. We cannot accept this because he promised the electorate something in May 1997. We need and are entitled to know.

The Minister has or is supposed to have the statistical database. Could he give us five or six examples of the courts being unduly lenient? I gave the example of the Dutchie Holland case where the court imposed the maximum 20 year sentence. Why not leave it at the discretion of the court? It could be five, seven, 10, 15 or as in the Holland case 20 years. The Minister is implying the courts have not been doing their business in dealing with those involved in drug trafficking.

As an experienced Deputy, Deputy Higgins will appreciate and understand how undesirable it would be for a member of the executive to engage in criticism of the Judiciary. It would be quite unprecedented for a Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to do so. The legislation we are enacting to deal with people involved in drug trafficking is of tremendous importance because of the signal it sends that those involved in this pernicious activity will pay a very dear price.

Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 7 7; Níl, 7.

  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Belton, Louis.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Higgins, Jim (Mayo).
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Upton, Pat.

Níl

  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • Ryan, Eoin.

As there is an equality of Votes the question will be decided in the negative.

Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 11 to 14, inclusive, not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

As it is now 7 p.m. and Deputy Jim Higgins has tabled a number of amendments I propose that we adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, 21 November 1998. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Select Committee adjourned at 7 p.m.
Barr
Roinn