Northern Ireland Assembly

I think that summaries fairly the view expressed by the Law Society to the Ad Hoc Committee. I believe that it represents the views of those who found this particular article unacceptable.

Despite the disagreement that I indicated was within the Committee, the majority of members accepted draft article 6 and were content with it. However, the Committee went on to say that, although it was agreed at first, there was no clear definition of what is termed "non-contentious business" in the draft Order, and it recommended that this phrase should be clearly defined.

The Committee also said that the Secretary of State should enter into full and meaningful consultations with the relevant organisations before the implementation of the draft Order, and that the code of practice for investigators should be updated. In my view, that would represent both sides of the argument and the views of the Committee as agreed.

The recommendations have been outlined in the report, which was unanimously agreed by the Committee. The recommendations are a tribute to the perseverance of Committee members. Despite the very limited time period, the Committee worked very hard and energetically to deal with all the issues conscientiously. I commend the individual members of the Committee for their assistance and, in particular, the Deputy Chairperson, Mr Billy Bell.

I thank all the organisations for their written and oral evidence to the Committee. A number of the submissions and preparations for oral submission, as well as written submissions, were produced during the Christmas and new year holiday period. The organisations put a very special effort into preparation, and I thank them for that. I also thank the Assembly staff for their support and assistance throughout. In particular, I would like to thank, the Committee Clerk for his work and direction.

Finally, I invite Members to support the motion.

I want to thank the Member for North Belfast, Mr Alban Maginness, for chairing the Committee. It was a very difficult job, but it was one which he tackled with enthusiasm and great ability. He had the full support of other Committee members in chairing those meetings.

Before dealing with the contents of the Committee's report, I would like to draw Members' attention to one other issue, which I think was touched on by the Chairperson. It relates to the very tight deadline that was set for the Committee's work. By the time the membership of the Committee was agreed, and taking into account the Christmas recess, we had only three weeks to consider this very difficult and detailed piece of legislation, hear evidence and produce a report.

That timescale was totally inadequate. It was only because of the tremendous amount of time and effort given to the task by Committee members and staff that the Chairperson was able to present the report today. It is absolutely necessary that a more realistic timescale be allocated to a Committee of this kind to enable it to carry out the task. Committee members should be commended for the efficient way in which they conducted their business. A genuine and concerted effort was made to achieve consensus. That was difficult at times but, where it was possible to achieve such consensus, that has been reflected in the report.

This is an important piece of legislation. It will redress the balance between the criminal and the law-abiding citizen. The proposed legislation will enhance the effectiveness of the powers available to Government to prevent criminals from profiting from unlawful activities, a principle that has my full support. In Northern Ireland it is especially important that we tackle the mafia-style culture that has developed. We must cut off the lifeblood that sustains criminal activities.

As Mr Maginness said, a majority on the Committee was in favour of the introduction of the Order. However, individual members had reservations about some of the details, and the Chairperson has highlighted the proposed changes to the Order that would take account of such concerns.

During the Committee's deliberations I was concerned to ensure that the balance of the measures should be in favour of law-abiding citizens. I was also keen to ensure that we did not create any potential loopholes through which those who profit from illegal activities could escape. Of course, there were concerns about issues such as solicitor/client confidentiality, but I think that the report has addressed such issues constructively, striking the right balance between criminal and law-abiding activities. However, it was important that we should keep our eye on the main issue and make it as difficult as possible for criminals to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. We wanted to send out a clear message to that effect, and the report has achieved that objective.

I commend the report to the Assembly.

I endorse the comments of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson on the help that was given to us as we compiled the report. The work was done at a difficult time - during the holiday period - and a great deal of effort went into arranging attendances by witnesses, supplying members with written submissions, conducting meetings and writing the report.

The Assembly staff involved in that have our thanks and congratulations, as do those who took the time over the Christmas period to get a written submission to the Committee - regardless of what we think of those submissions.

This is an important piece of legislation. The RUC - which will be one of the main organisations to benefit from the extra powers - made it quite clear that this was a necessary piece of legislation. The police need it to enhance the effectiveness of the 1996 Order. As they said - although after reading some of the submissions I began to wonder if they were right in this assessment - no good argument can be advanced as to why individuals should profit from their illegal activities. Because of the range of professional advice that is now available to criminals, it is possible for them to engage in illegal activity, to benefit from it, to hide the gains and to snub their noses at the rest of law-abiding society.

I was disappointed by the balance of the arguments and by the almost knee-jerk reaction of the usual suspects, who feel that they must rise to the defence of the criminal underdogs, as they see them, on almost every occasion. I want to address some of the Chairperson's remarks. Anyone who listens to the news or watches what happens - not just in the inner city, though perhaps it is more evident there - will know of the sophistication that paramilitary organisations now have in laundering their ill-gotten gains, whether from protection money, racketeering, drug money, robberies or whatever else. It is not possible to deny that we must have some means of ensuring that those ill-gotten gains can be seized from those people once the illegal activity has been identified.

I live in the inner city myself, and it is evident to me that some individuals are clearly living beyond their means. They are driving cars that they could not afford on the limited income that they appear to have on the surface. In some cases they are flaunting their wealth. They appear to be local heroes because of their wealth, despite having no visible means of support. Clearly, we must have some way of dealing with that problem.

A year and a half ago a Housing Executive house three streets from mine was raided in search of drugs. The police came across £330,000 in cash. I do not know whether that was a month's takings, a week's takings or a lifetime's takings, but for someone with no job to have that kind of money available to them shows the level of money that can be earned through criminal activities. It is an affront. It is all well and good for those who represent, or claim to represent, the liberal wing of society. It is all well and good for those persons from the leafy suburbs to talk about keeping the balance right - "We must protect confidentiality between solicitors and their clients." It is all well and good for them to protect the rights of those who are caught up in a web of criminal intrigue, but it is an affront to those who get up in the morning, go out and work, pay their bills and try to keep the law. It is an affront that those people who decide to engage in criminal activity can benefit from it. I therefore agree with the RUC that this legislation is required. It is the RUC which has to deal with this issue, day in and day out, and it says that it is essential. The Customs and Excise officials also told us it was essential that the powers be extended to them. We have to listen to those who deal with this problem on a regular basis.

I was disappointed by the contribution from the Chairperson of the Committee. I timed that section of his speech in which he defended the views of the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society. Its contents certainly did not reflect the views of the Committee. As far as I remember, when this issue was discussed in the Committee, there was a majority decision that these powers should be extended, in their totality, throughout the Order. One dissenting voice was heard, and that was the Chairperson's. In his speech he gave almost a third of his time - and I timed it - to making the argument that was supported by only one person in the Committee.

I want to comment on some of the arguments he put forth. The discussion centred around the question of whether the powers of the trawl for information should be extended. I noted the Chairperson's use of the rather weighted term "the speculative trawl for information". Should this be extended from banks to solicitors? I want to make it clear to the House that there is no mention in the legislation of a "speculative trawl". Having spoken to the police, who have been engaged in these trawls, as far as bankers have been concerned, since 1996, I am quite clear that the trawl is far from speculative.

Police officers first have to build up a case, and then they have to go to a County Court magistrate and show that they cannot progress the case further unless they have this additional information. The County Court magistrate then cross-questions them to ensure that it is absolutely necessary that they get these powers. Only then will the powers be extended to the police or, now, to the Customs and Excise officers. It is not, therefore, a speculative trawl, in which one simply throws out a net and hopes that some information will arrive. It is focused and happens only when the police or Customs and Excise officers find that their investigations cannot go any further without additional information. That is not an unreasonable power to give.

Secondly, it has been argued that this measure will shatter the very foundations of the legal system. I hope I am not over-egging the pudding - I accept that the Chairperson did not actually use that terminology - but the idea has been expressed that, somehow or other, if this power were extended, the fragile balance in the law, where confidentiality exists between a solicitor and his client, would break down, which would be to the detriment of the legal profession.

When the Law Society's representatives appeared at the Ad Hoc Committee I asked some questions about that. It was quite enlightening. If one looks at page 47 of the report, one will see that they admitted that confidentiality between the client and the solicitor is not absolute. There were circumstances in which they would, and could be required to, disclose information. Mr Kinney said:

Confidentiality is not absolute. Mr Kinney continued:

Those are two instances where confidentiality can be breached and where information would be disclosed. All that the Order is doing is going that step further. It is stating that when the police have reason to believe, and can prove to a County Court judge, that there is criminal activity going on, and they need further information to proceed in the case, then they can apply for a trawl for information relating to that situation.

A lot of play has been made about the submission made by the Human Rights Commission. I become more and more disappointed the more I hear. The ordinary person in the street begins to wonder what kind of world some of the advocates of the various human rights organisations live in. It seems that their knee-jerk reaction is to regard any extension of powers to the establishment and to the state as a bad thing.

I will give one instance. When the chairperson of the Human Rights Commission came to the Committee he talked of his concerns about the legislation. I will not discuss all of those concerns. One illustrates the point I wish to make about the knee-jerk reaction. On three occasions in the commission's submission, the chairperson talked about the need to change the code of practice. He was asked what particular changes he would like to see. He was asked to be specific. His answer was most revealing. He pointed out that he could not be specific because he did not have a copy of the code of practice. He had not even read it, yet he was recommending changes to it.

To the ordinary person who wonders about the balance in all of this, that kind of knee-jerk reaction does not do any credit to any submission - it undermines a submission. Suffice it to say - though there are many other issues I could have raised - I believe that the vast majority of the Committee felt that not only was the legislation needed, but it should have gone far further. Some other Members may wish to take up the whole question of the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Irish Republic and the powers that it has. We did not get a chance to investigate that. I think that we were a bit worried about the response we received from the Human Rights Commission on whether the powers that the bureau might have would be allowed to stay. We will not get any thanks from the general public if we are seen in any way to wish to protect those who benefit from their ill-gotten gains, very often those ill-gotten gains having resulted in the destruction of whole neighbourhoods. We would not get any credit for wanting to water down any legislation which would then curtail the ability of the police or the authorities to recover the gains from those people. I, therefore, support the content of the Order.

The majority of the Committee supported all of the content of the Order. Despite the references which have been made to the Chairperson, in the end article 6 was supported by the Committee. We did ask that non-contentious business be defined. That is reasonable enough. We indicated that, as was the case in 1996, the people who will be affected by it will be consulted as to how it might best be implemented. The principle was firmly supported by the vast majority of Committee members.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom tacú le tuairisc seo an Choiste ar an Ordú um Imscrúduithe Airgeadais chomh maith, agus go háirithe ba mhaith liom tacú go mór leis na moltaí atá ann ón Aire.

I too support the Committee's report on the Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, particularly the recommendations which it makes to the Secretary of State. I, on behalf of my party, have no difficulty with enabling appropriate authorities to have the ability to identify and confiscate the proceeds of crime. I say that at the outset to pre-empt any remark which may follow.

I thank the Chairperson for giving the detail of the Order, which will save me referring to the particular articles. The Chairperson's report was a fair reflection of the Committee's debate and the submissions which were made, as the report itself is a fair reflection of the work of the Committee.

Whether there was any point to the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee and its deliberations will be determined by whether the Secretary of State gives due recognition to the report and its recommendations. I say so because the draft Order is already in place. It has already been drafted and has been through both Houses in Westminster. When the Secretary of State receives the report from the Assembly the Order will simply require his signature to bring it into effect, if that is what he decides to do. There is, therefore, a question about the usefulness of the operation of the Committee. It will depend upon whether the Secretary of State takes on board its recommendations.

The Financial Investigations Order itself is a significant extension of powers which already exist under the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Some consider the powers available under the Proceeds of Crime Order 1996 to be draconian, particularly article 49, which relates to the appointment and powers of a financial investigator. That part of the Proceeds of Crime Order is unique to the North of Ireland. It does not apply in England and Wales. It does not apply in Scotland, which has a different legal system. Similar powers of investigation are not available in the South of Ireland. The significant extension of those powers, which will be given by the Financial Investigations Order, will also be unique to the North of Ireland. We are told that there is an intention to bring a Bill before Westminster to put the powers of investigation in England and Wales on a par with those available here.

Others have asked why this Order is being brought in as an Order in Council. As a consequence, it does not undergo normal parliamentary debate and scrutiny. We are being delivered a ready-made package, following a lack of, or no, consultation.

We heard evidence from a wide range of people, and a number indicated that they were not consulted prior to the drafting of this Order. They had no opportunity to examine the study carried out on the exercise of the existing legislation - the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Law Society of Northern Ireland, Liberty and other organisations said there was no consultation prior to the drafting of the Order.

Other Members have pointed out the pressure of time on the Committee to deal with the issue, and that also applied to the people giving evidence. This matter was referred to the Assembly at the end of November by the Secretary of State. By the time the Committee was approved, appointed and had begun its work, it had barely three weeks to prepare a report for the Secretary of State by 12 February. The people we talked to had little time to study the legislation and had no prior consultation on the drafting. Many, including the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, did indicate that their response was provisional, given the time restraints. In particular, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission raised a number of points. It prefaced what it had to say about the Order by stating that it was in favour of the principle of identifying and confiscating the proceeds of crime - it had no difficulty with that principle.

When we talk about the rights of the individual - and I will probably use this term several times - we are not necessarily talking about somebody who is the subject of an investigation. We are not talking about somebody who, on the balance of probability, may or may not be a criminal. We are talking about the rights of every individual who may be affected by the legislation. To listen to some, one might think that this legislation is only going to be used against those who are benefiting from drugs or some other illegal activity and have vast sums of money. This legislation will apply to us all. When we talk about the rights of the individual, we are talking about any individual. The rights of the individual need to be balanced against the need to empower the authorities to identify and confiscate the proceeds of crime. There are potential implications for an individual's right to privacy.

The article that attracted most discussion was article 6. I must correct the Member who said only one person expressed reservations about article 6 and the Committee's response to it. In my recollection, the Chairperson suggested that the Committee had little response apart from the point about the clarity of definition of "non-contentious business". I certainly made it clear that it was my wish that the Committee include in its response to article 6 recommendations to the Secretary of State. I wanted him to address the lack of consultation by carrying out meaningful consultations with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Law Society of Northern Ireland on the concerns they had expressed to the Committee. The Chairperson did support that view, but he did not initiate that response with regard to article 6.

I am not going to go through all the articles. Article 6 is the most significant one. There are consequences for other parts of the Order. The legislation allows the appointment of Customs and Excise officers with certain powers of investigation, namely the power to issue general bank circulars or solicitor circulars. Article 6 extends the subject of a circular to solicitors' practices.

We now have the issue of solicitor/client confidentiality and legal/professional privilege. The Law Society of Northern Ireland feels that is an important principle. It did not say that the nature of the system of law would be shattered by the introduction of the Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001. However, it said that it believes it to be a further encroachment on the principle of solicitor/client confidentiality and legal/ professional privilege.

They went on to explain that, at present, solicitors are subject to the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and they can be required to produce information and documents relating to the activities of individuals under investigation or transactions they may have carried out. Solicitors are already subject to such provisions. However, under the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, there is specific protection given to the principle of solicitor/client confidentiality and legal/professional privilege.

I refer to schedule 2(4) of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which clearly determines when it is appropriate for a solicitor to give information and when it is not, because of legal/professional privilege. However, the same safeguards are not in the provisions of the Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001. The explanatory document refers to the enabling power of a trawl - for that is what it is. Any general solicitor circular issued will be issued to each solicitor's practice in the North of Ireland on the basis of the identification of a person under investigation.

The Northern Ireland Bankers' Association indicated in its submission that when its members are given the identity of a person they may have to consider other similar names, aliases and a number of potential addresses of the identified individual under investigation. This is in order to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Order and stay within the law. That, we can assume, will also apply to solicitors, as regards the application of this Order.

With respect to solicitor/client confidentiality, if the person being targeted for the purposes of investigation has made hundreds, thousands or millions of pounds from the proceeds of crime - be it from drugs or anything else - so be it. However, there are the rights of other individuals who may have been involved innocently in transactions with that individual. People with similar names may be identified. Information about their personal business and transactions will also have to be produced. That is why the Law Society, in the explanatory document which accompanied the Order, referred to it as a trawl. Because of the very wide nature of that trawl, which article 6 will enable financial investigators, members of the police and Customs and Excise to carry out, the Law Society has expressed concerns about solicitor/client confidentiality and legal/ professional privilege.

The Law Society also stated that it was not opposed to the concept of identifying or confiscating the proceeds of crime. It made the point that there should be meaningful consultation with the Secretary of State before the implementation of the Order.

I leave my remarks there. The report reflects the business carried out by the Committee and the views of the Committee fairly well. I ask Members to support the report. Go raibh maith agat.

I will join in the commendations of the Assembly staff in particular. It is fair to say that they strived far beyond the normal call of duty to enable this report to be produced, and to provide assistance for the Committee in the preparation of this report, coming as it did at the festive season.

I also want to underline the comments of previous Members who drew attention to the fact - not for the first time - that, while the Assembly is often put in the position of having to present complete reports or commentary on pieces of legislation, it often has little or no time to perform its function adequately. I had occasion to draw attention to this fact yesterday, and it happens again today.

Yet again, the message must go out loudly and clearly that there is a Northern Ireland Assembly to represent the people of Northern Ireland now. It shall not be, and should not be, treated with the type of contempt which seems to be becoming practice. Many of us are getting sick, sore and tired of this sort of behaviour. It is important to underline and stress that point every time that it happens, so that the slow drip might eventually get through to those who wish to sideline the voice of the elected representative.

The proposals in the Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 strengthen and amend powers which are provided for in the Proceeds of Crime Order (Northern Ireland) 1996. Their intention is explicit - to prevent criminals profiting from unlawful activity. Everyone in the House, without exception, should share the view that we have a responsibility to ensure that criminals do not profit from crime.

It is essential that criminals are deterred from their inclination to commit crime. The only way we can ensure that that will happen is to send out the strong and unambiguous message that crime does not pay. What can people see if they adopt the guise of the proverbial dogs in the street, which are often mentioned, and use their eyes and ears to look around? Any reasonable and sane person can see that the law, as it exists, is failing. It is failing society, and, because it is failing society, it appears to be assisting the criminal. That must end.

As mentioned earlier, some people have a lifestyle that totally belies their only apparent source of legitimate income. In many cases, their only current source of income is the dole or social security benefits, and yet they drive around in flashy cars and take their families on holidays to sunny climes. They demonstrate it more, and do much more, than we poor Assembly Members can possibly afford to do. Yet there are those outside who poke fun at us and say "Look at how much they are earning." When will we be able to afford holidays to sunny climes, to drive around in flashy cars, or to own numerous pieces of property in this city? Can we say that it all came from legitimate businesses - businesses over which no one would put a question mark?

We must ensure that the law is strengthened if we genuinely want to create a safe and just society. The existing law has been described as draconian, yet it is failing us. Is proof needed? The proof lies in the fact that crime - the mafia-style culture referred to earlier - is increasing. Do not accept my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker. For example, look at the drugs seizures, which have escalated by a hundred fold over several years.

The law is inadequate and needs to be strengthened if we are serious about producing the type of society that we want.

We must prevent criminals from profiting from their crime. Much of the profit from crime is used to finance further crime; it has a multiplier effect. That must be stopped, sooner rather than later, or we will be seen as being insincere about what we are endeavouring to do. Most crime is motivated by profit, so we must do all in our power to reduce and eliminate the profit motive. The report that we are discussing is a further step in that direction, but it is just a step. We must go further towards civil forfeiture, if we are to deal adequately with the growing problems that confront society. Reference has been made to the Criminal Assets Bureau in the South of Ireland, and there is also the example of legislation such as the RICO laws, introduced by the FBI to deal with the Mafia in the USA.

If we are serious about protecting the human rights of every decent man, woman and child, we must get the balance right. At the moment, the balance is tilting in favour of the criminal; if it were not, criminals would not be profiting to the extent that they do. We have suffered 30 years of terror: is it too much to expect that as we move, we hope, normality, we do so as the type of society of which we can be proud? That is not too much to ask.

Some who came before our Committee, although recognising the need to deal with crime, questioned the need to legislate in Northern Ireland in advance of the rest of the UK. They said that they did not have evidence that it was necessary here. I have a simple reply to that: I aspire - I hope that the whole House aspires - to a type of society in Northern Ireland that is better than that found in some cities in the rest of the UK. That is not too much to ask. We should set our sights higher, and we should strive daily to ensure that our legacy to future generations is a society of which they can be proud. To do that, we must emphasise that, in Northern Ireland, crime does not pay. If we do not succeed in that, we will have been wasting our time.

The civil rights of the individual are important; I would uphold them to the nth degree. However, a balance must be struck between the civil rights of those who commit crime and the civil rights of those who suffer as a result. There is an old legal maxim:

That should be put up in lights. People who want to use the law should ensure that they are not breaking it and are not merely seeking loopholes.

Members of the Assembly, as potential legislators, should also be prepared to look under every stone to see what worms are wriggling underneath and deal with them accordingly.

The Assembly should aspire to the words of Willie Hofmeyr, head of the Asset Forfeiture Unit in South Africa. He said:

That should be the Assembly's goal if it is going to clean up society and do away with the Mafia culture that is continuing to spread its tentacles.

Some form of explanation is required in order to give Members an impression or understanding of my experience of the Ad Hoc Committee. I remember saying that the insertion of certain provisos - for example, that the Secretary of State might have a chat, consultation or dialogue with people from whom the Committee had already heard - was a cop-out. It was rather like saying "The majority of us have made this decision, but if you can get the Secretary of State to pay attention you may have a chance." I felt that that was alien, but I was prepared to take a benign view and accept that, even though there was not unanimity in the Committee, there was a substantial majority.

In my experience of the Ad Hoc Committee, its Chairperson, Deputy Chairpersonn and members performed with excellence. However, the Chairperson protests too much today - there was too much emphasis on the minority position. If I were in a similar position I would suggest a minority report. It is unfortunate, but I concede that, for the most benign reasons, the majority of the Committee agreed that those who wished to should talk to the Secretary of State - not to be heard, but to feel, at least, that they had their day. That is what will happen.

I am concerned that all of this boils down to what solicitors say about the solicitor/client relationship. I accept that solicitors are exalted people and that law is an exalted and trusted profession. However, solicitors did not make it so; society founded that process. Now society is saying that, even though solicitors are an exalted and trusted people in an exalted and trusted profession, it is going to make another profession. What is wrong with that?

Society is going to make investigators who will, I imagine, be as trustworthy as solicitors, and who will not talk in the golf club about the cases they are investigating - just as the solicitors do not talk about the clients they represent. Is there some besmirchment on other human beings that they are not to be deemed capable of behaving with the calm rationale of solicitors? Is that what is being said?

Some solicitors have said that the time frames for doing a trawl on one person or more are difficult for a one- or two-man business to achieve. I understand that it takes time. However, I am almost insulted when solicitors tell me that the balance that has to be weighed up between civil or human rights and the need to protect society boils down to what they think the solicitor/client relationship is or should be.

We asked the bankers if they believed that society has lost faith in the banking system because of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The answer was a clear, unequivocal "No". If a bank manager - someone who knows your business and who would not talk about you over his gin and tonic in the golf club, yet is able to deal with the police and investigators trained for the job - does not feel that his profession has been besmirched, why should solicitors feel affected by the Order?

It is not really the criminal whom we want to protect; it is the people whom the criminal may have financial dealings with. Solicitors may handle the affairs of such people quite innocently even though the person at the other end of a financial deal is nefarious. The innocent would have no knowledge of that. If a drug dealer, or someone involved in another form of illegal amassing of wealth, reads Hansard tomorrow, he may say to himself "The more I do deals with clean people, the safer I am." Essentially that is the logic of what is being said. The dirty person may do the deal with a clean person, but because we care so much about the clean person's privacy we cannot follow the trail of financial impropriety of the person under investigation. It is ludicrous.

The Members who have spoken specifically in favour of the Order's going forward seem illiberal compared to some of our Colleagues who are not remotely illiberal. I am sure that Committee members have privately questioned whether we are doing the right thing.

I do not want to keep picking on my Colleagues or solicitors, or on the legal fraternity in general, but no lawyers live in my street. I live in a working-class Housing Executive street. There are no lawyers in it, but there are drug dealers not far away. There are those who can ply their trade, play loud music and are virtually untouchable because of their strength and power in those working-class communities. A solicitor cannot hear that and does not see it. When we ask for powers to be given to a section of our society whose job it is to catch criminals, we get those who defend criminals saying that it is not a good idea. In fairness, we must give people the tools to do the job. We do not ask lawyers to catch criminals; we ask investigators to catch criminals. Unless we give them the tools to do the job, then, as my Colleague Mr Close has said, they will fail. Sammy Wilson made the point that some Members believe that the suggested legislation is not proactive enough.

Let me give you an example that goes further than that given by Mr Close. He identified what the dogs in the street - which, by the way, are pups, so we know a bit about them - know about the person living nearby who has all the trappings of wealth and is on unemployment benefit. He is safe as long as he is not caught perpetrating a crime. In other words, as long as he does not get caught committing a crime, he can have as much wealth as he wishes, provided it is not perceived that he is a money launderer. One can be proactive about money launderers, but one cannot be proactive about the ones whom you can see.

That is illogical. Let us look sneaky and beaky about the ones we cannot see, because they are very clever and careful. They make paper trails, which is why we need legislation to follow them. Here they are, right in front of our faces, and we are not allowed to do anything about it. The ordinary people where I live will be saying that it does not add up and asking why somebody does not go and rap his door. Somebody who has the strength and the power should rap his door and ask where he keeps his money, where he got his money and what he does every day that gives him the capacity to live the way he does. The bookies? The lottery? Society says that you are not allowed to do that.

The best we have is what is before us. In paragraph 4 of its submission, the Law Society of Northern Ireland questioned why this measure is only being introduced here. I can only give my own assessment of that, because I had no dialogue with the Secretary of State when this was being planned. I imagine that in Glasgow, Cardiff or London it has taken time for drug and criminal networking to blossom. They have not done that well at stopping it over there. I suggest that we are not as far down the line on the issue of drugs as they are, but we sure as hell are catching up. The reason that this is being implemented in Northern Ireland is that we have structures ready and waiting - perhaps not waiting any more - that are quite capable of becoming, overnight, drug cartels that would frighten the life out of you. I am talking about elements of paramilitarism.

At this point I will give a glimpse of my former life. In mid-Ulster in 1994 I was in a very heated debate about issues relating to ceasefires with a group of people who have since become that exalted wonderful group the Loyalist Volunteer Force. They were not that then, but they have become that. They tried to tell me that they thought drugs were a good idea for financing the war. There are some stupid people among them who fell for the idea that it was for the great cause, and they moved in the direction of drugs. I do not say this simply to vilify them, even though they are eminently worthy of vilification, but because if they masquerade as drug dealers to feed and fuel the war, history tells us that you cannot build a war economy and not go to war.

That is why this swift, serious and, if you like, draconian legislation is required. I hope that that will serve as an example. Believe me, it is a real one. It applies to almost every area in this country. I live in Belfast, where heroin is freely available. Strangely enough, in what might pass in any society for small towns that are considered to be beyond urban development, in rural society - the Bible belt, as it is called in many countries - real hard drugs are available and have been for some time.

We used to watch American movies where all the bad things happened in the big cities. Belfast is our equivalent of a big bad city. I wonder how easily we have polluted the rest of this society. Belfast is actually cleaner, in some respects, than some of our very small towns.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>