THE Minister for Justice, Mrs Owen, said it would "certainly need some time" to consider a Fianna Fail Bill to confiscate assets of crime.

The principle of the Organised Crime (Restraint and Disposal of Illicit Assets) Bill, which was moved by the Fianna Fail spokesman on justice, Mr John O'Donghue.

The Minister said the Bill proposed a new principle a person could be deprived of property on the basis of allegations of criminal activity in respect of which there was no conviction.

The standard of proof it envisaged was that applicable in civil proceedings the balance of probabilities.

It must be recognised that there was in place for the past 18 months provision for confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The Garda, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts were developing the implementation of this law.

The proposals in the Bill represented "a significant departure" from the principles decided on by the House recently and they went against the advice of the Law Reform Commission. It raised constitutional concerns and contained drafting errors.

If Mr O'Donoghue felt that legislation passed recently was inadequate, he was quite right to bring forward proposals for change. She had shown herself to be "open to good ideas" in regard to private members' bills.

She would consult the Attorney General and examine the Bill to see how it could be improved or whether an alternative measure was needed to achieve the same objective.

Mr O'Donoghue said the Bill would entitle the High Court to freeze the assets of persons suspected of being in possession of the proceeds of organised crime on the evidence of a revenue commissioner or a chief superintendent of the Garda.

The powers proposed in the Bill were not contained in any existing statute and they were necessary to shift the balance of our laws to the detriment of the criminal.

The Bill was necessary to protect democracy. The suggestion that it was in some way unconstitutional was unsustainable. A clear precedent existed in the Offences Against the State Act which permitted the freezing of assets of illegal organisations.

A direct precedent also existed in the Offences Against the State Act for the acceptance by a court of opinion evidence from a Garda superintendent.

He regretted that the Minister had seen fit to undermine public confidence in the Bill "by uttering allegations of unspecified constitutional difficulties".

Organised criminals existed in order to acquire illicit assets, said Mr O'Donoghue. "This Bill is designed to deprive them of those assets.

The Bill defined organised crime as any undertaking involving theft or illegal acquisitions in excess of £10,000 or the distribution of controlled drugs within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The Bill could not be used against petty criminals. "It is specifically directed at the criminal gangs which have become bloated on the profits of drug dealing and the proceeds of audacious robberies.

"It permits the gardai, who frequently are unable to gather admissible, conventional evidence against criminal godfathers, to strike at the heart of their criminal empires."

The High Court would be enabled to freeze assets on the probability" that they represented the proceeds of organised criminal activity. Those claiming ownership of the assets would have to openly and publicly assert their claim and defend it in the face of cross examination.

"The Bill represents the will of the people. It is an example of democracy in action, of society moving against an evil within" said Mr O'Donoghue.

The killing of the journalist, Veronica Guerin, was calculated attack on the freedom of everyone in the country, intended to silence her and everyone who followed in her footsteps. She was killed because she wrote about organised criminals.

"She had become a threat to their continued operation and to their continued enjoyment of illegally acquired assets."

Ms Liz O'Donnell, the PD spokeswoman on justice, said its was clear from the Minister's statement that she was not accepting the Bill at all.

The time had come to balance the books in terms of fairness to the state in prosecuting matters and fairness to the accused. "There is a vast monopoly of jurisprudence and laws to protect the rights of the accused. The improvement of the arm and capacity of the State to prosecute and "tackle serious criminality need not diminish the rights of the accused."

In the area of "organised crime" there was often a whole series of events. A drug wholesaler funded a drugs deal by a bank robbery. He would illegally import drugs and supply them. He would then illegally launder the proceeds.

What set organised crime apart was the element of co-ordination and an element of fear and menace, such as "protection money".

Drug trafficking and organised crime presented the State with problems which the criminal justice system was not equipped for.

The Bill contained radical measures which were needed and it could be improved as it went through its various stages.

No democracy could accept that highly suspicious people known to be involved in criminal activity should be untouchable.

There are people who are shouting caution to us lest we enact laws which we might regret later when emotions have calmed. To those people she would say not to be afraid. The Dail was well capable of legislating carefully within the Constitution.

Mr Brendan Kenneally (FE, Waterford) said the Minister had shown political pragmatism and wisdom in accepting the Bill.

"The public want swift and decisive action on these callous acts and on the perpetrators of criminality in our society today." But the Government was still riven with disputes, contrary views and conflicting ideology.