I move "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Customs and Excise (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 1987 [Seanad]: Second Stage.
The House will be aware that the previous Government circulated the text of their Customs and Excise (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1987, immediately prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 20 January last. The Government have now given careful consideration to their predecessors' legislative proposals in that Bill and have decided that they are necessary and should be proceeded with. Accordingly, that Bill was initiated by this Government in Seanad Éireann and passed with a number of amendments last week.
The various sections of the Bill fall into one or other of four categories, as follows:
(i) New measures specifically in relation to drug smuggling; these give customs officers power to search persons without warrant in the vicinity of any port, airport or the land frontier and powers to search premises under warrant; these provisions are similar to the powers of the Garda under the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 and 1984, as recommended by the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism;
(ii) new measures aimed at strengthening the hand of the customs service in fighting smuggling generally;
(iii) The Bill contains a number of measures aimed at clarifying, or technically adjusting existing Customs and Excise legislation; these include the application of Customs and Excise law to oil found onshore or to oil and other goods produced on Irish-designated areas of the Continental Shelf and related matters and
(iv) Finally, the Bill increases the level of penalties for a number of certain offences under existing Customs and Excise legislation.
The most important provisions are those which aim to equip the customs service to deal more effectively with drug smuggling. The availability and misuse of drugs, particularly hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine, in this country pose a grave threat to the individual and to society in general. It is an evil which must be tackled on all fronts. As officers of Customs and Excise are in the front line in this fight I consider it vital that they be given the additional powers proposed. This is in line with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism.
Much of the debate in the Seanad centred on section 2 of the Bill, and rightly so since it is a key section. That section confers on officers of Customs and Excise powers to detain and search, without warrant, persons, vehicles, vessels etc. in the vicinity of any port, airport or the land frontier for the purposes of detecting drug smuggling. This confers on officers of Customs and Excise powers similar to those already conferred on the Garda Síochána by the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 and 1984.
Customs officers already have considerable powers of search under present legislation, some of which dates back to 1876. I think it would be helpful to Deputies if I outline these present powers and I hope that it will then become clear that the main thrust of section 2 is to extend to customs officers powers of search in relation to what may be termed "meeters and greeters", that is, persons in the vicinity of a port, airport or the land frontier who are not travellers and who are not suspected of an export offence. The present powers of search available to officers of Customs and Excise are as follows:
Customs officers may search without warrant
—any person who has entered the State by land, sea or air;
—any person suspected of an offence in relation to exportation of goods,
—aircraft and ships,
—vehicles within 20 miles of the land frontier and
—vehicles anywhere else in the State "upon reasonable suspicion or probable cause".
Customs officers may also search under warrant any house, shop, cellar, warehouse or other place.
The effect of this section, therefore, is to extend to customs officers in respect of "meeters and greeters" the powers they already have in relation to travellers and in relation to persons suspected of an exportation offence.
As I said, section 2 generated much debate in the Seanad and I am thankful to all the Senators involved for their contributions which were interesting, frank and very constructive. In fact, that debate led to the amendment of section 2 by the addition of parts (A), (B), (C) and (D) to subsection (1) (i) of section 2. That amendment specifies certain safeguards for any person who is to be searched and ensures that any such person understands the reason for the search and that the search is conducted sympathetically and with due respect for the individual being searched. In relation to safeguards I might mention also that the 1876 Customs Consolidation Act provides that, before any person is searched by a customs officer, he or she can ask to be taken before a justice or before a senior official of customs who must determine whether or not "reasonable cause" for the search exists. Furthermore, any person who has a complaint against an officer of Customs and Excise can complain to a superior officer or to the Revenue Commissioners and can also seek redress through the Ombudsman or the courts. It is always difficult to balance the rights of the individual against the rights of the community but I am satisfied that the safeguards mentioned strike the best balance in the circumstances.
I would like to stress at this point that it is not proposed that the search of an individual will extend to compulsory intimate body searches. Neither the Garda nor the prison service, I am informed, conduct such searches and such powers of search are not now proposed for customs officers. Under existing law, individuals may be detained for as long as is reasonably necessary to conduct a search. More extensive powers of detention are not being sought. Let me assure the House, however, that if the need to increase the powers available to customs officers in relation to period of detention arises, this will be given very careful and detailed consideration. The Government are satisfied that the provisions in this Bill, together with the existing powers of search, are sufficient and appropriate to deal with the situation as it now stands.
Section 3 is important also in the fight against drug smuggling and it arises, too, from the recommendations of the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism. It provides for the issue to, and execution by, an officer of Customs and Excise of a search warrant authorising him or her to search premises or land for controlled drugs which were illegally imported or are intended to be illegally exported, or for documents relating to such drugs. The section also empowers the officer who executes the search warrant to arrest any person found in the place being searched and to search that person. This is an important provision, I believe, if the Customs service is to tackle effectively the problem of drug smuggling.
Taken together, sections 2 and 3 of the Bill will, the Government believe, increase the effectiveness of the Customs service in making drug detections but, while the powers envisaged will form an important part of our first line of defence, great reliance must continue to be placed on the efforts of the Garda and on information provided by the Garda and from agencies, including customs services in other countries, about the movement of drug traffickers.
As I have already indicated, other provisions in the Bill not arising from the recommendations of the select committee in relation to drug smuggling provide for some strengthening of the law in relation to smuggling generally. I wish to take this opportunity to restate to this House the points already made by the Minister for Finance to the Seanad about smuggling. The Government are deeply perturbed at the apparent scale of commercial smuggling of certain goods such as drink, oil products and electrical goods. Smuggling damages local retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers and robs the Exchequer of vitally important revenues. The receivers of such goods obtain their "bargains" at the cost firstly of their neighbours' livelihoods and secondly, of the ability of the Exchequer to maintain essential public services at an optimum level. I know that legitimate traders are seriously perturbed at the existence of such traffic and the unfair position they find themselves in when trying to compete with smuggled commodities. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind as to the detrimental effects of participating in such black economy transactions. They are not helping the community, the economy or ultimately themselves by so doing. Smugglers are encouraged by those who are prepared to accept a quick return by availing of under-the-counter services and every effort must be made to strengthen the hand of the Customs service to tackle the problem. The entire fabric of our business and social structure is affected by smuggling. There must be no dissembling in recognising smuggling for what it is; there can be no pretence that it is morally or socially acceptable or somehow justified by high taxation levels. No such argument is acceptable. The Government do not intend to allow the community to continue to suffer from these abuses.
The Bill also contains a number of technical adjustments to existing Customs and Excise legislation and also contains clarification of the Customs and Excise status of goods won from the Irish-designated areas of the Continental Shelf, and it provides for excise control measures in relation to oil found onshore or in areas of the Continental Shelf over which the State exercises sovereign jurisdiction. There is also provision for the application of Customs and Excise controls to goods conveyed by pipeline.
Finally the Bill increases a number of penalties in relation to breaches of Customs and Excise law. The Government took the opportunity during the passage of the Bill through the Seanad to increase the penalties to levels they consider appropriate to the circumstances.
I turn now to outline in sequence the provisions of the Bill.
Section 1 contains definitions and provides for standard interpretation clauses.
Section 2 gives officers of Customs and Excise powers to detain and to search, without warrant, persons, vehicles, etc. for the purposes of detecting drug smuggling. The section provides that these powers may be exercised in the vicinity of a port, airport, or the land frontier. I have already explained the rationale behind this section.
Section 3 provides for the issue to, and execution by, an officer of Customs and Excise of a search warrant authorising him to search premises or land for controlled drugs which were illegally imported or are intended to be illegally exported, or for documents relating to such drugs. The section also empowers the officer who executes the search warrant to arrest any person found in the place being searched and to search that person.
Section 4 provides for the acceptance as evidence, in proceedings under the customs Acts in drugs smuggling cases, of certificates giving the results of tests or analyses carried out in the State laboratory.
Section 5 provides for the issue of a search warrant to an officer of Customs and Excise to search premises or places where books or documents relating to smuggling transactions are suspected of being kept or concealed. It also provides for the seizure of any such documents, as well as any smuggled goods which may be found in the course of a search. Under existing law, there is no provision for the issue of a search warrant to an officer of Customs and Excise authorising him to search for documents per se. Such documents can be vital in the successful prosecution of a case against a smuggler.
Section 6 provides that, where goods liable to seizure or detention by customs are found in a vehicle or other conveyance, the vehicle or conveyance shall be deemed to have been made use of in the conveyance of the goods, and thus liable to seizure or detention along with them. The purpose of this section is to remedy a possible weakness in the existing law governing the forfeiture of vehicles used to convey uncustomed, prohibited or restricted goods.
Section 7 makes provision for the detention by an officer of Customs and Excise of goods suspected of having been smuggled or of being irregularly exported. The period of detention, which may not exceed one month, is to enable investigations to be carried out to determine whether the goods in such cases should be seized. Legal problems can arise in the case of premature seizure of goods which this section will surmount by providing for a period of detention of suspect goods.
Section 8 remedies a possible technical weakness in one of the existing provisions relating to the liability to forfeiture of smuggled goods by providing generally that such goods shall be liable to forfeiture, regardless of whether they have been unshipped or unladen.
Section 9 deals with the onus of proof in certain proceedings relating to exported goods or goods seized under the customs Acts. Under existing law, where proceedings are taken by the State under the customs Acts in respect of goods suspected of having been illegally imported, the onus of proving that the goods were lawfully imported rests on the defendant. Section 9 provides for a similar onus in relation to goods suspected of having been illegally exported or of being intended for illegal exportation. The section also provides that where civil actions are brought against the Revenue Commissioners, etc., in relating to goods seized under the customs Acts — and this includes customs officers and the staff of the Customs and Excise — the onus of proving where the goods originated, or whether the goods were lawfully imported or were lawfully exported or otherwise lawfully dealt with for exportation, is on the person bringing the proceedings.
Section 10 provides that goods won from the Irish-designated areas of the Continental Shelf and brought directly ashore shall be deemed for Customs and Excise purposes to have been grown, produced or manufactured in the State and not to have been imported.
Section 11 provides for the application of excise controls to (a) oil found in the State and (b) oil found in Irish-designated areas of the Continental Shelf and deemed under the previous section to have been produced in the State.
Section 12 empowers the Minister for Finance to make regulations governing the importation or exportation of goods over the Border with Northern Ireland. The section also provides that the existing land frontier regulations shall have effect as if they had been made under the section, and increases the maximum penalty for contravention or of failure to comply with the regulations from £100 to £1,000. The purpose of the section is to remove any possible doubt about the validity of the existing regulations.
Section 13 empowers the Minister for Finance to apply the provisions of the Customs and Excise Acts to pipelines and goods conveyed in pipelines. In effect this will enable the normal Customs and Excise controls, e.g. the requirements to make Customs entry, which govern goods transported by ship, aircraft and road vehicle, to be applied to goods conveyed by pipeline.
Section 14 provides for a general penalty of £1,000 for offences relating to illicit distillation under the Illicit Distillation (Ireland) Act, 1831 and provides that a district justice may mitigate the penalty for these offences to not less than one half of the full penalty. The most common offences committed against the 1831 Act relate to possession of equipment or materials used in illicit distillation and making, possessing, conveying or selling illicit spirits, which currently attract penalties of £200. A district justice is currently empowered to mitigate these penalties to not less than £6.
Section 15 increases from £100 to £1,000 the maximum penalty which may be imposed for an offence under section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881. The offences referred to in that section include assault or obstruction of Customs and Excise officers and rescue of seized goods.
Section 16 amends section 31 of the Finance Act, 1929 so as to confer on an officer of Customs and Excise authority, in cases of suspected fraud, to detain documents relating to goods the importation or exportation of which is prohibited or restricted. That section already authorises the detention of documents in cases of suspected fraud relating solely to Customs or Excise duties. This provision brings documents relating to goods which are prohibited or restricted within the scope of section 31. Section 16 also increases, from £50 to £1,000, the penalty for resisting an officer in the performance of his or her duty under section 31 of the Finance Act, 1929.
Section 17 increases from £100 to £1,000 the maximum penalty which may be imposed for contravention of regulations made by the Minister for Finance governing the application of Customs and Excise law and controls to Shannon customs-free airport.
Section 18 increases, from £100 to £1,000, the maximum penalty which may be imposed for contravention of regulations made by the Minister for Finance governing the application of Customs and Excise law and controls to imports and exports by air.
Section 19 amends section 29 of the Finance Act, 1971, so as to ensure that prohibited or restricted goods are subject to the same controls as dutiable goods when they are being imported or being taken out of the State by travellers in their baggage and to strengthen the powers of officers of Customs and Excise in relation to control of travellers. The proposed amendment to the 1971 Act is necessary in order to provide a clear legal obligation on incoming travellers to declare to customs prohibited or restricted goods in the same way that it is mandatory for travellers to declare dutiable goods in excess of the permitted limits and to impose an obligation on travellers leaving the State to answer any questions put to them by a Customs and Excise officer and to produce their baggage for examination.
Section 20 provides for the short title of the Bill and for its construction with the customs Acts and the excise statutes.
In introducing this Bill to Dáil Éireann I want to pay tribute to our Customs service. Let me echo what the Minister for Finance said when he introduced this Bill to Seanad Éireann. The Customs service have a difficult, frequently unpopular and sometimes dangerous job to do. Most of us have contact with them only when we are entering or leaving the country. We should remember that, in addition to doing an essential regulatory job, they are our first line of defence against smugglers who have the capacity to destroy the economy and to create considerable social distress. The smuggler of today is often a very sophisticated operator and we must keep pace with developments in giving our Customs officers adequate powers.
The Government are of the view that the measures set out in this Bill will be of significant assistance to the work of the Customs and Excise service particularly in the area of drug smuggling. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.
Mr. Noonan
(Limerick East): I should like to thank the Minister for his very informative speech. I welcome the Bill. We have no difficulty with its principles and are hoping to give it a reasonably speedy passage through the House. In thanking the Minister I should like to compliment the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism who did some of the preparatory work on this and initiated a debate which gave rise to the Bill which was introduced by Deputy John Bruton when Minister for Finance on 28 January last, a short time before the general election. Reading the debate on the Bill in the Seanad one can see that a very good job was done on it in that House. I was delighted to see that the Minister approached it in an open fashion, that he listened to what Members of the Seanad had to say and accepted amendments. That is the proper way to treat the Houses of Parliament. I always thought it most peculiar that it was a tradition for a Minister to present a Bill which could not be changed in any respect, even to a comma or semi-colon, as if it was holy writ from the top of the mountain. I do not think that was good practice and it ignored the parliamentary process. I was delighted to hear that the Minister of State accepted amendments in the Seanad. It is my intention to table amendments on Committee Stage and I am sure the Minister will approach them in the same open-minded fashion that he approached amendments in the Seanad.
In my view this is what could be described as a Committee Stage Bill and my main contribution will be when we reach that Stage. For that reason I do not intend to detain the House now. We can all agree with the principle of the Bill because we are all aware of the scourge that drugs can be in a society. I do not think it is possible to conceive of a measure which would be draconian enough to fight the evil we have experienced in this city and from what we know of what is happening in other cities around the world. Drugs can have a devastating effect on young and old, on families and communities. We are all aware that drug abuse erodes the foundations of a fabric of society. Like other countries, we have to respond in the strongest possible manner to protect ourselves and our communities from the scourge of drugs. I do not think there is any need to pursue that point.
As Minister for Industry and Commerce when going through Singapore airport and, subsequently, into Kuala Lumpur and Malaysia I got a shiver down my spine when I saw posters at the airport warning people that if they were found guilty of the possession of illegal drugs the punishment would be death. Drug smuggling is a capital offence and dramatic posters with a rope around an individual's neck greeted people as they went through customs. I was inclined to check my pockets to see if I had travel sickness tablets or aspirin in case they were mistaken for hard drugs. Those posters brought the message home to me. I mention that experience because throughout the world governments have taken measures to deal with the smuggling of drugs which they would not dream of introducing for other crimes because of the consequences to civil liberties. We are not out of line in being more draconian in combating drugs than in combating any other crime.
Traditionally Customs and Excise officers have had powers which are stronger than those given to police forces and there has been a long tradition of Customs and Excise legislation being extremely draconian to prevent smuggling, much stronger than powers given to police forces on these islands or in Western Europe to combat crimes under normal criminal law. However, I will be looking for an explanation in regard to certain provisions on Committee Stage. Section 1, the definition section, defines an officer of the Customs and Excise as including a member of the Garda Síochána and any person in the public service from time to time being employed in the prevention of the illegal importation of anything. On the face of it the Bill seeks to give extra powers to customs officers but because of that provision in the definition section every power in the Bill is being given not only to customs officers but to the Garda Síochána — that is fair enough — and to anybody who from time to time might be employed by the Revenue Commissioners, somebody in a part time job, in a summer job, in temporary employment or assigned from another Department to combat a bad outbreak of smuggling along the Border. I would like to talk about all that on Committee Stage because these powers are very wide. I am not making any charge of concealment but the way this is worded gives the impression that these powers are confined to customs officers. They are not. They are given to every garda and to anybody who can pass as an employee of the Revenue Commissioners, even if he was only employed on that activity for one day.
The place where the power can be exercised is also very wide. The Bill is drafted in a way that would suggest it is more confined than it is. The customs officer can exercise the power in the vicinity of any port, any airport or within 20 miles of the land frontier. When you put all that together it means that these powers can be exercised anywhere in the State and at any time. If that is the intent, it would be better to state that in the Bill. The Minister might be able to give me the information but I think there are between 50 and 60 air strips in the country, there are many ports and 20 miles from the land border brings us a good way into the country.
A third of the population live in Dublin. Let us look at Dublin and see if there is any part of this city which is not in the vicinity of a port or airport. If a person is along the seafront or near the Liffey he is in the vicinity of the port. If he is on the north side, he is in the vicinity of Dublin Airport. If he is in the west of the city, he is in the vicinity of Baldonnell. If a person moves south he is in the vicinity of Dún Laoghaire, another port. The powers being sought and the powers we will give are very wide first, when they define the customs officer as any policeman or any person who from time to time is employed by the Revenue Commissioners. That power can be exercised right through the country. I am not objecting to that. It would be ludicrous if the same powers were not given to the Garda. It would be ludicrous if a power could not be exercised to prevent drug smuggling within 500 metres of an airport, that once a person got beyond that cordon sanitaire he was free to do as he liked. That would not be right either, but in presenting the Bill it would be better if things were as they appear. There seems to be a manner of drafting which suggests that the powers are not as wide as they really are. I will be coming back to that on Committee Stage.
I presume we will spend a lot of time on section 2 on Committee Stage because this section is the most important as far as drug smuggling is concerned. I have already dealt with the idea of the vicinity of the airport, but the powers of search need explanation and clarification. In the Seanad the Minister said it was not the intention to exercise this power in a manner which would involve intimate searching by customs officers of people reasonably suspected of smuggling drugs. I wonder is that wise? As I understand it, a lot of smuggling is done by swallowing drugs and concealing hard drugs in the orifices of the body. I wonder if we are going far enough in the powers of search in this Bill. On the fact of it, section 2 would allow a customs officer to intimately search almost anybody coming through an airport but the Minister said it is not the intention to do that. I would prefer if the Bill gave the customs officers powers which the Minister thought desirable. If that is to be the power of intimate searching, then say so, but if it is the Minister's view that customs officers should not intimately search people coming through our ports and airports, then that power should be more restricted. It seems to me that, on the face of it, this power is given but we have a commitment from the Minister that that power will not be exercised. There might be a better way of approaching this and I will be returning to it on Committee Stage.
There are a number of other matters I will be raising on Committee Stage. I notice very extensive powers of search are given in sections 3 and 5. On the face of it, these are presented as very draconian powers of search to eliminate drug trafficking which is fair enough, but when we read the Bill we find the Minister is widening the net. He wants the same powers of search to apply to any commodity which is being smuggled into the country. As I said previously, there are draconian measures in every country to deal with drug trafficking. The Minister is introducing this measure, giving very strong powers of search, to combat drug trafficking but subsequently he is extending these powers into what might be called common or garden smuggling without any estimation of value and any person smuggling any item would be subject to the same search as somebody suspected of drug smuggling.
I also have a doubt about the mechanism for search, that is, where a justice of the District Court or a peace commissioner is satisfied from information on oath from a Customs and Excise officer that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting a whole series of things. I am not too sure that such a serious power should be granted by a peace commissioner. I do not know the up to date number of peace commissioners but there are quite a number of them.
We all have an intimate knowledge of how peace commissioners are appointed. Many of us have been involved in either appointing them or petitioning Ministers for Justice to appoint them. Usually they are men and women of quality who are respected in their community and frequently they are attached to political parties, but they do not have a judicial background or judicial training of any sort. Frequently a peace commissioner will comply with the request of a garda or a Customs and Excise officer and will not look behind the request but will grant it. That is fair comment and we all know it.
The powers being given here are very wide, the widest powers of search I have ever seen. They are wider than the powers of search granted in the criminal justice legislation which caused such commotion when I was putting it through the House. The vesting of that power in thousands of peace commissioners needs to be questioned. I accept that powers of search are absolutely necessary. I accept that a district justice is a fit person and I can see the reason these powers are being extended to peace commissioners but it is a point I will be raising on Committee Stage.
The Minister may ask where they will find a district justice to grant a warrant to search a premises in the city if drugs are being brought into Dublin Airport in the middle of the night. So far as the drugs element is concerned, I will be prepared to concede the point because drug trafficking can always give rise to an emergency, but when the same power is extended to smuggling other commodities, to vest that power in a peace commissioner is casting the net a little too wide. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that before I consider putting down an amendment.
In regard to the powers of search, particularly in relation to documents, there does not seem to be any clause to protect the professional relationship between a client and a member of a profession. For example, do these sections allow a garda or an officer of customs, on the authorisation of a peace commissioner, to enter the office of an accountancy firm and to take away the confidential files containing information of the client's professional relationship? It seems it would. It also seems it would give the power to a garda or a customs officer, on the authorisation of a peace commissioner, to enter a solicitor's office, to demand the personal files of clients and to take them away for examination. It might also authorise a customs officer or a garda, on the authorisation of a peace commissioner, to enter the premises of a doctor or a hospital and to take away confidential files if he thought they would provide documentary evidence of smuggling, especially in relation to drug smuggling.
Is it cast so wide that it would extend to the confidential files of drug treatment centres in hospitals? Would the power then act as an inhibition on those who are hooked on hard drugs from getting the treatment they need in clinics? The Minister knows what I have in mind. On one reading, it looks as if it would only refer to documentation directly related to smuggling, on another it could imply that anything that would throw light on smuggling activities would come within the ambit of the section. The whole area of the confidentiality of professional-client relationships is something I should like to again raise on Committee Stage.
It is most peculiar that criminal law legislation which emerges from the Department of Finance is generally acceptable, more or less welcomed and nodded through. However, if the same Bill emanated from the Department of Justice we would be here for months trying to get it through. Obviously, the pedigree of a Bill is very important in this House. For example, section 14 provides a general penalty of £1,000 for offences relating to illicit distillation under the Illicit Distillation Act, 1831. However, there is a provision where a district justice will no longer be able to mitigate the penalty for the offences in full. He can only mitigate half the fine. I do not want to make too much out of this but it is curious because various Ministers of Justice have informed the House on numerous occasions that a judge must at all times consider the ability of a convicted person to pay a fine before he imposes one. We were told that is why we cannot have minimum fines and that it is a plank of common law that a judge cannot knowingly impose a fine which he knows the convicted person cannot pay. He would, in effect, be passing a prison sentence on a person because, in the absence of payment of the fine, the person would go to jail. If that emanated from the Department of Justice there would be a right row in this House but it is all right when it comes from the Department of Finance——
We have some good ideas.
Mr. Noonan
(Limerick East): I wonder if it is constitutional because I have serious doubts about tying the hands of a district justice in regard to fines. The people who drafted the Bill must have had the same doubts and it looks as if serious advice was given on that section by the Attorney General's office. If you wanted to impose a fine of £1,000 or £500 on someone for making poitin, the normal thing to do would be to introduce a minimum fine by saying that a district justice shall not impose a fine of less than £500 on conviction under this section. It is not done that way and it is an attempt to give the traditional discretion to district justices which is required under common law and to fudge the issue. It is probably still unconstitutional although it is unlikely that the distillers of the white bottle will go to the Supreme Court to test the issue.
Another section which would raise eyebrows and hackles if it emerged from the Department of Justice but does not have the same effect coming from the Department of Finance is section 9 which involves the reversal of proof. In all criminal law it has long been insisted that a person is innocent until proven guilty and that the onus of proof is on the State. This is an example of the onus of proof being reversed; it will now be on the person charged to prove he did not illegally import specific goods. I would not even mention this if the power was confined to drug smuggling but it is not. This gives the power to customs officers to bring somebody to court, having accused them of smuggling a portable television set from Newry, and demanding proof that they did not. That is not the way our courts behaved in the past or the way criminal law has been organised. If that came from the Department of Justice it would be treated with enormous suspicion as a device to subvert civil liberties.
While I welcome the principle of the Bill — it is about time that these powers were given to customs officers and members of the Garda Síochána in relation to drug smuggling — I have questions about the manner in which the Bill is constructed. It certainly gives far wider powers than its casual reading would suggest. It introduces new principles to criminal law which were previously rejected in this House. I particularly welcome the open-ended manner in which the Minister is handling this and I am sure he will be open to accepting amendments on Committee Stage if we can convince him that they are worthwhile.
Any measure which can control and ultimately do away with the abuse of drugs is welcome. Many questions are raised by this Bill as to how these new measures are to be implemented and as to who will be responsible. There is no doubt that the control of misuse of drugs is the essential element in this Bill. Drug abuse is indeed the greatest curse of modern society. Ireland has not been safe from the terrible consequences of drug abuse, particularly of hard drugs like heroin and cocaine.
The Bill proposes to widen the powers of Customs and Excise to deal with drugs importation. In principle we are in favour of the Bill. The legal remedies available to combat drug pushing are not sufficient. The Government in another Bill should introduce a remedy in both the civil courts and the criminal courts to trace and sequester the assets of drug dealers. This would be a very important deterrent in the area of drug smuggling.
This Bill gives wide ranging powers to Customs and Excise officers. The definition of these officers is so widely defined as to be not defined at all. What training will the Customs and Excise officers have? From reading the Bill the impression is that anyone employed in the Civil Service can be sent to the front line at any stage to handle drug smuggling and no proper training seems to be involved. This is not the way to approach this serious matter. The Garda Síochána enforce law here. I would rather see in this Bill a clear indication that the Garda are the ultimate authority in this area. There should be provision for more co-operation in the activities of Customs and Excise officers under the control of the Garda particularly in the areas of searching. The Bill mentions facilities for searching suspected drug smugglers. Where are these facilities? Who is the ultimate arbiter in the context of conducting searches? It is wrong to assign this job to untrained personnel, to personnel without legal backing, without technical qualifications and so on. According to this Bill even part time employees in the Civil Service could be in the front line in this area. There is no requirement that officers should have a warrant from the Minister or from the Revenue Commissioners to exercise these powers. In the context of powers to detail and perform body searches this legislation gives no safeguard that the person involved will have any legal, technical or social training or any system of discipline such as the Garda have. I understand what the Minister is trying to tackle but there are ways and means of going about it that would be far more efficient. The job of carrying out searches should not be on an ad hoc arrangement involving people without training in these matters.
The matter of intimate searching was raised earlier. In the prevention of drug smuggling in other countries, one of the main areas of drug detection, particularly coming through airports, is in the area of body searching. The facilities at the disposal of Customs and Excise officers in other countries are substantial and it is recognised that without those facilities they would not be able to carry out proper searching. People involved in drug smuggling are extremely sophisticated and one cannot find what one wishes to detect without the proper facilities at one's disposal. I do not see where these facilities are and I do not see who is to operate them.
There should be far better co-operation between the Garda and the customs officers. The Bill does not indicate that the Garda Drug Squad would be directly involved with the customs officers. They should be, particularly where customs officers have information or a suspicion that there is to be a major drug smuggling operation. In such cases the customs officers should immediately contact the drug squad as the Garda are the ultimate arbiters in this area. This contact would lead to a far more efficient, disciplined and professional approach, as the Garda are a professional body in this whole area. This should not be left totally to the Customs and Excise officers, especially to untrained Customs and Excise officers.
This Bill also deals with illicit distilling. We are all aware of what occurred in this area in the last week in the Cork area in relation to illicit vodka. This area is open to abuse and measures which would deal effectively with it are welcome. Duties and so on on the production of alcohol are to be collected by the Customs and Excise officers. This is correct but is the Minister aware that in the case of any goods and spirits moving out of bonded warehouses, Customs and Excise take no responsibility for the collection of VAT? It is not even charged on the Customs and Excise documents. Millions of pounds are being lost to the Department of Finance and to the Revenue Commissioners in this area. If a person with a bonded warehouse is prepared to buy in direct and large quantities of alcohol, he is only charged on the taking of those goods out of bondage, for the duties involved, but is not charged VAT. The Customs and Excise people say they have no responsibility in this area and there is no co-ordination so as to collect the VAT. That is why in so many areas we see huge variations in the retail prices of a bottle of spirits. Some people are able to sell spirits knowingly having gained them without paying VAT because VAT is not charged on the customs document. This may not be smuggling but it is an area that seriously needs to be considered by the Department of Finance.
The increased fines to be imposed in many areas are right and proper. It is interesting, as Deputy Noonan (Limerick East) said, that the minimum fine should be referred to. I spoke on another Bill in this House some weeks ago and suggested something along these lines. While I cannot remember the exact wording I seem to remember I was told something to the effect that probably my suggestion was unconstitutional in some way. Yet what I had suggested with regard to another Bill seems to have been incorporated in this one. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that because there appears to be a contradiction there.
In the course of his introductory remarks the Minister said that the customs service have a difficult, frequently unpopular and sometimes dangerous job to do. He continued to say:
We should remember that, in addition to doing an essential regulatory job, they are our first line of defence against smugglers who have the capacity to destroy the economy and to create considerable social distress.
I agree with all of those sentiments. I would pose the question: does that not highlight the very need for serious and proper training of the people who are to carry out that frontline work about which we speak? Indeed there would be considerable dangers to these people were they not properly trained and it is essential that they should be. We will be proposing some amendments on Committee Stage. I have intimated in a general way some of the areas we will be examining.
There is also the fact of the district justice and/or peace commissioner being involved in the issue of warrants. Why not the Garda? Why should a district justice or peace commissioner be allowed to issue warrants? Why not the Garda as well? I contend that the Garda should be involved in the frontline in this area and that it should not be confined to a district justice or peace commissioner.
In general terms anything that can effectively control the abuse and misuse of drugs, particularly in the area of smuggling — which constitutes the frontline of access — is to be welcomed. There are many provisions of this Bill which will have to be tightened and we shall be proposing amendments on Committee Stage.
The Bill before the House — which has already gone through the Seanad — implements the recommendations of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism published in July 1984. The main thrust of the Bill is drugs control.
As the previous two speakers have indicated, a note of caution must be struck at the beginning of this debate. This House always must be concerned with the civil liberties of the vast majority of citizens of this State who are law abiding and innocent of any offence whatsoever. I support the principle of this Bill. It constitutes an important development in the battle against drugs and their importation. However, we must ensure that our desire to tackle the urgent problem of drugs and their abuse is balanced by ensuring that the rights of the vast majority of our citizens are not unnecessarily intruded on by any legislation we may enact here. If an Opposition has any role at all to play surely it is to ensure that those kinds of needs are met and that we articulate the views of people concerned about civil liberties. Quite clearly we could throw the whole purpose of law out the door and deal with drug abuse and offenders, or people suspected of being drug pushers or offenders, in the way that the Provisionals attempt to deal with it which, as we know, is a totally unrealistic way of dealing with the problem.
Everyone accepts that there is a major drug problem obtaining here, mainly, it has to be said, in the larger urban areas. Of course the drugs problem is not confined to heroin or hash; we have a major drink problem also. There are other problems that must be resolved in the drugs area, such as addiction to certain drugs doctors prescribe quite freely and regularly to their patients. However, the provisions of this Bill do not deal with that area.
It has to be said that law, of itself, in the customs or other areas will not resolve the problem of drugs or their abuse. It must be tackled also on the basis of the community being involved, community co-operation with the Garda, Garda co-operation with the community, our educational services co-operating with the Garda and the community generally and the development of an anti-drugs culture. These factors are as important as the law itself.
I shall endeavour to deal specifically with the drugs problem in my contribution. I shall defer to Committee Stage a number of points I hope to make in relation to specific sections. I am particularly anxious to speak about a development in the drugs area which has emerged in Dublin North West, the constituency that I and our present Acting Chairman represent, where the group known as the Concerned Parents Against Drugs has been established in the last six months or so. Until then that group were not active there. I know, as I am sure do many other Members, that the central committee of that group are simply a front for the Provisionals. I have decided to endeavour to attend some of the meetings organised by this group in order to attempt to present an alternative view to the one being proposed by these people. Through my attendance at such meetings I have been struck by the manipulation of the meetings by this group. These meetings have now assumed the character of a travelling circus around the constituency, with a meeting in, say, Finglas South this evening, Finglas West next week, Ballymun the following week, with the same people in control of the platform.
As they travel from one area to another they gather between, say, one and four people from the area with no connection at all with the Provisionals but who are genuinely concerned with the problems of drugs in their area, thereby lending themselves a certain aura of respectability and concern. As a constituent of mine said to me at a meeting I attended last evening: all that was missing from that meeting of last evening were the white pointed hoods of the Ku Klux Klan and the burning crosses. That is exactly what the meeting seemed to represent, a peddling of fear, ignorance and barbarity. Women who attended the meeting told me they were locking themselves into their flats on account of the fear they felt because some person had named them as having been seen talking to a drug pusher in the area. There are people actually living in fear of their lives.
I endeavoured to raise on the Adjournment on Thursday last the fact that on Wednesday night of last week these people had attacked a home in the area, had thrown all of the furniture in that home onto the street, literally blocking the Garda from getting into the area in order to protect the people involved. I must stress — because the contrary has been said — that I have no time whatsoever for drug pushers or indeed anybody at all involved in the drug trade. But it will lead to anarchy if we allow a situation to develop in which any group in society can stand on a platform, name individuals and work a crowd or mob into a frenzy to attack a person's home simply on the basis of rumour and, in many cases, half truths.
I appeal to this House to urge the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Health and the Minister who is here today and who is involved with the Customs and Excise to ensure that the resources that are needed by the Department of Health, by Jervis Street Hospital and by the Garda to deal with the drugs problem are provided. On many occasions when I have gone to the Garda I have got the utmost co-operation but I have been told that they do not have the resources to deal with the problem, to respond to the calls for help and to maintain the kind of vigilance that is needed in the areas. I am not talking specifically about Dublin North West; this applies to other areas as well.
In relation to the meetings I have spoken about, I have argued at all of those meetings — and people have supported my point of view — for co-operation with the Garda in relation to the drugs problem. I have argued very strongly that the people concerned should get involved in legititmate groups that are active in Dublin city to help tackle the whole problem of drug addiction and to educate people to avoid drug addiction. In many cases I have been howled down by the "plants" in the audience, people whom I knew to be members of the Provisionals, who surrounded me in an attempt to intimidate me into shutting up and staying quiet. A very close friend of mine was surrounded last night by four of these thugs who warned him that if he did not shut up they would shut him up later because he was disagreeing with the attempts to drive the crowd into a frenzy against the gardaí who were on duty in the area. This is a situation which must be dealt with and which this House cannot ignore.
In the Finglas area the person who was given the lead at those meetings was Mr. Harry Fleming, the Provisional candidate in the area in the last general election. At the meetings held in Cabra Mr. Tony Flaherty was given precedence.
I will ask the Deputy to avoid mentioning names because these people are not here.
I have not made any accusations.
Acting Chairman
You have mentioned names and it is against the rule to do so.
I have not made any accusations against these people other than that they are members of Provisional Sinn Féin and they have publicly acknowledged that fact themselves. I am naming the people who offered themselves for election to this House in the last general election. Mr. Tony Flaherty of Cabra, Mr. Niall Donnelly of Wadelai Estate in Glasnevin, and Mr. Harry Fleming from the Finglas West area, are all part of this travelling circus which is going around this city attempting to whip up a frenzy of opposition to the Garda and to anybody who does not agree with their Ku Klux Klan style of justice.
Acting Chairman
It is against the rule to mention names.
All of these people, in their election literature, carried a statement to the effect that they supported the campaign or the war, as the called it, in Northern Ireland. The same organisation which they have declared their support for accepted responsibility for the murder of a constituent of mine and of yours four to five weeks age. In the last ten days they have accepted responsibility for the vicious murder of 11 people in Enniskillen and yet they are parading around your constituency and mine as being concerned about the victims of drug abuse and the victims of the drug pushers in this city. They are involved in a totally cynical, hypocritical campaign. I have no hesitation in naming any of them either here or outside this House and I have done so at the public meetings which I have attended. I wish that all the public representatives in that area would take the same stand. I make no claim for myself in this regard but it is essential that the democratically elected representatives of the people make it clear that they do not support this kind of hooliganism and attacks on the citizens of this State. We have courts, laws and the Garda who are there to enforce the law and it is the function of the citizens to co-operate with the Garda and with all the agencies that are attempting, legally and correctly, to deal with the problem of drug abuse in this city.
I have the highest respect and praise for the Garda who are dealing with a very difficult problem in relation to drugs. I know they have a particular problem with drug pushers because of the way they operate and the way they use young children to carry their drugs for them. Nevertheless, last week the Garda in the Dublin north city area succeeded in putting away two of the biggest heroin pushers for a period of seven to eight years. One of them is a person in a wheelchair and I hope the Minister for Justice will ensure that he will not be let loose again on to the streets of this city simply because he is in a wheelchair. Rumour has it that on a previous occasion, having been sentenced to two years on a drugs charge, he was released within two weeks because the facilities were not available in Mountjoy to cope with him and his wheelchair. I hope that is not true and, if it is, that it will not occur again. Unless the people of this city see that the laws and the activities of the Garda are succeeding in putting away drug pushers who are convicted and in keeping them off the streets for a long period of time we are leaving the door open to the kind of groups that I have been speaking about.
Many decent people who are concerned and angry about the drugs problem have been caught up in the campaign of the CPAD and the Provos and it is our function to provide them with an alternative. There are a number of things which could be done and which would require very little resources. For instance, in every district a Garda should be appointed to liaise with the community in relation to the drugs problem in their area. Sometimes when a citizen goes into a Garda Station to report something about drugs they are told that that is not the area they deal with or that the person who does deal with it is not on duty until the following day and they will have to come back then. There should be a Garda appointed to liaise with the people in the area on the question of drugs.
Every Garda station should have a confidential telephone line for people to ring with information they may have and who, because of particular circumstances, may not wish to go to the Garda station personally. That will require some resources and we must be prepared to give the Garda and the Customs and Excise officers the resources and the powers they need to deal with the problem of drugs.
I am particularly concerned with the question of the seizure of the accounts, moneys and resources of convicted drug pushers. This is an area the Minister here would be involved in. If this were done it would be an important deterrent for drug pushers.
To return more specifically to the Bill, there has been concern expressed about civil liberties in relation to this Bill. It is well to remember that while this Bill is directed largely at drug smugglers, it will affect everyone. Under the Bill customs officers will now have the power to arrest without warrant, to detain for a certain period in unspecified places, to apply for a search warrant, to search, and if necessary enter a premises forcibly. Under the Bill there is a very broad definition of what constitutes a customs officer. It includes:
Any person in the public service who is, for the time being, employed in the prevention of the illegal importation and exportation of goods.
This is a very broad range indeed. It is important to remember that these powers may be exercised over a very wide area, not just at ports and the main airports. For instance, the new powers may be exercised by customs officers in the vicinity of airports. I understand that there are about 50 airstrips in the country. Are these covered by the definition of airports? If they are there is almost nowhere in the country that is not adjacent to an airport.
I must emphasise again that I do not oppose the powers being given to the customs officers. What I do say is that we must try to ensure that those powers are balanced with obligations and responsibilities. There must be protection for the vast majority of law abiding citizens from unnecessary intrusion into their lives. Deputies will remember that when the Criminal Justice Act was going through the Dáil, there was such widespread concern at the additional powers being given to the Garda that it was agreed that most sections of the Bill would not come into operation until such time as regulations were published for the treatment of people in Garda custody and an independent complaints system was provided. In giving the customs officers the powers we are talking about in this Bill, which are similar in some respects to those of the Garda, they should be subject to the same type of constraints as the Garda in order to provide the protections I mentioned earlier.
There are some other minor issues I would like to refer to before I conclude. There is the question of training of customs officers. Are they to be trained in methods of arrest and detention? What will happen if suspects resist arrest? Are the customs officers to be trained to cope with these situations? I suggest that it would be desirable that, as a matter of policy, customs officers should be accompanied by Garda officers when they are making searches and arrests.
I have not gone into any specific detail in relation to the sections of the Bill and I propose to do that on Committee Stage. I thank the House for their forbearance in listening to my points in relation to drug abuse in the city.
I welcome these new measures giving customs officers power to search persons without warrant in the vicinity of any port, airport or land frontier and powers to search premises under warrant. I welcome the fact that the Bill proposes to widen the powers of Customs and Excise officers to enable them to tackle drug smuggling.
The escalation of hard drugs on the streets in the past ten years has caused grave concern to all law abiding citizens. The greatest fear of any parent, particularly in the cities, is that their children will become involved in drug taking. I have known families in my own county where a daughter or son has become a drug addict, causing horrendous problems for the family and destroying the fabric of the families involved.
The drug barons and the faceless godfathers who bring drugs into this country and make available to the vulnerable young deserve no mercy from this House or the Ministers dealing with them. People caught trafficking in drugs should automatically be sentenced to life imprisonment which is no more than they deserve.
In regard to the seizure of assets, we all know that some drug barons have built up massive amounts of money and property from the profits they make from selling drugs. Those assets should be seized where it can be proved that they were accumulated because of involvement in drugs. The Revenue Commissioners have a role to play here and should set up a special taskforce to examine the assets of known drug dealers and make them account for the building up of such assets over the years.
The reason I am speaking on this today is because I live close to Rosslare port. It has been described by many as the gateway to Europe with one million passengers per year passing through that port. It is questionable if the present manpower at the port are capable of checking such large numbers of people and monitoring the traffic of illegal drugs coming through the port. There is a problem there and the evidence is there to prove it. In the past year £250,000 worth of cannabis was seized on two occasions and £300,000 worth of cannabis was found floating in the port for which no one has ever been brought to account. This problem is serious and the customs people there are very worried about it.
Introducing a Bill is one thing but if the Minister is genuine — and I believe he is — he will have to provide the national resources to implement it. I have not been in this House too long but in the last number of years a number of Bills have been introduced by different Governments but the financial resources needed to implement them have never been made available. At present Customs and Excise officers are working under the most archaic conditions without even the basic facilities needed for detention purposes. One customs officer told me recently that the only equipment they have in Rosslare are a few spanners, a screwdriver and a hydraulic lift for looking under the cars. That sort of equipment is very basic and inadequate to deal with the highly professional people trafficking in these goods.
The customs people are operating against those who know every trick in the book, who are there to make massive profits and are using every illegal system to get drugs through the ports. The Government must look at the whole area of equipment available at our ports. At the moment we have only one customs drug dog, as far as I am aware, covering ports from Donegal to Rosslare. I ask the Minister to ensure that at least a drug dog and handler are permanently based at Rosslare and other ports. That is the least that can be made available to our customs officials who are trying to take on the drug barons and others. In many cases when officials at Rosslare ask for this drug dog he is not available, being needed in some other part of the country. We cannot be serious about dealing with this problem if we allow that situation to continue.
I am being very parochial here in speaking about Rosslare, but it highlights the existing situation around the country. There are three officials there dealing with drugs on a part time basis at present, despite the fact that one million people come through that port. There is need for a full-time drug unit liaising with other ports in the country, with the UK, Cherbourg and other ports from which ships travel to Rosslare.
Intensive, ongoing training in drug detection and areas relating to different drugs is also obligatory in any new system which evolves as a result of this Bill. Over the past four years nobody has gone for training from Rosslare. The last person went to London five years ago, came back to Rosslare and within six months was transferred to Drogheda. He has received an intensive training course in Heathrow in London that would enable him to deal with the problem of drug trafficking through Rosslare. Perhaps he looked for a transfer, but it seems foolish to train a person in London using special training facilities, with the expense involved, and after a few months allow him to leave the port. That is an area which must be looked at.
There is need for scanners, night vision equipment and a small sea-going vessel for the customs people to operate. In a seaport, particularly a seaside resort, in summertime numerous people come in their yachts and small boats from different countries to visit and spent their holidays here. There are many strange yachts, often continental, that come to Rosslare and other ports about whose activities the customs people are sometimes suspicious but because they have no sea-going vessel available to them they have no way of checking what is on board. This area must be looked at.
Radio contact is needed. At present if a Customs and Excise official leaves a port, his only means of contact with that port is a public telephone kiosk or the telephone of some friendly neighbour. That there is no contact between the person on duty and his base is not good enough in this day and age. Proper radio equipment should be available as in the case of the Garda Síochána and, indeed, some private business concerns. Agricultural and haulage contractors have those basic requirements and here we have customs people trying to operate under such poor standards.
Another area is manning levels. For a Fianna Fáil Deputy to talk about increasing manning levels at the moment would be heresy, but there are areas where special concessions and special needs must be examined.
(Limerick East): The dispensation that was given yesterday for free speech does not extend to today.
We never had a difficulty there.
We were always a free speech party.
Let the Deputy not push his luck.
The manning levels at ports up and down the country have been substantially reduced. Only a token service is available in some of the ports I have mentioned. Because of the dangers and consequences of drug abuse to young children, the Minister should consider making adequate staff available to deal with drugs coming through, given the numbers of people coming through the ports, so that there will be an extensive and exhaustive elimination of suspicions that may be aroused. There is a special case to be made for extra staff if this Bill is to have any teeth and to serve any purpose.
What about the national plan?
That is being implemented.
I welcome the Bill, but would ask the Minister to ensure that financial resources are available for its implementation. We are talking about a problem which is of serious concern to us all, drug trafficking and drug selling. I ask the Minister to ensure that the necessary resources are available to customs people in every port so that this problem will be dealt with efficiently.
At the outset, I sincerely thank all the Deputies for their many varied, informed and positive contributions. I thank them for their very open and honest approach to this very important Bill and Second Stage. I found their attitude, suggestions and contributions helpful and look forward to Committee Stage.
In particular, I thank Deputy Noonan for his acceptance of the Bill in principle. I look forward to listening to him in Committee where I shall deal in detail with the points raised by him and respond to them. In general terms, I would inform the Deputy that in certain respects, and of course it is his right, he is reading perhaps too much into the text of the Bill. The definition of customs officer is taken from the Customs Act of 1956. The intention is that the powers will be exercised solely by the custom service. Similar powers of search already exist for the Garda Síochána under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The Bill may look in certain areas to be wide ranging because in certain circumstances where the customs officers would be on duty and for any particular reason or by demand gardaí may have to be called, the intention is to ensure that the gardaí will have full power to deal with any given situation at any given time. We want to extend those powers to include the gardaí while on duty there, or civil servants from Government Departments coming to take reports or present reports to customs officers so that, on delegation by a senior officer of the Customs and Excise they would be in a position to delegate powers and functions to any given servant or employee of the State at any time. However, we shall deal with that in Committee in much more detail.
In relation to the definition of "the vicinity" of a port, airport or land frontier, careful consideration was given to the most appropriate term. Indeed, in the Seanad we had much discussion on that point. What is needed are powers of search of "meeters and greeters", of people coming to ports and airports, to greet and welcome them, take them home or whatever. The phrase "in the vicinity" meets this need. We shall go into that matter again on Committee Stage but we have found over the years that customs officers have no power whatever to deal with "meeters and greeters" who accept parcels, packages or objects from visitors coming to our ports or airports. Often these recipients transfer or carry drugs or whatever objects are being brought in. This Bill covers those people who carry for further use or misuse such articles and we must include such terms. I want to reassure the House that compulsory intimate searches are not intended under this Bill. On Committee Stage I will deal further with Deputy Noonan's point about the terminology of the section. Indeed, there was discussion on this point during the passage of this Bill through the Seanad where I accepted amendments to try to include so far as physically and humanly possible all the different constraints which may present themselves to customs officers in their searching of persons who may be carrying drugs or other objects into the State.
In relation to access to personal files and the concern expressed about breaches of confidentiality, it is very difficult to balance the rights of the individual against the rights of the community and the needs of the State. It is the Government's view that if customs officers are to carry out their duties effectively in regard to drug smuggling, access to documents is vitally essential. I am satisfied that these powers will not be abused and, as I have said in my opening speech, that adequate safeguards exist.
In relation to section 9 and the onus of proof let me say that the section's absence from the Bill would seriously militate against the effective enforcement of customs law in this area. I will be happy to expand on the rationale for this section on Committee Stage. Deputy Cullen referred to the possible evasion of VAT.I will be very happy to examine this matter and reply to him on Committee Stage if he wishes to raise it then or, alternatively, I can reply directly to him if he so wishes. I want to thank him for the very important point he has made. I will be following up that point.
In relation to section 3 and the role of peace commissioners which were referred to by both Deputies Noonan and Cullen let me say that the provisions of the section follow closely the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Acts 1977 and 1984. However, this matter can be discussed in detail on Committee Stage but we are sticking as closely as we can to the relevant sections in the Misuse of Drugs Acts 1977 and 1984.
I also found Deputy De Rossa's contribution of interest but a number of the points he raised are covered either in my opening speech or in what I have now said. I welcome the fact that he does not oppose the powers now sought and I can assure him that they will not be abused. The Deputy also referred to constraints but I do not think the Garda complaints procedure should be extended to customs officers for a variety of reasons. In general, Garda powers are much broader than those of the customs service. There are adequate procedures to redress any abuse of power by the customs service. In the first instance, a person who has a complaint against an ordinary customs officer can raise it with a senior customs officer, then with the Revenue Commissioners and the Ombudsman or, alternatively, in the courts. Therefore, there is adequate redress for anybody who has a complaint against any member of the State's staff in any section and particularly under this Bill which deals with the officers of the Custom and Excise service.
I can inform the House that very few complaints are made against the customs service and that, in particular, very few have been made to the Ombudsman. I welcome Deputy Browne's contribution to the debate. I listened with interest to the many points he made in regard to equipment and drug sniffing dogs. He is well informed and is obviously in close touch with the position in Rosslare as I well know for other reasons. I acknowledge the very open contribution he has made. No matter what party one represents or what Government are in power I hope that no Member of the House will feel constrained from making the points which are relevant to ensuring that the best Bills possible and the most effective, strongest, and stringent laws are enacted in the best interests of all our people.
At present I have to admit that the customs service have only one drug sniffing dog but the acquisition of other dogs is under consideration and I hope that we will be able to increase the number. I am very anxious to ensure that the customs service have all the equipment they need but, unfortunately, the Exchequer's resources are severely constrained. We must provide the necessary modern technology and equipment and we must ensure that whatever meagre State resources are available for any section of Government are fully utilised. Above all, we have a duty as legislators to ensure that the most effective, efficient and stringent laws possible are put in place to ensure the maximum efficiency of the State's services in all areas.
Finally, I want to thank sincerely the Deputies for their contributions and I look forward to Committee Stage. If the contributions of the Deputies today are anything to go by that Stage should be very interesting.
Question put and agreed to.
An Leas-Ceann Comhairle
Could we have an indication of when it is proposed to take Committee Stage?
We hope to take Committee Stage as quickly as possible, subject to agreement between the Whips.
The Minister of State must indicate a date.
Next Tuesday, subject to agreement between the Whips.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 24 November 1987.