In my remarks last week I stated that while I welcomed anything that contributed to highlighting the very serious heroin problem, particularly as it relates to the Dublin inner city area, I was somewhat doubtful as to whether this Bill would play any significant role in dealing with that problem. I accept the need for updating the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, but to consider this Bill as in some way contributing significantly to combating the heroin problem is another matter. I do not think it is a legitimate view.
It may be worth pointing out that we are now entering a new phase in the heroin problem, particularly in Dublin. As I have verified with the drug unit at Jervis Street Hospital, five people have died in the past ten days as a direct result of heroin addiction. If one were to base that figure on a full year, one would be talking of the loss of hundreds of lives in this way. However, this frightening situation was forecast more than a year ago when people researching the problem realised the level of the addiction among young people, though at that time the problem had not reached the very serious level of people dying as a result. The statistic alone that I have quoted should shock us all and particularly the Minister into taking more constructive action than that outlined in the Bill.
The Ministerial task force report on drug abuse was published on 18 April 1983. This is the first opportunity we have had in this House of talking about that report. The background to the task force report is associated with the serious heroin problem that was developing in the inner city area of Dublin from the summer of 1981 onwards. As a result of that problem being brought to the attention of the Medico-Social Research Board, the board surveyed the situation in the inner city and produced quite a comprehensive report. It is stated in that report that Ireland is faced with a drug misuse problem that seems to be dangerously close to crisis point. There followed some detailed statistics and the definitive statement that the 1982-83 prevalence of heroin abuse in that area among those aged 15 to 24 was found to be 10 per cent. That was based on a survey in one north inner city parish. The report contained also the statistics that among those aged 15 to 19 the level of heroin abuse was 12 per cent while among females in the same age group it was 13 per cent. The board went on to make the observation that these Irish prevalence figures are in some respects slightly better and in other respects a good deal worse than the equivalent 1970 figures for New York black ghettos and that in particular the figures in respect of females in the 15 to 19 and the 20 to 24 age groups were markedly worse in Dublin than they were in the black ghetto areas of New York. There were subsequent reports from the Medico-Social Research Board and these indicated that there were at least 1,500 heroin addicts in Dublin alone. Many commentators in the media and elsewhere who researched the problem stated that the number could be twice that. However, by any standards, whether we take the official statistics or those estimated by the commentators in the media, there was a heron epidemic demanding emergency measures to deal both with those pushing and supplying the drug and also to respond to the needs of the at least 1,500 addicts.
If there were an epidemic on such a scale of any other killer disease would immediate steps not have been taken to provide emergency facilities at hospitals or special units? We all know that there is no such response from the Minister or from the Government. Many people have asked whether this lack of response stems from the fact that the vast majority of these young addicts come from the most depressed and disadvantages areas of the State. One might ask whether there would have been a different response if what has become known as the heroin bushfire was spreading through middle-class districts. I am confident that in such circumstances there would have been a very different and much more immediate response. Instead the response of the Minister and of the Government was enunciated in the form of the Ministerial task force report on 20 September 1983, one year after the Medico-Social Research Board began their survey in the north inner city area. The huge heroin problem reflected in the statistics and other information contained in that survey were already well known to the health authorities, to Eastern Health Board officials, to local doctors, to Jervis Street Hospital staff and to all those working in that field. Presumably all these people had reported on the problem to their superiors. There was no response. Why was there no response from higher levels? The only answer is that it was simply part of the traditional neglect meted out to these disadvantaged areas. So long as the problem was confined to the inner city areas and there was no real pressure to do anything about it nothing would be done about it. The problem was permitted to fester and get out of control.
Even when the Government acted and set up the ministerial task force and when the much talked about report was published, it proved to be simply a list of recommendations and not a programme of action to deal with the emergency situation referred to in the Medico-Social Research Board's report of a year previous and in the coverage given to the problem by the media. There was no programme for immediate action. There was a list of recommendations but no time scale for their implementation. The recommendations did not reflect the scale of the problem but it would have helped if they had been implemented at the time. It is reasonable to suggest that the five young people I referred to who died in the last ten days from heroin addiction might not have died if these facilities had been provided when requested. They are still not available despite all the talk about what the Government are doing as regards the heroin problem and the talk generated by this Bill.
My line of argument is to try to put the Bill into context and to suggest it is not an adequate response to the overall problem. In February 1984 the Minister for Health during Question Time was asked to report on the progress as regards the recommendations which had been published in the report of the task force on 21 September 1983. The gist of the progress report was that "all of these recommendations are being vigorously pursued". Out of all the recommendations what had been done? A set of videos were provided and a diploma course was started in Trinity College. Nearly three years after the height of the heroin epidemic in the city of Dublin, by February this year, nothing other than the provision of a set of videos and the commencement of a diploma course in Trinity College had been implemented. Everything else was being "vigorously pursued". I shall refer to the recommendations and say what the response was, if any.
The first real recommendation referred to the customs and immigration controls and the need for resources to be made available to those involved in customs and excise. This question was raised by other Members and there are a list of questions awaiting the Minister for Finance asking for his response to the demands of the customs union who have given up on the Minister and have decided to campaign as a trade union to highlight the Government's failure to supply them with the resources they need to stop heroin coming into this country. That has not been done. Heavens knows when it will be done on the scale required.
The Garda Drug Squad was to be kept under constant review. I pay tribute to the members of the drug squad. It is a small drug squad. I am familiar with their work and with a number of people involved in it. I can definitely say that there is a commitment and dedication evident in the drug unit which I find absent in other sections of the Garda Síochána. There is no question but that those who are in the unit are very dedicated and but for them we would have a much more serious situation. They are dealing with a sophisticated criminal élite.
I put down a question today for written answer to monitor the task force recommendations in relation to the size of the drug problem and the great work the Government will do. Last September when the report was published the number in the drug squad in Dublin was 31. Today it is 35, an increase of four. The most sophisticated criminal elements with huge networks across the city have invested whatever resources they have in heroin largely because that is where the money is to be made. There are 35 men available to the drug squad who operate a 24-hour shift. With members on leave, on sick leave and so on, there are only a handful out of the 35 men available on active service in Dublin. From talking to members of the squad it is obvious that one of the main pressures on manpower is that they have to carry out a great deal of surveillance as part of their work in combating heroin suppliers. This further restricts the numbers available to respond to problems that arise. A Government who, despite the background I have tried to paint, restrict the drug squad in this city to 35 people, are not serious about dealing with the heroin problem.
There was a recommendation in relation to court procedures. It was recommended that a special judge should be appointed and that the Chief State Solicitor's Office should appoint one solicitor to specialise in drug offence case work. I put down another question for written answer today on the appointment of the judge and was told by the Ceann Comhairle that it was not the responsibility of the Minister, so I could not get information on whether a judge had been appointed. I do not know whose responsibility it is to implement that aspect of the task force's report because I could not get that information. In relation to the Chief State Solicitor's Office I am told, if I may quote from the reply, that "arrangements have been made" to do this. It does not say whether it is being done, but it is evident that it has not yet been implemented but arrangements have been made. Hopefully we can expect, in the words of the reply, "to deploy solicitors in the Chief State Solicitor's Office so as to ensure, as far as practicable, the greatest possible specialisation in drug offence casework". If that is the attitude of Government, is it any wonder that a certain judge released a heroin supplier and sent him to his homeland but sentenced a young chap involved in a cannabis offence to 14 years. In my view, any judge who does not know the difference between cannabis and heroin is not competent to deal with cases involving drugs.
I would like to refer now to the sentencing policy because it is crucial to the campaign against the heroin problem. which is the real problem in Dublin. On 3 April 1984 I asked the Minister for Justice the number of convictions in the courts between March 1982 and March 1984 for the possession of heroin; the amount of heroin involved in each case; the sentence given in each case; and the name of the presiding judge. The reply I got was:
The statistics sought are not available in my Department or in Garda headquarters. It would have to be specially compiled from records at local level and I do not consider that I would be justified in asking gardaí and court officials to undertake the task which could only be carried out at the expense of other duties.
Everybody knows — the dogs in the street know — that some members of the most criminal family in this city are serving seven-year prison sentences for supplying heroin while others who supplied heroin were let go and that there are a variety of sentences ranging from 14 years for a cannabis offence to letting a heroin supplier go scot-free. If the statistics I sought were made available they would make a laughing stock of the Judiciary and show that their competence in this field was a disgrace. I hope that this situation, which I see as the main contributory factor in the continuing heroin problem, is dealt with by somebody, although from a reply to one of my questions it appears nobody knows who is responsible for dealing with the Judiciary. Competent judges who know what is a dangerous drug and what is a soft drug, who know the difference between somebody supplying heroin and somebody experimenting with cannabis, and who know the extent of the problem in Dublin city, should be appointed quickly.
I will deal now with a more important area, that is, the problem of the addicts and the many young people who are addicted to heroin. The ministerial task force stated that it was of particular concern to the Government that there were young drug abusers in the 12 to 16 age group from deprived inner city areas particularly for whom no treatment accommodation was currently available in which they could be detained and rehabilitated. One would have expected that that recommendation would have been implemented, but no such luck for those young people. There are still no residential rehabilitation centres for the very many young people in that age group who have become addicted to heroin. Many more of them will end up like the five to whom I have already referred who died within the last ten days because of lack of facilities.
Reference was made to the Jervis Street facility, the only readily available treatment facility in this city. It remains as it was in 1981 when the Medico-Social Research Board published their report; it remains as it was when the Government task force published their recommendations; it remains an over-crowded, overworked, undermanned pre-fab which, without reflecting on the staff who work very hard in a very difficult situation, must rank as a disgrace for the Minister because he did not act a long time ago — now it is far too late — in providing adequate facilities for the Jervis Street drug unit.
The ministerial task force report referred to the James's Street hospital bed facility, which is still not operational. When it does become operational only a handful of beds will be involved; I am not sure of the number the Minister mentioned last week but I think it was six or eight and the conservative estimate of the number of addicts in Dublin city is 1,500. We are expected to accept that the Misuse of Drugs Bill is a realistic and genuine response to the drug problem in Dublin.
The ministerial task force report was quite good. It referred to the key areas of the problem and pointed to answers to the problems. If only they had been acted on and expanded we would not have the present situation. The report stated that the people most vulnerable to drug abuse were living in deprived urban communities and that this was notably the case for young abusers, the people of particular concern to the Minister. The report went on to say that youth work activities when community-based could provide recognition in a positive sense for young people. This report is saying that what is needed in these disadvantaged areas is community-based youth work activities. Months before publication of this report the Minister for Health was responsible for withdrawing funds from a community action project based and working in the north inner city area which the research board had shown to have 13 per cent of young people abusing heroin. The people most concerned, the young people involved in training projects under the north centre city community action project were told, "sorry, the Minister has no money and therefore no further funds will be available".
The task force report ends on an amazing note. It says that having regard to current restrictions it was the Government's intention that the necessary resources would be made available from within existing estimates of expenditure. No special allocation was to be made for all the work that was going to be done, with the result that no work was done because there was no money available. If the measures to which I have referred were implemented, they would have required substantial expenditure which the Government or the Minister were not prepared to make available, and as a result the recommendations of the task force have not been implemented.
I regret the Minister is not here today. Last week I challenged him to go through the various recommendations in the report. If he intends to reply to the debate I hope he will deal with the various points I made then. I have been referring to the overall picture of inactivity at Government and ministerial level which this Bill apparently will allow to be continued, because there is very little significance in it. It will not change anything radically, and radical change is necessary quickly. There is an urgent need to update our law in this respect. The Bill will do that to some extent but it will not deal with this crisis situation.
Despite the overall picture of neglect and inactivity, I am glad to say that the heroin problem has been contained in inner Dublin. It may be spreading to other areas which I will not mention because they are well known. Apparently the criminal element supplying heroin are aware of their vulnerability in the inner city and are probably changing their emphasis and redirecting their targets to other areas. It was contained in the inner city but that has nothing to do with Government activity but with the parents' movement and the dedication of the small Drugs Squad who have been operating against difficult odds.
The present Minister for Health has been so inactive on this problem that he blamed the drugs problem in Dublin on the Provisional IRA. That is far from the truth. Concerned parents' organisations and other spontaneous community responses have been responsible for an easing off of the problem in the inner city. I represent the north inner city and I have seen the spontaneous response of local people who said they had had enough of seeing people injecting themselves on flat balconies, in playgrounds and in public parks. Such spontaneous activity was triggered by the people's lack of understanding why the Government had not involved themselves. These people have had an astounding victory and that is why the heroin problem in the north inner city has diminished in the past six months. Indeed there have been hardly any new cases, although that was one of the worst areas in the State.
As I have said, the Minister tried to divert attention from his own inactivity to the Provisional IRA. Clearly, he has been out of touch with the nature of the problem and of the community response to it. If he had been in touch it would not come as a surprise to him that the community were prepared to organise themselves against it. Although I have said the problem is not as serious as earlier in the Dublin inner city area, I do not say that the entire drugs problem there is receding. The trouble is that though it may have been contained in the inner city it has the potential to reach the same crisis proportions in other Dublin areas. Therefore, if it is not treated with priority it will spread and that is why it is important that we recognise it and deal with it.
In a search for methods to do this, it has always struck me that when members of one criminal family who are almost synonymous with the drug problem began to buy big houses in the Dublin mountains, obviously from the proceeds of their ill gotten gains, the Revenue Commissioners should have taken action. That would have been a way to get at them. One of the first parliamentary questions I put down on being elected was to the Minister for Finance. I named the person, who has left the country since but who still owns a house in the Dublin mountains. I asked the Minister to ensure that the Revenue Commissioners would take action against such people. The answer I got was that it was a matter for the Revenue Commissioners and that the Minister had no responsibility.
I raise it again because many of the people involved in heroin pushing have been investing their gains from it in business and in property. The Revenue Commissioners have a very important role to play in dealing with this and I suggest that they should draw up some programme of action in company with the Garda. If that is not done those who gain from the drugs trade will grow more powerful and it will become increasingly difficult to deal with them.
If the supply of drugs is there it will mean many bad days for the poorer areas in Dublin, particularly. I therefore urge the Minister to accept my criticism as constructive, aimed at highlighting the seriousness of the problem. Many people who are now concerned cannot understand why the Minister does not respond in a more positive way.
The most serious aspect is concerned with the under sixteens who are addicted and for whom there are still no residential centres, no rehabilitation and, worse, no comfort. They are condemned to wait like the five who died in the last ten days. We will hear of many more similar deaths in the next few months, inevitably, because we are too inactive to deal with the problem.
Finally I come to the huge number of prisoners in Mountjoy Prison who have a heroin problem. I am sure that the prison officers and the Minister are well aware of the fact that people, some of whom I know, went into Mountjoy Prison free from a drug problem and came out heroin addicts. Their crimes were in response to their disadvantage but even their disadvantaged surroundings had not led them into this state. They had succeeded in avoiding the heroin trap outside prison, but did not avoid it inside. Whatever hope of freedom they had outside, they did not find any in Mountjoy. There is no doubt that that has been the case in very many instances. The prison officers have made statements again and again about the heroin problem in that prison. I ask the Minister and the Government to direct themselves to dealing with the very many addicts in Mountjoy Prison for whom there are at present no facilities whatsoever.
