(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(ii) Nothing in section 2 (1) (i) will prevent the use of X-ray equipment, in carrying out a search, if in the opinion of an officer of Customs and Excise there is reasonable cause for its use.".
Section 2 is the most significant in the Bill and we have been discussing it for the past half an hour. The powers being conferred are those to search persons and also the powers to search any vehicles consequent on the stopping of a person. Customs officers will be able to search persons if an individual customs officer considers it necessary for the purpose of preventing importation of drugs. He will be empowered to detain the person for such time as is reasonably necessary for carrying out the search under certain conditions. I understand that the Minister already amended this section in the Seanad and has imposed further restrictions in regard to people being detained not being searched by a person of the opposite sex.
The Minister also accepted amendment No. 2 (i) (C) which states:
Where a search of a person being detained involves removal of clothing, other than headgear or a coat, jacket, glove or similar article of clothing, no officer or person of the opposite sex shall be present unless either that person is a designated medical practitioner or the officer considers that the presence of that person is necessary by reason of the violent conduct of the person to be searched.
Amendment No. 2 (i) (D) states that a search of a person may be carried out by a designated medical practitioner. Different kinds of searches are possible under powers conferred on the Garda Síochána, customs officers and other sections of the security forces, for example, prison officers. It seems that when the Minister accepted these amendments in the Seanad he had in mind that, on occasions, a search would extend to intimate body searches. If removal of clothing was not involved we would take it to mean that a person was simply emptying his or her pockets or being frisked by hand over their clothing as in a film when a gun is being searched for. We are all familiar with the cinematic version of a person being searched up along the legs, down the back and round the front. That is one kind of search and the other is where the clothes are removed and searched individually by an officer. The person's underwear is also searched because small quantities of drugs, which could cause great problems in the country, can be secreted in a very small space.
Once the idea of a doctor being present is introduced and accepted by the Minister, we have gone beyond the removal of clothing, the search of clothing and the inspection of the naked body. When a doctor is present, it seems to be envisaged that intimate body searches will take place. Intimate body searches have been carried out in the prison system on occasions and they involve an examination of the orifices of the body. If the orifices of the body are to be examined, it is proper that a medical practitioner should be present. Indeed, the Minister goes so far as to say that the search may be carried out by a designated medical practitioner. For the life of me, I cannot see why a doctor needs to be brought in to search somebody's clothes or to see if somebody's clothing is removed with dignity — if it is possible to remove one's clothing with dignity and appear naked in front of strangers. The idea of a doctor being present must mean that there will be intimate body searches. It is self-evident from the section and other Members may wonder why I am pressing the point. I am doing so because the Minister said previously that there was no question of the Bill involving intimate body searches. He said it was a total misinterpretation of the Bill and that it only involved searches of clothing and so on.
My amendment might obviate the need for intimate body searching in many cases because I am asking that nothing in the section will prevent the use of X-ray equipment in carrying out a search if, in the opinion of an officer of Customs and Excise, there is reasonable cause for its use. Someone could be X-rayed in cases where drugs are swallowed and this is an appropriate power to confer on officers of Customs and Excise. It might, in practice, be a far more dignified method of search than the search of the orifices of the body as envisaged in the section as amended in the Seanad.
If we went to the trouble we could all remember occasions when people were arrested. We could all produce newspaper cuttings which show that such and such a person had swallowed cocaine in a plastic container and imported drugs into the country in that fashion. Such stories and incidents have had common currency among police forces and officers of Customs and Excise. Therefore, it seems one of the more obvious ways of bringing drugs into the country is to swallow the drug in some kind of sealed container which will not burst in one's stomach and kill one. This has been practised extensively in the importation of narcotics. Therefore, I am putting a saver into the section here where if in the opinion of a customs officer an X-ray is the appropriate way of searching a person, the designated medical practitioner may under section 2 (1) (b) (i) (D), X-ray the person.
I am not as familiar with the abuse of drugs in this country as I was when I was Minister for Justice. I am not sure how rampant the use of heroin is in inner city Dublin, for example, but certainly it was rampant in 1982 and into 1984. Very strong action was taken at that time and people reputed to be leading drug importers got very extensive prison sentences, but I do not think the traffic has been stopped. Nobody could say in this House or anywhere else that the actions I took as Minister and that the Garda took very effectively have prevented the importation of heroin, that there is not widespread abuse of heroine, for example, in the inner Dublin area and that that continues, although maybe in a less organised fashion. Statistics from drug treatment units such as Jervis Street Hospital bear that out.
Against that background it seems the answer I got from the Minister for Finance in reply to a question on Tuesday, 24 March, this year is surprising. I asked the Minister for Finance the number of drug seizures made by officers of the Revenue Commissioners at or in the vicinity of — we are very familiar with that phrase now — ports, airports and the land frontiers in the years 1985-88 inclusive, the quantity and type of illegal drug seized on each occasion and if he would make a statement on the matter. When I got the reply in tabulated form obviously that deprived me of the opportunity to comment or ask supplementary questions at Question Time because I did not know what was in it until after Question Time. It deals with cannabis, cannabis resin, cocaine, heroin and other drugs. There were a certain number of seizures of cannabis, as one would expect. Cocaine has never been a big problem in this country until recently. Maybe it is an emerging problem now. A combination of cocaine and its newer version, adulterated cocaine known as "crack", may become an increasing problem. Heroin is a problem and the drug problem here has always been heroin-related. In my experience it was heroin one had to beat, particularly in Dublin city, if one was to make any kind of attack on the drug problem.
Consider the number of seizures of heroin in 1985. There were two seizures at or in the vicinity of Dublin Airport, 50 grammes in one and five grammes in another, and 50 grammes of heroin is a significant seizure. At Cork Airport there were no seizures, Dublin Port no seizures, Cork Port no seizures, Rosslare Port no seizure. In 1986 — I am confining myself to heroin again — there was one seizure at Dublin Airport of 28.54 grammes, again reasonably significant. There was no seizure at Shannon Airport, no seizure at Cork Airport, no seizure at Dublin Port, no seizure at Cork Port, no seizure at Rosslare, Foynes or Kinsale. In 1987 at Dublin Airport there was one insignificant seizure, one gramme of heroin, at Shannon Airport, Dublin Port, Cork Port, Rosslare, Castletownbere, and Crosshaven no seizure. In 1988 up to 22 March for which period information was available when I put down the question, at Dublin Airport, Dublin Port, Cork Port, Rosslare and Killybegs there was no seizure of heroin. I am not too sure what the basis for the variation of the ports indicated in the table and whether that is where customs officers were active in drug prevention but there were no seizures.
I want to pose two questions. Is this an indication of a very low importation of heroin? I do not believe that is right. I think significant quantities of heroin are coming into the country and the evidence of that is on the streets. If I am right and importation of heroin is significant — there is a significant level of addiction — how is it getting in? Where is it coming from? If it is coming through the authorised ports and airports, is it a problem with the law, staffing levels, practice, training or efficacy of the customs officers on duty?
Where there is a problem on the ground, which problem I claim has diminished during the past three or four years, it is surprising, to say the least that the level of seizures is nugatory. I would like the Minister's comments on that. Should we look beyond the Bill? If I put down a question next year when this Bill will have been in operation for 12 months, will we have similar statistics and a reply to the effect that no matter what powers Customs and Excise officers have they are so busy, that they have so many other things to do, that their information is so poor and that there is a lack of co-operation with police forces abroad? Is that the explanation? In effect, are we codding ourselves here? Are we going through something of a charade? Are we giving extra powers to people who over the past four years seized nothing of consequence except for the two seizures at Dublin Airport?
I am asking the question in all sincerity. I am not making any kind of attack on customs officers who have a very difficult life. It is curious that when the problem was still very serious, especially on the streets of Dublin, nothing of significance was seized at the ports by customs officers. Could the Minister explain this? At the end of all our work and the time we have taken here, will nothing be seized either?
We have talked about the problems along the Border and I have posed a hypothetical case of the difficulties there. As far as I can see, from the reply I have referred to there have been no seizures at all on the land frontier. Is it reasonable to believe that no drugs are crossing the Border? Certainly there are no seizures there. Again, the Garda and the customs officers have problems along the Border other than drug smuggling, but it poses a bigger question and against that background I have doubts about the efficacy of what we are doing here. The powers being conferred are necessary but I doubt if they will be any more effective than the powers which existed over the past four or five years.
I am trying to strengthen this section. I think some drugs are imported as I suggested, by swallowing. If those involved in searching, especially medical practitioners, have the power to X-ray people it would somewhat strengthen this section of the Bill.