I welcome this opportunity to make a statement to the House on the recent Annual Report on the state of the drugs problem in the European Union prepared by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. That centre was established in 1994, its headquarters in Lisbon. Its task is to provide objective, reliable and comparative information at European Union level concerning drugs, drug addiction and their consequences. The centre is governed by a management board with a representative from each member state in addition to nominees of the European Commission and Parliament. The centre produced its first report on the state of the drugs problem in the European Union in 1996 and published its second report recently.
Its 1997 report shows cannabis remains the most commonly used illegal drug throughout the European Union. Depending on the country, it also demonstrates that between 5 per cent and 30 per cent of the relevant population have at least tried the drug at some time in their lives. In most European Union member states amphetamines are the second most frequently used illegal drug, generally tried by up to 3 per cent of adults. Although fewer than 1 per cent of adults have ever tried heroin, it is the drug which gives rise to the greatest social and public health problems. It is estimated there are between 750,000 and 1 million heroin addicts in the European Union.
I welcome the publication of this second report which provides an important base for European Union policy formulators to compare and contrast the effectiveness of policies for drugs and drug addiction.
With regard to Ireland, a recent European school survey project on alcohol and other drugs — ESPAD — indicated that 37 per cent of the 2,000 16 year olds surveyed here had tried cannabis at some stage. While the position in Ireland is on a par with the position in the United Kingdom, this was high by comparison with other member states. This data illustrates that we must continue to orientate our drug prevention policies toward our young people.
I will avail of this opportunity to clarify certain facts in the arrest and subsequent release of the five suspects in relation to last weekend's cannabis seizure. As most Members will be aware by now, the five suspects were arrested under the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996 and detained for an initial 48 hours. In accordance with the provisions of that Act, the Garda then obtained a warrant from the District Court extending their detention for a further 72 hours. Later it became apparent to the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions that the District Court judge concerned had not been nominated for the purposes of the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996. The nomination of District Court judges is a matter for the President of the District Court. Members opposite are endeavouring to imply that I, as Minister, have some responsibility in this area. Had the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996 provided for the Minister to nominate judges and had there been a failure on my part to do so, I would be the first to accept responsibility. However, the Act does not make any such demands on the Minister.
By the time it became apparent there were difficulties with the continued detention of the suspects, the Garda and Director of Public Prosecutions had sufficient evidence to make an arrest for the purpose of bringing charges. Therefore, the suspects were released and the Garda attempted to re-arrest them for the purpose of charging in accordance with section 4(5) of the Act which specifically provides for such circumstances. However, the District Court judge refused to allow the re-arrest of the suspects and ordered their release. I am also informed the District Court judge later refused to issue warrants for their arrest.
I want to make it clear to the House — as will be evident from the facts I have just outlined — that this case revolves around a series of judicial decisions. It is well established that it is not appropriate for me, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to comment on those decisions.
