Drugs (Illegal Imports) (Hansard, 26 February 1982)

§ Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea, South)

I welcome this opportunity to raise the question of the control by Her Majesty's Customs of the illegal importation of hard drugs into the United Kingdom. At the outset, I must declare an interest. I am an adviser to the Society of Civil and Public Servants and I have had a great deal of help from it in getting background information for this debate. I have also had information from one or two other organisations. I am grateful for the help that I have received.

There can be no doubt about the seriousness of the hard drugs problem in Britain. I am concerned specifically with narcotic drugs, especially heroin, although that is not in any way to minimise the problem of other dangerous drugs, such as barbiturates. A few days ago the Home Office published some figures of narcotics addicts. They show the alarming increase in 1981 of addicts known to doctors and receiving treatment. The increase was the biggest for over 10 years. The figure in 1981 was 3,800, compared with 1971 of 1,426.

In case any hon. Member should think that, despite the seriousness of addiction, there are not many addicts, I should point out that most addicts are not registered. The number of addicts is likely to exceed the number of registered addicts in a ratio of anything between 5:1 and 25:1. Therefore, there may well be about 20,000 hard drug addicts, to which must be added the number of barbiturate addicts.

I do not need to spell out the tragic consequences for a drug addict. On occasion, the consequence may be death. Addiction certainly causes illness, and possibly family breakdown, crime and imprisonment. The available Home Office figures show that addicts tend to be younger than before and that a small proportion are known to be as young as 16. Anyone who has seen a heroin addict trying to inject himself will know only too well what a tragedy it is.

There are four basic approaches to the problem. The first is to put more pressure on foreign Governments to minimise the likelihood that drugs will be produced in those countries and shipped to Britain. However, in some of the source countries there is political instability and it may not be easy for the Government concerned to exercise effective control.

The second approach is for the police to increase surveillance, to catch the dealers and thus to prevent the drug's use. The third approach is to provide improved facilities for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts. All the available evidence suggests that our resources for treatment and rehabilitation are seriously overstretched. Those working in the community say that they cannot cope with the number of people who need help. The fourth approach is to control the illegal import of drugs at the point of entry into Britain, and that is my main concern today.

By any standards, Customs officers appear to be doing a good job in catching at least some of those who bring hard drugs into Britain. Last year heroin seizures more than doubled and reached a total of 87 kilograms, which, according to the Home Office, have an estimated street value of £16.5 million. The total amount of drugs seized 1153 last year is estimated to have a street value of £52 million. It is alarming that the great bulk of the heroin that came to Britain and was seized was destined for United Kingdom consumption. It is estimated that at least 80 per cent. of the seized heroin was intended for the United Kingdom market and not for transhipment to other countries. Last year, 87 kilograms were seized, compared with just over 2 kilograms in 1975.

I suppose that cocaine is a slightly less serious drug than heroin, although I do not minimise its seriousness. Last year cocaine seizures amounted to 13.5 kilograms, compared with 9.25 kilograms in 1975. However, it is the great increase in heroin seizures that gives us pause for thought. Of the heroin seized, 55 to 60 per cent. came from Pakistan, 25 to 30 per cent. from Turkey, about 8 per cent. from the Lebanon and 7 per cent. from Thailand or the golden triangle. That contradicts the popular belief that almost all heroin comes from the golden triangle. In addition, there were smaller seizures from India, Syria and other countries.

It may be argued that, given the great increase in the amounts seized, all is well because we are catching the stuff as it comes into Britain. However, the evidence is against that. One indicator is the street price of heroin. It is impossible to be specific, but the best estimate is that the street price is between £50 and £70 per gramme. The price has been stable for two or three years, but is estimated to have fallen by about 20 per cent. since 1978. That suggests that we are not catching all the heroin that comes into Britain, because if the price is stable the supply is probably reaching the domestic market.

Further evidence that all is not well comes from agencies concerned with drug addicts. Mr. David Turner of the standing conference on drug abuse said recently that there had been a major rise in addiction in Britain. If that is so, and we are facing a major crisis, we must consider the question of the adequacy of customs controls.

A feature of the last 10 years and more has been the enormous increase in the movement of people and cargoes in and out of Britain. There has been no commensurate increase in the number of Customs officers. Let us consider the position at Heathrow. In 1971 there were 13.4 million inward passengers from international destinations. By 1981 the number had reached 22.5 million—an increase of 67 per cent. in the inward movement of people. In the same period the number of uniformed Customs officers declined from 352 to 331.

Over the 10-year period there was a 40 per cent. increase in the volume of cargo, but a decline in the number of Customs officers dealing with cargo from 155 to 121. The number of inward passengers through Dover increased by over 50 per cent., but the number of Customs officers to cope remained static over the 10-year period.

Perhaps the best example of the pressures on Customs officers is the change in passenger controls at the points of entry. Before 1968 every passenger was liable to be checked by a Customs officer at the airports or ports. The Finance Act 1968 changed that procedure and introduced the red and green channels. When the channels were first introduced it is estimated that about half the passengers going through the green channel were spoken to by Customs officers and about 20 per cent. were examined to see whether they had brought anything in to the country illegally.

Today it is estimated that 1 per cent. of the people going through the green channel are challenged by Customs 1154 officers. That is a direct reflection of the increased number of people going through and the lack of Customs officers to deal with them.

Before 1977 there was a manual system of Customs clearance for cargo. At that time about 15 per cent. of cargo consignments was examined. The best estimate for today is that 5 per cent. of cargo consignments from die EEC are examined and about 10 per cent. from non-EEC countries.

The Customs investigation division, on the basis of information, works internally to examine and try to catch people who smuggle stuff in. Its work, successful as it is, is to a large extent dependent on information from static or uniformed Customs officers at the points of entry. The conclusion is inescapable. We are asking too much of a limited force of Customs officers. They know that they are being asked to do the impossible. We need urgent action to bring the import of hard drugs under some form of more positive control.

Some years ago when I arrived in San Francisco from the Far East I remember seeing a sign above the Customs shed which said: Be patient. A drug free America is worth waiting for. That is symbolic of the American Government's determination, in spite the difficulties, to apply tight Customs control at the point of entry.

The Budget is due shortly. I appreciate that the Minister is unable to anticipate the Budget statement, but I hope that it will not contain proposals that might lead to a reduction in the number of Customs officers. I hope that the reverse is true. I hope that the Government will propose to increase surveillance at the points of entry. I appreciate that a cost is involved. Extra Customs officers cost money, and with the Government's obsession about public spending it will be difficult for them to eat their words and provide extra Customs officers. Nevertheless, that is worth doing. If the Government do not do so there will be enormous social cost in terms of more addicts of hard drugs who will have to be coped with within the limited resources of the NHS and other agencies. The need is urgent and I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will have something hopeful to say about the problem.

§ The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jehn Bruce-Gardyne)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) on raising an important matter and I assure him that no one in the Government is complacent about the drug problem that we face or the problem of control.

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a number of points that he made in the early part of his speech are matters for the Home Office or the Foreign Office. had better not comment on those, but I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon and hon. Friends. I shall concentrate on the specific problem of control, because that falls within the aegis of the Customs and Excise, for which the Treasury is answerable in the House.

I do not quarrel with arty of the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave, although I draw different conclusions from them. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the enormous growth of traffic through our airports in the past 10 or 15 years and to the contraction in the number of Customs officers involved in checking that traffic. The 1155 growth has been exponential and traffic through our airports could not be comprehensively checked at the point of entry—not only without enormous staffing costs, but without intolerable interference with normal traffic. However many additional staff we were prepared to contemplate, we could not seek a solution down that road.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the nature of drug trafficking is such that physical control at the point of entry is almost impossible, because even minute quantities of drugs can do enormous damage and have a high value on the street. Such quantities can easily be concealed on persons or in vehicles and a simple physical check is unlikely to detect it in most cases.

I am told that some professional operators have adopted a new technique of putting drugs in a condom and swallowing it. When they are detected, the Customs officers are faced with the extremely disagreeable task of sorting out the results—to put it discreetly. The sophistication of drug traffickers has grown enormously, and the problems of detection have grown with it.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Battersea, South paid tribute to the success that the Customs and Excise has enjoyed in its extremely difficult task. He was right to do that. The hon. Gentleman quoted the figures for detection and the haul last year and drew attention to the considerable growth in detection rates and goods seized since 1975. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in saying that that does not necessarily prove that the rate of detection is rising commensurately. It may prove that the traffic has grown alarmingly. I would not necessarily dissent from that view.

The Customs procedures for tackling this serious problem have become infinitely more sophisticated. I am told that dogs are being trained and that they have proved extremely successful in detecting heroin. All the time detection techniques are trying to keep up with the pressures.

There has been a contraction in the total number of Customs and Excise officers deployed, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman touched on. The number is down to about 2,400. But there has been a conscious effort to get the necessary savings at the blunt rather than the sharp end. The number of headquarters staff has been reduced by about 12 per cent., compared with an overall reduction of about 8 per cent. But that is not the whole story.

The investigation division has been substantially increased. In the past 12 months it has been increased by 1156 70. If there is evidence of a need further to strengthen the division, we shall not hestitate to take the necessary steps. Mobile control is the most effective way to deal with the menace.

All Customs staff due to be employed on duties that could result in the detection of drug smuggling are given special training. Mechanical aids are available to examine places of concealment. One hundred and fifty investigation officers work full time. A substantial proportion concentrate exclusively on hard drugs. During major operations those officers are supplemented by other investigators and, where appropriate, by the Customs staff generally.

Although there has been some reduction in the volume of Customs controls, the Customs believes that it has been achieved by deploying efforts away from areas where results are meagre and concentrating on more fruitful fields. Greater emphasis is being placed on local initiative and expertise and less on routine controls. That is a crucial point. With the increasing sophistication of the hard drugs traffic, routine controls are likely to yield increasingly nugatory results.

The Government entirely share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the continuing threat to health and social welfare posed by the importation of drugs in general and hard drugs in particular. I am afraid that a total defence is not within the bounds of possibility without a massive increase in controls, which, as I said, would be unacceptable not only because of the cost but because of its impact on the freedom of movement of passengers and the flow of trade.

We are not remotely complacent. There are no grounds for complacency. I am satisfied that we have maintained a high standard of control and I know that Customs and Excise will continue to exercise a close watch in this important area. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will continue to support the efforts made by the Customs service to control this pernicious trade.

I cannot—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand—start to divulge now the contents of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget that will be announced in 10 days' time. If I did, I should very rapidly be frog marched out of office. We shall take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's points. I am grateful to him for raising the subject on the Adjournment, and we shall certainly not allow any form of complacency to dog our steps.