asked the Minister for Finance the value of goods seized from passengers at Dublin Airport in the latest period of three months for which statistics are available, and in the corresponding period in 1959.

In the period of three months ended 31st October, 1960, the estimated value of dutiable goods seized from passengers arriving at Dublin Airport was £1,225. The figure for the corresponding period of 1959 was £11.

In addition there were in both periods seizures of unascertained value of goods prohibited to be imported under the Acts relating to diseases of plants and animals, censorship of publications, explosives etc. These totalled 397 in the three months ended 31st October, 1960 and 163 in the same months of 1959.

Am I not correct in believing that over comparable periods seizures increased from £11 to over £1,100?

That is correct—in fact to over £1,200.

That does suggest that great zeal is being displayed?

It also suggests the need that there was to take some special measures.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that some degree of balance should be necessary in this matter? Is it desirable, for the protection of the revenue to the extent of £1,000 approximately, to create an atmosphere of extreme discomfort and annoyance to the average members of the public passing through the ports? As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, if the seizures made amount to over £1,200 that must represent a very small fraction of the total number of persons passing through the airport and the other points of landing. Is it prudent to create an atmosphere of extreme discomfort and offence for the vast mass of legitimate travellers in order to have the satisfaction of producing these seizures?

It is not true, as has been suggested, that extreme measures have been taken.

Most people think so.

The utmost courtesy prevailed throughout the exercise of these duties which brought in the extra amount in revenue. As I said before action was only taken as a result of the knowledge and in the light of the knowledge available to the authorities that there was certain organised smuggling on a fairly large scale.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what was the approximate cost of the additional measures taken in order to get this £1,100?

That is a separate question.

Does the Minister call the seizure of £1,100 worth of goods in three months reasonable evidence of an extensive conspiracy among the businessmen and travellers to smuggle? This is fantastic. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that £1,100 worth of seizures represents evidence of an elaborate conspiracy to smuggle?

I think it certainly justifies any extra measures that were taken and furthermore I wish to point out that persons who are not involved with smuggling find no difficulty whatever in passing through any of the ports. They are not unduly harassed by any means.

That was only £12 a day.

They are very fond of going to England.

What has the Parliamentary Secretary to say about England? He should tell that to his constituents in Westmeath. Put that in the record.

Deputies will please allow questions to proceed.

The Parliamentary Secretary interrupted.