asked the Minister for Justice if, in the light of international experience of experiments like detoxification centres and decriminalisation programmes, he has any plans to introduce legislation to deal with petty offenders outside the realm of the penal system.

Legislation specifically related to the misuse of drugs or to the provision of detoxification centres would not be primarily a matter for me as Minister for Justice. I am not considering any specific decriminalisation proposal. The following information may, however, be of assistance to the Deputy.

Many offenders who commit petty offences and even offences which are not so petty may be and frequently are, dealt with in a way which does not involve their committal to an institution or even the payment of a fine.

Under the Juvenile Liaison Scheme, which is operated by the Garda Síochána, juveniles are encouraged by juvenile liaison officers to avoid getting involved in crime. The function of an officer under the scheme is to maintain contact with any juveniles assigned to him. The juvenile may be one who has committed an offence and, having been warned, has been informally committed to the care of the officer. An officer may also be given the care and guidance of a juvenile who, though not known to have committed an offence, may be regarded as a potential delinquent by reason of unsatisfactory behaviour such as persistent truancy, frequenting undesirable places and so on. Such cases would come to notice through parents, teachers, school attendance officers and other police officers. Since the commencement of the scheme in 1963 over 13,000 juveniles have come under the care and supervision of the juvenile liaison officers. The scheme now operates in Dublin and in 21 major centres of population outside of Dublin.

A person charged with an offence before a court may be dealt with by that court under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907. This involves discharging the offender on his entering a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of time. The bond would normally require the accused to be supervised by a probation and welfare officer of my Department for that period. There are at present about 1,600 persons under such supervision. The bond could, and frequently does, contain a condition that the offender attend a centre for treatment. This may be, for example, a drug centre or a centre for the treatment of alcoholism.

The court may, in certain circumstances, dismiss the charge under the 1907 Act. A court may also impose a prison sentence and then suspend implementation of the sentence.

Last year a new scheme was introduced—the intensive supervision scheme—which involves suitable offenders being released from custody well in advance of their normal release date. They are released to serve the balance of their sentences under the supervision of probation and welfare officers of my Department. The supervision is intensive to the extent that each probation and welfare officer would have only five or six offenders to look after. The indications so far are that this scheme is quite effective. I intend to expand this scheme as soon as existing vacancies in the probation and welfare service are filled.

My Department is currently considering the possibility of introducing some form of community service scheme whereby courts would be empowered to order an offender to do a certain number of hours work for the benefit of the community rather than deal with him in any other way.

Finally, the Interdepartmental Committee on Mentally Ill and Maladjusted Persons recommends in its report that, where mentally disordered persons are charged before the courts, the courts should be empowered at the earliest possible opportunity to have the situation medically investigated and to make the appropriate order. The implementation of the committee's recommendations would mean that many persons who would otherwise be detained in a prison or place of detention under the control of my Department would in future be detained in designated psychiatric centres approved by the Minister for Health. The report is currently being considered by the various interested Departments.

Arising out of that comprehensive reply does the Minister see any possible room for consideration of a detoxification centre for people who are clearly, as the expression has it, hooked on drugs or alcohol, which centre could wean off them off these, as it were? Secondly, would he be good enough to indicate, in relation to the latter part of his reply where he spoke about the community service type approach as a response to crime, when we may expect to hear more about that?

The first part of the question does not come within my jurisdiction. The declassification centre would be a matter for another Minister.

I do not think so, not in response to crime. Does the Minister mean only in respect of health and social welfare?

If this centre were in existence other aspects might have some association with my responsibilities but——

Will the Minister for Justice ask for one of these centres?

If the Deputy puts down a question I will provide the information.

I have put down this question already.

I have replied to the question on the Order Paper. It is unfair to expect answers to questions of which we are not given notice. On the second part of the Deputy's question, I am satisfied that all aspects of community service that could be properly established will be looked at in due course. In time we will be dealing with a properly developed approach to this problem.

I understood the Minister to say in his first reply that at present a scheme was being assembled to formalise community service orders. At the end of his second reply he said he was satisfied that "such alternatives will be looked at". Are they being looked at?

The first and last parts of my reply are joined and mean the same. If the Deputy had listened closely to my first reply we would not have had to deal with this——

"Will" is not the same as——

We cannot have this sort of argument.

Let us clear up this matter. Is there at present being assembled in the Department a proposal to have a formalisation of community service orders as a possible alternative to incarceration?

At the risk of repeating myself, all such aspects are being examined.

The answer is yes.

I do not know how it sounded to the Deputy——

That sounds like a "yes" to me.

I do not care how it sounds to the Deputy——

Question No. 52.

Is the Minister trying to evade my question?

I am not being vague. If the Deputy considers my answer to be vague I regret it.

Is the answer yes?

I answered that question.

If I may be allowed? Is the Minister not behaving like a guard in uniform——

The Deputy should not make such remarks during Question Time.

I did not mean it in a derogatory fashion.

It did not sound very nice.

As a former member I take that in the spirit the Deputy intended.

It is standing to the Minister at the moment.

Personalities or a Minister's present or past private business should not be raised here.

I am complimenting the Minister.

The Deputy should not pass such remarks.

I was complimenting the Minister.

When it comes from Deputy Harte nobody knows——

That is not fair.

That is a remark unbecoming the Chair but becoming the occupant.

If it is unfair it is withdrawn but Deputy Harte continues to interrupt questions.