Amendment No. 90 has been ruled out of order, as it involves a potential charge on the revenue.

I was going to refer to subsection (9) of section 28. I believe the obligation is on the Minister to see that sufficient drug treatment centres are available and that there is no necessity for you to rule this out of order. Subsection (9) says:

The Minister may by order designate an institution which in his opinion is suitable for the medical treatment or the care of persons in respect of whom an order may be made under this section, or a specified part of such an institution, as a designated custodial treatment centre for the purpose of this section.

I think it is relevant to that, and it is already contained in section 28; then how can it be out of order?

What the chairman is saying is that he cannot allow it, much as he would like to.

Deputy Byrne's amendment is invalid on technical grounds, but may I say we would all agree to make a strong recommendation to the Minister that he would have such centres established in health board areas?

Where he thinks they would be indicated.

A perfectly valid point to make to the Minister for next year's budget.

You cannot say in every health board area, but where they would be indicated.

Every health board area has at least one psychiatric hospital.

No. That is a little too general. Drug treatment centres and psychiatric institutions are not necessarily——

There could be a drug treatment centre within the psychiatric hospital.

We are just making a unanimous recommendation.

There may be health boards where there is no need to set up a drug treatment centre, but where they are indicated.

That would be a unique health board.

We must pass on to amendment No. 90a.

Is the Minister accepting the unanimous recommendation of the committee?

He can take it as a recommendation.

And he shall instruct the——

No, not "he shall".

That is the recommendation.

I take the Deputy's point, but——

We are making a serious recommendation from this Committee to you as Minister for Health that——

In view of the fact that, as distinct from the original Bill, I believe there should be treatment for these people, it certainly would by my ambition to ensure that there would be some sort of treatment centre——

That is the spirit.

The Minister is doing well.

Could I ask the Minister if he would be prepared to reword this on Report Stage to say the Minister will, by order, designate each health board to provide an institution?

I move amendment No. 90a:

In page 21, lines 31 to 42, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:

"(1) (a) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 3 of this Act, other than a first or second offence in relation to which a penalty may be imposed under section 27 (1) (a) of this Act, or an offence under section 15, 16 or 18 of this Act, or of attempting to commit any such offence, the court shall remand the person for such period as it considers necessary for the purposes of this section (being a period not exceeding eight days in the case of a remand in custody), and request a health board, court welfare officer or other body or person, considered by the court to be appropriate, to——

(i) cause to be furnished to the court a medical report in writing on the convicted person together with such recommendations (if any) as to medical treatment which the person making the report considers appropriate to the needs of the convicted person, and

(ii) furnish to the court a report in writing as to the vocational and educational circumstances and social background of the convicted person together with such recommendations (if any) as to care which the body or person making the report considers appropriate to the said needs,

(b) Where a person is convicted of a first or second offence under section 3 of this Act in relation to which a penalty may be imposed under the said section 27 (1) (a) and the court, having regard to the circumstances of the case, considers it appropriate so to do, the court may remand the person on bail for such period as it considers necessary for the purposes of this section, and request a health board, court welfare officer or other body or person, considered by the court to be appropriate, to——

(i) cause to be furnished to the court a medical report in writing on the convicted person together with such recommendations (if any) as to medical treatment which the person making the report considers appropriate to the needs of the convicted person, and

(ii) furnish to the court a report in writing as to the vocational and educational circumstances and social background of the convicted person together with such recommendations (if any) as to care which the body or person making the report considers appropriate to the said needs."

According to amendment No. 90a a person can be remanded for a period and I should like to know where the person would be remanded to.

I suggest we dispose of the amendment first and then the points Members wish to raise can be discussed on the section as a whole. We have already discussed amendment No. 90a and I must formally put the question on it first.

Dr. Gibbons's point is relevant on this amendment.

It can be discussed on the section as a whole.

I should like to ask a question on the amendment before the question is put.

We discussed it before, but the Deputy may proceed.

Where would a person be remanded to? This is an important matter.

We are exploring this problem to see what can be done in that respect.

I take it that once we pass section 28 it is obligatory on the Minister to make the necessary arrangements for the courts?

To designate institutions?

Yes.

Section 28 (9) states:

The Minister may by order designate an institution which in his opinion is suitable for the medical treatment or the care of persons in respect of whom an order may be made under this section. . . .

To see that this would work it would be necessary to have some centre in each health board area. It is possible that a person from one health board area might be convicted in another health board area. Each health board has a psychiatric unit and it would not take a lot to provide a drug treatment centre in them.

I would not agree with the words " psychiatric unit ". We would need to be cautious here.

But psychiatric units have the facilities. It is the general sphere of medicine that this treatment would come under.

When we say under an Act that something shall be an offence and a person shall go to jail for that offence we do not say we will have to provide a prison. We provide in the Bill that courts will do certain things and it is the Government's duty, and the Minister's duty, to make the facilities available to the courts. They must provide the institutions.

Psychiatric hospitals are available but I would have reservations about using the words "psychiatric unit".

The section concerned just states "an institution".

A designated custodial treatment centre.

It happens that it is possible that such centres would be located in those institutions. I cannot see us building special units in each of the health board areas. It is possible that in some health board areas there is no problem as far as drug abuse is concerned.

In making my point I am influenced by the fact that we have all read in the newspapers that courts have nowhere to send some people on remand at times. This means that facilities are not available and the people responsible do not seem to be able to solve this problem. There was the outstanding case in Cork—I do not know whether it has been solved. Now it the time to make the decision in relation to these centres. Psychiatric hospitals have been mentioned and in the circumstances they could be a suitable place because we have a duty to upgrade them and accept them as institutions that are absolutely necessary in the community for the treatment of various diseases. I would not object to psychiatric hospitals as such provided the facilities were made available for the treatment of drug addiction and not just a place where patients would be sent because there is no other place to send them.

Does the Deputy want some designated institution in which there would be a unit for the treatment of these people?

And trained personnel available. This is a worry. Trained personnel should be provided for the treatment of these people.

Section 28 deals with cases where people are convicted and in the custody of the court and concerned with the judge or justice before sentence is passed. That judge or justice wants a medical and social report and that is all we are concerned with. He refers those people to some place from which he can get that report. In another context we should be concerned with the treatment of drug addicts but that is not involved here. What is involved here is a temporary place where the person can be examined and from which the court can get this report.

The section reads terrific if we can get the place or are we just white-washing?

It is a very progressive amendment to the Bill as originally envisaged and one which, in the course of time, will involve enormous responsibility on the Minister. He will have to designate specific drug addiction treatment centres. By and large we would hope that they would not be psychiatric institutions.

Let us not kid ourselves about this. It will probably have to be psychiatric institutions with a special unit and personnel to deal with them but I cannot visualise having institutions for the treatment of drug addiction in different parts of the country.

There might be different circumstances.

They might be necessary in Cork or Dublin, with all due respect to those cities, but not in other parts of the country.

In amendment No. 90 I was attempting to make it obligatory to provide treatment centres which could be a branch or a wing of a psychiatric institution in each health board area.

I suggest that that is something for the Health Estimate in the Dáil and not for this type of legislation.

It must be for this legislation because if we are going to provide that the judge or justice can send a person to an institution we have to provide that facility. Otherwise, there is no point in passing this legislation. One of the strongest parts of this legislation is this rehabilitative assessment section, section 28.

As Minister for Health the Minister, when the Bill is passed, will see that these centres are set up.

Are we going to be ridiculed by the courts and have judges saying they have no place to send a person?

The judge or justice will not blame the Act for that.

If the health boards do not have the designation treatment centres by that time, I have no doubt but that the judges will make the point.

Why should the health boards do it unless they have a directive from the Minister?

They cannot unless the Minister provides the money to do so and he will have to do that in due course. The Bill enables the Minister to designate custodial treatment centres. We must pass the Bill first.

And we have made a recommendation to the Minister.

And there is power for the Minister to do this.

If the Bill became law tomorrow the only institutions we would be talking about are psychiatric institutions until such time as money is available to provide other accommodation.

There is an outpatient clinic at Jervis Street.

No, I want to speak on this. A short time ago I got the impression that, under this section, the judge could send any person committing a first or second offence for the possession of cannabis for an assessment. On reading the amendment I see that this is excluded. Subsection (1) (a) of the amendment reads:

Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 3 of this Act, other than a first or second offence in relation to which a penalty may be imposed under section 27 (1) (a). . . .

This brings us back to the point that under this legislation a person committing a first and second offence will not be sent for an assessment. Yet a short time ago I got the impression from the Minister that if the judge thought fit all such cases could be sent for an assessment.

That is clear enough——

No, it is not.

It is for other than first or second offenders. I thought that by now we would all have understood that to be in the section. The first offence is £50; the second offence is £100 and the third offence is the option, after conviction, to apply to the court to send somebody into custodial treatment.

We asked the Minister whether the judge, if he thought fit, could send a person who comes before him for the first time for an assessment.

Yes, he can. If the Deputy reads my amendment No. 90a, subparagraph (b), he will see what I mean:

(b) Where a person is convicted of a first or second offence under section 3 of this Act in relation to which a penalty may be imposed under the said section 27 (1) (a) and the court, having regard to the circumstances of the case, considers it appropriate so to do, the court may remand the person on bail for such period as it considers necessary for the purposes of this section, and request a health board, court welfare officer or other body or person, considered by the court to be appropriate, to—

Why is it excluded in subsection (1) (a)?

It is compulsory under subsection (1) (a) of amendment No. 90a and at the discretion of the district justice under subsection (1) (b).

Is there very great difficulty in revising these penalties from time to time? Is it a big legislative process?

It could be done by amending legislation.

Is that a difficult thing to do?

I am sure there will be 143 different opinions in the Dáil on it.

I am talking about amending legislation in the light of experience. Will it take long?

It would take as long as any new legislation would take.

At the rate we are going inflation will destroy the purpose of this Bill.

As amendment No. 90a has been agreed, amendments Nos. 91, 92 and 93 cannot be moved.

I wish to clarify something. I would take my amendment No. 91 now to be to the section as amended by amendment No. 90a. I want to speak to that. I see no justification that a person convicted under section 15 should have all the facilities of rehabilitation and social work and all the expert facilities which we hope will be available to a person who has been convicted of pushing. The section refers to having possession for illicit supply, peddling, pushing and so on. I see no reason why these people should be given the courtesy and the red carpet treatment of institutional care in the drug treatment centres we hope to have.

They will probably be victims too.

If they are, they come under a different section.

This has already been discussed.

Is the Deputy distinguishing between pushers and pusher-users?

Yes.

We discussed this very thoroughly on section 15. The Deputy has a good point except that there can be pusher-users.

Section 15 does not involve the pusher-user.

A pusher who is not a user will not go into an institution for treatment.

The Deputy may re-introduce his amendments on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 94:

In page 21, subsection (2), to delete " a report " and substitute " the reports " in line 43.

I move amendment No. 95:

In page 21, subsection (2) (a), to insert " subject to subsection (8) of this section, " before " permit " in line 47.

Amendments Nos. 95, 96, 97 and 98 are consequential on amendment No. 99 and must be taken together.

As amendments Nos. 95 to 98 are consequential on amendment No. 99, I will read amendment No. 99:

In page 23, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following subsection before subsection (8):

" (8) The court shall not under this section——

(a) permit a person to enter into a recognisance containing a condition requiring him for medical treatment to remain in a specified hospital, clinic or other place,

(b) order a person to be detained in a custodial treatment centre,

unless the court is satisfied that the medical practitioner in charge either of the hospital, clinic, custodial treatment centre or other place, or of a treatment facility to be used by the person as a consequence of the permission or order being given or made, regards the giving or making of the permission or order as an appropriate course having regard to the needs of the person. ".

The effect of this amendment is that where a person is admitted for treatment through the operation of section 28, such admission, or subsequent discharge, is subject to the prior approval of the medical officer in charge. There was never any intention that the section would work otherwise; but having considered a case put forward by the medical profession, I accept that it is preferable that there should be no room for doubt and that the position should be spelled out clearly in the section.

It is obviously desirable that in exercising any of the various treatment options a court's decision should not override the wishes and opinions of the doctor in charge of the particular facility. For example, if the medical superintendent wishes to refuse to admit or retain a particular patient on the grounds that his conduct was disruptive and prejudicial to the welfare of other patients, he should reserve the right to do so.

The sensitivity of the medical profession again.

No, common sense.

Was this agreed with the medical profession?

It was at their request. I have not agreed anything with them. If there is a case of somebody whose behaviour disrupts the ordinary working of the institution, or any unit of it, it is desirable that, rather than having a bad influence on the other patients, he should not be admitted or that he would be discharged.

One must provide safeguards for institutions which are doing good work.

I would not be madly enthusiastic about this amendment. I see the difficulty, but the amendment is wider than the instance the Minister mentions. The amendment in effect says that the court shall not make one of these orders unless the person in charge of the institution concerned thinks it appropriate that the order be made. That is giving a great deal of authority to the person in charge of the institution. The amendment says ". . . regards the giving or making of the permission or order as an appropriate course having regard to the needs of the persons". We were asking the court to decide first that this course of action is necessary, and now we are saying that, even if the court think it necessary, the head of an institution might say that he does not think it is necessary and the patient is not going to his institution.

That would not be the end of it. The head of the institution makes the submission but the court makes the ruling.

We are giving the head of the institution almighty power in this.

The wording is:

. . . unless the court is satisfied that the medical practitioner . . . regards the giving or making of the permission or order as an appropriate course having regard to the needs of the person.

The medical practitioner has the final say.

Would it not be a matter of coming to a district justice who sends everybody off to a custodial centre? It might be that a man does not require incarceration, that he could get treatment on an outpatient basis.

The Minister used the word " disruptive ". As the amendment stands, the court cannot make the order if the person in charge does not want to have it made.

A medical practitioner would have some experience of treating the patient. It might be that the patient would have been in an institution beforehand.

This is one of the situations that was visualised in the subsection. Surely we must safeguard the position of other patients?

That is not what is in the section.

What is the medical practitioner to do? He cannot do the impossible.

The section provided for cases where the medical practitioner might think it would not be in the best interests of the other patients in the institution, but that is not what we have before us now.

I will look at it again.

If you included some words like "after probation for a few days".

If it is evident after a few weeks that the person is disrupting the treatment of other patients——

That is different.

Such a situation must be provided for.

It would mean that a man convicted on a particular day would have to be kept on remand.

In a custodial treatment centre.

Can we accept it as it is?

It had better be withdrawn and a proper amendment submitted on Report. We could then let it stay in the Bill.

Would it not be better if the Minister promised to insert an amendment——

The Minister is seek-apply to amendments Nos. 95 to 99. The Minister will introduce an amendment later.

These amendments apply to amendments 95 to 99. The Minister will introduce an amendment later.

We accept what the Minister has in mind but the amendment before us is unsatisfactory.

I move amendment No. 100:

In page 23, subsection (8), line 12, to delete " shall not " and substitute " may ".

My amendment seeks to substitute " may " for " shall not ". I wanted it to read that where a sentence is being imposed on an offender the offender would be sent to a custodial centre or a specified hospital or clinic where he would undergo treatment for a period of time, say one month, the term of the sentence. My point is that if persons are in hospital for a month they may elect to stay on longer. My object was to have a discussion on it. At the moment the provision states that when a person is sentenced he shall not stay in a clinic or hospital for longer than the period specified. I would insert "may" instead of "shall". The judge could sentence a person to a month's imprisonment and the doctor take him into a clinic. He might be doing well there and could leave at the end of a month. I am confused here. I would prefer to see the person going to the institution before being sentenced. The Minister might clarify the position. Could a person not go to a clinic and come back for sentence?

Surely this is an essential safeguard, otherwise a judge could send a man off to an institution for a longer period.

That is so.

When such people go into clinics do they not do so prior to sentence?

I am not clear. There is a maximum term of imprisonment ranging from one year to, say, seven years. I am not quite clear whether the sentence would have been passed or the penalty announced before the offender was sent to custodial care.

What could happen then is that a person on summary conviction could be sent to prison——

If he comes out of custodial care he would go back to the court and the court might sentence him to five years. If he had spent two years in custodial care the sentence would be a further three years.

A person who comes on a summary charge cannot stay longer than 12 months, which is the maximum sentence the court could impose.

He comes back to the court.

He has been in a treatment centre for 12 months and comes back to the court. The psychiatrist or the medical practitioner says: "This man will do very well with another year's treatment". The judge cannot impose the year's treatment on him because he has already done the maximum of 12 months.

He cannot do more than the maximum term of imprisonment imposed.

I want to change it that he may.

It can be recommended that he be a voluntary admission to the clinic.

May I raise the question of custodial care. Would that be subsequently documented against a person in the same way as a prison sentence per se would be?

Off the top of my head, I would not think so, when the man is in for treatment.

He has had a conviction anyway.

He is convicted of the offence. This is the interim between conviction and prison sentence. The judge sends him to get a report.

It is a conviction.

It is the conviction we would be concerned with, not the length of time being served.

I suppose sentence would be recorded.

That is the answer.

If a person comes before the court and is found to be mentally unbalanced and in need of treatment, and then goes along to an institution for 12 months, that is the end of that. There is nothing more the court can do. They cannot impose any further treatment on the patient.

If he is mentally unbalanced, he cannot be convicted at all.

Surely he can be committed if he is considered unfit to plead.

I do not think anything can happen to him.

If he is improving, it is in his own interest to continue treatment on the recommendation of the doctor.

What my amendment seeks is to substitute " may " for " shall not ". I thought " shall not " was a little limiting.

It is limiting, to ensure that a person cannot be kept on treatment longer than the maximum sentence which the Bill permits, and that is common sense.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

I am not completely happy, because this relates to section 15. If a pusher goes before the District Court and the maximum term he can get is 12 months in a residential unit, then the court cannot do anything else with him.

They can inflict the maximum penalty in accordance with the provisions of this Bill.

This would not arise until the custodial care and observation would be over and submitted to the bench, who would then impose sentence?

If he has been there for 12 months, the bench cannot impose a sentence. That is the problem.

It might be the right result.

It is not the right result.

If he was there for that length of time——

If he is a pusher, he is hardly going to get 12 months' treatment.

12 months' assessment.

Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?

Is the Minister opposing——

The Deputy may withdraw the amendment and raise the matter again on Report Stage.