Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies, first, for their support for this important legislation and, second, for staying on and staying quite late in large numbers to demonstrate their interest in this broad topic. I should have mentioned in my earlier contribution that it is my intention to submit an early signature motion to the President and ask him to sign this legislation as soon as possible, assuming it goes through this House and through the Seanad tomorrow.

A number of Deputies asked about further primary legislation. It is my intention to bring in new primary legislation in this calendar year. That is necessary to introduce the principles and policies that are necessary to allow us to prohibit substances as we need to by ministerial or Government order again. In the interim, however, it will be necessary to bring in primary legislation on each occasion on which it is deemed necessary to control new substances, and that obviously is not a desirable situation. It will certainly be very cumbersome.

Many Deputies raised the broader issue of drugs. I want to put on record a few points in terms of what has been happening in this area in recent months. I chaired the Oversight Forum on Drugs in 2015. There have been no further cuts to the local drugs task forces after a number of years of cuts. Even though we had only a modest increase in the HSE's budget for 2015, €2.1 million of that was set aside to increase the budget for social inclusion and drugs specifically. That means that in 2015 there will more detox beds in Merchants Quay Ireland and the Coolmine Therapeutic Community, more needle exchanges around the country, and more mental health supports, which are very important. We will also this year have the naloxone demonstration project, giving access to naloxone to hundreds of people, including case workers, relatives and drug users, in order that they can treat overdoses on the scene and quickly. This will be extremely important in reducing drug-related deaths this year and next. The Irish Prison Service has been invited to take part in that, although I have heard some inaccurate commentary to the contrary in recent weeks. We will start work on a new drugs strategy this year with a view to its publication next year. Many of the issues that were raised here will be important in feeding into that. Some of the comments made by Deputies McNamara and Kelleher need to be considered in that context too as to whether we need a more health-based approach to dealing with this problem rather than the criminal justice based approach that we have had predominantly to date.

Some people raised the issue of a Minister of State with responsibility for drugs. Sometimes Ministers of State work and sometimes they do not. It depends on the individual and the circumstances, and I would not assume that is a panacea. The appointment of Ministers of State is entirely a matter for the Taoiseach, in consultation with the Tánaiste. I always welcome extra help in my job. I do not believe for a second that I am able to be on top of every issue for which I have responsibility, but I am able to manage my existing responsibilities with the very important assistance of the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. However, if this Government or the next Government has a Minister of State for drugs, I would suggest that it not be an add-on to an existing Minister of State portfolio and that it be a dedicated position across health, justice, Customs and Excise, the Naval Service and education. Such a Minister of State should also have a delegation order with a designated budget because otherwise it will turn out to be a campaign that will result in very little.

There were a number of questions about specific substances. It is important to point out that primary legislation will now be needed to add to the list of controlled substances until we have new primary legislation to cover the policies and principles. Having said that, the Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act of 2010 still stands and it is important to read section 3(1) of that Act, which is important and perhaps is not being as used as much as might be the case. The section states:

A person who sells a psychoactive substance knowing or being reckless as to whether that substance is being acquired or supplied for human consumption shall be guilty of an offence.

That is any psychoactive substance. Section 3(2) states:

A person who imports or exports a psychoactive substance knowing or being reckless as to whether that substance is being acquired or supplied for human consumption shall be guilty of an offence.

That is the law since 2010 and that law stands. It may be difficult to prove it, but that law remains on the Statute Book tonight and covers unnamed substances as well as those named.

There was mention of benzodiazepines, so-called benzos, and Z drugs. They are not new. They have been around a very long time. One of the Z drugs, zolpidem, is one of the drugs listed in the Schedule. I should say that they are all controlled drugs and it is necessary to have a prescription to have these drugs. I understand there had been proposals, and proposals are still under consideration by my Department, to tighten up the rules on the possession of benzos and Z drugs, but it is important to bear in mind that hundreds of thousands of people in the State may well have those drugs for a good reason. It may be because they have a mental illness or they are epileptic, for example, and we need to make sure that anything we do in that space to restrict possession of those drugs does not end up criminalising people travelling overseas with their epilepsy medicines and so on. We must always consider the law of unintended consequences.

There were questions about existing convictions. Those are questions for justice rather than for health. I can say, however, that we would expect that existing convictions should stand. We know from the precedent of the A case that if somebody is convicted of an offence, even if the law is struck down subsequently, that conviction stands unless they specifically raise the constitutionality of section 2(2) as part of their defence.

When it comes to prosecutions, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is independent and acts independently of Government, will have to look at each case. The prosecutions that are at risk are those where the prosecution is solely under this section 2(2), which has been deemed unconstitutional, but in many cases people are charged and prosecuted under a number of provisions and not just the one that has been struck down.

In response to Deputy McGrath, I can assure him that I am not an absentee Minister, with the exception of perhaps three days in the past seven months. I am here every day in the Dáil and the Seanad. I was in the Seanad today dealing with the Dublin ambulance services, in the Dáil tonight dealing with this matter and I will be in the Seanad tomorrow again dealing with this matter. On the days I am not here I am in the Department or visiting other parts of the country. The Deputy specifically mentioned Sr. Consilio, whom I met only two weeks ago, and only two weeks ago I visited the drug and alcohol treatment centre in the west.

I might posit the notion that it is possible to comment on issues, analyse them and explain them to the public, and be honest about the issues we face, and also try to deal with them at the same time. I know that for some people that is not possible; they can only do one or the other. Many of us in this House, not just me, find it possible to do both, and I will continue to do so.

I thank the Members for their interest in this topic and their support for the legislation.

See this speech in context