Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I support Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan in her request for a review of this legislation on a two-yearly basis. I raised this matter on Committee Stage and I thought the Minister of State might have listened and given some sense of comfort in regard to this whole new idea. I wish to state that I support the concept of helping people with drug problems. As I said on Committee Stage, I have lived with a methadone centre just down the road from my constituency office. Despite various pressures I came under over the years, I have supported the retention of that centre.

This is a totally new ball game and it is very questionable in terms of how people get drugs in the first instance. They have to bring illegal drugs, as is made clear in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Therefore, there is a whole area of questioning as to the actual operation of this legislation. We are asking people to close an eye to illegal drugs being purchased outside these centres and brought in to be consumed inside. Whatever about relieving the liability on anybody about the consumption of those drugs in one of these centres, it still begs the question about drugs dealers on the streets outside selling drugs to people who are using the facility.

I am a pragmatist and I know that drugs are going to be got, but this is legislation which we are responsible for as legislators. Therefore, I think the very minimum we should do is to have a clause in the legislation to review the situation after a two-year period. I would like to support Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan. I had mentioned this on Committee Stage, including the two-year period. It is not that people want to be heartless or soulless in terms of dealing with this terrible issue but we, as legislators, have a responsibility to be able to answer questions. We cannot put through legislation that has a big question mark over it. There is a huge question mark in respect of this Bill because we cannot, or at least I cannot, answer the question if asked about allowing people to buy illegal drugs from drug dealers out in the street because there is no other way they can get them.

There are serious issues to be addressed. However, if one questions any of these things, one is seen to be unsympathetic to what is sought to be achieved here. My ambition is that these centres would eventually lead to people getting off drugs. Again, however, the legislation does not include anything about the availability of people in these centres to give help and assistance to drug users to get off drugs. Maybe that can be done by way of regulation but it is not in the legislation, and we have to look at what is before us. We need a provision whereby we can review this legislation, whether annually or every two years. To be realistic, I feel we would have to give a reasonable period of, say, two years so that people can then sit and coldly look at how this is working. Information I have received recently suggests that some of the countries - particularly New Zealand - in which these centres are already in place are having a rethink in respect of them.

Be that as it may, we are dealing with our situation. I do not think we would damage the legislation in any way by allowing the House to review matters after two years in order to see how it is working. Therefore, without creating any difficulties, I think it is reasonable that we should agree to a review after two years.

See this speech in context