27 February 2007
Dr. Henry: I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I also welcome the Bill. The increase in the number of judges at all levels is necessary because there have been inordinate delays in all parts of the court system. The delays in the criminal courts have probably led to many people committing crimes while on bail because judges realise that considerable time will pass before the criminal case is before the court and a person is entitled to be considered innocent until proved guilty. It is irritating to see people convicted of crimes committed while on bail. The Bill will probably lessen that situation.
As courts try to give preference to criminal cases, they have fallen behind in terms of civil and family law cases, which are just as serious for the people involved. I welcome the Minister of State's reference to the report of Dr. Carol Coulter on the family law courts. It was a necessary initiative because we have relied for too long on anecdotal evidence to determine what was occurring. I applaud those in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for bringing that initiative forward.
It was interesting to learn that where a husband and wife split up, joint custody of their children is awarded in most cases, but we have been led to believe by anecdotal evidence that nine times out of ten, the mother gets custody of the children and there is no possibility of the father seeing them. We will get a great deal of useful information thanks to the change. While Dr. Coulter went to some family courts, she got a great deal of her evidence from examining the records.
The way in which drugs are treated by the criminal courts must be addressed. While the drugs courts have just commenced and are operating on a small basis, it is a project worth supporting. It is welcome that some high profile cases have managed to keep to the terms laid down by the drugs courts.
Drugs comprise a serious health issue, but they are associated with crime. I read an October 2002 article by Dr. Michael Farrell in which he reviewed research carried out in the Dublin metropolitan area by the Garda research unit. The research was conducted in 1995-96 and is out of line with current trends, but the same figures may apply. Approximately 43% of those apprehended for crimes were known drug users and known drug users were responsible for 66% of all detected crime in the Dublin metropolitan area. Some 85% of aggravated burglaries, 84% of detected offences of larceny of the person and unattended vehicles and 82% of ordinary burglaries were carried out by drug users. The drug of choice was heroin, which was taken by 96% of those involved. The two main income sources were identified as social welfare payments and crime, particularly burglary, shoplifting and drug dealing. Some 81% of respondents were in prison at the time of the survey. Of these, 49% had received treatment for drug addiction while in prison. The mean age at which members of the group first got into trouble with the law was 15 years. The first offence of 65% of the sample was a larceny-type offence.
There is a significant correlation between drugs and crime. When someone appears before court on a first drugs offence, particularly the possession of drugs, we should try to ensure that he or she appears before the drugs courts. Every year, thousands of drugs offence cases appear before the courts. Last year, there were approximately 8,000 or 9,000. The treatment of the people varies. Some cases are dismissed, sometimes they are given the Probation Act, sometimes they are fined and the serious offenders are rightly sent to prison, but prison is not constructive when dealing with a person involved with drugs. Given the progress made, the drugs courts are worth promoting.
People have called for a debate on what has been described as the legalisation of drugs, but do they mean decriminalisation? I do not know of anywhere that has legalised heroin. We are giving people false hope. That something is legal does not mean there will be no problems. Prescription drugs, which are legal and controlled, are widely abused. For example, Ponstan, barbiturates, other analgesics and cough bottles containing codeine are abused by people with various forms of drug addiction, but they are legal.
If we want to control drugs and people want them legalised, should we start with those in respect of which we have a fair idea of the side effects? I am not sure this is what is meant by those who speak of legalising drugs. Rather, they refer to giving addicts access to drugs in controlled circumstances. For example, heroin clinics were set up in Switzerland ten or 12 years ago and the drugs problem was addressed as a health issue rather than a criminal one, but the results were not much better than those achieved by our methadone clinics. Transferring addicts from heroin to methadone makes it easier for them to lead less chaotic lives and leads to a reduction in crime because we are giving them the drugs. They pay about $15 or $20 for an injection if they go every morning.
The reports from these drug clinics for addicts are interesting. While the numbers of new addicts have not increased, do we really want persons over 18 turning up at such clinics to be taught how to inject? I presume those seeking liberalisation of the laws on drugs want the norms to be along the same lines as those for alcohol and cigarettes. There has to be an illegal trade, at the same time. The Swiss say they have reduced the number of new addicts because taking heroin does not seem to be such a rebellious act any more. It seems to be more of a health question. However, they have attracted addicts from other countries as well which has been a problem. They have cut down on the incidence of HIV because they have given clean needles and syringes to people, and that is very important. The idea, however, that this is a solution for heroin addicts is questionable. It is more of a solution for us as a society. In the report I read about the Berne clinic, the doctor running it said most of his addicts had tried to come off heroin ten times and had failed. This is a large number of times to try and give up an addiction and be unable to do it.
That is an issue that needs to be addressed in this country concerning methadone clinics. There are long queues of up to nine months to get into them, and that is not good. I know there is a problem in getting local communities to accept the fact that there is a drug clinic in their area. I am very fortunate because, when people ask me whether I would object to a drug clinic being set up, I am able to say there is one within five minutes' walk of my house. This has improved the situation greatly because it has meant that drug addicts in the area lead more stable lives.
We need to address the situation in prison as well because large methadone clinics are located there. Unfortunately, if people try to come off drugs totally in prison, which should be a good place to do it, there is very little for them in the way of facilities. There are only about 16 beds in Mountjoy for people trying to come off methadone, which is very small. A greater opportunity should be taken in the prisons to get people off drugs. In addition, if prisoners manage to come off drugs, when they leave, they go back into the same milieu they came from where drugs are freely available. If they fall off the wagon, they must join the queue to get to the methadone clinic, and that really is not good. Such people should have some type of priority treatment.
Another example is cannabis cafés in the Netherlands. Certainly, they have attracted an enormous number of addicts to Amsterdam, as I saw the last time I was there. I could not believe the change in the place. They tried to keep foreign addicts out of Amsterdam by setting up cafés near the borders of Germany and Belgium. This caused problems with the Germans and the Belgians, however, who said the Dutch were now becoming bad neighbours by starting such cafés in the villages in the border areas, so that was not a good ides. Illegal drugs are still sold within the Netherlands and, apparently, the suppliers to both the cafés and the illegal drug trade are the same people, so that is not very hopeful either. Illegal drug takers, apparently, are not fully tax compliant. I had not thought this was the main problem with these cafés, but apparently they are not paying their taxes into the bargain, and the Dutch are not especially pleased about that.
This is a particularly difficult issue. The situation cannot be improved just by legalising drugs and hoping there will be no problems. I would like a debate on the issue, with people saying what they mean. Frankly, I would be horrified if there were talk of legalising heroin. I have had to deal with patients on heroin and it was unbelievable. The main problem is that, even in hospital where someone may be on various intravenous drips, after a while, the veins become badly damaged. First, the veins in the arms become damaged and then it is the veins in the legs. I have had the extraordinary experience of treating people with deep veined thrombosis, some of whom were pregnant, because they injected into the groin, so desperate were they to find a vein to inject heroin into their systems.
I would like to hear more about what people mean by suggesting legalising drugs would be useful. After all, cigarettes and alcohol are legal, but there is an enormous illegal trade too. Every now and then, the Garda manage to apprehend such offenders. The trafficking of people is also illegal but very lucrative, apparently. I do not believe this is a simple issue and I would like to see much more help being given to people to try to overcome addiction, for example, by enlarging the drug courts which seem to be having some success already. I welcome the Bill and believe the Minister of State will get support for it right through the House.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech
