I move amendment No. 57 in the name of Deputy Byrne:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 2, after "vessel" to insert "or a person who is present at the time on any land, vehicle or vessel".
SECTION 19.
There might be something to be said for that amendment; partners in crime who might be in a subsidiary capacity.
I would not agree with it, if what I read into it is correct, because a person might unwittingly be present on the premises and he might know nothing. It could be anyone. It would be very dangerous, if what I read into it is correct, because the person may be unwittingly there and may not be aware of the fact. In a case like that, it would not be good.
The section uses the words, "knowingly permits or suffers any". It is a person with knowledge.
Are we sure of that?
Yes.
We could discuss the implications of possibilities in the case where marijuana would be smoked. It is a communal type of smoke where perhaps six or seven people might be on the premises. The drug itself is usually passed around. So the person who is caught with it should not necessarily be the only person; there should be some form of associated implications. I do not know if it is possible but other countries have a law similar to what I am suggesting.
Do you mean a person who would be on the premises, knowing that this was taking place?
Yes.
The wording of the section is: "knowingly permits or suffers any of the following to take place . . ." You could get a casual attender who, if this were inserted, would be guilty of an offence. If you have regard to discotheques and various other places or a central place where a lot of people would be assembled, you could get some innocent bystander who might unwittingly be there.
I suggest that this section has a very specific purpose, to deal with the occupier of a premises who permits certain carry-on in the premises. It is extraneous to bring in casual persons. The section is specifically designed to catch an occupier who knowingly permits or suffers certain things to happen on his premises.
Not necessarily the occupier but one who is in control and concerned with management. It need not necessarily be the occupier. What we want to do is prevent organised drug parties. Anybody who attends and is caught with it in his possession or smoking is guilty. Anybody who condones it, knowingly condones it or organises it, should suffer and not an unfortunate victim from the country who drifts into one of these flash discotheques in Dublin and is caught although he does not know what they are doing there.
It would not be right to take action against him.
After all, Deputy Byrne, you are smoking a cigar and I have to suffer you. I smoke myself but I make the point that one is present and one has to suffer.
Would the Minister say that this section is dealing with the owner or the occupier? What I have in mind is a flat where the person would not be the owner, not necessarily the occupier but could be present at the time.
It is not "owner", it is "occupier or controller". He must be the occupier, controller or manager; he must be physically in charge of the place.
If one went into a restaurant for a meal and the persons inside it were smoking cannabis that person would come under Deputy Dr. Byrne's suggestion.
He would have to be conscious of the fact that it was going on.
He may be well aware of it; he may permit it and suffer it.
Does this mean that a person who is in a room and knows that another person is smoking cannabis is guilty? We need clarification.
What we are concerned about in this section are people who own the place, manage it or control it.
Not necessarily the owner.
The owner could be in Australia; he must be the occupier.
Land and vessel, does that take in everything such as a building?
Yes.
If a committee occupy a hotel once a week are they the controllers of it?
I would not say so. It would be the occupier or manager of the hotel who is responsible if he knowingly permits this.
The secretary of the committee is usually the responsible person.
Do you mean if he organises it?
No. For instance, weekly dances are held in hotels and they are controlling them.
If they are controlling the particular premises, they are liable, and they should be liable.
What happens in the case of a flat?
If you are not the occupier?
Supposing you are not the legal occupier; if a person has the loan of a flat from somebody who has gone abroad?
If you are the occupier of a flat when this takes place you are liable.
If I loan my flat to you and you are the occupier for that evening, you are the occupier and you are liable.
Provided one knowingly permits.
The wording is as near perfect as one can get. It pins down the person we would all regard as being responsible for the occurrence and, at the same time, leaves out an owner who would be away from the place and would not know anything about what was happening. It is excellent wording.
Would the Minister consider, at the start of that, mentioning persons who are in occupation or in control or concerned in the management?
The scope is substantial. For instance, the person involved may be engaged in the management of the premises. He may be a restaurant manager, or a disco manager of a hotel or he may be concerned with the general management. He may be a head waiter.
And he may be a person organising. We would need to be very careful here regarding the inclusion of people who run businesses.
They are not involved in this section.
The section is clear.
On this business of a group coming together on, say, a weekend, I presume that the person in control would be the organiser, the person who hired the premises.
Yes.
There is usually management control around the place as well so I wonder in that case who would be responsible, the actual management of the hotel or both?
The manager may not be aware but the organising committee may be aware. Discoteques are held in hotels in Dublin and all over the country and also in dance halls for instance. Local authority buildings are being occupied by committees for weekly functions. For instance, in a local authority hall where there is a function once a week, you could not say that the manager of the local authority or the Lord Mayor or the Mayor is seen to be held responsible.
Whoever would have hired the hall or whoever would have organised it is the person who would be in control.
I am satisfied if the Minister considers this situation to be covered.
Would the Minister not consider that "persons who are in occupation" instead of "a person", would cover my point?
The word "occupier" has a certain definition.
Would not the normal interpretation be that "a person" here includes persons?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 14, subsection (1), between lines 4 and 5 to insert:
(a) the cultivation of opium poppy or any plant of the genus Cannabis.
The growing of the cannabis has been omitted from this section and I think it should be included in it.
I was under the impression that section 17 might deal with this point—"a person shall not cultivate opium poppy or any plant of the genus Cannabis”.
Yes. But what about a person who owns the land.
I do not think it makes any difference. I think it is already covered by section 17.
This refers to the person growing it, but there is the question of the person who owns the land permitting him to grow the plant.
Yes, I think Deputy Byrne has a good point.
It is covered by the word "production" in paragraph (c).
Yes. I think section 17 already covers Deputy Byrne's point.
But does the word "production" in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) not cover growing?
Production results from the growing.
Still production is part of the process of growing.
This is permitting somebody to grow the plant on your land.
Yes. Permitting the production by growing.
Section 21 provides for aiding and abetting.
There is a very valid point here. Section 19 is the one section which deals with persons who are not particularly doing anything themselves but are permitting their premises or their land to be used for various purposes. Deputy Byrne rightly points out that the section would cover you and all your premises to be used for preparation or for smoking or for sale and for all sorts of things but there is no prevention of your permitting your land or your premises to be used for cultivation. It is something that should be covered. It is indirectly hinted at in other sections but it would be well to spell it out specifically.
Section 7 deals with the cultivation of cannabis but there is no mention of the cultivation of cannabis under section 19.
Cultivation is specifically prohibited under section 17. Therefore, it would be extravenous to include it in section 19.
You are misreading the section.
We are talking about the man who owns land and who permits cultivation.
Does he not aid and abet by doing that?
If I had some land and I permit Deputy Byrne to use it for the growing of opium I suggest it is not possible under any of these sections even in relation to the aiding and abetting provision to bring me within the net. Deputy Byrne would be caught under section 17 for growing it.
Except under paragraph (c) relating to production.
Production there means a sort of technically-produced drug from the plant.
The words "production or preparation" make a distinction there. If I grow cabbages I am a producer of cabbages and if I allow you to grow cabbages in my garden I am permitting the production of cabbages.
At least there is an argument for including this provision but I will not pursue it further.
I agree and that is why I have tabled the amendment.
Section 17 says:
(1) A person shall not cultivate opium poppy or any plant of the genus Cannabis except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the Minister.
and section 21 reads:
(1) A person who attempts to commit an offence under this Act, or who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence under this Act, or who solicits or incites any other person to commit an offence under this Act shall be guilty of an offence.
Surely if one knowingly gives a plot of land for the growing of cannabis, one is aiding and abetting.
Then, what is the need for section 19?
From what the Minister has said it would seem to be unnecessary. Section 21 covers everything.
I am not pushed on this as I do not think the amendment would do this Bill any harm.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 14, subsection (1), between lines 5 and 6 to insert "(b) the preparation of cannabis for smoking".
In moving this I think there is an omission in one of these subsections. We have a person committing an offence if he allows the preparation of opium for smoking and it should also be an offence to allow the preparation of cannabis for smoking on premises or land.
I agree.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 60 not moved.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 14, subsection (1), between lines 13 and 14, to insert "the injection, application, oral intake, or inhalation of a controlled drug."
There is another omission in this. If we want to have the section in more detail we should include anyone who knowingly permits the injection, application, oral intake or inhalation of a controlled substance on their premises. It is the same as smoking; it is one other means of drug taking.
It seems that what the Deputy requires to be covered in this amendment is in fact covered by the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (g) of subsection (1) of section 19. I do not think it is necessary to have this.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Committee adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 30th March, 1976.