To deal with our amendments, we too welcome the Minister’s saying that he is considering seriously an amendment to encompass the elements of substance and alcohol misuse.

I add a note of caution. Back in 2003, it was indicated that there was to be an alcohol treatment requirement. Obviously, time has passed, and it would be interesting  to know why that was dropped from the list. We are subject to the demands of the legislative timetable and there is limited time to come up with an appropriate proposal. That is, in many ways, regrettable.

I also share the concern that the treatment requirement should be deliverable. Within the amendments there is the important requirement that the court must be satisfied that

“arrangements have been or can be made for the treatment intended to be specified in the order”.

That is more important if we take substance misuse generically. As I said earlier, in terms of alcohol, a limited amount of treatment is available, and it is important to be able to deliver what one promises and what the courts would expect. With that said, if work is done on both the definitions and what can be achieved, I will not press our amendments.