Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

On the face of it, the amendment to section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 seems fairly innocuous. I know that many people in the communities blighted by crime and drugs and frustrated by the activities that blight them get sickened at people flaunting their wealth in the local area, be it the youngster showing off to the other children and demonstrating in a negative way that crime can pay or whatever. I understand that, in some ways, this proposal is being put forward to try to deal with that and I know that the basis of support in many working class communities for a mini-CAB comes from that desire to make crime unattractive to our young people. However, I would have concerns about it. I have concerns about the approach being taken by Government, particularly when we see it in conjunction with the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that what the Government is up to here will not help families or communities that are ravaged by drug addiction but will probably end up nabbing people at the bottom of the food chain, as it were, the easy pickings. It might make it look as if the problems are being dealt with without delivering the blow necessary to deal with these issues.

The idea of reducing the minimum amount of cash that gardaí and customs personnel can seize coming into or leaving the country from €6,500 to €1,000 will not stop drug dealing. It will not help the families in the communities involved because the big boys and those at the top will do what they always do. It will not affect them at all.

We know that major criminals launder their cash through legitimate businesses or decamp to other jurisdictions where they can hide their cash and assets from CAB. The middle income criminals are fairly adept at laundering and hiding their cash as well. Will lowering the threshold deal with those issues? No, it will not. Life will carry on much the same for those individuals.

If we really wanted a challenge in terms of going after those individuals, beefing up CAB, increasing the number of forensic accountants and the resources to tackle white collar crime, money laundering and that overlap between white collar crime and hard-nosed criminal activity would be far more effective than some of the measures being put forward in the motion. The communities on which these powers are being imposed are the communities that need to have investment in drug treatment facilities and in terms of opportunity to make crime unattractive. I am tired saying it but it comes back to the so-called war on drugs and, like all wars, the powerful become bigger while the weak are decimated.

As far as I am concerned, as long as drugs are illegal we will end up lurching from one policy disaster to another. We will make it more difficult for the people on the hard line as long as the real targets are untouched. In that sense, a criminal justice led approach will not work. We have to look at policies such as decriminalisation along with major investment in treatment and harm reduction, which has helped reduce drug use in other jurisdictions. We know from the work done in Portugal, for example, that the figures have been lowered among those aged 15 to 24 years. Problematic drug use was reduced, as was addiction. The numbers of people being sent to prison for drug-related charges was reduced. There was an increase in the number of people accessing drug treatment centres by more than 60%, and it massively cut the amount of debts from drug use. That seems to be a successful approach to combating these issues.

While I understand and appreciate the anger and frustration of people who are watching violent thugs swagger around their communities showing off the spoils of crime, I do not believe this motion will address the root causes of it. I believe it sets a worrying precedent in focusing on the low hanging fruit rather than those who are seriously profiting from this situation.

See this speech in context