Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)

I am delighted to second the amendment to the Government's motion tabled by my colleague, Senator Buttimer. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Curran, to the House.

My support for Senator Buttimer's amendment is forged by the constituency I represent, Dublin Central. In recent months I have had two experiences that emphasise that this amendment is correct and that it is important we debate this issue. The first experience occurs annually in my constituency. The inner city portion of Dublin Central is the cradle that gave birth to the citizen-led, people-driven movement that was so successful in tackling the heroin epidemic in the area in the 1980s. The ordinary people we represent saw the failures of the State and of politicians and decided to take power into their own hands, take to the streets and set up organisations that survive to this day. They give people the power to recognise the scale of the epidemic they face and the fact that more needs to be done to tackle it. Every year one of these organisations organises a mass for people who died due to drug abuse, the victims of a scourge. Their families come together to pay homage to their memories and reflect on what they have lost. Seeing people come together to mourn the tragedy of lives lost and potential unrealised should give all politicians pause to question how current policy in this area should be changed. The scale of damage to communities is immense.

The second area I wish to allude to is more positive and gives me more hope. Work is being done in local communities to tackle this issue and provide leadership, but often this is due to the failure of Government initiatives. The Minister of State attended the launch of the annual report of the Anna Liffey drug project last week, as did I. It is based in Abbey Street and is at the cutting edge in dealing with homeless people and those with chronic addiction problems. I recognise the recent intervention of the Minister of State's predecessor in stepping in to meet a funding gap faced by the project and making new facilities available. I know the Minister of State was supportive of this action. Owing to the services the project provides, it is at the cutting edge of giving treatment and hope to these people. The leadership provided by the likes of Mr. Tony Duffin in addressing this issue is inspirational. We must look to the models provided locally as a source of inspiration for how to move forward nationally.

The North Inner City Community Forum and the North West Inner City Community Forum are brilliant in this regard. These organisations were set up owing to frustration in communities at the lack of recognition of the issue that exists and at the fact that not enough is being done to address the it. Seeing the work done by these groups makes it clear to me why an amendment to this motion is necessary. The role of politicians and the Government is to provide leadership on this issue. It is not our role to form a consensus, for its own sake, on what needs to be done. We can see many examples of agreed strategy not being implemented.

Listening to this debate unfold reminded me of G.K. Chesterton's sentiments on Christianity. He felt it is a great idea and we should give it a try. Strategies and pillars on this issue have been laid out but, as Senator Buttimer outlined, in many cases they are not implemented. Before we move on to the next model we must see what has been implemented and what is working of what was agreed. The need for this debate was highlighted by the contributions of my colleagues from the Progressive Democrats. Senator O'Malley suggested the need for a strong, liberal review of current policy and the possible examination of whether prohibition is working, with a debate to follow. On the other hand, Senator Cannon spoke of the need for youth cafés. The attitudes behind these contributions are remarkably different and that is why this debate is so important. The pillars outlined by Senator Buttimer indicate that the strategy we are discussing has not been implemented and young people have lost their lives and potential because of this.

There is a 12-month waiting list in Dublin for people seeking access to treatment and this indicates, contrary to what Senator Butler may think, that in many cases money is still the issue. It would be premature for us to start considering the next model to address this issue when in our capital and in cities and counties throughout the country people must wait 12, 14, and 15 months for the treatment they need.

If we are to reduce the supply of drugs, the Criminal Assets Bureau must complement its focus on large-scale drugs sources with a focus on middle men and small-scale suppliers. We must look at those who get drugs abroad and take deliveries from large-scale suppliers. The Criminal Assets Bureau should focus on tackling middle men and suppliers on the street. We want to see the funds confiscated from such people reinvested locally to supply treatment beds and ensure people need not wait 12 to 14 months for the treatment they require.

I appreciate Senator O'Malley's recognition of my reasoned approach to some aspects of this and am all in favour of a debate on new approaches and strategies. However, we must first examine whether the current strategy is being implemented. I am not sure we need to reinvent the wheel. We know what the model is for success. We need to ensure the funding and the will exist to make it happen. As we have already pointed out, this is often not the case at present. That is why we are pushing this amendment, which is badly needed in a debate such as this.