Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy McGrath, to the House. It is my first opportunity to welcome him to the Chamber, and I congratulate him on his appointment. I support the motion, which, as the Minister said, is to enable the reduction of the sum prescribed in section 38 of the 1994 Act, under which cash suspected of being proceeds of crime may be seized by gardaí or Revenue officers. The Minister has set out the effect of the motion, which would enable the reduction of the sum from more than €6,000 to €1,000.

We had a full debate on the context for this change and the implications of it when the Tánaiste was before this House on 5 July to discuss the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill, which I know is being debated on Second Stage in the Dáil today. Deputy Howlin is speaking there for the Labour Party. The Bill we debated and passed, which is now before the Dáil, reduces the threshold value of properties subject to the 1996 Proceeds of Crime Act from €13,000 to €5,000. It creates a new administrative power for officers from the Criminal Assets Bureau to confiscate property they reasonably suspect to be the proceeds of crime. As the Tánaiste is aware, I spoke on both Second Stage and Committee Stage of the Bill in the Seanad some weeks ago to argue that the new powers need to be accompanied by sufficient safeguards to ensure the provisions of the Bill are sufficiently robust to withstand constitutional challenge. I put forward an amendment on that point and we debated it. It was the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy Stanton, who took the amendments on Committee Stage; the Tánaiste was here on Second Stage. The issue will be debated again in the Dáil. I also spoke on Second Stage about the need to protect against unforeseen consequences flowing from the reduction of the threshold. Again, I brought forward an amendment on that issue, about which Deputy Howlin is speaking today in the Dáil, relating to proceeds of prostitution.

The point I made about the Bill should be reiterated in the context of this motion. We must ensure that by reducing the threshold, which all of us support, we do not widen the net too broadly with regard to the people who may be brought in under it. I know that some groups have concerns about civil liberties, such as the potential for harassment and so on, with people being brought in for very small amounts. Having said that, in the context of serious concerns about rising levels of organised crime, there have been calls for CAB to be allowed to target proceeds of crime held by mid- and lower-level actors in local organised crime. That is undoubtedly the reason for this reduction. That is something we all very much support.

To take up the issue of organised crime, particularly in the north inner city, which is an area very close to the Minister's heart, I reiterate the need for a north inner city task force to be set up as a matter of urgency to tackle not just crime in the area but also, equally importantly, economic disadvantage to tackle the causes of crime, as well as its effect. I know from working with the Minister on the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality that he will share that view on the need to tackle both the causes and the effect of crime. I know he would also share the view that a criminal justice response cannot be the only response or the only way to tackle organised crime. Those are just a few of the broader points to be made, but we support the motion. As I said, we very much support the united front we are all presenting against organised crime and the need to ensure that effective powers are given to CAB and other law enforcement agents to tackle crime at that level, but we must ensure that we take a balanced approach, knowing as we do that the proceeds of crime legislation presents a very delicate balancing of different due process concerns with the need to tackle organised crime.