Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair. I hope we get a second round because the Department also submitted items on the community safety innovation fund, which I will address separately if we come back around, in terms of its criteria, the intention and budget and so on. For this round, however, I might stick specifically to the heads of Bill. I am obviously trying to understand receiverships and liquidation all at once, while my social policy context head is mixing with a different area at the moment. Many of my questions potentially could be answered by CAB or the Bar. Some of the questions are more about seeking clarity of understanding the implications of some of the heads. I will go through all the questions first before a response in case our witnesses want to take note, because there will be a few, if I can get through them.

On head 3, which provides the extension of time for the seizure and detention of property, does this head encroach on a respondent's property rights in any sense? I refer, for example, to the right to legal representation or his or her access to it, given the shortage or barristers, time periods, courts, legal aid and so on. What safeguards would exist to ensure that a respondent has adequate time to oppose the conditions of a detention if they so wish? I acknowledge it is stated notice shall be given but I mean safeguards beyond that kind of provision.

When I look at head 4, I think specifically of businesses or properties which have affected third parties, such as people who may have nothing to do with criminal activity or are unaware of it, whether that be an employee or a tenant. I wonder whether this provision specifically creates a potential danger for such persons in respect of possible retribution or loss of employment, essentially allowing an individual to become a scapegoat in a situation that is not down to him or her. Does the application to the District Court provide adequate practical relief in that regard, especially if the property is under receivership? I know this may interact somewhat with head 7, as it may disallow the respondent from carrying on the business, which may consequently affect the person subject to the order, so there probably are two parts in each of those which interact somewhat.

On head 5, a hypothetical scenario for me was of a potential property that could be used to benefit the community, again unawares. I mean a facility or capital within a community that is used to benefit the community in a particular way but which is now to be transferred due to its complicity in criminal activity. Would organisations working in the community be in a position to claim ownership when we look at head 5?

On head 8, my concern is that a receiver does not owe a duty of care to a company in the same way a liquidator might and they exercise more discretion. I am wondering if it makes more sense in this instance to amend the Companies Act 2014 to include a provision on the proceeds of crime. I am thinking of the third parties or everyone else who can be affected by an application or something going into receivership.

On head 10, section 50 related to specific offences. Only subsection 1 specifies the actual offences and the rest of it relates to detention itself. I wonder about the provisions on extending time in detention and recording, etc. It seems unnecessary to me - and I am to open to comment on that - to amend the Act with a blanket reference to section 50, rather than the head, which could specify section 50.

On head 11, which provides provisions on information exchange, I refer to its purpose in respect of GDPR. What is the purpose of the sharing of information when it comes to CAB with An Garda Síochána or the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission? Is it related to crime itself? What type of data is it? Is it full access to data? That would obviously have to adhere to GDPR in respect of its purpose or public interest and so on.

Going back briefly to head 9 and compensation, who exactly are seen as being potential people who may have to access compensation when it comes to the proceeds of crime? It could be extremely wide but I also am thinking of family members who often probably may not get a lot of empathy when something has been taken through the proceeds of crime. I see can people ending up in homeless and so on, however, through no fault of their of their own or through not realising that it was the proceeds of crime that had paid for where they live or the house they are in. Who is actually considered when we think of compensation within that head?