Mr. Brendan Bruen:

I am genuinely grateful to contributors on this. We have been very fortunate with the input we have got from a variety of stakeholders. We look forward to the report of the committee. A number of points from various directions have been very useful and we need to consider them further. I will not try to express a view.

Three things have guided us on this. By and large, the 1996 Act has stood the test of time. Developments in other jurisdictions now have reflected that. We will need to look at the structures and the legislation in the context of asset recovery and in the context of all the international co-operation work that is happening. There will probably be a need to look at the Criminal Justice Act 1994 also. All we are doing here is addressing narrower practical issues. We have a body of experience and case law. We take the point about the reduction of time which is obviously significant. We do have satisfaction.

As I hope would be obvious, we have engaged very closely with the Office of the Attorney General throughout the development of this to ensure the constitutionality of the approach. The Department is satisfied based on the advice we have received and our analysis that it is appropriate from an individual rights perspective. That is not to say that every question on the scheme has been answered; it certainly has not. There is significant work to be done on drafting and we will do that.

Ultimately, we have seen a development in unexplained wealth and we have seen a development in many other areas in terms of how all this happens. There is enormous potential in the expansion of what we are doing in terms of us recovering assets. That is what everybody is trying to do here. Having cases that run for ten years or more does not serve anybody. What we are doing here is not efficiency for efficiencies sake or efficiency for speed. It is about having a properly expeditious judicial process and having things resolved in a reasonable amount of time even for respondents. That is how this should work. Obviously, we want efficiency and we want CAB to be able to do as much as it can. We want to be able to deprive people of the assets that they should not have. However, it is not speed for speed's sake.

I finally come to Senator Ruane's questions. I must admit that I am at somewhat of a disadvantage because I am coming at this based on the legislation. I know the Department has provided quite a detailed note. The community safety fund reflected that we are taking this money from people who should not have it. There are obviously difficulties with ring-fencing these things and we want to have a stable funding source. Some of the points about how long the horizon would be for projects are very much on people's minds. This was a new programme in 2021. It has increased in size in the last couple of years. It is now at €3.75 million for 2024. It is developing and I hope the criteria can develop alongside that. I will very happily take back the points the Senator raised and I would be happy to provide a written response.