Tony Gregory (Dublin Central, Independent)

I only have a few minutes to comment on the specific stated priority of the Minister to tackle organised crime and drug trafficking. This morning he promised to listen and take account of our comments. I hope he will do so. For some years, I have been seeking a review or redeployment of the Criminal Assets Bureau so that it would have units operating in the communities worst affected by drug crime. I am calling for this because I see little evidence that drug dealers at local level — the middle range that organises distribution — are in any significant way directly affected by the Criminal Assets Bureau's work. In my experience, they are not cut off social welfare and do not have their assets, such as cars and jeeps, confiscated. The fact that this does not happen attracts other young people into drug crime, which is why it is spiralling. We need to know why this is not happening. We need to provide the Criminal Assets Bureau with the legal backing and resources to make it happen. That is what the Criminal Assets Bureau was set up to do. It is timely to have an in-depth review. Given their experiences since 1996, surely the Criminal Assets Bureau's personnel have their own recommendations for improvements, or is everything just hunky-dory? I cannot imagine that it is. After all, we must remember that since the bureau was established, drug crime has spiralled out of control, not just in Dublin but throughout the country. There is a message in that development.

There is far too much hype and spin about the achievements of the Criminal Assets Bureau. How much money from drug crime has actually accrued to the Exchequer since 1996 under the Proceeds of Crime Act? Is it tens of millions or hundreds of millions? Or is it, as I am informed, a mere trivial €3 million that has accrued to the Exchequer as distinct from frozen assets where nothing ever happens afterwards?

Is it true the Assets Recovery Agency, set up in Britain after the example of the Criminal Assets Bureau, turned out to be slightly more effective with seizures than our bureau, but was nonetheless slated for its ineffectiveness and then scrapped? It is now part of a larger agency. Is it possible we might learn far more from the Italian experience where they have been seizing Mafia assets since the 1950s and 1960s? I am putting these questions to the Minister in the hope he might answer them at some stage, although I know he will not do so today. Is it the case that a financial action task force has examined the Criminal Assets Bureau and has made certain recommendations, for example, that assets should be frozen for a maximum of three years and not the current seven-year period, which have been ignored? I would like to see the Minister obtain answers to these questions and make whatever legislative and resource changes are required so the Criminal Assets Bureau can be the deterrent that clearly so far it has failed to be. After all, as I have stated, drug crime has spiralled since the Criminal Assets Bureau was established.

I do not intend to criticise the work of the Criminal Assets Bureau, but I want to be constructive in seeking effective changes that will make the bureau's work the deterrent it should be. Clearly, there are few effective deterrents operating against drug crime in this county now, and the same applied in the past. Having said that, however, I agree with the general trend of the Minister's speech earlier. I listened to it carefully and there was very little in it with which I could disagree. I also want to be associated with the Minister's comments on the shooting of Garda Sherlock who was shot not far from my family home.

It was a cowardly attack that appalled every decent person in my constituency. I hope the persons concerned are dealt with speedily because while they remain at large they are likely to launch the same kind of cowardly and vicious attack or worse on a post office worker or anyone else who gets in their way.

See this speech in context