John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputy Costello for raising this matter on the Adjournment. I will respond on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who has asked me to set out the Government's position on this matter. The proposal to ring-fence and use assets seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau to fund drug services has been raised and discussed in this House on a number of occasions recently. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, accept that the proposal has been made in good faith. Both Ministers believe there is some potential symbolic value in the idea of diverting seized criminal assets that were accumulated through drug dealing to communities where such dealing took place. While the suggestion that the moneys in question could be used to fund drug services, for example, is an interesting one, it is problematic in so far as it raises a number of difficulties. The difficulties in question lead the Government to believe that, on balance, it is best advised to continue to use the standard Estimates procedures to secure the ongoing provision of significant funding to tackle drug misuse, particularly in those areas where the problem is most acutely experienced. I will elaborate on some of the difficulties to which I have alluded.

The Constitution requires, and Government accounting principles provide, that public moneys be spent as voted or approved by Dáil Éireann, unless otherwise provided by statute. It would be contrary to the normal Estimates process if we were to ring-fence moneys obtained by the Exchequer and reallocate them for a specific purpose. Under the normal process, revenue accumulated by the Criminal Assets Bureau is paid into the Government's Central Fund. The Government draws from this fund for its expenditure on all necessary public services and investment, including the provision of drug services. While there are some specific targeted exceptions, it is believed that earmarking revenues for a specific expenditure programme would constrain the Government in implementing its overall expenditure policy. It could be argued that a significant proportion of the moneys secured by the bureau is owed to the Exchequer in any event, as recompense for the non-payment of taxes and social welfare fraud. I am sure Deputies will agree that the Government is already allocating considerable resources to a wide range of Departments and State agencies, as well as to the community and voluntary treatment sectors, to tackle the issue of drug misuse. I understand that the amount provided for drug services last year was well in excess of €260 million.

There are practical difficulties with Deputy Costello's proposal. The variable nature of the value of the assets seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau in any given year might cause problems as funds are being provided, on an ongoing basis, to fund drugs programmes and projects. Difficulties might also be caused if there are delays as a result of legal challenges to court disposal orders. Such an uncertain revenue source would not facilitate the proper planning of drug treatment programmes by organisations involved in delivering such services. One could argue for the ringfencing of receipts if it was seen as a motivating factor in the generation of higher receipts. However, there is no indication that the Criminal Assets Bureau needs additional motivation in doing its work. I remind the Deputy that additional costs would accrue in the administration of any scheme to divert the bureau's funds to drug programmes. It is not desirable to accrue additional administrative costs without generating additional revenues. I am sure the House will agree that the bureau continues to achieve considerable success in depriving people engaged in criminal activity of the proceeds of such activity.

Members are aware that significant drug services are being provided in disadvantaged urban communities. I emphasise that local and regional drug task forces have been in place for some time in the areas most affected by the problem of drug use. The Government continues to commit substantial resources to task forces to help them to develop a comprehensive and co-ordinated response to the drugs problem at local and regional levels. The State is continuing to invest significantly in a wide range of local drug projects, which have been set up through the task force mechanism. For all the reasons I have mentioned, the Government believes that the policy currently applying to the assets secured by the Criminal Assets Bureau is the most appropriate one.

The Deputy referred to the "Dial to Stop Drug Dealing" campaign, which was launched in September 2008. I rolled out the last phase of the campaign - the midlands phase - in Athlone last week. Deputy Costello's remarks reflect the perception that there are funding issues. We have delivered a specific programme of targeted intervention on foot of last September's launch. When people talk about this issue, they often mention the funding of the telephone line. The most innovative step being taken is the information-generating campaigns that are being organised by task forces on the ground. It is not fair to suggest that such campaigns have been stopped due to a lack of funding. That is not the case. We developed a programme and launched it last September. I rolled out the last phase of it last Friday. It has been delivered, from start to finish, in the same way that it was initiated. It will be evaluated in the future to see what lessons can be learnt from it. It is not a repeat of some model that has been used in other jurisdictions - it is quite unique to Ireland.

See this speech in context