Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I am aware that the Deputy has raised this matter on several occasions and is keen to have a full debate on the question of diverting moneys collected by the Criminal Assets Bureau into community programmes. I welcome this opportunity to outline the current position in this regard. The bureau has served the State well in tackling serious and organised crime, including drug trafficking in this jurisdiction. Its work is an important part of the overall response to serious crime. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Garda Commissioner, Mr. Callinan, and his force, together with the Revenue's Customs and Excise service, on the extraordinarily significant seizures of drugs in Dublin and Kildare today. This event demonstrates the determination and resourcefulness of An Garda Síochána and the Customs and Excise service in tackling the activities of the major players in the illicit drugs trade.

In accordance with the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Acts 1996 and 2005, all moneys collected by the Criminal Assets Bureau are returned to the Exchequer. In 2010, the total sum forwarded to the Minister for Finance for the benefit of the Exchequer through the actions of the CAB was approximately €7 million, of which €3.1 million related to actions taken on foot of proceeds of crime legislation, some €4 million related to actions under revenue legislation and €180,000 was raised through social welfare actions. These funds are returned to the Central Fund, from which the Government draws for expenditure on all necessary public services and investment. Suggestions have been made from time to time that moneys collected through the actions of the bureau should be used to fund community programmes. I appreciate that such proposals are made out of concern for the well-being of those communities most exposed to the adverse affects of crime in our communities and which bear the burden of living with its consequences. I also appreciate the significance of such a gesture as potentially a visible and tangible expression of the right of our communities to have returned to them advantages that were taken away by criminals within those communities. It is a suggestion that has been discussed from time to time and on which my Department has previously consulted with the Department of Finance.

While it has always been accepted that there may be a symbolic value in the suggestion, it has also been acknowledged that the ring fencing of such moneys gives rise to a number of practical difficulties. We are all aware of the requirement that public moneys be spent only as Voted or approved by Dáil Éireann unless otherwise provided by statute. A policy of ring-fencing moneys obtained by the Exchequer and the reallocation of same for a specific purpose, such as the funding of community programmes, runs contrary to the normal Estimates process. While there is a small number of very specific targeted exceptions, earmarking revenues for a specific expenditure programme would, generally speaking, impose constraints on the Government in the implementation of its overall expenditure policy. It can also be argued that a significant proportion of the moneys secured by the bureau, as evidenced by the statistics I gave for 2010, are already owed to the Exchequer, being related to non-payment of taxes and social welfare fraud.

In regard to the suggestion that particular projects be funded from proceeds of crime activities, given the variable and uncertain nature of the value of the assets seized by the bureau in any given year and taking into account the delays that may arise through possible legal challenges to court disposal orders, the provision of ongoing funds to community projects would be problematic. The uncertainty surrounding the level of revenue available on a yearly basis would not facilitate the proper planning of such programmes by organisations involved in the delivery of community development services. It is also the case that additional costs would accrue in the administration of any scheme to divert funds to local programmes. There would certainly be an additional administrative burden in the management of any such programme, whether through the engagement of service providers to administer an application process or otherwise. These additional administrative costs would arise without any additional revenues being generated.

The reality, given the present economic climate, is that the Exchequer could not sustain a loss of revenue without making compensatory adjustments. If the CAB money were to be diverted to community programmes, there would inevitably be implications for any other moneys those programmes received from the Exchequer. Alternatively, other public expenditure programmes would have to sustain the loss. While there are superficial attractions in the type of proposal the Deputy is putting forward, I ask him to reflect that, given the difficulties facing the Exchequer, his proposal would not have the positive effects he wishes to see.

See this speech in context