Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Ba mhaith liom aitheantas a thabhairt don Teachta Eamonn Maloney don obair a dhein sé. Is maith an rud é go bhfuil sé ag leanúint ar aghaidh fiú amháin i slí amháin. I want to look at how the Bill can tackle the proceeds of criminal drug dealing. I represent a constituency, parts of which have been devastated and ravaged by drugs. If this proposal gets through the various Stages, it would be of benefit. It would provide us with a speedier way to go after those who are making their living through crime. I note what the Minister of State said about the expert group. Why do these expert groups have to take so long? What is proposed today should be included and considered. Criminals get away with things for a long time and the communities they devastate have to live with that devastation for far longer than the criminals. When we look at drugs, we see that the impact is almost immediate. It may take a while before addiction sets in for an individual but the families and communities are affected in the short-term, with problems continuing for a long time.

The seven year timeframe is far too long in dealing with the proceeds of crime. We know that criminal investigations take quite some time from the initial Garda operation to evidence gathering, building a case and due process in the courts. There could then be an appeal. In the meantime, the profit-making, dealing, intimidation and lavish lifestyles of criminals continue and the devastation they leave behind goes on for the people who are hardest hit. The Bill provides for a better sense of immediacy regarding the proceeds of crime by allowing them to be seized much more quickly. I think back to the early 1990s when Tony Gregory and other community activists and organisations tried to bring together representatives of the Revenue Commissioners, the investigative branch of the then Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Justice and the Garda drug unit. While there was an agreement in principle to the idea of the Criminal Assets Bureau, it is ironic that there was a reluctance to continue to combine their efforts into a single unit. That unit would have had the aim of examining the assets of the major drug dealers who were well known at that stage. Due to Tony's persistence a sub-committee on drugs was formed in the Oireachtas and he kept up the effort to persuade the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, and the then Minister for Justice, Nora Owen, as to the merits of the concept that led to the Criminal Assets Bureau, or CAB. In spite of the fact that 1995 was a particularly devastating year, it took a long time, in typical political fashion, for CAB to even be set up and for Tony's role to be acknowledged. What he was saying then and what Deputy Eamonn Maloney is saying now is "follow the money". It is really about following the money much more quickly.

It was disappointing at the time for all of those affected by drug dealing that it took the murder of a journalist to bring about the establishment of CAB. Many people had already been calling for the scrutiny of the big players but they were ignored. These big players with lavish lifestyles, flash cars, dripping in gold and with spectacular sun tans were being seen going to collect their social protection money. Calls were made for an explanation of wealth known to be acquired through criminality. All of this was going on long before it received national attention through the murder of Veronica Guerin. It is very sad that it took the murder of a journalist and not the murders of other people in the areas affected and the deaths from drugs to give an impetus to the area.

We can see what CAB has done but it is under-resourced and still unable to tackle a lot of the big fish, many of whom live outside the State. These people are often unobtainable and CAB cannot go after them. What has been called for in many areas very much affected by drugs is a form of mini-CAB. This would be CAB-type agencies working at local and regional level to go after those who are seen in their communities to be making money through crime, particularly drug crime, and getting away with it. The big players are off in Spain, Portugal, the USA and Holland. There is a need for the Criminal Assets Bureau to work with the community policing forum and community gardaí on this issue. As such, the Bill could make a significant difference by reducing the waiting time before CAB can apply to the High Court for the disposal and forfeit of assets.

The USA does not appear to have the same rigmarole and red tape which we have. The RICO Act of 1970 came 26 years before our Proceeds of Crime Act. We are looking at those people who have livelihoods that are not in keeping with their known earnings. The Bill gets to the heart of that in a speedier way. In the USA, assets are dealt with at the time of prosecution. If the courts deem it proved that proceeds of crime have been built up over many years by people active in criminality, the US Marshals Service can act quickly and robustly to seize assets. Apart from drugs, where there are massive amounts of money to be made, another aspect of this issue is prostitution, particularly where women and girls have been trafficked. We know this is going on and that millions of euro, possibly billions of euro, are being made. Criminals have been allowed to get away with this for a long time.

I looked at the note from the Library and Research Service and was struck by a couple of things. In the reports from 2007 to 2011, CAB took in relatively little money compared with what we know was made through drug dealing and prostitution, in particular. Between 2005 and 2011, CAB did not cost the State any money, but it merely paid for itself. I was also struck by the lack of up-to-date reporting. The latest comprehensive data are from 2011, with a summary update from the Garda Síochána's annual report in 2012. There is an obvious point to be made here about CAB being under-resourced. We have seen what it can do and there should be support to advance its work. I believe completely in the right to a fair trial, fair procedures and due process but it takes too long in the courts for this work to be completed. It is incumbent on us to do all we can to ensure that crime is not profitable for criminals.

Most especially, we see profits from drug crime. I was struck by what the Minister of State said in this regard. He said the primary purpose of the proceeds of crime legislation was not to enrich the Exchequer with expropriated property but to freeze the proceeds of crime to deprive those concerned of their benefit. The Minister of State knows from his work in the inner city that community workers have been calling for the proceeds of crime to go back to the communities that were hardest hit by the crime. In particular, the proceeds should go to those communities where drug crime is most prevalent. It should be provided to those organisations, schools, youth projects and community projects that are working hard on prevention. The Minister of State said that the seven year period was selected very carefully at the time the legislation was drafted as a desirable time span but we must talk about the damage being done in that seven years in the communities where crime is rampant. We saw in a spectacular court case involving a particular individual how long it took to seize his assets.

Importantly, the Bill contributes by ensuring that drug dealing and crime are not seen in communities as a way of life and a way to make a living.

We see that in areas that are hardest hit during the recession, because their projects, community programmes and youth projects were hardest hit. We see in parts of Dublin Central that crime and drug dealing is a profitable way of life. I hope the expert group will take on board all aspects of the matter - not only this important Bill, but all the other factors affecting the communities that have been hardest hit by crime and drug dealing.

See this speech in context