James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill and I understand the situation which it seeks to address. It amends a well-established Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act which, as has been mentioned, has been in operation for perhaps 20 years. I also understand the imperative of a speedy passage through this House and I will give my full support to it, as my colleague, Deputy O'Callaghan, outlined.

However, I want to reflect the fact that the sanctions proposed are all of a pre-trial nature and, indeed, as has been said, are civil rather than criminal in nature. We must not lose focus on the imperative of the criminal justice system being sufficiently resourced and the Garda having the investigative powers and the resources to do the job it needs to do and go through the full rigours of the criminal justice system in the pursuit of crime. While the measures in the Bill are necessary and imperative, they are not a substitute for full detection, investigation and going to trial, as is required.

It is important to consider that those subject to or targeted by this legislation have not been found guilty of any crime. The presumption of innocence is, of course, a fundamental principle of the criminal justice system. While I recognise and support the imperative of the Bill, I welcome the Minister's comments at the outset that there will be a wider review in due course of the Proceeds of Crime Acts. That is wise. This is not the time to do it but, as that arises, there are checks and balances that could be introduced to augment, support and enhance what has being proposed to date. I will touch on some of those briefly.

In the context of that broader review, I have a couple of observations, queries and suggestions to the Minister and to the Department that they may take on board. The composition of the Criminal Assets Bureau is part civilian and part gardaí. There are a number of officers drawn from different arms of Revenue, Social Protection and the Garda. It is not apparent, at any rate it is not clear to me, what is the relationship say, with GSOC or the Policing Authority, and whether there may be some lines of communication or lines of reporting provided for in that context. It may be something that can be returned to, not at this stage and not in this Bill, but when that wider consideration takes place in due course.

Along the same lines, while we understand the imperative of it, there are other pieces of legislation of a similar nature which would have checks and balances in place in the form of review. Of course, such provisions have not been without controversy.

I allude, for example, to the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009, which contains measures that provide for a review to be conducted at certain stages of the operation of the legislation with respect to how it is performing. A five-year review is built into the Defamation Act. Every five years, the Minister initiates a review of the operation of the legislation to consider if its implementation is successful, if changes are required and if simple checks and balances are in place. I understand the European Convention on Human Rights Act has a similar provision. I believe a report on its operation is laid before the House on an annual basis. It would be useful to have a similar measure in this case to ensure good governance and best practice, not for now but for down the line.

Those are some suggestions in terms of the wider context of the legislation, which I support. This issue has ravaged communities and nothing frustrates people more than seeing people blatantly flouting the law and benefiting from it openly within their communities. That is a problem which must be tackled. It was tackled successfully by CAB, which has had many successes in the past 20 years. With those few caveats, I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House, hopefully before the recess. It is welcome and necessary legislation and on a future date, we might return to the points I made.

See this speech in context