Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Howlin's proposed amendment concerns one of the new statutory mechanisms being introduced by means of the Bill, namely, the seizure and detention of property, or what can be referred to as administrative detention. The Bill provides for a firmly organised scheme. First, a bureau officer - if he or she is satisfied or believes that there is a reasonable suspicion that property may amount to the proceeds of crime - can detain the property for a period of 24 hours. Second, if the chief bureau officer seeks an extension for that time and believes also that the property involves the proceeds of crime - or has a suspicion that it involves the proceeds of crime - the period can be extended to 21 days. Obviously, once the 21 days have expired, the lawfulness of the detention also expires. The property cannot be held for any period longer than 21 days.

The purpose of Deputy Howlin's amendment is to ensure that CAB brings applications before the courts promptly. That is desirable. However, I have a concern about the manner in which the amendment is being put forward because it could create a slight inconsistency. People could argue that CAB could only go before the courts when it had enough evidence, as is provided for in the proposed amendment. That may create inconsistency with what is already provided for in the statute. The point which Deputy Howlin seeks to emphasise through the proposed amendment is that there may be times when property has been inappropriately seized by CAB by way of this administrative detention. This must be prepared against with some form of legislative mechanism. I believe a legislative mechanism to deal with that is provided in section 1(c) where there is provision for compensation. That mechanism should deal with the concerns raised by the Deputy.

See this speech in context