Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

He knows what the reaction is. The point behind the amendment is to have a redistribution in certain communities but I hope to get this Bill through tonight and that is one reason not to accept amendments. I would not rule out a medium-term review of this legislation to consider all of its implications. I invite the Deputy to make a submission on that point because it is worth considering, although the Deputy knows the reaction of the Department of Finance. On the international reach of the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, a real issue arises - for example, in a current case concerning funds which have been frozen in respect of criminal activity which has occurred outside the State where the victims of the crime are in another state. If we are to abide by our international obligations and encourage greater international co-operation in the recovery of assets in cross-border cases, we need to be able in appropriate cases to transfer funds back to the country of origin where the crimes have occurred and the proposed amendment might tie the hands of the Minister and prevent this. I am sure it could be dealt with appropriately if we were moving ahead in respect of this.

There is another important issue, and I made this point in the Seanad, to do with the uncertain nature of the value of the assets seized by the bureau in any given year in addition to the potential delays through the possibility of legal challenge to court disposal orders. The provision of continuing funding to community projects or organisations would have to be considered because the revenue source would be uncertain. We would have to do work on the implementation of this amendment because it would not be a constant source of funding that a community might depend on. The question would arise of what kind of projects it would fund. I am sure that could be dealt with but depending on the revenue in a multi-annual way could be problematic and could make it difficult for organisations or communities involved in the delivery of such services to plan. However, that is not insurmountable. There is also the bigger point about ringfencing any funding and the administrative cost that arises in respect of that.

The question of reinvesting the money in the work of CAB has arisen in some jurisdictions where money seized was, for example, reinvested in police services. We do not want to create an incorrect perception of a link between the motivation behind the choice of CAB’s targets and its funding stream or the funding stream of community initiatives. If we are to legislate for a community redistribution fund it may be safer to do so in discrete legislation separate from the proceeds of crime legislation. I appreciate that the amendment has been ruled out of order but I am certainly not against examining this issue and working through the various points that have arisen and then seeking Deputy Howlin’s support to make sure he can convince those in the Departments of Finance and of Public Expenditure and Reform about it.

See this speech in context