Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)

I share the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach's sentiments and welcome the Norwegian ambassador.

I welcome this legislation, which was brought to Cabinet by the then Minister, Deputy Helen McEntee, in January last year and has progressed since then. It is a very welcome development of the law in relation to the seizure of criminal assets. I will start by making a point on the drafting of the Bill and the way it is presented, which the Minister, and certainly his officials, have heard me make before. In any amending legislation, there are a series of amendments which are very difficult to understand without reference to the principal Act. In this case, the principal Act is the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. In order to read this Bill and see what it means, you have to have a copy of the Act open in front of you. As the Bill also amends other legislative instruments, reference will have to be made to them as well. Time and again, I make the point that when we are introducing amending legislation that amends an existing Act, it is more appropriate to repeal in the original Act the section that is being amended and restate it in the new Bill so it is clear what is actually being done. Any ordinary citizen coming to read this Bill would then not need to open copies of a series of pieces of other legislation to compare, contrast and see what changes have been made and the import of those changes.

We should be passing legislation that is easily accessible for every citizen, and every lawyer. As somebody who has sometimes had to go through a series of pieces of legislation, it can be very difficult to see exactly what the up-to-date position is in relation to the law. We can solve that problem as a Legislature by consolidating legislation rather than passing a number of amending Acts. This is not a bad example in terms of the proceeds of crime Act but there are other examples in legislation. I have in mind the Road Traffic Acts, for example, where it is very difficult to understand what the latest iteration of legislation coming from these Houses actually says. I encourage consolidation. That said, this is not a bad example. There is a principal Act and other legislation referred to but it is relatively clear for anybody who knows the situation what this Bill is doing. I also welcome what the Bill is doing.

As previous speakers said, Ireland has a history in this area of which it can very proud. In the aftermath of the assassination and murder of Veronica Guerin, action was taken by the Government at that time. It was led by Nora Owen, the then Minister for Justice, and it put in place a very radical regime for dealing with assets that are the proceeds of crime. As the Minister knows, jurisdictions and colleagues throughout Europe are bending over backwards to follow Ireland in this regard and take the lessons we have learned in how we have dealt with this. As other contributors said, the best way to hit criminal gangs, organised criminal groups and those profiting from crime is in their pockets. To take away assets and the proceeds of crime is the best way of having an impact on their activities and reducing the profitability and impetus that drives that criminal activity.

The development of this law is hugely important. It is a law that must evolve with the process because, as the Minister knows, the same criminal gangs that are profiting from crime in this jurisdiction are constantly changing their methodologies and modus of operation to be ahead of the law and An Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána does a very effective job keeping up with these gangs but this Legislature must do that as well.

I welcome this evolution in the law. I note it essentially streamlines the process in many respects, particularly the seizure of assets and the opportunity for the freezing of accounts to frustrate the possibility that somebody might be able to evacuate funds or get them away from the claws of the Criminal Assets Bureau or the authorities in this jurisdiction. That is a reasonable measure. However, I sound a small note of caution in relation to how long those freezing orders can continue for without coming before a court or being properly litigated, if I can put it that way. Sometimes, if it is an administrative process, whereby an account or asset is frozen, the freezing order can be renewed over and over again, albeit with judicial oversight, but without proper litigation and a real opportunity for the person who is in charge of, responsible for or owns that asset to come before a court and explain why it should not be frozen. In the circumstances where an asset is frozen on an administrative basis, there should be an opportunity for a person to come to court. More important, there should be an opportunity for that person to know the basis on which the freezing order has been made. Having dealt with people in this situation, my understanding is this is not always available to them. There is an inequality of arms in that regard. If you expect somebody to go into the District Court or any other court to lift a freezing order, if they do not know the basis for the order having been made, it is very difficult for them to properly litigate that in the way we would expect them to be able to in the normal way.

I also acknowledge that the Bill will shorten the period of time available to the State to dispose of those assets once they have been seized, from seven years to two years. While I welcome that, I again sound a note of caution insofar as my understanding - I have not been able to get that out of the Bill - is that this will not frustrate any appeal process and the assets will not be disposed of before the expiration of any appeal process. That being the case, this is an entirely sensible measure that allows the short-circuiting of a process that has taken far too long up to now. The notion that the State has to maintain assets for seven years before they can be disposed of is blocking the benefit of the proceeds of crime for the Exchequer. When they are taken away from the criminals involved, they should be able to be redistributed.

I will finish on the community safety fund, a hugely important initiative. It is a young fund, relative to this legislation. I am not sure it is directly the Minister's responsibility but can we please focus it on education and literacy initiatives in disadvantaged areas. There is a programme in place in Loughlinstown in north County Wicklow, which is really good but is crying out for funding. The community safety fund is exactly the kind of fund that should be contributing to that because it will stem future crime.

See this speech in context