Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)

I welcome the Proceeds of Crime and Related Matters Bill, which, as the Minister said, represents a major upgrade of existing legislation. I welcome the fact it will reduce from seven years to two the time between a judicial determination of an asset being the proceeds of crime and a final disposal order being available. I especially welcome the immediate and automatic appointment of a receiver in respect of assets to ensure that respondents cannot continue to benefit pending final disposal orders being made. This will happen subject to the normal caveats against a risk of injustice. I will continue in that vein in a few moments when commenting on the role of the receiver.

First, however, I welcome how the Bill strengthens CAB's investigative powers, including in the context of the freezing of bank accounts. Like previous speakers, I support the strengthening of the community safety fund. A sum of €4 million will be available through the fund this year - the amount involved is increasing - but there definitely is scope, given the overall CAB budget, to massively increase the community element. The money involved should be ringfenced to ensure it services those communities that most need it, namely those that are often decimated by drugs and drug dealing and related intimidation. These communities are identified as being in need by the Pobal HP deprivation index. Any moneys raised should also go towards local youth diversion projects and meaningful community projects.

Perhaps the Minister can clarify the position in this regard when replying but I am of the view that where properties are seized by CAB, the Government and the agency should look at putting these assets into use as quickly as possible. The immediate and automatic appointment of a receiver would provide some leeway in this regard. I envisage a situation, for example, whereby a four-bedroom house, after a two-year period and following any appeals, could be transferred immediately to a family on a local authority housing list or to an approved housing body. Before that, however, someone who is near or at the top of the housing list and who is in receipt of the housing assistance payment could be allowed live at the property while the final adjudication is being made, with any rental income going to the receiver. In the case of a successful appeal by the individuals concerned, that revenue would go to them. As we have seen, however, it is more likely that it would go into CAB's coffers for distribution to good causes. If there is any legal mechanism to facilitate this, I would welcome it.

I reiterate what some colleagues said about the idea of establishing a mini-CAB to go after some of the smaller individuals and raise funds. We should be able to seize things like scooters that are used for antisocial purposes. This is not directly related, but it should be looked at too.

See this speech in context