Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to introduce this afternoon to Dáil Éireann the Proceeds of Crime and Related Matters Bill 2025. This Bill is a significant and necessary step forward in our efforts to ensure that Ireland's framework for tackling organised crime is robust and effective. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach will recall that 29 years ago last month, the very brave journalist Veronica Guerin was murdered. In the aftermath of her murder, there were very significant legislative changes made by the Houses of the Oireachtas to ensure that we could combat the organised crime gangs that had such violence and influence at that time. It was apparently the case, and it still is the case, regrettably, that those crime gangs in different guises continue to exist. We can also see throughout our communities the damage and devastation that organised drug crime gangs heap on society. We see it in terms of the damage done to young people who become addicted to drugs - drugs that have been dealt to them because of the greed of those organised crime gangs. Obviously, the motivator for all these organised crime gangs when it comes to the dealing of drugs is money. They get involved in organised crime and the dealing of drugs because they want to make money from this pursuit. Let us never lose sight of the fact that what motivates them is where we should continue to hit them.

Even yesterday, we would have seen that a very significant drug dealer pleaded guilty to very serious offences before the Circuit Criminal Court in respect of the type of drug activity in which he was involved in terms of being a multi-millionaire euro cocaine, cannabis and ketamine dealer. At the outset, I want to commend An Garda Síochána on the excellent work it did in apprehending that serious criminal and bringing him to trial and getting a conviction arising from his own admission of guilt. I commend the Dublin crime response team. I commend assistant Commissioner Paul Cleary and detective inspector Ken Holohan on the excellent work the Dublin crime response team did yesterday in apprehending what was a significant drug dealer in this country.

Of course, we need to keep at the forefront of our minds that we need to keep updating and changing our laws to ensure we can remain on top of these organised crime gangs so that we never get them in a situation where they feel comfortable about their accumulation of wealth. As I stated at the outset, the legislation that was introduced in the aftermath of Veronica Guerin's murder was revolutionary legislation. I went back and had a look at the legislation that was introduced in the summer of 1996. It was, interestingly, a Private Members' Bill in its first incarnation through the then Opposition spokesperson for Fianna Fáil, John O'Donoghue. In fairness to the Government of the day, it subsequently adopted it through the then Minister for Justice, Nora Owen, but it has had a very significant impact on the activities of criminals operating in Ireland.

When I get the opportunity, as I have had in the past, to meet justice ministers and home affairs ministers from other European countries, one of the things they wish to talk about is the proceeds of crime legislation that was introduced in Ireland and that has been operating now for 30 years. What fascinates and interests them is the fact that we have a system whereby we can have a non-criminal conviction process of attaching assets that have been generated by criminals. That was the great achievement of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and, indeed, the corresponding Criminal Assets Bureau legislation, which was enacted in the same year. I commend the excellent work done by the Criminal Assets Bureau and in particular detective chief superintendent Michael Gubbins, who is the head of CAB, for the very important work it does on an ongoing basis.

The legislation before the House this afternoon is for the purpose of amending the proceeds of crime legislation and to ensure it is more effective in seeking to pursue organised crime gangs that have made a lot of money out of criminal activity. Those proceeds of crime should not be permitted to remain with them. If we have difficulties in getting criminal convictions before the courts, we should still nonetheless use the civil courts and proceeds of crime legislation to ensure we can seize their assets. That has been done very effectively in the past. If we look at the success of the Criminal Assets Bureau, Members will see it has denied criminals over €220 million since its establishment. That is a testament to its success and the importance of introducing that new statutory body.

As I said, the impact of organised crime extends far beyond financial loss. It inflicts profound social harm and erodes the fabric of our communities. Everyone in this House will be aware of the devastation that drug addiction has on young people. It destroys their lives. We really need to repeat that consistently so that people are aware that if they start experimenting with drugs, there is a serious threat that this will have a devastating impact on their lives. The people who are pushing drugs to them are doing it for one reason and one reason only; they want to make money so they can use that wealth for their own private enjoyment. I can assure people that they will never allow themselves to become addicted in the same way as their victims have become addicted.

The wealth generated by criminal conduct is often flaunted, creating a corrosive culture where law-abiding citizens feel that the system is failing, while criminals appear to operate beyond the reach of the law. As established in the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, the State's objective is to deprive or deny those persons of the assets or the benefits of such assets. This is crucial for restoring public confidence and demonstrating that the State is committed to justice and fairness. By removing the symbols of their power, we undermine the influence of criminals and protect communities from intimidation and exploitation. Ireland's existing laws, particularly the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and, indeed, the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 have established, as I said, an internationally recognised and internationally influential model for seizing illicit assets. The proceeds of crime model is built on two foundational elements. The first is a system of civil forfeiture whereby rather than prosecuting offences and then trying to trace the proceeds of those crimes, it starts from the assets and builds the case that those assets have an unlawful origin.

The first is a system of civil forfeiture which, rather than prosecuting offences and trying to trace the proceeds of those crimes, starts from the assets and builds the case those assets have an unlawful origin. The second is a specialised agency - the Criminal Assets Bureau - brings together gardaí, Revenue and social protection officers, along with other specialist staff, to link their intelligence and investigations, allowing them to target sophisticated and profit-driven criminality. These building blocks have undoubtedly been effective and successful. As I said, since its inception, CAB has seized and returned more than €220 million to the Exchequer. As crime and the methods criminals use to hide their wealth continues to evolve, however, so too must our response. This Bill introduces crucial updates to confront these modern challenges, enabling faster and more efficient seizure of criminal assets whether they are gained from drug trafficking or other forms of organised crime.

Two central reforms ensure when the evidence is there of the illicit origin of assets, the State will move quickly to ensure those in possession of them cannot continue to benefit. The first is the reduction of the time required to permanently seize assets. Under current law, once the High Court has determined an asset is derived from crime, the State must wait seven years before taking final ownership. This Bill reduces that period to two years, a change designed to prevent criminals from continuing to enjoy the benefits of their illicitly gained assets longer than they have been frozen by the courts. The second is once a court has determined assets are the proceeds of crime, a receiver will be appointed to those assets specifically for the purpose of depriving those holding them of their benefit.

Furthermore, the Bill introduces new tools to freeze funds reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime at the earliest stages of an investigation. These are designed specifically for CAB and reflect the complexity of its investigations. A new administrative "payment freezing direction" can be issued by a senior Bureau officer for up to seven days, while a "payment freezing order" may be made by the District Court for a period of up to 90 days and may be renewed by the court for as long as it is necessary and proportionate to do so. This allows CAB to act immediately on intelligence, preventing money from being moved or dissipated while a full investigation is under way.

I am acutely aware of the importance of balancing these enhanced powers with the protection of fundamental rights and I want to provide reassurance on this point. It is crucial to emphasise this Bill is built upon a foundation of robust judicial oversight. The new powers for asset detention and freezing of accounts supervised by the District Court provide more significant powers of appointing a receiver and ordering the final forfeiture of assets remain reserved for the High Court. At every stage, a judge must be satisfied the actions taken are reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. Ultimately, these changes will pave the way for a more efficient and effective asset seizure process. The State will be better equipped to quickly deprive criminals of their wealth, disrupt their operations and return those funds to the Exchequer for the benefit of all citizens.

CAB's successes are actively reflected in the reinvestment of the proceeds of crime into the community. The community safety fund is a tangible example of how this works in practice, ensuring money taken from criminal networks is reinvested in local projects that improve safety, well-being and opportunity. This year, €4 million is available through the fund which is double the original allocation from its first year. This demonstrates our commitment to returning these resources to the public and allowing communities to benefit directly from our success in tackling organised crime.

The Bill before us today is comprised of 17 sections across three Parts. I will take the House briefly through those different Parts and sections. Part 1 of the Bill comprises of sections 1 and 2 which contain the standard preliminary provisions. Part 2 of the Bill amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. Section IA of the 1996 Act allows the seizure by a CAB officer of moveable property for an initial 24-hour period. This may be extended by the chief Bureau officer for a further 21-day period.

Section 4 of the Bill will amend this provision to allow an application to the District Court be made thereafter for further extensions, up to a maximum of 90 days in aggregate with appropriate safeguards. Section 5 creates a power to freeze financial accounts. A senior Bureau officer can issue a seven-day administrative freeze on an account where it is necessary to conduct preliminary investigations. The District Court may make a similar order for a period of up to 90 days where it is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to suspect the funds in the account are the proceeds of crime; there is a risk of the dissipation of those funds; and freezing is necessary and proportionate. Again, appropriate safeguards are in place and provision is made for the order to be challenged and revoked or varied as necessary.

Section 8 cuts the waiting time for the final seizure of criminal assets from seven years down to two, as I indicated earlier. This reform sends a clear message: once the court has decided your assets are derived from crime, you will lose them and lose them quickly. Furthermore, to bring finality and efficiency to the process, this section introduces measures to ensure issues which have already been litigated when a section 3 order is made are not re-argued. This has happened frequently in the past in situations where the freezing application is being made, arguments are made in respect of assets not being proceeds of crime and then subsequently - several years later - the issue is relitigated when it comes to the permanent seizure of the assets. There is no necessity for that relitigation. It is noteworthy there was a Supreme Court decision yesterday which partially dealt with this issue and saw no issue in respect of it. Crucially, however, the necessity to hear all parties is protected, as is the court's power to avoid a serious risk of injustice.

Section 9 is a consequential amendment which supports this new more, robust approach to the final seizure of assets. It provides flexibility by removing the time limit on consent disposal orders. This allows CAB and a respondent to agree to the forfeiture of an asset at any stage, again avoiding needless litigation. Section 11 strengthens the powers of receivership. It creates a presumption in favour of the immediate appointment of a receiver once an interlocutory order is made. The receiver's purpose is now explicitly stated as being "to deprive the respondent of the ongoing benefit and use of the property." This ensures immediate possession of assets may be secured and the incentive to frustrate the process is removed. Again, this power is subject to avoidance of a serious risk of injustice.

Finally, within Part 2, there are several more technical and consequential amendments to align definitions and procedures with the more substantial changes introduced elsewhere in the Bill. Part 3 addresses other Acts to ensure the framework is aligned and effective. Section 15 harmonises the definition of "cash" in section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 with Regulation 2018/1672 which is the EU cash control regulation. It also makes a practical change to the rules on property seized in an interest-bearing account. Section 16 enhances the operational capacity of the bureau. First, it allows non-Garda experts in the bureau, tax inspectors and social welfare officers to sit in on interviews of detained persons for a wider range of serious offences. This brings their vital expertise right into the interview room. Second, it extends the anonymity protections for CAB officers to cover them even after they have left the bureau. This is essential and again, I commend the diligence and bravery of CAB officers who are sometimes involved in potentially dangerous work. The threats these officers may face do not stop on their leaving CAB.

Finally, section 17 is a technical provision to ensure anti-corruption laws are aligned with the changes we are making here. Let us be clear on what these measures will achieve. The Bill is not just about legal processes or receiverships; it is about delivering real-world impact by ensuring the benefits of a criminal lifestyle are not just delayed but denied. By cutting the waiting period for final seizures from seven years to two and by empowering receivers to take immediate control of assets, we are sending a clear message: the proceeds of crime will be swiftly and completely removed from those who have wronged our society. We have seen already the success of this with large, organised crime gangs which were based in Ireland that left because of the pressure from An Garda Síochána, they were being brought before the courts and because of the powers available to CAB.

Additionally, this Bill is not merely about taking from criminals; it is also about giving back to our communities who have been targeted by them. The funds seized through this enhanced process will be returned to the Exchequer and reinvested for the public good. The community safety fund is a powerful example of how money taken from organised crime is channelled directly into local projects which enhance safety and well-being across the country.

There are several matters I intend to return to on Committee Stage and I will flag the most notable of these for the information of the House now, so colleagues are aware.

The first concerns the information exchange with independent domestic statutory agencies, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions. Consultation is continuing on the data protection aspects of this matter and I expect to introduce a provision allowing for designation of appropriate bodies to receive relevant information from CAB. I expect to introduce a provision in respect of the publication of tax defaulter information in relation to CAB settlements. I am also considering further expansion of the assets held in accounts that may fall under the restraint provisions introduced in section 5. There are several further, more technical provisions that I will not go into here now, but these are also under consideration.

Many details will merit debate and I look forward to working constructively with Members as the Bill progresses. We will have an opportunity on Committee Stage to look at a number of matters in terms of what the Bill does or does not cover. I know there is general acceptance across the House of the success of the proceeds of crime legislation and the Criminal Assets Bureau legislation as they have operated in the country for the past 30 years. This Bill is a significant and important development. It means that, even if we cannot get criminal convictions against criminals who are destroying our communities, we can bring them before the civil courts and seize the assets they secured through their criminal activity. These proceeds of crime should be taken off them and invested in the communities they are trying to destroy. Everyone in the House will agree this is a commendable purpose, and that is why I commend this legislation to the House.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I join the Minister in commending the work of CAB over the years in seizing assets from organised crime gangs. I also join in his comments concerning An Garda Síochána taking drugs off our streets, which is very much needed. Sinn Féin supports the aims of this Bill, but as the Minister mentioned, there will be a Committee Stage and we may seek to table amendments to further strengthen it then. I will speak to some of these in my contribution.

Reducing the time taken between the seizure and disposal of criminal assets is a good thing. It is a no-brainer. A reduction from seven years to two years in the time between an order being made that assets are the proceeds of crime and a final disposal order being available in respect of those assets should probably have been done a long time ago. We have seen how criminals have tied up the legal system in knots as CAB tries to take back assets, assets that are ill gotten and the proceeds of crime. As the Minister said, it is important that these assets be returned to communities.

I welcome that it will be made easier to seize funds associated with criminal activity. We should aim as a State to make it as difficult as possible for organised crime gangs to operate, not only within our communities, but also at the level of business. The practice of criminals investing in legitimate business to wash their dirty money is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it has been going on since time began. We cannot be soft on white-collar crime or dodgy business owners who facilitate it. White-collar criminals should not be allowed to operate under a shroud of acceptability. There is a direct connection between the visible crimes we see daily and criminals laundering money. The proceeds that come from street muggings, car break-ins, burglaries and other daily occurrences on our streets are filtered through these fronts. Just because these white-collar criminals do not have dirt under their fingernails does not mean their hands are clean. CAB should have the powers to tackle international and cybercrime. Money laundering, cybercrime, counterfeiting and fraud are the tools used by these white-collar criminals. Mixing with the so-called upper echelons of society and displaying the trappings of their ill-gotten gains through fancy homes, cars and golf club memberships give these white-collar criminals an air of respectability, one they do not deserve. They walk around in their flash suits looking down on people in tracksuits. The dirty money gets moved from one place to another and comes up clean on the other side, so we need to give CAB and An Garda Síochána the powers to stop this happening.

The pre-legislative scrutiny report from the justice committee recommended that an examination take place regarding the current criteria and eligibility for potential projects under the community safety innovation fund. Sinn Féin has long advocated for the reinvestment of the proceeds of crime back into the communities most affected by crimes. In fact, my party colleague Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh first raised this issue over 15 years ago. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú and I introduced the Proceeds of Crime (Investment in Disadvantaged Communities) (Amendment) Bill 2021. This would have seen the proceeds of crime reinvested into communities to build resilience through our drug task forces, family resource centres, youth diversion projects, unemployment services, sports clubs and anybody involved in working in a disadvantaged area. In response to this, the Government, in fairness, established the community safety fund, to which local groups can make applications for grants. However, this application process can be arduous and the most impacted communities do not always receive approval for funding. The fund has risen from €2 million in 2022 to €4 million this year. Grants range from €20,000 to €150,000, depending on the project. We welcome the increase in this funding, but we must see the money directed to the communities most in need of it. We believe that funding allocations should be linked to the Pobal index. According to that index, parts of my community are extremely disadvantaged or very disadvantaged. I will give the Minister an example. In 2022, there were 22 successful applications for the community safety fund. Six organisations applied from the parts of my area that were highly disadvantaged and very disadvantaged, but not one of them was successful. This tells me that not all the money allocated to this fund is going to the areas most affected by crime, and this is something I want to see change.

Sinn Féin would also like to see the establishment of a mini-CAB that would target low-level criminals. A mini-Criminal Assets Bureau should be established in the areas worst affected by low- to mid-level criminals, particularly those in the drug trade. Drug debt intimidation of families is rife in working class areas. I have been calling for a local mini-CAB to take the local so-called big boys out of circulation. While they may be the big fish in a small pond locally, they are small fry overall. These low-level players may not be asset-rich, but they have lifestyles that are rich. They have the expensive clothes, the foreign holidays and the trips to the sporting events. Their lifestyles simply do not match their means and it is all played out on social media for the world to see. A mini-CAB would target these lifestyle-rich criminals. It would seek to break the attractive lifestyle of criminals that is often used to coerce young people into criminal activity. The young people in my area do not see the leaders of organised crime daily, as those individuals are far removed from the daily grind of on-street drug dealing. They do, however, see the local players and their lifestyles and this is what attracts young people into criminality. We need to support the most disadvantaged areas in building resilience to crime. These low-level players are often the drivers of drug debt intimidation. I have met parents in my area who have been forced to pay drug-related debts their children have accumulated. The debts that the children apparently owe these unscrupulous dealers are frequently exaggerated to the parents, who then end up paying exorbitant amounts back to these dealers for fear of reprisals. The money the mother borrowed from the credit union to pay the drug debt of her child flows from the low-level drug dealer right up to the upper echelons of the organised crime gangs.

Young people engaged in criminality should face the appropriate justice. In the case of minor offences, though, they should be diverted as much as possible away from the judicial system. I stress that this should be in the case of minor offences. Youth diversion projects and programmes need to meet the hard-to-reach young people, those most at risk of getting involved in crime, including those not involved in school, youth clubs and other community groups. These are the young people who have fallen through the cracks of society. Youth diversion projects should be agile enough to meet them on the streets where the criminality and antisocial behaviour is taking place. Targeted outreach should be used to persuade and help those young people to make better choices and lead them away from a life of crime.

The Minister went out and met representatives of Solas himself recently, which is welcome. If this kind of organisation were to be expanded to other areas of Dublin and right across the State, it would be a really welcome initiative. These young people are the ones I was talking about earlier who are being targeted by older, experienced drug dealers to sell and deliver drugs. Children are being groomed by unscrupulous drug dealers. This is child abuse. The children are attracted by the flashy cars and the new runners, having a few quid in their pockets and the status of being a so-called somebody. These criminals are actually nobodies. They suck the lifeblood out of our communities and return very little. They return nothing but devastation. We need to be proactive rather than reactive and target these young people with appropriate diversionary services before they end up in the hands of the drug dealers.

The Government also needs to be careful of who it does business with and ensure that Government funds are not ending up in the pockets of organised criminals. Reports over the weekend said that the Government had paid millions of euro for IPAS accommodation to a company owned by a man currently awaiting sentencing for violent disorder. This was a man named by the Criminal Assets Bureau as being linked to the Drogheda gang feud. These reports were deeply worrying.

This must be a wake-up call for the Government and shows the need for a full investigation into the granting of contracts and profiteering in the provision of IPAS accommodation. It goes to show the level of money involved in providing IPAS accommodation if people named by CAB are getting involved.

I suggest that the money seized by CAB is only the tip of the iceberg. There is so much dirty money still in the hands of criminals. In Ireland, the value of criminal markets is calculated at €1.7 billion per annum, which is slightly higher than 1% of GDP. The Minister mentioned that CAB had seized €220 million since its inception. That is really welcome, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. The Government Bill is a step in the right direction to help seize assets but it is obvious that more needs to be done.

I reiterate my point that any money seized by CAB be returned to the areas that it originated from. Extremely disadvantaged areas need this support to stop the next generation of young people becoming involved in a life of crime.

Recommendation 15 of the justice committee report states: "The Committee recommends further examination of the use of funds recovered from proceeds of crime and how such funds could be invested ... through the provision of preventative supports within communities". This is an area that the Government must prioritise in any changes to the legislation on CAB.

Catherine Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I call Deputy Quinlivan, I welcome our guests from Cavan. They are the guests of the Minister of State, Deputy Niamh Smyth.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank CAB for the work it has done over the past number of years. I really want to talk about the community safety fund and how that can be enhanced.

The aims of the Bill are positive aims that my party and I support. Any efforts that attempt to deny criminals their ill-gotten gains are welcome. The message must be delivered loud and clear that crime does not pay. We have to make that a reality.

In my home city of Limerick, we have a number of ongoing feuds between criminals and criminal gangs and it is almost inevitable that lives will be lost. I have said that in this Chamber a number of times. Often, these criminal feuds are between drug dealers. The associated feuds are fuelled by their desire to increase their share of the market. Some of the places impacted are areas of deprivation. Organised crime flourishes in areas that have been abandoned by central government. This is as true of parts of Limerick as it is of parts of inner city Dublin. The vast majority of people in these communities have retired or are hard-working people, and they just want to do the right thing. They want to make a positive impact on their local communities, but the criminal elements there who seek an illegally gained quick profit, often on the misery of others, do significant damage. These criminal elements have destroyed many people. They flaunt illegally gained wealth, and this wealth can attract vulnerable youths into their criminal grip.

Taking their ill-gotten wealth away from these anti-community elements is crucial. It demonstrates that crime does not pay, that their success, for want of a better word, will only ever be fleeting and that the State, often for the first time, will have the backs of decent people in many of these areas.

It is immensely satisfying to see this wealth return to communities through the community safety fund. Such an approach is one that Sinn Féin has advocated for years. My colleagues sitting beside me here, Deputies Mark Ward and Ruairí Ó Murchú, introduced the Proceeds of Crime (Investment in Disadvantage Communities) (Amendment) Bill in 2021. In its four-year operation to date, the community safety fund has returned €7.6 million to the communities. That is very welcome. We should be putting more back into the communities most impacted by crime.

There are elements of the fund we would like to see altered, namely, the arduous application process that often sees the funding not awarded to the communities most in need. To this end, we would like to see the funding allocation linked to the Pobal deprivation index. On that, there is no area in the State more deprived than the St. Mary's Park area of my city of Limerick. Although I am open to correction, there is no area more impacted by crack cocaine, antisocial behaviour, criminality and organised crime gangs that have devastated that area over the past number of years. I would hope that the brilliant groups in St. Mary's Park do not have to go through an arduous process and that the community safety group will telephone a number of such areas and give them the funding. We all know exactly what they need.

Limerick and other areas have had a massive problem with crack cocaine. At the same time, we have fantastic local community projects in Limerick and they do some fantastic work with limited resources. I would like to see the grant amounts available through the community safety fund increase dramatically. We also have many groups and projects doing incredible work trying to break the cycle of imprisonment in crime. They could do so much more with increased resources. This would save us money in the long term. It would keep young people out of prison.

Sinn Féin welcomes this Bill. We look forward to seeing its impact on those who do so much damage to our communities. More must be done to support the vast majority of families who are hard working and law abiding and only want to raise their children and get on with their lives.

It does not happen by accident that most of the money seized by CAB originates in areas that are highly disadvantaged. We need to see a stronger approach by the Government. I am calling on it to ring-fence the money seized by CAB and to ensure it is invested back into areas most affected by crime.

To reference the Bill itself, the Criminal Assets Bureau, since its inception in 1996, has worked well. Its seizure of assets and wealth has had a devastating effect on criminals but has been a joy for many local residents to see. The Bill will strengthen the Criminal Assets Bureau. These new provisions will deprive criminals of illegally obtained assets. Those assets should have been returned to the communities most affected. While this is starting to be done, it needs to be speeded up.

Section 8 of the Bill seeks to amend section 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act so that the time period between an order being made that assets are proceeds of crime and a disposal order is reduced from seven years to two years. This is a welcome amendment. It ensures that assets, such as houses, can be returned to the communities quickly.

The immediate appointment of a receiver to assets is also extremely welcome. Once in place, this will ensure that the suspect of crime is deprived of any benefit from these assets. Furthermore, the restriction or freezing of financial accounts and the detention of moveable assets in a timelier manner will ensure that the gangs and their associates are very much restricted in the use of these assets. That is very welcome.

The Criminal Assets Bureau has been a fantastic resource to target criminals and it is pleasing to see its powers will be increased. CAB is there to pounce on the proceeds of crime but we must as a State to do more to stop criminal behaviour at its inception. It is a role that the community gardaí have performed well over the past number of years. Unfortunately, we have seen their numbers slashed. We need to see these gardaí returned to areas of deprivation in urban estates. We need these communities to see the Garda in a positive light and not only see gardaí when they are undertaking raids, etc. We must also ensure that the bond between the community and the Garda remains unbroken. Increasingly, the number of community gardaí is a key link in that chain.

We also need to ensure that we focus on little - I am not sure what word I could use to describe them - criminals donning expensive watches, driving high-powered vehicles and going off on holidays, all over social media, while not seeming to explain how they earn any of that or ever work at all.

I very much welcome today's debate and the aims of the legislation but this cannot happen in isolation. We must reinvest in these communities. The State must re-engage with these communities so that we can limit the lure of the criminal lifestyle. I very much welcome these enhanced powers for the Criminal Assets Bureau.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is good legislation and the Minister should be commended for it.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will be supporting it 100%.

I also compliment CAB, its officers and the people who work there. They do very sensitive and dangerous work and their anonymity is important going forward because these criminals and their organisations have long views. It is incredibly important that we protect the people who work for CAB.

I want to acknowledge something that shows how politics works at times. CAB came into existence because of Ruairí Quinn, the former Labour Minister, working with the former Minister, Nora Owen, on a suggestion from then Deputy John O'Donoghue. That is how CAB came into existence. It shows that the Government and Opposition can deliver when they work collaboratively. I always remember there was a documentary about CAB - I am not sure which station it was on but it could have been TV3 - where Ruairí Quinn was interviewed. Ruairí was asked about where Nora Owen spoke to officials about the creation of CAB. The officials said they would deliberate and come back to them on whether they thought this was a good idea, to which Ruairí is quoted as supposedly saying:

You haven't [I will not use the "f" word] listened to what we said. We are going to do this and we are going to make it happen.

They did make it happen and it has been incredibly successful, so much so that many other jurisdictions look at what we do here in Ireland. In a modern, liberal society we still have the capacity to have legislation like this that works.

The changes being brought about by this legislation are very welcome and probably should have happened before. Reducing the length of time from seven to two years is a good idea. The way in which this legislation helps to freeze funds quicker is also a good idea. The people CAB is targeting and the people we support it targeting have the capacity to frustrate through the legal system. This Bill diminishes that considerably, which is excellent and will really help the work that CAB does. Therefore, we will be supporting the legislation.

I will make two brief points. In 2020, my colleague Brendan Howlin introduced an Opposition Bill, the Proceeds of Crime (Gross Human Rights Abuses) Bill, which got to Second Stage. It was based on the Magnitsky Act. For any organisation involved in any form of human rights abuses outside the State but with assets in this State, it proposed to give CAB powers to seize those assets. While this may be more complex to legislate for, it is certainly something we should come back to. We may table amendments to this Bill to achieve that. While I accept it would be complex legislation and it may not be possible at this juncture to get it legislated for, at least we can have a discussion on what would be required. I think anybody in this State would support CAB's having those powers. When an organisation or people are operating in a way which is diminishing human rights and perpetrating human rights abuses but have assets in our country, it should be possible for them to be seized as well. Obviously, it would require a formula, a methodology and the technical details of how to do that, but we should seriously contemplate doing it.

The last issue I want to raise relates to how we use the proceeds of the assets that are seized and then sold. The way in which the community safety fund is run and the process by which applications come through are too complex and arduous. The fund should have categorisations under which various groups should be able to apply. Obviously, it can be indexed by areas that are more deprived or areas that have more crime. It should not matter if they are rural or urban areas because regarding rural crime there are certain requirements for CCTV or other technologies or mechanisms that would probably not exist in a rural area that needs funding and which community groups would be able to apply for.

There have always been problems with CCTV on motorways, as I know because I brought in one of the initial community schemes. I think it took eight years to sort out data protection issues as to who is the holder of data. It was insane, bananas, ridiculous. It had the funds. This was all about high-powered motor vehicles going up and down the motorway and people wanting to monitor who was coming in and out of their communities via those motorways. It took years and nobody would own the data. Through whatever provisions are possible, maybe we could also deal with that issue. Given that there is so much monitoring everywhere now, from a legislative point of view, it should be much easier than it was in the past to deal with that so that such technologies can be put into places that need them.

I commend the legislation and I compliment the Minister and his staff. It is excellent legislation which everybody in this House should support.

Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank an Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, the Ceann Comhairle's office, the ushers and all the staff here in the Oireachtas for their assistance to the Members over recent months and during this term.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Proceeds of Crime and Related Matters Bill 2025, which is vital legislation that strengthens our national ability to disrupt, dismantle and defeat serious organised crime. Let us begin with the facts. The scale of criminal profit is staggering. Across the European Union, it is estimated that criminal revenues reach €110 billion annually, equivalent to 1% of EU GDP. In Ireland, criminal activity is estimated to generate €1.7 billion per annum. That is not just numbers on a page. That is money made from the sale of illegal drugs, human trafficking, online fraud and coercive control. It is money that funds intimidation, corruption and violence. Organised crime is not abstract. It preys on the most vulnerable in our communities and its engine is money. The clear message from this Bill is that we will take that engine away.

Ireland’s existing framework for seizing the proceeds of crime is already regarded internationally as a model of best practice. The Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, both introduced in response to the murder of the journalist Veronica Guerin, pioneered a civil non-conviction-based approach to asset seizure. Since then, those powers have been enhanced in 2005 and 2016. However, crime evolves and so must we. This Bill delivers a modernisation of our laws in line with expert reviews, the views of stakeholders and best international practice.

Let me highlight the key reforms. First, and perhaps most significantly, the Bill reduces the period before a final disposal order can be made from seven years to just two, which is a game-changer. It means that once the courts have determined that assets are the proceeds of crime, the State can act far more quickly to strip criminals of those assets, whether they be cash, vehicles, property or other assets. Justice delayed is justice denied and this will end unnecessary delays in disrupting criminal finances.

Second, once such a determination is made, the Bill allows for the immediate and automatic appointment of a receiver, preventing any further benefit from the assets pending final disposal. There will be no more limbo and no more criminals living off illicit wealth while proceedings drag on.

Third, the Bill prevents the same legal arguments being relitigated again and again. If the courts have already found assets to be criminal in origin, that conclusion cannot be reopened every time a disposal order is made. That adds certainty and avoids delay while still preserving the right of appeal and review, where appropriate.

Fourth, it enhances the Garda's and CAB’s tools at the investigative stage. For the first time, the Bill introduces new powers for restraint of funds in financial accounts. That means a CAB superintendent may direct a bank to freeze suspect funds for seven days, and the courts may extend that for up to 90 days. This plugs a key gap in our law and ensures that suspected dirty money cannot simply vanish overnight while investigations are ongoing. These are powerful, proportionate and well-designed reforms that reflect the professionalism and experience of the Criminal Assets Bureau, which has been central to the drafting of this legislation.

It is also important to note that the Bill protects the rights of individuals. Judicial oversight remains central to the process and there are safeguards in place to prevent injustice. Equally, it ends a situation where delay and procedural complexity can be used as tools by criminal organisations to retain illicit wealth.

Beyond these legal changes, we will continue to support the wider use of the proceeds of crime for community good. The community safety fund, now in its fourth year and with a €4 million budget for 2025, is a clear example of how we can take the money once used to fuel misery and instead use it to build safer, stronger communities. Projects tackling youth crime, drug intimidation, domestic violence and antisocial behaviour are all supported under this fund. This is justice in action.

I acknowledge the programme for Government commitment to expand the powers of the Criminal Assets Bureau and increase transparency, including the power to publish tax defaulter lists. These are further steps I hope can be advanced during the coming Stages of the Bill.

This legislation sends a strong and unequivocal message. Ireland will not be a safe haven for criminal wealth. We will find it, freeze it and take it through due process and the rule of law. In doing so, we will hit criminal organisations where it hurts - their finances.

I commend the Minister, Deputy Jim O’Callaghan, his officials and the Criminal Assets Bureau on their work on this ground-breaking legislation to tackle serious crime. This cannot come soon enough. I take heart from the Minister's experience and legal background, which have enriched the legislation we have today. I hope all Members of the House will support it.

Catherine Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before proceeding, I welcome the Norwegian ambassador, H.E. Mr. Aslak Brun, to the Distinguished Visitors Gallery.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tá muid sásta déileáil leis seo inniu. Without a doubt, we are all very happy to be dealing with this legislation. On some level, I agree with whoever said earlier that we need this to happen as quickly as possible. It should have happened earlier.

We all know why the Criminal Assets Bureau was set up. We have all seen what it has done at State level and locally. There is nobody who does not like to see crime is made to pay, whether that is through the courts or through the civil courts, as the Minister said, and that there is a financial sanction for crime. As I speak about sanctions, I agree that we need legislation and a conversation on dealing with organisations, individuals and persons associated with States or companies that may be profiting from or involved in humans rights abuses. We all understand what is going on today, whether we are talking about the genocide in Israel or the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It cannot be okay that certain people can get away scot-free in relation to that. No different from the street dealer or the person who moves the funny money about, we need to ensure there is a sanction.

We all accept that the war on drugs has been lost, in the traditional sense in which it was understood. We need to have a trauma-informed and health-led policy and to ensure we look after those who are suffering from addiction. We need to do everything we can to divert young people who may fall into criminality and deal with disadvantaged communities which feel this most. What did the Irish Examiner say this week? Its headline read "Available, affordable, potent: Ireland is being hit by a 'perfect storm' of cocaine". We all understand cocaine permeates every socioeconomic group but we also know the real harm and drug debt intimidation it brings.

An awful lot of it is focused in working-class areas and in those areas that are impacted the most. We need a real conversation on dealing with this level of crime. We need family supports and diversion pieces. Youth diversion projects like Greentown or the Escapeline operation in England help children who are being groomed or used by criminal entities to be removed from that environment. We need the likes of specialist health nurses who will engage with families. I believe that is planned but we need to see it happen. We need to give supports to families and wider communities that require it. In some cases, we are dealing with the outworkings of poverty.

Deputy Ward spoke of the Bill I was lucky enough to co-sponsor with him, the Proceeds of Crime (Investment in Disadvantaged Communities) (Amendment) Bill. That was us stating, as I think we would all agree, that we needed money to be taken from these people who have their heel on the neck of many in our communities and returned to organisations. There will never be enough money in that. We need to resource everything, including the supports required, addiction services and, beyond that, adequate policing to deal with the bad examples. We can walk into many estates and point out houses of people who, for a considerable period of time, have been making money off the backs of their neighbours, and none of it is good enough. At this stage, it is not just off the backs of their neighbours. It is chasing after grandparents for drug bet money. We accept there is a need for streamlining this. There is support for this but we need a wider discussion on dealing with drug crime and its impact on communities.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Bill. We support it fully but intend to table some amendments on Committee Stage which we think will strengthen it. In my constituency, particularly in the north-inner city, and in a number of other constituencies in Ireland, there is a heartbreaking sight that many of us have grown accustomed to: young people, children, teenagers, kids on scramblers, kids hanging around corners with nothing to do, kids being used - I mean that word very deliberately - as runners in drug networks, carrying out drop-offs, collecting debts, standing watch, kids who are still in primary school being given roles in organised crime because they are seen as less likely to be stopped or to be held responsible. That is exactly what we are dealing with here, not the glamourised version of crime seen in tabloids or crime dramas but the slow erosion of community by criminal networks that know how to exploit poverty, trauma and the absence of opportunity.

That is why the work of the Criminal Assets Bureau is so vital. When CAB seizes a house bought with drug money, that is not just a headline. It is a message and an intervention. It tells people, especially young people, that there is a limit to how long crime can pay, that there are consequences and a State watching and willing to act.

The Bill will strengthen CAB's ability to act and that is really welcome. It gives CAB powers to freeze accounts more quickly, whether cash or crypto. It shortens the time it has to wait before an asset can be permanently seized from seven years to two. It allows courts to appoint receivers so criminal assets cannot be used while a case drags on. It closes off legal loopholes that allow delay and stalling. It is practical and smart legislation and we support it.

Seizing the assets should only be one step. The real power is in what we do next. That money, those homes and those cars must be reinvested in full directly into the communities where the harm was done and where criminality has taken hold because the State failed to show up often enough or strongly enough. We should have a clear and visible pipeline. All money taken from crime goes back into youth services, family supports, addiction services, education and community policing. That is how we rebuild trust and break the cycle.

I acknowledge funds have been allocated through the community safety and innovation fund. That is very welcome but 100% of assets should be going back into communities. Crime does not just destroy lives. It costs a huge amount of money to the Exchequer in Garda time, health costs, lost opportunities, court backlogs and the price communities pay every time a child is pulled into the system. We cannot do the same thing over and over and expect different results. Seizing assets is part of the solution but, on its own, it is not enough. We have seen that.

We have to talk honestly about intervening directly with people involved in drug networks, not just the top brass but the foot soldiers, the young people caught up early and who often end up in prison with untreated trauma, addiction and no exit plan. If we are serious about breaking the cycle, we need to wrap those people in the full care of the State. That means better prison conditions, not just tougher ones. It means access to education and rehabilitation for those in prison. We need a better understanding of what prisons are for and what purpose they should serve. This should mean fully funded probation services, transitional housing, trauma supports and employment schemes. It means a real investment in community-based alternatives to prison, especially for young people. Too many people go into prison with problems and come out with worse ones. That is not justice. That is a revolving door and it is costing us in every sense of the word.

We need a mini-CAB approach, targeting mid-level players before they become untouchable. We all know how certain high-level crime gangs operate now and how hard it is to dismantle that level of operation once they are international, their networks stretch across borders and their assets are moved offshore. There is a level before all that: the flashy operators in their 20s and 30s who control estates, drive financed cars, have two or three apartments in someone else's name and have built mini empires in local communities. We need to hit those assets early. We need a dedicated, fast response mechanism to freeze and investigate assets at that mid level before it becomes a full-blown cartel. If we wait too long, the structures become too strong and we are already playing catch-up.

Let us talk once more about the kids on the scramblers. If they are 13 now, they are in sixth class or first year. If we do nothing and all they see is the gangland lads get rich, live fast and rarely get caught, we know where they will be at 18. If they see assets being seized and the money going into youth clubs that give them purpose, if they are met by outreach workers and Garda youth diversion projects and if they are seen not just as risks but as children worth saving, then we change the outcome and interrupt the cycle. We get better, fairer, safer communities not by accident, but by design.

I support the Bill. It gives us stronger tools to disrupt organised crime but legislation like this only works if it is matched with investment, vision and a willingness to tackle inequality and exclusion head-on. Let us take the money but then give it back to the communities destroyed by the harm. Let us build a system which does not just punish crime but prevents it, understands it and replaces it with opportunity.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue of crime is something that is feared as much as anything else across many parts of rural Ireland in particular and in my constituency. We saw today that three people have pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the desperate attack on Tom Niland, an elderly man living alone in a rural area who was set upon, badly beaten and subsequently passed away. The fear that kind of situation instils in people in rural communities is terrifying. It is important to recognise that for elderly people in rural, isolated areas and other areas, the fear of being set upon like that is a real terror in their lives, particularly if they live alone. It is important we have legislation which deals adequately with people who would carry out such attacks. I commend the gardaí on the investigation into that case and the outcome of it but it still does not undo the loss to the family, friends and community. It is the same thing in many areas where people are in fear of crime, yet we live in a relatively safe society and that is important to recognise. It is a tiny minority of people who engage in these actions and activities.

The Criminal Assets Bureau was a game-changer when it came to dismantling criminal gangs, particularly in the drugs industry. The work around that by the State and its agencies has to be commended - not just the Garda, but others as well.

It is important to recognise that even in communities, like many of those in inner-city Dublin, where there are serious problems with high levels of criminality and drug addiction, it is a small minority of people who are involved. In these communities, 80%, 90% or 95% of people are decent, hardworking, ordinary individuals who want to get on with their lives and to build and live in a decent society. However, the small minority of individuals to whom I refer continue to cause huge difficulties in that regard. A report into that by Dr. Johnny Connolly a couple of years ago provided a very good assessment of the situation. One of the things to come out of the report was there had to be something done to ensure younger people are not attracted to the lifestyle being put on show by these criminals, who are not bashful about how they live their lives. Being able to attack their assets and take them down is very important.

The Criminal Assets Bureau has done great work and could do much more. One of those things it could do in that regard would be to go after the people at a slightly lower level in the food chain, ensuring that there is a mechanism to attack them and their lifestyle in order that it does not become something that is attractive to younger people. Unfortunately, in many communities, very young children are being used by some of these criminal gangs, particularly for running drugs and that sort of thing. That is not just in inner-city areas; it is in every town in the country. The habit of criminality developed at a young age takes a long time to break. If those to whom I refer end up in prison as youngsters, they go on to a life of crime that has no future for them or their communities.

The motivation we must all have is to ensure we have adequate legislation in place to deal with this matter. I support the Bill and I understand why what is proposed is being done. More can be done in this area. We need to do more to build the resistance and capacity of these communities to deal with what is happening. To do that, we need to have more resources in place. There needs to be a greater emphasis on putting youth facilities and addiction facilities in place. It is very important to recognise that this legislation does not stand alone and that there is a need for much more support around it.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Bill and commend the great work of the members of An Garda Síochána and those officers who work in the Criminal Assets Bureau.

It is important that we tackle criminals at source. The best way to do this is by tackling the proceeds of crime. We welcome that the turnaround time will be reduced from seven years to two years. This is something for which we in Aontú have for quite some time. I ask the Minister to please ensure that we try to reinvest this money in the communities involved and in An Garda Síochána.

An Garda Síochána is really struggling in Mayo. I recently spoke to a garda in Castlebar Garda Station who told me when members of An Garda Síochána are attending court or out sick, the station cannot function on occasion. In the past three years, my constituency of Mayo has received just one new garda recruit. I spoke to the Garda Commissioner last year. He told me about the number of D19 transfer requests from gardaí. These are, in the main, young people from Mayo, Roscommon and Galway who are working in Dublin and who are seeking to relocate back to Mayo or other counties. They cannot do so because, as the Commissioner stated, An Garda Síochána just does not have the manpower in Dublin to allow this to happen. Dublin is being prioritised in that sense, while Mayo and other counties in the west are being left without gardaí.

It is important that we address the issues relating to An Garda Síochána and tackle the problems around morale and bureaucratic practices. The new geographical units are not working. The regions are far too large and this is causing a massive deterioration in terms of the type of proactive policing practices that have built up since the foundation of the State. Deputy Tóibín and Aontú have long argued that money should be recouped and ringfenced for An Garda Síochána. It is important the Minister tackles the issues relating to the force. Being a garda used to be an intergenerational job. It was a job that a father would pass on to his son. Indeed, three generations of some families have served in the Garda. That link has been broken. It was broken before the Minister's time. He is going to have a significant job to do to address this. The truth is that fathers are no longer passing the baton on to their sons. In fact, they are telling them to get out of the force.

I know gardaí who are seeking to relocate back to Mayo and because that request cannot be facilitated, they are leaving the force. They cannot afford to live in Dublin. They are young people who are happy to continue to be gardaí, but not happy to continue to work in the capital and therefore they are willing to go back to work on farms, in pubs or in shops and leave An Garda Síochána as a result. The Minister needs to work on this. There are hundreds of applications, or D19 requests, which cannot be facilitated through no fault of the gardaí. It is the fault of the Government and the Minister's predecessors who reduced An Garda Síochána to the difficulties it is facing with bureaucratic practices and the lack of proactive policing that is now happening.

Gardaí tell me that being in An Garda Síochána used to be a job where people were out on the street tackling criminals but more often than not now, it is a job where they are tied up in knots behind screens because of the level of accountability in the job. I know it is true because I was recently out on a bank holiday weekend, one of the busiest weekends of the year, and there were no gardaí to be seen on the street. That is reflective of where we are at the moment.

I ask the Minister to ensure the issues in the force are addressed and that the money is used to tackle those issues and support An Garda Síochána.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I looked at the briefing paper. We agree, as I think most people here do, that we should reduce the timeframe from seven to two years for the disposal of assets identified as proceeds of crime. The Bill strengthens the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, giving it power to restrain and seize assets before the High Court. A process introduces new restraint orders to prevent transactions linked to suspected proceeds of crime and the automatic appointment of a receiver to private individuals' benefits from criminal assets. We certainly agree with all these things.

However, we should focus going forward on nipping crime in the bud. That is what we are failing to do at this time. I hate to agree with the Deputy in a statement he made a moment ago, but I have to because it is common sense that we have lost the law on drugs. He said the law on drugs is lost. It is a sad statement to make, but it is a factual statement. Years of a lack of resources in An Garda Síochána have left us in that situation. It is neglect. I noticed in west Cork that the drugs unit in Bantry is now closed because - and I have raised the issue - of the lack of gardaí in west Cork. There is a Bandon drugs unit but, mother of God, there is a huge coastline from Mizen Head to Sheep's Head and the Beara Peninsula. I will not say it is unmanned, because there has been serious apprehension of drugs in recent years, even recently, by An Garda Síochána in west Cork. I commend Chief Superintendent Vincent O'Sullivan and his gardaí, but there is only so much he can work with. If the numbers are down, the numbers are facts and the facts are there. The number of gardaí in west Cork is down. I would appreciate if the Minister would send me the number of gardaí so that I can prove to him that it is down. How will the Minister turn that around?

When it comes to drugs they are brought in mainly by sea. I am surrounded by sea; my constituency is. The nearest parish west of mine is New York. I live on the Mizen Head. If I head to Barryroe or Timoleague, I am surrounded by sea. Kinsale and the whole area is on the sea. They are the areas the Minister needs to be spending his resources on. That is where the drugs are coming in and these guys are walking away free, unless An Garda Síochána is majorly on top of its game but it cannot be when it is under-resourced. That is an area the Minister needs to look at. We need to keep looking at how we nip crime in the bud along that line.

An issue I brought up last week, which is an important one, related to the towns and villages of west Cork, such as Skibbereen, Clonakilty and Dunmanway. I have been waiting for eight days for an answer from the Minister's Department about why CCTV was turned off in those towns. Surely be to God, he could give me a fair and honest answer in a couple of days and at least see where we are going with it. Councillor Daniel Sexton has raised it at council level and the council is not giving an answer other than that it will try to meet the Department this week to see where it can go. Why is CCTV being turned off? Is it being turned off throughout the rest of Ireland? It is leaving communities wide open. Local communities fundraised for it. The community lurks and the business watches to make sure it has that little bit of additional security so that if these lunatics are peddling drugs out there, they will be seen on CCTV. They know they are being watched by the local people, because An Garda Síochána cannot do everything. Then automatically - bang, bang, bang - switches went down last Tuesday in west Cork. CCTV was blacked out in west Cork last Tuesday and the Minister's Department cannot answer me in eight days as to why that happened.

Is there any hope of turning this around? How quickly can it be turned around for the safety of the people? I am being honest and fair. I wrote to the Minister twice. I ask him to answer the question, to give a fair and honest answer. Let us sit down with the bodies that be to see whether we can resolve this. I do not know whether there are others. I am told Kinsale, Bantry and Schull are still switched on. Are others in the country in the same situation? Are there more? Is this the way it has gone? Will CCTV be switched off in our country? That will make our communities extremely vulnerable and wide-open to crime. Why did the community alert groups meet with the local Garda Síochána in the first place to put it there? It was to keep their communities safe. Why are they switched off today? That answer needs to be forthcoming. I need that answer immediately. The Dáil should not be sitting this evening until we get straight answers. I do not care if it is this evening, tomorrow morning or Saturday or Sunday morning, I want an answer for those people. I keep asking for it and I am not getting it from the Minister. It looks like it has to come from his Department. I plead with the Minister once again to look into it. As far as I am concerned, it is a huge issue in west Cork in order that we can at least keep people safe.

Regarding young people, we need to encourage more from the Department or wherever in relation to gardaí. One initiative in west Cork has worked well. It is the Garda Youth Awards. They are trying to pat young people on the back, give them a purpose and let them know they have done some good and that they are there and things can be changed. The likes of Damien White, Brigid Hartnett, Jonathan McCarthy, Ian O'Callaghan, Don Davis and others put together the Garda Youth Award. Chloe Anne O'Callaghan from my area won it this year and others from other communities such as Bantry and elsewhere won it other year. It is a great way to give young people a boost. Everyone points the finger and tells young people they are involved in this and that. They are not. Chloe-Anne is not involved. She is a great athlete from my area and involved in all the community initiatives. She got a little bit of honour for that and it gave her a boost and gives others a boost to meet the same standard going forward.

We also have to look at the protection of gardaí. This is a serious issue. They have a responsibility of non-disclosure in their communities and they do not want to be whistleblowers, but they are concerned. They are out on the roads trying to prevent drugs coming into communities. There is one jeep and one BMW from Cork city all the way down to Castletownbere and gardaí have told me that when they stand on the side of the road, they have little or no coloured clothing in comparison with the ambulance service, which is completely well clothed and well covered. The Garda vehicles are not covered and the gardaí feel unsafe on the side of the road. Remember these are people who have young families. They are not making up the story. I would not come in making up a story because it is a serious issue, especially given recent events. That prompted their call that they need further and proper protective gear going forward, especially coloured gear, for their safety on the side of the road. They are keeping us safe in the long term. That is what they say to me. The vehicle is not properly illuminated. They are not properly illuminated in comparison with the ambulance service, which has complete and utter illuminated clothing. That is an area they would like the Minister to look into.

This Bill makes good reading. It tightens rules to prevent re-litigation on access to proceeds of crimes. It broadens CAB powers for data sharing domestically and internationally. It extends CAB staff anonymity provisions and reflects evolving EU asset confiscation standards but does not fully address international protocols. In its approach to crime prevention and deterrents, the Bill focuses specifically on targeting the financial assets of criminals.

Independent Ireland is focused on stricter sentencing and eliminating suspended sentences for serious crimes and supporting Garda retention. Independent Ireland was very clear that we need stricter sentences. Often, when I look at sentences, I scratch my head, because some very serious crimes get very light sentences. On the other hand, someone might steal something - which is not a good thing to do and they must be apprehended - and might have even given back the money and they still get a jail sentence. I wonder if there could be a better balance because we see a lot of heavy crimes being walked around. I listened to some of the parties here today who said they support this and that there is concern in their communities about it. I will pick one party, the Social Democrats, whose mission statement says the party believes: "that in line with international best-practice, a policy of decriminalisation should be pursued in respect of the possession of drugs for personal consumption." I do not agree with that, because if we are going to accept it in the back door, we may as well accept it in the front door. That is a crazy system. They cannot come in here afterwards and say that the country has gone mad in relation to drugs' crime if they are saying that in a small way it is fine. It is not; drugs are drugs and that is the bottom line. The only time I ever stood up here for any type of drugs was for medicinal cannabis for a very ill child. That type of set up is totally different.

I would appreciate if the Minister would look into the areas I mentioned, especially CCTV, which is a huge issue. The Minister should consider how he can further support Garda youth awards and our gardaí, be they in west Cork, Galway or wherever else. There should be more gardaí on the beat. I will pick out one garda in west Cork, Jonathan McCarthy, who lives in the area. He nips crime in the bud. He knows where it is going wrong before it goes wrong. I have seen young people going wrong and I have seen him putting them right, because he is living in Ballydehob. That is difficult because the locals go to his door to call him and tell him he is needed somewhere. That is not fair and it is difficult for a garda but he is an example of great type of garda we have. They really know how to help a community to make sure things get sorted and usually it irons itself out. That is the type of garda we need in the force and that we need to be promoting in our communities and we need more of them. We do not have that many of them. They are not there because they are not adequately resourced and I would appreciate the Minister working on that going forward.

Gillian Toole (Meath East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will be very careful if I go to west Cork on my holidays. I thank the Deputy for the heads up.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is okay, I will mind you.

Gillian Toole (Meath East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a more serious note, I thank the Minister, his team and I presume The Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers for the sterling work on what I consider to be a future-proofing and highly considered safeguarding of the next generations of the country. I also express my gratitude to our juvenile liaison officers. I will name two of them in particular from County Meath, garda Barbara Kelly and garda Aisling Connor and the entire community team there, the support workers of the youth diversion projects, the community and voluntary leaders of the drug and alcohol task forces, the members of the strengthening families programmes and all of the volunteers who participate in night leagues and who help with community buses. This is fantastic work and it sets the tone. I will not tell the Minister what to do next, or otherwise. This in itself is fantastic and it opens the door to other far-reaching work.

The community safety fund is pivotal and the growth from €2 million to €4 million is welcomed. It is important how the money is used within the communities, as is the use of data to target specific areas where it will be of most benefit and will be most far-reaching in enabling children to reach their full potential, while limiting the individuals who suck the lifeblood out of communities and families.

I will not repeat everything that my colleagues have said. I see the Minister is taking plenty of notes. He does not need any more to add to his list. I want to mention two areas in particular, for when funds are being distributed. I agree that further investment in the fiscal and human resources of An Garda Síochána is needed but investment is also needed in drug, alcohol and mental health supports, in collaboration with the HSE and the ETBs, particularly those that provide tutors to the local training initiatives and the special community employment schemes. I will refer to two in particular, in County Meath. The first is Meath Opportunities for Training, the local training initiative, linked to Tabor House, which supports people in recovery from drugs and alcohol. There is also the special community employment scheme in Navan, which assists people to regain life skills and to upskill. As we know, from other debates in the House, there are funding gaps for tutors who provide this invaluable service. I do not think there will be any shortage of extremely deserving, community-based organisations that will help people to recover and will also help safeguard young people and deliver them from life-limiting and life-damaging interactions with the drugs trade.

I applaud and commend the Minister for his work thus far.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all my colleagues for their contributions. It is also notable and unusual that everyone who spoke is very much in favour of the legislation, with full support across the House. I welcome that. It is also important that people who are involved in criminality and generating wealth from it, know that there is unanimity in this House in our opposition to them and in our desire to combat them.

I will deal with some of the issues that were raised by colleagues. Deputy Mark Ward spoke about white-collar crime. It is the case that CAB does go after this type of crime. CAB does not only go after people involved in drug dealing or other such activities. Deputy Ward also spoke about the community safety fund, as did many other colleagues. There is a desire for the money to go back into the areas that are most affected by it and there is an application process. It may be the case that some communities are better informed when it comes to filling out application forms. That could be a legitimate comment in respect of the matter. If that is so, those communities need to be informed about the fund. People in this House and elsewhere would be happy to assist them in filling out the application forms. Deputy Ward also asked about a mini CAB. In fairness, to CAB, it goes after people in terms of assets which are the proceeds of crime, even if they are amounts in the low thousands of euro. CAB does not have a hierarchy that says it should only go after the millionaire criminals. It does target the lifestyle of rich criminals. CAB does a lot of observation work and it looks at people's lifestyles. A lot of work goes on under the surface that we do not hear about or discuss in this House.

Deputy Ward also spoke about youth diversion. We need to ensure that we have as many youth diversion programmes operating as possible. Later this year, I hope to be in a situation where every area will have a functioning youth diversion programme, powered by the Probation Service.

Deputy Quinlivan referred to the feuds in Limerick. It is worth noting that there were significant feuds in Limerick before and the gardaí got on top of them and dealt with them. CAB played a significant role in that as well. Regrettably, it is probably always the case that when one crime gang is got rid of, someone else will rise up and take their place. The important thing is that the Garda will be on their case and CAB will be following them closely after that. The message should go out that it is a pointless activity getting involved in crime. It may generate money in the short term but in the long term it will result in imprisonment and a person's assets being seized and a very negative reflection on their life.

Deputy Kelly made some comments about the role of Ruairí Quinn in the proceeds of crime legislation. I am beginning to see now that success has many fathers. I mentioned John O'Donoghue and Deputy Ward mentioned Nora Owen. I commend the Government and Members of the Oireachtas back in 1996 for coming up with this innovative idea. Deputy Kelly also spoke about Brendan Howlin's legislation from some years ago, the Proceeds of Crime (Gross Human Rights Abuses) Bill 2020.

I have not had an opportunity to look at it. I would have thought it would be fairly difficult to try to transpose a provision such as this into Irish law. My understanding from listening to Deputy Kelly is that it is legislation that would permit the Criminal Assets Bureau to seize assets belonging to other countries present in this jurisdiction if those countries were involved in an abuse of human rights. The legislation dealing with seizing assets from criminals in this country is difficult enough, as we can see from the complexity of it, and I am not in a position to start going around seizing assets in respect of human rights abuses around the world. However, I look forward to seeing the amendment Deputy Kelly said he would bring forward in respect of it and, to use Civil Service speak, I would say it will be a very challenging amendment. We will look at it in due course.

I thank Deputy Devlin for his contribution. Something I thought about when I was listening to Deputy Devlin was the fact that, earlier this week, there was the decision of the Supreme Court on Routeback. This was a situation where the Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Court of Appeal that refused to allow new evidence to be heard in respect of a proceeds of crime application. From a brief perusal of it, I think the reason was that the Supreme Court said there was new evidence. We are entitled statutorily to change the rules, as we are doing, to say the matter cannot be opened up again.

Deputy Barry Ward mentioned we needed a consolidated version of Bills that come before the House. It is difficult enough to prepare a Bill without having a consolidated version of very large legislation. If people are looking for this, the Law Reform Commission frequently publishes consolidated updated versions of legislation. The Proceeds of Crime Act on the Law Reform Commission's website includes all the most recent amendments. If they are enacted into law, these amendments will be included also.

Deputy Ward also said we had to exercise caution when it came to freezing orders. Certainly when we look at the legislation, fair procedures are built into it. It has withstood constitutional challenge by various persons. Much of this legislation was tested in the Supreme Court shortly after its enactment in 1996 and it was found to be constitutional.

Deputy Ó Murchú echoed the point made by Deputy Kelly on trying to use the legislation for the purpose of human rights abuses. The best way to deal with issues such as this is through the sanctions imposed at EU level. That is how we deal with sanctions and freezing of assets belonging to certain persons from Russia. It can only be done when there is agreement at EU level. Deputy Ó Murchú also mentioned the issue of cocaine that, regrettably, is prevalent throughout our society.

Deputy Gannon welcomed the Bill. He referred to it as a smart piece of legislation. He spoke about addiction. Addiction is the real consequence of the criminal activity of people delivering and dealing in drugs. It has had disastrous consequences for young people who get caught up in addiction. I regret to say, however, that no part of the country is immune to this addiction and every constituency of every TD in the House has addiction issues. I have seen it myself from visiting addiction services. Deputy Gannon also spoke about having a mini-CAB. I repeat the point I made in response to Deputy Mark Ward, namely, that CAB goes after small amounts of assets if it believes they are the proceeds of crime.

Deputy Kenny mentioned how people in Ireland feared crime. This is true but we need to be balanced in our understanding of it. Ireland is, relative to other countries, a safe country. There will be crime in a country with a successful economy. When money is available, regrettably, people will fall for the attraction of drugs, although they should not do so.

In terms of proceeds of crime applications before the courts, there are very many of them. It is not a case that there is a small number of applications. I had a look at the legal diary as I was listening to colleagues and today there was a proceeds of crime list in the High Court with 22 items. A lot of work is going on in respect of the Criminal Assets Bureau.

Deputy Gogarty welcomed the Bill and asked whether the properties that were frozen could be rented out. In practical terms, when a section 3 freezing order is made, the property is sold. Then the money is collected by the receiver and the money becomes the issue in dispute. It is the practice of CAB after freezing an asset to sell it to liquidate it, if I can use this expression, to get the money. Then there is a dispute about who is entitled to the money, and that is determined by the courts.

Deputy Paul Lawless said gardaí in Mayo were struggling. That was not my experience of gardaí in Mayo when I was there doing the Colm Horkan run a couple of weeks ago. I saw a great sense of community spirit from the gardaí in Charlestown and I believe it operates throughout Mayo. Deputy Lawless mentioned, as did Deputy Michael Collins, that he wanted to see more gardaí on the streets. The biggest problem I face as the Minister for justice is that, everywhere I go, people say they want to see more gardaí. I am limited in the numbers I have. It is my job to try to recruit more. I cannot start going around saying I will give a couple of gardaí to certain constituencies. I do not get involved in that. It is a matter for the Commissioner. It would be inappropriate if a Minister for justice started going around directing where gardaí should go.

Deputy Michael Collins spoke about how we had lost the war on drugs. I disagree with this. The alternative is that we just put up our hands and say we will legalise drugs and let them come in. The addiction levels would increase significantly. We have seen experiments in other parts of the world, such as America and Canada. They have legalised drugs and it has been a disaster for them. The number of psychotic episodes for young people has shot through the roof and addiction levels have increased. It has become a bigger problem. We are better off having it criminalised.

I do not have an answer for Deputy Collins on CCTV but local authorities are responsible for the operation of it.