Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. My party is fully supportive of the main thrust of this Bill. Whether that means increasing the powers of CAB, gardaí or customs officers, we are fully supportive of such measures. However, we believe that the proceeds of crime, especially drug trafficking, should be ploughed back into the communities that have been ravaged and destroyed by these criminals. The Bill before us has been lying around for four or five years. While I recognise that it fell with the last Dáil, it was put back on the Dáil Order Paper in July 2002 and it is only coming before this House now. At that time, some consideration was given to setting up a second corruption assets bureau along the lines of the present CAB, but it was not considered necessary. It was felt that the existing activities of the CAB in the fight against corruption could be best bolstered by the inclusion of additional amendments in this Bill.

The Bill is complicated and technical, clearing up some of the definitions and making new provisions which will bring it in line with the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, the Prevention of Corruption Act 2001, the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 and the Criminal Justice Act 1994. Whatever is required in legislation to ensure that the proceeds of crime support areas afflicted by its effects should be expedited. The Government will have my party's support in that regard. As a result of the tardiness of the Government in proceeding with the legislation, my colleague in the other House, Deputy O'Dowd, was forced to introduce a Bill of his own last year. True to form, the Government voted that down. Deputy O'Dowd's thinking was that the funds seized should be ring-fenced and used for a specific purpose. In that context, the funds could have an influence in education and in discouraging the use of drugs. This should be the intent of this Bill and the Minister for Finance must be amenable to such a suggestion. The creation of another slush fund for electoral purposes is not envisaged in these circumstances. We need strong assurances from the Minister that this will not be the case and that the communities most in need will benefit as a result of these funds. These are the people who have been hit by crime and they should benefit out of the resources seized from criminals.

I listened with interest recently to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, when he spoke of deplorable gang warfare in west Dublin. He stated that resources for the gardaí were not an issue yet community leaders decried the scarcity of community gardaí in Blanchardstown and other areas of Dublin. The problems in these areas must be tackled by an interagency approach, including social services, the gardaí and sporting and youth organisations working together and rebuilding communities. The vast majority of residents in estates in Ireland are good law-abiding citizens, who want to live in peace and harmony with their friends and neighbours. They are terrified by anti-social behaviour perpetrated by thugs, vandals and dangerous criminals. No law-abiding citizen should be afraid to live in his or her own house or estate in this country, yet this is the case. From what I can glean from the Estimates, the Minister must be expecting to get his hands on quite a large slice of funds seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau to honour some of the promises made. He continues to make promises on a recurring basis in press statements. The public wants action rather than fine words. The Minister talks a good show and I support him in many of his pronouncements which would be strong on law and order. However, people's patience is wearing thin at the moment because of the inaction in so many areas.

We must get to the root of the problem. The ring-fencing of the funds from the proceeds of crime could go some way in addressing the problems of the areas in question. Section 4 of the 1996 Act provides that the proceeds of the assets cannot be distributed until seven years have passed, but surely a period of three or four years would make more sense. The Minister of State said that the consent disposal order will deal with the problem, which I welcome. The Criminal Assets Bureau, which was established by the rainbow Government, has been one of the most important weapons in combating criminals who felt they were untouchable. The bureau has had great success in retrieving and selling assets. The seven-year period I have mentioned is too long, however, and I am glad it has been dealt with.

The victims of crime should be to the front of our minds at all times. They should be supported from the funds seized from criminals because they have suffered at the hands of such people. A far greater emphasis should be placed on the plight of victims. In that context, it is difficult not to think of the case of an elderly gentleman in County Donegal, which was reported in a newspaper today. When one sees the state he was left in after he was beaten up, one questions the development of our society.

It is clear that the Bill's technical aspects are necessary to protect and increase the powers of the Criminal Assets Bureau and all other State agencies. Fine Gael supports the Bill's technical elements, although it may propose some amendments on Committee Stage. It awaits with interest the Government amendments which were mentioned by the Minister of State, particularly those relating to the additional profit that people may have gained from the sale of sites and other matters referred to by the Minister of State, such as business with planning officers.

I assure the Minister of State that my party will support the Government in expediting this Bill, which is necessary. I am sorry that the Bill was not brought before the Seanad sooner, although I realise that certain problems arose in the intervening period. We support the general thrust of the Bill.