Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I welcome the legislation which is designed to improve the 1996 Act. Provisions are being clarified in this legislation following feedback from the Criminal Assets Bureau, for example, on the operation of the original Act. Last night on the Internet I looked at transcripts of Report Stage in the Dáil on 13 October. I could not access the debate in the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights during which amendments were tabled. However, I noticed that on both Stages the issue arose of how much money has accrued to the Exchequer.

At the time I understood that the Minister was saying essentially that, although so many millions had been frozen, only €1 million had accrued to the Exchequer. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, might update us on that figure. I understand that the new provision in this Bill allowing for a consent disposal order is intended to benefit both parties, but it would also help accrue money to the Exchequer more quickly. Perhaps the Minister of State might clarify how the Department hopes that will operate. Does it expect more moneys to accrue in the near future or will it take a long time?

Regarding the issue raised by Senator Kett about the ring-fencing of moneys obtained under the legislation, I know that the Labour Party had a Report Stage amendment in the Dáil along the lines mentioned, namely, that money realised on disposal orders under the principal Act, as amended by this legislation, should be used for community development purposes in disadvantaged areas. In this House and previously in the Dáil, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, said there were problems with that from the point of view of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen. I wonder how the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, feels about it. It is obviously a good idea and we have ring-fenced moneys in other legislation.

It would be very positive for traduced and disadvantaged areas and, in general, since all areas are disadvantaged to different degrees. For example, areas not traditionally thought of as disadvantaged are also experiencing issues related to crime and producing criminals. We must examine how we can put money into communities to help those detrimentally affected by crime and prevent crime in future. I feel strongly that money should be put into education. In my constituency there are many such projects. One area that has been neglected by the Government is primary schools in disadvantaged areas. Four schools in the RAPID area of my constituency have been crying out for money for such things as repairs without getting what they have sought over the past few years. It is all very well putting money into homework clubs and the like, but most important of all is that we properly fund our basic education system in primary and secondary schools.

I do not know if the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, is aware of it, but in my constituency there is a project called the Carline Centre of Learning. It concentrates on people outside the mainstream education system who could become subject to criminal influence and get involved in that but for the type of work carried out by the centre. The project was originally set up by a local nun and her order. The original idea was that people who might get involved in joyriding were trained in mechanics. The centre also teaches English, mathematics, catering, child care and so on. Those involved have contacted local public representatives. While they receive funding from different Departments, they are never sure exactly what it will be or whether they will have the necessary funds from one year to the next. The Government needs to provide guaranteed annual funding for such initiatives so that these groups can plan their work in advance and carry it out without fear of having to cut back on training. At one stage, they were examining cutbacks in woodwork, mechanics and so on, which they had commenced.

The legislation is welcome but, as Senator Ross pointed out recently, while the legislation provides for the imposition of fines on financial institutions where they carry out unlawful acts, such fines are only a drop in the ocean to them and it is worth their while to carry out these acts and then pay the fines. How is the legislation impacting on crime rates? Are criminals paying fines under these provisions but not curtailing their illegal activities? Are they leaving their lives of crime behind when they are caught?