Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

These are substantial amendments and form a major part of the Bill before the House. I agree with the Minister of State that they are necessary. However, I wonder why they were not included in the Bill ab initio. I would certainly agree with the corrupt enrichment order which provides that anyone who has benefited from crime should be penalised.

I am somewhat concerned about the kite which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, has flown on a few occasions as regards planners giving permission for 50 or 60 houses. Is there any evidence that cases such as this have arisen, because we have heard the Minister mutter something to this effect on numerous occasions, as if it was the norm every day of the week in local authorities? It has not come to my notice on any occasion that developers would get permission for 60 rather than 50 houses, or whatever. Is there evidence that this practice is widespread throughout the country or is it just something the Minister heard about, anecdotally, and wishes to legislate for?

We agree with the whole concept of the amendments as put forward. We cannot disagree with anything that gives greater powers to combat crime, to bring criminals to heel and seize their money and we will support such an initiative. However, we wonder why such lengthy amendments are being tabled after the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 1999 was introduce. They provide much of the meat on the bones of the actual Bill that came before the House initially.