Seanad debates

Tuesday, 30 November 2004

Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 1999: Committee Stage.

 

3:00 pm

Photo of Brian Lenihan JnrBrian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I understand why Senators Tuffy and Cummins tabled these amendments. The issue was discussed at length on Second Stage in the other House and, indeed, in committee when the Minister undertook to go back to the Department of Finance to see whether he could elicit a more sympathetic response to it. There are some arguments, in principle, against it. One is that additional layers of bureaucracy would have to be established to monitor the allocation of any such additional funds. This could not be justified unless significant added value in excess of the additional administrative costs could be shown.

Senators are well aware of the existence of partnership groups, RAPID groups and various other groups which disburse moneys and determine priorities in areas of disadvantage. The ring-fencing of moneys for community-based initiatives in disadvantaged areas, as Senator Tuffy's amendment proposes, would create another such body because clearly one would have to be established to distribute the earmarked funds. Senators must be familiar with the arrangement regarding disadvantaged areas whereby facilities including dormant accounts, the RAPID programme, the young people's facilities and services fund and partnerships are in simultaneous operation. In order to give flesh and bones to Senator Tuffy's amendment, it would be essential to establish yet another entity to disburse the money in the manner envisaged in that amendment.

Moreover, we must bear in mind that not all the funds obtained by the Criminal Assets Bureau are drugs-related. Some funds come about as a consequence of tax offences, for example. The acquisition of such funds by the CAB is an uncertain and variable revenue source. This militates against properly planned programmes and locally based community initiatives. The Department of Finance confirmed once again in October that its policy in this area had not changed.

Senator Cummins's amendment refers to the question of the fight against drugs. A recent study by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction ranked Ireland fifth in the EU in terms of the amount spent in fighting illegal drugs. We spend some €183 million per annum on prevention, treatment and supply reduction. Senator Cummins also rightly referred to the matter of timing and that the seven-year rule is only now coming into play. Moneys are only transferring to the CAB at this stage and being transferred from the bureau to the Exchequer. It is only now that the Exchequer is beginning to receive the benefit of these funds. The initial case was taken in 1996 and, as the Senators have observed, it was the former Minister, Nora Owen, who introduced the legislation. This legislation, however, was formulated by the current Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, and taken up and enacted by former Deputy Owen as a Government measure.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.