Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

In the constitutional scheme of things the Minister for Finance can never be put aside, much as we would all like to do so from time to time. Senator Brian Hayes's contribution was eloquent and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform welcomed his support for a point of view on this matter. The more money the Department can get for various areas the better.

Nevertheless, the general point stands. The Exchequer is a general fund and there is a disposition not to favour specific earmarked funds. For many years in the Department, the funds of suitors were applied for various public purposes. They were used to redecorate the King's Inns and the Cork Opera House. The amount of the fund was contingent and uncertain and had to be used for certain capital projects which arose from time to time. Ultimately, it was found to be unsatisfactory and it was decided to put the fund at the disposal of the Courts Service for the upkeep of the courthouse system. There is now an earmarked fund for that purpose.

The amendments have the general objective that the money realised be used for community development purposes in disadvantaged areas or for State-funded programmes established to discourage young persons from taking drugs or to assist in the rehabilitation of drug users. These are all services which the State must provide. This contingent and uncertain sum will not fund them with any degree of precision, regularity or reliability. Senator Cummins was anxious that I should read into the record the opinion on the constitutional issue he raised. There were two reasons for the seven-year limitation period. First, there is the question of rights a third party may have to some of the property. The other reason is the constitutional issue, to which I referred. The primary purpose of the legislation is not to enrich the Exchequer with appropriated property but rather to freeze proceeds of crime to deprive those concerned of the benefits of criminal proceeds. The most constant criticism of the legislation has been that it penalises individuals without the individual affected being convicted of any offence. A reduction of the period between the interlocutory order and the disposal order to three years might render the legislation more open to challenge on the grounds that it is penal confiscation without due process. The shorter the period before the forfeiture stage, the greater the chance that the forfeiture may be viewed as penal from a constitutional perspective and thereby invalidate the legislation.

The period of seven years does not overcome all the relevant periods under the Statute of Limitations but it does address the majority of them. At the end of seven years, any contractual claims against real property will have been defeated, albeit that claims by mortgagees and other claims against real property will not have been defeated in that time. In drawing up the seven-year time limit, a view was taken that the Oireachtas was entitled to strike a balance. It was a balance that had to be carefully considered in light of constitutional considerations. Seven years was settled on as a defensible period of time. That is why that is written into the legislation. In fact, we have taken the pain of that now because the seven-year period is passing and funds will be coming into the Exchequer, although with no great regularity or predictability, depending on the success of the operations of the Criminal Assets Bureau.

Senator Tuffy referred to the Carline project, a very worthy endeavour in her constituency. In talking about services that are provided to young persons, it is important to distinguish carefully from where the referrals are coming. Are they coming from schools in the context of children who are not getting all they should from the education system and where an alternative is required? In that case, the referral is essentially educationally based and funding should come from the Department of Education and Science. I understand that the project to which Senator Tuffy referred does receive such funding from the Department of Education and Science. On the other hand, are the referrals coming from social workers engaged in health board care work, where particular persons are seen to be at risk and vulnerable in their family settings? They may require community supports which might include the type of support or services provided by Carline, in which case funding should be earmarked from the health boards.

As regards the justice system, however, it is not enough to make a generalised appeal to prevent crime. People must be referred to such a service from the probation service or from the juvenile liaison officer at an earlier stage or, ultimately, from the courts. I agree with the Senator that there is merit in that. One of the difficulties in funding organisations such as Carline has been an insufficient funding base in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. If there is to be such a funding base, it must be carefully laid down under the Children Act where we are going, what particular service is being provided and how it helps a group that is at risk of offending.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has established a departmental taskforce or project team on youth justice to examine how the scope for rationalising the delivery of services under the Children Act 2001, which provides a modern statutory framework for a youth justice system, can be improved. Submissions were invited, the deadline for receipt of which was last Friday. The purpose of the taskforce is to make decisions. The submissions are currently being examined in the Department and a definite conclusion will be drawn from them. I will also look into the issue raised by the Senator concerning the immediate funding requirements of Carline. In fact, I have already been engaged in that.

To return to Senator Brian Hayes's general points on this issue, the Exchequer is not a black hole. At this time of year when we are engaged in the great operations of raising income and expending money, we know that very well. The Exchequer is a place to which people are reluctant to commit and on which substantial demands are made. That there is one central Exchequer fund enables any Government to determine where its priorities are. There is a case to be made that needlessly earmarking excessive funds can lead to a distortion of priorities. The funds available from this will be committed to the Exchequer and I have no doubt they will be applied for good purposes.