Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I am grateful to his officials for engaging with me on this issue and indicating they would engage with the CAB on this amendment. The Minister of State said they had done so.

We support the Bill absolutely. On Second Stage we all expressed our strong condemnation of the dreadful events of recent weeks and months, the shootings and the extent to which organised crime had permeated different communities. It goes without saying we want to support the efforts of law enforcement agencies in tackling organised crime, in particular through the mechanisms for the seizing of the proceeds of crime.However, there are people who will be affected by this legislation who may not themselves be directly engaged in criminal activity. Clearly, everyone has a right to be deemed innocent. Subsection 1B states: "A person who has possession or control of property which is the subject of an authorisation, or who is affected by an authorisation...". I believe that acknowledges there may be entirely innocent parties who are unwittingly caught up in this. I gave a hypothetical scenario on Second Stage of a business owner whose premises is being used unknown to the owner in order to store proceeds of crime. CAB may, in good faith, as it is entitled to do, go in and freeze those assets for 21 days under this legislation but that may have a hugely adverse affect on somebody who is running a legitimate business, the premises of which happen to be used in this way. Given that somebody in such a situation will have to go to the High Court, with all the additional legal costs that may entail, I question whether that is a sufficient remedy in this scenario.

There is currently High Court supervision first, so the High Court first sees whether goods can be seized. The point we are making is that we want to ensure there is a sufficient safeguard and that the 21 days will not automatically run without some sort of scrutiny at some point. It is important the legislation is robust enough to withstand challenge.

I agree with the Minister there has been extensive litigation and challenges to the 1996 Act precisely because it was such a departure from our normal due process rules, and the courts have acknowledged this, while upholding the legislation. As the Minister said earlier in the debate, as a result we have this very finely crafted balancing exercise in the 1996 Act to ensure it withstands all the challenges that come to it. I want to make sure this amending Bill, with its very significant expansion of powers for CAB officers, will fit within that constitutional framework and not be found to tip the balance in any way.