Catherine Byrne (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 340: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the way in which funds accrued through the Criminal Assets Bureau are channelled into disadvantaged communities; if community projects may apply for funds from the Criminal Assets Bureau to use for the benefit of people in their community; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43057/09]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue of the monies seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau being used to fund community projects and drug services in disadvantaged urban communities is one which is raised on a periodical basis.

This is primarily a matter for the Department of Finance and the view on this issue is that while it is accepted that there may be some potential symbolic value in the idea that the suggestion is one which is problematic and raises a number of particular difficulties including as follows.

Firstly the Constitution requires and Government accounting principles provide that public monies be spent only as voted or approved by Dáil Éireann unless otherwise provided by statute.

A policy of ringfencing monies obtained by the Exchequer and the reallocation of same for a specific purpose, sometimes described as the hypothecation of revenue, would run contrary to the normal Estimates process.

Under this process, revenue which has been accumulated by the Criminal Assets Bureau is paid into the Government's Central Fund. It is this Central Fund from which the Government draws for expenditure on all necessary public services and investment including the provision of drug services.

While allowing for a very small number of very specific targeted exceptions, it is believed that earmarking revenues for a specific expenditure programme would, in general, constrain the Government in the implementation of its overall expenditure policy.

It could also be argued that a significant proportion of the monies secured by the Bureau are already owed to the Exchequer as it often relates to non-payment of taxes and social welfare fraud.

In the case of drugs services the Government is already allocating very considerable resources to a wide range of Government Departments and State Agencies as well as to the Community and Voluntary treatment sectors to tackle the issue of drug misuse. There are also very practical difficulties with the proposal as the variable and uncertain nature of the value of the assets seized by the Bureau in any given year in addition to the potential delays through the possibility of legal challenge to court disposal orders is problematic in terms of the provision of ongoing fund to drugs programmes or projects. Such a revenue source would not facilitate the proper planning of drug treatment provision or other such programmes by organisations involved in the delivery of services.

There is also the problem of additional costs which would accrue in the administration of any scheme to divert CAB funds to community programmes. It would mean additional administrative costs without any additional revenues being generated.