Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 21 March 2012
410 Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the amount of money transferred to the State from the Criminal Assets Bureau in 2009, 2010 and 2011; if these funds are retained or ring-fenced for a particular purpose; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14981/12]
View answerIn accordance with the provisions of section 21 of the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 an annual report on the activities of the Criminal Assets Bureau is prepared and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Included in such reports are details of the monies returned by the Bureau for the benefit of the Exchequer.
Set out below is the information sought by the Deputy in respect of the years 2009 and 2010. Work is currently underway on the preparation of the 2011 report.
|
Year |
Proceeds of Crime Act,1996/2005 |
Revenue Legislation |
Social Welfare Provisions |
Total |
|
€ |
€ |
€ |
€ |
|
|
2009 |
1,421,332.11 |
5,100,494.72 |
160,335.00 |
6,682,161.83 |
|
2010 |
3,114,312.59 |
4,084,498.00 |
181,272.00 |
7,380,082.59 |
|
Total |
4,535,644.70 |
9,184,992.72 |
341,607.00 |
14,062,244.42 |
Monies to be returned to the Exchequer by the Bureau are not ringfenced for any particular purpose. Such funds are 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.
From time to time, it has been suggested that such monies should be used to fund community programmes. While it is accepted that there may be some symbolic value in the suggestion, it is problematic and raises a number of practical difficulties.
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.
Also, given 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, the proposal would be problematic in terms of the proper planning of any recipient programme.
There is also the problem of additional costs which would accrue in the administration of any scheme to divert such funds to local programmes and additional administrative costs without any additional revenues being generated.
