Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 Oct 2003

Vol. 572 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 2003: Second Stage.

Mr. O'Dowd

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

A great deal of suffering and hardship has been inflicted on both rural and urban communities throughout the country as a result of the activities of criminals engaged in the importation, distribution and sale of drugs. The Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 was introduced to provide for the civil forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. It is an excellent Act which has been used extensively and successfully against criminals. Despite the large sums of money seized from these criminals in recent years the money or assets must be held for seven years and must then go directly to the central Exchequer, which means that neither of these has been directly applied to redressing the problems created by those engaged in the massive drugs problem.

The purpose of this Bill is to redress some difficulties regarding the retention and expenditure of the proceeds of crime which accrue under the 1996 Act. It is to be effected by making three minor textual amendments to that Act. The Bill proposes to insert a new definition into the section of the Act of 1996 to introduce a definition of drug-related initiatives. The insertion of this definition enables the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to ensure that the proceeds of crime seized by CAB are applied to appropriate organisations and initiatives which are focused on redressing the damage caused by those engaged in drug-related activities.

This Bill seeks to amend section 4(1) of the Act by reducing the waiting period from seven years to three years, but only if the orders of the courts allow it to happen. The funds would be transferred after three years to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Those who work full-time in the disadvantaged areas of Dublin city dealing with the drugs problem recommended to me that Fine Gael take the initiative in this matter to ensure that the proceeds of crime are spent in the areas most affected by the criminal gangs.

There are precedents regarding the ring-fencing of moneys. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has ring-fenced the moneys raised by the plastic bag levy to be used for environmental purposes. There are proposals for a tax on ATM receipts, chewing gum and fast food packaging, ensuring that these moneys do not go to the Exchequer but rather into an environmental fund.

Fine Gael argues that the proceeds of crime must be used to tackle crime rather than being used to fund administrative costs no matter how worthy or small. Theoretically moneys from the proceeds of crime could end up filling potholes in west Cork or County Louth. Fine Gael proposes that the money be spent in the communities where the damage has been done. The State has also ring-fenced moneys from the dormant funds account for use in voluntary and community projects. The Spanish government has published a new law which enables the assets from trafficking and other drug-related crimes to be held in a public fund which feeds a variety of organisations working in the drugs field.

The Sunday Tribune of 19 October contained a significant article which concerned me greatly. It stated, “New waves of criminals get trigger-happy”. The article stated that the Garda Síochána believes a new wave of younger, undisciplined and brutal criminals is struggling for control of the capital's drugs trade and supplying lethal firearms free on the streets. When I telephoned the Garda press office today, I was informed that the number of people who have died as a result of violence this year is 47. The article in The Sunday Tribune stated that 19 people have died this year in the State as a result of shotgun or bullet wounds. A serious and significant problem exists. Fine Gael proposes that the communities should be supported in their fight and disadvantage in those areas should be dealt with.

I praise CAB for its work. This year it has seized assets worth over €44 million. It has been very successful and efficient in its operation and its staff are committed to the task. Next year will be the first year in which the moneys collected by CAB will be made available to the communities concerned. The equestrian centre in County Kildare owned by Mr. John Gilligan will be sold next year and it is valued at between €3 million and €4 million. That money would make a significant difference to the communities in Dublin that have suffered most at his hands.

Statistics relating to the amount of drugs seized in the State in the last year give some idea of the scale of the problem, the money being made by the criminals and the problems suffered by young people who are drug users. Cannabis and cannabis resin worth over €31 million were seized. Over €5.6 million worth of heroin was seized. There were 469,862 tablets of ecstasy seized with a value of over €7.1 million. Over €0.5 million worth of cocaine was seized. It is a serious and significant problem which must be addressed.

Over 50% of Irish prisoners are drug users. This compares with England and Wales where the rate of drug use among prisoners is between 15% and 30%. In addition to the problems of drugs misuse in Irish prisons, the prevalence of HIV and hepatitis C among prisoners is also a worrying feature. It is estimated that upwards of 90% of prisoners in Ireland are sufferers compared to between 30% and 40% of that population in Britain.

A sociological and criminological profile of prisoners in Mountjoy Prison carried out in 1997 found that the majority of prisoners from Dublin came from areas characterised by a high proportion of corporation housing and by the prevalence of opiate drug abuse and high levels of long-term unemployment. Of the 99 Dublin-based prisoners questioned, only six came from mixed housing or middle class areas. The greatest concentration by far was in two areas of the inner city, Dublin 1, from Sheriff Street to Summerhill and Dublin 8, from Oliver Bond flats complex to Fatima Mansions. Further areas were also identified such as Dublin 7, Clondalkin, Coolock and Finglas. In Mountjoy Prison, 86% of the prisoners left school before the age of 16 years; 33% had not been educated beyond primary level; only 25% had sat a State examination; 88% had been unemployed before imprisonment; 30% claimed never to have had a job.

Fine Gael believes the national drugs strategy has not been adequately funded. The Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, has debated the issue in the House and Fine Gael has pointed out the inadequacies in the strategy. There are 15,000 heroin addicts in Dublin of whom half are in treatment. The problem is the numbers who are in treatment are all on methadone. More investment is required in an effort to wean them off methadone and place them back in the community and into worthwhile activities so that they can be reintegrated. At present it is almost as if the State is subsidising methadone use and it is rare for the users to come off it. The money from CAB seizures should be particularly directed at people such as these. Money should be used to deal with people who are likely to end up in Mountjoy Prison. We should invest heavily in the six areas of Dublin which have been identified. I accept that the Government is putting money in these areas but we need to put in a great deal more. It makes sense to ring-fence the money that the drug barons are making.

Health board cutbacks of between 7% and 9% have been implemented and no money is in place for new services. Community and voluntary groups are crying out for more investment as they require additional funding to run their programmes. They do not have any problem getting people to work on these programmes but funding is not there to pay for the full-time workers who are needed.

Investment is required in many other areas such as that of educational disadvantage. The Minister for Education and Science said in The Irish Times on 25 March that some 800 children a year do not attend schools beyond primary level and some 19% of secondary school children do not go on to complete the leaving certificate. In spite of that, one of the first actions of the Government on re-election was to cut Department of Education and Science expenditure by €36 million. Over €6 million was cut from initiatives designed to reduce the school drop-out rate, while €5 million was cut from programmes which helped disadvantaged school leavers access third level education. The problem needs to be addressed in a more focused way.

We have to seek out those in communities who are yet unconvicted of involvement in the criminal area and encourage them to stay longer in school. When my colleague, Deputy Richard Bruton, was Fine Gael spokesman on education he called for income support to keep young people in school. His proposal was that the families of such young people should receive a payment to support and keep them out of trouble. This money could be spent on such an initiative.

This is an important Bill. It is not coming out of the air but from the plain people of Dublin who have told us that we must do something about the problem. It is right and proper that the proceeds of crime do not go into the Exchequer and get washed away but are specifically ring-fenced for those communities who have suffered most at the hands of the drug barons.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I thank Deputy O'Dowd for introducing this Bill and for agreeing to share time. The Bill is timely and gives us an opportunity to address an important issue. The proposals to reduce the timescale for the release of funds from seven to three years and to ring-fence the expenditure of the funds so raised in areas of great need commend themselves to the House.

Five areas in Dublin have been identified as suffering greatly, not just in regard to the drugs problem, but generally as areas that are greatly disadvantaged. I do not see why, when we raise funds from people who have preyed on those communities, these funds should then be generally available to people in Foxrock or anywhere else. There is a case to be made for ring-fencing the funds and spending them in the areas in which they were collected.

I heard on the radio this morning that the French Government has added 20 cent to a packet of cigarettes. It has decided to ring-fence this money and add another 20 cent on 1 January next year which will also be ring-fenced. The intention is that the money will be spent specifically on health. There is a trend in this regard in Ireland and Europe. While I do not think all taxes should be ring-fenced, a specific case can be made here. There is a direct relationship between the areas which are most preyed upon and those in most need. If resources are taken back from criminals who have preyed on particular communities, these are the areas in which the funding should be invested.

Deputy O'Dowd referred to a recent visit he made to a part of my constituency in Dublin 8. From what he witnessed and from what I hear on the ground, I fear we are on the verge of a major cocaine epidemic. I suspect that cocaine is being sold at a low price in order to get a market and then the price will be increased. In an effort to convince me of what is happening, a man in the inner city insisted that he could secure a line of cocaine for me in an hour.

I understand that pubs and nightclubs in the city now put grease or oil on top of toilet cisterns to stop people snorting cocaine. Incidentally, not all of the people involved in this practice come from deprived areas. In many cases people who indulge in this habit are well-tanked up on alcohol. Evil people are deliberately creating a market for this drug and the problem will hit us in a short time in the same way as the heroin epidemic appeared to come from nowhere in the early 1980s. We should brace ourselves and put in place specific plans to deal with this problem.

The State is incapable of dealing with these problems on its own. We have a problem with alcohol and our level of drug abuse is at least on a par with that in Europe. The report that came out today queries the UN report which placed levels of drug abuse here as being ahead of the rest of Europe. As an island people we should be able to prevent drugs reaching the market here in such quantity.

Why are young people in particular turning to alcohol and drugs? Why are they turning to cocaine? Why is the suicide rate so high in Ireland? Why have despair and consumerism become so prevalent? I believe the declining influence of the church is a factor. The State should put its hands up and say it cannot handle this problem on its own and that it needs the assistance of others. There is a golden opportunity for the State to approach the church, which is currently looking for renewal and rebirth. Many priests and nuns are working in the inner city and the most difficult parts of my constituency, often without any decent holidays, on little or no income and for little or no recognition. They are playing an important role in the community. In many cases, they are keeping communities together and encouraging organisations. They feel they are no longer wanted as there is little encouragement for them. We still need them. Man does not live by bread alone.

Many people who turn to drugs and alcohol do so because they have lost all sense of spiritual leadership. The State does not need to get involved in the business of running churches or anything of that kind. I do not speak of any particular church either. I agree that a separation should exist, but being separate does not mean that the church and State cannot co-operate. There is a need for greater co-operation in communities between church and State. The State should reach out to the churches and ask what they can do together to turn this around because both are concerned about the same problem.

The lack of facilities for young people in their communities is a problem. Everything starts or ends with a drink. People have to go for a drink before going to a party. After a football match everyone goes for a drink. We have a drink culture where inebriation is acceptable. There is a perceived need for escape. That the hard man or woman is someone who can hold his or her liquor and, increasingly, his or her drugs is an issue which needs to be addressed.

I spoke recently to a taxi driver from Dublin's inner city who had returned from Australia. His 23 year old son had just gone back there because he was interested in sport. While he liked a drink like anyone else – and anyone who has been to Australia knows people there take a drink – he found that everything here started and ended with alcohol.

The communities under discussion are ones in which very few people can afford to join a golf club, which in Dublin can cost from €15,000 if you can find a club that will take you. They cannot afford to participate in skiing holidays but depend on community facilities which are not in place. If funds were ring-fenced to be spent in the areas of greatest need, as suggested in Deputy O'Dowd's Bill, we might be able to provide high quality facilities which would divert people's energies from the bad influences to which many fall victim.

Of Mountjoy Prison's inmates, 75% come from five identifiable areas of Dublin. Deputy O'Dowd has already sketched for the House the educational and family backgrounds of many of them. While we should not be easy on crime or criminals, we should be hard on the causes of crime. According to the 2003 report of the National Advisory Committee on Drugs, there are an estimated 14,450 heroin users, of whom 12,456 reside in the Dublin area. I guarantee the House that the vast majority of that 12,456 come from the same five identifiable areas as that prison population. Given that correlation, we must begin to think about what we need to invest in these areas to divert people's energies in terms of money, time and thought. We must find out what partnerships we have to make, what networks we need to operate and what church and State can achieve together in these communities. If we are to renew our thinking in this area, we must consider the two proposals put forward in the Bill presented by Deputy O'Dowd and Fine Gael.

I am probably in a small minority of Members in my belief that it is time to consider giving votes to prisoners. Members of this House are supposed to present and exchange ideas for debate, criticism and examination but there is far too much consensus at the moment. It appears to be considered strange if a Member expresses a view that no one else has thought of, yet that is what this House is about. It might not be possible to give all prisoners the vote. While I would find it difficult to provide it to some of those who recently received long sentences, it should be possible to give the vote to prisoners approaching the last few years of their terms.

By putting people in prison we are creating a subculture which continues when they are released. High rates of recidivism mean that prisoners are being recycled. In effect, we have told prisoners that they do not even have a vote and are therefore no longer members of society. That tells them they have rights but no responsibilities whereas we should tell them that while they are part of the problem, we want to make them part of the solution. If they contribute to the solution they should be part of society. We should allow and expect prisoners to vote.

I am not suggesting that we should cross the floor of the Chamber to write laws to suit prisoners. I agree absolutely that our sympathy must be with the victims. We should, however, take an interest in what is happening in prisons and ask why they have become factories which recycle criminals. When they are released more victims are created. By relieving prisoners of any requirement to contribute to the rebuilding of society, we have taken from them a civic duty. We should require of them to exercise that duty where they can, which is what electronic and postal voting provide us with an opportunity to do. Prisoners need not vote in the constituency of the prison but in their last place of residence. We must think of something different to put prison reform on the agenda. I hope that by putting forward this idea, I have stimulated somebody somewhere to oppose or support it or to explain what we need to do to stop simply recycling prisoners who continue to victimise innocent people.

Mr. English

As someone who has just returned from there, I agree with the comments Deputy Gay Mitchell made in relation to Australia.

Mr. F. McGrath

Did the Deputy score?

Mr. English

On the pitch. Though Deputies may mock me for visiting Australia, there is a great deal we can learn from that country as I found out. The approach to alcohol and drugs is much more controlled there. While one can have a pint of beer at a match there, that is not the reason one goes. We can also learn from the Australian laws on opening hours. The root of the problem with drink and drugs is often excess energy which is a problem the Australians do not have. They do not have time to spare as there is always something to do, a state of affairs we do not have here. Perhaps we have not done enough over the last few years. Prior to that ours was a growing country. We must realise that money should be spent to provide other activities to which people can devote their energies.

The Bill before the House represents the most common-sense legislation which will come before Members during this session and, as such, it should be supported. The best legislation is rooted in common sense but much of the work of this House ceased long ago to make any sense to anybody, especially me. Though the Government's paranoid control of power and the use of a three-line Whip will ensure that this Bill will fall like so many Private Members' Bills before it, I live in hope. Many fine Bills have come before the House, including that brought forward on balances and securities by my constituency colleague, former Deputy Farrelly, in 1999 but they failed to receive support. The legislation is then repackaged and returned to the House three years later. The Bill before the House tonight will probably be put aside only to come back in a year or two when it is too late. I ask that the Bill be supported on its merits rather than on the basis of which party proposed it. What could possibly be wrong with the Government supporting the Opposition for a change? We have done it in the past, which is why Government Members should consider voting in support of this legislation.

It is often remarked by the people in the street that when it comes to voting here Deputies are like sheep or goats who are corralled by people with large sticks to benefit their parties. This Bill represents an opportunity to show we are not like that. We can think and vote for something that is right. If this House worked properly and efficiently, bright Deputies like my colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, who worked tirelessly on this legislation, could go about the business of drafting more such Bills happy in the knowledge that they stood some chance. Change is needed and I hope it happens sooner rather than later. The people want it. If we are to see the benefit on the ground, we must change the way we vote in many cases to speed things up.

It is interesting to see that Deputy Noel Ahern, the Minister of State with responsibility for the national drug strategy, supports the idea of ring-fencing CAB moneys, as he stated in a speech to Senators. It is difficult to convince the Minister for Finance and others to adopt this approach to such funds. As the Minister of State says he will accept any help offered to convince the Minister, I will be watching to see how he and his backbench colleagues vote on this Bill before us. The victims of crime should reap the benefits, if that word can be used in relation to the proceeds of crime.

Even if this Bill is passed, Members should not think they have done a good day's work. Using this money to address the drugs problem would only be a start. Drugs are being peddled on the streets of our towns and villages, huge sums of money are being generated and total misery is being visited on families and society. This can be seen on a daily basis on the streets of all our cities and towns as well as in rural areas. The miserable few euro the State gets its hands on will not solve the problem but it is worth establishing as a right the principle that the victim of a crime should be the one to benefit. This money must be used to address the drugs problem. There is no case for using it elsewhere because if there was no drugs problem, there would be no money in the first instance.

For far too long there has been a perception among the public that as long as they are of benefit to the State through taxes or windfalls, the law of this country looks slightly differently at issues such as under age drinking, cigarette sales to the young and flouting of the licensing laws. This perception must change for the good of society and the law of this country. While it is not directly related to the Bill, people who are able to avail of the poor box option in court are still guilty of something, but it is perceived as if their crime is somewhat less serious. That crime could be simply done away with or forgotten about because of a monetary contribution. This is another area which must change.

This Bill goes a long way towards clearly indicating that the State itself should not benefit from the proceeds of drugs or crime, despite the fact that the justice system costs a fortune. It was not the intention of the original Bill, but do Members not find it somewhat perverse that this money which is stained by misery and blood could be used to shore up the Exchequer for the day-to-day running of the country? I am aware it is a small amount in percentage terms, which hardly registers when it comes to overall day-to-day expenditure. The point is, however, that crime money is bad money and should not be used to correct the problem.

I appeal to the Minister to accept the Bill in order that the drugs problem can be tackled.

Mr. Stanton

I commend Deputy O'Dowd for introducing this extremely timely Bill in a week in which two reports were published, which indicated that there is a crisis regarding drugs. The United Nations report was particularly alarming. It stated that we are world leaders in the usage of illegal drugs and the later Government-backed report was not much more comforting. I am pleased the Minister is present and I hope he will go back to Cabinet and impress on his colleagues that there is a major drugs crisis in this country.

Many of us who have young children are very worried. The culture of drugs misuse is absolutely frightening and the Government has done very little about it. Through its actions and inaction, the Government has made matters worse. Housing estates consisting of hundreds of houses have been built but no facilities have been provided. Developers have been making millions of euro on these estates but have provided no community centres, playing fields or youth clubs. What are teenagers and young people to do? They will just hang around the streets where they are preyed on by drug pushers and people who make a fortune from them. The CAB must be commended for the work it is doing and for getting its hands on this illegal money and we are calling on the Government to use this money in a positive way to combat the drugs issue.

I wish to highlight one area in which I am interested, namely, youth work and the youth service. I contend that we have no youth service in this country. Earlier this year, a number of experts in this area attended the Joint Committee on Education and Science. A representative from the Department said that the Minister for State with responsibility for youth affairs was anxious to have funding provided in the 2003 Estimates for the implementation of the youth work plan but, unfortunately, this did not happen. The chairman of the NYWA committee said the committee is aware of the ongoing efforts of the Minister to secure funding for the further roll-out of the provisions of the Youth Work Act. The chairman of the IVEA said that a meaningful resourcing plan for vocational education committees is required from the Department. Without that there can be little progress towards real local development youth work, as envisaged in the Act. No funding has been provided in either case.

A representative from the National Youth Council said that there is a growing sense of disillusion, frustration and anxiety within NYCI and its member organisations and that the Youth Work Act 2001 heralded yet another false dawn for youth work. The reasons for that are clear. We anticipated additional funding to develop youth work at local level. Instead, youth affairs has received a 1% increase for 2003. This represents a decrease in current funding of approximately 4%. Without the allocation of additional funding there will be cuts in existing levels of services to more than 500,000 young people involved in youth organisations and thousands of disadvantaged young people in targeted initiatives, supported by 40,000 voluntary youth leaders and more than 1,000 youth workers. The inaction of the Government has made matters worse where youth services are concerned because people have become disillusioned and have lost heart. The Government has failed and abandoned the young people of Ireland and it is time it made available resources to youth services and youth work instead of cutting back.

The vocational education committees requested €2.71 million this year to enable them to carry out their statutory functions under the Youth Work Act. They received €12,000. I have great sympathy for the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera. She is trying to implement the Act's provisions but her Cabinet colleagues cannot see beyond their noses. They cannot see past their mercs and are failing the youth of this country, which is a disgrace. The Minister opposite is pragmatic and I call on him tonight to go back to his Cabinet colleagues and impress on them the importance of making money available to youth services and youth work, money which is available because of the CAB. I ask the Minister to accept this Bill which will do a lot of good.

Mr. Durkan

I compliment my colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, on introducing this Bill. It is a thoughtful response to one of the issues which has affected our society for a considerable time. Given that the amount of money being made by those involved in illicit peddling of drugs is ever increasing and that the Criminal Assets Bureau is becoming more and more successful, it is time to try to redirect the ill-gotten gains of these drug barons back into the communities they have decimated. It is time the Members of this House, and society in general, recognised the wisdom of what was intended to try to address the issue at the most local level possible. We must try to pinpoint the areas that have suffered most, where drug barons have been running amuck for years. It appears that there are 17 organised crime gangs in the greater Dublin area. Imagine the damage done to the communities at large by these gangs.

If we are serious about tackling the problem, there is no point just throwing up our hands and saying something should be done about it. Deputy O'Dowd's Bill is an attempt to address the issue. It proposes to redirect the forces of evil to make recompense to the societies they have decimated – it is as simple as that. It should and must work. If it does not, this problem will become more and more serious. There is no better way to punish those who are doing this damage to society than to take the money from them, including interest and penalties, as the Criminal Assets Bureau is doing, and hand it back directly to the societies that have been worse affected by the atrocities perpetrated against them by the drug barons.

If we cannot arrange for this to happen, then we cannot win. Once the Criminal Assets Bureau's confiscations go into the greater taxation pot and disappear into oblivion, it will be impossible to say to local communities affected by the activities of these drug barons that this is how they were offended and this is what the recompense will be. The degree to which Deputy O'Dowd has examined and analysed the issue is to be commended. For far too long in this House, there have been ready reckoner responses to serious issues. This is not a ready reckoner or a packaged solution, it is a well thought-out solution. I strongly urge the Minister and his colleagues to consider it carefully in an effort to throw a lifeline to those in society who have been worst affected by the atrocities committed by those involved in drug peddling who make large amounts of money from their activities.

It irritates those who try to turn the tide when they see these guys on far-off sun-soaked beaches enjoying themselves and playing hard to get throughout the EU. It would help tremendously if the Government were to take this matter on board and do something specific about it. It would be good for society and particularly for those who are directly affected by the people concerned.

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

Gabhaim buíochas le Fine Gael as ucht an Bhille seo a chur os comhair na Dála, go háirithe leis an Teachta O'Dowd as an obair dhícheallach a rinne sé ina thaobh. Cé nach n-aontaíonn an Rialtas le gach atá ráite aige, tá sé oiriúnach go mbeadh seans ag an Teach seo díospóireacht a dhéanamh ar chúrsaí a bhaineann le drugaí.

I apologise for the absence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, to debate the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 2003. Deputies will understand that events elsewhere today require his presence.

The Government opposes the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 2003. In saying so I do not wish to imply criticism of the motivations behind the proposals contained in it – far from it. Apart from the fact that much of the proceeds of crime may not be related primarily to the drugs area, there is probably a much more fundamental matter relating to why funds raised in particular areas are not dedicated specifically to the purpose of dealing with that precise area.

I have some sympathy for Deputy O'Dowd and his colleagues, Deputies Stanton, English and Gay Mitchell in tabling the Bill and the earnestness with which they pursued it. However, they will appreciate, for example, that old age pensions, education, health and so on are provided by the State and have to be funded by resources raised from taxation and other ways. If one were to designate specifically funds raised in a particular area there is a host of services which would have no way of competing, some of which I have just mentioned.

The Government is determined to fight the evils of drug dealing and drug misuse and to reduce the harm which these activities inflict on individuals, families and entire communities. The Government aims to do this by addressing the areas of supply reduction, prevention, treatment and research as set out in the national drug strategy about which I will speak later.

Further evidence, if it were needed, of the need for continued efforts in this fight is contained in the results of the study released yesterday on the prevalence of drug use on this island. This study, the first of its nature carried out on an all-island basis, was commissioned jointly by the National Advisory Committee on Drugs in this jurisdiction and the Drug and Alcohol Information and Research Unit in Northern Ireland. While it placed Ireland, relative to other European states, somewhere in the middle of the table in relation to drug use, it reminded us all, as the chairperson of the NACD said, that we need to continue our work to target drug users and encourage them away from drug misuse.

The Government opposes this Bill primarily on the grounds that there is a Bill currently before the House, the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 1999, which is at a more advanced stage and which would be a more appropriate context in which to submit and debate proposed amendments to the main Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. To remind Deputies of progress on the 1999 Bill, the Government had approved the drafting of the Bill to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 in a number of technical respects, arising from the experience of the Criminal Assets Bureau in operating the Act.

The main provisions of the Bill as published include provision to enable the Criminal Assets Bureau to make applications under the Act in its own name, as opposed to a member of the Garda Síochána of at least chief superintendent rank or an authorised official of the Revenue Commissioners, as at present, and for any document issued by the bureau to be accepted as authentic, unless the contrary is shown; clarification that the details of property and income, as well as the sources of that income, which a respondent is required to reveal to a court may not be used in evidence in any criminal proceedings against either the respondent or a spouse; removal of any doubt there may be over when a person may be said to be in possession or control of property for the purposes of the Act, even when it has been seized from the person by the Garda Síochána; and changes to the 1996 Act regarding such matters as the submission of evidence under the Act, and the variation of freezing orders for certain purposes, such as the enforcement of taxes or court orders for the recovery of money.

The Second Stage of the Bill was concluded in October 2000 but the Bill was not progressed further pending the outcome of a number of court challenges to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. Following those court cases and recent consultations with the Criminal Assets Bureau, a number of additional proposals for inclusion in the Bill are now being proposed as official amend ments to the Bill on Committee Stage. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has obtained the approval of the Government to draft amendments for inclusion in the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 1999, currently on Committee Stage in the Dáil, and to move the amendments after they have been drafted in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

I would like, on behalf of the Minister, to inform the House of these proposed amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 1999. On Committee Stage, these proposals can be debated fully and, as I have stated earlier, the opportunity for further proposals for amendments can be afforded to the House.

There are 18 proposed amendments in total in two Parts. The amendments in the first Part, some of which give statutory effect to decisions of the courts, deal with the enhancment of provisions of the 1996 Act. The amendments in the second Part arise following publication of the Second Interim Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, the Flood report, in September 2002. At that time, consideration was given to setting up a separate corruption assets bureau, along the lines of the Criminal Assets Bureau. However, after further consideration of this proposal and following consultations with the Office of the Attorney General, it is considered that a separate corruption bureau is not required and that the existing activities of the Criminal Assets Bureau in the fight against corruption could best be bolstered by the inclusion of additional amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Bill.

Head 1 of the proposed amendments is to provide that the definition of "proceeds of crime" in section 1 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 be amended to include any property obtained or received at any time through criminal conduct of one of a number of kinds, each of which would be an offence, rather than just by or as a result of or in connection with the commission of one particular offence. "Proceeds of crime" is defined in the original Act as "any property obtained or received at any time (whether before or after the passing of this Act) by or as a result of or in connection with the commission of an offence".

The Criminal Assets Bureau seeks an amendment to this definition to indicate that it is not necessary to show that the conduct was of a particular kind of criminality if it is shown that the property was obtained through conduct of one of a number of kinds, each of which would be an offence. For example, where it is impossible to say funds are derived from a particular kind of criminality, say, drug-dealing, money-laundering, extortion or prostitution, when on the balance of probabilities it is from one or some or all of these, it would suffice to show that the property was obtained through conduct of one of a number of kinds, each of which is an offence.

The wording of the amendment is based on provisions contained in the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Part 5 of that Act enables recovery in civil proceedings of property which is or represents "property obtained through unlawful conduct" for which the Act goes on to provide that it is sufficient if it is shown that the property was obtained through conduct of one of a number of kinds, each of which would have been unlawful conduct.

Head 2 inserts, into the definition of "the respondent" in section 1 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, the phrase "wherever domiciled, resident or present" in regard to a person in respect of whom an application for an interim order has been made or in respect of whom such an order has been made and includes any person who, but for the Act, would become entitled, on the death of the first mentioned person, to any property to which such an order relates, being an order that is in force and is in respect of that person. This amendment is based on the decision in McKenna v. EH, High Court, 18 July 2001, in which Finnegan J. held that it was the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the Oireachtas. In this case the judge was satisfied that that intention was that persons outside the jurisdiction with assets inside the jurisdiction which represent the proceeds of crime should be subject to the procedures of the Act. Accordingly, he refused to set aside the order giving liberty to the plaintiff to serve notice of the plenary summons outside the jurisdiction. This issue was also referred to in McKenna v. M. & ors, High Court, 12 February 2003. The addition to the definition is based on wording used in section 243 of the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Head 3 deals with the issue of extraterritoriality and provides that the following section be inserted in the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996:

The provisions of this Act shall have effect (i) to pursue proceeds of crime in the State where the person concerned is in another state [or territory] or (ii) to pursue proceeds of crime in another state [or territory] where the individual is in the State, regardless of where the crime has been committed.

The issue of extraterritoriality has been considered in a number of cases. In DPP v. Hollmann, High Court, 29 July 1999, O'Higgins J. held that the Act could be applied to pursue the proceeds of crime in this jurisdiction where the offence was committed abroad. This was upheld by Finnegan J. in McKenna v. EH, High Court, 18 July 2001, and McKenna v. M & ors, High Court, 12 February 2003. Following these decisions this provision ensures Irish courts (i) have jurisdiction over cases where the person and or the proceeds are within the jurisdiction, even if the crimes or some of them are committed abroad, and (ii) can appoint a receiver over assets abroad.

Heads 4 and 5 amend section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 to enable a section 3, interlocutory, order to be obtained in a summary manner and ensure rules of court may be applied. The purpose of providing that section 3, interlocutory, orders are obtained "in a summary manner" is to ensure a special summons procedure and that, as a result, defendants will be obliged to respond to proceedings on affidavit and so avoid the need for particulars and discovery at an early stage in the process. The need for this amendment was highlighted in the Supreme Court case, FK v AF and JF, 102/01, 30 January 2002, which decided that in the absence of any legislative provision to the contrary proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act must be commenced by plenary summons.

Head 6 introduces the concept of a "Consent disposal order" whereby the court may make an order, on application to it by consent of all of the parties, directing that the whole or, if appropriate, a specified part of the property be transferred, subject to such terms and conditions as the court may specify, to the Minister for Finance or such other person as the court may determine. The subsequent provisions in relation to a disposal order granted in the normal way would also apply to such consent disposal orders. For example, the respondent is deprived of his or her rights in or to the property, the Minister for Finance may sell or otherwise dispose of the property etc.

Section 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 provides that where property has been the subject of an interlocutory order for a period of seven years, an application may be made to the High Court by the Criminal Assets Bureau for a disposal order whereby the property is transferred to the Minister for Finance. As proposed in the Private Member's Bill under debate, the CAB has sought a proposal whereby the seven year period might be reduced in situations where there is consent by the parties involved and the court is satisfied that no injustice is caused. However, the CAB says that in some cases the individuals concerned want to see final closure on the proceedings and the CAB is of the view that a provision of this type is beneficial for those situations.

Head 7 provides that in any proceedings taken under the 1996 Act, the provisions of section 11(7) of the Statute of Limitations shall not apply. Confusion has arisen in a number of court cases where it has been assumed, incorrectly, that proceeds of crime applications come within the class of action that must be made within two years under section 11(7) of the Statute of Limitations 1957 relating to certain forms of statutory forfeiture. In McK v. H, High Court, 12 April 2002, No. 10531P / 2001, and McKenna v. M & ors, High Court, 12 February 2003, Finnegan J. held that this is not so and this amendment inserts a clarifying section.

Head 8 clarifies section 6(b) of the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 1999, as published, with the insertion of the phrase “under this Act” after the word “proceedings” to make it clear that it is proceedings under the 1996 Proceeds of Crime Act to which reference is made.

As I outlined, Part II of the proposed amendments deals with corruption and the extension of the existing activities of the Criminal Assets Bureau to the fight against corruption. Head 9 provides for the insertion of a new section 13A into the 1996 Act to allow for orders to be made to make material available for civil Proceeds of Crime Act purposes. This section is modelled on section 63 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 and allows a member of the Garda to apply to the court for an order to make material available for the purposes of an investigation into whether a person has benefited from, is in receipt of, or controls proceeds of crime.

The terms "member" and "authorised officer" are defined in the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. Member means a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent and authorised officer means an officer of the Revenue Commissioners authorised in writing by the Revenue Commissioners to perform the functions conferred by the Act on authorised officers.

Head 10 makes provision for powers of search in relation to computers and computerised information while head 11 provides for the insertion of a new section to the 1996 Act dealing with property held in trust. This is a provision to enable a CAB official to apply to the High Court to establish the identity of persons for whom property is held in trust where there is an investigation in relation to whether that person is in receipt of, or controls or has benefited from the proceeds of crime. Heads 12 and 13 are modelled on sections 38 and 39, respectively, of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 and provide for the seizure of bribes by a member of the Garda Síochána and the forfeiture of that bribe by order of a judge of the Circuit Court.

Head 14 applies the provisions of sections 40 – appeal, 41 – interest, 42 – procedure and 45 – disposal, of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 to the new heads 10 and 11 relating to seizure and forfeiture of a bribe. Head 15 amends section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 to allow for seizure and detention of money imported or exported in cash which is suspected to directly or indirectly represent proceeds of any criminal conduct, not just drug trafficking. Head 16 provides for an amendment to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, consequent to the proposed amendment to section 38, to include forfeiture of money imported or exported in cash which is the subject of a section 38, as amended, order.

Head 17 extends the definition of "cash" in section 43 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 to include notes and coins in any currency, postal orders, cheques of any kind, including travellers' cheques, bankers drafts, bearer bonds and bearer shares. Head 18 proposes the replacement of the reference to "criminal activity" in section 4(a) of the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 with “criminal conduct” bringing it into line with a similar amendment in the money-laundering provision, section 31, of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, as amended by section 21 of the Criminal Justice (Theft & Fraud Offences) Act 2001.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform intends to introduce this Bill, with the amendments outlined on Committee Stage, within the next few months and he is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to table amendments to the Act in the context of the debate on this Bill. However, without prejudice to any further debate which may happen in that context, I would offer some views on the substantive proposals contained in the Bill under debate tonight which include the reduction of the waiting time which must be observed before the courts may make an order directing the transfer of property, subject to an interlocutory order under the Act, to the Minister for Finance; and the use of the proceeds accruing from the disposition of the property transferred to drug-related initiatives identified by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

On the first proposal, which I presume is being put forward to facilitate the early implementation of a second on the channelling of funds to drugs initiatives, careful examination of its consequences is required. Such an examination should take place in the context of debate on the full range of amendments proposed in the Government Bill, especially those which I have outlined under Head 6. That head proposes a provision whereby the seven year period might be reduced in situations where there is consent by the parties involved and the court is satisfied that no injustice is caused.

The second proposal deals with what one could call the "ring-fencing" of the proceeds accruing from the disposition of the property transferred to the Minister for Finance for drug-related initiatives. This is not a new idea and has been examined in the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Finance before. A number of points need to be made about this proposal.

First, a policy of ring-fencing moneys obtained by the Exchequer and the reallocation of same for a specific for a specific purpose runs contrary to the normal Estimates process and could have far-reaching implications. The Constitution requires, and Government accounting principles provide, that public moneys be spent only as voted or approved by Dáil Éireann unless otherwise provided by statute. The so-called ear-marking of Government revenues for specific expenditure purposes is generally avoided.

In addition, such a process would add additional layers of bureaucracy to the allocation of funds and would not be justified unless significant and quantifiable added value, in excess of the additional administrative costs, could be shown. Ring-fencing would add nothing to the sums realised for the Exchequer but would absorb resources. It is a fundamental principle that it is a matter for Government, with Oireachtas approval, to determine the optimum allocation of Exchequer receipts in accordance with broadly agreed socio-economic priorities.

To agree to use the revenues generated from the disposition of property transferred to the Minister for Finance under the provisions of the 1996 Act would mean that the treatment of drug victims would be financed, in part at least, by uncertain and variable revenue sources. This would not facilitate the proper planning of treatment provision and programmes by those organisations the funding is proposed to support.

Also, the majority of assets frozen to date under the Act did not derive from the activities of drug dealers and there is no logical link between those assets and drug prevention and treatment programmes. To channel all of those funds to drug initiatives could deprive other areas such as hospitals and schools of resources. One could argue for ring-fencing of receipts if it were seen to be a motivating factor in the generation of higher receipts but there is absolutely no indication that the Criminal Assets Bureau needs any further motivation in carrying out its work. The CAB continues to enjoy considerable success in depriving persons engaged in criminal activity from retaining the proceeds of their nefarious activities.

The figures speak for themselves. In 2002, the bureau obtained interim orders to the value of more than €34 million and interlocutory orders – final restraint orders – to the value of more than €10 million; taxes and interest demanded came to more than €12.8 million, with more than €10 million collected; and, social welfare savings amounted to more than €155,000.

Since its statutory inception in October 1996 to 31 December 2002, the CAB has obtained interim and final restraint orders to the value of more than €48 million and €21 million respectively. In the same period, taxes and interest demanded were in excess of €71 million, with more than €46 million collected. In addition, social welfare savings amounted to more than €1.4 million.

Finally, on this issue of ring-fencing, it is implied in the proposal that drug prevention and treatment initiatives in this State are not being adequately funded and that such a measure is required to source a channel of funds. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Government has a strong and ongoing commitment to tackling social exclusion through the many programmes and initiatives it operates in disadvantaged areas in which tackling drug misuse remains one of the key priorities.

The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs co-ordinates the implementation of the national drugs strategy which was launched in May 2001. The strategy brings together all elements of drugs policy in Ireland into a single framework with responsibilities clearly assigned. It contains 100 separate actions across the four pillars of supply reduction, prevention, treatment and research to be carried out by a range of Departments and agencies. Under each of the four pillars, a series of objectives and key performance indicators is set.

The implementation of the strategy is continuing. Progress is monitored on an ongoing basis through regular meetings of the interdepartmental group on drugs chaired by Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, as well as through six monthly progress reports to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Social Inclusion.

The work being done by the local drugs task forces is another vital element in the ongoing fight against drugs. As many Deputies will be aware, there are 14 local drugs task forces in Dublin, Cork and Bray. The task forces were established in 1997 and include representatives of the statutory, community and voluntary sectors as well as local public representatives, including many Deputies in this House.

These Deputies will be aware of the ongoing valuable work the task forces carry out. The purpose of the task force is, through partnership, to address the service gaps in the area and to co-ordinate existing services. They have made an enormous impact over recent years by means of preparing a local action plan, which includes a range of measures on treatment, rehabilitation, education, prevention and curbing local supply.

The local drugs task forces have been an effective way of delivering services and engaging local communities. They are an excellent example of how Departments, State agencies, front-line workers, communities and politicians can work together in partnership and I commend the commitment and hard work of the many individuals and agencies involved in this process. Most task forces are currently implementing their second round action plans. To date, the two plans have funded approximately 500 local projects.

In monetary terms, since 1997, more than €130 million has been either spent on or allocated to projects in the local drugs task force areas through the two local action plans. Of a total of €65 million, €11.5 million has been spent on the premises initiative for drugs projects and €54 million on the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund.

In 2003, the allocation for the drugs subhead has increased by approximately 16% over 2002. This subhead funds the work of the local drugs task forces, the premises initiative for drugs projects and the National Advisory Committee on Drugs. This shows clearly that the drugs issue remains a priority for this Government and rather than starving the drugs strategy of funding, it has, in fact increased the level available in 2003.

The Young Peoples Facilities and Services Fund established in 1998 as part of the Government's overall strategy to tackle drug misuse aims to assist in the development of youth facilities, including sport and recreational facilities, and services in disadvantaged areas where a significant drug problem exists or has the potential to develop. Its overall objective is to attract "at risk" young people in disadvantaged areas into these facilities and activities and divert them away from the dangers of substance abuse. The target group for the fund is the 10-21 year old cohort whose members are marginalised through a combination of risk factors relating to family background, environmental circumstances, educational disadvantage, involvement in crime and or drugs, etc.

While the main focus of the fund has been on the local drugs task force areas, funding has also been allocated to a number of urban areas where a serious drug problem exists or has the potential to develop. The target areas selected were Galway, Limerick, Waterford and Carlow.

A separate allocation was made to seven voluntary organisations to deliver drug prevention education programmes – including peer education programmes – on a national basis. Since 1998, an amount of €68.2 million has been allocated under the fund and the bulk of this – approximately €54 million – has been allocated to local drugs task force areas. The overall amount allocated also includes funding of €9.1 million for the springboard initiative which is managed by the Department of Health and Children. In addition to these initiatives, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform supports and develops evidence-based preventative measures and interventions aimed at young offenders and those most at risk of offending. These measures include the Garda youth diversion projects of which there are 64. These projects represent a community based, multi-agency crime prevention initiative which seeks to divert young persons from becoming involved or further involved in anti-social and-or criminal behaviour by providing suitable activities to facilitate personal development, promote civic responsibility and improve long-term employability prospects. By doing so, the projects contribute to improving the quality of life within communities and enhancing Garda-community relations.

The first Garda youth diversion projects were established in major urban areas but projects are now in operation in both urban and rural areas throughout the State. Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of Garda youth diversion projects from 12 in 1997 to 64 at present, a process made possible, in part, by funding under the National Development Plan 2000-2006.

The allocation of funding for the 64 Garda youth diversion projects, together with the seven local drugs task force projects, for 2003 is €5.577 million compared to just over IR£400,000 when the Opposition was last in office in 1997, an increase of over 1000%. These figures underline this Government's commitment to fighting the harm to communities from the impact of drug misuse, an aim which is of course shared by Deputies on all sides of this House and which is, I am sure, the motivation behind this proposed Private Member's Bill. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I must oppose this Bill.

I said at the outset of the discussion of the merits of the two substantive proposals contained in the Bill that such discussion was without prejudice to any further debate and these matters can be further considered on Committee Stage of the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 1999.

Mr. Costello

I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Shea. I congratulate Deputy O'Dowd on presenting this legislation which has my full support, especially the sentiment expressed in section 3, which "enables the Minister for Justice to ensure that the proceeds of crime seized by the State are applied to appropriate organisations and initiatives who are focussed on redressing the damage caused by those engaged in drug related activities".

I disagreed entirely with the Minister's long and detailed presentation. He said he opposed the legislation primarily because we already have the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 1999 before us and went on to outline large sections of heads that would be introduced. I have the feeling that once again the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will introduce a set of amendments that will be larger than the Bill in question, which seems to be the model the Minister is using.

The Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 1999 is still on Committee Stage four years later, with no effort or sense of purpose in processing it through the Dáil. The Minister said there would be no need for a separate corruption bureau, which was the main tenet of that Bill. Since 1999 I and others have been telling the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and his predecessor, that there is no need for separate legislation to deal with white collar crime. That could be done under the existing Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, as the Mini ster is admitting. When the former Commissioner of the Garda Síochána appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights he conceded that there was no need for extra legislation on this matter. Why do we have to wait for this legislation?

The Minister's second point was to reject the ring-fencing of the funds that would be forthcoming from the Criminal Assets Bureau. There is little hope of support from the Government for this legislation. The Minister's grounds for rejecting the ring-fencing seem spurious because the Government has already accepted the principle and the practice. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has already imposed a levy on plastic bags which is ring-fenced to deal with environmental issues. That is not going directly into the Exchequer. The Minister might also remember that one of the principal recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts following the DIRT inquiry was that the funding extracted from the financial institutions should be ring-fenced and used for valuable community purposes. The Government accepted the findings of that committee, yet the Minister is not prepared to accept the principle of ring-fencing which is desirable on many issues, particularly this one.

The two most valuable crime-fighting Acts produced in modern times were the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 introduced by Deputy Quinn when he was Minister for Finance, which is now being amended, and the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 which was introduced by Nora Owen, then Minister for Justice. They were introduced to pursue the ill-gotten gains of the drug barons who flourished in the 1990s and murdered Veronica Guerin, the eminent journalist who reported on that murky underworld of drug trafficking and gangland killings. Since its establishment in July 1996 the Criminal Assets Bureau has seized tens of millions of euro. The law states that any ill-gotten money and property seized by the CAB must remain unused for a seven year period which has now elapsed. Under no circumstances should the money when released disappear into the Department of Finance. It should be ring-fenced for redistribution in the communities from which it was misappropriated through criminal acts, as this legislation proposes.

The money would help to undo the damage caused by criminal activities and should be used to help finance projects and activities that would address the causes of crime. Community employment schemes, children's playgrounds, after-school services, young people's services and particularly drug-related initiatives could benefit greatly from such a rolling fund. It would be a novel sight to observe a community minibus funded from seized criminal assets with the slo gan emblazoned on its side: "This bus has been funded by the local drug dealer now out of business." The proceeds of crime seized from criminals who prey on disadvantaged communities should be ploughed back into the communities from which they have been extracted.

Community policing is an important concept. It involves gardaí liaising with the local authority and community representatives in drafting strategies to respond to crime and anti-social behaviour. The redistribution of the proceeds of crime for the benefit of the community should be an integral part of a new community policing model.

There are three streams of money involved, one from interlocutory orders, accumulated since the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau and amounting to about €21 million when the dollars and sterling are included. Another is a result of action by the Department of Social and Family Affairs, approximately €1.5 million. The largest results from the tax action conducted by the Revenue Commissioners which is in the region of €46 million. The legislation refers specifically to the first stream, the interlocutory orders, comprising the direct proceeds of crime, including property that has been seized and laundered money. The other two streams are indirect proceeds of crime. The total amount collected in the last seven years is approximately €70 million. That could be a regular stream of funding which could be used annually, not as a substitute for existing State funding but as a supplement to boost and extend the activities of community initiatives and projects. Communities would be very glad to have this money directed for that purpose. A slogan of the type I mentioned would do wonders for a community.

Let me return briefly to the issue of community policing which I believe would tie in well with the proposals from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the context of the Garda Síochána Bill. I have no doubt he will accept amendments in that regard. The situation involves the Garda, local authorities and the community. By distributing the proceeds of crime for useful projects within a community, it would re-establish the link which has been broken in many areas between the community and the police. That could be an integral part of good quality community policing.

The Bill is meritorious and I am glad it has been presented in the House. However, I am very disappointed the Minister did not have a single good word to say about it, in terms of a willingness to accept any of its proposals. He just waffled on, for the entire duration of his speech of 30 minutes, about the heads of legislation totally extraneous to this debate. I hope he will have a more positive approach to the Bill in any later comments he may make.

Mr. O'Shea

Fáiltím roimh an Bhille um Fháltais ó Choireacht (Leasú) 2003. Déanaim comhgháirdeachas leis an dTeachta O'Dowd agus páirtí Fhine Ghael as ucht an Bhille seo a thógaint os comhair na Dála. I welcome the Bill and congratulate Deputy O'Dowd and the Fine Gael Party on bringing it before the House.

Seven years is certainly an excessive waiting period for holding money seized before it goes to the Exchequer. The principle of paying the money to drug-related initiatives identified by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is sound and equitable. This is obviously the most effective disbursement of the proceeds of crime towards undoing the damage delivered on communities by drug barons and drug dealers.

A review of the national drugs strategy 2001-2008 will be carried out next year to determine its overall effectiveness in achieving key strategic goals. The strategy contains 100 separate actions across the pillars of supply reduction, prevention, treatment and research to be carried out by the relevant Departments such as the Departments of Health and Children, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and Education and Science. The urgent need for further qualitative research is highlighted by the discrepancies in two recently published reports.

The global survey from the United Nations office on drugs and crime found that levels of abuse of amphetamines, or "speed", were more than five times higher in Ireland than in most other European countries. The report also showed that Irish people were the world's second biggest abusers of ecstasy after Australia. Such was the extent of drug use in Ireland, as identified by the United Nations, that the director of the office on drugs and crime warned Irish people that they were "playing a dangerous game of Russian roulette." On the other hand, a report referred to in the media today suggests that drug use among young people in this country is not as high as that reported by the UN office on drugs and crime. The joint report from the National Advisory Committee on Drugs in the Republic and the Drugs and Alcohol Information and Research Unit in Northern Ireland stated the UN figures covered the period 1995 to 1999 and, therefore, in their view, out of date.

What these contradictory reports highlight is the urgent need for informed debate on the extent of drug abuse, based on the most up-to-date information and statistics. In the context of distributing money to communities ravaged by drugs, it is vital that we are fully informed about the extent of drug abuse and the location of the pockets of the country worst affected in order that the funding can be targeted directly to where it is needed most.

If we are to ensure the best use is made of the proceeds of crime, as envisaged in Deputy O'Dowd's Bill, the situation on the ground in terms of drug abuse must be closely monitored at all times. That said, I am concerned that, in practice, the income derived from the proceeds of crime could be quite erratic and drug-related initiatives should not have to rely on it for their operation. No doubt, the Government would say the money acquired from the Criminal Assets Bureau would be supplementary to Government investment but, in practice, it could simply become a substitute for contributions otherwise coming from the budgets of the Government and health boards.

There can be no doubt as to the major success of the Criminal Assets Bureau since its inception in 1996. Up to the end of last year, the bureau has obtained interim and final restraint orders to the value of over €48 million and €21 million, respectively. However, in the nature of things, the amount and value of property, the subject of High Court injunction by the CAB, vary from year to year, to the extent that it must be doubted whether it would constitute a reliable income stream for the sort of activity promoted by the Bill.

Drugs present enormous problems. For instance, it has been alleged that paramilitaries have part of the action in the supply of drugs. There is a major problem of alcohol abuse which, in many ways, is just as harmful as the drug culture. There are serious problems of public disorder in towns and villages and our cities every weekend. There is a frightening rise in the level of violence in a couple of our cities. Murder has become too commonplace in the context of competition between those who want to control this evil activity. Young people at risk need to be identified at an early stage in order that measures can be put in place to deal with their situation before it becomes a real problem in terms of exposure to drug peddlers.

There is also a culture with regard to the recreational use of drugs, perhaps at weekends, on the part of people who would be regarded as otherwise law-abiding. It must always be kept in mind that, whether drugs emanate from Afghanistan, Colombia or Amsterdam, they come from criminal sources. Anybody who buys drugs, for whatever reason and however minimal their use may be, is funding crime – that is the net effect. Huge fortunes are being accumulated by those involved in the drugs trade at top level.

We have to take account of problems in our society, including what I believe to be a big deficit in parenting skills. We need to help and support young people at risk at the earliest possible stage. Sadly, respect for authority has declined. Politicians and others must seek to re-establish this respect while those in authority must endeavour to earn it. One of our biggest difficulties is that there is now a spiritual vacuum, not in a narrow religious sense but in the finer points about human beings. We seem to have lost our strong community spirit, the meitheal concept, which was so much a part of the community in which we grew up.

Debate adjourned.