I am aware that the Deputy has raised this matter on a number of occasions and is keen to have a full debate on the question of re-using monies collected by the Criminal Assets Bureau for community programmes.
I am happy to take this opportunity to outline to the Deputy, and to the House, the current position with regard to the monies collected by the Bureau.
The House will be familiar with the work of the Bureau. The work of the Bureau has served the State well in tackling serious and organised crime including drug trafficking in this jurisdiction - of course the Bureau is a part of the overall response to serious crime and I would like to take a moment to congratulate Garda Commissioner Callinan, and his Force, together with the Revenue Customs Service, for the extraordinarily significant seizures of drugs in Dublin and Kildare today. This event demonstrates the determination and resourcefulness of An Garda Síochána and the Revenue Customs Service in tackling the activities of the major players in the illicit drugs trade.
With regard to the use of monies collected by the Bureau, I must point out that in accordance with the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Acts 1996 and 2005, that all monies collected by the Criminal Assets Bureau are returned to the Exchequer.
In 2010, the total sum forwarded to the Minister for Finance for the benefit of the Central Exchequer through the actions of the Criminal Assets Bureau was approx €7m, of which €3.1 million related to actions taken on foot of proceeds of crime legislation, approx €4m related to actions under revenue legislation and €180k was raised through Social Welfare actions.
As the Deputy will be aware, these funds are returned to the Government’s Central Fund, from which the Government draws for expenditure on all necessary public services and investment.
Suggestions have been made from time to time, that monies collected through the actions of the Bureau should be used to fund community programmes. Of course, I do appreciate that such suggestions are made out of concern for the well being of those communities who are most exposed to the adverse affects of crime in our communities and who bear the burden of living with its consequences. I also appreciate the significance of such a gesture – it is a very visible and tangible expression of the right of our communities to have returned to them advantages that have been taken away from them by criminals in their communities.
However, the suggestion that proceeds of crime monies should be used for the purpose of funding community programmes is not something new, this is a matter which has been discussed from time to time and on which my Department has previously consulted with the Department of Finance. While it has always been accepted that there may be a symbolic value in the suggestion, it has also been acknowledged that the ringfencing of such monies does give rise to a number of practical difficulties.
We will all be aware of the requirement 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, such as the funding of community programmes, runs contrary to the normal Estimates process.
While there are a small number of very specific targeted exceptions, earmarking revenues for a specific expenditure program would, generally speaking, impose constraints on the Government in the implementation of its overall expenditure policy.
With regard to the monies collected by the Bureau, it can also be argued that a significant proportion of the monies secured by the Bureau, as evidenced by the statistics I just gave for 2010, are already owed to the Exchequer as it often relates to non-payment of taxes and social welfare fraud.
More specifically with the regard to the suggestion that particular projects be funded from proceeds of crime activities, given the variable and uncertain nature of the value of the assets seized by the Bureau in any given year, and taking into account the potential delays which may arise through possible legal challenges to court disposal orders, the provision of ongoing funds to community projects would be problematic. The uncertainty of the level of revenue available on a yearly basis would not facilitate the proper planning of such programmes by organisations involved in the delivery of community development services.
It is also the case that additional costs would accrue in the administration of any scheme to divert funds to local programmes. There is no doubt but that there would be an additional administrative burden in the management of any such programme, whether through the engagement of service providers to administer any application process or otherwise. These additional administrative costs would arise without any additional revenues being generated.
The reality is that, given the present economic climate, the Exchequer could not sustain a loss of revenue without making compensatory adjustments. So, if, for example, CAB money was to be diverted to community programmes this would inevitably have implications for any other monies which those programmes received from the Exchequer. Alternatively other public expenditure programmes would have to sustain the loss. While there are superficial attractions in the type of proposal the Deputy is putting forward, I would ask him to reflect on the fact that, given the difficulties facing the Exchequer, his proposal would not have the positive effects he wishes to see.