Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2003 and Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Exemptions from Civil Recovery) Order 2003 and Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Code of Practice) Order 2003

[back to previous text]

The Chairman: On the first point that you put to the Minister and me, we were notified on Friday that the draft codes were in the Vote Office. We are not sure of exactly when they arrived. However, the Minister will look at that, and I shall raise the point with the Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel. As you indicated, it is an issue of concern.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful for that indication, Mr. Pike. It will be borne in mind that most Members are in their constituencies on Friday. Therefore, it would be helpful to ensure that all papers were available at the same time. If the Committee is sitting on a Monday, it will be an enormous help for the papers to be available by Thursday lunchtime. That message did not reach me, and it did not reach my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). Had it done so, I might have received the draft code of practice earlier than today. However, I am grateful for what you have said, Mr. Pike.

The Chairman: As I said, I shall make the Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel aware of your point. You did not raise it as a point of order, but Chairmen are anxious that we do not get points of order as a result of papers not being in the Vote Office.

5.1 pm

Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): It is timely that we are here on the day on which the director of the Assets Recovery Agency takes up her appointment. I am sure that we welcome that appointment and hope that she achieves the success that all parties want in tackling the problems of crime.

I have one question on the disclosure of information order. I accept the need for the exchange of information and can see the overall picture. However, I am not entirely sure of the intention and purpose of the individual agencies. In the case of the Benefits Agency, if we were just looking at benefit fraud, would we be considering any threshold? My concern is that we could be dealing with quite small amounts of money. Is that what the agency's resources are destined for? I accept entirely that such dealings may all be part of building a bigger picture of somebody's lifestyle. Moreover, I accept that there may be massive benefit fraud. However, I am concerned that relatively smaller issues could divert the agency.

That is my main question, and it would apply to some of the other agencies. I note that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) did not manage to say anything about the exemptions from civil recovery order. For that reason, I would be

Column Number: 12

seriously challenged to say very much. The order seems fairly obvious and straightforward.

I have a few points on the draft code of practice. If you will forgive me, Mr. Pike, I am probably about to ask an obvious question. However, the guidance, which I read this afternoon because I, too, was not here on Friday to collect it, says that the code of practice provides guidance for the director and staff of the Assets Recovery Agency, constables, Customs officers and accredited civilian investigators of certain other bodies such as the Inland Revenue and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The draft states that it is the code of practice for constables and Customs officers, which does not tally with what I have read. Maybe I have missed the point.

The code should cover a range of investigators, including the financial investigators about to be appointed. While reading it, I noticed that 88 extra financial investigators will be employed across all police forces, financed from the Home Office. Other extra funding will come out of existing funds. I had the horrible thought that my hard-pressed police authority might have to pick up the bill for some of that extra work. I shall leave that thought for the Minister.

It seems that the benefit from the cost-benefit test will go to the Government, but the cost to the financial industry. I am not clear whether benefits will flow to the financial industry through the extra work that it will pick up. The sum works out overall, but there is a cost to the private sector and a benefit for the consolidated fund.

I have already experienced a case in which the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was implemented, and it caused a great deal of trouble in dealing with a building society that was also a bank. I may share some personal comments on that with the Minister after the sitting. I feel that an enormous amount of training is needed in all financial institutions, or we may experience a very heavy-handed approach at the counter. The bank in question had taken the legislation on board, but it was not exactly customer-friendly.

As I picked up on this matter at the last moment, I came into the Room unsure of who had been consulted and what the responses were. It is difficult to discuss proposals when one does not know how major institutions have responded. One would want to see a response in due course.

5.7 pm

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pike.

My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath has covered the main principles in relation to the three orders. I would like to raise a constituency issue. I would quite understand it if the Minister were unable to answer my specific point this afternoon but would be grateful if he could write to me promptly if he is unable to put my mind at rest.

My point relates to the draft code of practice, which confirms that search and seizure warrants will apply to vehicles as well as to other premises and assets. Some constituents sold a car to a fraudster who paid with a

Column Number: 13

fraudulent cheque. By the time that was discovered, the fraudster had disappeared with the vehicle. The police arrested the alleged criminal, and he is in custody. It transpires that the fraud was part of a much larger operation being orchestrated by a gang based in the west midlands. Essex police have been in contact with forces in the west midlands in the attempt to track the gang down. The whereabouts of the car, which was worth £26,000, are currently unknown. It is possible that it will never be recovered because such criminals have mechanisms for shifting vehicles extremely quickly, as the Minister will know too well.

If other members of the gang are rounded up and successfully prosecuted, is there any prospect that my constituent might get some compensation through the Assets Recovery Agency for the loss of the vehicle? The building society from which the cheque was drawn will not pay, and my constituents are probably not covered by their insurance. That might effectively be their last hope of getting their £26,000 back, and, although I appreciate that it may be something of a long shot, I should like to try on their behalf. If the Minister can give me some guidance, I should be extremely grateful.

5.9 pm

Mr. Ainsworth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rayleigh on the ingenious way in which he is using the Committee to do his casework.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned problems with the Vote Office, lack of notice, and so on, and I assure him that any delays were not deliberate and that it is never in my interests that they should be. I have found myself in embarrassing situations on the odd occasion on which we have been in error. We do everything we can to give people notice, and I shall ensure that we continue to do so. Those who advise me say that the code of conduct was available earlier than the time stated. However, I accept the point: it does parliamentary scrutiny no benefit to give people late notice. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that those working on the Act's implementation have a lot on their plate in trying to make certain that all its provisions are dealt with in a timely way and without undue delay. If there was a problem, I make that plea by way of mitigation, although I accept that what the hon. Gentleman said was reasonable, and I apologise for any delay that prevented him from doing his job.

Mr. Hawkins: I knew that the Minister would be helpful, and I entirely accept what he says. However, my feeling that not everything was available—I asked for all the papers, but received only a limited number—was corroborated by your saying, Mr. Pike, that the draft code was not available to you until Friday. I ask the Minister to reflect on whether it might wiser for his officials to adopt a practice of ''all or nothing'', given that they are hard pressed, albeit for reasons that we all understand and sympathise with. It is dangerous to have one part only of the documentation if one does not know, and the people at the Vote Office window in Member's Lobby do not know, that there is more to come. That is what causes the problem, and waiting until everything is available would help to avoid it.

Column Number: 14

Mr. Ainsworth: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be nothing other than helpful. He has previously suggested that if we identify Front-Bench spokespersons and send things directly to them, we can ensure that Opposition parties have notice of everything in a bundle. I shall consider those proposals and see to it that we do the job to the best of our ability.

With regard to the representations that we received and the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised about the wording of the draft code, I tell him that the report detailed all the representations. The Law Society of England of Wales has not made any representations, although the Law Society of Scotland has, and those will be dealt with by the Scottish code, and by Ministers in the Scottish Parliament. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about his continued concern, but, having put the proposals out for consultation, we need to go ahead with the draft guidance.

The wording in paragraph 141 is not quite as bad as he says. It states:

    ''If a person is to be interviewed requests access to legal or financial advice before complying with a requirement to be interviewed in a notice served under a disclosure order, the Director should normally consent and set a reasonable time limit for obtaining such advice.''

The code, I am told, mirrors the situation in which a person accused of a criminal offence can be denied legal advice. There is no way that we are doing something different in this legislation from what exists in other legislation. I cannot agree to consult further thereby delay further the issuing of the guidance, having already had consultation and given people an opportunity to respond.

 
Previous Contents Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 3 February 2003