ASSET RECOVERY: CO-OPERATION BETWEEN OFFICES
OF MEMBER STATES (6589/2/06, 6589/3/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Paul Goggins
MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office
This proposal was considered by Sub-Committee
E (Law and Institutions) at its meeting of 3 May 2006.
We note that you will be submitting a new draft
of the proposal for scrutiny shortly, and will respond in more
detail once we have received this. In the meantime, we have decided
to hold the proposal under scrutiny.
4 May 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Vernon Coaker
MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office
This proposal was considered by Sub-Committee
E (Law and Institutions) at its meeting of 24 May 2006.
The proposal raises three principal concerns
and we deal with these below.
NORTHERN IRELAND
We note that the Assets Recovery Agency and
the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency are likely to be the designated
Asset Recovery Offices for the purpose of this proposal. Your
EM explains that Northern Ireland is covered by the Assets Recovery
Agency. Does this arrangement take adequate account of the special
features of the Northern Irish criminal system and law enforcement
structures?
DATA PROTECTION
Article 30(1)(b) TEU allows for the exchange
of information between law enforcement authorities "subject
to appropriate provisions on the protection of personal data".
Article 6(1) of the proposal requires Member States to ensure
that "the established rules on data protection are applied"
to exchanges of information under the proposed Framework Decision.
Article 6(2) stipulates that the data protection rules of the
receiving State will apply and that personal data exchanged will
be protected in accordance with Council of Europe standards in
this field.
As you know, a proposed Framework Decision on
data protection in the Third Pillar is currently under discussion
in the Council, although progress appears to have stalled. We
consider it important to ensure that an overarching framework
for data protection is in place and we are concerned about the
ad hoc approach to data protection in recent Third Pillar
proposals. Do you consider the protections of the present proposal
to be sufficiently stringent to ensure proper protection of personal
data? Would it not be prudent to secure the agreement of the data
protection proposal prior to the conclusion of further Framework
Decisions dealing with information exchange?
LEGAL BASE
We are wary of proposals which are made under
the Third Pillar but seek to have effect in civil proceedings
as well as criminal proceedings. However, the civil proceedings
in this case are concerned with recovery of proceeds of crime,
and one of the primary aims of such proceedings is the prevention
of crime. We note that the Government believe that there is a
valid argument to justify the proposal's application to cooperation
between Asset Recovery Offices in civil proceedings in these circumstances.
We understand that Ministers may seek to reach
agreement on this proposal at the June JHA Council meeting. Accordingly,
despite our reservations regarding the position of Northern Ireland
and data protection issues, we have decided to clear the proposal
from scrutiny. We take this opportunity to emphasise, however,
the importance which we attach to data protection in measures
which deal with exchange of information in the Third Pillar. We
hope for a prompt response to the concerns we outline above in
this respect.
25 May 2006
Letter from Vernon Coaker MP to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 25 May concerning
the proposed Framework Decision mentioned above.
I note that this proposal was considered by
Sub-Committee E (Law and Institutions) at its meeting on 24 May
2006 and cleared from scrutiny.
You asked whether the proposed arrangement for
the Assets Recovery Agency to act as the designated Asset Recovery
Office to cover Northern Ireland's requests took adequate account
of the special features of the Northern Irish criminal system
and law enforcement structures.
The Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) and the Scottish
Drug Enforcement Agency (SDEA) currently sit as the contact points
under the existing informal co-operation arrangements on asset
recovery, known as the Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network
(CARIN), ARA's remit covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The SDEA covers Scotland. The Framework decision would allow us
to continue with these procedural arrangements.
You also asked about the protection of personal
data under this proposal. The Government's view is that the present
proposals are indeed sufficiently robust to ensure proper protection
of personal data. We agree on the importance of progressing the
Data Protection Framework Decision as quickly as possible, but
do not believe it is necessary to delay progress on other Third
Pillar instruments on exchange of information. It necessarily
takes time to work through such detailed dossiers as the Data
Protection Framework Decision, not least due to the very different
police and judicial structures in place across the EU, but I can
assure you that there is a great deal of commitment on the part
of the UK to move this issue forward.
Finally I note your comments on the legal base
of the proposed Framework Decision.
I hope this information is of assistance.
8 June 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Vernon Coaker
MP
Thank you for your letter of 8 June 2006 which
was considered by Sub-Committee E (Law and Institutions) at its
meeting of 21 June 2006. We note in particular what you say about
data protection. While we would prefer to see an overarching Framework
Decision in place before agreement of measures such as these,
we are reassured by your commitment to moving forward with the
data protection Framework Decision.
You will have seen the articles which appeared
in The Times of 14 June 2006 on the subject of the Asset
Recovery Agency. We are sure you will agree that the figures quoted
in one of those articles, if correct, are rather concerning. The
figures provided show that, despite an annual spend of £19.8
million in 2005-06, the Agency recovered just £4.34 million.
Given that the Agency was expected to collect sufficient money
to cover its budget by 2005-06, this seems to be a significant
underachievement. Is it wise to link asset recovery offices across
the EU before being satisfied that we have the best structure
in place domestically to ensure maximum recovery of the proceeds
of crime?
22 June 2006
Letter from Vernon Coaker MP to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 22 June about the
proposed Framework Decision set out above.
I have noted your comments on data protection.
You question whether it is sensible to link
asset recovery offices across the EU before being satisfied that
we have the best structure in place domestically to ensure maximum
recovery of the proceeds of crime. On this point, I announced
last month that police, customs officers and other public agencies
had recovered a record £96 million of criminal assets in
2005-06. This is double the amount being seized three years ago
and is a significant effort towards maximising asset recovery.
On the performance of the Assets Recovery Agency
(ARA), in my Written Ministerial Statement of 14 June I explained
that the Agency had exceeded its targets last year in terms of
the value of assets restrained (£85.7 million against a target
of £25 million), the numbers of new civil recovery/taxation
cases adopted (108 against 100), and the number of adopted criminal
confiscation cases (38 against 20). However, legal challenges,
outside the control of the ARA, have slowed down the progress
of civil recovery cases to final completion.
On the international front, both ARA and the
Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency (SDEA) currently sit as the contact
points under the existing informal co-operation arrangements on
asset recovery, known as the Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency
Network (CARIN). ARA plays an active role in this international
network. The Framework Decision on asset recovery offices would
allow us to continue with these procedural arrangements if that
is what the UK decided.
A firm decision on which bodies will act as
the nominated Asset Recovery Offices will be taken in due course
after further consultation with the bodies currently tasked with
asset recovery work.
This is a significant area of co-operation in
the international arena. The Framework Decision should lead to
faster tracing of criminal assets, an essential component in the
successful freezing, seizure or confiscation of the proceeds of
crime across the EU.
I hope this information is of assistance.
6 July 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Vernon Coaker
MP
Thank you for your letter of 6 July 2006.
We note what you say about the improving performance
of the Assets Recovery Agency and trust that any future decision
on nominated asset recovery offices under the Decision will be
made after full consideration of their ability to participate
effectively in the network.
25 July 2006
| 
