Clause 32
Policing and Crime Bill
3:45 pm
Vernon Coaker (Minister of State (Policing, Crime & Security), Home Office; Gedling, Labour)
Good afternoon Mr. Bayley. A new voice needs to be injected into the proceedings. This is a very important clause. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have important points to make, but they also want to make some progress. It would be right for me to put on the record the fact that the hon. Members for Hornchurch, for Bury St. Edmunds and for Chesterfield, as well as other Opposition and Labour Members—indeed, all members of the Committee—support the need to try to take from criminals more of their ill-gotten gains. There is no divide between us on that point. I hope that it is helpful to put that on the record, notwithstanding some of the discussion that will take place on part 4.
All hon. Members are tracking these amendments very carefully, because the issue is a little complicated. I found it complicated; I am sure that those who grouped the amendments found it the same, too, and I thank them for their efforts. Government amendment 191 is a minor and technical amendment to the new power under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to seize and retain property in anticipation of having to sell it to raise the sum for an outstanding confiscation order in future. Once property has been seized, the new powers will provide for continued detention. An officer may initially detain seized property for 48 hours. In Scotland, if there is no restraint order or the officer decides not to apply for one, he must obtain a detention order from the sheriff. This amendment provides that an appeal not to make the order or an appeal against a decision on discharge or the variation of such an order must be made in 21 days. That is the standard time limit for an appeal in Scottish law, rather than 30 days, as currently drafted. I apologise for that initial error, and I thank Scottish officials for advising us accordingly.
Government amendments 266 to 269, 273 to 278, 282, and 284 to 286 will add to the new provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act that relate to seizing, detaining and selling property to meet the value of an outstanding confiscation order. They merely provide that, from the amount paid in settlement of a confiscation order, the police and other law enforcement agencies can claim back their reasonable costs in having to store and sell the property. It is entirely reasonable that the additional cost that falls on the police and others is reimbursed, much as it is at the moment under the 2002 Act in respect of receivers. On a matter of budgeting, they receive their costs after the event, rather than being funded up front.
It is important to note that the amount is paid from the settled amount, so no additional burden of payment falls on the defendant. This is simply to do with the distribution of the money that has been collected. It is also a safeguard, as the magistrates court determines what the reasonable costs are, thus ensuring open and independent oversight of the costs that are incurred. Government amendments 259, 260, 270, 272, 279, 281, 283, 287 and 289 will add to the new provisions in the 2002 Act. They simply amend the provisions on distributing sums received in consequence of payment of a confiscation order. Notably, they provide that, where a court has determined the reasonable costs that the police or another law enforcement agency have incurred, those costs are paid from the recovered amount. They also provide for the court to make directions on any payment. Therefore, any third-party interests in the property can be paid back.
Government amendments 271, 280 and 288 are merely technical. They will remove from the Bill proposed changes to the 2002 Act, and those changes will be made in schedule 6. Nothing is changing; it is just tidier, I am advised, to make all the consequential amendments that flow from the changes to the 2002 Act in one place. The amendments to schedule 6 will be tabled in due course.