Clause 46
Policing and Crime Bill
12:00 pm
James Brokenshire (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)
I will raise one general point of principle and then some more general queries. The point of principle is that clause 46 gives a new power of what might be termed “administrative forfeiture” without the need for a court order. An important principle is being set out: in essence, the state can order the forfeiture of assets without going to court. That might be convenient for law enforcement and SOCA, but it will erode a fundamental principle of the law on property rights. If it is argued that in some way that is about cost, administrative convenience, access to the courts and timing, those arguments have to be balanced against the principle of the existing requirement for the state to go to court to obtain an order to get the forfeiture of assets in those circumstances. That concept and the need for due process to be seen to be done—a court being seen to be the body that actually uses the power—is important for the way in which we organise ourselves and for the sort of society we want. The Minister needs to come up with a clear and persuasive case for why that balance should not be adhered to and why those powers are so necessary and appropriate that the Government have to go against the current requirement for a court application to use powers of forfeiture and instead go through this process of administration.
On the use of forfeiture and the performance of the relevant agencies more generally, the Minister will know that we have had various debates and discussions before about the historical performance of the Assets Recovery Agency and the fact that it did not meet its targets, which in many ways was why it was merged into SOCA. The key questions are about how SOCA is performing, whether it is using those and other powers appropriately, and whether its recoveries exceed its costs, because that was the big problem with how the Assets Recovery Agency operated. That agency had to be changed because although it had recovered £23 million by December 2006, it had cost the taxpayer £65 million. The Minister will be aware of the reports of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee highlighting the weaknesses in the Assets Recovery Agency and how it conducted its business. We need to know that there will be some transparency in how SOCA uses those powers and how it performs financially, because it is sometimes difficult to read from SOCA’s annual report how it is performing and what level of recoveries, forfeitures and financial assets it has managed to recover when using such powers. Will the Minister reassure the Committee that SOCA will publish financial information on its asset recovery function showing its net recoveries using those powers?
The old ARA used to provide such information, and the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary, has provided me with parliamentary answers on this subject, for which I am grateful, but it is important to know about net recoveries—costs against assets recovered—if we are to understand and scrutinise SOCA appropriately. Similar information that was previously obtained about the ARA flagged up the problems on which the NAO and PAC reported, so it is important to understand that SOCA is acting appropriately and is not in the unfortunate position in which the ARA found itself of having higher costs than recoveries from forfeiture and recovered assets. We need that assurance not only to see how powers are being used, but to be sure that SOCA is delivering value for money when utilising those and other powers.