Clause 39
Policing and Crime Bill
11:30 am
Vernon Coaker (Minister of State (Policing, Crime & Security), Home Office; Gedling, Labour)
The Committee discussed Government amendments 266 to 289 on 12 February, before the recess, as part of a more general debate on the seizure, detention and sale of property. I do not propose to go over all of that again today, but will instead focus on Government amendments 319, 320 and 321.
Amendment 319 amends section 69(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It is consequential to other amendments that we have made elsewhere in the Bill. Section 69 of POCA makes provision for England and Wales; amendments 320 and 321 make the corresponding changes to the relevant provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Section 69 makes provision about how the courts are to exercise their powers: for example, it emphasises that the powers must be exercised with a view to allowing third parties to retain or recover the value of any interest they hold, and that the satisfaction of a confiscation order takes precedence over other obligations of the defendant or the recipient of a tainted gift from the defendant. It also requires that powers must be exercised with a view to maintaining the value of the amount available for confiscation. The amendments add the new power to the courts of making directions about proceeds, most obviously in respect of innocent third parties.
Amendments 266 to 269, 273 to 278, 282 and 284 to 286 add to the new provisions in POCA relating to seizing, detaining and selling property to meet the value of an outstanding confiscation order. They merely provide that, out of the amount paid in settlement of a confiscation order, the police and other law enforcement agencies can claim back their reasonable costs of having to store and sell 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 POCA in respect of receivers. It is a matter of budgeting. Costs are reimbursed after the event, rather than being funded up front, and they are paid out of the settled amount, so that no additional burden of payment falls on the defendant. I see the hon. Members for Hornchurch and for Chesterfield acknowledge the importance of that.
The provision is simply to do with the distribution of the money that has been collected. That it is the magistrates court and not the “enforcer” that decides what the reasonable costs are provides a safeguard by ensuring independent judicial oversight of the costs incurred.