Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Henley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 27 March 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Serious Crime Bill [HL].


Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 121: 121: Schedule 7, page 80, line 33, at end insert— ““(8) Any guidance issued or changes to guidance made under this section must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.”” The noble Lord said: This follows quite neatly our earlier debate on Amendment No. 120. Schedule 7, according to the ever-ready and wonderfully written Explanatory Notes—although they could have been improved by the noble Baroness—amends the Proceeds of Crime Act and other relevant legislation to repeal or transfer functions currently conferred on the Assets Recovery Agency and its director. Part 6 of the schedule inserts new Section 2A to ensure that the exercise of SOCA’s new functions from the Assets Recovery Agency must be in the way best calculated to contribute to the reduction of crime. In doing so, it must have regard to guidance set out in subsections (3) to (7). Amendment No. 121 would insert an additional subsection into new Section 2A of the Proceeds of Crime Act which would ensure that any guidance issued or changes to guidance made under this section will be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament. The aim of the amendment is to probe the transparency of the work that SOCA will take over. Indeed, in the previous debate, I highlighted the fact that the work and procedures of the Assets Recovery Agency to date were relatively transparent, particularly when compared with SOCA, whose approach, as my noble friend Lady Anelay said on Second Reading, one might call ““quasi-secret””. We need to question what impact these changes will have on how SOCA is currently run and to whom it will be accountable. The amendment also offers the opportunity fora discussion on what might be included in the aforementioned guidance. Do Her Majesty's Government have targets in mind? They usually do—they are rather keen on targets. If so, how are we to see that such targets, or even the aims and objectives behind them, are being reached unless an annual report is published? Indeed, the argument works both ways. How can we judge if the annual report shows SOCA’s new powers are being used efficiently and effectively if we do not have sight of the guidance as a benchmark by which to measure them? I hope that the noble Lord can give more of an indication as to what the Government are hoping for in this guidance. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c1599 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Criminal proceedings Crime prevention Crime Assets Assets Recovery Agency Fraud Northern Ireland Powers Proceeds of crime Mergers Scotland Surveillance Regulation Taxation Tax evasion Revenue and Customs National Policing Improvement Agency Serious Organised Crime Agency Information sharing
Legislation
Serious Crime Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk