---

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2008

I thank the Minister for his introduction, although I am slightly confused. My understanding is that the orders would add to the functions of protecting public health and the Financial Services Authority. That is what the orders say, but the Minister did not give that addition. I assume that that addition under the orders is correct. If I am correct, room was left for that within the original proceeds of crime legislation and we have no objection to additions being made to it. My first question relates to the functions being designated under the orders with regard to the protecting of public health and the functions of the Financial Services Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act. With regard to the public health aspect, which is new to this legislation, will the Minister give examples of where public health might be compromised by the nature of the work or what is being carried out? I would like a snapshot of how public health could be involved. Under Schedule 2 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, whom is it intended would be permitted to make a disclosure to the director in relation to public health? I cannot see that in the schedule. If it is not included, I presume there will have to be a further order at some stage. On the extension to the function under the Financial Services Authority, a person appointed to conduct an investigation under that authority is included in the schedule, which leaves the previous omission looking rather strange. Under Section 47 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, disclosure on matters relating to individual tax matters is confined to the commissioner of the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise. Would the same caveats apply to those authorities as apply to the Financial Services Authority? If so, who would be in the position of the commissioner? At present, in legislation, the ““permitted person”” is the person appointed to conduct an investigation. Turning to the schedule, why is it that the Secretary of State should be involved in an issue relating, for example, to the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of offences relating to a social security matter or to checking the accuracy of any benefit payment? These would seem to be relatively trivial matters for the involvement of the Secretary of State, so what would dictate the level at which that holder of the office would become involved in disclosure? Are we to understand that we should read for ““Secretary of State”” anyone authorised by him or her to undertake investigations on their behalf? If so, should that not be the wording in the order? On the designation of those who are authorised to act on behalf of the Employment Agencies Act, the Companies Act, the Financial Services and Markets Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, I note that these are termed as ““authorised persons””. Can the Minister give us an indication of the likely seniority of that person in the organisation? I ask that because from a list of those currently designated under the Proceeds of Crime Act, it is clear that only commissioners are permitted to make disclosures to the director. It is of some concern that it does not seem to be the same situation in those that I have mentioned. Can the Minister reassure us about this because disclosure under this Act is a serious matter? I would be very uncomfortable if it were not done by the most senior officer in one of the listed organisations. If the Minister can answer those questions, I am happy with the order.