---

Policing and Crime Bill

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, there are currently no provisions allowing the seizure of property of a suspect to prevent its dissipation or devaluation in advance of the confiscation order. Clause 53 creates such powers. This was debated extensively in the other place and is now in a much improved state with further safeguards. I am not going to pretend these powers are minor or technical, and they need to be used in a proportionate, effective and focused manner. Section 47C introduces the term "exempt property". Under this section, property exempt from seizure includes property necessary for the defendant’s personal use in his employment, business or a vocation. Amendment 152SB adds a further clarification that exempt property does not include property needed for employment, business or a vocation that is a criminal activity or related to criminal activity. While I fully agree with the spirit of the amendment, I suggest that it is unnecessary. The definition of "exempt property" is not new, and the one used in the Bill is an exact copy of the one used in insolvency and bailiff legislation: for example, in Section 283(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The same issues arise in that legislation as in the Proceeds of Crime Act: namely, that the seizure of property is necessary, but not to the extent that it prevents the individual making a living. It is implicit that the references to employment, business and vocation relate only to what is lawful. To introduce further criteria here would cast doubt elsewhere in the statute book. We also expect seizing officers and the courts to take the common-sense view that only lawful businesses should continue to operate. Indeed, this could be included in the code of practice, which sets out how these powers are to be exercised. Also, if the defendant has a complaint, he can seek redress through applying for a variation of the detention, whether this is authorised by a restraint order or a new magistrates’ detention order. I hope that I have explained the issue in more detail and, in the light of that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.