Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord West of Spithead (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 October 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Policing and Crime Bill.


Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the police, Revenue and Customs officers and accredited financial investigators have the powers to seize, detain and apply for the forfeiture of cash suspected of being the proceeds of, or funds intended for use in, crime. Forfeiture is subject to an order by a magistrates’ court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or by the sheriff in Scotland. These powers have been hugely successful, with the forfeiture of more than £100 million of seized cash in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the past three years. I am sure that what we are hoping to enact now will make it even more successful. The number of cash forfeiture orders made by the magistrates’ courts has increased significantly during recent years, from 765 orders in 2005-06 to 3,223 in 2008-09. At present, when cash is seized, the seizing authority needs to get a magistrates’ court or a sheriff to make a detention order, which then needs to be renewed every three months until, following the completion of the necessary investigations, an application is made for the cash to be forfeited. This process of renewing the detention order can be time-consuming for both law enforcement and the courts. Clause 62 extends the interim period during which cash can be detained from three to six months, which would result in fewer applications to the courts for continued detection, although parties will still have the right to apply at any time for the release of the detained cash. The maximum period of the detention of the cash, with recurring judicial detention orders, will remain at two years. The Government’s proposals represent a fairly modest change to the existing procedures. They have the support of the police and the other law enforcement agencies. The amendment would leave the police and other agencies in the position they are now, which would be unsatisfactory, for the reasons I have given. After my explanation for the reasoning, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment. After completing this debate, I apologise that I shall have to leave the Chamber because of other commitments, but people who are even better than me will be here to argue through the remainder of this Bill.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c601-2 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disclosure of information Criminal records Codes of practice Accountability Crime prevention Crime Bail Demonstrations Assets Costs Confiscation orders Crown dependencies Aircraft Airports Customs officers British Transport Police Department for Transport Crown Court Finance Fees and charges Licensing Extradition Human rights Immigration Genetics Drugs Isle of Man Home Office Independent Police Complaints Commission Ministerial powers Parking Personal records Northern Ireland Police Powers Public appointments Proceeds of crime Property Railway stations Magistrates' courts Proof of identity Police authorities Scotland Vetting Stop and search Republic of Ireland Training Security Trespass Right of search Video recordings Rendition Sex establishments Airspace Common travel area European arrest warrants
Legislation
Policing and Crime Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk