Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 120: 120: Clause 66 , page 36, line 40, at end insert— ““( ) SOCA shall, on an annual basis, lay before Parliament a report detailing the activities it has undertaken as a result of the functions conferred on it by this section which shall include— (a) information on the sums of assets recovered; (b) information detailing from whom assets were recovered; and (c) information on the costs incurred in recovering assets.”” The noble Lord said: On his earlier amendment my noble friend Lord Bridgeman set out what Clause 66 seeks to do. This amendment is self-explanatory. It would insert a new subsection (3) requiring SOCA to lay before Parliament an annual report. Paragraphs (a) to (c) dictate that the report should include, "““(a) information on the sums of assets recovered;""(b) information detailing from whom assets were recovered; and""(c) information on the costs incurred in recovering assets””." Members on these Benches recognise that the proposed merger of the Assets Recovery Agency and SOCA could be a matter of simple common sense but, following the merger, it is important that people know what is happening. Does not the noble Baroness agree that the work of the merged agency should be a matter of public knowledge and needsto be in the public domain? It is important thatthe issues listed in the three paragraphs of the amendment continue to be published so that the effectiveness of the combined skills of the agencies can be measured. Transparent monitoring is central to accountability. Although it might be a point of principle, could it be considered efficient, for example, if SOCA ended up spending more money on retrieving assets than the sum of the assets retrieved? One might expect a period of adaptation, but if it were to be become an ongoing situation year after year, we would have to question whether the funds were being used in an effective and efficient way. That is what lies behind the amendment. I beg to move.