moved Amendment No. 117:
117: Clause 66, page 36, line 38, at beginning insert ““Subject to subsection (3A),””
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Glentoran, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for adding her name to it. The amendment is the same as one moved in Committee. On reading the Minister’s response, I am afraid that I am not entirely reassured that the concerns that we raised were unnecessary. I am still not convinced that a single designated officer will result in the Northern Ireland team being given the priority it deserves or the flexibility it needs to adapt its strategy to the unusual circumstances of the criminal community there.
However, at this stage, I would like to look more deeply at the pratical implications of the restructuring. I am deeply sceptical of change for change’s sake, and I remain unconvinced of the Government’s deeper motives behind this clause. There are three potential uses of an effective asset recovery agency; the first two are the most acceptable. Confiscating criminals’ assets is an effective method of redistribution against criminals and acts as a means of deterring potential criminals by ensuring that neither they nor their families will enjoy the fruits of their crimes during or after any jail sentence. Of course, there is a third benefit to the Government. It provides a very useful source of income. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are not intending to use the assets that Northern Ireland asset recovery teams bring in for operations outside Northern Ireland?
I am also concerned about the cost of this restructuring. How much do the Government predict it will cost to incorporate the current agency into SOCA and how do they intend to pay those costs? How long does the Minister envisage this restructuring will take?
There are also the costs that are far more difficult to measure but are just as crucial to performance—the effect of the change on the performance and morale of the current employees. There is absolutely no demand for this change from those on the ground or from the police or anyone else involved in asset recovery in Northern Ireland. I cannot think that it is to the benefit of asset recovery to force such a change on them. I beg to move.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Bridgeman
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 30 April 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c913-4 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:10:41 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_393320
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_393320
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_393320