Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Let me revert to the question of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) about Scotland. He will be pleased to know that we have consulted the Scottish Executive to ensure that the status quo in relation to the Lord Advocate and Scottish Ministers is preserved. That ensures that there is no need for a legislative consent motion. Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 relate especially to Scotland. They would ensure that disclosures between SOCA, the Lord Advocate and Scottish Ministers will be tackled under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 for SOCA's Proceeds of Crime Act functions, and under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for SOCA's other functions. Disclosures by the other enforcement authorities are mainly tackled in the 2002 Act. Taxation information is covered in section 33 of the 2005 Act. Schedule 8(170) of the measure that we are considering also preserves the status quo. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman and that the answer is as illuminating to him as I am sure that it is to everyone else. Seriously, I hope that it is helpful. If any element of doubt remains, the hon. Gentleman should write to me or have a word with me afterwards and I shall ensure that we clarify anything that needs it. Let me deal with the points that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) made. I am pleased about his general welcome for the proposals. We identified a gap, which we sought to fill, so I appreciate his comments. However, we are continually trying to ascertain whether we can improve the operation of the civil recovery regime under the 2002 Act. In discussions with the Assets Recovery Agency and SOCA about the transfer of civil recovery powers to SOCA and other enforcement agencies, as the Bill sets out, we identified—at a late stage, it has to be said—the need for the new receiver. Experience of civil recovery shows that appointing an interim receiver, who has management, investigation and reporting functions, is unnecessary as well as expensive, but there is none the less a need for some sort of management role. We have tried to provide for that. At present, the civil recovery of the proceeds of crime in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Assets Recovery Agency, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As he said, under the Bill those functions will be undertaken by a number of agencies—the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office, the Serious Fraud Office and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. Indeed, he pointed out the authorisations in proposed new section 435(4) of the 2002 Act. Bringing forward proposals on the disclosure of information at this late stage is the right outcome for Government policy. That inevitably makes the legislative changes complex, but the important point is that we have brought forward the amendments to ensure that all the relevant agencies are able to receive, and disclose to each other, information to assist them in their functions under the 2002 Act with respect to the changes that we have made. ARA has similar powers to disclose information in civil recovery cases. We are not breaking new ground; we are just trying to ensure that all the new agencies have the powers that ARA has had, so that the Bill works in practice. We were not in a position to bring forward the amendments earlier, because we were in discussions with each of the organisations identified in the Bill, to ensure that we got the provisions right. That took some time to achieve. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the provisions went too far, in giving the enforcement authorities almost a completely free hand, as he seemed to imply they do. However, we do not intend to give any of the enforcement authorities a completely free hand to disclose information. The proposals are essentially supporting provisions, to ensure that the new agencies can effectively pursue civil recovery. That is the whole point of what we are doing. If bodies are to be able to carry out their functions effectively, they will need information from other authorities. The 2002 Act already has provisions allowing for the disclosure of information to and by the director of ARA. Those provisions were developed in 2001-02, taking into account concerns raised by the Information Commissioner. The amendments in the group effectively reproduce the existing provisions for the agencies that will now pursue civil recovery. Importantly, the effect of the provisions is that the enforcement authorities will receive only the information that they need to carry out their civil recovery functions. Bodies will disclose only the relevant information that is permitted by the gateways. The provisions are not intended to circumvent restrictions on disclosure between other bodies. Disclosures that contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 or part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 are not permitted. That is an important protection, as the hon. Gentleman will know. The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 will also apply to any disclosure. With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to accept the new clause. I welcome his general commitment to addressing the gap that we identified and to the way in which we are trying to improve the Bill, even at this late stage. Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.