Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Code of Practice) Order 2008

I am sorry we got into a bit of confusion with that. It was somewhat caused by the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Proceeds of Crime Act deals with both the orders and I jumped the gun on the proceeds of crime. I shall reiterate the question that I asked because it is still relevant, despite what the Minister said. The amended code includes contractors within the definition of members of staff who take on the role of trustee, but who are contractors likely to be? It is clear that they are not members of staff of the organisations because they are outside them. I now return to the two Proceeds of Crime Act orders. The first brings into operation a revised code for the Proceeds of Crime Act. As the Minister said, the 2002 Act was amended by the Serious Crime Act 2007 to take into account the abolition of the Assets Recovery Agency and its director, the creation of a new type of investigation to investigate the provenance or intended use of assets seized under the 2002 Act and the extension of powers under that Act to certain civilian financial investigators. We accept that there are currently no powers to investigate the provenance or intended use of cash that has been seized and detained and that the creation of this form of investigation will mean that production orders, which allow financial investigators to obtain information about an alleged defendant's financial affairs, can be served on seized cash. However, can the Minister tell us who those financial investigators will be if they are not members of the police force or Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs? That is particularly important, given the extent of the investigations they will be able to undertake and the powers they are being given. They will, I presume, also have the right to seek a warrant from magistrates, as necessary, and to give evidence at subsequent hearings to retain the detained money—I am not sure it is necessary, but I declare an interest as a magistrate. Can the Minister tell us how effective financial reporting orders are? They are the financial investigation tool that allows courts to order a criminal to report on his financial affairs, enabling the authorities to check he has no illicit sources of income. I understand that the Ministry of Justice has stated that there have been no financial reporting orders given as a primary disposal since they were introduced in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. However, contrary to the Ministry of Justice, the Serious Organised Crime Agency has said in its annual report for 2006-07 that 12 financial reporting orders had been issued. Whether it is nought or 12, this power does not seem to have been used very much. Will the Minister say whether he sees any danger that these new powers will suffer the same fate? The Serious Crime Act 2007 sounded the final death knell for the Assets Recovery Agency. The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on 7 March 2007 highlighted the weaknesses of the agency when he said: "““To sum up, you have spent £65 million and you have recovered £23 million. You have no complete record of the cases referred to you. You have worked on over 700 cases and managed to recover assets in a mere 52””." We accept that the role of that agency might have been defunct. It is clear that it did not live up to its expectations. That is why it has been put out of business. Can the Minister say what lessons have been learnt from the fiasco of that agency and how its successor bodies will be monitored and do a better job? I return to the extension of powers to accredited financial investigators. For the first time, the power to execute search-and-seizure warrants in confiscation and money-laundering investigations is going to be extended from police and Customs officers to AFIs. Since 30 December 2002, a Customs officer or a constable may seize cash at the borders or inland if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the cash is recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct, and if the sum seized exceeds a minimum amount. I am cautious whenever I see a proposal that powers of seizure should be entrusted to someone other than a police officer or Revenue official. Unfortunately, the draft codes of practice do not provide clarification on what is happening and what safeguards will exist. What troubles me are two questions, neither of which are addressed by the codes of practice. First, who will be the accredited financial investigators? To whom are these powers going to be given? As far as I am aware, there is no definitive list of who may become one. Could the Minister ensure that if a list is not available, one is produced and put in the Library? It seems inappropriate that we are discussing altering codes of practice without actually knowing who is going to be using them. The National Audit Office report into the Assets Recovery Agency, published in February last year, said that the data on the details of financial investigators held on the support system were unreliable. The NAO found that more than a quarter of the registered users were unknown to the Assets Recovery Agency, 2 per cent had retired and 31 per cent had left their organisations and were no longer involved in financial investigations. Could the Minister confirm that any list that is produced is accurate and kept up to date? If the Government allow this situation to continue, we will be in the chaotic position of having granted serious and intrusive powers to execute search-and-seizure orders without actually having knowledge of who is authorised to do so. Then there is a second question: what is the precise role that these accredited financial investigators are now expected to fulfil? The codes of practice say: "““The search (and seizure) warrant must be executed by an appropriate person. As detailed in the introduction, section 352(5) of the Act provides that an appropriate person is a constable, officer of HMRC or a suitably accredited financial investigator for search and seizure warrants””." Does the Minister believe that it is appropriate that search-and-seizure warrants should be executed by those simply with an appropriate accreditation? We are extending the powers to detain someone, to conduct a search and to allow them to search a house. It is a significant step to go from allowing sworn officers to exercise these powers to allowing civilians who are simply accredited to do so. Apart from asking the Minister to be kind enough to address those questions, we do not oppose the instruments.