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

From these Benches we sometimes accuse the Home Office of bringing forward too much legislation, but we supported the Proceeds of Crime Act in principle as it went through. We welcome orders which update such Acts and their codes of practice. Sometimes these are not updated often enough and inappropriate procedures can develop as a result. However, having given a broad welcome to the principles, I echo the misgivings expressed from the Conservative Front Bench by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. We are being asked to approve these orders without having an exact list of people and I would like more detail about what training such people will receive. Obviously, the police receive one level of training and absorb exactly the procedures they should follow, whereas someone working perhaps for the Department for Work and Pensions will receive a quite a different level of training. That is a worry. I shall not rehearse the comments about the Assets Recovery Agency. The noble Baroness, quite rightly, has quoted the figures and it is right to move on. On the final order of the three, I have two questions about the contractor list mentioned by the Minister. First, what would cause a contractor's removal from the list? I presume there is a select list of contractors who are able to tender for this work, but what kind of misdemeanour or inappropriate behaviour would result in a contractor being removed? Can the Minister clarify the position of trustees in this respect? The Minister referred to codes of conduct in relation to the previous order; presumably there is a similar code of conduct that trustees should follow. I would be grateful for answers to these questions.