rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Code of Practice) Order 2008.

The noble Baroness said: The order was laid before the House on 18 June, with an Explanatory Memorandum and a draft code of practice. I hope that your Lordships have had the opportunity to study them. I take this opportunity to put on record my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their forbearance on the last occasion. By some inadvertence the Explanatory Memorandum was not available and we were not able to deal with the matter on that occasion. I apologise most wholeheartedly for that mistake.

The order brings into operation a code of practice governing the exercise by prosecutors of their investigative powers in relation to civil recovery and criminal confiscation investigations. The Proceeds of Crime Act, which came into force in 2003, created investigative powers to be used in tracing criminal assets. These are the powers to apply for and execute production orders, search and seizure warrants, customer information orders, account monitoring orders and disclosure orders. These investigative powers have been exercised in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by the Assets Recovery Agency and law enforcement agencies such as the police and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In exercising the powers, these organisations have operated under a code of practice issued by the Home Secretary under Section 377 of the Proceeds of Crime Act.

The Serious Crime Act 2007 amended the Proceeds of Crime Act by merging the Assets Recovery Agency with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, with effect from 1 April. The Assets Recovery Agency’s investigative powers have been transferred to the Serious Organised Crime Agency and to a number of specified prosecuting authorities superintended by me—namely the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland.

The staff of the Serious Organised Crime Agency will continue to operate under the Home Secretary’s code of practice, which was recently amended to take account of the changes brought in by the Serious Crime Act and to maintain consistency with the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which have developed over the years. The Home Secretary’s amended code was the subject of public consultation ending in January, and was brought into effect by an order approved by both Houses on 1 April.

The staff of the prosecuting authorities will be bound by a code of practice issued by me, and it is that prosecutor’s code which is brought into operation by this order. My code is identical in all material respects to the Home Secretary’s amended code, so that different agencies exercising these powers will do so to the same standards and with the same safeguards. My code was put out to public consultation in March but no responses were received, presumably because any issues had already been addressed and resolved in the drafting of the Home Secretary’s amended code.

My code gives detailed guidance to the staff of the prosecuting authorities on the way in which they should apply for and execute the various investigative measures available to them in respect of civil recovery investigations. The code also gives guidance to prosecutors on their role in criminal confiscation investigations, namely in applying for disclosure orders on behalf of the law enforcement agencies.

The introductory part of the code provides an overview of the investigative powers and the provisions applicable to all of them. That includes general best practice for making applications for the various orders and warrants, and executing them. It also includes guidance on the procedures for the retention of documents and information. The code then provides some more detailed information on each of the investigative measures.

In summary, I am satisfied that the draft code sets out clearly the processes and safeguards required for the effective and fair operation of the investigative powers. Due to the nature of the draft order, I have spoken more to the draft code than to the order itself. The only further point on the order is that, in relation to Northern Ireland—I see the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in his place—it is made by me in my capacity as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Code of Practice) Order 2008. 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

At the beginning of her speech, the noble and learned Baroness generously apologised for the inadvertent absence of the Explanatory Memorandum on the previous occasion. These things happen on the best run vessels, and I do not believe that any damage has been done to the national interest.

The order flows from the changes made to Part 8 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 by the Serious Crime Act 2007. We made it clear at the time of the passage of the then Bill that in principle we supported the changes, the most important of which has been to abolish the Assets Recovery Agency and transfer its civil recovery functions to the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the four main prosecuting authorities in England and Wales.

As the noble and learned Baroness explained, the order brings into operation a code of practice that provides guidance for prosecutors on their exercise of powers of investigation under the 2002 Act. As I understand it, the earlier code has been revised to take account of the changes introduced by the 2007 Act.

I have just two questions for the noble and learned Baroness. First, as she must know, concerns have been raised in Northern Ireland that SOCA’s priorities will be such that cases of intimidation and local protection rackets will be considered insufficiently substantial to attract its attention. Secondly, I would be most grateful if she could assure the Committee that the costs of recovering assets, as well as the amounts recovered, will be made public on a regular basis. The change that she has introduced should not be at the expense of transparency.

I, too, thank the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General for her explanation of the order. I apologise for the fact that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is unable to be here today; he was intrigued by the delay in receiving the code but was grateful to receive it when he did.

I accept that this is largely the same as the code of practice for SOCA, which was passed by both Houses earlier in the year. It is reassuring to know that the various agencies will exercise the powers of prosecution to the same standards and with the same safeguards.

The noble and learned Baroness mentioned that this code was put out to public consultation in March 2008 and that no responses were received. Can she tell us how long the consultation process was and why there were no responses during that period? Apart from that point, we welcome the order.

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his kindness and consideration in not berating me for the slip. I am most grateful to him. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for the same generosity of spirit. This Committee is graced by her presence.

Absolutely.

Without any disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I am sure that none of us thinks that she is a poor substitution; she is a very fine substitute.

I am aware of the concerns raised about Northern Ireland. There has been no evidence in fact that any change has taken place. ARA in Northern Ireland has performed with considerable distinction and efficacy and it is intended that there should be no significant change in that. Every effort is being made to ensure that the efficacy of the procedure and the approach that was adopted before is continued. I know of nothing to indicate that there has been a diminution, although I am very happy to clarify that point.

On costs and the recovery of assets, I can reassure the noble Lord that there will be no lack of transparency. I, too, expect these figures to be disclosed in the normal way.

I believe that the consultation period was the same length as usual, but because the Home Secretary’s order and code had been so extensively consulted upon, with issues raised and resolved, we were not surprised that there was no response to our consultation. We did not take it amiss because it is identical in terms to the Home Secretary’s order.

It is right that we look at comprehensive safeguards and make sure the powers are exercised fairly and proportionately by, for example, making arrangements for a person interviewed under a disclosure order to have access to legal or financial advice and the support of an appropriate adult. That would deal with the sort of issues that were raised in relation to the Home Secretary’s previous code and were put right or amplified in the amended code.

I hope that Members of the Committee will find that this is now in good order; I invite them to approve the order in the terms set.

On Question, Motion agreed to.