The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. This year, the Assets Recovery Agency has been more successful than it was in the past. I take in part his point about much of its success being stuck in the courts pipeline. In one sense that is quite proper; it comes down to safeguards, although there are abuses. However, with the greatest respect, that is not a reflection on the success or otherwise of the ARA, either within or outwith the Serious Organised Crime Agency. As he suggests, the current situation owes more to the shenanigans—that is probably the technical term—of assorted defence lawyers who are seeking to defend their clients and prevent the recovery of their assets and ill-gotten gains. I honestly do not think that that charge could be levelled unduly at the ARA, or that the issue would lead to a lack of success on the part of the ARA. Those are matters that the ARA, SOCA and, more generally, the Home Office are looking to take forward with colleagues in the criminal justice system. Although there might be abuses around the edges, people are perfectly entitled to pursue objections to their ill-gotten gains being recovered, and we do not want to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Tony McNulty
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 12 June 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
461 c668 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:46:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_402408
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_402408
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_402408