§ 4. Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham)What representations she has received from the performance and innovation unit on proposals to confiscate the assets of criminals. [124265]
§ The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney)I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
§ Mr. LoughtonWill the Minister now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for 929 Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and confirm that powers to confiscate the assets of drug dealers were introduced under the previous Government by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and that the Prime Minister's recent pronouncements on the subject, before the PIU had reported to the House, were just a cynical and desperate attempt to seize back the agenda from the Conservative party, which has tough and common-sense policies on law and order, by a Government who talk tough on crime but act weak?
§ Mr. McCartneyThe hon. Gentleman's comments show just how out of touch the Conservative party is. If he had read the report, he would realise that we are going further than the previous Government ever attempted. We are interested not just in drugs barons, but in all big-time criminals. The proposals will lead to the confiscation of their assets, whatever the crime—whether it is their house, cars, antiques, money or resources that they try to siphon off to members of their family. At last, the Government are on the side of the citizen and not, like Conservative Members, on the side of the criminal.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The Minister might withdraw that last remark.
§ Mr. McCartneyI withdraw it, but it was in the context of the final comment made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). His party could have dealt with the matter but refused to do so.
§ Mr. Jim Murphy (Eastwood)In considering the seizing of criminal assets, will my right hon. Friend ensure that tough action and suspension of assets occur not at the end of a court case but at the beginning? Further to that, will confiscation of drug dealers' assets apply not just to drug dealers themselves, but to close family and close acquaintances, to whom money might have been siphoned off?
§ Mr. McCartneyMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue is whether the assets are gained from illegal activity. Whatever assets criminals attempt to hide will not matter; if it is proven that they are the ill-gotten gains of criminal activity, we will seize them.