YES

Mirza Ahmad, Corporate director of governance Birmingham City Council

Councils and other public authorities have been using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for the past two years. This new statutory instrument simply builds on existing powers by giving local and other public authorities the power to seize goods, assets and search homes.

When a crime is committed,public expects responsible law enforcement authorities to take action. Criminals benefit from the proceeds of crime andis right thatassets be given back to society.

Councils ensure proceeds of crime are not used again for criminal purposes. This is essential in terms of protecting and serving the public. The Proceeds of Crime Actessential to making localities safe for the public.

There are already many safeguards within the system to ensure that these powersbe used appropriately. Not just anyone within the local authority can exercise these powers. Before any senior local authority officer can use these powers they must become an accredited financial investigator.

The training is provided by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA). These officials are trained with a strong police approach. The NPIA will check the individuals very carefully and only accredit somebody when it feels satisfied that the individual has the right competence and that it is necessary in terms of law enforcement to grant them these powers.

The other crucial safeguard is through the courts. Before a local authority can confiscate goods a court order must be sought. A court will not grant an order without considering all elements of the case and sufficient evidence for it to be necessary.

Local authorities deal with many million pounds worth of fraud every year. The type of criminality that local authorities deal with are mainly benefit fraud andtrading standards — counterfeit goods or “car clocking” — fraudulently changing the mileage on a car — which affect innocent people. Local authorities are experts in dealing with these types of crime, and it is only right that we have appropriate powers to deal with criminals. Birmingham City Council recently confiscated a huge duplicating machine for counterfeit T shirts. Since 2007 we have obtained confiscation orders in excess of £1.1 million, and have so farmore than £500,000, which will go back into improving law enforcement.

The new powers will give local authorities more flexibility and enable us to work more independently of the police to pursue criminals. It is untrue to say that these powers for local authorities have been introduced without debate. The 2002 Act provided the mechanism for this statutory instrument — the debate has already taken place in Parliament.

As law enforcement authorities, local authorities are not seeking to take over the police’s role — on the contrary, itwill actually give more flexibility to the police as they will have competent investigators within local authorities to whom they can turn.

NO

Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales

We in the policing community have real concerns around the extension of powers to search homes, seize assets and freeze bank accounts now available to councils, Transport for London and a host of other quangos and agencies.

The public have trust in the police service to treat these powers in an appropriate way. I don’t believe people will have the same faith in local authorities to use them properly.

The Proceeds of Crime Act is a very powerful tool which senior police officers have been using for many years and which is treated very seriously indeed. In each criminal case we undertake a forensic analysis of the assets they have and make orders to seize those assets. We have been doing this for many years and it is appropriate to try to get back something that people have taken from others wrongfully.

For those powers to be extended beyond the use of police agencies is concerning. It knocks confidence in the implementation of new laws and powers because people don’t have faith in them being kept to the agencies that should have them.

If you need to introduce additional measures for local authorities, fine — but don’t use powers that are intended specifically for the police.

As one of the most accountable bodies there is, the police service is accountable to the police authorities, to the courts and to government. It contains some of the most highly vetted people in the country. Everybody knows who a police constable is and how to hold them responsible for their actions. Staff with councils and other agencies do not have the same level of vetting. Are they going to be ac countable for the use of these powers? Who will ensure they are used fairly, equitably and proportionately?

Very little thought has been given to the unintended consequences that could result. There has already been an erosion of trust in the criminal justice system. People are confused, and this confuses things more. When people lose confidence in the system, they lose faith in the police. We take the blame for failures that occur elsewhere. An abuse of power by other agencies will tarnish us as well.

Neither was there consultation with the general public or the police on the extension of these powers. The public are unaware that these very serious powers are being extended incrementally without their knowledge. Where is the consultation process that you would expect the Government to go through? How widely are these powers going to be used? What is the intention behind this?

In the back-door extension of these serious powers I see a parallel with the creep of surveillance and counter terrorism. It is another incremental change in the way the criminal justice system works and represents mission creep for local authorities. The result is that we may find ourselves living in a very different society.

Times Recommends

• Minister in talks with Saudis to protect creditors
• Premier Inn hits back in £29-a-room row
• Bankers hit back at 'populist' bonus supertax