Powers originally given only to the police and police agencies to seize criminal assets are now being extended to councils and other public bodies, including the Royal Mail. Once again, legal powers voted in to deal with terrorism and organised crime are being rolled out for use against minor offences. The most famous example is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), which could originally only be used by nine organisations (such as the police and security services). It can now be applied by over 800 public bodies. After mission creep, ministers have invented mission gallop. As a result, highly intrusive techniques are now routinely used to spy on ordinary people, their children, their pets and their bins.

The government is at it again. The "Al Capone powers" within the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were designed to claw back the money and assets accrued by Mr Bigs and deprive them of a luxury lifestyle funded by a lifetime of criminality. Now these rights to search homes, seize cash, freeze bank accounts and confiscate property will be used by civilian officials from town halls and bodies as diverse as Transport for London and the Gambling Commission. Intrusive powers designed for the fight against terrorism and organised crime could now be used to seize property from fare evaders and those in arrears on council tax. This is a step too far. You don't need Al Capone powers to tackle the Artful Dodger.

The Police Federation has led the opposition to the extension of these draconian powers. It is right to suggest that such intrusive powers should be left in the well-trained hands of warranted officers and law enforcement bodies. I agree. I see no good reason why the current system, where these bodies have to seek the authorisation and involvement of the police to access recovery powers, has to be dismantled. I fear that the move has less to do with fighting crime and freeing up police time, as the Home Office claims, and more to do with meeting targets.

The government wants to seize £1bn of assets a year after 2010, which looks a stiff target when just £137m was confiscated last year. The lack of success so far is partly because the law has found it difficult to tackle ringleaders. The BBC's Panorama found that £60m of assets had been frozen in three years, but the authorities succeeded in taking back only £6m. The act has increasingly been used to seize the assets of minor offenders.

The government's decision to hand over invasive powers to a plethora of organisations was made without public consultation or parliamentary scrutiny. As with Ripa, the sweeping extension is being made through statutory instrument, which is not normally subject to debate. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have had to table a motion in parliament to attempt to even have the changes debated in committee. Sadly, there is no guarantee that this will even happen.

This back-door extension of asset-seizing powers is exactly what we have seen before with the creep of surveillance and counter-terrorism powers. It is becoming increasingly hard to believe that any laws the government pass in the name of fighting terrorism and crime will not soon be used against ordinary people by officials working in town halls and quangos. The most serious invasions of individual privacy by the state must be reserved for the most serious matters and handled by our most serious bodies.