I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 132, line 41, at end insert—

''insofar as relevant to the investigation of the offence under section 179 which it is suspected has been committed''.

The fundamental effect of clause 183 is to provide the OFT with the same powers that the SFO currently has under the Criminal Justice Act. Again, the Government seem to be introducing provisions—although the Under-Secretary will deny this—that have the implication of undermining the SFO and that undermine the OFT in the process. In the context of our earlier debate on initiating proceedings, I mentioned the potential problems, in relation to the powers of the OFT and SFO, for the transparency and reputation of this country's courts.

We have no less of a problem over giving the OFT new powers of investigation. Those powers could significantly undermine the business community's confidence in the OFT, which is currently based on its understanding that the OFT is part of a system that ensures fair trade, rather than being, conceptually, a criminal agency. In any event, the amendment is appropriate in that any investigation undertaken should be relevant only to the suspected criminal infringements of clause 159.

I heard the Under-Secretary say earlier that the Government do not immediately intend to turn the OFT into a prosecution agency, but that is the clear purpose of this legislation. If that is to happen, we must look at the matter in a different light from that in which we have in the past. The amendment might give some small comfort to companies that an anti-cartel investigation mounted by the OFT will not be used as some kind of general fishing expedition.

I support wholeheartedly the amendment that the hon. Member for Huntingdon has proposed. At the moment, I am seriously concerned that clause 183(2) as currently worded will be a licence for fishing expeditions. One always

remembers, of course, that Al Capone was caught for his tax evasion and one can imagine that some minor offence might be the basis on which the OFT goes into a company and that, once there, it will run amok. There must be proper and meaningful controls over that in the Bill, and the amendment would achieve that.

I think that there is some misunderstanding about what the amendment would achieve. I hope to persuade Opposition Members not only that they should support anything that brought Al Capone to justice—if there has been an implication of anything different—but that the amendment is unnecessary and superfluous. It seeks to limit the circumstances in which the OFT can use its powers of criminal investigation to investigate suspected cartel offences, in order to ensure that the OFT uses its tough new investigatory powers only in appropriate circumstances. We believe that that is a fit and proper safeguard and have already included an adequate provision to that effect.

Subsection (2) states that the criminal investigatory powers are exercisable

''only for the purposes of an investigation under subsection (1)''.

Under subsection (1), the OFT may only

''conduct an investigation if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that''

the cartel offence ''has been committed''. I entirely sympathise with the points that the hon. Members for Huntingdon and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) made, but I believe that the amendment is otiose.

When the Under-Secretary referred to clause 183, she said that the OFT may conduct an investigation only if there are reasonable grounds. That is not what subsection (1) says. It gives far broader discretionary power and does not confine the OFT's power in the manner that she says it does. It gives almost carte blanche discretion, provided that there are reasonable grounds. The word ''only'' does not appear in subsection (1) at all.

Subsection (2) in my copy of the Bill says:

''The powers of the OFT under sections 184 and 185 are exercisable, but only for the purposes of an investigation under subsection (1)''.

The word ''only'' does appear.

The hon. Lady is right that subsection (2) is contingent upon subsection (1), but subsection (1) gives a very wide discretion. The word ''only'' does not appear in it.

I can read what subsection (1) says, as anyone can. It says:

''if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 179 has been committed.''

It is specific and, in turn, refers to section 179 and the offence that we are talking about. There is a direct link.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's intention in the matter is exactly the same as his. There

is no difference. If for some reason the lawyers believe that the Opposition have raised further points, I shall certainly reconsider the clause. However, I believe that the amendment is superfluous and that the clause addresses the matter just as the hon. Gentleman and the Government would like.

I hope that the Government have realised that there is a problem with the wording, in so far as it would certainly be better if the word ''only'' were put in as the fourth word in subsection (1). To the extent that the Under-Secretary has said that the intent is that it will apply only in respect of section 179, I am pleased and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 183 ordered to stand part of the Bill.