I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 7, leave out `must' and insert `may'.

The amendment is a probing one, and follows along the lines of the discussion that we have already had, but that does not make it any less important. The clause provides that

``The Director must give the Secretary of State advice and assistance which he reasonably requires and which —

(a) relate to matters connected with the operation of this Act, and

(b) are designed to help the Secretary of State to exercise his functions so as to reduce crime.''

What is the purpose of this? I suppose it will be said that it puts on a statutory footing the duty of the director to report to the Secretary of State and tell him about the way in which his Department or agency is working and how the Act is operating, and, if necessary, to make suggestions about how the Act might be amended or improved if the Secretary of State were minded to do that. If that is the case, I will be the first to accept that the clause is innocuous, although its mandatory nature is perhaps surprising. After discussing the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who took the debate on the previous mandatory requirement under clause 3, I am surprised at the need for the mandatory footing. It appears to emphasise the subservience of the director to the will of the Home Secretary, which is odd in view of the director's functions, which we discussed under clause 1. The director has to exercise a function akin to that of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

On this clause, however, things go further. Read as it stands, it appears to give the Secretary of State power to require the director to give him the sort of information that the DPP would never be minded to give the Home Secretary—detailed information that the director has obtained in confidence relating to the investigation of offences. That is why we seek to substitute ``may'' for ``must'', although I am the first to accept that it may be possible to approach the issue in other ways.

I seek reassurance from the Minister about what is intended, because when the intention is clear, it often becomes much clearer what alternative wording might achieve the same effect. We might word the clause without introducing the potential mischief of effectively requiring the director, if he were so bidden by the Home Secretary, to provide him with every piece of information to which he has access. I accept that the clause includes the word ``reasonably''—but on the whole, when Home Secretaries say that something is reasonable their underlings, including directors of independent agencies, tend to jump to it. I am not convinced that the word ``reasonably'' is sufficient protection in those circumstances.

Will the Minister explain exactly what is intended? With that, we may pause for a moment and consider, as the Minister helpfully did under clause 3, whether the wording is much wider than is necessary to achieve its object.

The amendment would mean that the director would not be required to give the Secretary of State

``advice and assistance which he reasonably requires'' relating to the operation of the legislation and the reduction of crime. As drafted, the clause enables the Secretary of State to take advantage of the director's expertise and seek his advice and assistance when it is reasonable for him to do so. The clause sets out the circumstances in which such advice and assistance may be required and makes it clear that advice and assistance must be on matters connected with the operation of the Act. It also makes it clear that, within that limitation, advice and assistance should be designed to help the Secretary of State in the exercise of his function of reducing crime. The director will not be the only source of advice on the legislation, but he will be a key source on certain aspects that are solely within the remit of the director. The operation of civil recovery in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is an obvious area in which the director will have the expertise to advise the Home Secretary.

In addition, the director might, at the request of the Secretary of State, want to propose amendments to the Government's asset recovery strategy and the targets for recovering the proceeds of crime. Those would be considered by the assets recovery committee and submitted to the Home Secretary for approval. We want the director to discuss any proposed amendments covering his function and that of other members of the assets recovery committee with members of the committee. The director may also wish to give advice and assistance concerning money laundering, although he has no specific function in that area. The clause will enable him to do that if requested by the Secretary of State.

The clause will contribute to the overall goal of reducing crime by improving the recovery of assets that derive from unlawful activity. It will ensure that the director is able to play a full role in contributing to the Government's overall crime reduction targets by providing valuable assistance and advice to the Secretary of State.

The Opposition understand exactly what the Minister is setting out from his brief, but can he tell us whether the Government and those who advise them have turned their minds to the parallel nature of the role of the director of the Assets Recovery Agency and that of the DPP? That is the nub of the issue that concerns my hon. Friend and me.

When considering the regulations, we did not try to invent the wheel from scratch. Our proposals are similar to the requirement placed on the director-general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad under the Police Act 1997 to submit reports to the Secretary of State on matters connected with the activities of those organisations.

The clarification in the clause concerning what aspects the advice covers relates to matters connected with the operation of the legislation, and is designed to help the Secretary of State to exercise his functions to reduce crime. That is not to say that the director is under any obligation to disclose operational matters to the Secretary of State.

It is useful to have ascertained the derivation of the provision, because it seems that what we are setting up in the Bill is different from NCIS. NCIS is an intelligence agency that collates material, whereas the Bill sets up an enforcement body with the power to do nasty things to people. NCIS does not have that power. The parliamentary draftsman has failed to appreciate the role of the director and the agency as an enforcement authority with a duty of confidentiality.

The director of the agency will not have a duty to disclose to the Secretary of State confidential information gained by him in the course of his investigations. That is clear, and the clause sets out the matters on which the director must advise the Secretary of State. They are matters relating to the operation of the legislation and the exercise of the Secretary of State's function of reducing crime.

Following up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, it seems to me that it might help the Minister and his officials to consider an historical parallel. Our concerns might be related to the battles that took place between John F. Kennedy and J. Edgar Hoover. We are talking about a director perhaps being asked by a hypothetical future Home Secretary to disclose matters that we objectively might not consider proper. That is where we make the comparison. As my hon. Friend said, the role of the director will be much closer to that of the DPP than to the directors of NCS or NCIS. I hope that the Minister will reflect further on that and perhaps return to the matter.

I think that there is some sort of a clash between us about how the director of the agency should be viewed. The hon. Gentleman insists on describing the director as a prosecuting authority, but he will not prosecute individuals in criminal law. The functions of the agency will be to recover the proceeds of crime. I shall reflect on the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but the position is clear: the Secretary of State will be advised on the operation of the legislation and issues affecting his duty and role in the reduction of crime; that will not involve the disclosure of confidential information or operational matters that it would be wholly unreasonable for the director to disclose. The director will be under no obligation whatever to do that.

I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that he will reflect on the matter. It is worth reiterating the problem. The Minister has said that the director and the agency will not have a prosecuting function. I accept that, but it is an exercise in semantics when one considers that the consequence of the agency's operation could be the civil bankruptcy of an individual and the seizure of his entire assets. The publicity attendant upon that--the proceedings will take place in open court--the fact that the proceedings will be instituted on the grounds that he is living on the proceeds of crime or has criminally acquired assets, all tested on the balance of probability, means that that person will be ruined. He may not have a conviction recorded against him, but he will have been hauled through hoops and over hot coals, and left destitute at the end—perhaps justifiably—without assets and having been identified as a malefactor. That is a large burden on the agency, and I reiterate my view and that of my hon. Friends that we should approach the matter on the basis that it is a quasi-criminal jurisdiction, because that is what it is.

That said, I accept the Minister's point and I am grateful that he will reconsider the matter. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.--[Mrs. McGuire.]

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 15 November at five minutes to Nine o'clock.