I would like the Committee to think a little about the background purpose of what we intend to achieve and whether, in achieving it, we risk endangering innocent third parties excessively.

I have examined the wording of clause 10. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that it follows previous practice, but that does not mean that we should not examine it afresh. Clause 10 will provide that values are calculated, and thereafter the only deductions that can be made are fines and sums that would be included among preferential debts if the defendant had gone bankrupt. The consequence would be similar to a bankruptcy proceeding, and would have a similar effect on any creditor of a defendant whose assets were confiscated. Although I understand why bankruptcy is considered to be similar to the process on which we are embarking, the process is actually very different. A person goes bankrupt usually because he cannot pay his debts. Once that has happened, there is a system to try to ensure that certain creditors are preferential—they fall into quite a small category—and thereafter it is the law of the marketplace. If there is not enough money for everyone to be compensated, the main creditor who asked for the bankruptcy to take place takes precedence over the other creditors.

I am anxious about the process because these are not bankruptcy proceedings; the person does not have any debts but a public policy decision is taken, very properly, that an individual should be deprived of his assets because he cannot show that they were not illegally obtained. I should be interested to know what has happened in the past; if the process has been applied to earlier rules there are likely to have been innocent casualties.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok gave examples of individuals in his constituency leading a criminal lifestyle, which suggests that although they are living off benefits they have also been enjoying other assets and spending freely. Those are likely to be small-scale examples; because of the sub judice rules I cannot mention a case that especially springs to mind, as the person concerned is about to undergo trial. However, I can think of individuals leading a lavish lifestyle, who have very large properties and who have long been suspected of engaging in illegal conduct. Some seizure of assets might take place if those people had been convicted. In such circumstances, many individuals—small businesses, shopkeepers, and so on—who have provided them with goods and services may be awaiting payment, but as a result of the process they are not preferential creditors. If the vast majority, if not all, of the assets concerned are confiscated, perfectly legitimately, the shopkeepers and others will be the innocent victims of criminality and of the fact that the assets were originally obtained illegally or were the result of criminal conduct.

In such circumstances, and especially as we are in the process of extending the net to catch a much wider category of person, is it right to have a rule which says, in effect, ``You should have been more careful. You must assess whether a person is creditworthy. If, in spite of having a lavish lifestyle and huge assets, he is not creditworthy, because those are the result of criminal conduct, you have to suffer the consequences''? Is such a public policy decision the right approach, or should we consider that the matter is not akin to bankruptcy, where someone has to make a commercial assessment of a person's creditworthiness? If that assessment fails there will inevitably be victims.

In this case, we should be considering not whether the ordinary rules of bankruptcy should apply but whether there should be another set of rules to ensure that bona fide creditors receive compensation for the services or goods they have provided. Some services, once provided, no longer have a monetary value; goods in the defendant's possession may have a monetary value but they may be of considerably less value than the amount that was supposed to be paid for them. I simply flag up the issue, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments. If his aspirations are realised, we are about embark on a process that will lead to many such proceedings and applications. As a result of the lawful and justifiable steps that the state will take against them, it will also impel many people into bankruptcy.

Are we to say to the many victims, ``Sorry, this is one of life's commercial realities and you will have to face up to it. There is nothing we can do for you''? Or are we to say, ``You may not be a preferential creditor, but you are undoubtedly a bona fide creditor, so you should be paid out''? It is a public policy issue, and I fear that it might lead to considerable harshness. Where is the necessity in public policy terms to justify such harshness?

Finally, I may have misunderstood the Minister earlier, but I fail to grasp the connection between the amendment and salting away one's assets. I can see a vague connection. Under the clause, a defendant could claim that he owed money to individuals who are not bona fide creditors, which might make the court's task a little more complicated.