Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 32, in page 5, line 30, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

`(b) to pay any sum which is a lawful and bone fide debt.'.—[Mr. Grieve.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 75, in page 5, line 33, leave out subsection (3).

Before the break, one of my colleagues was saying that my responses to Opposition Members may be too kind and generous. I was pointing out that the amendment, like most of the Conservative party's amendments, would weaken the Bill's powers to deal with those who have gained proceeds through criminal action. It would make it more difficult for such proceeds to be recovered, and I find that astonishing.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) rose—

Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman to speak, I wish to say that gentlemen may remove their jackets. Those who have done so already without permission had better consider putting them on again.

The Minister's remarks surprise me. Our job is to scrutinise the Bill. If there are areas in it that need to be strengthened, we shall suggest ways in which that can be done. It is difficult to see areas in which the Bill could be strengthened, as I think is the Government's intention. Indeed, if we were to embark on such a strategy, we might end up with a regime such as that run by Mola Omar. We are heading gently in that direction as it is. If legitimate areas require strengthening for the purpose of ensuring justice, we shall table the appropriate amendments.

We have not seen any yet. Issues can be probed just as well by proposing to make matters harder for criminals as they can by proposing to make matters easier for them. Yet again and again, time after time, amendment after amendment, all we get from the Tories, who profess to be hard on criminals and to want to confiscate the proceeds of crime, is, ``Oh, no. Let's make it a bit easier. Let's find exceptions. Let's find ways round it. Let's give them loopholes.''

We all understand the party political knockabout in which the Minister is now indulging. However, he has chosen to make such comments about absolutely the wrong clause. Even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) understood that amendment No. 32, of all those that we have discussed, has the least to do with happens to the defendant. Until the Minister spoke, I thought that the Committee had accepted that the amendment was about innocent people who might be unfortunate enough to have dealings with those who are the subject of the Bill. The Minister is on the wrong track.

Aha. I am about to prove the hon. Gentleman wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. Genuine worries have been expressed about debtors, especially by Liberal Democrat Committee members.

All of us have expressed concern.

Perhaps Conservatives have expressed concern, too. The amendment would substantially undermine the Bill's provisions.

The Minister believes that Opposition Members are being awkward or soft on criminals, but we are scrutinising the provisions. Such matters will receive the same scrutiny—if not more—from solicitors and barristers when they go to court. There must be a sense of justice. We are discussing the payment of a lawful and bona fide debt. We do not want innocent third parties to suffer three, four or five transactions down the line. It would be wrong to have a draconian rule against those individuals. I am sure that Labour Members understand our position. There should not be a new law in that regard.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's position. Barristers, advocates and lawyers can make their own case and speak powerfully for themselves. People in another place will, no doubt, have vested interests. Our vested interest is on behalf of people who are suffering because of drug dealers, money launderers, criminals, and their activities. That is why we want the Bill to be as powerful and effective as possible.

As hon. Members have said, only preferential debts, which are included in section 386 of the Insolvency Act 1986, are discounted from ``the available amount''. Those debts are mostly debts to the state, such as outstanding tax debts, but they also include outstanding remuneration of employees, which will satisfy the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The Bill protects the same list of creditors that are protected in bankruptcy proceedings. It seemed to our draftsmen that it was right to use those provisions, and not, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, because the rationale is exactly the same. The provisions seem to be appropriate and to have the right sort of pedigree and purpose.

I hope that the Minister will consider a serious point with those who advise him, even if he cannot accept it today. There is a difference between a trader who deals with a company that might be at risk of bankruptcy and a legitimate small trader. The trader can protect himself by all sorts of means such as credit checks, whereas it is impossible for the legitimate small trader to find out in advance that the person with whom he is dealing, who is apparently a pillar of society—to use the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok—may later turn out to be a criminal. That is wholly different to bankruptcy, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, the hon. Member for Lewes and I are making this point.

Credit checks are not 100 per cent. accurate, and nor is an assessment of criminals with a criminal lifestyle. If one considered the Kray twins, one might gradually have come to the conclusion that they might just be involved in a wee bit of work that was not absolutely legal.

One might have reached that conclusion with the Kray brothers, but I hope that, as a result of the Bill, people who have hitherto been regarded as respectable pillars of society will be identified and that the proceeds of their crime will be taken away. Individual small traders who deal with them are also regarded as respectable. We do not want to weaken the Bill, but we want to ensure that no further innocent victims are created.

I had better go on, because some of those questions will be answered during the discussions.

Other third party interests also receive protection elsewhere in the Bill. Persons with secured interests will be able to recover them. A typical example is a person with an outstanding mortgage. In such a case, it would be open to the mortgage company to apply for a variation or a discharge of a restraint order under clause 43(3) to recover his debt. There is also provision for such interests to be taken into account if a receiver is appointed and at the realisation stage of a confiscation order.

Secured creditors are also protected under the legislation by the legislative steer in clause 69(3)(a), which states that the powers of the court and receivers

``must be exercised with a view to allowing a person other than the defendant or the recipient of a tainted gift to retain or recover the value of any interest held by him''.

The only issue is whether unsecured creditors should take priority over the settlement of the confiscation order. We believe that they should not. If all debts were given priority over confiscation, there would be two undesirable consequences. First, defendants could acquire services on credit to defeat the confiscation process. That would mean that the available amount was reduced and the court would have to make a lower confiscation order against the defendants than would otherwise be possible, which would be a very effective means of evading confiscation. The kind of people that we are talking about would make such arrangements deliberately to evade confiscation.

Mr. Grieve rose—

The Chairman Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I point out that if hon. Members want a clause stand part debate, interventions may count as part of it. The interventions thus far have been on the principle of the clause rather than a specific amendment.

I understand what the Minister said and I appreciate that that is a potential problem but drafting surely would not go a long way towards curing that problem. I have two points to make. First, would it be possible to set a date within or outside of which the debts would not be given preferential treatment, thereby preventing defendants from using the situation when they knew that proceedings were to be brought against them? That seems perfectly practical. Secondly, I do not accept the Minister's point—I hope that he will respond to this—that debts from the unsecured creditor, such as the shopkeeper who provides credit, could be used by defendants in the way he suggests. Those categories can be identified.

I will come to specific categories in a moment. It worries me that the hon. Gentleman is again arguing the criminal's case.

No.

Well, he is, because the criminals we are talking about employ not only competent solicitors and advocates such as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but competent accounts. The more loopholes that we provide, the more those accountants will say, ``Look, if you acquire services on credit in such a way, you can reduce your allowable amount effectively to evade having to pay.''

I think that the Minister may have misunderstood. That problem can be met by drafting, not simply by the amendment. I am talking not about reducing the amount that one has to pay the state in order to pay a defendant's creditors but about the state taking it upon itself to reimburse bona fide creditors when it has recuperated cash.

I will come to some of the problems. I am saying merely that we are talking about the available amount. Anything that enables the criminal or those acting on his behalf to find ways of reducing that amount would undermine the Bill. It might be possible to prevent that by excluding from protection debts acquired after the commencement of criminal proceedings but that would not assist in cases in which the defendant had earlier begun evasive action—as he would—after becoming aware that he was under investigation. As soon as a defendant was under investigation, he would start salting away some of his money to ensure that the available amounts would be reduced.

The Minister must understand that the amendment is not designed to enable any drug dealer to salt away anything. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, we want all the defendant's assets to be seized, but not at the expense of the entirely innocent third parties. There must be a way to do that.

I shall come to some of those points in a moment. As the Chairman said, we are having a clause stand part debate and covering points that are not directly relevant to the amendment.. Defendants would produce a list of phoney creditors, claiming to have prior debt outstanding against them. In reality, those individuals would be the defendant's criminal associates—the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is shaking his head, but that is exactly what happens. Such associates are the so-called straw men whom we already see deployed in attempts to frustrate the operation of legislation on the proceeds of crime. That action would be difficult to prevent and would greatly weaken the confiscation system.

That is arrant nonsense. It is unbelievable that the police, other regulatory authorities or the new, wonderfully powerful Assets Recovery Agency would not have the power to investigate more thoroughly. The reality is that an investigation in which confiscatory powers come into force would be an enormous operation involving the police and the director of the Assets Recovery Agency. Bank accounts of associates and all transactions going back six years would be looked at in great detail. The idea that somehow the amendment would give licence to a handful of people to salt money away into private accounts is nonsense.

The hon. Gentleman must admit that the amendment would provide an extra opportunity to set up phoney creditors, which would make it much more difficult for the investigating authorities to find information.

On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs touched briefly on the issue of property subject to a restraint order. He indicated that such orders could be varied to allow a builder to recover debt, for example. To avoid any doubt, I should explain the position in more detail. The legislative steer in clause 69 has the effect that the confiscation process takes precedence over unsecured debts. A restraint order prohibits the payment of any debt, secured or unsecured, without the leave of the court. It can be varied by the court to allow a secured creditor to recover an interest in property but, in the light of the legislative steer, it cannot be varied to allow the payment of an unsecured debt unless that is necessary to maintain the value of the property under restraint. I hope that that clarifies the position outlined on Second Reading.

It is helpful that the Minister has clarified that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and I understood what his colleague said on Second Reading. Our point is that we do not seek to allow conspiracies of straw men that would enable the proper target of the legislation to escape; nothing in our amendment would allow that. As my hon. Friend made clear, the powers in the Bill will stop that happening. We seek a minor change that would protect only the entirely innocent. The amendment would not protect the associates of the defendant.

What makes me sceptical about the amendment is that the Bill does not change the existing powers, which are sufficiently limited, to confiscate the proceeds of crime. I checked with officials and learned that we have not had any complaints from innocent sufferers; none has been made known to us. Thus, the Opposition's points are hypothetical. Problems have not developed under the existing legislation. Indeed, the Crown Prosecution Service informs us that it happens only rarely that unsecured creditors argue that they should take precedence over the satisfaction of a confiscation order. That reinforces my earlier point.

The Opposition were worried about the time that would be used in the criminal courts to deal with aspects of the Bill. They asked me to urge a Home Office investigation into how much time would be wasted by the Crown court. How much more time would be taken up if the amendment were accepted? We would have to develop a hierarchy of creditors and decide which should be dealt with first. That would take a huge amount of time and would be a huge administrative burden on the Crown court.

As I explained, the Government regard the amendment as wrong in both principle and practice. In the light of my comments—I think that I have been very persuasive—I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield sees fit to withdraw his amendment.

I do not know what the Minister had to eat, but he has come back from lunch somewhat energised.

The Minister tried to address the issues, and I give him credit for that. I am the first to admit that there is a concern that, if we build exceptions and safeguards into the legislation, we run the risk of weakening it. That is a fact, but safeguards are sometimes necessary. The most efficient method would be to lock up everyone in sight, so that we are bound to catch all the criminals. You would catch lots of innocent people as well, so you have to have a system for differentiating between those whom you want to catch and those who are innocent.

Order. That is a ``you'' too far. The hon. Gentleman knows that if he uses the word ``you'', he refers to me. I do none of those things.

I take your word that you do none of those things, Mr. McWilliam.

The rules are very strict. The use of the word ``you'' refers to the Chair.

Forgive me for doing that, but I speak as a former English teacher. The word ``you'' is used as a modern equivalent of ``one'', and that was the sense in which I was using it.

Whoever said that this was a modern assembly?

Its members are jacketless, I must agree.

There is genuine concern that the legislation might be weakened by safeguards, but, equally, I hope that both sides of the House share the determination not to introduce legislation that sweeps up in its wake innocent third parties. The legislation is generally good, and I hope that it leads to many people being caught who have got away with crime for a long time and may be in powerful positions. I welcome that, and I look forward to reading in the newspapers that so-and-so, who has been a respectable person in society, has been caught.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a principle is involved? Confiscation will be part of the sentencing process far more extensively under the powers. Do we compensate creditors when we lock someone up and their business goes bust? We do not. Do we compensate people when we fine them and their business goes broke? Why do we not compensate the creditors if they flee abroad from the jurisdiction because the forces of law and order are after them? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a serious principle would be at stake were we to become involved in compensating the creditors of criminals, effectively, accepting responsibility for the debts of criminals? That is what the amendment would do—confiscate both the proceeds and debts of crime.

The Minister talks about compensation. We are talking about a sum of money—the ``available amount'', to use the term in the Bill—that would have already been taken by the authorities. This is not a question of compensation from the Treasury, but of how we deploy the money that is seized. We are asking what constitutes free property and what constitutes obligations. Those are terms in the Bill.

I accept that there may be drawbacks to the amendment, but it is well intentioned. Does the Minister recognise that if his legislation is effective in identifying more people who have ill-gotten proceeds of crime, more innocent third parties will be swept up in the process? That will be inadvertent and regrettable, but it will happen. As the Minister is unhappy with the amendment, I suggest a method that would allow the unsecured creditors—such as the ordinary businessmen or women whom we want to protect—to make a claim to a central pot and thereby prove their case. If we are not happy to accept their claims automatically because of the reasons given by the Minister, could a system be set up that at least gave them a chance of proving their case and securing the money owing to them?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, what is the difference between that proposition and the case of someone who suffers a large fine and argues that he is no longer able to pay his creditors? If such a system is in place for one, surely it should be applied to the other.

That is a fair point. I picked up the Minister on the word ``compensation'', which I did not agree was an accurate description. However, there is a general public policy problem that goes far beyond clause 10, and I am sure that you will tell me, Mr. McWilliam, if I stray too far. In general terms, if the state takes money from an individual, and the consequence is that an innocent third party suffers, there is a case for that money being deployed, under certain circumstances, for that innocent third party.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the logic of the Minister's earlier intervention was that even secured creditors should be ignored for the purposes of the compensation system? If that is the attitude that the Minister wishes to take, there is no logical reason why secured creditors should have an advantage over unsecured creditors. In terms of equity and fairness, no logical distinction exists.

The Minister will doubtless pick up on that point when he responds.

The Minister's intervention does not undermine the points made by Opposition Members and Labour Members because once the legislation is in operation, the state will have seized all of the assets concerned. As the hon. Member for Lewes rightly said, it is therefore a question of how they are distributed. Will not Labour Members be the first to complain about the far-too-wide scope of the Bill if they are besieged in their surgeries by constituents saying, ``Why should Gordon Brown keep all this money when my business is going bust and I am entirely innocent?''

It will be difficult for any Member of Parliament to deal with a situation in which an innocent third party, who was a law-abiding citizen going about his or her business and working hard, was suddenly put out of business or suffered a calamitous consequence because of something that had nothing to do with them.

To clarify, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not intended that the money will be retained by Gordon Brown, but that it will be recycled and spent in constituencies such as mine? As I suggested that very thing on Second Reading, I hope that it will be spent in my constituency first. It is a question of whether the money should be kept for the benefit of the criminal, or spent for the benefit of the poor people of my area.

Gordon Brown is used as a synonym for Government. He will doubtless be a channel through which funds will flow from criminals. He will be a kind of accessory after the fact—receiving money from criminals and distributing it widely like a latter-day Robin Hood to constituencies such as Glasgow, Pollok and, indeed, Lewes, which has been hit terribly by floods, and should receive money from the Government, which has not happened so far.

Irrespective of that, innocent third parties will suffer as a consequence of this legislation. The more effective the legislation is at catching people, the more innocent third parties who will suffer. The Government have a duty to recognise that, and to find a formulation that protects those third parties as far as possible. The amendment, which the Minister does not like, would at least allow such people to appeal to a central fund. There may be other ways forward. However, the Minister has a responsibility not only to catch those who have ill-gotten proceeds of crime, which we all support, but to help those who are affected unintentionally.

The hon. Member for Lewes said that Gordon Brown was to be used as a synonym for Government. That is not universally accepted—

Order. I let the hon. Member for Lewes get away with it because he is new, but the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok must know that Members are referred to by constituency.

I was merely using the term that the hon. Member for Lewes used to describe the Chancellor—and that synonym is not accepted even on the street where Gordon Brown lives.

I turn to the question of how the matter will be dealt with in practice. A practical difficulty is involved, but having listened to Opposition Members, I do not believe that they have been willing to take it on board. Drug dealers, in particular, deal overwhelmingly in cash and will have already hidden whatever can be hidden. If they are aware that they are the subject of an investigation, they have every incentive not to pay a bill in any circumstances, as they know that all their assets may be gathered up by the Government for compensation. If the electricity, gas, council tax, joiner's, butcher's and candlestick maker's bill will all be met from the same amount, they have no incentive not to spend wildly. Indeed, they have a positive incentive to spend wildly, because if they believe that they are the subject of an investigation that is likely to find them guilty—they will know what evidence is likely to be available—they will be best advised to have a good time before they go away for several years. In such circumstances, the Government would effectively be subsidising their extravagance in the period leading up to their conviction. A moral hazard is involved that it would be inappropriate for us to accept.

I accept that a problem is involved. Are there any mechanisms in the Bill, or has the Minister thought of any, whereby a more speedy alteration to the legal position might be introduced in the event of a problem? Every year, the Chancellor introduces in the Budget legislation that changes various measures. I am not sure whether any of the Bill's financial provisions could be dealt with in that way. We need to be able to close loopholes and fine-tune without having to go through the procedure involved in introducing a revisionary Bill.

Committee stages of Bills are strange. I tabled what was designed as a probing amendment not because I had received briefing material from a pressure group or outside organisation but because, reading through the clause, I was struck by how considerable—I have rather overused the word ``draconian'' and will avoid it—or heavy the consequences could be in certain circumstances for innocent third parties. I tabled the amendment not because I was interested to find out whether it would completely fit the Bill—I accept that it probably does not, and I listened carefully to the Minister's argument that practical issues are likely to be involved.

I was slightly surprised at Ministers' reaction. The amendment was, if ever an amendment was, designed to explore an aspect that I consider to be neutral in its impact on the operation of the Bill. It seems to have attracted a level of opprobrium and a knee-jerk reaction from the Government that I find surprising. It is almost as though it stung them in some way.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok, who has given some thought to our suggestion, made a point about criminals spending wildly if they believe that their assets will be seized. As the Bill stands, I am sure that criminals will spend wildly before their assets are seized. A feature of the matter is that we cannot make criminals who spend wildly prior to the seizure of their assets magic back the money that has gone. They operate a cash economy and if they decide to go out to have expensive restaurant meals in the last week before the guillotine comes down on them—

That is a new proposal.

I thought that the proposal would commend itself to the hon. Gentleman. There was a tradition of decapitation using machinery in Scotland up to the 18th century, which we did not have down here. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was thinking of that.

Order. The Minister of State and I took our magistrates oath together. We are well aware of who Baillie Deacon Brodie was.

Thank you, Mr. McWilliam.

I understand that a criminal might try to spend money and could develop an artificial line of credit through which he could subsequently recoup it. I fully accept what the Minister said about the deviousness of the criminal fraternity, their use of accountants and the wonderful explanations that are given for money that they possess. I remember a criminal case in which we discovered £25,000 in banknotes in a cupboard, and the defendant produced a person in court to say that he owned the money and that the defendant was looking after it. I am alive to all that. However, it is possible, without excessive bureaucracy, for bona fide creditors to be identified and to show that they provided a service or goods. There would be overwhelming evidence—probably documentary—that that occurred, and witnesses to back that up. Such creditors would appear to be members of the community of proper standing rather than members of the criminal fraternity. They would find themselves out of pocket and their businesses seriously endangered even though they had provided the credit. They would watch while the money was removed and put into the state's hands.

The point was made that that happens under the regime of fines.

Or confiscation.

Yes, but we are creating a completely new regime.

No.

Well, we are, because the regime goes wider than the old regime and, above all, through assumptions, targets assets that are not necessarily directly related to the offences for which a person is convicted. It bears no relation at all to fines or criminal sanctions. One of our most interesting discussions concerned whether the regime is criminal or civil.

The hon. Gentleman seems to make a novel point of criminal law. If the available amount comes identifiably from the process of seizing a criminal's assets—drug money and the like—he seems to suggest that however unfortunate third parties may have encountered the former owner of the money, criminal money should, via the state, be returned and circulated to the so-called innocent third party, rather than confiscated. However, the money remains drug money.

May I give a yellow card here? I am seriously considering my position about the clause stand part debate because this debate has been extremely wide.

I accept that we have developed something like a clause stand part debate, Mr. McWilliam, but that followed logically because we were discussing the nub of the matter. I certainly shall not press for another such debate on the clause, although I cannot, of course, speak for other hon. Members.

I admit to the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about a grey area. As I understand the nature of the confiscation proceedings, and because we reverse the burden of proof, I find it philosophically difficult to say that we are considering money that can be distinctly related to or identified with a particular criminal activity. The whole reason for creating such a wide scope is to target criminals' assets in general. Indeed, clause 6 refers to ``general criminal conduct'', which is a widely defined expression. That is why I think that we are moving into slightly uncharted territory, which I simply want to make as sensible as possible. I do not want to prevent that from happening. Indeed, I have never tabled an amendment to that effect. My party has always been in favour of the change, as I have. I am not just acting as a spokesman who does not believe in the party's point of view.

However, these are extensive powers. I cannot predict how things will work out in practice, but if the Government's intention is what I think it is, there are likely to be numerous proceedings, and large quantities of assets will be seized. In those circumstances, it is possible that a far wider category of innocent third parties will be hauled in and adversely affected by the procedures than hitherto.

What started 15 years ago as a very limited procedure may now be reaching its final expression as a very wide procedure. It is almost—I do not mean this critically—a form of parallel law enforcement. Picking up on what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok said, we are saying to people, ``We can't get you on specific offences, but we can identify you. You've done all sorts of things that make you fall within the categories and you must justify your postion.'' When people cannot justify their position, away goes their money.

If the legislation works, large quantities of assets will go. I rejoice at that, but I am also concerned about the seemingly inevitable knock-on consequence that a far greater range of innocent third parties may be adversely affected. I have a simple philosophical question in those circumstances: should the state have priority or perhaps start thinking about having greater regard for the hardship that may be experienced by those third parties?

The Minister will accept that we are not talking about bankruptcy proceedings, in which there is inevitably insufficient money to meet the liabilities of the person concerned, so the unsecured creditors are bound to experience hardship, and things must be shared between them.

We are talking about a situation in which there may be ample assets, but they have gone into the hands of the state. I am sure that the state will have various good uses for them, but whether they will ever go to help the constituents of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok, I do not know. It is a rather funny system that says that money will be distributed for public works of some description in his constituency, while at the same time all the local shopkeepers have gone out of business and no one is in a position to open new businesses there. Running a local business, particularly in areas with serious crime problems, is a hugely problematic undertaking. My experience relates only to central London, but I suspect that the situation is the same in his constituency.

I rather expected the Minister to stand up and say sympathetically, ``I understand what you're saying, and we might think about these problems, although I do not think that there is an easy solution.'' I would then have sat down happily, but the Government's response is disappointing.

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, he is wriggling. The amendment applies to a person convicted of a specific crime, as well as to anyone roped in because of a criminal lifestyle. If it were made, you would have drug money back on the street because of an innocent third party. Is that what he is arguing?

Order. I will not have any drug money on any street. I felt a slight anticipation of the debate on clause 11, too, but never mind.

The hon. Gentleman agreed that the Bill is not a replica of previous legislation. We want to widen the categories of people from whom assets may be confiscated. I accept that confiscation took place previously and that such a regime operated. I also accept that the Minister knows of no serious complaints. That is reassuring, but we are widening the scope—

The Minister mentioned the Government's lack of complaints. Does my hon. Friend agree that if an innocent business man were to apply to protect the debt owed to him, solicitors would advise him not to bother because no statutory power exists? The amendments propose a wider regime to protect the innocent.

I agree. I was not in Parliament when the 1985 legislation was debated but I have seen how it works in practice. As a matter of philosophical principle and leaving practical problems to one side, there would have been good grounds in 1985 to argue along the lines that I have today, because this is not an ordinary bankruptcy regime. Unlike in bankruptcy, the state requires substantial sums, so bona fide third parties adversely affected as creditors should be considered. How best to do that raises practical problems and I am mindful of what the Minister said, although I am not persuaded that the system will prevent injustice. Furthermore, bogus applications should be rapidly dismissed.

I must tell the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) that I have not been involved in restraint proceedings. When I was a barrister, my job was to obtain the original confiscation order, but I never dealt with its civil consequences in the High Court. Nor did I deal with practical problems or people adversely affected.

The amendment was a probing one, but I am minded to press it to a Division because the Minister is unprepared even to think about it. Unless he does—and I do not think that he will—I will press it to a vote. I do not expect to win, but I want to mark it up as an issue that may be taken up elsewhere. It may even be taken up in a private Member's Bill. There is a point here that the Committee can sensibly address without detracting from the force of what the Bill intends to do. We support that intention.

I genuinely thought that I provided convincing arguments. Obviously I did not. I will have another go and try to encourage the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. All we are talking about is what should be discounted in the calculation of the available amount. Some of what he implied went far beyond that. He said that he found my reply disappointing. We must remember that we are talking about serious matters that affect our constituents. We are not trying to score debating points, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West that the Opposition spokesman appeared to be pulling back and conceding some points. I do not blame him for that.

We are at the Committee stage.

That is a perfectly valid thing to do during the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Lewes said that this was a well-intentioned amendment. I do not doubt that, but I hope that he also realises that it would seriously weaken the powers of the Bill. The principal purpose of the Bill is to deter criminals by having real powers to confiscate their assets. That bears repetition.

I accept that that is the Minister's view of the amendment. I hope that he will go on to say what alternative method he proposes to help innocent third parties.

I shall come to that. Let us talk about the poor creditors, the innocent third parties and the unsecured lenders. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked about secured lenders. If he wanted it to be just a probing amendment he could have tabled an amendment to say that the secured lenders might not be taken into account either. That would have hardened the arrangement. We would then have seen that all his amendments did not tend in the one direction of weakening the power of the Bill.

Inevitably, an unsecured lender will expose himself or herself to a wide range of risks. The fact that the borrower may be subject to a confiscation order is only one of those risks. The borrower or recipient of goods and services may turn out to be insolvent. He or she may die without leaving an adequate estate or may simply default or, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary rightly pointed out, be sent to prison. All of those pose risks for unsecured lenders. This is just one of many risks that we are talking about today.

Of course what the Minister is saying is right. Those who are in business understand some of the risks relating to bankruptcy. Those in substantial businesses often run credit checks. The Minister forgets that he and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary conceded that this is a much wider regime. A much wider range of people might be accidentally hit. These are people who could have no way of protecting themselves. Surely he does not suggest that the local greengrocer, to take the original example from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, should try to secure his position. Greengrocers do not deal in securing their credit.

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that we would be besieged at our surgeries by these greengrocers with unsecured debt problems—[Interruption.] No doubt they will be throwing things at us. We have checked to see whether that is happening. We have the confiscation arrangement. It covers drug dealers. We are extending it to include other criminals such as money launderers. Let me put it to the Committee, has anyone been besieged at their surgeries by people saying, ``I have lost money that is owed to me by these drug dealers.''? No one is rising.

Like other hon. Members, I have spoken to many small traders at my surgery. They tell us that they have lost money, had their businesses put at risk and, in some cases, been put into bankruptcy because of a range of issues. As I said earlier, if a small business man were to take professional advice under the current regime about whether he had a chance of pursuing a claim, he would be told not even to try it. He would be told that there are no powers whereby such action can be taken. With such a huge extension to the regime, Parliament should provide protection for the innocent. That is what it is for.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has strengthened my argument. I said that an unsecured lender would inevitably expose himself or herself to a wide range of risks. He has confirmed that.

There are other innocent victims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok said, one of the reasons for confiscating the money is to deter people from crime and ensure that people do not profit from the proceeds of crime. It is also designed to recycle some of the money to help those who have suffered because of the actions of criminals. My hon. Friend mentioned that on Second Reading, but I mean him no disrespect when I say that such provisions are already in the Bill.

It is explicit in the Bill that some of the money must be used to help people who are suffering, those who need drug treatment and those who have been devastated by the actions of drug dealers. I know about such matters because of what happens in my constituency. The hon. Member for Lewes has told us about the appalling effect that drug dealers have on his constituency. Surely it is right that we should use as much money as possible to sort out some of the damage that drug dealers have wreaked on our communities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree.

That aim is entirely laudable. It is not only drug dealers who have an unwanted effect on constituencies, but others who are involved in serious crime. No one would disagree with that idea. However, some of those who are suffering because of drug dealers have unsecured debts, and they will be out of pocket under the Bill.

I think that I have already dealt with that matter. There is a fairly representative cross-section of hon. Members in the Committee, yet no one jumped up to say that he or she is already besieged by greengrocers, for example, as claimed by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I say to the hon. Member for Lewes—perhaps on some occasions I should call him my hon. Friend—that if the amendment were accepted, who can guarantee that the defendant, or the criminal, would use the money to pay his unsecured creditors? Surely such people will not say, ``Oh well, the court has been kind. It has taken account of things. There you are, Mr. Greengrocer.'' That will not happen.

I hope that I made it clear that two key factors are involved. If the person concerned is left with the assets, the problem will not arise. The second point concerns a person who, through the seizure of the assets, is effectively bankrupted. In such circumstances, surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to devise a system whereby they, rather than the person involved, take the money and pay the compensation.

Mr. Foulkes: That is a possibility, but such action would mean a huge new administrative process. It would mean a hierarchy of creditors.

Mr. Hawkins indicated dissent.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath is shaking his head, but earlier he was worried about a simpler matter causing extra administrative problems for the Crown court. The Committee must think about the problems that that would cause. Such a measure would be far more complicated than what the hon. Gentleman was worried about earlier.

At an earlier stage in the debate, the Under-Secretary quoted some of the discussions when the original legislation was being debated in 1986. The Minister asked why such issues were not raised then. I have had the benefit of reading Hansard and of reminding myself of the Second Reading debate in 1986. I direct the Minister to the comments about protecting the innocent made then by Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, who, as the Minister knows, was the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee until the general election. On 21 January 1986 he expressed his worries about the measure's accidental effects on the innocent, as we are doing this afternoon. His speech appears in Hansard in column 246 onwards.

Since 1986, when my good friend Robin expressed those fears, there has been no evidence of the innocent being affected. That is my key point: it has not happened.

The hon. Member for Lewes and some Conservatives have pleaded with me to be helpful, flexible and kind. I hope that members of the Committee will agree that we have been. We took account of what was said on Second Reading and we are altering the arrangements for Scotland. We debated the appropriateness of the term ``criminal lifestyle''. Arguments were made and we agreed to have another look: incidentally, no more acceptable or accurate alternative has yet been suggested. We also agreed to re-examine other issues. As on Second Reading, if convincing arguments are advanced, we will consider them. I said so earlier today when we debated clause 7, and I acknowledged that a reference to clauses 15 and 16 might be useful. I therefore repeat that we have been flexible. Indeed, my hard-hearted hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok earlier accused me of being Mr. Softy. On this occasion, however, I honestly have not found any of the other side's arguments convincing—though I have found my own arguments very convincing!

You always do.

And I hope that my hon. Friends do, too. In practical terms, the amendment would have a deleterious effect on the operation of the confiscation laws, while making little contribution to reducing the financial risk, which inevitably forms part of the context within which lenders and service providers must operate. It would undermine the provision substantially. Accordingly, I urge hon. Gentlemen to withdraw the amendment. If they are not willing to do so in the light of our overwhelming arguments, I invite my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Before Mr. Softy—sorry, I mean my hon. Friend the Minister—finishes his speech, I would like to ask him about the possibility for amendment if the measure causes difficulty. If we find ourselves besieged by greengrocers, or anyone else, is there a mechanism to amend the provision?

This Parliament is supreme, and it is always possible to alter legislation through a subsequent Bill. As I understand it, there is no specific provision within the Bill to allow this legislation to be amended. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield invited private Members' legislation on the subject, and further Government legislation is always possible. However, as I said, the Bill has no specific mechanism to provide for automatic review or reconsideration of this issue.

In that case may I ask the Minister, who is in an agreeable mood this afternoon, whether he would consider taking this matter away for further consideration? I specifically mentioned it on Second Reading. Since the will of Parliament is liable to be thwarted by lawyers or judges finding loopholes or making laws of their own contrary to our intentions, could we not—perhaps through the Chancellor's annual budget procedure—make minor amendments to alleviate inadvertent difficulties or close those loopholes? I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look further into that possibility.

Order. This is miles off the amendment, and the clause. The Bill is still proceeding through the House. How it is dealt with in Committee is connected with how it can be dealt with on Report, and it must go to another place that can also consider it. That is the simple answer.

You are right, Mr. McWilliam; indeed, it is redundant of me to say so. It is always open to my hon. Friend and to Opposition Members to raise further amendments during discussion of the Bill, and for amendments to be considered in another place. However, I urge my hon. Friend to support the clause. It would not be appropriate to support the amendment, which would seriously undermine the provisions. If my hon. Friend wants to pursue his suggestion, there are better and more effective ways of doing so, and at more appropriate times.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived.

As I have already suggested, the principle of the clause has been well exposed by the debate; indeed, some Members were even encroaching on the next clause. Therefore I do not intend to call a stand part debate.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.