We are considering an application that is made for a review order to reconsider benefits because evidence has come to light to show that the benefits of the proceeds of crime were higher than originally discovered. Who knows what the convicted person has managed to do with that money in the preceding period? We are talking about moneys that arose as a result of the original conviction, but are only discovered later. We are trying to take into account all the proceeds of crime—but no more. To do that, we ought to be able to take into account what the defendant has been able to do with that money to appreciate its value—and if it has depreciated, we should take that into account.

If we cannot do both those things, we are in danger of committing a great injustice. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne has pointed out, subsection (11) enables us, in the overwhelming majority of cases, to take into account the depreciation that might have occurred. However, any depreciation will have been considerably less since the Labour party came to power, than it was under the preceding Conservative Government.

I have tried to cover all the points that have been raised, and I hope that the explanations that I have given have been satisfactory.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.