Proceeds of Crime Bill – in a Public Bill Committee am 11:00 am ar 6 Rhagfyr 2001.
I beg to move amendment No. 171, in page 64, line 6, leave out 'date of conviction' and insert 'relevant date'.
With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 174 to 178.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments Nos. 180 to 182, 184 and 183.
Clause 108 stand part.
Government amendments Nos. 186 to 189.
Clause 109 stand part.
Government amendments Nos. 191 to 193.
All the clauses, taken with the amendments bearing on them, from now to clause 120, take us back to the situation in which there will be no difference in the proposals for Scotland and those in respect of England and Wales. When we reach clause 120—having caught his breath—my hon. Friend the Minister will take over again. We are, in effect, rendering part 3 of the Bill identical to part 2, which is the only reason why the amendments have been entrusted to my care. These are all either drafting amendments or consequential on such changes.
I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary will expand on amendment No. 175. It bears further explanation than the Government have given us.
That will teach me. Amendments Nos. 174, 175 and 176 are consequential on making the change to a mandatory regime in Scotland. On what point does the hon. Gentleman want me to expand?
The phrase ''proceeding under section 94(6)(b)'' is a nice, clean and easily understandable provision, but to replace it with the words
''arriving at the just amount''
is, dare I say it, apparently giving some discretion. I do not agree that it would achieve the result that the Under-Secretary claims.
It is exactly the same as the provision that we discussed under part 2.
What is the objection to ''proceeding under section 94(6)(b)''? I am merely curious. I am not trying to make difficulties. Honest.
I have not directed my attention to the amendment, but the hon. Gentleman has made a good point. We have already amended ''may'' to ''must'' under clause 94(6)(b) and that provision would introduce the element of compulsion. As he said, it is a bit odd, having made such an amendment then to remove ''proceeding under section 94(6)(b)'', and replace it with
''arriving at the just amount'',
thus leaving it to the court's discretion to determine what is or what is not just. An element of discretion is being reintroduced that changing ''may'' to ''must'' under clause 94(6)(b) had removed.
Is there another subsection under which the court can proceed in arriving at the just amount?
Let us see if there is not some kind of drafting amendment. The amendments are intended to provide for a mandatory system under part 3 that is similar to that under part 2. I will inform the hon. Gentleman if they fail to do that. I hope that we did not make a drafting error when we made the changes.
I think that, for once, the Minister has not made a drafting error. If a reference to clause 94(6)(b) had been left in, that would have removed any possibility of not making the confiscation order: that paragraph, having been altered so that ''may'' is replaced by ''must'', implies no measure of discretion. He substituted the reference to the just amount to leave in the residuary discretion that is implied by the other subsection—the number of which I have forgotten—that says that the court can, when it has taken all the circumstances of the case into consideration, decide not to take all the money.
The hon. Gentleman is probably right, but let us give him the chance to reflect on his wife and his drawing room, while the officials check that that is the case.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 172, in page 64, line 13, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
No. 173, in page 64, line 23, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
No. 174, in page 64, line 29, at end insert—
'(5A) The recoverable amount for the purposes of section 94 is such amount as—
(a) the court believes is just, but
(b) does not exceed the amount found under section 96.'.
No. 175, in page 64, line 30, leave out 'proceeding under section 94(6)(b)' and insert
'arriving at the just amount'.
No. 176, in page 64, line 31, at end insert—
'(aa) the amount found under section 96;'.
No. 177, in page 64, line 35, leave out ', unless the order has' and insert 'and has not'.
No. 178, in page 64, line 41, at end insert—
'(6A) If an order for payment of compensation under section 249 of the Procedure Act has been made against the accused in respect of the offence or offences concerned, section 100(5) and (6) do not apply.'.—[Mr. Ainsworth.]
Clause 107, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.