I beg to move Amendment No. 251, in page 84, line 37, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government Amendment No. 252.

Clause stand part.

Amendment No. 251 is purely a drafting amendment, which is designed to clarify that, in relation to the serious default provisions set out in Clause 139, it is the criminal investigation into the offence that is relevant. Amendment No. 252 makes it clear that compensation under clause 139 in part 3 will be paid in Scotland only as a consequence of serious default under part 3, and not part 2. Compensation for serious default in Scotland will be paid by the Scottish authorities. Compensation for serious default in England and Wales, under part 2, will of course be paid by the English authorities.

It is not always easy to follow the impact of some of the amendments. In respect of Amendment No. 252, is the effect to which the Minister referred its only one? Alternatively, does it affect the type of default for which compensation would be payable?

As I said, the Amendment is designed to clarify that, in relation to the serious default provisions set out in Clause 139, it is the criminal investigation into the offence that is relevant. Therefore, it does not the change the definition.

I have a slightly different point to make briefly under Clause stand part. The Minister will be able to enlighten me about which of the England and Wales provisions that we dealt with earlier the clause mirrors. At that time, I inadvertently missed the opportunity to voice my concern that there was a difference in relation to which arm of state funding would pay compensation. Under the England and Wales compensation provisions, police authorities in England and Wales might face compensation Bills, whereas in all the other parts of those provisions central funding from the state would pay compensation. Does the same problem exist in Scotland?

Under subsection (9)(a), police authorities would pay compensation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and I, as Surrey Members, are well aware, the Government have failed in the past to compensate Surrey police authority properly—despite public promises to do so—for the enormous extra policing costs imposed on it by the Home Secretary in relation to General Pinochet's house arrest. If a large compensation claim were made against a Scottish police authority, would council tax payers in that part of Scotland suffer extensively because of Government failure to compensate police authorities fully for extra costs—

Will my hon. Friend go back two spaces, as if we were playing snakes and ladders—we might do so this afternoon—and consider the unique situation in Surrey? It is, of course, policed by two forces—the Surrey constabulary and the Metropolitan police—

Order. We are debating compensation and Scottish police. We are not debating Surrey police.

If I may, without contravening your ruling, Mr. McWilliam—

On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam. Was I not on my feet, and did I not, in deference to you, sit down? Am I now able to resume my position?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

I know that you are a stickler for points of order, Mr. McWilliam, so I would not want to be out of order by not getting to my feet again, which I now am, of course.

I was coming to the point that you were trying to steer me towards, Mr. McWilliam, which is the comparison of the situation in Surrey and Scotland. The unique situation in Surrey has a bearing on the Scottish situation. In the English illustration of a potential Scottish problem, is there a difference in the way in which matters are handled in the area that is one horse ride from Charing cross—the traditional boundary of the Metropolitan police—and the area of Surrey constabulary? I understand from my researchers that Elmbridge— Mr. Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I cannot technically give way because I will be called to order. Perhaps I am able to give way—

Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok is trying to intervene on an Intervention, albeit an extremely long one that should be brought to a close.

I do not want to try your patience, Mr. McWilliam, by responding in detail, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and I are aware of the matter. The position has been complicated in my area by the transfer of some of the parts that used to be policed by the Metropolitan police to Surrey police.

The Scottish provisions attempt to mirror the English provisions. I am gravely worried because under the English provisions the financial burden will fall on the police authority through one part of the compensation provisions. However, for all the other provisions, the burden falls on central funds. When money comes from central funds, the residents of a particular area—north or south of the border—do not suffer. However, when the police authority pays, such residents might suffer.

We have already experienced, south of the border, what happens when an unusual cost falls on a police authority. That occurs even if a Cabinet Minister has promised that costs will be refunded. The chief constable of Surrey police, Surrey Members and myself went to see the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and told him that we knew that the then Home Secretary had appeared on the media to say, ''Surrey will not lose out, you will be fully compensated.'' That did not happen. Surrey received a part payment rather than a full payment. That is the situation today.

When we examine the provisions, Scottish Members may find that if a large compensation order falls on their police authority, they and other hon. Members will need to know whether the Government will stand behind the police authority and compensate it. Would it not be better for all the provisions to be even-handed with compensation paid from central funds rather than by police authorities? Subsection (9)(c) states that compensation is payable by the Lord Advocate—that is central funds. Compensation paid by commissioners of Customs and Excise comes from central funds. That does not occur if the police authority pays compensation.

I think that the council tax payers who are represented by Scottish Members may have a problem because they may lose out unless the Minister is prepared to say publicly and at the Dispatch Box—unlike the previous Home Secretary's views, which were advanced on the media and were therefore not binding—that central funds will stand behind police authorities so that they do not lose out. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will reinforce that point in a moment.

The stand part issue—rather than the Government's specific amendments—worries me. If I understand the matter correctly, all three conditions must be met. If that is so, the requirements before relief is given are excessive. Satisfaction of any one requirement may well be adequate. There is justification for saying that someone who suffered a loss prior to a not guilty verdict should be reimbursed. Compensation must be payable.

We have had this debate before, so I shall not try your patience, Mr. McWilliam. The example used earlier is highly relevant. If an item of more than merely monetary value is disposed of before a not guilty verdict is passed, compensation, as well as reimbursement, should be payable. A wrongdoing on the part of an investigator need not occur before compensation is payable.

I am concerned as to why the Government consider it necessary for all three conditions to be met. I should expect the Clause to state that compensation is payable if any of the conditions is met. I would be interested to hear the Minister's view on that.

Subsection (3)(b) mentions a defendant who is pardoned. Clearly, if someone is acquitted, those powers should kick in. I understand that. I appreciate the Government's argument in a case in which a defendant's conviction is overturned on appeal, but in order to be pardoned—I speak as a non-lawyer and may be wrong—a person must first be guilty. A pardon is not the same thing as a successful appeal.

A pardon is a label: a pardoned person has committed a crime but has been let off. I am not persuaded that such a person should be entitled to the same consideration and compensation as an innocent person. I should be interested to hear the Minister's justification. If I am right, I hope that it is noticed that I am arguing for the legislation to be tightened up, not weakened. In my understanding, a pardoned person is still a criminal.

Subsection (4)(a) makes reference to

''a serious default by a person''.

Subsection (9) lists the relevant persons. If a police officer commits a serious default, the claim will be made against the police authority, I assume. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that. Is it likely that the person held liable will have to pay compensation, as well as the authority that employs that person? It would be helpful to know where a claim must be directed. Are both parties liable, or just the person, or just the employer? In principle, I agree with the provisions, but I would like clarification on the matter before we decide whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Once again, we are receiving mixed messages from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath is worried about the burden on the taxpayer, but the hon. Member for Spelthorne is concerned that three conditions must be met, and wants it to be necessary to meet only one condition. Those two opinions seem to be contradictory.

I would be grateful if the Minister would explain that contradiction. It is possible to want to see justice done through the Bill and also to feel concern for the taxpayer—the two are not mutually exclusive.

They certainly seem mutually exclusive to me. As we have moved to a Clause stand part debate, I shall explain that we have debated clause 72, in part 2, which relates to England. Clause 72 provides for compensation to be paid to suspects, the accused and recipients of tainted gifts who suffer loss. Compensation is payable only when an investigation has started but proceedings are never brought against the person, or when the accused is not convicted of an offence, or when the

''conviction is quashed or he is pardoned''.

In all cases, there must have been a ''serious default'' on the part of one or more of the enforcement authorities specified under subsection (9).

The restriction to serious default cases is based on the principle that the restraint and the realisation of property is ancillary to a criminal trial in the same way as the detention of a person pending trial. In neither case is compensation paid on acquittal as a matter of course.

Clause 139 deals with Scotland. It is based largely on existing legislation, except that it has been extended to cover the situation when an investigation is started but proceedings are never brought. Under the Bill, it will be possible for a restraint order to be made as soon as a criminal investigation has been started. At present, that is possible only when proceedings have been started or are about to be started. In future, compensation will be payable subject to the current criteria, including the serious default test, from the beginning of an investigation, not only when proceedings have started. The compensation provision under the clause will help to ensure that the confiscation scheme represents a proportionate and balanced package.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked who should pay the compensation. Ultimately, it will be the taxpayer. We believe that it should come out of the account of the police force because the accountability rests with the police force. That is important. The police are taking the action and they should be accountable for it. As for the Scottish provision, in light of the points that have been raised, we will consider—as we have agreed to consider in relation to England under part 2—whether compensation will be also be payable when there is serious default on the part of an administrator in Scotland. I hope that I have been helpful to the Committee.

I am grateful to the Minister for responding to some of the issues that I raised, but unfortunately, while replying to my original questions, he drew attention to another point. His reference to serious default sounded remarkably like the same issue that worried me this morning. Default in such circumstances means that someone has suffered an injustice. The Government are saying that, if the default were serious, they would deal with it, but that if it were minor, they would not deal with it.

Order. The Committee has already dealt with that under Clause 72.

On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam. We dealt previously not with default but with a different issue.

Order. I am not talking about what happened at this morning's sitting. Clause 72 dealt specifically with default.

I understand the Minister's point about accountability, but he has not really dealt with my worry. I accept that Clause 139 mirrors clause 72. I found the provision, shortly before he referred to it, when I was searching through the Bill to find the reciprocal provision for England and Wales. He did not respond to my point in relation to the Lord Advocate or the commissioners of Customs and Excise, and to compensation coming from central funds. A problem arises with police authorities because taxpayers' money comes to them as a ring-fenced budget that is not to be exceeded. If a large compensation claim were made against one particular police authority and it had to pay the claim from one year's budget, that could severely restrict its operational effectiveness. It would not have enough money for other matters. That does not apply to the Lord Advocate or to the commissioners of Customs and Excise because of the central funds standing directly behind them. Furthermore, the taxpayer does not always stand behind police authorities with delegated budgets. A lump sum could be given to a particular police authority, whether in Scotland or in England, and a large claim could affect its operational effectiveness.

Concerns have been expressed. Police authorities north and south of the border have been affected by exceptional costs in the past. After the Lockerbie disaster, the police authority for that area of Scotland incurred high costs. On that occasion, the Government, rightly, provided an exceptional payment to cover those extra costs. It would be helpful if the Minister would state that, were there to be a big compensation claim, the Government would stand behind the police authority concerned and ensure that other policing expenditures were not affected.

That is a spurious parallel. Nobody has suggested that the police in Dumfries and Galloway were in any way responsible for the Lockerbie disaster. We are talking about accountability—about people thinking carefully before they make decisions and take actions. There is a big difference between compensation for serious default and the operational costs incurred by a police force as a result of an incident such as the Lockerbie disaster. With regard to accountability, it is important to remember that central Government funds are finite, as are those of the Lord Advocate—and as are those of police authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 252, in page 85, line 4, leave out from 'Part,' to end of line 6.—[Mr. Foulkes.]

Clause 139, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 140 to 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.