I beg to move Amendment No. 253, in page 88, line 8, leave out 'there are' and insert

'his particular criminal conduct consists of'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 254 to 256 and Clause stand part.

These are drafting amendments that bring the terminology into line with that which is employed in clauses 77 and 78 of part 2.

The Clause deals with tainted gifts. Amendment No. 252 makes it clear when gifts are caught by the Bill. Amendments Nos. 254 and 255 correct erroneous cross references. Amendment No. 256 brings clause 144 in line with clause 78(2) in part 2.

This brings us back to a topic that was recently under discussion. That discussion prompted the Minister to assure me that he would reconsider the matter in general, and I assume that that assurance applies as much to the Scottish provisions as it does to those in England and Wales. I am now sure that that is the case, as I see that he is nodding.

However, I am puzzled about the original wording of subsection (10)(b), and the change to bring it in line with the new provisions. I wish the Minister to explain why that difference existed in the first place. Although—acting perfectly properly—he glossed the question by saying that he is merely bringing the one in line with the other, the original Scottish wording, which we are now deleting, introduced quite a substantial difference in the way in which property was valued, for the purpose of determining the share of the property transferred. Under the original Scottish scheme, the denominator of the fraction that goes to make up the value was the consideration provided by the accused at the time that he obtained the property, whereas the English scheme referred to the value of the property at the time that it was obtained.

For once, I think that the English scheme may have been preferable, because it is unclear—especially when dealing with property that may belong to criminals—what the considerations would have been to obtain the property in the first place. However, I want to leave that point aside for the moment.

Let us assume that the property had been purchased. The English scheme puts the market value on the property, as externally assessed. The Scots were content, for a long period and apparently without difficulty, to put a value on the property based on the actual consideration that the accused provided for it. That could have profound implications on shares and valuations in property. I am interested to hear from the Minister why the Scottish system had that terminology and how it worked in practice compared with the English system.

That is an interesting question, and as the hon. Gentleman was raising it, I was thinking about it. In England and Wales, we have changed the wording. The old legislation was the same as the Scottish legislation and referred to the consideration. I ask him to think about the matter. The denominator is the value of the consideration provided by the accused. What if he stole it?

Precisely.

So if we say the denominator is the value of the property when the accused obtained it, we still have the value, even if it was obtained without his providing a consideration.

The Minister is right. That is why, when prefacing my remarks, I said that the English system may be preferable. I accept that some criminal property may have been obtained for no consideration whatever. However, in cases when consideration had been paid, the possibility arises for a defendant to pay what he considers to be the genuine market value, which may differs from an external valuer's valuation, so that there are two different figures. I am not aware of the Scottish system, as reflected in the Clause, having previously caused problems for the courts. It was a probing Amendment, especially in the light of the wider issues in respect of the valuation of tainted gifts.

Mr. Davidson rose—

I cannot give way. I am making an Intervention.

The new wording is better than the old wording. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that matter, because it has livened up a dull Thursday afternoon.

The point that I had hoped to raise in an Intervention relates to the price paid and the valuation. I am thinking about Sotheby's, which is particularly appropriate at the moment. On Tuesday, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield advertised Sotheby's. He said:

''A defendant obtains £1 million as the proceeds of crime. On the advice of Sotheby's, he purchases a painting that he believes is worth £1 million.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 December 2001; c. 478.]

Was the hon. Gentleman aware that a member of Sotheby's staff currently faces jail over a commission-fixing scandal? Would that affect his view whether—

Order. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point but it is irrelevant to this part of the Bill. As far as I am aware, the gentleman concerned is not resident in Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 254, in page 88, line 23, leave out '(8)' and insert '(9)'.

No. 255, in page 88, line 26, leave out '(8)' and insert '(9)'.

No. 256, in page 88, line 27, leave out 'consideration provided by the accused' and insert

'property at the time the accused obtained it'.—[Mr. Foulkes.]