The amendment, although itself minor and presented by the Minister as a minor matter, is of considerable importance. I am not sure why the draftsman and Minister were content with the existing wording of clause 255(6) but have now decided that it is no longer sufficient. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the difference between recoverable and associated property. Associated property is property into which recoverable property has become mixed or in some way associated. It will include property that belongs to another person and will not be subject to recovery. At the preliminary stage, the court must carry out an exercise to balance the need to ensure that the state may recover what it is seeking with the rights of the individual who will be adversely affected.

As we discussed this morning, there are areas in clause 255 in which we explored the balance that should exist regarding individuals' rights in the face of a receiving order. Clause 255(6), as amended, will substantially shift the balance on actions relating to exclusions toward the state and away from the rights of the individual—specifically, the innocent individual who has an interest in the associated property. I concede that it is just possible that such an individual may have recoverable property and be culpable. However, the chances are that he will be an innocent party.

The amendment is quite minor, but it would extend the statement, with which I cannot possibly take exception, that the satisfaction of any interest or right of the enforcement authority to recover recoverable property must be paramount, to a paramountcy on the balance when the state might be prejudiced if the rights of a person with an interest in the associated property were adversely affected.

Clause 255(6) states:

''The power to make exclusions in relation to recoverable property''— we are taking that out—

''must be exercised with a view to ensuring, so far as practicable, that the satisfaction of any right of the enforcement authority to recover the property obtained through unlawful conduct is not unduly prejudiced.''

The exclusion of associated property clearly implied that it was accepted that it might be necessary to prejudice the rights of the enforcement authority if that was required to support the rights of the associated property owner.

The Minister has not explained why this change of heart has occurred. I shall be grateful if he does because, at present, I am minded to oppose the amendment.