The hon. Gentleman is retreating from the word ''paramountcy'', but he is still insisting on a slant that is not justified by the wording of clause 255(6), which states:

''The power to make exclusions in relation to recoverable property''— the amendment would extend the power to all property, whether recoverable or associated—

''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.''

Although the hon. Gentleman has come off the word ''paramountcy'', he appears to suggest that the use of the words ''not duly prejudiced'' means that that right is more important than that of the owner of the associated property.

The change in wording is not intended to achieve a shift in policy. We are trying to address an oversight, because the current wording would not allow the court to take into account the rights of the enforcement authority unless recoverable property was being dealt with. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that even where associated property is involved, the court must at least consider whether the enforcement authority has rights. In separating out such property, something of no value should not be left.