I beg to move amendment No. 470, in page 175, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

To my mind, the clause is extremely simple. Subsection (1) states:

''Subsection (2) applies if a person's recoverable property is mixed with other property (whether his property or another's).''

Subsection (2) states:

''The portion of the mixed property which is attributable to the recoverable property represents the property obtained through unlawful conduct.''

That is crystal clear. Why do we have subsection (3)? It does not purport to be definitive, because it states:

''Recoverable property is mixed with other property if (for example)''.

I am puzzled as to why primary legislation should contain a subsection that gives limited examples of what the other subsections may relate to. The Minister may persuade me of a good reason for that, but otherwise I query whether the subsection is required.

I anticipated the hon. Gentleman's argument. Subsection (3) is intended to be helpful to the courts. The amendment would not achieve anything.

A shorter Bill.

It might save some paper, but most Bills have already been printed, so the paper has already been wasted. However, new versions will be printed.

Subsection (3) sets out four examples of when recoverable property may be mixed with other, non-recoverable property. The intention behind the examples is to assist the courts by clarifying how the provision will work in certain circumstances. The examples are not intended to be an exhaustive list, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said. They give an indication of the breadth of the situation in which the provisions are to be applied. That was our intention, and if he considers the examples that are given under the Bill, he will see that they show the breadth of the

provision. We thought that the subsection would be helpful and there is no other reason for it than that.

In light of the definitive case of Pepper v. Hart, the Minister can help the court by giving examples as he would usually do when in Committee. Such matters do not have to be set out in the Bill because his words, as recorded by Hansard, become part of the guidance to the courts.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Nothing will be lost under the Bill by removing subsection (3). However, nothing will be gained. It was drafted for a good reason. It shows the breadth of the provision in a potentially complicated area. I suggest that hon. Gentlemen, despite their misgivings about the subsection, accept that it should remain and that such matters may be helpful to people without their having to trawl through Hansard reports to find out what was said in Committee.

If the clause had been drafted under the part of the Bill dealing with confiscation, whereby matters would have taken place in the Crown court in front of Crown court judges, it might have been helpful. On the basis that such matters will be dealt with under civil recovery procedure in the High Court, surely the points made under subsection (3) might be matters of which the judiciary had some knowledge. However, I do not want to make a big issue out of the amendment. I understand the Minister's point. I see that he has been handed a note.

I want to make the hon. Gentleman aware that such measures apply to the whole of part 5. We are talking about not only the High Court but the magistrates court.

Then perhaps the Minister makes a good point. I accept that it could be helpful to put such details in front of the noses of a bench of magistrates who have to determine a particular issue. I do not suppose that they will be familiar with the principles of mixing property. Perhaps I am a pedant, but I have always believed that we should try to keep legislation simple.

I am interested that the hon. Gentleman is arguing for excluding information from the Bill, when throughout our considerations he has often advanced the opposite argument.

If there were a definitive list of the categories, I would welcome it. However, the fact that we are being treated to examples is an odd way in which to present a Bill. I was about to withdraw the amendment, but I shall not do so immediately, because my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) may wish to say something.

My hon. Friend said that magistrates may find the measure helpful. I accept that, but this is not the only clause that will go before a magistrate. Why is it thought necessary here, when in great tracts of the Bill, which could well end up in a magistrates court, we are not treated to that way of proceeding? If the poor magistrates need help on the issue, we need to be told why they do not need help with other passages of the Bill, as otherwise the provision is not necessary.

The hon. Gentleman is right. There is no end to what we could do. I am trying not to agree with him as he sits there in his Pooh bear tie. Our intention was to clarify the position and spell out examples in order to show the breadth of the provision. It would not be helpful for me to say more. I do not believe that the examples in the Bill do any harm. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Beaconsfield not to press the amendment to a vote.

In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 304 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 305 ordered to stand part of the Bill.