§ Lords amendment: No. 18.
§ Mrs. McGuireI beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 25, 28, 29, 56 to 65, 87 to 94, 97 and 98.
§ Mrs. McGuireThe amendments tackle concerns about the reconsideration provisions that the Opposition expressed at an earlier stage in our proceedings.
As hon. Members may recall, two of the three reconsideration clauses allow the prosecutor and the director to apply for an increase in the confiscation order only when they have new evidence of the defendant's benefit. However, clauses 22, 108 and 174, which enable the prosecutor and the defendant to apply for an extension to a confiscation order that has already been made, originally contained no requirement for the evidence to be new. We accept that that is a fair point, and the amendments would make the necessary changes to the clauses.
When we considered the amendments, we noted that it might be possible to argue that the relevant clauses do not permit more than one re-evaluation of an earlier confiscation order.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Conversations are breaking out throughout the Chamber. The House should listen to the Minister.
§ Mrs. McGuireThank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The effect that I described was not our intention, and the amendments would therefore make it clear in the clauses that multiple re-evaluations of earlier confiscation orders are possible.
A similar argument—that multiple re-evaluations are not possible—could be used about clauses 23, 109 and 175, which apply when further realisable property comes to light. A similar amendment has therefore been tabled to those clauses.
§ Mr. GrieveI am grateful to the Minister for taking on board the comments made in Committee. The amendment is undoubtedly a considerable improvement to the Bill and removes the possibility of sloppy practice by the agency in deciding how to deal with the recovery and confiscation process. I hope that she can reassure me that the same applies to multiple re-evaluations, which are an extremely good idea. I assume that any such further re-evaluation must be undertaken on the basis of further evidence becoming available, and not simply on the basis of the agency not having done its job properly.
§ Mrs. McGuireI can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 29 agreed to. Lords amendment No. 30 disagreed to. Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 37 agreed to.