§ Lords amendment: No. 110B, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
(6) The guidance must indicate that the reduction in crime is in general best secured by means of criminal investigations and criminal proceedings.
§ Mr. Bob AinsworthI beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment addresses the feeling that the bringing of criminal prosecutions is preferable when normal evidential and public-interest tests have been satisfied. We have always said that prosecution will remain the priority, and that the director of the new agency will pursue civil recovery or use his taxation powers only when prosecution is not appropriate. There has, however, been nothing in the Bill to that effect.
The amendment will ensure that the guidance given to the director by the Secretary of State under clause 2 will make clear that criminal investigations and criminal prosecutions will in general best secure the reduction of crime. I hope that that will allay any fears that civil recovery might be used in cases in which criminal proceedings should properly be brought.
§ Mr. GrieveI welcome the amendment without hesitation. It is clearly a step in the right direction, as it would insert in the Bill a hierarchy of preference, thus providing at least some leverage to ensure that the civil recovery system was not abused in certain circumstances. I am thinking of circumstances in which it might have been open to the prosecution to go down a criminal route but it chose not to do so, for reasons relating not to the quality of evidence but simply to the ease involved in carrying out recovery measures.
As the Minister will know, what exercised those in the other place and, indeed, those of us who served on the Committee was the enormous problem—I think that it is still an enormous problem—that it would be possible to make an allegation of criminality against the person in possession of the money in some if not all cases. If the allegation were proved, that person might face all the opprobrium involved in having committed, or being held to have committed, a serious criminal offence that would result in confiscation or civil recovery of his assets, even if he had not been convicted of any offence. I feel that what has returned from the Government in the Lords is second best.
1056 Given the way in which the House of Commons handled the matter, the Minister should count himself fortunate that we got anything back from the Lords. If he read the Hansard report of the debate there, he will know that there was amazement and criticism about our success in rejecting the original amendment moved by Lord Lloyd without any debate in this House. I say that to the Minister in all friendliness, as he had no part in this—save, I suppose, for his role as a Minister.
I must say that I was a little surprised to read that Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General in the other place, had said there that a programme motion had been agreed with the Opposition here before the debate took place. It was an agreed programme motion, he said; the Government had not insisted on it or forced it on us. It is true that we did not divide the House. If we had, we would have been fiercely criticised for reducing yet further the time available for us to consider these important amendments.
I hope that, when he has an opportunity to do so, the Minister will tell his noble Friend about the normal procedure in this House, and about the fierce criticism that he and other Ministers—and Whips—have heaped on the Opposition for dividing the House on programme motions. There was no agreement: it was the Government's decision to take the risk of trying to get the business through in the very short time available.
For that reason, it is especially regrettable that we have exposed ourselves to ridicule during our dealings with this important Bill because of the way in which an extremely serious amendment moved in the other place was treated here. It is lucky for the Minister that the other place, respecting its constitutional duty, decided that in the circumstances it would seek another amendment to which we could agree.
Let me put this on the record. I understand that such was the anger generated in the other place by the lack of scrutiny, it is rumoured—obviously I cannot speak for those in the other place—that if the same thing ever happens again the Lords will reject any amendment to a Lords amendment rejected by this House without debate. That was communicated to me, and the Government may have to heed it if they wish to achieve compromises at the end of the passage of long Bills.
As I said, I welcome the amendment, although whether it is sufficient only time will tell. Whether Lord Lloyd was right in his original amendment—to which he adhered, but which was defeated when it returned to the Lords—will have to depend on the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. All I can say is that following the statement on the front of the Bill—couched in such redolent terms—that the Home Secretary is satisfied that the Bill complies with the Human Rights Act 1998, he may have to eat humble pie. Indeed, I will go further: given that he was put on notice repeatedly during our debates on the Bill about anxieties in regard to whether it complied with the Act, he might see fit to resign. If I were in his shoes, I would feel that that was the only course open to me.
§ Ian Lucas (Wrexham)I believe that Lord Lloyd grossly overstated the position. This is the procedure whereby a court will determine whether property is seized on the balance of probabilities. I have dealt with the courts professionally in the past, and that is a determination, and a process, which occurs every day in the civil courts. I 1057 have acquired considerable respect for the hon. Gentleman over a long period, but he is over-egging the pudding.
§ Mr. GrieveI listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I greatly respect him for his contribution during the Bill's passage. He and I, along with a number of Members who are present, have lived with the Bill for a long time—and, I think, will part company with it shortly. I merely say to all who participated that our scrutiny here was, in many ways, a model of its kind. Having said that, I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to what Lord Lloyd said in the other place. He presented an extremely persuasive argument, which ought to make the Government reflect that the legislation as drafted in respect of civil recovery might not comply with the Human Rights Act.
Lord Lloyd may be wrong. The Government must believe that he is wrong, or they would not have persisted. It is clearly a genuine belief, and I appreciate the Minister's position. Lord Lloyd, however, has a far more considerable legal brain than I have—and, I suspect, a better legal brain than any other Member of the House of Commons. His was not an individual view, but one backed by a number of their lordships—including, I noted, Lord Goldsmith's head of chambers. That may give the Government pause for thought, but the matter will be tested as and when the time comes.
In the meantime—the other place having deferred to the will of this House, according to constitutional convention—it remains for me only to thank the Minister for his courtesy during the passage of this long Bill, and to wish the legislation well. Time will tell whether the House, by failing to consider carefully what Lord Lloyd had to say, has shot itself in the foot. I hope that I am wrong, but as I have said there is much good in the Bill, and by making this addition we are undoubtedly improving it.
§ 8 pm
§ Norman BakerI can be brief on this amendment as, to a large degree, I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The amendment seems reasonably inconsequential. It reiterates a comment that the Minister made on a number of occasions throughout the Committee. I was personally in no doubt that the hierarchy to which he referred was in place. Indeed, I remember asking him about it at an early stage. My personal view, if it is not unconstitutional, is that the House of Lords has been bought off rather cheaply with this amendment. All credit to the Minister if that is what he has achieved. It is welcome so far as it goes but it just confirms what the Minister has already told us.
We were happy as a party to support Lord Lloyd's amendment in order to keep the ball in the air; there were issues to be considered. Had it come to the final decision, the amendment's impact may have gone too far for us. It may have weakened the legislation in a way that was beyond what was acceptable. However, it raised serious issues. The issue about human rights compliance is a genuine one. Doubtless the Minister has had advice on that from his officials and we will find out in due course whether any action will be taken and whether it will be successful. We wait to see what the outcome is.
1058 The amendment is welcome so far as it goes. No one could possibly object to it. It is motherhood and apple pie. It is perhaps a nice way to end the Bill. As this is probably the last time that I shall speak on the Bill, I thank the Minister for his contributions and good humour throughout its passage, if not on other occasions. I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues for their contributions, too.
§ Mr. Bob AinsworthWe have been over the substantive issue before. Serious allegations about individuals are regularly made in civil recovery—that point was made by the Attorney-General in another place—so we do not accept Lord Lloyd's amendments, but I hope that this measure helps in the passage of the Bill. Again, I do not think that it is of huge significance, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said. The Committee was assured that this was the intention, this was the hierarchy and these were the priorities that should be given in relation to the different powers in the Bill. We have now put that in the Bill. That makes it clear.
On timetabling, I was surprised by the comments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) because I think both he and I thought that we had allocated sufficient time to discuss the three Lords amendments. We then had two statements on that day. I think that I am not misrepresenting the position when I say that we both still thought that we had sufficient time. I do not think that anyone filibustered or wasted time last Thursday afternoon, yet we did not manage to get to that third important group of amendments.
That was not deliberate. I do not think that anyone meant to slight the other place in so doing. It shows—I hope that a degree of consensus is possible on this point—that if timetabling is to work, and I believe that there are great advantages to such procedures, great care and consideration need to be given as to how timetables are structured. In retrospect, if we had broken it down to ensure that the three substantive issues all received a degree of time, perhaps we would not have upset the Lords as we did. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it was not deliberate. We thought that we had allocated sufficient time, and I think that he did.
§ Mr. Grieverose—
§ Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)rose—
§ Mr. AinsworthI will give way to either one of the hon. Gentlemen.
§ Mr. HawkinsWill the Minister understand that while of course there was no deliberate filibustering on the matter—we accept entirely that there was a genuine attempt to debate it—one of the things that caused problems on that day, which he can discuss with Government business managers, was the fact that there were two statements that seriously cut into the time? When the original programme motion was discussed we were not anticipating that. I hope that he will take that message back clearly. His point about splitting the matter so that there is separate timetabling for all the important issues is helpful and could be taken forward.
§ Mr. AinsworthI acknowledge that point.
§ Mr. GrieveI accept that as originally programmed there would have been ample time to debate the matter 1059 if there had not been the two statements. Once the two statements came in, we were faced with an impossible choice. I am sure that the Minister accepts that. To vote against the motion when the time came would have been to diminish the amount of time available. One simply had to hope for the best and hope that we could get through it. It was going to be touch and go. As it turned out, we did not get there, through no fault of anyone—sensible contributions were made on both sides of the House. It reflects the need for much greater flexibility if we are to do our job properly.
§ Mr. AinsworthI thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The only thing that remains to be said is that no insult to another place was intended by anyone in the House. I congratulate the Opposition Whip on the way he exposed the problem to maximise the difficulty that we had in another place. I thank hon. Members for their courteous remarks about me and everyone else who served on the Bill. A lot of Members put a lot of effort into it. I appreciate that.
§ Lords amendment agreedto.