HL Deb 19 November 1990 vol 523 cc608-14

5.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need hardly remind you of our determination to fight the evil trade in illicit drugs. The anti-drug trafficking measures in this order will bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain and will provide the United Kingdom as a whole with strong and effective legislation in this area. Apart from attacking crime domestically—as much serious crime is international in nature—it will in particular clear the way for UK ratification of the United Nations Convention Against the Illicit Trade in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, known as the Vienna Convention.

The order does more than provide that convicted criminals shall be liable to have the proceeds of their crimes confiscated in certain circumstances. The House will recall that the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 was the first such measure. This of course applied solely to the proceeds of drug trafficking. Since then the law has been updated by Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to extend confiscation to other serious crime. This order comprises the provisions of both statutes for Northern Ireland.

The order will give the Crown Court and, in a few exceptional cases, magistrates' courts, the power to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking and other serious offences. Where a person is convicted of a drug trafficking offence the Crown Court must make a confiscation order for an amount equal to the full value of his proceeds of drug trafficking unless the defendant's realisable property is assessed to be insufficient to meet that amount. In the case of offences other than drug trafficking offences, the courts will have a discretionary power to order confiscation but only if the proceeds exceed a minimum amount of £10,000.

As the main purpose of the order is to deprive the offender of his illicit gains I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is important for the courts to have adequate powers to enforce confiscation orders. Accordingly, it is provided that such orders will be enforced in the same manner as fines, with the important exception that terms of imprisonment in default must run consecutively rather than concurrently with any other sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence.

However, to ensure that defendants do not have a choice between paying a confiscation order or opting to spend additional time in prison in default, the order provides the High Court with powers to freeze the offender's assets to ensure that these are not disposed of before a confiscation order can be enforced. The High Court may appoint a receiver to seize and realise an offender's assets. The order also creates in connection with drug trafficking a number of offences relating to what is commonly known as laundering. These are regarded as serious offences and will carry a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment or a fine, or both.

The order will replicate for Northern Ireland provisions already in force in Great Britain which relate to the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking and other serious offences. I am confident that it will help curb the growth of drug trafficking and other organised crime. While Northern Ireland is fortunate in that the drugs problem has been on a comparatively modest scale, there is no room for complacency. This order will ensure that the Province, together with the rest of the United Kingdom, will play its part in the fight against international crime.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his explanation of the order. Although the articles of the order do not have the merit of simplicity, its main underlying objective is simple. It is right in principle, as I am sure your Lordships will agree. That principle is that the offender should be relieved of the profits of his crime so as to remove the financial attractiveness of the offence. That principle has been adopted in recent legislation, as the Minister explained.

I am conscious that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in paragraphs 17.9 and 17.10 of this year's review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987, drew attention to the powers of courts in England, Wales and Scotland to order the confiscation of property. Those powers are to be found in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Although the principle is agreed, it has proved difficult in practice to apply it smoothly. The three pieces of legislation to which I have just referred introduce three different confiscation codes, although their provisions sometimes overlap. The Minister has explained that the main effect of the order is to apply to Northern Ireland Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Drugs Trafficking Offences Act, as amended by the 1988 Act. We fully support that objective.

I want to ask the Minister one major question: will the order, with its powers of restraint, the power to impose a charge and powers of confiscation, also enable the courts to strike effectively at terrorist racketeering? Is that possible, and is it a likely consequence? The Minister will be aware that that is a matter which greatly troubles many people. The noble Viscount referred to it in his review which was published earlier this year. Does the order, directly or indirectly, help the courts in their fight against terrorism? That is the major question. Other questions pale into insignificance compared to that one.

I now come to the few points of detail that I should like to raise with the Minister. First, who is the "proper officer" of the court referred to in Article 18(3)? I have looked up the definition section, but the phrase is not defined. I may have missed the definition, but it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some guidance on that point.

Secondly, why should the sum of money payable under Article 18(9)(a) be paid in to the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom rather than in to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund? It has been suggested that the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund may no longer exist; but I have checked in the Library and I have seen from the Supply Estimates 1990/91 and from the Appropriation Accounts 1988/89 (the last set of Appropriation Accounts that we have) that the fund was at least in existence last March. If it is in existence, why is not the money being paid in to the Northern Ireland fund?

Thirdly, why has sequestration been omitted from Article 20(2) (a)? I ask that question because sequestration appears in the parallel provision of the Criminal Justice Act. Fourthly, will the Minister confirm that the words "High Court or otherwise" in Article 23(1)(b), include an order made by a court of summary jurisdiction? As I understand it, a court of summary jurisdiction will also have the power to make the orders. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is included. If it is included, it is a pity that it has not been spelt out on the face of the order.

Fifthly, will the orders to be made by the Secretary of State under Articles 26(1) and 27(1) be orders made by Her Majesty in Council as is the case under the Criminal Justice Act 1988? Sixthly and finally, why does Part I of Schedule 1 not follow the wording of Schedule 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and include the use of unlicensed cinema premises for exhibition as premises which requires a licence?

Those are the few matters that I wanted to raise with the Minister. I regret that I was able to advise him only late in the day that I intended to raise those issues. As I said, they pale into insignificance alongside the major question that I have put to the Minister.

We fully support the order's principal objective. We trust that it will work well in practice. It would be encouraging if the Minister could also assure the House that it will provide the courts with additional means to deal with terrorist racketeering, whenever that arises. That must be our principal concern as we give our approval to the order.

5.28 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I propose to speak briefly. The order is entirely reasonable, dealing as it does with drug trafficking offences and the other serious crimes as defined in the Criminal Justice Act. The only problem, as the Minister will be aware, is that there is considerable anxiety about some aspects of the drug trafficking confiscation procedures in Great Britain. Therefore, it may not be long before we see some proposals from the Government to deal with that matter.

The only matter that concerns me relates to the resource implications of the order. How many RUC officers will be involved in the work? Will the RUC receive any increase in establishment to take account of it? The reason I ask that question is that the resource implications of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act were wildly understated when that legislation went through Parliament. There are now several hundred police officers in Great Britain working on that procedure. It is therefore reasonable to ask what are the resource implications for the RUC, and whether it will receive an increase in establishment? That is the only point that I should like to make, and with that I say that we are entirely content with the order.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I was impressed by and am grateful to my noble friend for spelling out the provisions of this interesting order. I reiterate everything that has been said by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who once again confirmed that it is necessary to take the measures in the order, above all, to help in the fight against terrorism.

I thought that much of the contents of the order was to do with drug trafficking. However, I glanced at Article 4 and found that confiscation might cover other offences. I do not believe that my noble friend will be able to answer me today, but perhaps he will write to me regarding the following point of curiosity. If he glances at page 44, he will see one measure relating to the Video Recordings Act 1984 which I should perhaps remember, but I have been unable to see what was said in those far off days. It also mentions the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Those are three offences under Part I of Schedule 1. They seem to be far removed from the main provisions of the order on drug offences. I suspect that these three offences set out in Part I, Schedule 1, bear on the remarks which were made earlier by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. They are necessary in respect of the order. Part I of Schedule 1 should be read in conjunction with Article 4 of the order. I am grateful for the measures set out in the order, and I commend my noble friend for so clearly spelling them out.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive comments made during the brief debate on the order to which I shall endeavour to respond. My noble friend Lord Lyell is quite right. He has slightly bounced me and I shall have a little difficulty in obtaining an answer at the moment. However, I undertake to write to him.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised various detailed questions—I agree that they need exploring —and what he called one major question: will the courts be able to strike effectively at racketeering by terrorists? I say straight away that this matter is not only on the mind of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross but also of all of us concerned with Northern Ireland.

The proposed order provides for confiscation orders to be available in respect of almost all indictable offences and the few profitable summary offences listed in Schedule 1. Offences under Part III of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are excluded. These offences deal with financial assistance for terrorism and are excluded simply because specific forfeiture measures are included in that Act.

The provisions of the order will form part of the general criminal law. As such they will apply to a whole range of offences such as armed robbery, theft, fraud, blackmail and intimidation. It is to be hoped that, as part of the general criminal law, the order will have some impact on these types of crime where it cannot always be proven but where there are strong grounds for suspecting terrorist involvement. In other words, it is not necessary to link these proceeds of crime with terrorism; they can be caught under the order anyway. I believe that this is most important.

As concerns the proper officer of the court referred to in Article 18(3), the noble Lord is quite right. The proper officer is not defined in the definitions article of the order. However, if he casts his eye down to paragraph (10) of the same article he will discover that references to the proper officer mean, in the case of a magistrates' court, the clerk of petty sessions and, in the case of a Crown Court, the appropriate officer of the court. He is nominated by, I believe, the Lord Chief Justice in the usual way. I understand that there are nominated officers for various purposes in the Crown Court.

As concerns the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, in the conventional sense I understand that there is only one Consolidated Fund in the United Kingdom. This is because, as the noble Lord suggested, since there is no parliament currently in Northern Ireland, it is not appropriate to have a Consolidated Fund. However, I am aware that in some circumstances the Northern Ireland block vote is referred to as a Consolidated Fund. I am not sure that that answer takes us very far. I shall obviously have to devil a lot further in order to satisfy the noble Lord.

Two other points that the noble Lord raised concerned purely bankruptcy and company insolvency. Articles 20 to 23 inclusive refer to these matters. Sequestration is a subject of which there is no concept in Northern Ireland law. If a person is declared bankrupt, his property automatically becomes the property of the court, I am advised. The words "or otherwise" in Article 23(1) (b) mean in this peculiar sense the trustees in bankruptcy or such other court officer as may be appointed for that particular purpose, either for bankruptcy or for company insolvency.

The noble Lord and I have had discussions on many occasions in the past on the most appropriate method of legislating for Northern Ireland and no doubt we shall again. He asked whether Articles 26(1) and 27(10) orders will he made by Her Majesty in Council, as is the case in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The answer is no, these will be statutory rules subject to negative resolution in the normal way. Again, there is a difference between Northern Ireland and England and Wales whereby unlicensed cinema premises for exhibition do not have the equivalent stature, or equivalent opprobrium perhaps I should say, in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales. Therefore, they do not attract an exceptional level of fine. Thus it would not be appropriate for this order as currently drafted, where the proceeds have to be in excess of £10,000.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether the equivalent legislation in England and Wales had proved to be successful. I am advised that it is too early to assess the effectiveness of the confiscation provisions of Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act. However, since it came into operation in January 1987 the provisions of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act have been closely monitored. The Act is certainly working, I believe quite well. It has resulted in the making of confiscation orders to the value of £1 7 million. However, as with similar provisions, the effectiveness of both these new statutes is kept under constant review.

Terrorist crime is already closely monitored by the RUC. The whole point of this draft legislation is that it is a matter for the courts to determine on the facts presented to them. Therefore I do not anticipate any extra facts needing to be collected and collated for this purpose by the RUC. I believe that there will be no significant resource implications in this connection.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, if there are no major resource implications, one has to ask how effective this will be on the grounds that in London it started with a staff of three officers. There are now well over 200 officers. I am therefore surprised to hear the noble Lord suggest that there are no resource implications at all. I hope that he will look into this; I seriously question the accuracy of his statement.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I sometimes feel in your Lordships' House that my honour is being impugned. However, I shall of course make further inquiries and if my statement to the noble Lord and the House has been inaccurate, I shall enter into correspondence with him.

As I suggested at the beginning of this speech, I am unable to answer my noble friend Lord Lyell definitively and therefore I shall have to write to him. In drawing the debate on the order to a conclusion I shall repeat some of the comments I made in my opening remarks earlier this evening. The purpose of the order is to remove the financial incentive that underlies so much crime. It is hoped that the order will provide Northern Ireland with modern and effective legislation to combat any spread of drug trafficking. The order will also help to ensure that the United Kingdom as a whole is able to continue its positive role in combating organised crime at international level. Accordingly, I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at nineteen minutes before six o'clock.