House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Apr 1993

Column 911

criminal record of a convicted person. I well understand that a convicted person can be said to have paid the penalty for the offences of which he was convicted, but society is entitled to say to him, "That may be so, but if you do it again you will be punished more severely."

We should be dealing also with the scandals caused by what I regard as the ill-conceived system of unit fines. I hope that we shall also soon spend time constructing a legal framework for the excellent proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to provide secure education for persistent juvenile offenders. Perhaps we might also find some legislative time to get on with my own private Member's Bill which would reform the law on bail so as to protect our constituents against persistent offenders who commit offences while on bail.

Part I of the Bill before us today would give the courts of England and Wales jurisdiction to try cases of fraud and related offences where there is a foreign element that prevents a prosecution under the law as it stands. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Law Commission on its excellent work in this area. There are indeed absurdities, as highlighted by the case of Rex v. Harden. I shall give a hypothetical example. If two Londoners happened to be in France for a short time and one persuaded the other to part with property by deception in France, that offence could not be tried in the United Kingdom. It is right that that anomaly should be rectified. On the other hand, if two Frenchmen happened to be in England for a short time and the same circumstances arose, the English courts would have jurisdiction. I believe that the English courts should have the power to decline jurisdiction in such a case. The prosecution of crime is an expensive business, and I see no reason why the English courts should try cases that have no real or substantial connection with this country.

The English courts should also have power to decline jurisdiction where there would be any question of double jeopardy for someone who has already suffered criminal process in another country for the same offence. No doubt the law and practice of extradition in this country will be carefully examined to ensure that that does not happen. Part III deals with the confiscation of the proceeds of criminal activity. I welcome the fact that confiscation will apply to the proceeds not only of drug trafficking but of other serious crimes. I have no difficulty with the civil standard of proof when applied to confiscation. It is right that the criminal standard--proof beyond reasonable doubt--should apply to the question whether or not the accused person is guilty of the offence with which he has been charged. The Bill makes no attempt to shift or to change that burden of proof in any way.

Having secured a conviction, we proceed to the question whether assets derived from criminal activity should be confiscated. I have no difficulty with the civil standard in that process. Anyone who does not like that standard has a simple remedy--do not commit crime. There are many causes of crime. One is profit. It is much easier to engage in some forms of criminal activity than to work for a living, as we and our constituents have to do. We must take every opportunity to take the profit out of crime. One particular form of criminal activity not mentioned in the Bill but of the same genre is pornography--a multi-million pound business about which I spoke at some length in the House on 10 July last year.

Column 912

The problem there is securing a conviction under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. If a conviction cannot be secured, the Bill's provisions will not apply. The case concerning the book "Juliet" by the Marquis de Sade gives a clear indication that the 1959 Act is wholly defective, because if a conviction cannot be secured on the basis of that book, one cannot be secured in respect of any publication that is alleged to be obscene. We must therefore change the definition of obscenity under the 1959 Act. Meanwhile, we must confiscate the pornographic material--not the proceeds of crime as under this Bill--under section 3 of the 1959 Act, and the civil standard would also apply there. It is right that the civil standardof proof should apply where the confiscation of pornographic material is in question.

We should not be afraid either to take the action which we have in other areas of criminal law--to employ private contractors to seek out offending material, bring it before magistrates, and secure confiscation orders--with the costs to be paid by the pornographers under an award of costs by the court.

Clause 26 gives me cause for some concern, which is shared by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). It is wrong that a person should be convicted of a criminal offence simply on the basis that he suspects that someone might have been engaged in crime. The very least that the prosecutor should be prepared to prove is that the defendant believed that another person had been engaged in crime. Clause 27 and other clauses provide maximum penalties. Clause 27 provides a penalty of 14 years' imprisonment, but why do we bother to specify maximum penalties in Acts of Parliament when it is clear from the cases that the courts do not come near to imposing them fully? The House must make it clear that, when it specifies 14 years' imprisonment as the maximum penalty for an offence, that is the sentence that the House expects to be imposed for the most serious examples of the crime in question.

Mr. Garnier : Does my hon. Friend understand the difference between a mandatory sentence and a maximum sentence?

Mr. Stephen : Of course I do. What I am saying is that the penalty imposed for serious examples of a particular offence often comes nowhere near the maximum penalty that Parliament laid down for it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Does my hon. Friend think that the matter is assisted somewhat by the fact that the prosecution can now appeal against too lenient a sentence? It has certainly helped in some rape cases.

Mr. Stephen : I do. I wrote an article which was published in 1986 which, together with the efforts of a great many other people, resulted in section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which gave the Court of Appeal that power.

One issue of serious concern to our constituents in the case of offences with which the Bill is concerned and other offences generally is the right of silence, to which reference was made earlier.

Column 913

Under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, a person suspected of serious fraud can be required by the Serious Fraud Office to answer questions. Failure to do so may result in criminal penalties.

A person suspected of evading income tax has no right of silence. He must prove that he does not owe the tax that he is alleged to owe. A person suspected of drinking and driving does not have a right of silence. He must give a specimen or pay the full penalty. But a person accused of armed robbery, rape, burglary or murder has the right simply to sit back, arms folded, and say, "Prove it if you can." We must therefore change the law so that the jury can take fully into account a failure to speak in circumstances where an honest man should have spoken.

I have some concerns with part IV which seeks to regulate dealings in stocks and shares. White collar crime is just as reprehensible as blue collar crime and must be punished accordingly. I have no personal interest in the City, but it grew to pre-eminence and contributed vast sums of money to our national revenues from invisible earnings, as it still does, without the burden of the complex regulations that Parliament has visited upon it in recent years.

It is easy to point to consumer benefits. We must, when we consider legislation of this kind, have regard to consumer costs, because the costs of compliance in the City are high. It may well be that our limited resources for fighting crime might be better employed elsewhere.

This is a useful technical Bill which is of great interest to lawyers and accountants, but of marginal concern to our constituents. It needs some discussion in Committee, but I hope that it will pass quickly through the House without taking much more parliamentary time, so that we can concentrate on criminal law matters which are of much greater concern to all the British people.

9.23 pm

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : I agree with the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) that the Bill is of limited and marginal interest. It deserves half a cheer. It has been welcomed for what it tries to do but hon. Members have reflected its inadequacy and lack of precision and the Government's failure to demonstrate a real interest in putting right the criminal justice system.

Hon. Members have put forward the complaints of their constituents and the police about the Government's failure to deal adequately with the criminal justice system and have complained about the enormous problems that result. Like the dog that did not bark, the main problem with the Bill is what it fails to do.

One criticism of the Bill is that it has proceeded so slowly to this stage. At the beginning of the debate the Home Secretary said that we should not move too quickly. I think that his comments were based on his experience of how things went wrong with the previous Criminal Justice Bill. He has certainly fulfilled that requirement as it has taken four months for the Bill to reach Second Reading. We are owed an explanation from the Minister of why the Bill has taken so long to reach this stage. Another criticism of the Bill is that it is too narrowly drawn. A third criticism is that it has not been adequately thought through.

When dealing with the problem of drugs and trafficking in drugs, we are confronting one of the major issues of our

Column 914

society today. That point was rightly reflected in the introductory remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). We certainly need to underline the fact that the Government are presently taking appalling risks, one of which is their failure to deal properly with drug misuse, because of the background of the HIV virus and the danger that that poses to many people in our society. Prevention must be properly addressed, but that is not happening. The problen of drugs in our society is one that needs a strategic and comprehensive approach. While the measures in the Bill are to be welcomed, they are a fragment of the provisions that the Government should be introducing.

Given the fact that everyone has referred to the Bill as comparatively narrow, it is ironic that the Home Secretary referred to it in his introductory remarks as a sort of first draft. The Committee that will consider the Bill has an important and onerous job in scrutinising and improving it. However, the Bill should reach Committee with some certainty and as a precise instrument that has been given careful and detailed consideration by Ministers as well as civil servants, following extensive consultation and expert advice. It should not be cast into Committee by the Home Secretary as his first thoughts on the subject. He should not pass major responsibility to his Minister of State to sort out the Bill in the aftermath of the Second Reading debate.

One of the Bill's major omissions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) referred, as did hon. Members from both sides of the House, is its failure to deal with the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and its shortcomings. My hon. Friend's remarks were cutting and well justified, and I commend his initiative in giving the House the opportunity to put matters right in this Session with thoughtful amendment to the Bill. I look forward to the House being given the opportunity to consider the measure further. The Home Secretary failed to heed the warnings of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield last October. The provisions could have been included in the Bill. Although the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and others rightly reflected that the Bill as it now stands, and its title, preclude such an amendment, it could have been allowed for initially. This is the second Criminal Justice Bill that has been too tightly drawn and has prevented the House from doing what it should, and making constructive amendments. During the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, I sought to introduce amendments to help with the prevention of crime and the diversion of young people into criminal activity. As the aim of the 1991 Act, as expressed by the Government, was to reduce the numbers in prison and in custody, one would have thought that measures to improve prevention would have been welcomed. But the Clerks had to advise that that Bill was so narrowly drawn--I think that they referred to it as having an extremely curious geography--that we were unable to make some of the constructive contributions that were and are needed by society. To our great regret, we shall have the same experience with this Bill because it is so narrowly drawn that only the two major issues that it addresses will be open to consideration and improvement in Committee.

I very much regret the inability to see the wood for the trees. It is becoming a tradition among Conservative Members to fail to consult, listen and understand their own legislation. I hope that a lesson has been learned. This

Column 915

is the third Bill this Session that the Home Secretary has not read in advance of the debate. However, he had the grace to say that he was giving his junior Minister the task of sorting out the Bill in Committee. I suppose that that is at least a welcome step. Two aspects of the 1991 Act should have been dealt with. One relates to the problems caused by Ministers seeking to interfere in matters that they do not understand. The first of those relates to the figures that the units apply and which have fettered the courts in reaching decisions. Secondly, they have removed discretion from magistrates who have traditionally exercised common sense. I have had experience in the previous system of recommendations for the local bench on motoring fines. The magistrates looked at the outcome of applying the bench's unit strategy and said, "Does this make sense?" Common sense should be applied in the courts and the 1991 Act was mistaken in not respecting that. I hope that in considering the details of this legislation in Committee and more generally the Home Secretary and his colleagues will accept that courts should have the ability to exercise common sense in dispensing justice.

Another aspect is the ability to consider previous offences. It is important for courts to be able to deal with such offences without imposing a sentence that is totally out of proportion to the offence that is being considered. That is especially relevant to drug offences. A person who continually steals Mars bars is guilty of stealing only those, but the repetition of crimes involving drugs or violence is extremely serious and the court dealing with them needs to recognise the background to the offences.

The Home Secretary said that the intention in Committee is to deal with one omission : to amend the Bill to deal with terrorism. We certainly welcome that but such provisions should have been in the Bill in the first place. We are also worried that the issue has not been thought through. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will deal with that. In dealing with crimes related to drugs, a court is also dealing with the proceeds from those crimes whereas in terrorist cases the proceeds from other offences are used to finance terrorism. That may involve drug trafficking, in which case it would be dealt with by the legislation.

How will the laundering of money to support terrorism be dealt with by the Bill when the offence that creates the relevant funds is highly unlikely to arise from a terrorist offence itself? It may arise from fraud, burglary or armed robbery. Will those offences give rise to the Bill's powers of seizure in relation to drugs? I hardly think so. Is the burden of proof in relation to such offences to be dealt with? Surely not, and in that case how do we tie the offence and the intention to use the proceeds for terrorism to court procedures that are clearly related to drug-related offences but are not clear in relation to the possible application of money for terrorist activities?

The Home Secretary spoke about the success of law enforcement agencies. In response to a question, he said that the quality of drug liaison officers was more important than pouring in staff and money to undertake routine tasks. That is a curious comment in view of the fact that the Bill creates a massive need for money and staff to undertake routine tasks.

I give the simple example of disclosure. Without resources, the provision to force more disclosures of suspect transactions that are referred to in clauses 18 and 26 will be counter-productive. We heard earlier that there

Column 916

are currently about 5,000 disclosures and that in the Metropolitan police area they are dealt with by 21 officers. That has been found to be inadequate in terms of the pressure that is required to deal properly with the amount of information that becomes available. The Bill will at least triple that amount of disclosure, by a fairly conservative estimate. It is clear that some of the information that will become available will be of lower quality, because it will have been triggered by suspicion rather than belief. We see and welcome the purpose behind the legislation, but there is also a need to boost morale in the police and other agencies by demonstrating that those bodies will have the resources to use it. The complaint has been made that seized assets do not assist the fight against drug-related crime. Morale would certainly be helped if such assets were directed towards that fight, either through drug enforcement agencies--which, in America, are self-financing--or by preventing the market in drugs, which leads to the trafficking that the Bill aims to prevent.

Surely, Ministers should show not only that they will deal with drug trafficking, but that they intend--as Opposition Members have put it--to be tough on the causes of drug trafficking and drug misuse. It is difficult to see how that can happen, and how disclosure can assist the police materially, given the freeze in police numbers. The Home Secretary referred to the likelihood that the police will have greater freedom to deal with their own resources ; one chief constable spoke to me, in a rather jaundiced way, of the freedom to work flexibly within resources that would undoubtedly become increasingly inadequate. That is the experience of recent years. The fact is that we need both the bravery and initiatives of officers in the front line, and the painstaking back-room work that needs time, staff and money--a need that the Bill will increase.

The Home Secretary and his colleagues must realise that the failure to recognise how all parts of the police service need to fit together and complement each other causes immense anger and frustration among police officers, and all who work with them and value their work. The privatisation of security services, with prisoners escaping or allowed to go free--today, a private security vehicle ran into a police car--would be laughable were it not so serious. The privatisation of parts of the police service, which the Home Secretary wants to bring about, would be an even more dangerous and mistaken step. Thank God it is not within the remit of the Bill ; otherwise, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be tempted to introduce it.

There is a need not only for the matter to be tidied up--we shall try to do that in Committee--but for the Government to recognise the strategic importance of providing the police with the resources, as well as the legal means, to deal with the serious problems that we face.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for his work as chairman of the all-party group on drug misuse. He has referred to many of the problems, and a number of hon. Members have mentioned the undermining of residential facilities for drug misusers. Again, prevention is necessary. Although the Bill and its intention are welcome, they must be part of a range of measures to deal with drugs and similar difficulties.

I was interested to learn that the hon. and learned Member for Burton is not listened to by Ministers either, despite his willingness to provide advice on insider dealing from within the legal profession. Hon. Members on both

Column 917

sides of the House have made it clear that the police and the community want the Government to take crime seriously-- especially youth crime--and regret the failure of this narrow Bill to deal adequately with such issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield spoke eloquently of the development of drug use and addiction, and called for deterrents and the proper use of funds. I hope that the Minister will respond to that call. Let me remind him of the need to deal with couriers from Nigeria, thus saving the cost of imprisonment, child care and future personal and social services.

The hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) said that he felt that there was no qualitative difference between white collar crime and other forms of crime. We need to be careful about suggesting that there are no distinctions to be drawn. Offences need to be pursued with the enthusiasm that is appropriate to the seriousness of the crime and its impact on society. In relation, however, to the financial aspects of the Bill, I point to the grave reservations that have been expressed by a number of bodies--in particular by the Hundred Group of Finance Directors on behalf of the largest quoted companies in the United Kingdom which have expressed major concerns over the proposed legislation on insider dealing. They have referred to ambiguities implicit in the drafting of the Bill which they believe are so serious as to result in the legislation hindering legitimate business activities and market practices.

I seek from the Minister now the granting of their request for the guidelines to be issued in time before the Bill is considered in Committee. I hope that the Minister will grant their request. Guidelines would have a serious bearing on the need for amendments to the Bill in its current form. When we dealt with the immigration measure that went through Parliament in 1988, the Home Office continually refused to recognise that draft orders were available but, curiously enough, those orders were published the day after the Bill had been considered by Parliament.

I ask the Minister to give the House an undertaking tonight that draft guidelines will be available before the Committee sits so that members of the Committee can be properly informed and can properly deal with the issues that have been raised in the debate by hon. Members on both sides when drawing attention to the shortcomings of the legislation.

Guidance notes are not enough for many aspects. Some cases have led to desperate difficulties. A finding of guilt can lead to heavy penalties and the loss of reputation. The ruining of a reputation can be extremely damaging. If someone transgresses seriously, it is right that that person should be punished, as the Bill intends should happen. It is also right that individuals should be protected by the legislation. It is important, therefore, in relation both to insider dealing and to disclosure, that there should be proper guidelines so that no individual is in any doubt about what he or she is required to do under the legislation.

It is also important that City and financial institutions should be in no doubt about what they are required to do and that there should be a proper framework for their employees. There should be proper recording of the

Column 918

reporting of suspicion so that there is no danger that, by error, individuals put themselves in jeopardy under the law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North made a thoughtful speech, based upon his experience. I hope that his direct courtroom experience, and also his experience when investigating a major case of insider dealing, will be taken into account by the Minister in Committee. We need to make use of that experience and expertise. The Committee will need to consider changes to tighten up the Bill. We need clear guidelines for the training of staff. Staff working in the City must be protected. To be effective, the legislation needs to be clear.

The Bill has many failings, but the issues with which it deals are important. Therefore we shall seek to improve the Bill in Committee. We shall endeavour to assist the Minister who has been instructed by the Home Secretary to sort it out in Committee. If the Minister is willing to accept the help and advice that we offer, I am certain that the Bill will be a stronger and better measure when it returns to the House on Report.

9.44 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack) : This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members on their contributions. I was struck by the low-key appreciation for this measure from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) compared with the much greater appreciation of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Perhaps a difference of opinion is opening up on the Opposition Front Bench.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made particular reference to the provisions on insider dealing and asked whether we could make guidelines available before the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has assured me that, when the clauses are considered in Committee, some of the clarification that the hon. Gentleman seeks will be provided.

I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth chose to make a few cheap comments about the proper attempts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that the police carry out their duties in the most effective manner and that they are doing the duties that they should be doing. There will be more time to debate that, but I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had a go at those proper activities.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked about Nigerians who have been convicted of importing drugs into Britain. The length of sentence for such offences is a matter for the courts, but it does send out a deterrent signal. The hon. Member for Sedgefield asked whether we had done anything to transmit that information to Nigeria. We ran a poster campaign in west Africa and the Indian sub-continent, making clear the penalties for importing drugs illegally into Britain. That campaign will be renewed in the forthcoming year. The Nigerians display warnings at their airports. We have helped the Nigerian authorities by, for example, training their law enforcement officers, and we have offered assistance to deal with Nigeria's internal drug problems. It is a matter that we take seriously. I hope that those comments help the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.

Column 919

The hon. Member for Sedgefield set the tone for the debate by welcoming the Bill on behalf of the Opposition.aid, the Bill was not so drafted as to address the problems that many hon. Members have mentioned with the Criminal Justice Act 1991. My right hon. and learned Friend made our position clear : we have listened, we know what the problems are and, if necessary, changes will be made. I wanted to emphasise that.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield and other hon. Members rightly drew our attention to the size and scale of the drug problem. The Government spend some £500 million per year on the campaign against drugs and their preventive strategy, which shows how seriously we take the problem. The hon. Member for Sedgefield criticised the work of other Government Departments, such as by the Department of Education, but the national curriculum deals with substance misuse. Although specialist staff may not be available in all schools--it is up to each authority to decide whether to maintain that service--such information is available to children under the national curriculum. The Department of Health, too, in the way in which it conducted European drug prevention week, showed how it is contributing to the fight against drugs.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield rightly mentioned the work of the police in drug prevention. He mentioned King's Cross but, sadly, did not also mention the 250 arrests that were made in that operation. The activities of each force, the regional crime squads and the national criminal intelligence service show how all our law enforcement agencies are working together to combat the threat of drugs. Their efforts will be underpinned by the Bill. It is important to recognise that fact.

One of the issues raised in our debate was the Bill's impact on our financial institutions and how financial institutions outside the banks were reacting to the requirements. I draw the House's attention to the guidance notes for banks and building societies issued in December 1990 by the Bank of England. The notes make clear what the financial institutions should be doing not only to prepare themselves for this legislation but to make the working of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 effective.

The fact that about 11,000 reports of information arising from existing legislation have already reached the national criminal intelligence service shows that the financial institutions in this country are already responding to the challenge of the 1986 Act and will not have to change their procedures substantially to incorporate the requirements of the EC directive because it was anticipated in the guidance notes. There is no doubt that the point raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield is well met by the notes, which I commend to the House.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield and others asked how we were dealing with south American countries in terms of bilateral arrangements to improve, for example, confiscation procedures. Work has been concluded on bilateral agreements with Argentina, Ecuador, Guyana, Mexico, Panama and Uruguay, and work continues with a range of other south American countries to reinforce our procedures in that respect. Much of the work was pioneered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on his trip to that part of the world-- [Interruption.] I have to justify why he went. In addition,

Column 920

through our work with the United Nations against drugs, we have given further material assistance especially to countries such as Colombia. We take seriously the attempt to extend the fight against drugs on an international basis.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield also spoke of the problems which he believed were connected with the use of assumptions in the Bill. The nature of money laundering, and of drug trafficking in particular, is a life style offence. It perhaps goes beyond the range of other types of criminal offence, which is why the assumptions--the use of which we make mandatory, as the Bill outlines--are a real and proper requirement, recognising the nature of drug trafficking itself. I think that the House generally agreed with that.

The hon. Member also questioned the effectiveness of existing confiscation arrangements. I should point out that by the end of 1991 3,420 confiscation orders had been made under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. That proves that the legislation is working, as does the fact that the amount of money which has now been confiscated, or which is the subject of confiscation orders, has risen to about £50 million.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield and others also mentioned clause 18 and the nature of the proof required when an offence may be connected with knowing of or suspecting money laundering. Although I understand the concerns expressed, I should point out that the criminal level of proof is still required to sustain such an accusation. Equally, we should bear in mind the fact that at that level the process could well include a large number of people in financial institutions. That means that the prosecution in such cases must be entirely sure of the facts in bringing such a charge. That shows a balance in the way the legislation is framed.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : The jury will be told that suspicion is never enough for a criminal offence, so for the jury to be told that they must be satisfied that they are sure that there was a suspicion will be so confusing as to make the provisions impractical nonsense.

Mr. Jack : I know what my hon. and learned Friend says on the subject, but that is a matter for the prosecutors in terms of sustaining the prosecution. Clearly they will know what the evidence is, and on what basis they are bringing the charges. As I have said, a high level of proof is required of the prosecution if the subjective offences are to be sustained. They were indeed the subject of considerable debate in another place.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and others discussed the way in which the proposals will relate to Northern Ireland. Indeed, the powers to confiscate the proceeds acquired by people involved in terrorist-related activities are at present available only to the courts in Northern Ireland. We want to ensure that the money laundering and confiscatory arrangements are kept parallel--I nodded rather vigorously at the hon. Gentleman when he said as much. There must be a basis which extends throughout Great Britain for proposals on money laundering. Equally, as the hon. Gentleman said, both the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Powers) Act will require modification to incorporate those arrangements. I hope that what I have said helps the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned clause 44, which effectively brings into our law what is already happening

Column 921

between the Republic of Ireland and this country. The intention is entirely correct in terms of trying to ensure that the extradition arrangements work as effectively and smoothly as possible. I know that there are sensitivities on that matter and I have taken careful note of the hon. Gentleman's words.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the differences between the effects of the Bill, especially part I, on the various parts of the United Kingdom. Those differences are the result of the different legal codes in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales. I gather that the Northern Ireland Office is considering the hon. Gentleman's second question--I want to assure him on that matter.

Many other hon. Members spoke about other matters, especially the insider dealing provisions. I shall try to deal generally with the questions raised, and in doing so I put on record a quotation from "Investor Relations : a guide for directors", produced by the stock exchange. That quotation puts in context some of the fears and concerns that have been expressed in all parts of the House, and illustrates how the existing advice already goes beyond the part of the Bill which relates to insider dealing :

"It is vital that no group of investors of market commentators be given privileged access to price-sensitive information. However, it can often be helpful to provide background information to brokers' analysts who play a key role in analysing published information given to the market, and to major investors or potential investors in the company. This might include both a restatement and elaboration of information already released and material on the company's products and processes which, while not price- sensitive, assists analysts or fund managers in their understanding of the nature of a company's business."

That quotation underlines what my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said about that part of the Bill representing "business as usual". My hon. Friend has been present throughout the debate and listened to hon. Members' comments, and I know that he will take them into account in the continuing work on the consultations that he, his officials and others are having with members of the financial community, in order to take on board and reflect some of the concerns that hon. Members have expressed in the debate.

Time prevents me from going into many of the other points raised. In the Government's view, this is a wholly benevolent Bill. It will strengthen the fight against drugs so as to ensure that we have the most effective regime to counter those who have sought to profit from money laundering and from drug trafficking. It will ensure that we deal with those people on equal terms with other members of the European Community and that we take our part in the international fight against drugs. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified--

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament--

Column 922

(a) of compensation for loss suffered as a result of the making of confiscation orders which are varied or cancelled ; and

(b) of grants to such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with measures intended--

(i) to combat or deal with drug trafficking or the misuse of drugs ; or

(ii) to deal with consequences of the misuse of drugs.-- [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

Cane Sugar

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4439/93, relating to guaranteed prices applicable in the 1992-93 delivery period to cane sugar originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific states ; supports the Government's objective of ensuring that prices paid to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries are both in accordance with the terms of the Lome-Sugar Protocol and a level which enables the viability of cane sugar refineries in the Community to be maintained ; and supports the Government's intention to press for a radical review of the European Community sugar regime which will produce some deregulatory benefits for the Community's sugar consumers, while accepting a continuation of that regime until 30th June 1994.-- [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

Developing Countries

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9910/92, relating to demography, family planning and co-operation with developing countries ; and welcomes the Resolution adopted at the Development Council on 18th November 1992, which takes full account of United Kingdom interests in this field.-- [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

RIGHT TO KNOW BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified --

Resolved ,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Right to Know Bill it is expedient to authorise--

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of-- (

(i) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act ;

(ii) any increases attributable to the Act in the sums so payable out of money so provided under any other enactment ;

(b) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of--

(i) any salary payable in accordance with the Act to the Information Commissioner appointed under the Act ; and

(ii) any pension so payable to or in respect of the Commissioner.-- [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2 April] , That the Amendment to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill set out in the Lords Message of 18th March be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.-- [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question again proposed .

Hon. Members : Object.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow .

Next Section

Home Page