| Proceeds of Crime Bill
|
|
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 442, in page 272, line 26, at end insert—
12A In Part I of Schedule 2 to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986, in paragraph 1, at end add— ''( ) under section 94 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the making of a confiscation order where representations are made to the court by someone other than the accused; ( ) under section 101 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the disposal of the family home where representations are made to the court by someone other than the accused; ( ) under section 136 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to action taken by the administrator where an application to the court has been made by a person specified in section 136(2) of that Act; ( ) under section 294 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the detention of seized cash; ( ) under section 297 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the forfeiture of cash detained under section 294 of that Act.''.'
Just as I and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield welcomed the Minister's last amendment, I hope that the Minister will be prepared, even if he cannot accept it today, to say that this amendment may have some merit. Once again, we are discussing legal aid. The basis for the amendment is a suggestion from the Law Society of Scotland. Hon. Members will remember that we had a large group of amendments many weeks ago from the Law Society of Scotland. It seems, and indeed it probably is, many weeks since I last mentioned that distinguished professional body. One of the reasons for that is that several of the other amendments that it sent us in the intervening weeks were never reached, because a guillotine, or knife, fell. Happily, however, we have reached this one. The Law Society of Scotland told my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and me that although it welcomes the express provision for third parties to make representations to the court, if the rights given to third parties are to be meaningful, provision should be made to enable them to secure effective representation. The amendment would achieve that by altering the references to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986. I appreciate that the amendment may have cost implications. Perhaps when the Minister writes to me about the Government amendments, he could cover this amendment, too. We wanted to probe, because having read what the Law Society of Scotland said , we thought it sensible to explore the matter. I have previously expressed reservations about whether it is a good idea for lots of third parties who were not originally part of the legal dispute to give their views to the court. However, that seems to be the trend that the Government have since 1997 moved in the direction of, giving increasingly more third parties the right to express a view to the court even though they are not parties to the dispute. If we are to move in that direction, however much I might have personal reservations about it, if people are to be represented they should have proper representation. Mr. Foulkes: I cannot accept the amendment, but I can say tantalisingly as we progress that I might be able to be a little kinder later. Column Number: 1411 Part I of schedule 2 to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 details the various courts in Scotland and the United Kingdom in which civil legal aid is available. However, it does not specify particular proceedings for which civil legal aid is available. The amendment would insert a number of detailed proceedings under the Bill into schedule 2 of the 1986 Act. It is unnecessary and inconsistent with schedule 2 of the 1986 Act. Assistance by way of representation—ABWOR—will be available for third parties who want to make representations about the making of a confiscation order under clause 94, as happens at present for proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995. The other clauses referred to in the amendment—clauses 101, 136, 294 and 297—deal with civil procedures. In Scotland, except for a small number of proceedings, such as simplified divorce and small claims, legal aid is available for all civil proceedings in the sheriff court and the Court of Session. That will continue to be the case and legal aid will therefore be available for the proceedings covered by the amendment. Given that, the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
6.30 pmMr. Hawkins: The Minister is tantalising me, and in light of what he said, I want to reach the amendments to which he is referring. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: No. 664, in page 273, line 15, at end insert—
''(ii) any offence which by virtue of section 154 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a drug trafficking offence for the purposes of Part 3 of that Act; (iia) any offence which by virtue of section 155 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a money laundering offence for the purposes of Part 3 of that Act;''.'
No. 665, in page 273, line 34, at end insert—
''(k) any offence which by virtue of section 154 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a drug trafficking offence for the purposes of Part 3 of that Act; (ka) any offence which by virtue of section 155 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a money laundering offence for the purposes of Part 3 of that Act;''.'.
(2) In Article 255 (effect of discharge) after paragraph (4) insert— ''(4A) In paragraph (4) the reference to a fine includes a reference to a confiscation order under Part 2, 3 or 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.'' (3) After Article 279 insert— ''279A Property subject to restraint order (1) This Article applies where— (a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 408(2)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property subject to a restraint order), Column Number: 1412 (b) an order under section 50, 52, 129, 201 or 203 of that Act has not been made in respect of the property, and (c) the restraint order is discharged. (2) On the discharge of the restraint order the property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate. (3) But paragraph (2) does not apply to the proceeds of property realised by a management receiver under section 49(2)(d) or 200(2)(d) of that Act (realisation of property to meet receiver's remuneration and expenses). 279B Property in respect of which receivership or administration order made (1) This Article applies where— (a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 408(2)(b), (d) or (e) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property in respect of which an order for the appointment of a receiver or administrator under certain provisions of that Act is in force), (b) a confiscation order is made under section 6, 94 or 158 of that Act, (c) the amount payable under the confiscation order is fully paid, and (d) any of the property remains in the hands of the receiver or administrator (as the case may be). (2) The property vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate. 279C Property subject to certain orders where confiscation order discharged or quashed (1) This Article applies where— (a) property is excluded from the bankrupt's estate by virtue of section 408(2)(a), (b), (d) or (e) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (property in respect of which a restraint order or an order for the appointment of a receiver or administrator under that Act is in force), (b) a confiscation order is made under section 6, 94 or 158 of that Act, and (c) the confiscation order is discharged under section 31, 116 or 183 of that Act (as the case may be) or quashed under that Act or in pursuance of any enactment relating to appeals against conviction or sentence. (2) Any such property in the hands of a receiver appointed under Part 2 or 4 of that Act or an administrator appointed under Part 3 of that Act vests in the trustee as part of the bankrupt's estate. (3) But paragraph (2) does not apply to the proceeds of property realised by a management receiver under section 49(2)(d) or 200(2)(d) of that Act (realisation of property to meet receiver's remuneration and expenses).''.'.
No. 666, in page 274, line 37, after 'or' insert
No. 668, in page 274, line 39, at end insert—
In section 139(12) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (search powers) in paragraph (b) of the definition of ''items subject to legal privilege'' for ''section 40 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987'' substitute ''section 397 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002''.'—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 648, in page 274, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 276. This is a probing amendment. The Drug Trafficking Act 1994 will be almost demolished by virtue of the Bill. All that will survive are sections 55 and 56, which concern investigations into drug trafficking, not the proceeds of drug trafficking. I highlight that for the Minister because it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The sooner the Government can remove those Column Number: 1413 provisions and put them somewhere else so that the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 dies a death, the better.Mr. Ainsworth: Without overburdening the Committee, I wish to pick up on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. The powers to investigate under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 currently cover the investigation of the offence and the proceeds of drug trafficking. The provisions of the Bill that the amendment would delete preserve the powers in respect of investigations into the offence. However, the powers of investigation into the proceeds of crime provided under part 8 will cover and significantly extend the powers under the Drug Trafficking Act in respect of investigations into the benefit. The overlap of powers would lead to confusion and uncertainty for no good reason. There is no reason to have two separate sets of powers for investigating the proceeds of drug crime. With regard to the investigation itself, it will only be necessary to preserve the Act inasmuch as it relates to offences of drug trafficking and the related powers to investigate such offences. Confiscation, cash recovery, money laundering and investigating powers in relation to benefit from drug trafficking have been consolidated into the Bill. We cannot cover the offence itself, because that would extend the scope of the Bill. The issue must be addressed, and we will seek to rid ourselves of the Act in its entirety, in the most appropriate way.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2002 | Prepared 5 February 2002 |
