| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: I tend to agree with the noble Lord. I shall take the matter away and look at it again.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 345 [Government departments]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 265K:
- Page 201, line 21, leave out "Circuit judge" and insert "judge entitled to exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court"
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment designed to bring Clause 345 into line with Clause 338. That being the case, I do not think that I need to say any more about it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 345, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 352 [Disclosure orders]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 265L:
- Page 206, line 10, after "investigation" insert "which is being carried out by the Director"
The noble Lord said: I believe that I shall be able to deal with this amendment fairly swiftly. As we have already indicated, the disclosure order is available only to the director. We consider that the power should be available for use only for the purposes of his own functions. In any event, the power is likely to be needed only exceptionally in more complex cases. Over time, we would normally expect such cases to be handled by the director.
The amendment will also ensure that information obtained through the disclosure order power for the purpose of identifying proceeds cannot also be used for the purpose of criminal investigations by law enforcement officers into offences. We believe that it is important for this principle to be observed. It is for those reasons that we have brought forward this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 266 and 267 not moved.]
Clause 352, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 353 [Requirements for making of disclosure order]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 267A:
- Page 206, line 41, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: On the basis of the assurance previously given by the noble Lord, I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 267A not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 268:
The noble Baroness said: This is a small point, but it is important because it adds clarity to the legislation. The clause refers to a statement made by a person in response to a requirement imposed on him under a disclosure order. The amendment does not alter the effect of the clause, but makes the meaning more clear, in that on page 207, line 31, it is made clear that we are referring here to the "current" statement mentioned in subsection (1). I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have looked at this proposal, but I am a little perplexed because I cannot quite see why it has any place here. It appears to have no practical effect.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee to subsection (2)(d) in Clause 355. The reference to the statement made in subsection (1) surely must be none other than the one made under that subsection. We do not see how the addition of the qualification proposed by the noble Baroness could refer to anything other than the current statement in subsection (2)(d).
Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell me something different, but unless I have it entirely wrong, I cannot see that the amendment would add anything to the provision.
Baroness Buscombe: I can only repeat what I said to the Minister. He may suggest that it must mean something, but lawyers have helpfully looked at this Bill, with us and on our behalf, and they say that it raises some question marks. If lawyers are questioning whether it means any old statement or the current statement, then the proposed amendment will add clarity. It is as simple as that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The best that we can do on this issue is to disagree today. But I shall at least take away the point that lawyers have looked at this issue.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 268A:
The noble Lord said: The effect of the amendment mirrors the amendments to Clause 68, which were approved on 22nd April, in respect of restraint order applications. It allows a senior appropriate officer who can authorise applications for the issue and variation of custody information orders to apply for such orders or variations himself without requiring a separate authorisation from another senior appropriate officer. I hope that the amendment meets with the Committee's approval. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 364, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 366 [Requirements for making of account monitoring order]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 268AA:
The noble Lord said: Again, on the basis of the assurance previously given, I do not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 268AA not moved.]
Clause 371 [Code of practice]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 268B:
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments relates to the code which will provide guidance as to how investigation powers in respect of confiscations, civil recovery and money laundering investigations are to be conducted by the director of the assets recovery agency and financial investigators in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
The execution of search and seizure warrants is an invasive power under the investigation scheme. We believe that the conduct of officers should therefore be subject to a code of practice. I do not suppose that the Committee will disagree with that. This brings such officers into line with financial investigators who are already covered by the code and the search provisions under recovery of cash, which are subject to a code of practice under Clause 294. With that simple explanation, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 268C to 268F:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 371, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 385 [Disclosure orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 269 and 270 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 270A:
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment to include "interests in property" as a part of the definition of "property" itself and to remove from subsection (3) the rules which refer to property held by a person if he holds an interest in it. We believe that the amendment is a simplification and a clarification. I beg to move.
"( ) There must be reasonable grounds for believing that the making of a disclosure order is in the public interest having regard to—
(a) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the material is obtained;
(b) the circumstances under which the person in possession of the material holds it."
Page 207, line 31, after "the" insert "current"
Page 212, line 34, after "unless" insert "he is a senior appropriate officer or"
Page 213, line 44, at end insert—
"( ) There must be reasonable grounds for believing that the making of an account monitoring order is in the public interest having regard to—
(a) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the material is obtained;
(b) the circumstances under which the person in possession of the material holds it."
Page 215, line 5, leave out from "by" to "of" in line 6 and insert "all of the following"
5.45p.m.
Page 215, line 6, at end insert—
"(a) the Director;
(b) members of the staff of the Agency;
(c) accredited financial investigators;
(d) constables;
(e) customs officers."
Page 215, line 15, leave out "The Director" and insert "A person specified in subsection (1)(a) to (e)"
Page 215, line 17, leave out subsection (6)
Page 215, line 20, leave out "the Director or an appropriate officer" and insert "such a person"
Page 233, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) interests in property"
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page