Previous Section Home Page

Column 837

Points of Order

4.10 pm

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Tourism is one of Scotland's most important industries. This afternoon, the Secretary of State for Scotland is holding a press conference in Edinburgh to announce Government policies for the structure of the tourist industry. I understand that the Secretary of State will also outline Government policies in that respect in a written answer to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).

I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, agree that that is totally unacceptable and an insult to the House. The House was entitled to hear from the Secretary of State for Scotland, to question him and to give its views on the important issue of Scottish tourism. This is not the first time that such a thing has happened. On previous occasions, you have condemned that practice as being completely unacceptable. I invite you to do the same again and to ask the Secretary of State to come to the House to explain the Government's proposals for that vital industry.

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is for a Minister to decide whether he announces a change of policy by means of a written answer or at the Dispatch Box. it is not for the Speaker to determine the way in which a Minister makes a statement to the House.

Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Tourism is Scotland's biggest industry in terms of employment that it offers, and many communities in the highlands and islands and elsewhere depend for their life on tourism. The Secretary of State's proposals will have a major impact on many parts of Scotland. His action, apart from being grossly disrespectful to the House, says nothing for the attitude of the Scottish Office towards the Scottish people, in announcing a decision in that way. We have previously brought our worries about the Scottish Office's growing disrespect to the Floor of the House. To articulate those worries again, we put it to you today, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary of State has an obligation to respect and to make a statement to the House, so that it may deliberate on the issue, for the good of the people of Scotland.

Madam Speaker : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the ruling that I just gave. The Minister concerned has already made a statement, by means of a written answer. It is not for the Speaker to instruct Ministers whether they should make a statement at the Dispatch Box or give a written answer. If any change to that convention is to be made, the Select Committee on Procedure should be requested to review the matter so that the changes that the hon. Gentleman is seeking may well take place.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise a matter with regard to the personal statement made a few minutes ago. It has always been my understanding that personal statements were vetted by the Speaker before they were made, and--

Madam Speaker : Order. I am sorry, and I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. He is a

Column 838

long-standing Member of the House and I have great regard for his knowledge of procedure. However, the House has just heard a personal statement, and according to "Erskine May", no reference to a personal statement should be made afterwards. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to consider the matter later and to refer it to me again. As he knows, I try to apply the rules and regulations of the House without exception. It would be better if the matter were left there at this stage.

Mr. Jopling : If you wish, Madam Speaker, I shall not refer to today's events ; instead, if I may, I shall refer to the practice of personal statements in general. I imagine that I can do so at any time.

I have always understood that personal statements were subject to clearance by the Speaker and that, in return, they were heard uninterrupted. It is clearly a delicate matter for anyone, even the Speaker, to interrupt a personal statement, and it should be done only when absolutely necessary.

I do not want an answer now, but I wonder whether you would consider overnight and possibly give an answer next week on whether the practice for all personal statements ought to be extended to include resignation statements. I understand that resignation statements are not now subject to vetting by the Speaker. Should all such statements in future become subject to the approval of the Speaker of the day?

I can understand how difficult it is for a Speaker to make a decision on the hoof, as it were, about a personal statement involving sub judice matters. Will you consider the matter overnight and perhaps make a statement either tomorrow or next week, as you wish, on whether you think it wise to refer the matter of personal statements to the Procedure Committee?

Madam Speaker : The right hon. Gentleman knows well that he has the authority to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee. If he leaves the matter with me, I will consider it, without necessarily giving any commitment about reporting to the House.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you study the operation of the sub judice rule in the House? Certain Members, including myself, are unhappy about the way in which the law operates at the moment. I have in mind, for example the case of Mr. Alan Clark, a former Member of Parliament. When hon. Members first sought to question him about his involvement in the Matrix Churchill affair, Mr. Clark claimed that he intended to sue a newspaper, and that therefore the matter was sub judice. He did not subsequently sue the newspaper or take any further action. Hon. Members were denied the opportunity of questioning Mr. Clark on that issue because of the sub judice rule. That is clearly an inadequate operation of the rule, and I ask you, Madam Speaker, to look at the matter for the longer term.

Madam Speaker : The operation of the sub judice rule is undoubtedly a matter for the Procedure Committee. The Committee recommended the rule to the House which, in turn, accepted it. I invite the hon. Gentleman to write to the Procedure Committee about the point that he has made.

Column 839

Orders of the Day

Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair.]

New Clause 14

Appeal against order forfeiting drug trafficking cash

.--(1) The following sections shall be inserted in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, after section 26-- "Appeal against section 26 order.

26A.--(1) This section applies where an order for the forfeiture of cash ("the forfeiture order") is made under section 26 above by a magistrates' court.

(2) Any party to the proceedings in which the forfeiture order is made (other than the applicant for the order) may, before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which it is made, appeal to the Crown Court or, in Northern Ireland, to a county court.

(3) An appeal under this section shall be by way of a rehearing. (4) On an application made by the appellant to a magistrates' court at any time, that court may order the release of so much of the cash to which the forfeiture order relates as it considers appropriate to enable him to meet his legal expenses in connection with the appeal. (5) The court hearing an appeal under this section may make such order as it considers appropriate.

(6) If it upholds the appeal, the court may order the release of the cash, or (as the case may be) the remaining cash, together with any accrued interest.

(7) Section 26(3) applies in relation to a rehearing on an appeal under this section as it applies to proceedings under section 26. Appeal against section 26 order : Scotland.

26B. Any party to proceedings in which an order for the forfeiture of cash is made by the sheriff under section 26 above may appeal against the order to the Court of Session.".

(2) The Act of 1990 shall be further amended as follows. (3) In section 26 (forfeiture of drug trafficking cash), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection "(4) Proceedings on an application under this section to the sheriff shall be civil proceedings.".

(4) In section 28 (procedure), the words "or appeals" shall be inserted after the word "applications" in each place where it occurs in subsection (2).

(5) In section 30 (forfeited cash to be paid into the Consolidated Fund), the following subsection shall be added at the end-- "(3) Subsection (2) above does not apply--

(a) where an appeal is made under section 26A or 26B above, before the appeal is determined or otherwise disposed of ; and

(b) in any other case--

(i) where the forfeiture was ordered by a magistrates' court, before the end of the period of 30 days mentioned in section 26A(2) ; or

(ii) where the forfeiture was ordered by the sheriff, before the end of any period within which, in accordance with rules of court, an appeal under section 26B must be made.".

Column 840

(6) The amendments made by this section apply only in relation to orders under section 26 of the Act of 1990 made on or after the date on which this section comes into force.'.-- [Mr. Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.18 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker : With this it will be convenient also to discuss Government amendment No. 19.

Mr. Maclean : The new clause inserts two new sections--26A and 26B-- in the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990. The new section 26A provides a right of appeal against an order made under section 26 of the 1990 Act for the forfeiture of cash which a magistrates court was satisfied represented the proceeds of drug trafficking. There are currently only limited rights of appeal in England and Wales against such orders, and application for "case stated" can be made on the grounds that the order was wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction, but the merits of decision cannot be re-evaluated.

The matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) and by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) last year. We have since decided that it would be right to correct the situation. New section 26A will allow any party to the proceedings to appeal to the Crown court--or, in Northern Ireland, a county court--within 30 days of the order being made.

In effect, this right will not apply to prosecutors, as it is an appeal against the forfeiture of the cash. The appeal will take the form of a re- hearing, and the magistrates court will, on the application of the appellant, be able to release some of the cash to enable the appellant to meet his legal expenses for the appeal. The court hearing the appeal may make such order as it considers appropriate, and, if it upholds the appeal, may order the cash, together with accrued interest, to be released. The standard of proof for the re-hearing is the civil standard--the same standard as is applicable in the original hearing.

New section 26B expressly provides a right of appeal in Scotland, to the Court of Session. The rest of the new clause makes the necessary consequential changes to the 1990 Act. Subsection (5) disapplies section 30 of the Act, which provides that forfeited cash is paid into the Consolidated Fund where an appeal is made under section 26A, until the appeal is determined and until the time for making an appeal has expired.

Similar arrangements may apply in Scotland, where the period will be determined by the rules of court. That will mean that the forfeited cash can be retained in an interest-bearing account, pending the lodging and determination on an appeal, when it may have to be returned. That would not be possible if the money went straight into the Consolidated Fund, as is currently required by section 30. The clause also makes it clear that the proceedings in Scotland under section 26 will be civil. That is necessary in order to ensure that the appropriate Scottish appeal provisions apply.

I think that the House will agree that this is a reasonable and sensible clause, and I commend it to the House.

Column 841

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : The Minister always sounds sweetly reasonable when he brings yet more changes to this Bill. What he has said today sounds sweetly reasonable. The remarks that I shall address to this group of amendments will apply also to the next group, and I do not intend to repeat myself. These are yet further changes which appear to be technical and helpful, but I must warn the House of the dangers of the process that the Bill is going through. This is yet more amendment, accepting points that have been made in criticism, to a Bill that started in the House of Lords, went through all its processes there, has been extensively amended in Committee, for which there is no effective revising period, and how now arrived at this stage.

I am not sure that there is a great deal to worry about in the amendments that the Minister has tabled. He has made it clear that they address issues that have been raised in earlier debates, and that they are designed to be constructive. However, there is a danger in the process of making law on the hoof. Will the Minister assure us that he has burned the midnight oil on this group of amendments to ensure that they are absolutely right? The Criminal Justice Act 1991 is an awful warning to legislators who come to the Dispatch Box with that sort of confidence. I hope that the Minister will think carefully and tell us whether he is that confident.

It is important to make these remarks at the outset of the debate, because we should remind ourselves that the Bill began by dealing only with drug trafficking, insider dealing and money laundering. It has been extended considerably. For instance, it has been extended, with the Opposition's support, to include terrorism, and it has been extended in response to Labour demands on matters such as previous convictions and the unit fines system, which led to a need for amendments to the 1991 Act. However, as will be clear from further debates, the Bill is still a missed opportunity.

This is a very late stage in the Bill's consideration. It started in the House of Lords many months ago and went into a sort of frozen state for several months after it was introduced in the House, when presumably all sorts of midnight oil was burnt in the Treasury, if not in the Home Office. In accepting amendments at this stage, the House should be assured by the Minister that they have been introduced with full and adequate care and consideration.

Mr. Maclean : The warnings of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) are particularly apposite, not just for this Bill but for any legislation where new clauses are introduced for the first time on Report. I accept that it is not the ideal way to create any legislation. The legislation will be important and will be subject to interpretation by the courts no matter how watertight and unambiguous we think we have made it. The hon. Gentleman quotes the Criminal Justice Act 1991 as a warning. Hon. Members from both sides of the House burned a considerable amount of midnight oil scrutinising that Bill, and they all believed that the system would work well, with its provisions for unit fines and previous convictions. No one, as I recall, popped up to warn that it would be wrong.

Mr. Michael : That is a calumny that the Minister continually repeats. The Opposition gave warnings, and I can state that with confidence. Further warnings were

Column 842

given on that issue, which is not before us now, in October, when it seemed that Ministers then in office were rushing to implement it in a way that would bring out faults rather than strengths. I wish that he Minister would not repeat what is not correct but would accept that a foul-up was made--I accept that he has an alibi--by the previous Home Secretary and Minister of State, Home Office.

Mr. Maclean : I am not sure how many hon. Members could claim to have an alibi that would stand up in court. I say merely, let us look at the record of voting on the Bill, for which many Members on both sides of the House have many previous convictions to be taken into account. But let us not jump to a discussion that we shall probably have on later amendments.

I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point, but we have checked the clause carefully. I have burnt a little midnight oil considering the clause and many others. I am more reassured to know that my officials and parliamentary counsel have burnt considerably more than I have. We might have liked to make some other technical and difficult amendments, especially on shipping, but we decided that, because they would be so technical and because we could not guarantee that they would be as perfect as we would like, we would not table them. We shall debate that matter in a new Bill in another Session. I take the general warning on board. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman likes what we are proposing. The amendment is sensible, and I am glad to have his support for it.

Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) : As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. I wish to declare that interest, in case any comments that I may make relate to matters in which it is interested.

New clause 14 deals with an appeal against an order forfeiting drug trafficking cash. Will my hon. Friend the Minister be kind enough to explain for my benefit the precise way in which that will operate? I am concerned about the extent to which the new clause could invite an almost automatic appeal. The court may order the release of cash to which the forfeiture order relates as it considers appropriate to enable an appellant to meet his legal expenses. If, consequently, the court allows the appeal, the remaining cash, with any accrued interest, must be released. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the new clause will not encourage automatic appeals against that offence?

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : In answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), will the Minister say whether the Home Office had discussions with the Lord Chancellor's Department about the implications of the new clause for legal aid applications? For instance, will somebody who appeals against an order made in the magistrates court be able to apply, as one applies in an ordinary appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court, for legal aid at the magistrates court and the Crown court, or will the legal aid already granted for the magistrates court hearing be extended to cover an appeal, within the relevant period, to the Crown court?

Where will an appellant's application to the magistrates court for legal aid be made, and will any sum forfeited by order of the court be taken into account in determining the applicant's eligibility for legal aid? Is it intended that, in

Column 843

due course, we shall consider amendments to the regulations governing legal aid to enable these issues to be aired?

4.30 pm

Mr. Maclean : First, I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that I do not think that automatic or frivolous appeals will be made, as there will always be a risk of an order for costs being made against the appellant if the appeal fails.

The court hearing the appeal can make such order as it considers appropriate, and if it upholds the appeal, it can order the cash, with accrued interest, to be released. Generally, we must trust the court to make the right determination of the amount of cash that it should release. Obviously, we shall keep this matter under constant review. It is not as if there will be very many appeals or very many cases ; these are unique cases.

The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) asked about legal aid. I confirm that discussions have taken place with the Lord Chancellor's Department. Again, we are content that few such appeals and applications will be made. No legal aid will be available in the Crown court, but the proposal allows for the release of cash to meet the costs of such an appeal.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 15

Power to extend certain offences to Crown servants and to exempt regulators etc.

. Schedule ( --Extensions and exemptions --), which confers power on the Secretary of State to make regulations extending certain provisions to Crown servants and to make regulations exempting persons from certain offences, shall have effect.'.-- [Mr. Maclean]. Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maclean : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following Government amendments : Nos. 20 to 24, No. 38, No. 26 and No. 27.

Mr. Maclean : The new clause and schedule give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to extend money laundering offences to Crown servants, and to exempt certain persons who are employed by supervising bodies from the failure to report offences under clauses, 18, 19, 47 and 50.

The power to extend the offences to cover Crown servants is necessary, because some Crown servants--I am thinking in particular of employees of the Department of National Savings--carry out duties and tasks that, in many respects, do not differ from those carried out by employees of banking and financial institutions in the private sector. The latter are, of course, covered by defences. The former, however, might not be, by virtue of Crown immunity.

We do not think that that difference in treatment can be justified. In any case, we are required by the EC directive to apply the offences and, in particular, the failure to report offences to all credit and financial institutions. The Department of National Savings undoubtedly falls into

Column 844

that category, despite its Crown status, and it is right that the offences should in due course be extended by regulations to cover such employees.

The power does not put the general concept of Crown immunity into jeopardy. It is limited to specified money laundering offences--the acquisition offence, the offence of assisting another, the failure to report an offence, the tipping-off offence and the offence of prejudicing an investigation.

The exemption for supervisors from the suspicious reporting offence is necessary to enable us to combat money laundering through the regulatory system rather than at the expense of that system. We do not want to place on the supervisors a burden so onerous that it interferes with the performancce of their regulatory duties. We are obliged, under the directive, to impose on supervisors an express obligation to report suspicions of money laundering. This we shall do by regulations under the European Communities Act 1972.

With such an obligation in place, there is no need for the criminal offences to apply in addition. Indeed, if they were to do so, it might seriously harm the ability to exercise supervisory functions properly, as detecting suspicious transactions is a task for which regulators could easily be held responsible because of their special access to company accounts. We have therefore sought the right level at which to require supervisors to report their suspicions, without making them so anxious about the consequences of not doing so that they neglect their regulatory functions.

It is much better that the prime responsibility for reporting signs of money laundering or suspicious transactions should be given to the institution handling the money, and thts of the directive without undermining the integrity of the regulatory system.

Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 make consequential changes to clause 77. The provisions in subsection (2) of that clause relating to schedules 4 and 5 is being removed and replaced by the provisions of amendments No. 23 and 24. The other two amendments to schedule 4 will ensure that it takes full account of the new sections being put into the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 by the new schedule.

I recommend the new clause and the amendments to the House.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : When and how did the need for this provision come to light? Who recommended the change?

Mr. Maclean : The need for the new provision came to my attention within the last two weeks. I am not sure when it came to official attention. The advice of officials was that this was the best and most appropriate way of making the changes. If I had more information, I should happily give it to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maclennan : If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is appropriate that a matter of such complexity should be brought before the House in this manner, I disagree. This is not a suitable way to legislate. We have had too many experiences of bad legislation in this field being passed without proper consultation or publication of the

Column 845

Government's intentions. On the face of it, what the Minister has said seems reasonable, but it is quite clear that he has no idea of the background to this proposal. Perhaps the Members of another place will want to look at the matter more closely.

Mr. Maclean : The amendment does not make any great or fundamental change. We already have complex law dealing with the reporting obligations of all those employed in the field of financial services. Here, we are applying the law to Crown servants, and making the necessary changes with regard to supervisory organisations. I spoke in greater detail than usual because I wanted the House to be fully informed of the provision's effects. The fact that I spoke in such detail does not necessarily mean that this is a whole new area of law, or that we are introducing a new concept that was not considered by the Standing Committee in the context of other aspects of the Bill or, previously, by the House.

Mr. Michael : The Minister ought not to be too defensive about these issues. He will recall that the Standing Committee dealt with a number of similar points. These are not matters in respect of which the parties divide, so we had a sensible discussion. I agree that it is necessary to get the law right and to ensure that it works. In that sense, if the Minister is responding to comments that have been made, we are reassured to some extent.

However, we need to ensure that we do not create another complication and other problems. For instance, later amendments take up points that I made in Committee. I refer to the need to ensure that legal advisers working in other capacities are not exempt when they act in their non-legal capacity. I am glad that the Minister has responded by introducing amendments with which we shall deal later. I hope that he does not feel that he must defend every line of late amendments. He ought to ensure that the short time available to both Houses is used to secure practicality and to make things absolutely right.

Mr. Maclean : I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. During my time in Parliament, I have never before been accused of being too defensive, but I am grateful to him for defending me for the second time, the first being in Committee. Clearly, he cannot drop his past profession ; he has defended me without my even requesting a legal aid solicitor.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Crime prevention measures and non-custodial sentences : Code of Practice

. The Secretary of State shall produce a Code of Practice regarding appropriate liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities regarding the most effective use of non-custodial sentences and other measures for the prevention of crime and reoffending.'.-- [Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Column 846

Madam Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 11, in the Title, line 21, after drugs', insert to make further provision with regard to disposals.'.

Mr. Michael : Before I speak to new clause 1, may I offer a personal word of explanation? I am sure that the Minister did not intend to insult me by suggesting that my past was so murky as to have been in the legal profession. I should make it clear that my professional background is that of journalist, youth and community worker and representative of the people, not as a--

Mr. Maclean : The hon. Gentleman was a magistrate.

Mr. Michael : The Minister was referring to my period as a magistrate ; I take that as a compliment.

New clause 1 would fill a major gap in Britain's system for tackling crime. It would put right something which is wrong. I remind the House that this is the second Criminal Justice Bill in recent years which has failed to deal with the real problem facing communities and individuals across the country--and, indeed, the police on our streets. That real and urgent problem is the enormous rise in crime, which the Government have failed to tackle. Crime and its prevention are matters of enormous concern to everyone today. In 1992, a staggering 5,594,416 offences were recorded by the police. That figure represents an increase of 121 per cent. on the figures for 1979 when the Conservative party came to power. It includes an increase of 324 per cent. in robbery, an increase of 149 per cent. in burglary and an increase of 162 per cent. in car crime compared with the 1979 figures.

That is an appalling record, by any definition. The actuality of crime on the ground is far worse than the figures suggest, because we know that only about one third or one quarter of offences that are committed are reported to and recorded by the police. In other words, about 20 million crimes are being committed each year.

4.45 pm

The reality behind the statistics is grim : women and the elderly are afraid to go out at night, and the fear of crime affects the quality of life of many people. Surveys of local concerns put crime at or near the top nearly every time. In such circumstances, the Government should be launching a comprehensive policy to fight crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the shadow Home Secretary, said pointedly yesterday. They should be spearheading a strategy to reduce the level of crime in society.

The elements of that strategy are quite clear if one listens to the advice of those with experience of crime and crime prevention. There is a remarkable degree of consensus on how to tackle crime locally. It involves a partnership between the police, the local authority, local residents, local business and local statutory agencies, as well as voluntary organisations to analyse crime patterns in any given locality and then to develop a package of measures to tackle the problem.

The Government frequently pay lip service to that concept. Indeed, the press release machine at the Home Office works overtime, using some of the words that I shall use in my speech. However, the Government have consistently failed to develop a mechanism to ensure that such a partnership materialises on the ground.

The Government have a project mentality on crime prevention, which is perfectly exemplified by the safer

Next Section

  Home Page