Clause 2 - Director's functions: general
Proceeds of Crime Bill
11:15 am
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
The clause will allow us to have a wide-ranging discussion, because it relates to an important issue in the Bill. We have already touched on it in discussing clause 1 stand part. The amendment raises a specific issue about the guidance given to the director by the Secretary of State.
When we debated the matter on Second Reading, we had little sign of what form the guidance would take. However, as I said earlier, the Minister helpfully produced a guidance document, which arrived on our desks yesterday or the day before. It sets out the proposed guidance that the Secretary of State will give the director on how to exercise his functions so as best to contribute to the reduction of crime. Some aspects are innocuous and sensible. I am pleased that the guidance refers specifically to the director's need to liaise with prosecution authorities to ensure that no prosecution will be jeopardised by his activities, which is the nub of the matter.
Perhaps more controversial, especially in view of later clauses that deal with the triggers for confiscation, is point 5, which states:
``Where a criminal conviction has been obtained, the Secretary of State considers that the use of criminal confiscation is a method of targeting the proceeds of crime which will best contribute to the reduction of crime.''
No attempt is made to identify whether, for instance, the sort of crime referred to is crime for gain or any old crime. On the basis of the guidance note, if you had a road traffic conviction for speeding, you would bring yourself within the ambit of the Secretary of State's guidance. Some important issues arise from that.