Clause 10 - Available amount
Proceeds of Crime Bill
5:00 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
Committee stages of Bills are strange. I tabled what was designed as a probing amendment not because I had received briefing material from a pressure group or outside organisation but because, reading through the clause, I was struck by how considerable—I have rather overused the word ``draconian'' and will avoid it—or heavy the consequences could be in certain circumstances for innocent third parties. I tabled the amendment not because I was interested to find out whether it would completely fit the Bill—I accept that it probably does not, and I listened carefully to the Minister's argument that practical issues are likely to be involved.
I was slightly surprised at Ministers' reaction. The amendment was, if ever an amendment was, designed to explore an aspect that I consider to be neutral in its impact on the operation of the Bill. It seems to have attracted a level of opprobrium and a knee-jerk reaction from the Government that I find surprising. It is almost as though it stung them in some way.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok, who has given some thought to our suggestion, made a point about criminals spending wildly if they believe that their assets will be seized. As the Bill stands, I am sure that criminals will spend wildly before their assets are seized. A feature of the matter is that we cannot make criminals who spend wildly prior to the seizure of their assets magic back the money that has gone. They operate a cash economy and if they decide to go out to have expensive restaurant meals in the last week before the guillotine comes down on them—