Clause 25 - Inadequacy of available amount:
Proceeds of Crime Bill
5:15 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
Clause 25 concerns the circumstances when the court has made a confiscation order. If the order was calculated in respect of a currency other than sterling at the time when it was made, and the confiscation order was an attempt by the court to give a sterling valuation to the foreign currency concerned, what would happen if subsequently, due to fluctuations in the exchange rate, insufficient money was realised to reach the sterling equivalent?
In addition, clause 25 provides for
``any reason specified by the Secretary of State by order.''
I wish to flag up first with the Minister that it would be helpful for the purposes of our deliberations if he could say what contingency that provision is likely to cover. I am bound to say that, apart from the problem of the fluctuations in currency, I cannot immediately think of one. However, if stocks and shares are involved and it takes some time for them to be realised, a similar problem may arise.
It is noteworthy that the procedure is limited to in imbalance of less than £1,000, although it is also provided that the Secretary of State may, by order, vary that amount from time to time at his discretion. We may be creating an unnecessary bureaucratic problem for ourselves. Why do we need to limit the amount that remains to be paid to £1,000 in such a way? If the value of stocks and shares or the sterling value of a foreign currency is calculated, and it turns out that, after a time has elapsed, that value cannot be met, the court would have to be satisfied that the inadequacy in the amount was due to a ``specified reason'', and not to the defendant's procrastination.
If the court decides that the defendant has realised the assets with reasonable speed, why limit ourselves to £1,000? Why not delete all reference to £1,000, as my amendment suggests? That removes the need for the Secretary of State to vary the amount by order. We could then have a simpler procedure. Where is the potential injustice or disadvantage to the director in that?
The Minister may have many explanations, but in some circumstances, huge sums of money might have to be confiscated. Indeed, the Minister hopes that we will go after the Mr. Bigs. A fluctuation of £1,000 in currency values or the value of stocks and shares could easily occur, and if it did, what procedure would we adopt? Would we have to go back to court for a complete recalculation or would there be an appeal by one of the parties? That seems a ponderous process if the problem is entirely a question of currency exchange rates or share valuation. All that would be required would be for the court to be persuaded that currency and share issues were the trigger that had caused the inadequacy of the available amount.
Will the Minister justify subsection (1)(c) and consider whether the Bill would be improved by its deletion. The Minister nodded in response to my comments about subsection (4)(b), which mentions
``any reason specified by the Secretary of State by order.''
Amendment No. 108, which would delete subsection (4)(b), is in a different category from amendments Nos. 107 and 109. Provided that the Minister can reassure me that he is thinking of stock and share values, I shall be far less concerned about amendment No. 108 than the others. If subsection (4)(b) relates to the change in the value of stocks and shares, why not state that?