Clause 42 - Restraint orders
Proceeds of Crime Bill
9:30 am
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I am concerned about two or three matters in the clause. First, under subsection (1) it seems that the court can make an order against any specified person rather than the person against whom proceedings are being considered. I understand why that might be so, in that there could be associates who hold property jointly with the person being investigated. However, it is worrying if we are being asked to give the court power to go on a fishing expedition, when it could be said, ``So-and-so might know the other person, so let's just slap a restraint order on him, too.''
I shall take the Committee back to the circumstances in which my sister and I are trying to sort out my mother's estate and distribute it according to her wishes. If by any chance I, or my sister—I have no reason to believe that my sister is involved, but I shall leave the Committee to make up its own mind whether this might apply to me—were caught up in such a procedure, would that mean that someone could prevent my mother's assets from being disposed of, on the offchance that that might suit someone's purposes later on? Will the Minister reassure us that there must be good reasonable grounds for suspicion rather than allowing a fishing expedition on the offchance that something will be caught?
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield touched briefly on my next point. Subsection (3) refers to any ``reasonable legal expenses''. What are reasonable legal expenses? I enter such a minefield with some trepidation in the knowledge that there are many lawyers in the Committee. I am sure that they would tell me that reasonable legal expenses are whatever they usually charge. That is unacceptable. I have a vested interest, in that my young son is a barrister and he complains regularly that he is not paid enough. [Hon. Members: ``Shame.''] I say shame, too, because sometimes he cries on my shoulder about it. I should make it clear that my spurious legal advice or reasoning owes nothing to my son, but everything to me. I would not wish him to be held responsible for anything that I might say.
Given that we will be almost certainly dealing with criminal charges at some stage, it must be made clear whether ``reasonable legal expenses'' in such circumstances would be judged on the basis of the legal aid payments made to barristers and solicitors—which, according to young barristers, are miserly in the extreme—or whether we are making allowances for the fees charged in the open market for a private client, which are considerably in excess of those payments. Would it be reasonable for such a distinction be made, given that it would encourage people to engage more expensive barristers? Clarification would be helpful.
I am also concerned about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, because to preclude being able to make allowances for a key person in the arrangement is a little unfair
I appreciate the fact that the clause is aimed at confiscation in England and Wales, and that we shall deal with other parts of the United Kingdom elsewhere in the Bill, but I should like the Minister to clear up what may well be a misunderstanding. Subsection (9) states:
``Dealing with property includes removing it from England and Wales.''
I assume that the subsection deals with a case heard in England or Wales. It seems to me that the defendant may have property in Northern Ireland or Scotland. Even when the court's proceedings are held in England, property outside England and Wales is not covered by the order. I am sure that there is an explanation for that, but I would like to hear it.