Clause 28
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
Vernon Coaker (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Gedling, Labour)
Good afternoon, Mr. Benton. Welcome back to the Committee. You will notice that there is a bit of a change of membership, but we shall still be proceeding in good heart and with good debate.
I wish to turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch in response to my formally moving the various Government amendments. He referred to what the applicant authorities will give consideration to when deciding whether it is in the public interest to make an application for the winding up of a body. To put the matter in context, I wish to emphasise the two-part nature of the winding-up process—as the hon. Gentleman did. When an organisation has been convicted of the offence of a breach of an order, the applicant authority will consider whether it is in the public interest to petition the court to have it wound up. It is then up to the court to consider separately whether it is also just and equitable for the organisation to be so wound up. I did not mean to refer to the director of the applicant authority this morning. I apologise.
The purpose of the clause is to deal with instances, even though they might be few, when an organisation is being used effectively as a shell or front for serious criminal activity, is producing or doing little or nothing of worth and is being used to cause harm through serious crime. The applicant authorities will be considering that when looking at the public interest and, effectively, whether the organisation is still a legitimate concern and working towards a legitimate legal end or whether it is simply a vehicle for criminal purposes.
As I made clear, when the latter is the case, it will still be for the courts to make a separate determination whether it would also be just and equitable for the organisation to be wound up. That will include a consideration of what effect the winding-up will have on third parties, such as the customers or creditors of the organisation. We believe that it is an effective sanction with adequate protections in place to ensure that it occurs only when appropriate.
All the amendments are technical and would improve the Bill and, now that I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s specific points, I hope that the Committee will support them.