Lords amendment: No. 13.

I beg to move, That this House
agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may consider Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 26, 46 and 57.

Again, these are mostly minor and technical amendments that relate to parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. However, I should like to bring the following amendments to the attention of the House. On powers of arrest, the amendments to schedule 7 and 18 simply make further consequential amendments and repeals in respect of existing powers of arrest made redundant by the new framework in clause 106. In relation to the identification of the British tsunami casualties, dealt with in amendments Nos. 27 and 44, the House will be aware—[Interruption.]

In terms of compulsory investigative powers, in clause 58, amendments Nos. 13 to 21 create a threshold of £5,000 for certain financial offences that must be met before disclosure notices may be used. These offences include those listed under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and the Theft Act 1968. This will ensure that the powers introduced by chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill will be used proportionately to tackle only the most serious offences.

In relation to Queen's evidence, in clause 71, amendment No. 25 inserts a new clause that ensures that any hearing to vary a sentence following an agreement by the defendant to turn Queen's evidence can be held in camera, or subject to reporting restrictions, where the court considers it necessary to protect any person from harm and it is in the interests of justice. The issue was helpfully brought to our attention by the Lord Chief Justice.

The House will understand what the Under-Secretary has just said, but can she give an assurance that any defendant will know that the scales may be turned against him? For example, if two people are accused and one turns Queen's evidence and has a session with the judge in private, will that be unnecessarily prejudicial to the other defendant, although clearly the evidence will be given properly in court?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the measure, requested by the Lord Chief Justice, was aimed at certain situations where it might be prejudicial to the person giving evidence if that were in open court. I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are trying to make Queen's evidence more transparent than ever before so that, for prosecution and defence purposes, justice can be seen to be served. If he requires any detail on that point, I would be happy to write to him, but having a transparent system takes us a long way forward.

Clause 75 originally provided that the reports made by an offender under a financial reporting order must be at fixed intervals throughout the course of the order. The Lord Chief Justice was helpful in his suggestion and, as a consequence, amendment No. 26 would provide the sentencer with the flexibility to set different levels between reports. The change builds in a helpful degree of flexibility in the operation of these orders.

I apologise to the House for losing my place at the start of this section.

Is the Under-Secretary capable of understanding why the periods of punishment in clause 75(10) are different in different parts of the UK?

My understanding is that the amendment was aimed at giving some flexibility. For example, financial reporting orders can operate when someone is in prison and the time between reporting orders may be different depending on when someone is released from prison. I am happy to look at that particular issue for the hon. Gentleman and get back to him.

For the sake of clarity for those who may read our proceedings, which may not amount to a very large number, imprisonment on summary conviction is liable to a term of 51 weeks in England and Wales, 12 months in Scotland—a difference of a week—and six months in Northern Ireland. That is an odd consequence of devolution. I do not necessarily expect the Under-Secretary to be able to answer in detail now, but I think that the inconsistency will look rather peculiar.

As the hon. Gentleman says, devolution creates different systems. We discussed this in Committee at some length and we must recognise and live with it.

I have nothing more to add on this subject. As I said, at one point I lost my place, but apparently not many Members realised. [Laughter.]

Let me reassure the Under-Secretary that we on this side of the House were very much aware that she had lost her place and, indeed, were rather concerned that we might have been focusing on the wrong amendment ourselves, which is very easily done at this level of detail.

As the Under-Secretary said, these amendments follow the debates in another place yesterday. We very much agree that, in respect of qualifying offences, the relevant offence must be of a value of £5,000 or above. That is the right level before a disclosure notice can kick in and was argued for eloquently in Committee by my hon. Friend Mr. Grieve. We accept the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 26 agreed to.