Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Clause 94 - Making of order

Part of Proceeds of Crime Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 8:55 am on 6th December 2001.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Dominic Grieve Dominic Grieve Shadow Minister (Home Affairs) 8:55 am, 6th December 2001

Let me make some progress first.

Mr. Gray said:

''The provisions relate to a complex mix of devolved and reserved issues. That is the basis for taking the Sewel motion approach and asking the UK Parliament to legislate on Scotland's behalf. It is incumbent on us to say that there are protections for Scotland, Scotland's people and this Parliament. The bill is fully aligned to Scots law and procedure. It has separate clauses where necessary and takes fully into account the different institutional arrangements in Scotland.''

Mr. Gray went on to say:

''The Lord Advocate will remain responsible for criminal confiscation in Scotland''.—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol. 3, c. 3258–59.]

He then referred to civil recovery.

We know why the Bill was drafted as it was with regard to Scotland. My understanding was that it was drafted in a way that respected and reflected the different Scots law and procedure, and how they have evolved—and in particular, the fact that in the earlier legislation, which this Bill has in some ways extended, the Scots legal principle gave the Scottish judiciary greater discretion than existed south of the border. Mr. Gray was addressing that subject.

I have made inquiries, and Conservative Members of the Scottish Parliament understood that the Bill would maintain the discretionary principle. I hope that that answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz),