I beg to move Amendment No. 618, in page 252, line 14, after 'officer', insert

', unless the reason for his removal or discharge is connected with these proceedings.'.

May I clear up a point that arose this morning, Mr. McWilliam, when your colleague, Mr. Gale, was in the Chair? Members may recall that the Minister of State suggested earlier that we wanted him to be abolished. For the avoidance of doubt, I must stress that it is the office that he holds that I want abolished. If it were up to me, the hon. Gentleman himself would be preserved for the nation. [Interruption.]

I wonder whether Hansard has recorded the sotto voce observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that if the Minister of State were to be preserved he should be stuffed and mounted.

Neither of those are activities in which I would want to engage.

The Amendment, which was drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), raises an interesting issue, which at the time of drafting was known only to him and to the Lord God Almighty—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Spelthorne is obviously confusing one of those parties with my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). Now that I find myself before the Committee having to move the amendment, it is unfortunate that one of those two is not available, and the other is not returning my calls—hon. Members may make of that what they wish, according to their faith preferences.

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes was trying to make when he drafted the amendment was that it would be undesirable for the officer who subsequently brought proceedings to be connected with the earlier removal or discharge of his colleague. I would be the first to admit that that is not what the amendment says.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Member for Wellingborough can cast any light on this, I should be happy to give way.

It strikes me that the Amendment has the curious effect that if someone is being investigated by an officer who commences proceedings and he endeavours to bribe that officer so that he is discharged, no proceedings can be continued by any other customs officer. That seems rather perverse.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has identified that my hon. Friend's Amendment would have an effect; that was rather more than I could do when I first read it. Before I open up any more rifts between my Front-Bench colleagues and myself, I should be interested to hear what those briefing the Minister think about the amendment. If necessary I

will make a further contribution, before I inevitably withdraw the amendment.

I fear that we have made the dreadful mistake of treating the Amendment seriously. We had to wait until our 39th sitting before a Member spoke on behalf of a colleague to move an amendment that he did not understand, the effect of which was not only opposite to the one intended but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough pointed out—malign. To quote my late good friend Gregor Mackenzie, whose phrase has now been adopted by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the introduction of the amendment by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) was ''less than convincing''.

If the hon. Gentleman wants to abolish the position of Minister of State, he should think seriously about that. He has only been here for a few months. Perhaps when he begins better to understand the devolution settlement and what it means, he may see that there is an important job to be done. If I went into that in more detail I should be entirely out of order, Mr. McWilliam—so perhaps I will take him aside on another occasion, with my hon. Friend the Whip. Between us we will find one way or another of convincing him.

We oppose the amendment because it would be contrary to the interests of justice and of the public automatically to put an end to proceedings in a number of circumstances where an officer had been removed from a case for any reason, however legitimate, that was connected to the proceedings, but where the evidence was otherwise sufficient to secure a conviction for serious offences. Sometimes it may become apparent that witnesses or defendants had some remote connection with the case officer that was not apparent when the proceedings were brought. They could be a distant relative, a former school or university colleague—or, may I suggest to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, a member of the same rugby team. Although there would be no suggestion of the officer colluding or being involved with witnesses, defendants or offences, it might nevertheless be expedient to remove him from the case to avoid any such allegations being made.

That is the sensible response to an introduction of the amendment that was not sensible. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has given a more effective response than I have, and that is an even more effective reason why the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland should withdraw the amendment.

With a good grace.

Although there has been a great deal of community of view between us and the Liberal Democrats during our deliberations in Committee, I am unable to support the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on this occasion.

I have an overwhelming need to be consistent, and during our proceedings I have felt it

necessary to chide the Labour party from time to time. Until now, I have not felt the need to chide the Liberal Democrats, but consistency demands that we consider what is before us. The drift of what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said was that the Amendment did not mean anything. Then—horror of horrors—we discovered that it does mean something. That was a nasty shock, but I suppose that we can draw our own conclusions about where it came from. We were told that it was malign and would wreck the intentions of this part of the Bill, so who are the wreckers now?

Despite that contribution by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, which almost persuaded me to press it to a Division, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Amendment No. 644, in page 252, line 36, leave out subsection (7).

This is a probing amendment. The Clause was interesting to read, and perhaps even more so when I read the explanatory notes. They explain how the powers will deal with Customs and Excise offences. It is well known that those offences usually apply throughout the United Kingdom, albeit that different procedures may sometimes apply north and south of the border. Subsection (7) states:

This section does not apply to proceedings on indictment in Scotland.

That is all very useful, but those of us who are not versed in Scots law then looked at the explanatory notes, only to find that they say:

this section does not apply to proceedings on indictment in Scotland.

There is consistency, anyway.

An explanation by the Minister would be helpful. I hope that I am not straying into a Clause stand part debate. There are other examples in the explanatory notes of our being given a titbit of information, but the detail being withheld. For instance, the notes say:

The provision reflects that in existing legislation, except that the range of offences covered has been slightly increased.

When I read that, I smelt a rat. I therefore made complicated inquiries about comparisons between the old legislation and the Bill, to find out how the range has been increased. I shall come to that when we discuss clause stand part if the Minister cannot deal with it now. If the explanatory notes told us how such matters have been changed, time would be saved.

I am not persuaded that the Amendment is appropriate, for the simple reason that the Clause does not relate to Scotland. North of the border, criminal proceedings on indictment run in the name of Her Majesty's Advocate. There is no precedent for the commissioners of HM Customs and Excise or any other body to institute criminal proceedings in Scotland. At the risk of straying into the clause stand part debate, I must say that I would be interested to know why a named customs officer will institute some of the proceedings in Scotland. There is no good reason why officers of the procurator fiscal should not do that.

The question that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked reminds me again of the late Gregor Mackenzie, when he was asked a question at Scottish Question Time that floored him completely. He did not know the answer, so he said, ''The hon. Gentleman has asked a very good question—but not as good as the one that I am going to ask when I get back to Dover house.'' The officials got what they deserved.

However, I do have an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. The Clause deals with Customs and Excise prosecutions. In Scotland, all prosecutions on indictment run in the name of the Lord Advocate, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. That explains the inclusion of subsection (7), which clarifies the fact that in Scotland, in line with the present position, Customs and Excise officials cannot bring a prosecution on indictment.

However, there is a statutory provision for Customs and Excise officers to bring summary prosecutions in Scotland. That is set out in section 34(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act 1995, which states:

Summary proceedings for a specified offence may be instituted by order of the Commissioners and shall, if so instituted, be commenced in the name of an officer.

I understand that that provision is rarely, if ever, used and that most summary prosecutions run in the name of the procurator fiscal. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will withdraw his Amendment. The position is explicit and beyond any Shadow of doubt.

It was never my intention to sabotage the Bill or create a major constitutional crisis by deleting subsection (7). I wanted an explanation, and the Minister has provided it. I was waiting for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to tell me that the Minister was wrong about summary proceedings. However, as he did not, I must take it that the Minister is right, even if the provision is not usually used.

I would merely advise the hon. Gentleman that during my substantial experience of summary criminal proceedings in a number of jurisdictions, I have never known that section to be invoked. I would be interested to know whether it ever has been invoked.

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

I repeat my previous request to be informed of the way in which the range of offences has been ''slightly increased'' in comparison with the previous legislation. Will the Minister identify the areas in which that has occurred, and tell us what the offences are?

Questions will be asked at Dover house.

Order. I heard that sedentary Intervention, and I must correct the Minister and the rest of the Committee. I do not wish to take part in proceedings, but I must point out that the right hon. Gregor Mackenzie was the Minister of State for Industry when he made the remark that has been quoted, so he would not have referred to Dover house.

I stand corrected—if not yet stuffed and mounted.

Your point of order, Mr. McWilliam, allows me to ask the Minister whether the reason why he made that inadvertent slip could be related to the extraordinary publicity given to Dover house in this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph. I read with fascination about the amount of free time that the Secretary of State for Scotland has. I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats had anything to do with leaking that information, but Dover house must be in the Minister's mind for some reason.

Order. I cannot see what the free time, or otherwise, of the Secretary of State for Scotland has to do with Clause 434.

But it has given me more time to read my notes, for which I am deeply grateful to you, Mr. McWilliam, and to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, whom I advise to not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers, especially The Daily Telegraph.

I turn to the question asked by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. The explanatory notes state—[Interruption.] I am finding my brief difficult to read. The Secretary of State might be receiving French lessons, but someone should take some writing lessons. The explanatory notes state that the range of offences for which Customs and Excise can prosecute has been slightly extended: the offence of aiding and abetting the commission of a listed offence is now included.

Clause 434 ordered to stand part of the Bill.