My Lords, I was instinctively drawn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. However, for many of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, gave, and because this is a preventive provision, after thinking about it for a little while on Sunday, and rather to my surprise, I put a tick next to the Government’s amendment which states,
“that there is reasonable cause to believe”—
even though, like the noble Lord, I read that as reducing the threshold.
Our amendment to raise the threshold to £500,000 was tabled not in response to the proposal to lower it to £50,000 but because I wanted to explore whether £100,000 or £50,000 was the right amount. In this context, £50,000 is a pretty small amount, so I hope the Minister
will share with the Committee the evidence behind the proposal to reduce the figure from £100,000 to £50,000. In evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the gloriously entitled prosperity director of the NCA, when asked about the amount, said that that was a reasonable value. The officer from the counterterrorism unit of the Met said that it was reasonable,
“when we are dealing with a higher end”.—[Official Report, Commons, Criminal Finances Bill Committee 15/11/16; col. 8.]
UWOs are not included in Part 2, where smaller amounts would be more relevant. In the debate concerning the amount, the Minister said that the Government,
“will be going for people worth £20 million, £30 million or £40 million and all the way down”.—[Official Report, Commons, Criminal Finances Bill Committee 17/11/16; col. 87.]
That was in response to an amendment to reduce the amount to £50,000. He said that £100,000 would catch serious criminals. The amendment in question arose from the value of property in Scotland, but the comments are still relevant.
Our concern is quite simply that if the amount is low the agencies might be tempted to go for the low-hanging fruit and fail to pursue those who commit grand corruption. It is a matter of human nature to do that. Although there is no direct read-over, the application of POCA has not been an entirely successful experience. I know that having a lower limit will not restrict going for the higher amounts, but practice and theory may not be the same thing.
We will come later to registers of beneficial ownership, both domestic and for the overseas territories, but I wonder whether UWOs can be administered effectively without a register of beneficial ownership.
We have other amendments in this group, some of which simply repeat the first amendment at different points in the Bill. Amendment 26 is the same as Amendment 54. It would change “must” to “may”—it is usually the other way round in this House, is it not? This is intended to probe why we would be restricted to the same proceedings in the paragraph that I would amend. In this context, does “same proceedings” mean the same case but allow for separate hearings? That would be sensible so that there can be a later application for a freezing order without starting new proceedings.
4.15 pm
Amendment 27 suggests extending the exception for “reasonable living expenses” to the reasonable living expenses of the person’s dependants, for reasons which I think must be entirely obvious. The Minister of course will introduce Amendment 28 shortly, which deals with compensation and will require there to have been a “serious default” on the part of the enforcement authority. In Amendment 29, I suggest changing “serious” to “significant”. What is significant to an applicant may not be serious in an objective sense, and I would like to understand precisely what is intended there.
We probably have other amendments in this group, but I think that I have dealt with them. However, I should just mention government Amendment 14, which deals with connected persons. Is there a definition of “connected”? It seems a very wide phrase. It is in a clause where the term “close associate” is used, and to be connected is much wider than being simply a close associate.