Serious Crime Bill [HL]

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is absolutely right. Of course, on the previous occasion, the noble Baroness proposed that, when a trader was carrying on a business, the police could go along and say, ““Do you realise that the way in which you’re doing this is assisting serious crime?””. The person would then have the chance to say, ““Well, I won’t do it any more””, or he could proceed and find himself subject to an application for an order. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I suspect, I do not want a person who has no intent and who does not wish to facilitate crime unwittingly to be caught out by this measure. That is what I want to try to achieve through discussion with the Minister between now and Report. At the moment, I still think that a person with normal good business practice could find himself in difficulty in court when, by the look of it, neither the Government nor I wish that to happen. The noble Baroness has said repeatedly that she does not want honest traders to be nabbed but I think that this does nab them. So I am still concerned, but I am particularly concerned about those who would not be able to form intent anyway. Therefore,I tabled my secondary amendments, Amendments Nos. 43 and 46, because, from my point of view, they address the specific problem of those who are not capable of forming intent. It is not a case of ignoring the intent because they cannot form it. I think that I have outlined my concerns as a sufficient basis for bringing this matter back on Report, although I hope for a more constructive resolution at that stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 not moved.]