Clause
46
Supplemental
provisions
Mr.
Hogg:
I beg to move amendment No. 153, in
clause 46, page 28, line 19, leave
out subsection (6).
I
suspect that the Minister is very glad to have passed over clause 44
without a debate, as we all are. I do not think that any of us really
understood it, and she would have had to make a reasoned response. She
must be relieved, as indeed am I.
Amendment No. 153 is very narrow
and represents a grievance that I have had in this place for years.
[Interruption.] It is not my only grievance—I see the
Whip chatting away. I have many grievances. This is just one of them.
As is so often the case, the Bill gives to the Secretary of State the
power to amend by order—in this case, the power to amend the
listed offences in schedule 3. The Committee will have been diligent in
this matter and will have checked the order-making powers at the end of
the Bill and found that this particular one is subject to the negative
procedure. I can assure the Minister of that; it is not subject to the
affirmative procedure.
That raises two questions:
first, should we modify a Bill at all? And secondly, if we should do
so, should it be done in a way that is wholly unamendable and unlikely
to be challenged? That raises general propositions and principles that
I have rehearsed time and time again. I am against that procedure. If
we are to amend Bills by way of order, I think that it should be done
using the affirmative resolution procedure. In general, in fact, I am
very much in favour of the super-affirmative resolution procedure,
which enables the House to consider whether it wishes changes to be
made to the draft before it comes before it for resolution.
Having said that, however, I
strongly suspect that the Minister will make an unhelpful response, and
I am conscious that on this matter the Committee is unlikely to be with
me. I suspect, therefore, that we will not be voting on
it.
Maria
Eagle:
I am almost disappointed that we went past clause
44 without my getting the chance to practise my newly gained
understanding of what it actually means—I did an awful lot of
work on it. But there we are! No doubt, it will come in handy at some
point.
I understand
from the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved his
amendment that he is continuing his campaign for the powers of the
House to be as he thinks that they ought to be. I fully understand
that. He has assured me that these order-making powers come under the
negative procedure, but as I understand it clause 79(3) states that
amendments made under clause 46(6) will be subject to the affirmative
procedure. If that is incorrect, I shall get my lawyers to have another
look—
Mr.
Hogg:
I think that the Minister is right actually. I am
sorry.
Maria
Eagle:
I am correct. That is not bad for so late in the
evening. If I had been incorrect, I would have undertaken to provide
for our intention that it be subject to the affirmative procedure, but
given that the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that I am
correct, perhaps I should invite him to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Hogg:
The Minister is correct. I had overlooked clause
79(3) or at least did not spot the reference to clause 46(6). None the
less, I would have favoured the super-affirmative resolution, because,
of course, the affirmative resolution procedure does not enable the
House to amend an order. She could come forward, therefore, with a raft
of amendments under the provisions, and the House will have to take
them either in totality or not at all, whereas in fact we might like
some amendments but not others. That is another objection to the
affirmative resolution procedure. However, she is right and deserves
congratulations for having spotted my error. On that basis and, indeed,
on others, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
46 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
3
Listed
Offences
Maria
Eagle:
I beg to move amendment No. 138, in
schedule 3, page 58, line 6, at
end insert
‘consisting
in attempting an act calculated or likely to cause sedition or
disaffection in contravention of that
subsection.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendment No.
139.
Amendment No.
172, in schedule 3, page 58, line 35, at end
insert—
‘14A
An offence under section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c.18)
(unauthorised access to computer
material).
14B An
offence under section 2 of that Act (unauthorised access with intent to
commit or facilitate the commission of further
offences).
14C An
offence under section 3 of that Act (unauthorised modification of
computer
material).’.
Government
amendments Nos. 140 to
145.
Maria
Eagle:
As a brief reminder for those who have not
read it recently, the schedule contains a list of offences that can be
considered encouraged or assisted offences only when D intends them to
take place.
Government amendments Nos. 140
to 143 are additions that we should like to make to the schedule. The
original list of offences was taken from the Law Commission’s
draft Bill. It did a lot of work on identifying offences that ought to
be excluded as belief offences, and we were grateful for that. During
the Bill’s passage through Parliament my officials have been
conducting a trawl of existing legislation, as officials do at such
times, to see whether the Law Commission managed to identify all the
offences that ought to be in the schedule. They have found a number of
additional offences. We added some on Report in the other place and
indicated that we thought there might be more to come, and the
amendments contain the extra offences that we have discovered. They are
all consistent with those included in the original Law Commission draft
Bill.
I hope that
these further additions will provide us with a final, complete list. It
is a hostage to fortune for me to have said that, but I hope that these
are the last amendments that we will need to make to the schedule.
Amendment No. 140 will add the offence under section 2(2) of the
Landmines Act 1998 of encouraging,
assisting or inducing an offence. Amendment No. 141 will add a list of
offences from the Terrorism Act 2006.
Amendments Nos. 142
and 143 will add offences under section 13 of the Greater London
Council (General Powers) Act 1973 and section 21(6) of the Greater
London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 with regard to assaults on
officers. Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 will restrict the offences in the
Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919, set out in paragraphs 5 and 6
of the schedule, to the attempt to perform an act. Amendments Nos. 144
and 145 are minor drafting
amendments.
The
amendments are simply tidying up, and I hope that they are not
controversial and that the Committee will feel able to support
them.
James
Brokenshire:
I shall comment briefly on the amendments. I
do not intend to pursue amendment No. 172, which my hon. Friend the
Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and I tabled,
considering the Minister’s trawl through the relevant offences.
She will be aware of the debate that took place in the other place on
whether the offences in question should just be repealed. It would then
be a question of ensuring that all the necessary repeals were picked
up.
There is concern
about the operation of the schedule and the approach that has been
taken, as expressed in the other place. I do not intend to rehearse the
points raised there, and I note the Minister’s additional
provisions. The risk is that other offences are yet to be discovered,
which highlights the issue of certainty and reaffirms the concerns and
reservations expressed by their
lordships.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Amendments
made: No. 139, in schedule 3, page 58, line 8, at end
insert
‘consisting in
attempting to promote industrial unrest in contravention of that
subsection.’.
No.
140, in
schedule 3, page 59, line 9, at
end
insert—
‘Landmines
Act 1998
(c. 33)
An
offence under section 2(2) of the Landmines Act 1998 (encouraging,
assisting or inducing an offence under section 2(1) of that
Act).’.
No.
141, in
schedule 3, page 59, line 9, at
end
insert—
‘Terrorism
Act 2006 (c.
11)
An offence
under section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act 2006 (encouraging
terrorism).
An offence
under section 2(1) of that Act (disseminating terrorist
publications).
An
offence under section 5 of that Act (engaging in conduct in preparation
for giving effect to intention to commit or assisting another to commit
acts of terrorism).
An
offence under section 6(1) of that Act (provision of instruction or
training knowing that a person trained or instructed intends to use the
skills obtained for or in connection with the commission of acts of
terrorism or for assisting the commission or preparation of such acts
by others).
An offence
under section 6(2) of that Act as a result of paragraph (b)(ii) of that
subsection (receipt of instruction or training intending to use the
skills obtained for assisting the commission or preparation of acts of
terrorism by others).’.
No. 142, in
schedule 3, page 59, line 25, at
end
insert—
‘Greater
London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 (c.
xxx)
An offence
under section 13 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act
1973 (assaults etc. on officers) consisting in the aiding or inciting
of any person to assault, resist or obstruct an officer of the Thames
Water Authority duly exercising or performing any power or duty under a
section or byelaw mentioned in that
section.’.
No.
143, in
schedule 3, page 59, line 25, at
end
insert—
‘Greater
London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (c.
xxiv)
An offence
under section 21(6) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act
1974 (assaults etc. on officers of a borough council) consisting in the
aiding or inciting of any person to assault, resist or obstruct an
officer of a borough council duly exercising or performing any power or
duty under section 21 of that
Act.’.
No. 144,
in
schedule 3, page 60, line 1, for
‘13(8)’ substitute
‘13(9)’.
No.
145, in
schedule 3, page 60, line 2, for
‘13(7)’ substitute
‘13(8)’.—[Maria
Eagle.]
Schedule
3, as amended, agreed
to.
Clauses 47
to
49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed
to.
Clauses
50 to 56
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
5
agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58 ordered to
stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
6
Minor
and consequential amendments: Part
2
6.45
pm
Maria
Eagle:
I beg to move amendment No. 146, in
schedule 6, page 66, line 41, at
end
insert—
‘Section
29(6)(i) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
(c. 25) (meaning of “terrorism offence” for
purpose of requirement to hold preparatory
hearing).’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following:
Government
amendment No.
147.
Government new
clause 9—No individual liability in respect of corporate
manslaughter.
Maria
Eagle:
The speed with which the Committeeis
working this afternoon is extremely impressive, Mr. Benton;
it must have something to do with your chairmanship.
The amendments and the new
clause tidy up two aspects of part 2. Government amendments Nos. 146
and 147 relate to schedule 6. The schedule lists various references in
current legislation to the common law offence of incitement, which we
are now putting on a statutory footing. Clause 58(1) provides that,
following the commencement of part 2, those references should be read
as references to the offences in clauses 41, 42 and 43.
The amendments add a couple of
references to schedule 6. The result is that they will be read also as
references to the new offences of assisting and encouraging in clauses
41 to 43. Government
amendment No. 146 adds the reference to the common law offence of
incitement in section 29(6)(i) of the Criminal Procedure and
Investigations Act 1996; it sets out the meaning of “terrorism
offence” for the purpose of the requirement to hold a
preparatory hearing. Government amendment No. 147 adds the reference to
paragraph 12(b) of schedule 1 to the Terrorism Act 2006, which refers
to inciting a convention offence. That will now be read as a reference
to the offences in part 2. The amendments put the old common law
offences on a statutory footing. Government new clause 9 deals
with the relationship between the new offences of encouraging and
assisting, and the new offence of corporate manslaughter. As the
Committee will know, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide
Bill has yet to complete its proceedings in Parliament, and we need to
consider the application of part 2 of the Serious Crime Bill in that
context.
Many of
those who participated in discussions on the corporate manslaughter
Bill, which I may yet be dealing with, will be aware that the new
offence is aimed at holding organisations to account for gross
corporate negligence that kills someone. Because it is targeted at
corporate negligence, the offence applies to the organisation and not
to individuals. Secondary liability is specifically excluded. That
point was considered at length in the context of the corporate
manslaughter Bill, and we obviously cannot reopen that debate today.
However, there is some overlap between the new “assisting and
encouraging” offences and the current rules of secondary
liability.
The
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill therefore needs to
be updated to reflect those new offences. That will go slightly further
that the corporate manslaughter Bill does at present, because liability
will also be excluded if the primary offence—that of corporate
manslaughter—has not been committed. That is currently covered
by the law on incitement, and the Serious Crime Bill does not
specifically exclude liability in that respect.
The prospect of prosecutions
for inciting the new offence is remote in practice, but that does not
mean that things should not be tidied up. There is some doubt as to
whether a company can be incited under the criminal law, and there are
particular difficulties with the notion of encouragement in that
context, other than in circumstances where all the relevant fault lies
with an individual. That would be dealt with under the current law of
manslaughter, rather than through the corporate manslaughter
Bill.
Mr.
Blunt:
Obviously, the corporate manslaughter Bill has yet
to complete its passage through Parliament. It is extremely
controversial, however, and it is possible that agreement will not be
reached between our House and the other place.
What happens in such
circumstances?
Maria
Eagle:
Ping-pong. However, I need not detain the Committee
in that regard, because we believe that it makes more sense to exclude
all applications of part 2—the issue that we are dealing with in
respect of this Bill—to corporate manslaughter. In that sense,
it does not matter how the Bill ends up. We need to ensure that
any important references relate directly across the Bills, and we will
remove this addition if the corporate manslaughter Bill is not passed.
The key point is that if that Bill falls as a result of ping-pong, we
will not need to make the cross-references. I hope that that explains
the
amendment.
James
Brokenshire:
I hear what the Minister says about the
detailed and technical nature of most of the amendments. May I put on
record the fact that in not seeking to oppose new clause 9 at this
stage, we are not in any way rowing back on any of the concerns that we
have expressed about the corporate manslaughter Bill? On the basis of
the Minister’s assurances that if that
Bill is not passed, new clause 9 will be removed on Report, we are happy
to welcome the amendments as being of a technical nature, and will not
seek to oppose them.
Amendment agreed
to.
Amendment
made: No. 147, in schedule 6, page 68, line 12, at end
insert—
‘Paragraph
12(b) of Schedule 1 to the Terrorism Act 2006(c. 11)
(Convention offences).’.—[Maria
Eagle.]
Schedule
6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 62 ordered to
stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.
—[Mr.
Alan
Campbell.]
Adjourned
accordingly at seven minutes to Seven o’clock till Thursday 5
July at Nine
o’clock.
| 
