HC Deb 06 July 1939 vol 349 cc1643-4

10.23 P.m.

Mr. Cross

I beg to move, in page 36, line 16, to leave out "negligence," and to insert "reckless neglect of duty."

This is a drafting Amendment. The words which it is proposed to insert are in accordance with the most recent drafting practice.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman when he says that this is a drafting Amendment. Certainly, it is no such thing, if by drafting Amendment is meant something that alters the words without altering the sub stance, in order better to carry out what was formerly intended. The Amendment makes a substantial change. The sort of change it suggests is the kind of difference that is always recognised between negligence in the driving of a motor car that results in death but is not criminal, and negligence that is. The Clause provides for an offence. People who, by their negligence, allow things to be known which ought not be known, commit an offence. By this Amendment, you would lay an extra burden upon the prosecution seeking to convict somebody of that offence. It would no longer be necessary only to say that somebody was careless and that his carelessness resulted in the disclosure of information which ought never to have been disclosed. The prosecution would have to go much further than that and prove not merely carelessness but reckless carelessness, which has a quite well-defined and well-accepted meaning. In other words, you have to prove a much higher degree of carelessness if you use the words "reckless neglect of duty," than if you use the word "negligence. The effect of this Amendment so far from being merely drafting, would be to in crease the difficulties of those whose duty it will be to see that no such disclosure takes place. I doubt very much whether the House would like to see those difficulties increased. I take it that the hon. Gentleman himself does not want to make those duties any more difficult, and there fore I hope he will not press this Amendment.

Captain Strickland

For the guidance of the House we would like to know whether the hon. Member in referring to the Clause dealing with the offence of giving away information, is himself acting with negligence or with reckless neglect of duty. The point I think is a very obvious one. The Clause refers to a case in which "an offence under this Act" has been committed and there may be negligence in which there is no criminal in tent as opposed to wilful neglect involving a premeditated offence against the Act.

Mr. Silverman

I do not think I have been negligent, let alone guilty of reckless neglect of duty. I referred to one thing only, though no doubt the Clause covers other matters as well. The Clause provides that where an offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any negligence on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer, then he, as well as the body corporate, shall be deemed guilty of that offence. I suggest that by substituting the proposed words you are increasing the burden on those whose duty it will be to see that the Clause is carried out.

Amendment agreed to.