HC Deb 12 July 1967 vol 750 cc763-6
Mr. Marsh

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 39, at the beginning to insert: (except as mentioned in paragraph 2(4) of that Schedule as so applied)". This also is a drafting Amendment. Paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 1 to the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act, 1964 makes it an offence to obstruct the exercise of a right of entry or search conferred by a magistrate's warrant under the paragraph and imposes a penalty of up to three months' imprisonment or a fine of up to £50, or both. The Amendment merely preserves that penalty, which is less than that laid down under Clause 5(4).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Emery

I beg to move Amendment No. 9A, in page 4, line 11, to leave out from "commit" to "an" in line 12.

This is a probing Amendment. I am not a lawyer, as is obvious from anything I say, but it seems to me that the words which I seek to delete by the Amendment are somewhat unusual. I have taken legal advice, and I am in- formed that they are not the usual form of words in regard to this sort of offence.

The words seem to say that any person who makes a statement before an offence has been committed may himself be committing an offence. If that is right, it is a pretty terrifying piece of legislation. I might commit an offence by saying something before an offence has been committed quite other than in what one thinks of as the usual manner of conspiring with other persons to commit an offence. Those words, conspires with any other person to commit appear earlier in the subsection, and I understand that they are quite usual in reference to persons minded to conspire together to commit offences.

12 noon.

Suppose that somebody drives up to a petrol station and says, perhaps jokingly, "I want to put in a darned good store of petrol". Has he committed an offence by wishing to acquire a store of petrol? The words does any act or makes any statement preparatory to the commission of, an offence could be interpreted in such a way that it was an offence. I am very much against moving away from the established procedures which are understood by people, particularly when it comes to the commission of offences. It was because I did not fully understand the words and because there were matters which I was concerned about that I thought that it would be sensible to propose their deletion. I cannot understand what powers the words give the Minister which are not already given to him.

Mr. Marsh

The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has raised an important point and his Amendment is understandable. His interpretation of the provision is quite right. It includes as an offence not only the commission of the offence but actions preparatory to its commission. This is a serious proviso. There is a precedent for it, and that is the inclusion of provisions of this type in Regulation 30 of the Emergency Regulations, 1966. Such a provision is justifiable only in emergencies.

To give an example, it would be a serious offence to forge petrol coupons if there were rationing, but without this provision it would not be an offence for a person to have in his possession large quantities of implements, plates and presumably other paraphernalia which would enable him to forge coupons. The Bill provides that it would be illegal not only to forge coupons but for any person or persons to engage in acts or discussions which it could be shown would lead to the commission of an offence.

Mr. Emery

What about the forgery of money? This sort of phrase is not used in that instance, and it is a much greater offence. It is not necessary to use such phraseology to protect the currency. I should have thought it was unnecessary to use it to protect petrol coupons.

Mr. Marsh

If the hon. Gentleman is in possession of plates for pound notes, the quicker he gets rid of them the better for his peace of mind. That would be highly illegal.

Regulations might be introduced to prevent the hoarding of petrol. If a person arrived at a garage with 30 one-gallon cons in the back of a small 800 c.c car, it would be reasonable to assume that he was engaged in preparations for hoarding petrol. All that the provision does is to provide the authorities with the task of having to prove that an offence has been committed. We have to be in the position of preventing people from committing offences as well as dealing with them when they are committed. For example, if there were mass forgery of petrol rationing coupons, the entire scheme could be disrupted.

Mr. Emery

I find the Minister's reply most unconvincing. I was worried before I moved the Amendment. I am even more worried now. The examples which he gave were completely beyond the understanding which I have of the need for these words. Like myself, the right hon. Gentleman is not a lawyer. Perhaps he finds as much difficulty in defending the words as many other people would. Although I am very unhappy about the situation, in order to assist the Government, as the Opposition are always willing to do in getting necessary legislation through the House—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise our efforts on this Bill— I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.