REPEALS (Hansard, 23 July 1968)

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 27, leave out lines 29 and 30.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is suggested that with this Amendment we take Amendments Nos. 12, 16, 18, 21 and 22.

§ Mr. Morgan
These Amendments respectively delete from Schedule 3 certain repeals of existing enactments. The first Amendment deletes the repeal of Section 12 of the Trade Union Act, 1871. The second Amendment deletes the consequential repeal of Section 5 of the Trade Union Act Amendment Act, 1876. It also deletes the repeal of Section 87(3), (4) and (5) of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896.
The next Amendment deletes the consequential repeal of Section 9 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1908 which added a proviso in Section 87(3) of the 1896 Act. The second limb of the third Amendment deletes the repeal of Section 111 of the Building Societies Act, 1962, and Amendment 18 deletes the repeal of Sections 64 and 66(1)(a) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965.
The provisions in question concern offences in relation to friendly societies, trade unions and building societies. They create offences of obtaining by false representation any moneys, securities, books, etc. of a society, or having such moneys or withholding or misapplying them for an unauthorised purpose. Their repeal was originally included in the Bill on the ground that the offences were superseded by the offence of theft.
The Government have, on reflection, decided that it would be better to preserve the provisions because they provide for a convenient summary offence, and also because they provide a summary procedure whereby societies may recover their property. In the case of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965 it is possible to recover property where it is proved to have been taken but without fraudulent intent, and where there is no conviction. Accordingly these Amendments would preserve the provisions mentioned above.

§ Sir P. Rawlinson
The reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary for these Amendments, strange as they seemed at first sight, are sound and correct. A total of approximately 72 Government Amendments have been made to the Bill in the course of its passage through the other place and in this House. When the Bill first came to be amended it was suggested by the Lord Chancellor that it was almost unnecessary to amend it. This 492 shows how necessary it is to examine carefully Bills such as this which are concerned with the criminal law. This has been done successfully, not least in these last Amendments which I think, on reflection, are accurate and sensible and should be supported.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 29, leave out lines 10 to 13.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 14, 17, 20, 31 and 16.

§ Mr. Morgan
The principle of these Amendments is exactly the same as in the earlier group of Amendments dealt with. These deal with the Building Societies Act, 1962, the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1957, the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, the Agriculture Act, 1937, the Agriculture Act, 1957, the Horticulture Act, 1960, and the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964. Again, on reflection, there would appear to be minimal advantages in not repealing the provisions referred to. In most of these cases the already existing offences cover rather wider ground than does Clause 15 of the Bill. Furthermore, it might not always be easy to prove a dishonest intent, as would be required if only the offences in the Bill were available.
The Amendments accordingly preserve the existing offences only in so far as they are summary offences. It is not considered necessary, having regard to the other provisions of the Bill, to retain the offence under the Horticulture and Agriculture Act, 1964, as an indictable offence.

§ Sir John Foster
For the sake of HANSARD I think the hon. Gentleman slipped up. He said there would be minimal advantages in not repealing. What he meant was that there would be minimal advantages in repealing.

§ Mr. Morgan
Minimal advantages in not repealing as the Bill stands at the moment, thereby preserving the offences as they are set out in the various Acts at the moment.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in

1966 c. 32	The Selective Employment Payments Act 1966.	Section 8(2)(a), (b) and (d) and (ii).
1966 c. 34	The Industrial Development Act 1966.	Section 9.
1967 c. 1	The Land Com-mission Act 1967.	Section 8l(5)(a), Section 93.
1967 c. 9	The General Rate Act 1967.	Section 49(8).