HC Deb 21 November 1974 vol 881 cc1504-6
8. Mr. Newens

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to limit the grounds on which individuals may be brought before the courts charged with conspiracy.

15. Mr. Nigel Lawson

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the operation and application of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

We are aware of concern over the law of conspiracy: both the common law and the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. The general law of conspiracy is under urgent review by the Law Commission, and we shall consider any desirable changes as soon as is practicable.

Mr. Newens

Does my hon. Friend agree that the way that the severity of penalties can be increased considerably as a result of charges being preferred on grounds of conspiracy has been amply demonstrated in the cases of Dennis Warren and Eric Tomlinson, which Mr. Speaker is to consider? Is there not a need for tremendous urgency in dealing with this issue so that similar cases will not occur which will outrage large numbers of the population of this country?

Mr. Lyon

I am well aware of the concern about that matter. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that one of the provisional proposals of the Law Commission is that the maximum penalty for conspiracy should not exceed the penalty for the substantive offence when only one offence was contemplated in the conspiracy. I think that that would deal with the point that he has in mind.

Mr. Lawson

Is the Minister aware that considerable concern of a different kind exists throughout the country, namely, that the citizen and the innocent worker need to be protected from intimidation, violence and vicious behaviour of the kind that occurred in the building strike of 1972? Is he also aware that we on the Opposition side of the House look to the Home Secretary to uphold the rule of law in this country, since it is manifestly clear that we cannot rely on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?

Mr. Russell Kerr

Mrs. Jill Knight.

Mr. Lyon

I am afraid that, in view of Mr. Speaker's ruling, I cannot comment on that case. However, in any review of the law on picketing inevitably there would be a restriction in law upon the use of violence or intimidation. There is no disagreement about that at all.

Mr. Lee

Another objection to the present growth or concept of conspiracy is that it has enabled the law on evidence to be circumvented in many ways. Will that be reviewed when legislation to revise the law is introduced?

Mr. Lyon

We have that factor in mind. How far it would fall to be reviewed in any revision of the law relating to conspiracy is a matter for decision.

Sir K. Joseph

Will the Minister of State adopt the more robust tone adopted by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on relevant occasions in dissociating himself entirely from the view expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on the outrage that is felt by those who feel that violence has been unjustifiably punished by the courts? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a sense of outrage was more widely felt among the majority of the people in this country against the violence and intimidation that the courts found had been used in that industrial dispute?

Mr. Lyon

Violence and intimidation are wrong in any situation, including a picketing situation. There is no dispute between both sides of the House about that. That is not what my hon. Friends are saying.