WITHDRAWAL OF PRIVILEGE AGAINST INCRIMINATION OF SELF OR SPOUSE IN CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS (Hansard, 9 July 1981)

§ The Solicitor-General
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 48, line 17, leave out from 'so' to end of line 19 and insert 'would tend to expose that person, or his or her spouse, to proceedings for a related offence or for the recovery of a related penalty—'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may take the following amendments:
Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
No. 14, in page 48, line 25, leave out 'for infringement of rights'.
No. 15, in page 48, line 26, leave out 'for'.
Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
No. 18, in page 49, line 8, after 'passing off', insert 'or attempt or conspiracy to infringe or pass off'. Government amendment No. 20.
No. 21, in page 89, line 18, after `151(2)', insert 'and 72'.

§ The Solicitor-General
By a happy accident of timing, a decision of the House of Lords that could have had serious consequences was given at a time when there was before Parliament a Bill that enabled Parliament to do something about it. I refer to what is known as the Anton Piller order. There is no need to rehearse the importance of the case; we all agree about that. There is no need to repeat that we have all been anxious to deal with the situation to which that decision gave rise.
The Government went into action straight away. Those hon. Members who are present, most of whom were on the Committee, will know that we tabled a new clause in Committee, without waiting to ensure that we got it perfect, so that people could look at it. The people concerned had a good look at it, and they raised two problems, both very technical, but none the worse for that I shall not explain them, because I think that all those present know the two points that were raised.
The Government have taken those two points seriously, and so has the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). We have each in our way drafted 674 amendments to meet them. The only question for the House is which of the two sets of amendments should be accepted, as we both have the same objectives.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind my saying that it is a great advantage to have the whole machine at one's disposal. Parliamentary counsel are experts at their job. Because we have that advantage, probably the Government amendments do the job that we all want to do as well as it can be done.

§ Mr. Archer
I am troubled. It will not commend me to my political colleagues to know that I am in complete agreement with the Government on any subject. but that is the position, and I refrain from any reference to great minds.
The Solicitor-General has dealt so completely with the matters that caused me to set down my amendments that there will be no need for me to move them. I shall not try to persuade the House that my efforts at draftsmanship are to be preferred to those of parliamentary counsel.
The anti-counterfeiting group is satisfied that the problems that the case raised have been dealt with by the Government amendments. I should have spoken of giving the Devil his due, if that had not sounded disrespect ful to the Solicitor-General. The Oppossition are grateful for what the Government have done.