SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT (Hansard, 22 April 1988)

§ Mr. Hunter
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert— '(3) This Act extends to Scotland'.
The amendment merely demands that the Bill should be extended to Scotland. Why should it not be? That question was scarcely raised on Second Reading. There is a strong argument for unified law throughout the United Kingdom on malicious communications and the complexity of the relevant Scottish law needs tidying up in that respect. I should be grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister.

§ Mr. John Patten
I have consulted my hon. Friends in Scotland who have responsibility for those matters. It is important that the issue is covered north as well as south of the border. My hon. Friends have advised me that the activities that will be caught under the Bill are already offences under Scottish law. It may be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) if I outline why that is so.
My hon. Friend will know that much Scottish law is common law rather that statute law. Although I cannot 1162 direct my hon. Friend to relevant Acts of Parliament, Scottish common law offences of breach of the peace, extortion and threats already adequately cover the types of behaviour that the Bill is intended to catch. In that sense, Scottish law is a leap ahead of the law for England and Wales.

§ Mr. Hunter
In the light of the Minister's reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Andy Stewart
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is important, for the reasons that I gave on Second Reading, to get this Bill on the statute book. My Bill serves to plug a significant loophole in the law. It will make it a definable offence to send an article or letter that is either partly or completely offensive, or any such material or package containing an unexplainable threat.
The Bill would prohibit the sending of any information that was assumed to be false, and the sending of an article would also be considered a definable offence. That would cover the delivery or causing the delivery of any such material. Making these acts definable offences would deter individuals from continuing to send these distressing goods.
Such behaviour cannot be considered acceptable in our society. My Bill will strengthen a major weakness in our current law and stop these incidents. Under the existing law, not all forms of malicious communication are punishable offences. It is necessary that they all become so.
Why must this gap be filled? Under current law, poison-pen letters can be dealt with only by means of criminal libel, which curtails only the publication of material that exposes its victims to contempt, ridicule or hatred. Criminal libel does not apply when the form of communication conveys an indecent message or suggestion or when it is in the form of a false death notice. It is already an offence to send indecent or obscene material throught the post, but, because of our ignorance, that applies only to articles sent by post and neglects all other forms of delivery. My Bill would solve that problem and make each of these offences punishable by law.
The Bill makes the senders of such filth accountable to the law. Hate mail has been a common weapon used against our ethnic minorities. They have also suffered the indignity of receiving grossly offensive articles such as excrement through the letterbox, delivered with the implicit intention of causing them distress or anxiety. Our new citizens find it difficult enough coping with the cultural changes without that sort of harassment. My Bill offers the victims a protection that did not exist before. The gap in the law must be filled to catch these vindictive people. The Bill will make a change in the law that is long overdue.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to today's debate. I thank also hon. Members who have continually voiced their support for the Bill, as the Government have throughout our proceedings on it. In particular, I want to mention the co-sponsors of my Bill—my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) and for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), and 1163 the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). I know that many hon. Members have important constituency commitments on Fridays, which is why I am extremely grateful for their presence today.
Many other hon. Members have written to me in support of the Bill but they cannot be here because of long-standing engagements. Nevertheless, I appreciate their written support.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his contributions and support during the debate, and his guidance in drafting the Bill. I also place on record my thanks to his civil servants, the Clerks and my research assistant Julie Hickman who have all been so helpful with the preparation of the Bill.
I hope that all hon. Members will agree that the debate has been constructive and productive. I appreciate the fact that the House has given me this opportunity and that it will now give its full support to the measure, which provides for the punishment of persons who send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety.

§ Mr. Summerson
I should like to underline what I consider to be the basic provision of this most welcome Bill. The Bill provides for action against those who actively, rather than passively, wish harm to others. It deals with the desire to harm others or see others suffer ill will and spite. The dictionary that I consulted this morning gave an example: Her eyes glittered with malice". The dictionary defines malice as The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit an unlawful act that will result in harm to another or others". The word is often used in the phrases 'malice aforethought' and 'malice prepense'. Not being a lawyer, when I saw the word "prepense" I had to look it up. It means "contemplated in advance; premeditated" and it is used chiefly in the phrase 'malice prepense". It is a variant of the obsolete "prepensed" or "purpensed" from the middle English "purpensen", to think of in advance, from the old French "pourpenser", to premeditate.
To come back to the basics of the Bill, its provisions imply an activity involving forethought applied with malice. The person who sends or delivers the letter or article has in mind a malicious act to hurt the recipient at the other end. The dictionary defines "communication" as "the act of communicating".
Quite obviously, the Bill is intended to put down those wicked people who put pen to paper with malice aforethought, knowing that their words will hurt the recipient. It is an admirable Bill.

§ Mr. Irvine
I, too, welcome this admirable Bill. [Interruption.] If any hon. Gentleman wishes to get up and say it for the third time, I shall generously nod my head. It is an admirable Bill, and that needs to be said.
The harsh fact is that hitherto one very antisocial and unpleasant form of behaviour that caused enormous unhappiness and damage to people's lives has escaped the criminal law. The people whose lives were damaged and who suffered great unhappiness as a result found themselves unable to turn to the police for help. The police 1164 are particularly necessary in establishing such an offence, because often quite considerable investigation is needed to bring the perpetrator to light.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
The hon. Gentleman has obviously been paying very close attention to the Bill. I regret to say that I have not, but perhaps he will give me some advice. Could I take any action under the terms of the Bill against the person who sent me a letter which says:
"Dear Tony, I am sending you the enclosed tape so that you can see what a prat you sound when persistently invervening in my major contributions in pursuit of the well-being of the House."? That letter was sent by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and was signed, "Warmest regards, cuddly".
Frankly, I prefer to be called a prat by my hon. Friend than have a cuddle from him, but could I refer the letter to the police under the terms of the Bill?

§ Mr. Irvine
If the hon. Gentleman really wants my advice on a point of law, I suggest that he instructs a solicitor tomorrow. I will give him an answer for a small fee.

§ Mr. Greg Knight
Should not the answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) be that he should look at clause 1(1)(a)(iii) which states that the information must be false and known or believed to be false by the sender"?

§ Mr. Irvine
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has had his answer free. On that note, I conclude my remarks.

§ Mr. John Patten
I agree entirely with my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) and for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) that this is a most admirable measure. Happily, it has received all-party support without a dissentient voice. We should be very grateful for that, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) is grateful.
We are coming towards the end of our consideration of the Bill, but it would be wrong to do that without setting the Bill firmly within the wider context of the criminal law and of the well-being of the people whom we all wish to protect from the sending and receipt of poison-pen letters, be they from the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) or whoever.
At the moment, poison-pen letters do not form a category known to or defined under criminal or civil law in England and Wales. As has been clear from the proceedings on the Bill, most people would probably have no difficulty recognising a poison-pen letter if they were unfortunate enough to receive one. However, we must consider the characteristics that should distinguish a poison-pen letter, the sending of which is to be penalised, from any other form of communication. That is exactly what the Bill sets out to achieve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is primarily concerned with letters which, to use the words of the Law Commission, are written in a way that is indecent, shocking, menacing or grossly offensive.

§ Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. John Patten
This is a short Bill and I have only a little time left so I will not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
This is a short, but highly worthwhile measure. As I said on Second Reading, it is time that we gave protection to the innocent victims of hatred and malice in our society.
Our thanks are due to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. He has given us an opportunity to fill a yawning gap in the criminal law. We must all be very grateful to him. He has presented and defended his Bill with his customary clarity throughout the proceedings and we are very grateful to him. The Bill deserves to reach the statute book. I am sure that I reflect the feelings of all hon. Members when I say that.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, the Bill is modest in presentation, but deadly in effect. It is full of common sense. It has been widely praised and it deserves to succeed. I commend the Bill to the House and am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood in seeking a Third Reading. I wish it every success as it moves to another place.