HL Deb 24 March 1981 vol 418 cc1136-41

8.15 p.m.

Viscount Colville of Culross

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE LORD DRUMALBYN in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Amendments of Mental Health Acts]:

Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 1: Page 7, line 25, leave out ("a medical recommendation or") and insert ("any recommendation for admission or guardianship or medical").

The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. None of the amendments that I have put down tonight is of any very great substance, but they do correct some errors and omissions. In Clause 11 we are assimilating to the phraseology of the Bill some specific offences which were created by the Mental Health Acts in England and Wales and Northern Ireland respectively. At the top of page 7 is the list of documents under the English Act, forgery of which is an offence, and a similar list occurs half way down page 7 in relation to the Northern Irish Act. Unfortunately, the formulation in New Clause 98 (1B) of the Northern Irish Act does not fit in with the phraseology elsewhere in that Act and this amendment puts it right and puts the wording in line with the rest of the phraseology in the Northern Irish Act. Therefore, that would be an improvement on the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Prohibition of importation of counterfeit notes and coins]:

Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 2: Page 10, line 15, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2) below.").

The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and with the Committee's permission I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and Amendment No. 10 in the schedule. Clause 20 deals with the importation of a counterfeit coin or a currency note and Clause 21 deals with the exportation of it. Why anybody should want to import or export counterfeit coins or currency notes I have no idea, but the fact of the matter is that, under the present law, if one wants to import them one can do so if one gets a permit from the Customs and Excise under Section 2(2) of the Revenue Act 1889.

Similarly, under Section 7(1)(b) of the Coinage Offences Act 1936 you can export counterfeit coins if you have a lawful authority. Unfortunately, the provision for a lawful authority to export coins under Clause 21 has somehow been missed out in the drafting, and it seemed to those who advised me that the simplest thing to do was to make it a matter that in both cases can simply be done by the consent of the Treasury. Therefore, instead of preserving subsection (2) of Clause 20, which deals with the special arrangements for importation, and in order to make good the omission of a power to permit the exportation of these counterfeits, in both cases we simply make the matter subject to the consent of the Treasury. It greatly simplifies everything and enables one to repeal reference to the 1889 Act in the schedule.

With that explanation I move Amendment No. 2. Perhaps we can take the others formally when we reach them. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 3: Page 10, line 17, after (" coin ") insert (" without the consen of the Treasury ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 4: Page 10, line 18, leave out subsection (2).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 [Prohibition of exportation of counterfeit notes and coins.]:

Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 5: Page 10, line 23, after (" coin ") insert (" without the consent of the Treasury ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 22 to 25 agreed to.

8.23 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 6:

After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:

("Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980

. In Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be added at the end the following—

"CUSTOMS AND EXCISE MANAGEMENT ACT 1979. The following provisions in so far as they have effect in relation to the prohibitions contained in sections 20 and 21 of the Forgery and counterfeiting Act 1981 namely:— Sections 50(2) and (3) Section 68; and Section 170 (various offences committed in connection with contraventions of prohibitions on the import and export of counterfeits of currency notes or protected coins)." Two officials authorised to do so by the Secretary of State, being officials of the authority or body which may lawfully issue the currency notes or protected coins referred to in column 3 hereof. That the coin or note identified in the certificate by reference to a label or otherwise is a counterfeit of a currency note or protected coin; where "currency note" has the meaning assigned to it by section 26(1)(a) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, and "protected coin" means any coin which is customarily used as money in the United Kingdom, any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland.
THE FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING ACT 1981 sections 14 to 16 (certain offences relating to counterfeiting). Two officials authorised to do so by the Secretary of State, being officials of the authority or body which may lawfully issue the currency notes or protected coins referred to in column 3 hereof. That the coin or note identified in the certificate by reference to a label or otherwise is a counterfeit of a currency note or protected coin: where "currency note "has the meaning assigned to it by section 26(1)(a) of that Act, and "protected coin" means any coin which is customarily used as money in the United Kingdom, any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland.".").

The noble Earl said: This is a minor but useful amendment which will help to solve problems which arise in trials in Scotland. In England and Wales Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 permits evidence to be given by written statements in criminal cases. However, in Scotland there exists a general rule that all evidence must be given orally by witnesses in open court unless there is a good and justifiable reason for departing from that rule. Although the Government believe that this general rule should be retained for Scotland, there are occasions when benefits do occur where it is relaxed for certain types of evidence; for example, where the evidence, although crucial to the proof of the case, tends to be of a routine nature and is rarely contested in court.

The Government wish to take this course in relation to the present Bill and, in effect, wish to make provision for certificate evidence on the counterfeit nature of notes and coins in the counterfeiting part of the present Bill. An amendment on this line will save officials of the Royal Mint and note-issuing banks in the United Kingdom having to travel to Scottish courts to give evidence personally in cases of this nature at vast public expense and no little trouble to themselves.

In Scotland it is competent to examine only the witnesses named in the indictment, and substitutes cause problems if these officials, about whom I have spoken, are unable to come to a trial at the last moment. Our procedure does not permit last-minute changes of witnesses. So in the past trials have had to be adjourned at no little inconvenience and cost. Therefore, this procedure offers a small but useful saving in public expenditure and will prevent delays caused by substitute witnesses.

Under the procedure contained in Section 26 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, which will apply to counterfeit currency certificate evidence, the rights of the accused to challenge the evidence are specifically retained, and he is given an adequate period within which to decide whether or not to challenge the evidence contained in the certificate. The prosecution is required to serve a copy of the certificate on the accused at least 14 days before the trial, and if the accused wishes to challenge the evidence, qualification or authority of the witnesses mentioned in the certificate he must do so by serving notice on the prosecutor at least six days before the trial.

In the event of such a challenge the prosecutor is required to prove the counterfeit nature of the note or coin in the normal way by the witnesses being called to give oral evidence in court. The use of certificate evidence in no way lessens the burden of proof laid on the prosecutor; nor can it be seen as changing the onus of proof from the prosecution to the accused, as the prosecution is still required to prove the matters in the certificate. Therefore, I commend this minor but useful amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.

Viscount Colville of Culross

All I need say is that I am wholly convinced by the argument of my noble friend that this would be an improvement to the Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Meaning of "counterfeit"]:

Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No 7: Page 15, line 20, after ("coin") insert ("(a)").

The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 stand together, so perhaps I may move Amendment No. 7 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Clause 27 is one of the definition clauses and defines a thing as a counterfeit of a currency note or a protected coin: …if it is not a currency note or a protected coin but resembles a currency note or protected coin (whether on one side only or on both) to such an extent that it is reasonably capable of passing for a currency note or protected coin of that description". The reference to something which is not a currency note or protected coin but which resembles one is included to ensure that coins which are issued by the Republic of Ireland, for instance, and which resemble British coins, are not caught by the definition of "counterfeit".

However, upon reflection the effect of this reference has been to cast some doubt on whether a protected coin—an ordinary British coin—of one denomination which is altered so as to pass for a protected coin of another, inevitably higher denomination is a counterfeit under the Bill. I understand that an abuse of this sort is already known, though far be it from me to explain in your Lordships' Committee what it is or how it is done. It occurs to me that it might become even more common with the introduction of 20p and £1 coins, which we hear are to come in the future.

Therefore, the intention is to clarify the position under the Bill and make it clear that the protected coins which are altered to resemble other protected coins are, indeed, counterfeits under the Bill. That is what Amendment No. 8 seeks to do. Amendment No. 7 is, of course, purely paving. Amendment No. 9 has the effect merely of deleting subsection (3), because that was a definition of the word "making", and I think that it is clear from what I have already said that the alteration of the shape, size or colour is already covered by the amendment to which I have just referred. Therefore, that subsection is no longer necessary and, again, we can simplify the Bill and deal with a current problem. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 15, line 24, at end insert— ("or (b) if it is a currency note or protected coin which has been so altered that it is reasonably capable of passing for a currency note or protected coin of some other description.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 9: Page 15, line 35, leave out subsection (3).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 33 agreed to.

The Schedule [Repeals]:

Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 19, line 31, at end insert—

("52 & 53 Vict. C 42. Revenue Act 1889. Section 2.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 11: Page 20, leave out lines 41 to 43.

The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 go together. What in fact has happened is that the two Northern Irish Acts referred to have been consolidated by the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Therefore, we should have a reference to the up-to-date order if we have anything at all. In fact, the two offences now in existence under that order are very similar to some offences in England and Wales, possibly in Great Britain, under other legislation which, because of certain technicalities, it has been thought better not to try to include in this Bill at all. The equivalent Great Britain legislation is not being repealed and is not being made part of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Bill. It therefore makes pure sense to leave out the equivalent Northern Irish legislation altogether, and there should be no reference to this part of the Northern Irish statute book at all. I therefore beg to move that these two references be left out. I beg to move Amendment No. 11 first.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 12: Page 20, leave out lines 56 to 59.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

The Question is, That I report the Bill to the House with amendments.

Lord Davies of Leek

Before we pass on, may I, as a layman, ask a very simple question? I apologise for not being here at the beginning of this debate. In Clause 13 the offence of forgery at common law is abolished. In Clause 33 the citation says: This Act may be cited as the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1980.

Lord Denham

If the noble Lord will forgive me, we have already passed this part of the Bill. It really would be out of order to go back and discuss a part of the Bill that we have already gone past.

Lord Davies of Leek

I am discussing the citation of the Bill, which calls it the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, but I gather that forgery is abolished at common law.

Lord Denham

We have already passed the citation of the Bill. We have already passed the Title of the Bill. The Question before the House is, That the Bill be reported back to the House with amendments.

Viscount Colville of Culross

If it would help, the simple answer is, yes, the common law offence of forgery is being abolished. It is being replaced by a new statutory set of definitions, of which the Bill contains the whole detail.

House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.