HL Deb 07 June 1988 vol 497 cc1319-20

8.18 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

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.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety]:

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved the amendment: Page 2, line 2, leave out ("level 3") and insert ("level 4").

The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to increase the maximum penalty for this offence from level 3, £400, to level 4, £1,000. In the scale of gravity it is a more serious offence than nuisance calls, for which level 3, £400, is the maximum penalty under the Telecommunications Act. However, it does not lie within the most serious category of summary offence as to warrant level 5, which has a maximum fine of £2,000, the normal maximum fine available to magistrates, because this obtains where the offence involves serious risk to health or safety of the public, damage to property or substantial financial gain.

Offences under the Post Office Act, to which reference was made on Second Reading, fall within this most serious category and, for example, cover the sending of explosive substances. Such offences are also triable on indictment and on conviction the maximum penalty is a fine and 12 months' imprisonment.

The fact that there is a degree of overlap, to which I referred at Second Reading, as regards the sending of indecent or obscene material between this type of offence and the offence under the Post Office Act cannot afford any true comparison as between the quadruplicate set of circumstances in which this offence can be committed and all sets of circumstances in which an offence may be committed under the Post Office Act. Indeed, a main intendment of the Post Office Act was the protection of post office workers from risk of injury from noxious substances. Therefore, on analysis—I hope it is a convincing analysis—there is no inconsistency. There is no true comparison of like with like and, as I said at Second Reading, the offence will fill a gap in the criminal law.

I mention these matters and this analysis at some length in deference to the most valuable contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at Second Reading, which I accepted would require further consideration at a later stage of the Bill. Indeed, although on this analysis I cannot accept the concept of inconsistency of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I accept without reservation that, as the noble Lord said, we must have a proper deterrent. The criticism of the Bill on that score by the noble Lord is wholly well-founded; hence this amendment, which has the support of the Government. I hope that it will also have the support of the Committee.

For those self-same reasons the Law Commission's draft Bill, where the maximum penalty is level 5 and six months' imprisonment, reflecting the recommend-dations of paragraphs 445 and 452, is not acceptable. In any event—with respect, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will agree—imprisonment is rarely a sanction of the last resort and is not appropriate for this type of offence. I beg to move.

Lord Mishcon

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and most appreciative of the gracious manner in which he moved the amendment and of his personal courtesy to me.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)

I need do no more than assure the Committee that the Government support my noble friend's amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.22 to 8.35 p.m.]