moved Amendment No. 93:
93: Clause 39, page 25, line 9, leave out ““But he is”” and insert ““A person is””
The noble Lord said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 as well. The Minister will be relieved that we have now come to what is probably theleast controversial section of the Bill, Part 2. The amendments, which refer to drafting, suggest three changes, one each in Clauses 39, 43 and 44, which all fall under the part of the Bill that addresses ““inchoate offences””. I am not entirely happy with those words, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, looks as though he agrees that they do not exactly trip off the tongue.
As the Committee will be aware, the Government’s policy on the reform of criminal law on encouraging and assisting crime in this part of the Bill is based on the Law Commission’s report No. 300. It looks to abolish the common law offences of incitement andin its place create new offences of ““intentionally encouraging or assisting”” crime and encouraging or assisting crime believing that one or more offences will be committed.
The Explanatory Notes state: "““The Bill contains defences (where an offence has been committed in order to prevent crime or limit harm, and where the encouragement or assistance is considered to be reasonable in the circumstances) and an exemption from liability where the offence encouraged or assisted was created in order to protect a category of people””."
I have tabled a number of amendments to this part of the Bill, which I hope will provide us with the opportunity to ask probing questions and address the details of the proposals. I hope that they will provide a platform from which the Minister can justify to the Committee the Government’s position where they deviate from the recommendations of the Law Commission. That is behind these and many other amendments to Part 2.
The amendments do exactly what they say. Amendment No. 93 would replace ““But he is”” with““A person is””. I was taught that a sentence should not begin with ““but””, but no doubt parliamentary draftsmen are much braver and more radical than I am. I would be interested to know what is behind that. Amendment No. 99 merely suggests changing ““about”” to ““concerning,”” which is clearer, inClause 43.
Amendment No. 100 proposes replacing ““reckoning”” with ““determining””. ““Reckoning”” is ugly; it sounds like an accountant’s word. I am not sure that I have seen the word used previously in this way in legislation. That is important, in that a word such as ““determining””, which is familiar from legislation, would be easier to comprehend. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ““determine”” as, "““find out or establish precisely … decide or settle … be a decisive factor in regard to””."
It is better suited to setting out the provisions in Clause 44(4). I would be interested to hear the noble Baroness’s comments. No doubt we will have further questions later. I beg to move.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Henley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 March 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c1231-2 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:17:01 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386698
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386698
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386698