Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 98: 98: Clause 42 , page 26, line 46, leave out subsection (8) The noble Baroness said: This is another probing amendment, which would remove subsection (8) from Clause 42. Subsection (8) provides further elucidation on what is to be meant by the phrase ““doing an act””. It includes similar provisions to those proposed by the Law Commission: a failure to act; the continuation of an act that has already begun; and an attempt to do an act, except an act amounting to the commission of the offence of attempting to commit another offence. It has been suggested that this provision removes the need to establish a link between the ““prompt””and the ““action””. This should be given careful consideration. The immediate analogy that sprang to mind in discussion before Committee stage was of the film ““The Italian Job””, whether the first or the second version. I am afraid that I am old enough to remember the first one, and enjoyed it. The provision in this subsection could make it possible to charge Noel Coward with an offence under Clause 42, without having to prove a link to Michael Caine and the bullion that went AWOL. A more up to date—others will be pleased to hear—example would be the charging of a preacher who released a video intended to incite others although no such video was found in the possession of a bomber who attempted to blow up Parliament. Can the Minister explain if that would be possible under this subsection as currently drafted? What assessment have the Government made of the number of people they expect to fall foul of this provision? Obviously, it is important to note whether it is worth while introducing the provision. How far could this provision realistically go? For example, could an MP who criticises the Mugabe regime be caught under this provision if someone then launched an attack on the Zimbabwe embassy in London? Like it or not, we must not forget that the cornerstone of the legal system is the presumption of innocence—something we certainly talk about time and time again. We must therefore consider very carefully the wider ramifications of breaking the need for a link between an action and a possible prompt to that action. I beg to move.