Orders of the Day — Emergency Powers

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 18 Rhagfyr 1973.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Photo of Mr Ronald Murray Mr Ronald Murray , Edinburgh Leith 12:00, 18 Rhagfyr 1973

I join with my hon. Friends in condemning the excessive width of Regulation 32. This deals with sabotage Subparagraph (1) of that regulation strikes at any act with intent to impair the efficiency or impede the working of specified things.

In subparagraph (2) the same provisions are applied arbitrarily to any omission. When one is dealing with an act under subparagraph (1) it is essential to put in the words "with intent to impair" because, plainly, an act may be done without intent and such an act should not be struck at as sabotage. Subparagraph (2) excludes "with intent to impair", which is the qualification in subparagraph (1), but it is plain that an omission is not an intentional act of any kind. It is crucial that it should be implied that an omission which is struck at by subparagraph (2) must be intentional.

I look in vain to find words of qualification which may have that effect. If one reads "short" in that subparagraph The foregoing provisions of this Regulation shall apply in relation to any omission … as they apply to the doing of any act by a person", even though that takes us part of the way to qualify the excessive width of subparagraph (2), because "such" is then omitted, before "act", there is no reference back to the qualifications in subsection (1). Not only is that omitted; when one comes to the words I have deliberately left out— on the part of a person to do anything which he is under a duty, either to the public or to any person, to do…". far from limiting, subparagraph (2) would appear to me to spread it even wider.

In these circumstances, it appears that if this form of words has been hallowed by precedent it is a bad precedent, and the sooner we depart from it the better. I do not think that regulations of this sort should be put before the House unless they contain a clear intention that they are to apply only to intentional omission. I feel inclined to vote against the regulations as they stand, but I shall listen to what the Minister says in reply.