Serious Crime Bill [HL]

My opposition to the Question whether Clause 59, and with it Clause 60, shall stand part of the Bill as probing in nature in the light of concerns expressed to me that the combination of the provisions in those two clauses could have very real consequences in certain situations. Those concerns relate to the suggestion that the clauses amount in effect to a subtle way of trying to introduce a new kind of statutory conspiracy. I note in passing that we have in the Explanatory Notes our new friends A, B and C, rather than D and P, and that in the Billwe have yet further new friends, D1 and D2, but I mention that merely in passing. The Explanatory Note to Clause 59 states that, "““Clause 59 sets out that if a person (A) arranges for another (B) to do an act capable of encouraging or assisting another (C) to commit an offence, then A can be regarded as having done B’s act””." The Explanatory Note goes on to provide the example of a gang leader instructing a member of his gang to encourage another person to kill Mr X. Clause 60, meanwhile, "““makes it clear that an ‘act’ includes a course of conduct””." I recognise that the Law Commission suggests that the drafting which makes up Clause 59 is reflected in Clause 16 of its draft Bill. However, the commission did not link these provisions with those of Clause 60 in the same way as this Bill seems to. As I understand it, under the offence of conspiracy, the conspiracy is complete when the agreement is made and no overt act is necessary for the proof of the offence. However, under the provision in Clause 60, a course of conduct may have the effect of narrowing the provisions of the offence of conspiracy. Surely this would create a gap through which all those who take careful steps not to carry out any overt acts would fall. Can the Minister please explain the differences between the current statutory offence of conspiracy and the changes proposed in these clauses, and justify why that is being done? In doing so, will she also explain the working of these two provisions when they are taken in conjunction? I am worried that a further change to the law on conspiracy will only serve to add more complication to an already complicated area of the law, and no doubt more confusion to myself. I certainly would not want to allow my confusion to cause yet further distress to the noble Baroness.