PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.48 p.m.

The Minister for Law (Mr E.W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The objects of this Bill are merely two-fold.

Firstly, the Bill will empower a Court to increase in certain circumstances the penalty which may be imposed, in addition to any other punishment, on a person who is convicted of any offence of corruptly accepting gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Where a person is charged with a number of offences under the Act, he may be convicted of one or some of the offences and consent to the other outstanding offences being taken into consideration for the purpose of passing sentence. At present, however, the Court can only order a convicted person to pay as an additional penalty a sum equal to the amount or value of the gratification specified in the charges in respect of which he was convicted. The Court has no power to order the convicted person to pay the amount or value of the gratification specified in the other outstanding charges which were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence. Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 13 of the Act so as to confer such power on the Court.

Secondly, the Bill makes provision to enable the President to create additional grades of special investigators for the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. With this amendment in clause 3, there will be no necessity to amend the Act in future whenever new grades of special investigators are to be created. The remaining provisions of the Bill are consequential.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, on this my first speech in this House, if it is not inappropriate, may I first of all thank you, Mr Speaker, for the courtesy that I have received at your hands and express the hope that with your able guidance I may be able to contribute to the proceedings of this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that on this, my first speech in this House, I am able to compliment the Government in its efforts and determination to stamp out corruption and I can assure the Government and the Members of this House of my Party's support in all that the Government does to stamp out corruption in this land of ours. Corruption is, as has been said, a cancer on the society and must be ruthlessly rooted out. But what we do not always approve are the methods that are used by the law enforcement agencies when they go about carrying out the task assigned to them, and the CPIB is no exception. I need not remind hon. Members of this House of the need for law enforcement officers to act strictly under and in accordance with the law and to respect the rights of citizens in the investigations they carry out into any offence which they are authorized to carry out.

It is, if I may say so, Mr Speaker, absolutely essential that if there is to be respect for law and order among the citizens of our country, then law enforcement officers themselves should respect the laws of the country and act under and in accordance with the law. If law enforcement officers bend the law or abuse the provisions of the law for the object of carrying out their task, however laudable it may be, the result can only be that there will be among the populace of the country a growing disrespect for law and order when they see law enforcement officers not complying with the law of the land.

It is not unknown that CPIB officers have very often abused the law in the investigations that they have conducted into offences which they are empowered to investigate. It is not unknown that quite often witnesses are detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act when they are called up to the CPIB headquarters in Stamford Road and they are unable, or refuse perhaps, to give the answers or information requested of them by the CPIB officers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it may be said that these measures are necessary if you want to stamp out corruption because corruption is perhaps the greater evil. But the danger is that if you resort to these measures to achieve however laudable an object, you open the door to innocent persons being convicted, You open the door to fabrication of evidence under pressure by persons who may feel that the only way to get out of the clutches of the CPIB is to say whatever the CPIB wishes them to say and to implicate perhaps innocent officers or innocent members of the public.

There was not very long ago the case of a witness who was called up to the CPIB offices for a statement to be given in connection with an offence alleged against another. This man was picked up by the CPIB very early in the morning at about seven o'clock and he was not released by the CPIB till late in the evening. Before he left, there was a statement taken from him which he was asked to sign. After he had left the offices of the CPIB he was asked whether he had read all the statements that he had made to the CPIB and whether he had read them carefully before he acknowledged the correctness of the statements. He then had second thoughts about all this because he said he was in no condition, when it came to the time of his release, to appreciate fully all that had been recorded from him. He then went and saw a solicitor and went back to the offices of the CPIB to ask whether he could re-read the statements that he had made to the CPIB. There was some demur at this request but eventually it was granted, and he read this in the presence of the solicitor who accompanied him and he asked whether he might delete two sentences in his statement because he said they were incorrect. He maintained that he had not said those two statements. He was not allowed to delete those statements, Mr Speaker, Sir. He was told that if he wanted to vary his statements he could be detained in this country for another 12 months: presumably the CPIB officers were referring to the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. He was told that he could not have his passport. He was not a resident of Singapore. The man settled for his passport and, not wanting any risk of detention for 12 months, he agreed to leave his statement as it was and left with his solicitor with the passport. Eventually when the case came up for trial, ho told the Court that those two sentences in that statement were incorrect and he could not on oath repeat those two statements in the witness box. The man was then prosecuted for making a false statement to a CPIB officer, a statement which he had at the earliest opportunity informed the CPIB was not a true statement and which he wanted to retract, Fortunately for him he was acquitted.

There was another case which arose recently after allegations were made that our players were bribed in the Malaysia Cup Final in Kuala Lumpur. After the allegations had appeared in the papers, the CPIB were called in to investigate allegations of corruption among the football players. The man I am talking of was not a player. He was a respectable executive of one of the major companies in Singapore. He was summarily picked up from his office about 10 o'clock in the morning and was taken to the CPIB, even though he protested that it was not convenient for him at that time. He was taken there and detained by the CPIB. He was not released till about 11.00 p.m. During that time he was not allowed to leave the room, even to go to the lavatory to answer the call of nature or even to go and get any food. Then at about 11 o'clock at night he was bundled into a car and taken to his house where the house was ransacked by the CPIB officers. The poor wife was woken up and the children too. The CPIB officers ransacked the house and took some documents away. That was not the end. When they left the house he was taken to his office where his table and drawers were again ransacked. He was eventually brought back to the CPIB. He was then told that he would have to bring his son there because the son happened to be with the father in Kuala Lumpur to watch the game. The son was below 18 years of age. He said that his son was staying with his mother-in-law. So off they drove to the mother-in-law's house. The son was picked up in spite of the protest by the father that his son was attending school. He asked whether the CPIB officers could not leave the son till the following morning if they wished to ask him any questions. No. He was picked up and taken to the CPIB. The son was detained for some hours at the CPIB for questioning.

I have taken time to mention these cases because it seems to me that if you adopt these tactics, you open the door to fabrication of evidence and that, to me at least, is a greater evil than corruption.

The Bill that is before the House now seeks to extend the very wide powers that are now possessed by the Director, the Deputy Director, Assistant Directors, Chief Special Investigator or Senior Special Investigators. It proposes to extend these powers right down to the lowest officer, that is, the Special Investigator. Every officer in the CPIB, right from the Director to the lowest officer, is going to be armed with all these special powers. I would ask this House, or advise this House, to be cautious before we give such extensive powers to the officers unless there is also provided at the same time proper checks on the exercise of these powers by the CPIB officers.

I regret that the Act and the Bill do not contain any checks on the exercise of the powers granted to them by the CPIB. I would refer in particular, Mr Speaker, Sir, to clause 8. Clause 8 seeks to amend section 17 of the principal Act which provides that the Public Prosecutor may empower:

'the Director, the Deputy Director, or an assistant director . . . or any senior special investigator [it stops with that] to investigate any bank account, share account, purchase account, expense account or any other account, or any safe deposit box in any bank, and the order shall be sufficient authority for the disclosure or production by any person of all or any information or accounts or documents or articles as may be required by the officer so authorised.' Mr Speaker, Sir, you will see from that that it is a very wide, far-reaching power. Power is given to officers to open up any bank account of any person - share account, purchase account, expense account or any other account, or any safe deposit box in any bank. The question is: is it not possible that if this power is entrusted to junior officers, for example, the special investigators, is there not a danger that this power may perhaps be abused for whatever reasons, maybe for personal reasons or vendetta or for other reasons, because they have been put up to it by someone who is interested in investigating the accounts? One can think of many reasons why this power can be abused. What is alarming is that subsection (2) of this section renders the person who fails to answer any question or disclose the information liable to be convicted and to suffer a fine of $2,000 or an imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

Then we move on to clause 10. That likewise extends the power which hitherto has only been exercised, on the directions of the Public Prosecutor, by the Deputy Director or any assistant director or any police officer of or above the rank of assistant superintendent or any senior special investigator - it extends this power which has hitherto only been exercised by these senior officers to ordinary special investigators. This section authorises them to inspect banker's books. May I again say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this is a very wide power and it may be necessary that to fight corruption we have got to give the officers the power to make proper investigation. All I am saying is: let us take care that we do not give wide, very extensive powers to junior officers unless we provide at the same time proper checks on the exercise of these powers and see that they are exercised in accordance with and under the law.

Then we come to clause 11 which deals with powers of search. Powers of search are contained in section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. What the amendment proposes to do is to put it into a neater form because of the various amendments that had been made to the section. Now, under the proposed amendment and under the law as it stands, any special investigator may enter somebody's house or flat without obtaining any search warrant in the first place, if - and he is made the sole judge of this - he has reason to believe that by the delay the object of the search as it says here, "is likely to be frustrated". If he, first of all, believes that the delay in obtaining a search warrant is likely to frustrate his search, then he can dispense with the necessity of obtaining a search warrant and he can then enter anybody's house and ransack the house from top to bottom in his purported exercise of powers granted under this Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the things that we must accept is that our people do have some rights and it is important that the Government, the law enforcement agencies and Government departments recognize this and respect the rights of our citizens. It is a wrongful act for any person to enter into the house of another person unless he has been invited by that other person, If the law is going to change that, and to make an exception to this, then should not there be proper safeguards in favour of the citizen? And I am surprised, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there is no requirement in this proposed amendment to section 21 that before any CPIB officer conducts a search of any premises, he should produce to the occupant of the place the search warrant if he has obtained a search warrant and hand him a copy of the search warrant if requested so that the occupant may know under what rights the CPIB officer is invading his privacy and, at the same time, show the occupant his certificate of appointment to show that he is a CPIB officer authorized to conduct the search. What often happens is that our citizens are neither shown the search warrant - and it is anybody's guess whether the officer has a search warrant upon him or not - nor is the occupant shown the certificate of appointment. He may say that he comes from the CPIB but the certificate of appointment which every CPIB officer is required to carry under section 4 is not produced.

I would ask the Minister if he would consider amending the proposed clause 11 to include provisions requiring CPIB officers, before exercising the power of search given to them under this section, to either produce the search warrant and give a copy to the person whose place is to be searched and at the same time produce the certificate of appointment or, where he does not have a search warrant, requiring the CPIB officer to give a signed statement of the offence he is investigating and stating the reasons why he had not obtained a search warrant before carrying out his search.

In my submission, Mr Speaker, these provisions are essential if we are going to enhance respect among our citizens for law and order. Then only will our citizens respect the enforcement officers and those whose task, unpleasant as it is, is to enforce laws in this country.

I have dealt with the powers given to the CPIB officers and the need to provide proper checks. There are two other matters on which I would like to speak, Sir, and they are these. I need not remind the Members of this House of the value of precept and example. This Government has a name for being neither corrupt nor corruptible but, Mr Speaker, as the saying goes in regard to the administration of justice, it is not enough that justice is done but must be manifestly seen to be done. I think it is a matter in which Members of this House can set an example, an example which can be followed by all our citizens. What I am going to suggest, Mr Speaker, is that the Minister include a new clause in this Bill requiring all Members of Parliament to file a statutory declaration of all assets and movable and immovable properties belonging to or possessed by the Member, his wife or spouse, sons and daughters, and requiring hereafter every Member elected to Parliament to file a similar declaration before taking his oath and seat in Parliament.

We have the example over the Causeway of the Prime Minister there directing his Ministers and his top civil servants to file a similar declaration of assets. It is something which we can follow to our advantage because it is something in which we can give the lead to all our people in Singapore that it is absolutely necessary for us to remain free from this cancer of corruption.

I was, Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed going to table a question at this sitting of Parliament for the Hon. Prime Minister to answer whether he would consider making such a direction. But I was prevented from tabling this question because of the provision in the Constitution and in the Standing Orders that until I have taken my oath and taken my seat, I cannot table any questions. So I would commend this provision to the Minister.

There is another provision that I would like to see, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Bill and that is the punishment for the improper use of facilities and services provided and paid for out of public funds by any Member of Parliament or by any civil servant or public officer as defined in the Constitution, whether in his own interest or purpose or in the interest of a party or organization to which he belongs. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is noted that in Singapore today there is close identification of a political party with the Government and I have heard that facilities and services provided for and paid out of public funds are put at the disposal of this party. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is wrong and should be made punishable because it is also corruption - using facilities and services provided for and paid out of public funds.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Member if he will give specific instances? I will take action on them forthwith.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the instances are the use by the party of Government land and premises at Napier Road.

The Prime Minister: Yes, carry on.

Mr Jeyaretnam: And also the use by the Hon. Prime Minister in his election campaign last year, in December 1980, of police vehicles and police personnel.

The Prime Minister: What else?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will content myself with those two, if I may.

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Will you give way to the Prime Minister, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Do I understand the Member for Anson to seriously suggest that the PAP is using Government property in Napier Road without a proper lease with the Government? And is he suggesting that I campaigned in the last General Elections using police vehicles? These are grave charges.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not been acquainted with the terms and conditions under which the People's Action Party is using the premises at Napier Road.

The Prime Minister: Then will you withdraw that?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The question I am saying is -

The Prime Minister: What are you saying?

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is wrong for any -

The Prime Minister: What is wrong?

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is wrong for any person or party to use facilities or services provided out of public funds.

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Will you give way, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: An allegation has been made in the course of the Second Reading of a Bill to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act that there have been corrupt practices by the PAP misusing Government facilities. I have asked for specific instances so that I can take immediate action. I have been given two. These are serious charges, just as the one the Member for Anson made in a speech at Fullerton Square in 1976, where he made the allegation that I was corrupt or I indulged in corrupt practices in allowing a banking licence to be issued to a bank in which my brother was a director. The case has gone right up to the Privy Council and the Privy Council will soon determine whether the Member for Anson, when he swore on the Bible on oath that he did not mean to allege that I was corrupt, and that the words did not mean what they say. He is a God-fearing man. He now comes to this House and makes further innuendoes. This is a government that is prepared to open all the books. Make the charges and there will be a commission of inquiry. The Member will be given full facilities to justify and the Government will stand condemned or the Member will be found to be a liar and a hypocrite. Have your choice.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was proposing that there should be -

The Prime Minister: A commission of inquiry?

Mr Jeyaretnam: If the Prime Minister will let me speak.

The Prime Minister: You are afraid to justify, are you not?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there should be this provision. If the Prime Minister denies and produces evidence to show that the -

The Prime Minister: I have to deny a specific allegation. I deny it emphatically. I am prepared to have a commission of inquiry to go into the two allegations made by the Member. Does he accept it?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well -

The Prime Minister: It is a simple "Yes" or "No".

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said, and I repeat what I have said, that it is necessary that there should be no improper use of facilities or services provided out of public funds.

The Prime Minister: And you think that there was?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have said about the rumour that is circulated in town -

Some hon. Members: Rumour-monger!

Mr Speaker: Order, order. Carry on, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: - about the occupation by the People's Action Party of Government land and premises. If the Prime Minister says here the terms under which it is occupied, that is, that market rent, or economic rent is paid by the People's Action Party, then, of course, I have nothing more to say on that. But we do not know what the terms are. All that I am asking in this House is that there should be no semblance at all of any privileges given to one party or other. Likewise if the Hon. Prime Minister says that he was not accompanied by police vehicles -

The Prime Minister: I was accused, Mr Speaker, of using police vehicles for campaigning. He has now shifted his ground and said that I was accompanied by security vehicles.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I cannot see what the difference is, if you have police officers accompanying you in police vehicles. Mr Speaker, to wind up my speech, I would ask that the Minister consider the inclusion of these proposals in the Bill.

The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): "Yes" or "No", you should have a Commission of Inquiry.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, am I not allowed to raise questions in this House? If the Hon. Prime Minister will deny this and produce the terms, then I withdraw that.

The Prime Minister: A false allegation.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But am I not allowed to ask in this House about the occupation by the People's Action Party of Government land and premises at Napier Road without being subjected to this?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak as one who has been probably the oldest Member in this Chamber, from May 1955. I have met many more difficult and obstreperous Members than the present Member for Anson. I seek no cover of privilege and I give no reason for anyone to doubt that this Government stands ready and prepared at all times to have its conduct put under the closest scrutiny. What I will not have, Mr Speaker, Sir, is what, I am sure, we are going to have in the next three to four years, and we will have it ad nauseam and the Member will get it back from me ad nauseam, a direct challenge to prove in an open court or a Commission of Inquiry. I will not put up with innuendoes and insinuations. He made one in 1976 and he has not learned from that lesson. I knew it would go to the Privy Council, and it is in the Privy Council that he will be found either to have -

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I take a point of order?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is it permissible, Mr Speaker, to refer to proceedings which are in Court at the moment in this House?

Mr Speaker: He has not gone into the details, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: There is at the moment an appeal to the Privy Council. I should have thought that under Standing Orders - Mr Speaker, I stand guided by you - no mention may be made in this House of proceedings that are before a Court at the moment.

The Prime Minister: The trial has been reported at great length in 1978. His appeal in 1979 was again reported at great length in Singapore. It is before the Court and I am making no comments on the merits of the arguments. All I am saying is when that appeal is disposed of, it will mean that either I or the hon. Member for Anson - in my case I took an affirmation, in his case an oath on the Bible - went into the witness box and did not tell the truth. That is what it amounts to.

Two allegations have been made of misconduct. I offer an open forum for all details. Instead I have an unseemly, disgusting, wriggling retreat.

Let me remind him that way back in February 1955 we taught Singapore the first lesson in public accountability when we disclosed that a Labour Front Minister had received $700,000. A Commission of Inquiry was offered, immediately accepted, and we proved our allegations. Those same standards we intend to honour. If there is any allegation of misconduct by any Member of this House or any Member of the Government, or official of the Government, there will be a full inquiry, a full prosecution, and every facility for the facts to be unravelled. That is the strength of this Government.

So before the Member makes vote-catching, popular suggestions of public declaration or statutory declaration, let me tell him that there are standard practices in America, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. They are worthless. It does not stop corruption. If the boss of the outfit, whether he is the head of a department or the minister or, worst of all, the head of the government, the Prime Minister, does not set standards, then standards cannot be enforced lower down.

I know exactly what each Member in this House is worth. They make full disclosures to me. There is no way in which anybody can prevent me from being corrupt if I choose to be corrupt, but the price is the disintegration of the system, and the system has held for 22 1/2 years. And we have established a reputation which the Member concedes for integrity because the highest standards are enforced. So I end up with a simple message to him and his supporters - any allegation of misconduct, and he will have the whole panoply of the law for a thorough and open investigation.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Hon. Prime Minister for this assurance, but would the Prime Minister make available the terms and conditions under which the People's Action Party is occupying Government land and premises at Napier Road?

Mr Barker: Sir, I did not want to interfere or interrupt the Member for Anson because this is his maiden speech. But he was, I think, out of order on some occasions. This Bill merely deals with two points: the penalty for gratification where charges are taken into account but on which the accused is not convicted, and the other extends the number of special investigators. But he spoke of corruption in general. He spoke on section 21. Let me reassure the Member that this is not a new section. It is merely tidying up consequentially all the powers on which he has spoken and on which he wants checks and balances. These powers have been with the CPIB for a very long time. If we are to stamp out corruption, we must have these powers. We must give them these powers. At the same time if there are abuses, there can be complaints which the Attorney-General or even the Police Department can look into.

As for the People's Action Party occupying land at Napier Road, we need not supply him with these particulars. He can easily make a search in the Land Office.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr E W Barker].

Bill considered in Committee. 4.45 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 -

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2. line 30, to leave out from "person" to the end of line 5 in page 3 and insert the words shown in my Notice of Amendments*.

*The words to be inserted read as follows: "charged with two or more offences for the acceptance of gratification in contravention of this Act is convicted of one or some of those offences, and the other outstanding Cap. 113 offences are taken into consideration by the court under section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of passing sentence, the court may increase the penalty mentioned in subsection (1) by an amount not exceeding the total amount or value of the gratification specified in the charges for the offences so taken into consideration.".

Sir, this amendment is one of form rather than substance. It replaces the somewhat lengthy wording of the present clause with a clearer, shorter and neater provision which achieves the same effect. It also seeks to eliminate the doubt which may be created by the present wording of the clause. At present, the clause makes no reference to section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code which is the section which permits outstanding offences, with the consent of the prosecutor and the accused, to be taken into consideration in determining the sentence to be imposed for the offence or offences of which the accused has been convicted. The omission in the existing clause of any reference to section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code may give rise to a doubt as to whether the provision of the clause is related to or independent of that section. The amendment will remove this doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 -

Question proposed, "That clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, clause 8, as I have said, gives right down to the special investigator the very wide powers which have hitherto been exercised only by the Director or the Deputy Director and Assistant Director or the Senior Special Investigator. I would caution against this, and I would ask that the power be confined to these senior officers and not be extended right down the line to special investigators because of the danger of it being abused. There is no check on the exercise of this power.

Mr Barker: Sir, the point was made in his maiden speech. It has been noted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 -

Question proposed, "That clause 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I would vote against this clause for the same reason that I have expressed in regard to clause 8.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 -

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

(1) In page 5. lines 13 and 14, to leave out ", or a special investigator or police" and insert "or any".

(2) In page 5, lines 19 and 20, to leave out "a special investigator or police" and insert "any".

Sir, the present wording of this clause has a narrowing effect which is unintended. The clause only makes it an offence where a person refuses access to or fails to comply with the lawful demands of the Director, special investigator or police officer. It does not make it an offence where the enforcement officer concerned is a Deputy Director or an Assistant Director of the CPIB. The amendment to the clause will rectify this by substituting the reference to the Director, special investigator or police officer with a reference to the Director or any officer.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 -

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

(1) In page 5, lines 24 and 25, to leave out "a special investigator or police" and insert "any".

(2) In page 5. line 27, to leave out ", special investigator or police" and insert "or that".

The reason for the amendment is the same as that which I have given for clause 12, Sir.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.