THE CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. VIII of 2012)

Order for Second reading read.

The Attorney General (Mr Y. Varma): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move that the Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill (No. VIII of 2012) be read a second time.

Today is a historic day for the whole country. The present revolutionary piece of legislation has finally come before this House, representing a ray of hope for those women who otherwise have to undergo pregnancies in very difficult circumstances. The presence today in our public gallery of women from several NGOs bears testimony to the importance of this legislation.

For decades, the question of whether or not to legalise abortion has been the subject of considerable debate and controversy. Enough has been said and heard on the topic. Procrastination should stop. It is time to act. We all know that it takes enormous courage to bring such an important piece of legislation on a topic as sensitive as abortion, and if there is one quality that the hon. Prime Minister and this Government do not lack, it is precisely courage. I have said it already and repeat it: “C’est une décision sage, courageuse et audacieuse du gouvernement.”

Mr Speaker, Sir, religious, ethical, moral and cultural sensibilities continue to influence abortion laws throughout the world. Countries which allow abortion in specified cases include the United Kingdom, India, South Africa, Pakistan, France, Italy and Spain.

At present, abortion is, in any circumstances, unlawful in Mauritius. Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code provides that any person who procures the miscarriage of a pregnant woman or supplies the means of procuring such miscarriage, whether the woman consents or not, shall be punished by penal servitude for a term not exceeding 10 years. Two further offences are created in section 235, namely –

under subsection (2), where any woman procures her own miscarriage or consents to make use of means pointed out or administered to her with that intent, and that such miscarriage ensues;
under subsection (3), where any physician, surgeon, or pharmacist points out, facilitates or administers the means of miscarriage, and such miscarriage ensues.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the light of a number of recent cases involving women, including minors, who became pregnant as a result of sexual offences, there is a growing need to allow abortion with a view to protect the well-being and health of such women. Moreover, it is important that the law be relaxed where a continued pregnancy is likely to endanger a pregnant woman’s life, affects her physical or mental health permanently or results in severe malformation or abnormality of the foetus, which will affect its viability and compatibility with life.

The object of the Bill, therefore, is to amend the Criminal Code to authorise the termination of pregnancy only in the specified circumstances spelt out in the proposed section 235A, namely –

the continued pregnancy will endanger the pregnant person’s life;
the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person;
there is a substantial risk that the continued pregnancy will result in a severe malformation, or severe physical or mental abnormality of the foetus, as assessed by the appropriate specialists, and
the pregnancy has not exceeded its fourteenth week and results from a case of rape, sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 16 or sexual intercourse with a specified person, which has been reported to the police or medical practitioner.

I shall later inform the House of the Committee Stage amendments I propose to bring to the new section 235A.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been a lot of outcry recently to the effect that abortion is being legalised. Let me emphasise that this is an erroneous understanding of the proposed amendments. We are not introducing abortion on demand. We are simply allowing abortion in the specified circumstances which have been enumerated. The Government strongly believes that a choice should be given to the woman. She should have a choice between life and death. She should be able to choose whether to carry on with a pregnancy if she has been the victim of a rape or incest.

I wish to inform the House that there have been a number of consultation sessions in the course of the drafting of this piece of legislation. As far back as 2009, the then Ministry of Women’s Rights, Child Development and Family Welfare had organised a consultation session on the subject of abortion with different stakeholders, following which a number of written representations were submitted to it, mostly by women’s organisations and socio-religious bodies. Those representations were submitted to the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life and to my Office for consideration.

I must report that the views and proposals of the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life and the Ministry of Gender Equality, Child Development and Family Welfare were sought, and due consideration has been given to the proposals made by these Ministries, as well as to the representations submitted by the relevant stakeholders in 2009. The Ministry of Health and Quality of Life has been consulted on technical and medical aspects, and has confirmed it has no objection to the provisions of the final draft Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, moreover, the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the National Human Rights Commission, and the Law Reform Commission have also been sought on the Bill. Their suggestions have been taken on board in the finalisation of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have also had a number of meetings with a number of persons and organisations in relation to the present legislation. It is very important that I list them –

in December 2011, I met the members of the Common Front on Abortion, namely the Mauritius Family Planning Association, Women in Networking and Muvman Liberasyon Fam and received their written representations;
on 16 February 2012, I met Dr. Anthony Silverstone, Consultant in Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Gynaecological Oncology at the University College Hospital, London. Most of his suggestions have been taken on board;
on 14 May 2012, I again met the members of the Common Front on Abortion.

Not later than last week, I attended a debate organised on the Bill at the University of Mauritius during which members of the medical and legal professions expressed their views on specific issues. I wish here to thank the organisers, and especially Dr. Zeenat Aumerally for having organised this meeting in record time.

Termination of pregnancy in specified cases is something I have always thought strongly about, even before I started my law degree. Little did I know that, I would be the one piloting the Bill one day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed, it is gratifying to note that the Bill has received a positive response from several opposition parties which shows that on matters affecting public health, and the well-being of our citizens we can rise above party politics.

The interest in the Bill over the past month has been beyond expectations. It has been a lively but sober debate, with people expressing their views, frankly and fearlessly, without any “dérapage”. This bears testimony to our mature democracy and our culture of mutual respect and tolerance.

I have read almost every press report on the Bill, and followed exchanges on the internet and Facebook. I have also made it a point to listen to almost every radio programme on the issue. I have paid particular attention to the qualms expressed by those against the Bill and only yesterday I had a warm, friendly and constructive meeting with Mgr. Maurice Piat, Bishop of Port Louis and Mgr. Ian Ernest, Archbishop of the Province of the Indian Ocean.

I have also discussed with hon. Members of the Opposition whose support has been most encouraging. I have, in particular, discussed proposed amendments with the hon. Leader of the Opposition in a constructive and consensual spirit, and Government has taken on board most of his suggestions. I shall later say more about the Committee Stage amendments as I move on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall now deal with the specific provisions of the Bill.

Under clause 3, section 235 of the Criminal Code is amended by –

replacing the term “abortion” by “termination of pregnancy”;
providing a derogation from that section;
replacing the words “quick with child”, which have always caused confusion, by the words “pregnant woman”; and
replacing the words “physician, surgeon,” by the words “medical practitioner”, in line with the Medical Council Act.

It is clear that termination of pregnancy by a medical practitioner will still be an offence except in the limited cases to be specified in section 235A of the Criminal Code.

Clause 4 is the most important clause in the Bill. Under this clause, a new section 235A is inserted in the Criminal Code to authorise the termination of pregnancy in the specified circumstances I have previously listed. Section 235A also provides for a number of safeguards. Under subclause (1), no person shall provide treatment to terminate a pregnancy unless he is registered as a specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology under the Medical Council Act, he provides the treatment in a prescribed institution and he complies with all the requirements of that section.

Existing subclause (2) provides that the specialist may only provide treatment to terminate a pregnancy where another specialist in the relevant field shares his opinion, formed in good faith, that the pregnancy falls under the specified circumstances set out therein. I have received certain representations to the effect that it would be an additional safeguard for more than one specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology to be involved. For this reason, I shall, at Committee Stage be moving to amend existing subclause (2) to provide that the specialist may only provide treatment to terminate a pregnancy where another specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology and another specialist in the relevant field share his opinion, formed in good faith, that the pregnancy falls under the specified circumstances set out in the said subclause.

In the light of certain concerns expressed in relation to subclause (2)(c), I shall, at Committee Stage, move to delete the words “, as assessed by the appropriate specialist” and replace them by the words “which will affect its viability and compatibility with life”.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a number of concerns have also been expressed in relation to subclause (2)(d) which provides that the pregnancy must not have exceeded its fourteenth week and must have resulted from a case of rape, sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 16 or sexual intercourse with a specified person which has been reported to the Police or a medical practitioner. In particular, concerns have been expressed about the possibility of false reports being made.

I have given consideration to these concerns and I recognise that this is a potential problem which we should guard against.

Let me stress, however, that we believe that, in most cases, the woman victim will be speaking the truth to the Police, and the medical practitioners will base themselves on their medical examination (relying, where necessary, on the opinion of a psychologist or sexual trauma expert) or DNA evidence to form the opinion in good faith that the pregnancy results from one of the sexual offences specified in the Bill. The alleged sexual offence will have to be necessarily reported to the Police. The possibility of also reporting to a medical practitioner which was provided for to make the procedure less oppressive for the victim will be removed at Committee Stage.

With regard to the minority of cases where a woman may be tempted to make a false declaration of rape in order to procure a termination of her pregnancy, the law should be made more severe to act as a strong deterrent. Sections 297 and 298 of the Criminal Code already provide for the criminal offences of false and malicious denunciation in writing and effecting public mischief, and we could have trusted the Magistrates of our courts to impose a very harsh sentence in such circumstances. However, in the face of the disquiet expressed in some quarters by no less than the Director of Public Prosecutions himself, we are providing for a distinct offence.

The Director of Public Prosecutions was consulted yesterday in relation thereto and he is agreeable to same.

I shall, therefore, at Committee Stage, be moving for a new subclause (3) to be added which will provide that, notwithstanding sections 297 and 298 of the Criminal Code, any person who, for the purpose of procuring treatment to terminate pregnancy, knowingly makes a false declaration of rape, sexual intercourse with a female under 16 or sexual intercourse with a specified person to the Police shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding 10 years. The existing subclauses (3) to (9) will be renumbered as (4) to (10).

Existing subclause (3) further provides that the specialist shall not terminate a pregnancy unless he has obtained the informed consent of the pregnant person. Such informed consent shall be given by the pregnant person in writing or by affixing her thumbprint to a written statement read out to her.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under existing subclauses (4) and (5), where the pregnant person is under the age of 18 or is severely mentally disabled or is in a state of continuous unconsciousness, the written informed consent of the appropriate person may be obtained.

Existing subclause (6) provides that, where appropriate, counselling shall be provided to the pregnant person before and after the termination of pregnancy. This will ensure that, in appropriate cases, women will be provided with adequate support to help them overcome any physical or psychological effect of abortion. In the light of concern expressed by many, including in medical quarters, I shall, at Committee Stage, be moving for the deletion of the words “where appropriate” so that counselling will have to be provided to a pregnant person before and after termination of pregnancy invariably in all cases.

Under existing subclause (7), no person shall, by means of coercion or intimidation, compel or induce a person who is pregnant to undergo treatment to terminate a pregnancy against her will, and, under subclause (8), any person who contravenes this section shall commit an offence for which he shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years and to a fine not exceeding Rs100,000 .

Mr Speaker, Sir, under clause 5, consequential amendments are brought to the Medical Council Act to provide for a working regime for the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. In particular, a new section 38A is inserted in the Medical Council Act which –

(a) provides the parameters within which a person may refuse to participate in any treatment to which he has a conscientious objection;

(b) gives the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health or a public officer deputed by him the power to enter and inspect any institution providing the said treatment, to obtain any information from the person in charge and to examine and make copies of or extracts from any record or other document relating to a treatment;

(c) creates offences where any person discloses confidential information in relation to a record or treatment without the consent of the pregnant woman, obstructs the Permanent Secretary or the public officer deputed by him in the exercise of his functions or otherwise contravenes that section, and

(d) empowers the Minister of Health to make regulations in relation to matters which are necessary for the proposed regime to operate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleagues may wish to note that in its Concluding Report of 3-21 October 2011 under the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the CEDAW Committee has called upon Mauritius to expedite the enactment of the proposed Bill in order to remove punitive measures imposed on women who undergo abortion and to decriminalise abortion in certain circumstances. Indeed, I am grateful to Mrs Pramila Patten, member of the CEDAW Committee for having expressed support for the Bill and placed it in perspective in the light of laws in other jurisdictions as well as our international obligations under treaties such as CEDAW. With the present Bill, it is felt that Mauritius will finally be able to honour its international obligations.

We consider that the proposed Bill will considerably help women who would otherwise have to go through pregnancies in difficult circumstances. Many women undergoing difficult pregnancies resort to clandestine abortions carried out in most unsafe, often “butcherous” conditions by non-professionals which often result in severe complications to the women’s health and, at times, death. Likewise, it is against a woman’s human dignity to force her to bear a child for 9 months where that child is the fruit of an aggression, a crime, a sin.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government is committed to bring changes that will impact positively on the lives of all Mauritians and we shall not stop in our endeavour.

As I stated before, this Bill is revolutionary and, to a large extent, it also marks a turning point in the fields of women’s rights and medicine in Mauritius.

I would particularly like to thank Dr. the hon. Prime Minister for his support and guidance throughout the preparation and finalisation of the Bill. I also thank the hon. Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the hon. Minister of Health and Quality of Life and the hon. Minister of Gender Equality, Child Development and Family Welfare for their collaborations.

I thank the doctors from the Ministry of Health and Dr. Anthony Silverstone from University College Hospital, London, for their expert views on the medical aspects of this legislation. My thanks also go to the Common Front set up to support the Bill with Mrs Lindsey Collen and collaborators, and to all individuals, non-governmental organisations and socio-religious bodies who or which have expressed their views and suggestions, both for and against the Bill. Finally, I thank my colleagues from Government, the hon. Leader of the Opposition and several Members of the Opposition for their encouragement and support. A special note of thanks to my officers and Sir Victor Glover, our Legal Consultant, who have worked diligently in the preparation and finalisation of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with these words, I commend the Bill to the House.

The Prime Minister rose and seconded.

12.06.2012

The Attorney General (Mr Y. Varma): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I start off by expressing my sincere thanks to all hon. Members who have intervened on this Bill. On such an issue, it is difficult to reach an absolute consensus, and we have to agree to disagree. I must say that I respect the personal views and positions taken by all in this debate.

I have listened with great interest to the arguments which have been put forward. I again thank the hon. Prime Minister for his support and intervention. We have listened to 52 interventions, and the debate which has spread over five parliamentary sittings has generally been of a very high standard.

I seize the opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Deputy Speaker for the dexterity with which you both presided over the debates. I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for generally supporting the Bill.

However, he had three reservations. Firstly, he stated that we should ensure that the requirement to have two specialists in obstetrics and gynaecology does not cause undue delay. The process should be smooth and rapid. He also referred to the law in the UK, stating that proposals are now being made to have only one doctor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us not forget that the UK abortion law dates back to 1967. It is not surprising that the UK feels comfortable with a system put in place, and is now considering a proposal to rely on the opinion of only one doctor. We, on the other hand, are making a start in Mauritius in 2012, and we have, in fact, agreed to the proposition of the hon. Leader of the Opposition to have the opinion of two specialists instead of one in obstetrics and gynaecology and one in the relevant field. This will be a very strong and necessary safeguard. It will reduce the likelihood of wrong opinions being reached.

As far as the delay issue is concerned, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life will prevent undue delays, as stated by the hon. Minister. I understand that pools of appropriate specialists will be available to deal with the matter.

Secondly, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. First Member for Savanne and Black River and other hon. Members expressed reservations about how these specialists will be able to form an opinion on whether the pregnancy results from rape, sexual intercourse with minor or incest. I have been informed by colleagues from the medical profession that it is not difficult, following a medical examination of the pregnant person, to conclude whether the pregnancy results from an offence of rape, in view of the physical and mental trauma suffered.

I must also state that we are not reinventing the wheel with this formula. This specific provision has been inspired from South Africa’s choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 1996, although I hasten to add that what we are proposing in the Bill contains better safeguards.

Section 2 (1)(b) (iii) of South Africa’s legislation: a pregnancy may be terminated from the thirteenth up to and including the twentieth week of the gestation period if a medical practitioner, after consultation with the pregnant woman, is of the opinion that the pregnancy results from rape or incest.

In South Africa it is, therefore, sufficient for a medical practitioner after he has examined the pregnant woman to form such an opinion; nothing more is provided as safeguard there. However, in this Bill we are taking the care to include the following safeguards –

(1) The opinions of not one, but three specialists have to be sought.

(2) The opinion is not in relation to whether the offence of rape, sexual intercourse with minor under sixteen or incest has been proved.

If we read the wordings of the proposed Section 235A to (d) carefully together with the relevant amendment, which I shall be moving at Committee Stage, it is in relation to an opinion formed in good faith that the pregnancy results from a case of rape, sexual intercourse with minor or incest which has been reported to the Police. A priori, therefore, these specialists will have to ascertain whether the matter has been reported to the Police.

(3) Thirdly, any false declaration will constitute a criminal offence. What has to be ascertained, first of all, is whether such allegation has been reported to the Police. The specialist will then have to form an opinion in good faith whether the pregnancy results from such an offence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the third point raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition was that swearing of an affidavit by victims of rape or incest to the effect would have had more of a deterrent effect. The swearing of an affidavit will necessitate going through certain administrative steps, for example, going through an attorney, getting the paperwork done and going to court. As a result, it is bound to take more time and may prove a daunting experience for the victim. What we are proposing instead, that is, the requirement to have the case reported to the Police is straightforward and practical. Moreover, the penalty for making a false declaration will be penal servitude for a term not exceeding ten years which is much stronger than that for swearing a false affidavit. The aim behind this is to have a powerful deterrent effect on the rare women who may be inclined to make false declarations of rape or incest in order to have the pregnancy terminated.

The hon. Third Member for Stanley and Rose Hill, the hon. First Member for GRNW and Port Louis West, the hon. Second Member for Port Louis North and Montagne Longue, the hon. Second Member for Beau Bassin and Petite Rivière, the hon. Second Member for La Caverne and Phoenix, and a few other hon. Members have raised several qualms about the Bill; many of which have already been answered by my colleagues, the hon. Minister of Health and Quality of Life, the hon. Minister of Housing and Lands, the hon. Third Member for Belle Rose and Quatre Bornes has also answered a number of issues raised.

Mr Speaker, Sir, international human rights law as well as courts worldwide have clearly established that any prenatal protection must be consistent with women’s human rights. As far as 1973, the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe and Wade established that a woman has a right to self-determination covering the decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, but that this right must be balanced against a State’s interest in preserving foetal life. In the case of Tremblay and Daigle, 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a foetus has no legal status in Canada as a person either in Canadian common law or in Quebec civil law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Third Member for Vacoas and Floreal and the hon. Third Member for GRNW and Port Louis West spoke about our international obligations. The Beijing Platform for Action 1995, to which Mauritius is a party, thus expressly called upon Governments to re-examine abortion laws that punish women. The CEDAW, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, recommended Mauritius to, I quote –

“Consider reviewing the law relating to abortion for unwanted pregnancies with a view to removing punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion, in line with the Beijing Platform for Action.”

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also wish to reassure the hon. Third Member for GRNW and Port Louis West, who referred to the case of the minor who is a victim of incest and whose parents would not give their consent to the pregnancy resulting from the incest being terminated. Once the young pregnant person reports the offence to a teacher, a doctor, a friend, members of the medical or paramedical profession and members of the staff of the school, have the duty, under Section 11 of the Child Protection Act, to notify immediately the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Gender Equality, Child Development and Family Welfare who may then promptly apply to the District Magistrate for an emergency protection order. Such an order confers on the Permanent Secretary authority where necessary for the welfare of the child to cause her to be submitted to medical examination or to urgent treatment.

I have no doubt, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a victim of incest should be removed from the household of her aggressor and that the Permanent Secretary could, in such circumstances, authorise the termination of pregnancy which results from incest.

The hon. Third Member for Port Louis Maritime and Port Louis East expressed the rather extraordinary view that the specialist would be usurping the function of the Judiciary by finding in effect, a person guilty of the offence of rape, sexual intercourse or incest. I must say, I had some difficulty understanding the hon. Member on this issue. It is quite clear that the specialists are not concerned with the offender, but with the victim. The identity of the offender is, in fact, irrelevant, except in the case of incest. What matters is that the offence has to be reported to the Police. It would be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. Unfortunately, the outcome of the case cannot be awaited. It suffices for the purposes of this Bill that the offence was reported to the Police and that the specialists are of the opinions in good faith that the pregnancy results from such an offence. Many hon. Members have spoken about the delay in prosecuting and hearing of rape or incest cases. I assure the House, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I have taken good note of those representations and will convey them to the appropriate authorities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot close our eyes to regional and international provisions and judgments. We live, after all, in a global village. As a responsible Government, we are bringing this legislation to address real existing problems and above all to provide relief to vulnerable girls and women. We are only giving them the choice in limited circumstances rather than there being no choice at all. Do the women of this country do not deserve to be given the right to choose! Let me hasten to add, however, that I do not believe or wish termination of pregnancies as envisaged by this Bill to be the panacea for teenage pregnancy. I fully endorse the views expressed by both sides of the House in favour of enhanced sexual education for teenagers in the light of stark modern realities.

As I stated in my Second Reading speech, we are about to create history. By voting for this Bill, we will be changing the lives of many girls and women in a positive way. Once again, I am very grateful to the hon. Prime Minister for his relentless support and vision. A change in the law was long overdue and without the vision and commitment of this Government, it would not have been possible to move forward.

Before I end, Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me, again, to express my thanks to all hon. Members who have contributed to and enriched this debate. I wish to inform the House that I will be moving for a division of votes at Third Reading. I thank you all for your kind attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time and committed.

COMMITTEE STAGE

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

THE CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL

(NO. VIII OF 2012)

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 (Section 235 of principal Act amended)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Sir, I move that in clause 3(b), the words “section (1)” be deleted and replaced by the words “subsection (1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 (New Section 235A inserted in principal Act)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Sir, I move for the following amendments in clause 4, in the proposed section 235A –

(i) in subsection (2), by deleting the words “specialist in the relevant field shares” and replacing them by the words “specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology and another specialist in the relevant field share”;

(ii) in subsection (2)(c), by deleting the words “, as assessed by the appropriate specialists” and replacing them by the words “which will affect its viability and compatibility with life”;

(iii) in subsection (2)(d), by deleting the words “or a medical practitioner”;

(iv) by inserting, after subsection (2), the following new subsection, subsections (3) to (9) being renumbered (4) to (10) –

(3) Notwithstanding sections 297 and 298 of the Criminal Code, any person who, for the purpose of procuring treatment to terminate pregnancy, knowingly makes a false declaration of rape, sexual intercourse with a female under 16 or sexual intercourse with a specified person to the police shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(v) in subsection (4), as renumbered, by deleting the words “(4) and (5)” and replacing them by words “(5) and (6)”;

(vi) in subsection (7), as renumbered, by deleting the words “Where appropriate, counselling” and replacing them by the word “Counselling”;

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (Consequential amendments)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Sir, I move for the following amendment –

In clause 5(a), in the proposed section 38A(6), in the definition of “prescribed institution”, by deleting the words “subsection (4)” and replacing them by the words “subsection (5)”.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The title and enacting clause were agreed to.

The Bill, as amended, was agreed to.

On the Assembly resuming with Mr Speaker in the Chair, Mr Speaker reported accordingly.

Third Reading

On motion made and seconded, the Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill (No. VIII of 2012) was read a third time.

Mr Varma: Sir, I move for a division.

(Division Bells were rung)