HC Deb 19 December 1946 vol 431 cc2199-202

4.33 p.m.

Mr. John Foster (Northwich)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, after "person," to insert "resident in the United Kingdom."

The reason for this Amendment is that the Clause, as drafted, is, in the submission of my hon. Friends and myself, much too wide. The effect of this Clause is to extend jurisdiction, under this Bill, to persons in every part of the world. There is a subsequent Clause in the Bill -Clause 42-which says that the Bill shall apply to everybody. It says, in terms, that it shall apply to all persons, notwithstanding that they are not in the United Kingdom and are not British subjects. There is another Clause which has to be read in conjunction with that, namely. Clause 35, which applies this Bill to all Government Departments and says in Subsection (2) that in the definition ot "Government Departments" shall be included reference to any department of, or person acting on behalf of … any of His Majesty's Governments outside the United Kingdom. In the light of those two Clauses the expression "person" in Clause 5, which we are seeking to amend, becomes of great importance, because the effect of Clause 5 is to say that no person in the world-and "no person" includes any Government of any Dominion-shall do certain things. This is the main operative Clause forbidding people to place sums to the credit of other persons, either in England or outside England, as the case may be. For instance, Clause 5 (a) says no person shall make any payment to or for the credit of a person resident outside the scheduled territories. It says that no person shall do it in the United Kingdom. But it is not necessary, under this Clause, for the person to be in the United Kingdom. I think the Government would probably admit that is a proper construction of this Clause. That is what is sought to be prevented under this Clause, in relation to an action in the United Kingdom when the person may be in any part of the world. Let me put that in another way, in order to clear my own mind. Clause 5 seeks to prevent any person—which includes anybody in the world, including the Government of a Dominion—from doing certain things in this country. It seems to us that such a Clause is unnecessarily wide. First, it is contrary to the privilege of nations for a Government to seek to make it a criminal offence for persons outside, say, the United Kingdom to do certain acts inside the United Kingdom.

The proper way, in accordance with international law—there are certain exceptions but, in my submission, this does not come within the exceptions—is for the jurisdiction of England to operate on the person in the United Kingdom, and if somebody outside the United Kingdom seeks to break our Exchange Regulations the criminal law ought to operate on his agent in this country, and not on himself. Consider this instance. Somebody in Switzerland seeks to make a payment to an American who is resident outside the United Kingdom, but who happens to be in London. In my submission, it is wrong for the United Kingdom to seek to make that Swiss person subject to our criminal law. The right way of doing it is to make the provision operate on the agent of the Swiss person in this country, who may be a banker or other agent, and to make it a criminal offence on his part to make the payment to the American citizen.

The other aspect in relation to this provision which is unconstitutional is, as I say, in connection with Clause 35, which says that "person" shall include any Dominion Government. In my submission, it is unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Government to seek to make the Government of a Dominion, such as Australia or New Zealand, amenable to our criminal or civil law by saying they shall or shall not do certain things in their own country. I read the two Clauses together. It would be contrary to the provisions of the Clause for the Australian Government in Canberra, or for a department of that Government, to order the payment by their agent in this country to a resident outside the United Kingdom who happened to be in this country. During the Committee stage we were assured that that reading was not correct. If it is not, I should very much like the learned Solicitor-General or the Financial Secretary to tell us why those two Clauses should not be read together.

The third point, which is also connected with the Dominions, is that it is not right for this country to seek to impose its legislation inside a Dominion, even if it is right for this country to make offences by persons outside this country offences against our law. What I mean is this. Suppose the argument I addressed in regard to the Swiss subject—

Forward to