HC Deb 18 November 1948 vol 458 cc618-20
Mr. Hollis (Devizes)

I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, to leave out "one hundred," and to insert, "ten."

In at any rate my preliminary moving of this Amendment, I need not detain the Committee for more than a few sentences, because I move the Amendment in the first instance only as a matter of principle in order to obtain the Government's explanation. The situation is simply that up till now foreign ships have been subject to a penalty of £10, which has now been raised to £100. There may be a good reason for that, or there may be a bad reason. I just do not know. My hon. Friend and I have put down this Amendment as a matter of principle, because in the Second Reading Debate the Postmaster-General passed over the first part of the Bill as substantially non-controversial, and did not mention this very drastic change of penalty.

It is very improper that the Committee should allow to pass such a change, drastically upgrading a penalty, without some adequate explanation being given—indeed, without any explanation being given. If an adequate explanation is given, my hon. Friend and I certainly will not press this Amendment to a Division. But there are far too many instances in these days when the Government think it sufficient to establish that there is a case for them to do something, and, having established that, to think it entitles them to impose the most drastic penalty without giving any explanation why they are doing so. I have no special interest in foreign ships, and they may deserve to have their penalties multiplied by 10. However, I do move this Amendment in order to extract from the Government an explanation why this has been done.

Mr. Wilfred Paling

The figure "one hundred" has been put in to bring the amount up to that which a Britisher can be fined. The foreigner was in an exceedingly advantageous position in that regard. Indeed, he still is, because our own seamen can be not only fined £100 but also imprisoned. That does not apply to a foreigner; it stops at the fine of £100. Therefore, although the amount may have been raised from £10 to £100, the foreigner is still at a great advantage.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller

As the Attorney-General is here, perhaps he would give me some indication of how the criminal liability imposed by the preceding Clauses will be enforced in relation to an offence committed by an aircraft, not for the time being in or over the United Kingdom or the said territorial waters. Secondly, as to the enforcement of an offence in relation to apparatus which may not be easily traceable back to the United Kingdom, it does seem a little unnecessary to pass provisions creating criminal offences by people outside the normal jurisdiction if, indeed, there is no possible measure by which the law contained in this Bill can be applied. I should be glad of an indication how it is intended to exercise the jurisdiction of the British courts in relation to an offence committed by apparatus outside the territorial waters—maybe in the air—which may perhaps be traced back to this country, and also an offence committed, for instance, by someone in an aircraft registered in Great Britain, when that aircraft is flying over the desert in the Middle East.

The Attorney-General

I apprehend that the short answer is that the Clause would be enforced, as other breaches of the criminal law are enforced, against such persons as are within the jurisdiction of the courts in this country.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.