HC Deb 07 April 1964 vol 692 cc880-5
Mr. T. Fraser

I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end to insert: (3) It shall be the duty of the Minister to attach to any licence granted under section 1 of this Act a direction specifying, in accordance with any Order in Council made under this section, the law of what part of the United Kingdom shall apply and the part of the United Kingdom in which the courts have jurisdiction in respect of any act or omission referred to in the foregoing provisions of this section. It is clear from our earlier discussions on the Bill that in the opinion of the Minister and his advisers subsection (1) of Clause 3 applies to the criminal law and subsection (2) to the civil law. Subsection (2) reads: Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the determination, in accordance with the law in force in such part of the United Kingdom as may be specified in the Order, of questions arising out of acts or omissions taking place in a designated area, or in any part of such an area… On a great many occasions when we were discussing both subsection (1) and subsection (2) the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government wished to make the Clause as clear as human ingenuity could make it. There was a good deal of discussion, particularly on subsection (2), arising out of the proposition that in applying the civil law to a designated area or any part of a designated area by an Order in Council the Government would, perhaps by accident, be applying also a part of the criminal law because they would apply particular Acts, and in particular provision is made in this Bill in the Clause dealing with radioactive substances for the application of a civil law which takes with it a considerable and important part of the criminal law.

I wondered whether in future the courts would construe subsection (1) as applying to the criminal law and subsection (2) as applying exclusively to the civil law. I found at the end of the day, having listened to all the discussion on both subsections, that a good part of our criminal law would be called into play by the application of subsection (2). All of us in Committee thought it would be ridiculous if there were criminal proceedings in one part of the United Kingdom, for example in Scotland, arising out of an incident on an installation in the North Sea, and after criminal proceedings had taken place in a Scottish court, we found that an Order in Council had been made attaching the civil law of England not Scotland to the designated area or the part of the designated area, and arising out of the same incident in respect of which criminal proceedings had been taken, civil proceedings were then embarked upon, those civil proceedings having to take place in an English court.

7.30 p.m.

The Committee thought this ridiculous, and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary agreed. We heard many undertakings by the Government to look at this again before the Report stage. Before withdrawing an Amendment to leave out subsection (2), which I moved for purposes of discussion, I said that if the Government did not find it possible to move an appropriate Amendment to clarify the position we would endeavour to do so, and that is what we have done. We seek to make it the …duty of the Minister to attach to any licence granted under section 1 of this Act a direction specifying, in accordance with any Order in Council made under this section, the law of what part of the United Kingdom shall apply and the part of the United Kingdom in which the courts have jurisdiction in respect of any act of omission referred to in the foregoing provisions of this section. This Amendment would tie together the provisions of subsections (1) and (2), concerning both criminal and civil law, in ensuring that a person granted a licence was informed as to which part of the United Kingdom the installation would be legally subject to.

The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), who is associated with a company which has been drilling in the North Sea for many years, said in Committee that he had always assumed that the law that would apply in respect of installations far out at sea would be the law applicable in the port from which the servicing was carried out That seems a sensible suggestion. At present, however, the Bill does not say that this is the law that will apply. I hope that if the Minister accepts the. Amendment he will, when granting a licence, attach to it the law of that part of the United Kingdom in which the servicing port is situated. All we have in mind is that licensees and all others concerned should know from the outset which law will apply to an installation erected at sea under a licence issued under the Bill. Some Amendment is certainly required, and I hope that our words will be acceptable to the Government.

If we do not put this matter right now, perhaps we shall not be able to do so, for this Bill began in another place and I suspect that in view of all the Amendments we have made that House will probably feel that it has seen enough of the Bill and will be content to accept the situation. If their Lordships do not accept the Amendments, then I suppose that that will be an end to the matter. I hope this Amendment commends itself to the Minister. If it does not, I fear that the Bill will be unsatisfactory in that civil and criminal proceedings may apply to the same types of case.

Mr. Peyton

I am sorry that it should fall to me slightly to diminish the atmosphere of harmony which has prevailed so far, but I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment. I hope, however, that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) will find some satisfaction in some of my remarks.

I understand that the Amendment, because it would apply to that part of the law which will, so to speak, be handled by Order in Council, would apply only to the civil law, since the criminal law is handled almost completely by Clause 3(1). I am convinced that the Amendment would not achieve its purpose. First, the licence will be a contractual document which will bind only the parties to that contract and, secondly, the licence will be powerless in itself to confer jurisdiction upon the courts of law.

The Order in Council will cover the whole of a designated area. Where the area concerned is off the coasts of the two countries then the Order itself will specify a line more or less continuing the boundary between the two countries, north of which Scottish law will apply, with the case being heard in Scottish courts, and south of which English law will apply, with English courts having jurisdiction.

It is intended as a matter of administrative convenience that, where an application covers an area containing such a line, two licences will be issued. The intention is to make it clear that no single licence overlaps the boundary line, which will be specified in the Order. I hope that I have made myself clear.

The hon. Member recalled that we said we would do all that human ingenuity could manage to make the purpose of the Clause clear. After the most careful consideration of everything said by him and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) in Committee, we have come to the conclusion that human ingenuity in this case has shot its bolt and done its best. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted in Committee, this is not an easy matter, and in dealing with it now for the second time I am con- siderably comforted by the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, whom I regard on this occasion as defence in depth. My right hon. and learned Friend's presence makes me rather more comfortable in facing the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, although I appreciate very much the courtesy with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made this point in Committee.

The effect of Clause 3(1) is that a person whose conduct on an installation would have been a criminal offence had it taken place in the United Kingdom will, under Clause 11(1), be liable to prosecution in any place in the United Kingdom. This is a direct result of the Bill without the intervention of an Order in Council. The fact that a person may thus be exposed to criminal proceedings in two countries is not of itself novel. This is the position under the Merchant Shipping Acts, and careful examination of the experience under those Acts has not led the Government to believe that there is any need to have second thoughts about what we are doing here.

The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to the example, mentioned in Committee, of a man faced with criminal proceedings in Scotland and a civil action in England arising out of the same circumstances. It was asked whether this would not be ridiculous. However, this is quite a frequent occurrence. For example, a motorist crossing the frontier between Scotland and England might well be involved in an accident which would result in criminal proceedings at the place where the accident occurred, say Scotland, and a civil action afterwards in a court south of the border where it would be settled according to English law.

On second thoughts I am not as worried as when the hon. Member first confronted me with this example. It is quite unnecessary for me to remind the House that when a person has once been acquitted or convicted in respect of one act, he cannot be put in jeopardy a second time, no matter where the former proceedings took place, provided that he was tried and the case setttled by a court of competent jurisdiction.

It is true that subsection (2) is not confined expressly to the civil law, but I must emphasise that it is the Government's view, and we are quite satisfied that this is the case, that the criminal law is dealt with satisfactorily and adequately by subsection (1). Therefore, an Order in Council made under subsection (2) could neither affect nor override what had already been done perfectly satisfactorily in subsection (1). It is, therefore, generally true that subsection (2) is not concerned with criminal offences.

I wish that I could leave it there, but there is a slight complication, because under Clauses 6 and 7 Orders in Council may be used to apply both the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, and the Radioactive Substances Act, 1960. Both those Acts create offences and I have to concede that to that extent subsection (2) can be said to be concerned with offences; but I am obliged to say that it is open to argument whether Clauses 6 and 7 are strictly necessary. Clause 6, in particular, was included very much at the request of the Post Office, which has considerable and justifiable anxieties about this difficult problem.

I conclude by saying that the right hon. and learned Member for Newport expressed great anxiety about offences under the Licensing Acts. I hope that I am in a position to set those anxieties at rest. I am advised that nothing in the Bill will have the effect of extending to the Continental Shelf a licensing district. Licensing districts will remain permanently anchored to the earth land of the United Kingdom. I am, therefore, able to assure him that on his first visit to the Continental Shelf he will not be able to commit the offence which he has in contemplation, because it will not be possible.

I am unable to say what arrangements will be made for the supply of liquor on the Continental Shelf, but it appears from such examination as I have been able to make that there will be no closing time.

Amendment negatived.