§ Mr. EmeryI beg to move amendment no. 26, in page 43, line 23, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£5.000'.
I was under the impression that the Report stage was likely to be concluded by 8 p.m. and I am already about an hour and a half late for an engagement. Therefore, as I thank the Minister for consideration that he has given our amendments, I also apologise for the fact that I shall not be speaking on Third Reading.
The amendment deals with penalties for representative officers of foreign firms which decide to set up an office in Britain and which are deposit-taking institutions overseas. We had a similar debate in Committee, when the Minister agreed to look at the matter.
The amendment increases the size of the fine for anyone who does not comply with this clause and deal with the registration in time. At the moment the fine to be £1,000 if the registration has not made within a month of the establishment of the office. An institution has give written notice to the bank within that period.
I am inherently suspicious. Any properly constituted body which is going to set up a representative office in London or elsewhere in this country will do so only after considerable thought and planning. It will not do so overnight. It should and will discover the regulations, customs, and so on, of the financial institutions of this country well before that office is established.
9.30 p.m.
If a company has not registered within 30 days, there can be only two conclusions—either it is darned inefficient, which is worrying, or it has some reason for not doing so. I shall not bore the House with all the possible intents.
There can be no justification for a company not registering within the period. If a firm is inefficient it should not be registered at all. If it does not register for intent which we would not applaud, fine should be much more than £1,000, even if it is £1,000 per day. That would 1252 mean that a month's delay could lead to a fine of £30,000.
I am not sure that the courts would impose such a fine. My information is that they would not. Even if the courts did impose such a fine, the type of organisation that would not register because of an evil intent would not worry about £30,000, and might not even worry much about £150,000, which is the cumulative effect of a fine of £5,000 a day for a month. I am sure that there would not be many prosecutions, and I hope that the Minister will regard my proposal as an improvement to the Bill.
§ Mr. Denzil DaviesI have sympathy with the amendment. But there are other provisions in the Bill dealing with fines for not providing information. They are provided for in clauses 14, 16 and 17. The figure in those clauses is £1,000. That is not a conclusive argument, but the Treasury must consult the Home Office about fines. There must be some consistency in legislation. We could decide ourselves, but it would not be right to go against the advice of the Home Office.
The £ fine applies only to the first offence of failing to provide information. Under other provision in the Bill another £1,000 fine can be imposed for subsequent failures to provide information. The amendment would throw the other fines provisions in the Bill out of line. For that reason, I cannot accept it.
§ Mr. EmeryI am surprised at the Minister's reaction since he showed such staunch independence in Committee. I did not think that he would accept without question directives from the Home Office. I hoped that he would see that there is a considerable difference between fines involving internal information and those that might be imposed upon people from overseas who set up a registered office. In such cases business could be transacted and the organisation could disappear within a short period. There have been such examples.
I am sorry that the Minister will not accept the amendment. I hope that before the Bill goes to the House of Lords the Minister will accept the amendment and override the advice from the Home Office. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.