§ Mr. BrittanI beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 10, line 30, leave out from first "of" to end of line 31 and insert "£200".
It is a technical amendment to make the maximum penalties imposable for breaches of the procedures described in clause 9(4) consistent with the four-point scale of summary fines of £50, £200, £500 and £1,000 introduced by the Criminal Law Act 1977.
That Act had the objective of establishing a more rational penalty structure as regards summary penalties. It is therefore right that whenever practicable we ensure that the penalties inserted in legislation subsequent to the Act conform to the new scale. As originally drafted, they did not.
A maximum penalty of £200 is generally regarded as adequate for what are really breaches of procedure. For more serious offences, it is not a maximum and such offences may be prosecuted under the wider powers available to the Customs and Excise authorities.
§ Mr. George CunninghamThe amendment affords the opportunity to ask the Minister where matters stand with regard to Tynwald legislation. When I saw the amendment, I wondered whether it was 1619 being moved because an amendment had been carried to the Tynwald legislation on the same point. I gather from what the Minister said that that is not so and is not the origin of the Government's amendment.
Has the Tynwald legislation been introduced or passed? If the Minister needs time to answer, I am happy to relax for the moment. It would be useful to know whether the Tynwald legislation has been introduced. It is not easy for a Member of the House to find out a great deal about what happens in the Isle of Man.
A few moments ago the Minister of State, Treasury said that the Government have decided not to lay the PA report in the Library of the House. However, the report is there and I do not object to that. I believe that he said that it was not necessary or desirable for it to be laid there. Nevertheless, it would be useful to have a means of keeping track of what is happening in the Isle of Man, a better means than we have at the moment. I cannot ascertain the position with the Tynwald legislation that is parallel to this legislation. I hope that one of the Ministers will clear up that point and tell us whether the origins of the amendment had anything to do with that consideration. Are we following a change that has been made in the Tynwald legislation?
§ Mr. DalyellWhile the Minister is digesting that question—
§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)The hon, and learned Gentleman has got the answer—he just has to read it.
§ Mr. DalyellWhile the Minister is reading his answer, I should like to ask the same question in another form. The Minister of State, Home Office and I took part endlessly over two years in discussions on tangentially related problems. How does a so-called superior Parliament ascertain what is going on in a subordinate Parliament in part of a country that is supposed to be united?
§ Mr. BrittanWith the greatest respect, I find it difficult to see how the question of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) relates to the Bill or, still less, to the amendment. It has not been 1620 difficult to establish, by consultation with the island authorities, what is happening in their legislation.
I reaffirm what I said in moving the amendment. Its purpose is to ensure conformity with our criminal law procedures. We are discussing penalties in the United Kingdom. That has nothing to do with any legislation that is going through Tynwald. The Isle of Man Transfer of Functions Bill in Tynwald has nearly completed all the stages but has not yet been forwarded for Royal Assent.
The Isle of Man is not part of the EEC for fiscal or general economic purposes. However, for customs purposes and certain aspects of the common agricultural policy it is part of the EEC. I say that with some diffidence because I am not sure that it is in order to mention that in connection with this amendment. However, having said that, I reassure the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) of its purpose and origin.
§ Mr. DalyellTruncating what the Minister has said, is it right that in relation to the EEC the island has its cake and eats it? It seems to be getting the best of both worlds—the advantages of one without the disadvantages of the other. Is that being unfair?
§ Mr. BrittanThat is neither a truncation nor an expansion of my remarks. It is an expression of an opinion to which the hon. Gentleman is entitled.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.