§ Mr. JoplingI beg to move, amendment No. 3, in page 8, line 20, leave out first 'a fine' and insert
'imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both,'.The House will recall that the hon. Member for Islington, North moved an amendment in Committee that would technically have provided for a term of imprisonment for an unlimited duration. However, he withdrew his amendment on my assurance that we would reconsider the matter of penalties. Several hon. Members in Committee supported the idea that the courts should have an option between a fine and imprisonment for offences under the Bill.I am pleased to move the amendment, which I hope will meet with the approval of the House. It provides that, on conviction on indictment—that is, by a jury—the court can sentence the offender to a maximum of two years' imprisonment or to an unlimited fine or to both. However, imprisonment would not be available on a summary conviction.
Following consultations with the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office, I have been led to conclude that those penalties are appropriate given the special situation of Antarctica, in particular its distance from the United Kingdom and the consequent difficulties of policing it, and the paramount need to protect its pristine ecological state and its priceless flora and fauna.
There seems to be no justification for providing for imprisonment on summary conviction. Imprisonment should be reserved for the worst examples of the offences 588 that merit trial by jury. I hope, as I am sure all hon. Members hope, that we shall not see offences of that magnitude or gravity.
Although an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment will probably be sufficient in the most serious cases, it is possible to envisage cases in which a term of imprisonment is the only appropriate way to deal with the crime and to serve as a deterrent to others. The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, North for raising the matter in Committee. I hope that he will feel that the amendment meets the point that he helpfully raised with us.
§ Mr. CorbynI do not normally favour a tough sentencing policy, because I do not believe that that necessarily solves the problems of crime. However, I recognise that a sentencing policy can be a deterrent. I moved my amendment in Committee because we are talking about potential breaches of the treaty and the law in relation to which oil and mineral companies may try to undertake illegal exploration for minerals on the continent. Clearly, the prizes of such activity are potentially enormous. Therefore, the deterrent effect of a fine—albeit an unlimited fine—would be small beer to a company. The possibility of imprisonment might concentrate the minds of the senior directors.
§ Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam)While the hon. Gentleman quite rightly said that there may be a danger of illegal exploration for minerals, does he agree that pressure groups like Greenpeace might be in the same category if they were acting illegally in pursuance of their own aims? Does he agree that those groups must recognise that they will be subject to the same disciplines?
§ Mr. CorbynIt is unfortunate to try to place Greenpeace in the same category as a mineral company. Greenpeace has rather different objectives, which I suggest are wholly more peaceful. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has perhaps not followed these matters very closely. If she were to read the history of the subject, she would understand that Greenpeace campaigned for a permit system in the first place. Greenpeace suggested the amendment that I tabled in Committee about the imprisonment of offenders. Greenpeace wants to protect the Antarctic from forces that may wish to do it harm. I have no idea what illegal activities the hon. Lady suggests.
I disagree with the amendment only in relation to the term of imprisonment. My amendment left it open to the courts to decide what the sentencing policy should be, the length and term of imprisonment and the prison venue. I have not said whether the prison should be in the Antarctic. It might be expensive to administer a prison in the Antarctic, but it is an interesting idea.
I merely question whether two years is appropriate, because we are talking about potentially serious damage. The reason why I say that it is serious is simple. For example, if a company started illegally exploring for oil, or, indeed, an oil spill took place from a vessel that was supporting exploration activities, the damage would be enormous. We are talking about a cold environment, slow biodegradation of oil or anything else that is spilt in the sea, and the danger of oil getting under the ice shelf. The dangers are enormous.
The distances are also enormous for any help to get there to assist with a clean-up operation or, indeed, an accident. Anyone who is considering illegal mining 589 activities or scientific activities in the Antarctic should get a severe warning from the Bill. That warning would be much better heeded if the prospect of managing directors and others going to prison is dealt with.
1 pm
I want to make two brief points in addition to that. First, in Committee, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised a number of interesting and important points about the applicability of Scottish law to the Antarctic, and whether English law would have supremacy over Scottish law in such matters, because Scottish law is not written on to the face of the Bill. At the end of the many discussions on that point, I was left with the impression that the Minister would reflect further on what the hon. Gentleman was promoting. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman spoke on this amendment, he would be able to help us on the matter. I hope that, that important point will be dealt with.
Secondly, the Antarctic is in a strange legal position, in that it is a huge continent; no one is permanently resident there. There are claims by a number of countries on the land mass of the Antarctic and the sea area. Most of the claims are overlapping and are, therefore, potentially in conflict. For example, Britain, Chile and Argentina all claim part of the continent. There is also a large unclaimed part of the continent. As a result, there is a legal minefield when prosecuting someone for illegal activities.
The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale correctly pointed out that when a non-signatory nation is involved in an illegal expedition, it is extremely difficult to pursue a prosecution against it. That is why it is important that the House not only passes the Bill into our national legislation but urges all the other 26 treaty nations to do the same. We need a United Nations statement of support for legislation, or much wider acceptance of the Madrid protocol by non-treaty nations. That is extremely important.
Earlier, we talked about the merchant shipping industry and the way in which flags of convenience abuse shipping law around the world. One could have exactly the same situation in which explorations and investigations were carried out illegally by nationals from non-treaty nations, which effectively go beyond the arm of the law in that matter.
There is also a need for a diplomatic offensive by the treaty nations, once it has been agreed by national Parliaments, to ensure that the importance and effect of protecting the Antarctic environment is not undermined. The Madrid protocol was an enormous step forward, but it could easily be destroyed by illegal activities by non-signatory nations.
§ Mr. JoplingI take the point of the hon. Member for Islington, North about the intricacies of Scottish and English law. I can only repeat what I said in Committee—I absolutely refuse to get into the detail of that matter. [Interruption.] The Minister is a lawyer, which I am not. He is much more capable of dealing with those points than I am.
With regard to the other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman, I take it that the general tone of what he said was that he welcomed the amendment. On that basis, I hope that the House will accept it.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory)I shall be brief. In Committee, we discussed the question of Scottish law. I think that we can take it from the absence of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who raised the matter—he is probably in Orkney now—that he was satisfied with the answer that we were able to give him. The vacancies on the Liberal Democrat Benches today probably mean that the party is satisfied with the Bill in its entirety and does not wish to scrutinise it any further. I cannot speak for Liberal Democrats, but their absence must be trying to tell us something.
As regards the other matter that was raised quite fairly by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—the more general issue of the enforcement of jurisdiction— I should like to return to that if I may in the slightly more general debate which we will have at Third Reading.
§ Mr. CorbynI would be the last person in the world to speak for the Liberal Democrats on this matter, and I would not want there to be any confusion in the House. I must say that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was not happy when he talked to me after the Committee. There is a perfectly serious point to be made about the primacy of English or Scottish law, because, under the Act of Union between England and Scotland, there is supposed to be equality of provision in law between both countries.
The absence of a reference to Scottish law in this Bill seems to suggest either that Scottish law applies automatically, because it is not mentioned, or that it does not apply at all and that anyone who is found guilty of, or is charged with, a breach of the law in the Antarctic will therefore be tried under English law.
There are significant differences in representation and methods of court procedures between English and Scottish law. I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether—perhaps when the Bill goes to the Lords—the Law Officers would be able to give advice and some interpretation on the matter. The hon. Gentleman's point was not a narrow one. I understand that he has to be in Orkney today, and that is why he is not here.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryWe discussed the matter at some length in Committee and I am certainly satisfied that the Bill as it stands is satisfactory and has adequate precedents in other legislation. Exactly the same approach is adopted, for instance, in the Continental Shelf Act 1964, and I am not aware of difficulties that have arisen in implementing or enforcing that legislation.
§ Mr. Tom ClarkeBriefly on that point, I think that the House might have expected a little more detail from the Minister on the issue of Scottish law raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Incidentally, I think that the last time that an hon. Member from Islington interfered—if I may use that word—in Scottish affairs—a constitutional crisis erupted thereafter which has not been totally resolved.
If we are not able to clarify the matter during our proceedings, we would expect that, should the Bill go to another place, the Lord Chancellor—with his background—would perhaps produce a little more detail.
§ Amendment agreed to.