HL Deb 23 July 1964 vol 260 cc825-7

4.8 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Directions with respect to documents required by foreign courts, etc.]:

LORD CHESHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert: () For the purposes of this section any request or demand for the supply of a document or information which, pursuant to the requirement of any court, tribunal or authority of a foreign country, is addressed to a person in the United Kingdom shall be treated as a requirement to produce or furnish that document or information to that court, tribunal or authority, and directions under this section may be given accordingly for prohibiting compliance therewith.

The noble Lord said: I have one Amendment, modest in size but reasonably important, to ask the Committee to accept. As I explained the other day, a clause of the Bill enables the Minister to protect documents and information from having to be produced or furnished in response to a requirement imposed directly on a person which, of course, includes a company in the United Kingdom, by a foreign country or authority. This Amendment will enable him to extend this protection to cases where the requirement is imposed indirectly—for instance, when an American court or authority orders a parent company in America to get from its British subsidiary a document located in the United Kingdom. This Amendment will enable the Minister concerned to give directions under Clause 2 of the Bill in such a case, if he could have done so had the demand been made directly to the British subsidiary company.

It is drawn widely enough to cover a case where the request is made by a foreign subsidiary to its British parent and also where the request passes between two companies, both of which are subsidiaries of a parent company in a third country. Without this protection in such a case a British company might feel that they are obliged to protect their associates in another country by complying with the request. But if they are backed by a direction of the Minister of the Crown not to supply the document, then I think it is reasonable to suppose that the foreign associate would be able to plead that they had tried to secure the document in question, but that it was against the law of the country for the other company to supply it. The Amendment is really for the purpose of making certain that there is no loophole. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 4, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD SILKIN

I do not rise to oppose this Amendment, but I am not quite clear about the position. A person who is required to give information to a foreign country and does not do so is liable to a penalty or to be committed for contempt of court or can be dealt with in some other way under the law of the country that requests the information. If that person does give the information, then under this Amendment he is liable to be penalised for giving it. I raised this point on Second Reading and the noble Lord said that this was better than the existing position. I do not think that the position of a person who is required to give information is very satisfactory. I can only hope that the discussions that are taking place will obviate putting any British subject in the position of having to break either the law of a foreign country or the law of this country. But it is a bargaining point, I suppose, and I hope it will be resolved in the next few days.

LORD CHESHAM

I am sorry if I have not made this matter as clear as I had hoped. I certainly echo the noble Lord's wish, that this will never have to be put into force. I said so on the last occasion. This Amendment does not introduce any new point of principle, but merely applies the principle already in the Bill by seeking to provide protection by indirect means. We should stop this loophole if we are going to have the Bill, but I still hope that it will not be used.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of July 20) Report received. Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.