David Heath (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons & Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, Cabinet Office; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Again, I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division, but it is important that the Committee at least consider whether we should have jurisdiction for fraud beyond our national jurisdiction. The issue was discussed in the gestation of the Bill and there are conflicting views on it. I do not advocate international jurisdiction other than in clearly defined cases. When we debated the previous amendment, we discussed US jurisdictions, some of which claim extraordinary extraterritorial scope, way beyond what is reasonable in either law or common sense, particularly in commercial law.

With fraud, there is great cause for concern in some areas, as it can easily be perpetrated on British citizens from outside our national jurisdiction. It is not like knocking someone on the head; one is unlikely to be standing in another jurisdiction—except, perhaps, Gretna Green—and knocking on the head someone within the confines of England and Wales. Fraud is an offence of a different sort, which can easily be perpetrated from abroad.

I know that there is much collaboration and co-operation between law enforcement and prosecuting authorities in other countries to deal with this worldwide phenomenon, and I certainly do not propose that the English and Welsh prosecuting authorities should seek to investigate and prosecute fraud wherever it happens in the world, which would be absurd, but there are occasions on which fraud has an international dimension, which might obstruct the successful prosecution of a fraud perpetrated on someone in this country—possibly by a British national who is in another jurisdiction. There might be difficulties because of the clear territorial limits on the offences as they stand in securing a successful prosecution.

Let me give a few brief examples. The first is obvious: multinational corporations. We live in an increasingly multinational, global, commercial world, which means that bodies corporate often work in many countries and jurisdictions and have subsidiaries that might not trade in this country. A company with an office in the great state of Delaware, or, worse, in Liberia, might perpetrate fraud against an individual or company in the United Kingdom. I want it to be clear that there will not be a defence that allows a company operating in this country that has committed an offence to avoid successful prosecution by arranging its business so that the fraud is effectively perpetrated by a subsidiary company that is not registered or trading from this country, but is nevertheless under the control of that British company. I hope that that is covered by the Bill, but I am not confident that it is.

My second example is unsolicited mail. We and our constituents receive torrents of unsolicited mail, some of which I believe constitutes fraud. A few years ago, I brought to Parliament’s attention a case in which a clairvoyant was threatening vulnerable people with consequences through her enhanced psychic awareness. She said that major events would occur if the targeted  person did not secure her protection by virtue of an amulet or other device, which would protect her from the inevitable consequences of not paying over money to an address abroad so as to secure that protection.

That abhorrent correspondence was carried through the Royal Mail from a business address in the Netherlands, and was of great concern to the people who were vulnerable to that sort of material. I think that that fraud would not be prosecutable under the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will say that it would be, but I do not think that he can. I think that other measures need to be taken.

Frankly, it appals me that despite the fact that these matters are drawn to the attention of Royal Mail, it, as a carrier, is still prepared to take bulk mailings of extremely questionable material, but that is by the by. I want to ensure that when fraudulent materials that are sent through the post are involved, the matter can be prosecuted if it is possible to secure an extradition and an arrest.

Some unsolicited mail is sent electronically. We are all familiar with the famous west African scam, which seems to have gone global—it is no longer just relatives of President Abacha who will have untold amounts of money available if they can persuade people to part with a small amount to establish a new bank account. Relatives of President Marcos in the Philippines, or any recently deposed despots who appear to have many relatives with access to large amounts of money, say that all they need is a British bank account so as to secure untold riches for the unsuspecting recipient of their communication.

Most people are aware that this is a scam, but there must be some who are not or it would not continue. Some unfortunates must lose a lot of money as a result, and it is important for us to provide as much legal protection as possible for those people.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to something that was brought to my attention in my constituency surgery last week, and it is a new one on me. A gentleman came in outraged because he had applied for death certificates on the internet and had been charged in euros. His original outrage related to the fact that a Department—part of the British Government—was charging in euros rather than pounds sterling, which is the sort of complaint that we get in my part of the world. He thought that an extraordinary state of affairs.

I investigated the matter because I thought it sounded odd and I uncovered the fact that a website purporting to be a British Government website—it even has the appellation .gov—is selling Government certificates to people who do not know better. It appears in the search engines above the Government’s own websites and sells certificates at a higher cost than they do. The person concerned buys forms for £7 from the Government and sells them for £21 as a private enterprise while purporting to be a Department.

The view of the registrar’s department was that there is no illegality in such transactions, although it obviously deplores and would like to deal with them. I hope that they will be illegal under the new measure, because it would be a misrepresentation if a person purported to be connected with the Government when they were not. Even so, I am not convinced that such a  thing could successfully be prosecuted under the Bill because the person involved in the case that I cited is based in France, in spite of the fact that he has a .gov.UK website.

There are strong arguments for international jurisdiction. The Under-Secretary’s argument at the conclusion of the debate on Second Reading drew a distinction between corruption and fraud. I would like the Bill to have included corruption, but my amendments were out of order in that respect, which is right. He said:

“The resource implications for ‘policing’ UK nationals worldwide for fraud are therefore much larger. The cost would need to be carefully examined before any party committed itself to it.”—[Official Report, 12 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 580.]

Yes, of course. The same applies to sexual offences in respect of international jurisdiction, but we cannot police every transaction and investigate every allegation.

However, the capacity to indict and successfully prosecute is an important part of the armoury of our national jurisdiction on the offence because it can so easily be perpetrated by someone outside our territorial boundaries. I invite the Solicitor-General to comment on my remarks, explain the reasoning that has led the Government to believe that we should seek no form of international jurisdiction in the Bill, and say whether they will keep that position under review or whether they will return to it.

See this speech in context