HC Deb 10 January 1918 vol 101 cc344-6

(1) If any person carries on the business of extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing in any metal or metallic ore in contravention of this Act without a licence, he shall on an information being laid by or with the consent of the Board of Trade be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine of one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine:

Provided that the provision as to informations being laid by or with the consent of the Board of Trade shall not apply to Scotland.

(2) If any person refuses or neglects to furnish any information which under this Act is required to be furnished within the time within which it is to be furnished, or knowingly furnishes any information required to be furnished under this Act which is false in any material particular, or having custody of any book or document which a person is authorised to inspect under this Act, refuses or wilfully neglects to produce the book or document for inspection, or forges or fraudulently alters or uses or permits to be fraudulently used any licence issued under this Act, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "of" ["the business of extracting"], insert the word "winning." —[Mr. Brunner.]

Leave out the words "with the consent" ["with the consent of the Board of Trade be liable"], and insert instead thereof the words "on behalf."—[Mr. Hemmerde.]

Mr. HOLT

I beg to move to leave out the words "on conviction or indictment to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years or."

The object of the Amendment is to get rid of the penalty of two years' hard labour and leave it at either a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or a fine of £100, or both.

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

I should like to ask whether the fine of £100 is an obligatory sum? I rather think it is, but surely in the case of a large firm which is out to defeat justice it is too little, and in the case of a firm which makes an accidental slip it is too much! Had you not better say a fine not exceeding £100 or not exceeding £1,000, but, at all events, give the Court the right to fix the sum?

Mr. CLYDE

I am quite willing to consider that point later on. The words might be altered to "a fine not exceeding £100 per day."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "with the consent" ["with the consent of the Board of Trade shall not apply"], and insert instead thereof the words "on behalf."—[Mr. Hemmerde.]

Mr. BRUNNER

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "person" ["If any person refuses"], to insert the words "able to give information."

I should like to ask the Lord Advocate whether these words are not necessary here I copied them out of Clause 2. It they are not necessary, I shall not press it.

Mr. CLYDE

I do not think they are necessary. After all, the Clause relates to a person who refuses or neglects to furnish information. If he has not any information, he cannot refuse to give it. I think it is quite safe as it stands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN

With regard to the hon. Member's proposed new Sub-section (4), he will observe that the Government has a new Clause on that same question, I think, very much in the same form. I find, on looking at the form of other Bills, that it has been usual to put this in as a new Clause by itself It is not really in essence part of the Clause. I think it. had better come up in the form of a new Clause.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.