CLAUSE 3.—(Refusal and revocation of licences.) (Hansard, 14 February 1939)

§ Mr. Cross
I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, to leave out "at the time," and to insert "on the occasion."
This is a drafting Amendment. It is possible that the words which we propose to omit might be construed as meaning "on the date," and if that were so, it would leave an interval of time between the date of application for a licence and the date of issue of a licence during which, under the Clause, there would be no obligation upon the applicant to notify the Board of Trade of changes in the particulars of information that he had furnished when lodging his application. I am advised that the words which we 1596 propose to insert would cover the whole period from the lodging of the application to the time the licence is given.

§ Mr. Petherick
I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out from "or," to the end of line 9, and to insert: any person employed by, or associated with, the applicant or holder for the purposes of his business. This Amendment and a later Amendment in my name to this Clause are consequential upon my previous Amendment which was accepted by the President of the Board of Trade. I think the Amendment makes it clear that if the servant of the principal has been convicted or has infringed certain provisions of the Clause, the principal's licence can be withheld or rejected.

§ Mr. Spens
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. Cross
We welcome the extension of this Clause giving us wider powers covering those persons who might control individual businesses or partnerships while remaining in the background.

§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert: (iv) having supplied information which, to the knowledge of the applicant or holder, is false or misleading in a material respect I move this Amendment because I am anxious that there should be added to the grounds upon which the Board of Trade may revoke a licence the fact that an applicant has supplied information which he knew to be false, on which information presumably the licence was granted. I moved a similar Amendment in Committee, and I gathered that there was no difference of opinion between the President of the Board of Trade and me as to the desirability of the Board of Trade being in a position to revoke a licence if, in fact, the licence had been obtained on the basis of false information. I gathered, however, that the right hon. Gentleman took the view that that point was already covered in another part of the Bill. He undertook to look into the matter further, and I understand that today he still holds the view that the matter is already covered elsewhere in the Bill.
I will explain to the House in what way the President of the Board of Trade 1597 alleges that the matter is covered. First, he says that it is covered in Clause 15, because under that Clause it is possible to take criminal proceedings against a person who has supplied false information with a view to getting a licence, and such a person may be convicted, and under the Clause with which we are now dealing, where a person has been convicted of an offence under the Act, the Board of Trade may revoke the licence. I submit that that does not entirely cover the ground, because under these provisions it is necessary first of all to take criminal proceedings and it is only after the conviction has been obtained that the Board is in a position to revoke the licence. I submit it should be possible for the Board at any time, as soon as it discovers that false information has been supplied with a view to getting a licence, to revoke the licence, without necessarily having to go through the procedure of obtaining a conviction. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman says that the matter is covered by Clause 3, Sub-section (2, b), which reads: by reason of any other circumstances whatsoever which, in relation to any such person as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph, reflect discredit upon his method of conducting business. I do not know whether that covers the point or not. If it does, it does so in a very roundabout and circumlocutory way, and I see no reason why, if the President of the Board of Trade holds this power to revoke a licence where it has been obtained as a result of giving false information, it should not be stated in plain, unequivocal terms. My Amendment would make it clear beyond any doubt that the Board has the right to revoke a licence where it has been obtained on the basis of false information. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, after considering the matter again, will see his way to accept the Amendment. It is important that he should have this power, although he might not use it in cases where the mis-statement was unimportant or slight, to revoke a licence at once without having to go through any other procedure, and that there should be no doubt as to whether he has the power or not.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. Stanley
I have no quarrel with the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) 1598 as to the purpose of his Amendment. It is clear that a man who has knowingly supplied false information is a man who in no circumstances should be allowed to enjoy the privileges to be given under this Bill. When the hon. Gentleman moved a similar Amendment in Committee, I thought there was considerable point in his argument but I pointed out then that it would be possible, even as the Bill stood, to prosecute such a man under Clause 15 and then use that prosecution for the revocation of the licence under Clause 3 (2 b). I think the hon. Gentleman was right in arguing that might prove to be a long procedure and that if you discovered that a man had given false information, you should get that man off the register as soon as possible. Had it not been for another proposal on the Paper I should have tried to meet the hon. Gentleman's point, although perhaps not exactly in the form of this Amendment. I do intend however to accept the next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick).
I am advised that under the terms of that Amendment there will be no doubt that in a case such as the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I shall have power to revoke the licence without what the hon. Gentleman described as the circumlocutory and delaying method of prosecuting, and then proceeding under Clause 3. I think it is clear that without his Amendment, but under the new wording introduced by the next Amendment, I shall be able to do exactly what he wants. I would not wish to put into the Bill any words which were unnecessary, but in any case I do not think that, from the point of view of drafting, the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman are particularly suitable. If he looks at the three conditions in the Clause to which his Amendment proposes to add a fourth, he will see that all three relate to definite facts such as a conviction or a breach of the rules, whereas his Amendment would introduce a question of opinion as to whether false information had been supplied to the knowledge of the applicant or not. While entirely agreeing with the hon. Member's desire that anyone who supplies false information should have his licence revoked at the earliest possible moment, I hope that on the assurance that the next Amendment will fully cover his point he will withdraw this Amendment.

§ Mr. Silkin
I do not yet agree with the President of the Board of Trade on this matter, and I would like an assurance from him that he will have another look at the question to make certain.

§ Mr. Stanley
I shall certainly have another look. I have gone into the matter very carefully and have had the most categorical advice that the point is covered, but I will have a further talk with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General about it.

§ Mr. Silkin
On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Petherick
I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, to leave out from "which," to the end of line 25, and to insert: either are likely to lead to the improper conduct of business by, or reflect discredit upon the method of conducting business of, the applicant or holder or any person so employed by or associated with him as aforesaid. This is largely consequential on an Amendment which I moved earlier and to which the House agreed. Incidentally, I think it covers the point raised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin).

§ Mr. Duncan
I beg to second the Amendment.