OFFENCES UNDER PART II (Hansard, 11 June 1968)

§ Mr. Rees-Davies
I beg to move Amendment No. 143, in page 16, line 10, leave out '£400' and insert '£1,000'.

§ Mr. Speaker
It would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 144, also in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), in page 16, line 10, leave out from '£400' to end of line 11.

§ Mr. Rees-Davies
My right hon and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) dealt with part of this argument in Committee. The short point has been much emphasised by the Amendments which the Home Secretary has put 158 down. Our purpose is to secure that, instead of imprisoning those who infringe these provisions, we should hit them harder in the pocket. We propose to raise the fine from £400 if need be to £1,000 which, in a serious contravention, would not be excessive for gaming establishments. We would remove altogether the question of imprisonment under Clause 22.
Such a proposal has not been suggested for other Clauses, but I submit that this thread should run throughout the Bill. The Government are to give arbitrary power to the Board to strike off altogether and revoke the licence of an operator. The operators will have to be persons of impeccable respectability and integrity in order to obtain licences. The Board may strike off the premises and the gaming apparatus is subject to forfeit. The offending operator can be heavily punished by a fine as well as having his licence revoked without right of appeal. All these matters have completely changed the character of the Bill as originally set out.
It is our view, therefore, that we should not have the whole apparatus of sending an offender to prison. Our prisons are crowded and this is not an offence which requires imprisonment, except, of course, where the offender does not meet the fine, a circumstance for which there is provision elsewhere in our law. It is unnecessary to have an alternative of imprisonment. The substantial fine we propose would be sufficient deterrent and an adequate penalty without the need for imprisonment.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has argued that there is no justification for short-term imprisonment. Where a members' club or institute is involved in an offence, the certificate of registration may be withdrawn. A licence holder risks not only cancellation of his licence, but the disqualification of the premises and the withdrawal by the Gaming Board of its certificate of consent in respect of any other licences which he may hold.
If the Gaming Board is to exercise its powers effectively, it is clearly desirable that a convicting court should have power to mark out the worst cases by a penalty 159 more stringent than a fine, and in any case there are circumstances, particularly where a licence holder is personally concerned, in which a mere fine would be inadequate.
Breaches of Part II of the Bill, such as improper charging or having excessive odds in favour of a bank, might be exceedingly profitable and there are some who might be prepared to risk a fine and a loss of licence for a chance of the quick money to be made before detection. Here it is likely that the risk of a sentence, even though it may have to be a suspended sentence, of imprisonment, would provide a deterrent which the risk of fine would not. Certainly, a mere increase in the maximum fine from £400 to £1,000, as proposed by the Amendment, would be a quite insufficient substitute in such a case.
9.45 p.m.
Lastly, the Amendments as they stand are, therefore, unacceptable. We do, however, sympathise with the view that penalties of short terms of imprisonment should be avoided as far as possible. I would like to remind the hon. Gentleman that in this case, different from the position in many other parts of the Bill, there is here no alternative of proceeding by way of indictment with a maximum penalty of two years and an unlimited fine.

§ Mr. Rees-Davies
That is why I chose this Clause. Home Secretaries have now for successive years past said that the last thing one should do is to have short terms of imprisonment. We are trying to get rid of the alcoholics and drunks littering up our prisons. I cannot understand the argument for sending a man to prison for 12 to 30 months for a serious offence. Make the fine £2,000, if you think that it is required, but one is not going to sentence a man running a club under Clause 22 to three months' imprisonment. No reasonable magistrate would do it. We have got the strike-off power and all these powers now contained in the Bill in Committee. Would the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to look at this matter again?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Hon. Members should be as brief as possible in their interventions.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I concede that there is considerable merit in what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that it is well worth considering the possibility here of introducing into this part of the Bill the alternative of proceeding by way of indictment. This is a matter which could well be considered in another place.

§ Mr. Rees-Davies
On that assurance that the matter will receive detailed consideration, including the possibility of an alternative indictment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.