HC Deb 11 June 1968 vol 766 cc160-1
Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 16, line 37, at end insert 'prohibiting a licence under this Act from being held in respect of those premises during a period specified in the order'.

Mr. Speaker

With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

Clause 23 provides that Where a person is convicted of an offence committed in respect of any premises under subsection (1) of section 22 of this Act (including that subsection as applied by subsection (4) of that section), the court by which he is convicted may make a disqualification order under this section. (2) Subject to the next following subsection, a disqualification order made under this section may, at the discretion of the court, by either—

  1. (a) an order disqualifying the person convicted, for a period specified in the order, from holding a licence under this Act, or
  2. (b) an order prohibiting such a licence from being held in respect of the premises in respect of which the offence was committed, or
  3. (c) an order imposing both such a disqualification and such a prohibition."
Clause 24 makes provision for appeals and the hearing of other interested parties, such as the landlords, and for the revocation or variation of the Order, etc.

Either form of disqualification entails cancellation of the licence, but, whereas disqualification of the premises would be purely local in effect, disqualification of the licence holder might have much more far-reaching consequences for other premises held by that person throughout the country. These Amendments remove the power of the court to disqualify the holder of the licence while disqualifying the premises.

Other licence holders to be entrusted would have to be dealt with by Amendments to Schedule 2, which include in the new paragraph 31 a power for the Board, following cancellation of a licence, to apply to the court or the justices to revoke all or any of the certificates of consent issued to the individual so concerned. This amounts to disqualification until such time as the Board may be disposed to issue a new certificate on application. The second power which the Board has to disqualify premises is a power to be left to the courts and the justices because it is maintained that the considerations are entirely local.

Mr. Buck

The Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that these Amendments can be summed up in the following way. The courts now lose the power to disqualify persons and that is transferred to the Gaming Board. They retain power to disqualify premises. That seems to be sensible. It is in line with the whole tenor of the arguments put forward by hon. Members of the Opposition in Committee. We think it right that there should be a powerful and strong Board. The courts in this case should not have the power to disqualify persons because the considerations which arise here are of persons in their corporate sense.

I have a great respect for magistrates, but I think that it would be unfortunate if they could disqualify a corporate person and the effect was that the whole operations of a large company were to be prevented and that might cause distress. Now the Board is to have this additional power of disqualifying persons the courts should no longer have the power. I welcome these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Forward to