HC Deb 06 July 1966 vol 731 cc521-5
Mr. Prentice

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 22, at the end to insert: or, in the event of his death, at the expense of his personal representatives acting as such". This Amendment covers a point which was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). He will recall that I undertook to consider it between then and now. I promised that what he wished to achieve would be done either by an Amendment in this form or, possibly, by deletion of subsection (3). It is a matter I have discussed with the representatives of the Opposition and I know they prefer an Amendment in this form.

Subsection (3) makes it clear that the duty of a person paying the cost of a development is to obtain a licence, and this Amendment extends the provision to the heirs of a licensee after the licensee's decease and makes it lawful for the licence to remain valid without interruption, or without the need for the heirs or legal representatives to apply for a new licence.

The Amendment achieves the object which the hon. Member had in mind, and I hope that it will be acceptable to him and to the House in this form.

Mr. Costain

I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister for carrying out his promise by moving this Amendment. It does relieve a large part of my apprehension. It does mean there will be continuity of licence.

However, I am bound to point out to him and to the House that what we are doing now is not only giving the right for the licence to be transferred to the heirs of the deceased but also incidentally passing on to the heir a liability to a prison sentence, because if the original licensee exceeded the licence, and the licence is transferred to the heir, then, according to the Bill, as I read it, the person who inherits the licence is made culpable for the sins of the father: the sins of the father would be passed on to the children.

I am somewhat relieved that—

Mr. Prentice

The hon. Member will be aware that there is a defence available later in the Clause which would be available to anyone in this position who could show that he did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to have known the conditions of the licence. I would have thought that the hon. Member would have accepted that as being a reasonable defence, unless the person concerned was deliberately trying to evade the law on this point.

Mr. Costain

I am very grateful to the Minister for anticipating the very words I was going to say, and I was about to make the point that those very factors were inserted into the Clause when we were in Committee because of pressure we exerted upon him. Indeed, the technical Press has called the Committee on this Bill Parliament at its best. It was because of the technical Amendments that we drew that comment from the technical Press.

I shall not delay the House any more than is necessary, but there is just one further point on the licence. In Committee—it was on 12th May—I raised the problem of what happens in amalgamations—when there is an amalgamation of two companies and the licence is transferred to the company taken over. The Minister undertook then to have a look at the situation. He has obviously found some difficulty in getting an Amendment down to cover it. I appreciate that, because when, in Committee, we were trying to get Amendments down about it, we found it difficult.

The Minister said at that time that he was very anxious that licences should not be bought and sold, and we accepted that. It is a very valid point. We do not want to have licences in the market. Nevertheless, there will be cases of genuine takeover bids with genuine amalgamations of factories—possibly of adjoining factories. If the licence is transferred to the amalgamation, that is all right; but I would point out to the Minister that if one of the factories carried on, say maintenance, or alteration, work it might inadvertently break the licensing law; through the amalgamating of the two together there might be over-spending of money inadvertently. I think that it would relieve our worry if the Minister would make a brief statement on this point. I am sure that he will take the view that that would be an inadvertent breaking of the law. If he would make this point he would relieve our anxiety and satisfy our problem.

Mr. Prentice

If I may have leave to speak again, I would say, first, that the hon. Member is correct in saying that we were anxious to avoid a situation in which licences themselves could be bought and sold. This was the major objection to the other half of the Amendment the hon. Member moved in Committee. If the main licence lapsed after the takeover bid in the circumstances he has mentioned the person concerned could apply again, and we would take into account all the circumstances. The hon. Member was instancing a hypothetical concern in circumstances favourable to it, and in circumstances as favourable as that there would be in those circumstances no difficulty, although we would, of course, have to look at the merits of each case as it arose.

As for inadvertently breaking the law, I think that the same remark applies that I made when I interrupted the hon. Gentleman just now. There is a defence provided for this, provided that the conditions were fulfilled for the defence, as laid down in the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.