§ 7.45 p.m.
§ Mr. CallaghanI beg to move, Amendment No. 8, in page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
§ (2) Neither the holder of the licence nor any person acting on his behalf or under any arrangement with him shall accept a cheque and give in exchange for it cash or tokens for enabling any person to take part in the gaming unless the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—
- (a)the cheque is not a post-dated cheque, and
- (b)it is exchanged for cash to an amount equal to the amount for which it is drawn, or is exchanged for tokens at the same rate as would apply if cash, to the amount for which the cheque is drawn, were given in exchange for them;
§ The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify Clause 16(2) so that it operates directly instead of by reference to subsection (1).
§ There is no substantial change in the purpose of the subsection, which is to make it clear that, notwithstanding the prohibitions of credit contained in subsection (1), cheques may be accepted in exchange for money or chips to be used in gaming on two conditions and not otherwise, namely,
- "(a) the cheque is not a post-dated cheque, and
- (b) it is exchanged for cash to an amount equal to the amount for which it is drawn, or is exchanged for tokens at the same rate as would apply if cash, to the amount for which the cheque is drawn, were given in exchange for them."
§ That is the purpose of the Amendment. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
§ Mr. BuckThis Amendment is a tidier way of effecting the concession relating 122 to the giving of cheques for chips which was set out in the Bill as originally drafted in a somewhat untidy way. This is an appropriate concession to make, but we should pause to consider what we are doing, because this is of some importance. We are now allowing cheques which are given not quite for the purpose of gaming but for the purpose of obtaining tokens whereby gaming can result to be enforceable. This is a change of some significance.
I must tell the House that my previous master, if I may so describe him, the late Sir John Hobson, for whom so many on both sides had the greatest respect, and I certainly had when I served as his Parliamentary Private Secretary, took the view that this was probably not an appropriate concession to make. I was in the unusual position of disagreeing with him concerning this matter. The main reason why I think it is right that we should have an Amendment such as that before us is that if we allow, with the limitations imposed by the new draft of the appropriate Clause, the enforce-ability of cheques given for chips, we are going some way to lessening the likelihood of strong-arm methods being adopted.
In the past, a person who has gone into a gaming establishment and presented a cheque for, say, £50 and received £50 worth of chips and thereafter has stopped the cheque has caused a certain amount of strong-arm methods to be indulged in by disreputable clubs to get back the money on the dishonoured cheque. Therefore, this seems an appropriate concession to make. I need not weary the House with the details of the differences of this Clause from the way it was effected in the earlier Bill. It is sufficient to say that it seems—and on this occasion I have done quite a bit of homework—to be a tidier way of effecting that which was effected earlier in a less tidy way.
That is is right that there should be limitations on the concession so that the cheque is not a post-dated cheque is self-evidently right; and that the amount given for the cheque in tokens should be directly relative to the cash from which the cheque is made out is again sensible and right. Otherwise, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, a concealed profit could be made in that a charge could be 123 made for cashing a cheque which similarly would be inappropriate. Therefore, we on this side welcome the simpler and tidier way of effecting a concession which, on the whole, we feel is an appropriate one to make.
§ Amendment agreed to.