WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN GAMING TO WHICH PART II APPLIES (Hansard, 11 June 1968)

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 22, leave out from ' licence' to ' or' in line 28 and insert: ' who, at the time when he begins to take part in the gaming, is eligible to take part in it'.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this Amendment we are taking Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 14, 15 and 30.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
The first three Amendments provide an alternative procedure by which members and their guests can qualify to take part in gaming on any premises for the purposes of Clause 12. As it stands, subsection (2) provides that a person may not take part in gaming at licensed premises unless he is a member of the club specified in the licence and was admitted to membership in pursuance of an application made in person at those premises, and at least 48 hours have elapsed between the time of making application and the time when he resorts to gaming, or that he is a bona fide guest of a person so entitled to play on the premises.
That rule has been relaxed by Clause 20(2) with regard to bingo. In the case of bingo, applications for membership of a club need not be made in person and the period which has to elapse between acceptance to membership and gaming is 24 hours instead of 48.
As for casinos, the requirement of application in person at the premises followed by a 48-hour interval is intended as a check on impulse gaming and to give the licensee a proper opportunity of scrutinising intending players. After all, it is very much in the interests of the licensee that he should do this, because he can be answerable for the behaviour of players with his licence.
The difficulty about Clause 12 arises in the case of a club which has more than one club house, and very substantially in the case of a member who perhaps a very long time ago became a member otherwise than by personal application at the premises where he wishes to play. In order to qualify under Clause 12 as it stands at the moment, 118 he would have to resort to the procedure of resigning from the club and making a fresh application for membership at those premises. To get over this difficulty, these Amendments provide an alternative procedure whereby a person who is already a member of the club can give notice in writing or in person at the premises and so qualify. By qualifying himself, of course, a bona fide guest of his would qualify in the same way.
The Amendment to Clause 45, which deals with the service of documents, is consequential. The normal provisions applying to notices sent or given under the Bill are not appropriate to the notices of intent to be given under the Amendments to Clause 12.

§ Mr. Buck
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. This recasting is very sensible. However, I am not sure that I understand him entirely. The position of existing members of clubs, as I understand it, is that they will not be required to make any re-application in person.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
That is so, provided that notice in writing is sent. Under the original provision, there was no obligation to make application in writing, although in practice that would have happened. Now, notice in writing must be given 48 hours before gaming is permitted.

§ Mr. Buck
No doubt my noble friends is another place will wish to investigate further. It seems to be a somewhat cumbrous way of dealing with those who are already members of clubs to ensure that they make the further application which I understand will now be necessary.
One other point which I would draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention is a matter which I raised in Committee. There, we were given certain assurances about the position where premises were moved and a club changed from being a club in, say, one part of London to one in another part. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor said: We will certainly consider the first of these two Amendments. If it is a question of drafting and of moving premises, we will consider it. But I hope that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) will leave the drafting to the draftsmen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 14th March, 1968; c. 238.] 119 The Amendment that I put forward in Committee was to ensure that we did not have an absurd situation arising whereby Crockford's or any other gaming establishment moved from one set of premises to another and all the members having to reapply on the new premises. This matter was raised in Committee and I hope that it has been dealt with somewhere in the whole of this Clause or those which we are considering with it.
It is clearly a matter highly apposite to the Amendment we are considering, dealing with applications for membership, that Amendment No. 7 says that the application has to be made in person on the premises besides being in writing. This is the wording at the moment. This would apply if a club changed its premises.
I am still doubtful whether it is appropriate to make it obligatory for a person, before he becomes a member of a club of the character we are considering, to make the application in person on the premises. The arguments do not carry great validity. It seems absurd that a foreign visitor passing through London cannot write to a club and give a couple of sponsors, a proposer and seconder, for his membership and thereby become a club member. This may be possible under the existing situation, but I do not think that it is.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look at that again between now and the Bill going to another place if he does not wish to deal with it straight away. I can appreciate his difficulties. He has not lived with the Bill as long as some of us, although he has impressed us with his knowledge of the detail of it. These are small technical points, but they are appropriate to be raised on Report stage. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to deal with them. If not, we shall understand, and we hope they will be dealt with in another place at a later stage.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
There are three points. First, I believe that these Amendments cover the case where the club has moved to other premises. Secondly, the main purpose of this 48-hours or 24-hours provision is to prevent impulsive gambling. This is probably as potent a factor as any others contained in the Bill dedicated to the containment of gaming. 120 Thirdly, concerning foreign visitors, as has been said by my predecessor, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), it is certainly not intended and not desired that the United Kingdom should be the Mecca of international gamblers. Therefore, foreigners coming to Britain are treated in this respect in the same way as British nationals.

§ Mr. Rees-Davies
A considerable number of foreign visitors do gamble here. First, do I take it that if the secretary of a club sends a notice to its existing overseas members that is enough and they have nothing else to do.
Secondly, is there any objection to the member, when he is overseas, making his application in writing to become a member of the club and having his membership sent to him?
It is not helpful to go into all this Mecca business. I think it is an unfortunate word to choose, because it is one of the most respected establishments that has been advising so many hon. Members in the House. It is a very important potential tourist factor in the world today that there are these facilities available in London to people coming from overseas. It is absolutely right that they should be governed by the same law as ourselves. I am entirely against the argument that there should be a separate law for foreigners than for the British. But we must be assured that it is enough for existing members if they have written notice and that they can apply in writing to become members. I should like some elucidation, because I am not clear about the position on those two points.