Clause 46 (Hansard, 12 June 1968)

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 36, line 23, at beginning to insert: ' Except as provided by subsection (4) of this section'.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this Amendment it will be convenient to consider at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36.

§ Mr. Morgan
The first four of these Amendments increase the fees to be charged to licensed clubs in respect of licences. The fees are increased from £250 to £1,000 for a grant, from £100 to £200 for a renewal and from £50 to £150 for a transfer of a licence. The new subsection (4), however, saves from the increases clubs licensed for the playing of bingo only, where the present fees of £250, £100 and £50 respectively are preserved.
As explained in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill, the principle is that the control system should be self-financing, the expenses of the Gaming Board and the justices being met in full through the fees charged to the clubs, licensed or registered, to gaming operatives and machine retailers for certificates of approval by the Board, and so on. The fees set out in Clause 46(3) were devised on this principle of costing. Their yield is now likely, however, to be reduced by changes of policy announced since the Bill was introduced. At the same time, the responsibilities entrusted to the Board—particularly in the vetting of applicants for licences—are to be increased.
The reduction in the yield of fees will be caused chiefly by the decision to reduce substantially the number of licensed commercial clubs offering games other than bingo perhaps to only a fraction of their present number. Also, while it was intended that licences and certificates of registration should on first grant be valid for no more than one year, it seems that, for procedural reasons, this period will now have to be extended to something nearer 18 months, annual renewals then to follow.
Finally, most bingo club operatives are to be relieved from the necessity of being 310 certificated by the Board, so that there may be about 8,000 fewer people paying the £5 per head fee with this object.
These changes have little or no relevance to the registered clubs or to the machine retailers; nor is the Board to assume any additional responsibilities in respect of them. Logically, therefore, there are no grounds for increasing the fees in their case. While the licensed commercial bingo clubs will profit from the changes through the relief of the majority of their employees from certification by the Board, and while the work which this may save the Board will be more than offset by new responsibilities for vetting all applicants for licences, including bingo licences, and their financial sponsors, the policy of encouraging bingo clubs to abandon other forms of gaming will be best served by confining increases of fees to those which do not do so. Also bingo clubs which abandon other forms of gaming are likely to suffer some loss of revenue in consequence.

§ Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)
In Committee we were given notice of the Government's intention to increase the charges. The then Under-Secretary of State said that the Government were thinking of increasing some of the fees. But this turns out in one case to be multiplying the fee by four—from £250 to £1,000—in another to doubling the fee and in a third to multiplying by three. We appreciate that there has been a fall in the value of money under the present Government but we are surprised to see such great increases.
I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the objective is to ensure that the fees cover the Board's expenses. But I hope that he will bear in mind that, in Committee, we said that this must not be regarded as a means of underhand taxation. Taxation of gaming clubs should be severe and it should be done by the Treasury. Indeed, it has recently been increased by the Budget.
The hon. Gentleman said the increases had also been made necessary by the decision to reduce the number of clubs. I did not realise that we had agreed to reduce them by more than we set out to do on Second Reading. It might have been better to have waited to see what the expenses of the Board would be 311 rather than make such substantial increases at this stage, but this is the Government's decision and we do not propose to oppose it.

§ Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Thanet)
What is the estimate of the number of gaming clubs upon which these figures are assessed? In dealing with the question of ensuring that the public do not have to pay, upon what basis was that principle assessed? It is one thing to say that the inspectorate and the salaries of the executives of the Board are covered but another thing to say that all the information leading to the original decision of whether or not to grant a certificate should be calculated within those expenses because, in many cases, there will be a refusal of an original consent certificate.
In an article in the Daily Telegraph last year I suggested that the Gaming Board should have a chairman and members appointed by the Home Secretary as impartial persons of repute who would licence and supervise gaming establishments and assess and collect from them the money necessary to conduct its affairs without cost to the public. I submit that that is the right principle, that is to say that the inspectorate, the cost of the machinery, is properly chargeable to the establishments which are licensed but not the rest of the cost.
I would respectfully agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Run-corn (Mr. Carlisle) said a moment ago, that really it would have been very much better merely to have indicated in general terms through a statement to the Press at this stage that it was probable that the charge would be £500 or £1,000 and not to have written it into the Bill, because I do not believe, subject to the reply from the Minister, that the Government are in a position at the moment to assess what is the existing cost which would arise from existing clubs, still less how many clubs will be registered under the Bill. Provided they are proper and well-conducted establishments it depends —does it not?—on demand, and the demand in London and in certain of the other cities is quite considerable. Provided they are properly conducted establishments it is not for us in this House to rule now as to what the licensing authorities will say. Therefore, I think 312 it was very difficult to lay down these Amendments in this way.
I would ask, as I say, for some information, and for an assurance that they will be looked at carefully, and that, if they are too high, they will be brought down—which would be an almost unique event in the history of the Labour Party's taxation policy.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I refrain from succumbing to the temptations to political partisanship which may have been held before me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies).
These revised scales appear because of added duties which have been created with regard to the Board and the licensing justices. They are based on the best assessments which can be made at present. I readily concede that there are very considerable imponderables. At this stage, neither expenditure nor revenue can be calculated with assurance. There are, as I say, many uncertain factors.
I would remind the hon. Members that subsection (4) of the Clause confers power to vary the fees by regulation, so that any necessary corrections can be made in the light of experience. I do not accept that it would be proper for us to leave blank the figure at the moment. We have made many calculations. We have made them on the best evidence which is available. I am not going to be drawn into estimating how many clubs may be licensed. It would be impolitic and imprudent of me to seek to do so, but the intention is that the Board should pay its way, and presumably, no more than that, and any adjustments upwards or downwards can be made by the Home Secretary by way of regulations.

§ Mr. Buck
Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), whether there has been any alteration in the Government's views on numbers between Second Reading and now—without, of course, trying to give any estimated number?

§ Mr. Morgan
No. As far as I am aware, there certainly have been no changes of policy at all, but the Bill has 313 been very considerably improved in Committee. That was due, if I may pay the tribute, to the efforts of both sides of the Committee, and as the result of those improvements certain factors have been created which bear on the amounts which were originally inserted in the Clause.