Schedule 2

HC Deb 12 June 1968 vol 766 cc314-52

GRANT, RENEWAL, CANCELLATION AND TRANSFER OF LICENCES

Mr. Speaker

We come now to Amendment No. 38, with which I propose we take Nos. 39, 40, 41 and 50.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan)

I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 42, line 33, at beginning insert: 'Subject to the provisions of this Schedule with respect to certificates of consent'. This is an important series of Amendments which have been introduced to meet the desire of both sides of the Committee, and a view expressed with the minimum of dissent, that the Government should give more powers to the Gaming Board, and that is the basic purpose of this group of Amendments. The idea of the Committee was that we should try to prevent undesirable elements from establishing themselves in the field of gaming and that the opportunity of running a gaming establishment should be regarded—I put it, I think, fairly—as more of a privilege than of a right, and that the Bill should, therefore, it was represented in the Committee, be amended to empower the Board to scrutinise all applications before they are allowed to go forward to the justices, and without having to account for its decisions.

I wish to bring these points out because, as I said yesterday in another connection, although on a similar matter, it is important that the House should know what is being done.

This Amendment gives effect to that view. Broadly speaking, questions such as assessment of demand can be dealt with thoroughly and effectively in open court, and demand and other matters of the kind will continue to be dealt with by the justices, acting with the Board's advice. Ordinarily, it would be impossible to contemplate powers of such an arbitrary nature as this, and they are justified only if restricted to the field in which they are manifestly needed, and that is to matters which bear upon an applicant's trustworthiness.

Formally, a person applying for a certificate of consent—that is what a person would ask the Gaming Board for—is required to do no more than specify the premises concerned and say whether the application he intends to make to the justices will be for a bingo club licence or another. But the Board will probably ask for other information bearing upon the applicant's record, experience, resources and backing. The nature of the information that will be sought is likely to vary in different cases. It would be unnecessary and perhaps hampering to the Board to attempt a comprehensive description.

First, it is to be expected that there will be a flood of applications from clubs now operating, with which it may take the Board five or six months, or more, to deal. But, since the approach to the Board for certificates of consent will be the first and indispensable stage in setting up the new control, the sooner a start can be made the better. Since, too, the Board will need to be ready to advise justices on demand before the first of the applications come before them for hearing, certificates of consent having been obtained, the sooner the Board can obtain a complete conspectus of the field the better.

It is, therefore, provided, under subsection (4)(3), that all applications for certificates of consent must be made to the Board within three months of the relevant provisions being brought into operation. Assuming that the Bill becomes law at the end of July, this part of the Schedule is likely to be made operative almost immediately after the end of July. All applications will thus be before the Board possibly as early as the end of October, which is what we hope.

The Board would proceed to deal with them as soon as it could, but it might take the Board, before the last one was dealt with, literally up to the end of April. The provisions dealing with the second stage, namely, application to the justices, will be held back until this work is nearing completion. So the actual hearings by the justices will not begin until it has been completed—say, in May of next year. Ample time will thus be given for the Board to consider its advice to the justices, but without holding up progress in general.

During the first transitional period, hearing by the justices will not be confined to a single annual session in May, but will continue throughout the year until the work has been disposed of. But the normal practice, after this transition, will be for all grants and renewals to be dealt with at regular May sessions— the first presumably being in May, 1970— with application to the justices being made in the preceding January or February. With this timetable in mind, it is proposed that applicants should approach the Board for certificates of consent before the end of the preceding October. This would allow the Board three to four months to dispose of the cases.

The sole issue to which the Board is entitled to address itself is whether the applicant is likely to be both able and diligent to secure compliance with the Act and the proper, honest and orderly conduct of the licensed premises and the gaming to be carried on there. In considering this it is required to take into account the character, reputation and financial standing not only of the applicant himself, but of any other person by whom the club would be managed or for whose benefit it would be carried on. So that the backers, or the controlling interests, behind the applicant are thus brought under scrutiny, but only in consideration of the influence they are likely to exert over him in running the club.

I ought to mention one other point. There will be appeal from the Board's decisions to the Secretary of State. That was the desire of the Committee. But this does not mean that the powers can be exercised altogether without surveillance by the courts, which may be expected to intervene, if moved to do so, if it appears that the laws of natural justice have been disregarded. This will mean, at the least:, that if the Board were minded to refuse a certificate it would be expected, first, to give the applicant a general indication of the nature of the objections and an opportunity of answering them. It does not follow that it would have to reveal its sources of information, or that, in arriving at its decision, it would be bound by the same laws of evidence or proof as a court of law. While mitigated by the requirements of natural justice, the system will still remain essentially arbitrary.

Mr. Rees-Davies

On that point, will there be an opportunity, say, once a year, for the House to debate an annual report of the Gaming Board, or would there be some opportunity given for complaints of this kind to be ventilated? I believe that this would be a good alternative forum to protect the requirements of natural justice.

Mr. Callaghan

I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right. I do not relish these powers in one sense. Therefore, it is important that there should be an opportunity to debate the exercise of the Board's control in this matter. Although it is not for me to forecast how it will be done, clearly the presentation of an annual report by the Gaming Board would provide an opportunity for the House to arrange for a debate on issues of this kind which should be kept narrowly under scrutiny. This is why I am bringing out all the difficulties and the arbitrary nature of the powers for which I am now asking the House.

I have already said that the ingredients that the Board should identify are such matters as character, reputation and financial standing. It will be for the Board to consider to what extent someone is a fit and proper person to be given the opportunity to apply to the justices for a licence.

The origin of these powers, and the desire of the Committee which was pressed upon the Government, lies in the special and peculiar nature of gaming and the consequences that can flow from it if undesirable or, indeed, criminal elements should secure a foothold in gaming. For that reason the Committee was anxious to press these powers on the Government. Therefore, I now introduce these Amendments.

Mr. Buck

The dispute among many people who have considered gaming in detail is not that it is not right to have powers such as these, but, as the Churches Committee on Gambling said, whether they should not go further and have licences issued by the Gaming Board. The arguments are fairly evenly balanced. It is right that the Gaming Board should have the power of veto over an applicant for the privilege of carrying on a gaming establishment, because it is likely to be a fairly profitable privilege.

Let there be no mistake about it. We are creating for gaming a Board which will be somewhat akin to the Jockey Club, but more powerful because, provided we give the Bill its Third Reading today, as seems likely, and it goes through another place, the Board will have the power of Statute behind it in a way which the Jockey Club has not. Therefore, we are creating a powerful body to control and organise gaming, which I think is right, for the reasons stated by the Home Secretary which were carefully considered in Committee.

The Home Secretary, in his Second reading speech, described the Board as being the pivot of this legislation. With respect, it was not a very strong pivot as originally devised. It is now. Indeed, it will have very considerable powers. As has been said, before an applicant can go to the justices he will have to seek the approval of the Board. Within the limits of natural justice, the Board will have the power to say, " No, you shall not." It will not have to state its reasons. It will have the power to turn an applicant down because of the unsuitability of his background or for any of the reasons set out in the Clause.

I need hardly say more. We welcome this Amendment. We think that it is right. These are considerable powers to be conferring on an authority, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees Davies), in his intervention, was right to suggest that we should have the matter under scrutiny annually through a report from the Board. I understood that that was provided for, but perhaps it was merely that we had a similar assurance in Committee.

7.30 p.m.

I have tried to go through the timetable delineated by the right hon. Gentleman, and it seems satisfactory. Is it the case that the position of existing clubs is fully safeguarded until they have had an opportunity to go through all the stages? I find it a little difficult to pick that out from the centre of the Bill, but I understand that their position is fully preserved until they have had an opportunity of appearing before the Board, having their applications considered by the Board, and then in due course by the justices.

I understand that their position is safeguarded, but others have expressed concern about whether that is so, and I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no difficulty on that score.

Mr. Rees-Davies

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) has dealt with a number of points, but there are still a few that require fairly careful investigation. First, what preparation will be made to ensure that there is close co-operation between the police and the new Board to secure adequate and proper investigation? I was much concerned about this aspect of the matter originally when I was seeking advice before presenting my Bill last September to set up what I thought would be a gaming board. I took the advice of some inspectors of police. They told me that their information came from all quarters, and that it was confidential, but that some of the information was suspect. It came from informers or undesirable types.

Allowing for the fact that the Home Secretary moves quickly, if he gets the Board constituted on the ground by September he will have moved very quickly indeed. Having set it up with its staff, it will then have to get in touch with the police. The police will have to make their investigations and then report. Will there be a separate department of New Scotland Yard in charge of this task? In recent years quite a number of us have often criticised the police for not having separate departments, such as a gaming squad, a jewel squad, and so on. Both my hon. Friend and I have criticised the police on that score, and I am sure that a separate squad will be needed to carry out this task.

Although there will be arbitrary power to refuse an application, I hope that before an applicant is refused permission without his knowledge he will have an opportunity to make representations in writing to the Board in respect of his financial standing, or his integrity, even though the Board will not be required to give any reason for its ultimate decision.

Those are the matters which one has to investigate, because we are now using a system which involves, first, the Gaming Board, and later the licensing authority. I am still rather inclined to the view that it might have been better not to have involved licensing justices in this matter, but I concede that there are arguments to the contrary. I am not sure that I am not wrong, and that the Government are right. One day one takes one view, and another day one takes another. It was perhaps a little strange that I should have come down in favour of a Gaming Board only, having regard to past experience in cases of this kind, but many of us who are lawyers came to the view that it should be wholly arbitrary.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider what I have said. I hope that if he errs he will do so in favour of giving the Board sufficient time to make all the proper investigations which will be necessary before it can arrive at its decision. I think that next May is the earliest date by which one can hope to get a clear assessment of the position, but I should like an assurance that when the Bill is passed, say, some time in August, or at the convenience of the Home Secretary, he will announce to the Press the timetable which he is adopting so that those who are in the position of wishing to apply are neither too early nor too late.

Mr. Callaghan

Perhaps I can reply to the points which have been raised. In reply to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), I confirm that there will be no difficulty about the continuing operation of existing clubs. The procedure will not be introduced until the machinery is complete.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) asked one or two questions. There has been a recent management investigation into the organisation of New Scotland Yard. It has been extremely valuable, and the present Commissioner, when he was Deputy Commissioner, was in charge both of initiating this and translating it into action.

I do not regard it as my responsibility to organise New Scotland Yard. That is the Commissioner's responsibility, and he must dispose of his people in the way that he thinks best. I take note of what has been said by the hon. Gentleman, and in the light of that I shall discuss the matter with the Commissioner to find out how he thinks these operations should be organised. There are now special officers who are concerned with this matter. I shall discuss with the Commissioner what formal organisation is needed, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to understand that I do not regard it as my responsibility to force a particular kind of organisation on the Commissioner.

I agree that there is a difficulty about the timetable. That is why I sought some information which I have now given to the House. I think that we should give information as soon as we can once the Board has been set up and has had a chance of considering it. It will be for the Board to announce a timetable, and I shall tell the Board that it is the view of the House that it should go ahead with it as quickly as it can.

Mr. Bmck rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak again, but he may intervene before the Minister resumes his seat.

Mr. Callaghan

I had not quite sat down.

Mr. Speaker

Very well.

Mr. Buck

I have had an opportunity of studying the timetable in outline, and we understand from other sources as well that it is likely to be satisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 39, in line 24, at end insert: 'bingo club licence' means a licence under this Act granted in respect of any premises subject to restrictions under paragraph 23 of this Schedule whereby gaming to which Part II of this Act applies on those premises is limited to the playing of bingo.

No. 40, in page 43, line 39, at end insert:

Certificate of consent for purposes of application for licence

3.—(1) An application for the grant of a licence under this Act in respect of any premises shall be of no effect unless—

1. (a)the Board have issued to the applicant a certificate consenting to his applying for such a licence in respect of those premises, and that certificate is for the time being in force and the application is made within the period specified in the certificate, and
2. (b)where the certificate is limited to a bingo club licence, the application is for the grant of a bingo club licence in respect of those premises.

(2) In the following provisions of this Schedule any reference to an application for the grant of a licence under this Act shall be construed as not including any application which by virtue of the preceding sub-paragraph is of no effect. 4.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to any application for a certificate of consent (in this paragraph referred to as a " consent application ") for the purposes of an application for the grant of a licence under this Act (in this paragraph referred to, in relation to a consent application, as " the relevant licence application ") (2)Any consent application shall be made to the Board by the person proposing to make the relevant licence application, and shall—

1. (a)specify the premises in respect of which the relevant licence application is proposed to be made, and
2. (b)state whether the relevant licence application will be for the grant of a bingo club licence or for a licence under this Act other than a bingo club licence.

(3)The Board shall not (unless in any particular case they think fit to do so) be required to entertain a consent application unless it is made before whichever is the later of the following, that is to say—

1. (a) the end of the period of three months beginning with the date appointed under section 52(3) of this Act for the purposes of this paragraph, and
2. (b)the end of the month of October in the year immediately preceding the year in which the relevant licence application is proposed to be made.

(4)The Board shall not issue a certificate on a consent application if it appears to the Board that the applicant—

1. (a)not being a body corporate, is under twenty-one years of age, or
2. (b)not being a body corporate, is not resident in Great Britain or was not so resident throughout the period of six months immediately preceding the date on which the application was made, or
3. (c)being a body corporate, is not incorporated in Great Britain.

(5)Subject to sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph, in determining whether to issue to an applicant a certificate consenting to his applying for the grant of a licence under this Act in respect of any premises, the Board shall have regard only to the question whether, in their opinion, in view of the character, reputation and financial standing—

1. (a)of the applicant, and
2. (b)of any person (other than the applicant) by whom, if a licence were granted on the relevant licence application, the club to which the consent application relates would be managed, or for whose benefit, if a licence were so granted, that club would be carried on,
• the applicant is likely to be capable of, and diligent in, securing that the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under it will be complied with, that gaming on those premises will be fairly and properly conducted, and that the premises will be conducted without disorder or disturbance.

(6) If on a consent application made to the Board in respect of any premises the Board issue to the applicant a certificate consenting to his applying for the grant of a licence under this Act in respect of those premises, the certificate shall—

1. (a)specify the applicant and those premises;
2. (b)specify a period within which the relevant licence application can be made; and
3. (c)state whether the consent is or is not limited to a bingo club licence.

No. 41, in page 44, line 3, at end insert: 'and shall be accompanied by a copy of the certificate of consent issued by the Board for the purposes of that application'.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 105, in page 44, line 16, after 'shall', insert: ' specify the name of the applicant, the name of the club and the location of the relevant premises, shall indicate whether the application is for a bingo club licence or for a licence under this Act other than a bingo club licence, and shall'. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule requires that a notice of application for a licence for a gaming club shall be published in a newspaper circulating in the licensing authority's area and sub-paragraph (4) provides that a like notice shall be displayed outside the entrance to the relevant premises and that it shall not include any matter which is not required, by the preceding provisions of the paragraph, to be included. This is to prevent the inclusion of promotional material.

The preceding provisions are silent about the nature of the essential particulars which the notice must contain and the Amendment would remedy this deficiency by specifying them as, first, the name of the applicant, second, the name of the club, third, the location of the premises and, fourth, a statement whether the application is or is not for a bingo club licence.

Mr. Timothy Kitson (Richmond, Yorks)

I have a nasty feeling that when this is done, it will be an advertisement in a newspaper under the prohibition which we were discussing yesterday.

Mr. Morgan

I do not accept that. It merely specifies in detail what had already been provided for in the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Callaghan

I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 45, line 8, leave out from ' period' to ' in' in line 10 and insert: 'of six months beginning with the date appointed under section 52(3) of this Act for the purposes of this paragraph'.

Mr. Speaker

I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 67.

Mr. Callaghan

This harks back to the Amendment which we discussed just now. Amendment No. 42 and No. 67 are linked, and deal with the timing of the licensing proceedings during the traditional period. Since I explained this in our original debate, perhaps I need not go through it again unless the House wishes.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buck

I beg to move Amendment No. 148, in page 46, line 19, after ' particulars', insert: '(including particulars of any additions to or alteration of the relevant premises since the licence was granted)'.

Mr. Speaker

It would be convenient I think to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 149, in page 47, line 3, at end insert: 12. Where an application for the renewal of a licence under this Act contains particulars or additions or alterations carried out to the relevant premises, that application shall be treated as an application for the grant of a licence and the provisions of this Schedule which relate to the granting of a licence shall operate accordingly.

Mr. Buck

These Amendments raise a small point which I hope the Government will be able to accept or to deal with in another place. When a licence comes up for renewal, it will still be a renewal even if there have been substantial alterations to the premises. If the matter is considered merely as a renewal, the fire authorities and the police will not have to be informed. If it were regarded as a new application, they would have to be informed and could then be satisfied that the premises were satisfactory. This is a valid point. If substantial alterations are made it should be regarded as a new application. It may be thought appropriate for this to come under the scrutiny of the Board, but, as the Board considers the antecedents of persons rather than premises, this is not perhaps strictly necessary.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

We well understand the proper motives behind these two Amendments. No. 148 would require an application for renewal to contain particulars of any additions or alterations since the licence was last granted. Although it does not say so. I assume that it was intended to cover its last renewal as well. No. 149 would provide that, where there had been additions or alterations, the application should be treated as one for the grant of a new licence. The Amendments attempt no definition of the additions or alterations which might be thought significant enough to be considered. Even the most trivial would be caught.

However, the first Amendment is unnecessary, since all the appropriate authorities, including the local authority, the fire authority and the licensing authority itself have rights of inspection prior to renewal. I have every confidence that these authorities would periodically examine the premises concerned before renewing the licence, so I have no doubt, since they have this right and any prevention of their doing so would be an offence, that they will be able to acquaint themselves with any structural changes and decide whether or not to object to the renewal.

Amendment No. 149 is both unnecessary and inappropriate. It is unnecessary because, under paragraph 19 of the Schedule, renewal can be refused on all the same grounds as can the grant of a licence, plus certain additional ones, and, therefore, inter alia, on the grounds of the unsuitability of the premises. It is inappropriate—now, more than ever— because grants of licences, as distinct from renewal, would require the full paraphernalia of certificates of consent by the Board.

Mr. Carlisle

I appreciate the point, but the trouble is that one has to give notice, under a grant, not only to the justices but also to the police, the fire authority, and the local authority. What is concerning the local authorities is that one does not have to notify them about a renewal and that therefore alterations could take place without their knowledge. I accept that the renewal can be refused on the ground that the premises are not suitable, but the authorities would not now have to be notified of those alterations.

Mr. Morgan

I accept the general principle which the hon. Gentleman puts forward, as I am sure that he accepts my point concerning the cumbersome and unnecessary procedure of putting an application, de novo, in the hands of the Board. Regulations can be made under paragraph 10 specifying the format of the application form which should be used in applying for a grant or renewal, and if that is set out so as to make it obligatory on the applicant to say whether or not alterations or additions have taken place, then the notice which is covered by the Amendments would have been given to the relevant authority.

Mr. Buck

The Under-Secretary has given away the first part of his case. He suggested that, under Amendment No. 148, trivia might have to be included in the applicaton, but paragraph 10(1) would, as amended, read: … shall contain such particulars (including particulars of any additions to or alteration of the relevant premises since the licence was granted), as may be prescribed. The regulations would prescribe only alterations involving additions of certain cubic areas. As the Under-Secretary said, his criticism on the ground of trivia falls to the ground.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

The only difference between us is that, as the Amendment now stands, there is no definition of what amounts to an addition or alteration. If regulations are made, they presumably would specify in greater detail exactly what would be an alteration or an addition. Therefore, the trivia would not be included there. That is the narrow difference between us.

Mr. Buck

It is such a narrow difference that it is hardly worth pursuing. I do not think the point remains. It will be for the Board to recommend what regulations shall be made to do precisely what the Under-Secretary wants, namely, that there shall be within a regulation a definition of the nature of the alterations. He need not pursue the matter further. The point is causing concern for the reasons I gave. I accept that there is a general duty on fire authorities, police authorities and local authorities to keep these matters under review. My point that major alterations ought to be brought specifically to their attention is still valid, but, in view of the assurances that have been given by the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 48, leave out lines 32 to 36.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment No. 57.

Mr. Morgan

Under paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 2, the licensing authority is required to provide an applicant for a licence, at his request, with a statement of any advice given to the authority by the Board on the subject of the demand for gaming facilities which the authority intends to take into account in deciding the application. Amendment No. 43 deletes this provision in order that it may be reimposed, by Amendment No. 57, in a wider context, embracing advice given by the Board in respect of other matters than demand, or bearing on the restrictions that may be attached to a licence as well as on the question whether it should be granted or renewed. The substituted provision also recognises that the advice given by the Board may be as relevant to renewals as to grants of first instance, and should, therefore, be made producible in that connection as well.

It was argued in Committee that the clerk to the authority should himself take the initiative in providing applicants with these statements, whether these were requested or not, but this suggestion was resisted. The Board is unlikely to be perpetually changing the nature of its advice, and it is likely that its import will often be well enough known to the applicant. There is no point in putting the clerk to the trouble and expense of sending out information which is not needed or not asked for. We do not expect the applicants in this highly commercialised field to be so innocent as to be unaware of the rights which the Bill bestows upon them.

Mr. Buck

We wondered whether there should not be an absolute duty for this information to be given at once to the applicant as of right, rather than that the applicant should apply for it. The arguments which have been put forward by the Under-Secretary carry weight, especially as I have many friends who are clerks to magistrates' courts, and I am reluctant to see friends of mine lumbered with the job of giving out information which in some cases may not be gratefully received.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Callaghan

I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 48, line 41, leave out 'having regard to the' and insert: 'the relevant premises are unsuitable by reason of their'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment No. 45.

Mr. Callaghan

These Amendments are paving Amendments to the next one, Amendment No. 46, and I have nothing to say on them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 45, in page 48, line 42, leave out from ' location ' to end of line 43.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Mr. Callaghan

I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 49, line 8, at end insert: (2) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether the relevant premises are unsuitable by reason of any matter mentioned in sub-paragraph (l)(a) of this paragraph, the licensing authority shall take into account any advice given to them by the Board with respect to that matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53.

Mr. Callaghan

Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53 are all consequential on Amendment No. 46. The Amendments require the justices, in considering a grant or renewal of a licence, to take account of any advice which the Gaming Board may give to them about the suitability of the premises. At present under paragraph 17(1) the Board is authorised to give advice only on the extent of the demand on the part of the prospective players. In the terms of paragraph 18(a), with the Amendments, the matters to be taken into account in considering whether premises are suitable are their layout, their character, their condition and their location. The Board will build up general experience over a period, and will have valuable advice to give, I trust, to local justices on the proper layout and character of gaming rooms. It is probably in respect of the location of premises that the right to advise, and the obligation of the justices to take account of the advice, should be particularly valuable. I commend the Amendments to the House.

Mr. Carlisle

The Home Secretary is right that this is another example where we have tightened up the Bill both in Committee and on Report. We now find that there are certain things on which the Board will have to give consent, and certain additional things on which they will be able to give advice. It appears that they are now to advise also on the premises, and I believe this is right. When the Bill comes into operation the Home Office may have to reconsider its ideas on the number of people employed by the Board. There may be a substantial increase in their work if they are to examine the premises.

Mr. Callaghan

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not say that too loudly; the Chancellor of the Exchequer might hear. I am under rigid limitations as to the number of staff who can be engaged. I do not think many people will be needed. In any case, we must keep the number down as far as we can.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 49, line 24, at end insert— (e) that, while the licence has been in force, appropriate precautions against the danger of fire have not been observed, or have been insufficiently observed, in the use of the relevant premises. The Amendment deals with a weakness which existed in the Second Schedule. While structural precautions, such as the provision of fire exits, are a matter for the justices to take into account in considering the suitability of premises for the grant or renewal of a licence under paragraph 18(a), and while grant or renewal may be refused on the grounds that the appropriate fire authority inter alia has been refused reasonable facilities to inspect the premises under paragraph 18(d), there is no provision which would enable a renewal to be refused because of failure to observe day-to-day precautions. Thus, the premises may have ample means of escape from fire, but these may be allowed to become obstructed. The Amendment seeks to cure this defect.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies

This will not do. Unfortunately, I did not notice it sooner, otherwise I would have tabled an Amendment to it.

If the Minister looks at paragraph 19, he will see that that deals with the striking off of four classes of offender. The first is for convictions in respect of contraventions of the regulations. The second is for creating disturbance or disorder. The third is for dishonest conduct in gaming. The fourth is for allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes.

It is now proposed to add as a further ground for strike-off that a person has not observed or sufficiently observed the fire precautions, which is a totally different matter altogether. Incidentally, it occurs to me to ask why the expression "insufficiently observed " is proposed to be adopted. Either the precautions are observed or they are not.

Paragraph 18(a) deals nowhere with fire. It says: '… having regard to the lay-out, character, condition or location of the relevant premises, those premises are not suitable for use as club premises for the purpose of gaming". There is no mention of fire there. Fire precautions, after all, are covered by building Hyelaws. The question whether the character or layout of premises for gaming is suitable is quite different from whether fire precautions are observed. The Minister will see that, when premises are passed as being suitable, there is nothing to indicate that they have to be suitable from the point of view of fire risk for the purposes of the Act. Someone in the Home Office appears to think that it should go in the Act, but it does not have to go in at all. One cannot have premises unless they are suitable from the point of view of fire risk.

I am sorry that I did not notice the point before, otherwise I should have tabled an Amendment putting the position to rights. However, I ask that the matter should receive consideration hereafter.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

The hon. Gentleman ended by saying that one cannot have a licence for premises unless they are suitable from the point of view of fire risk. Earlier, he said that paragraph 18(a) did not apply to fire. I agree that it does not apply to fire specifically, but its very wording encompasses dangers by fire, as it does many other factors.

I would point out to him that paragraph 19 is only permissive in the powers that it gives to licensing justices. It says: The licensing authority may refuse to renew a licence under this Act". It does not say that they must.

I appreciate that safeguarding from the perils of fire is in a different category from anything contained in sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Nevertheless, when it comes to evaluation, I would not say that the matters of social morality contained in those four sub-paragraphs are more important that the protection of human life.

Mr. Rees-Davies

I am sure that we have all had cases in our constituencies where a fire officer has thought that not enough has been done, the individual concerned has disagreed violently, and there has had to be a proper investigation. This Bill is not the proper place in which to incorporate the provision for striking off people who fail to observe the necessary fire precautions. The paragraph is concerned with reprehensible conduct. There is abundant power elsewhere to ensure that fire precautions are properly observed. All club premises are sufficiently controlled from the point of view of fire risk without including provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

When considering matters which licensing justices should take into account in deciding whether or not they should cancel a licence, inevitably certain considerations will appear which are incongruous in other considerations. I am not arguing the congruity of this provision. What I am arguing is its relevance in the general context.

I also maintain that there is ample precedent in Acts dealing with public places where a licence can be forfeited if fire precautions have not been observed. Although these places are not technically public places, they are frequented by a great number of people. In view of that, I maintain that it is proper and necessary for this Amendment to be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 49, line 24, at end insert: (2)The licensing authority may also refuse to renew a licence under this Act on the grounds that, within the period of twelve months ending with the date on which the licensing authority consider the application for renewal of the licence, a notice under paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to this Act has been served on a person stating that a relevant certificate issued in respect of him under section 19 of this Act is revoked as from the end of a period specified in that notice. (3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph a certificate issued in respect of a person under section 19 of this Act shall be taken to have been a relevant certificate if it was a certificate certifying that he had been approved by the Board under that section—

1. (a) in respect of the performance on the relevant premises of a function which, at the time when the notice referred to in that sub-paragraph was served, he was authorised or required to perform on those premises in pursuance of a service agreement which was then in force, or
2. (b) in respect of his acting in relation to premises in a capacity in which, at the time when that notice was served, he was acting, or was authorised or required to act, in relation to those premises.

(4) In this paragraph 'service agreement' has the same meaning as in section 19 of this Act. The new sub-paragraphs inserted into paragraph 19 by this Amendment empower a licensing authority to refuse the renewal of a licence, if, during the preceding 12 months, a person performing on the premises the functions of a gaming operative or acting there in the capacity of gaming manager, organiser or supervisor, has had notice served on him by the Gaming Board under Schedule 5 of the Act that a certificate of approval granted to him under Clause 19 is to be withdrawn.

When the Board has withdrawn an employee's certificate of approval at a time when he is still employed by the club, it is desirable that the justices should have power to refuse to renew the licence of the club where he was employed. I stress that they should have power to do so if they see fit. Clearly, in some cases, the grounds for the revocation of the certificate may not implicate the licensee in any failure to exercise due supervision of the staff. Likewise, no doubt, there are cases where a number of certificates have had to be revoked, where the effect must be to raise the question whether the licence should be removed. The Amendment allows the justices so to deal with the matter.

Mr. Buck

It seems right that the justices should be armed with this residual power. However, it must be made clear that there is nothing obligatory about it. This will be a fact which they can take into account. Obviously it is appropriate as being the sort of information to which the justices should give attention. The fact that a croupier, say, has had his operator's licence withdrawn during the period of the licence should put the justices on guard. If, after full investigation, they find that there was some degree of culpability concerned with the operation of the premises in question, it is right that they should not have to renew the licence. It must be emphasised, however, that we are here dealing with premises rather than with persons, in view of earlier Amendments to the appropriate Clauses in the main part of the Bill to which we agreed yesterday.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 49, line 27, leave out from beginning to 'such' in line 30 and insert ' made under section 23 of this Act'.

This Amendment is consequential on those made to Clause 23 whereby the powers of a court to disqualify for an offence under the Bill are confined to disqualification of the premises.

Amendment agreed to.

Further A mendment made: No. 50, leave out lines 32 to 40.

No. 51, in line 45, leave out '18(a)' and insert '18(l)(a)'.

No. 52, in line 46, after 'whether', insert ' the relevant premises are unsuitable' and No. 53, in line 46, leave out from 'location' to 'and' in line 48.— [Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 50, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'may' in line 20.

Paragraph 23(1) empowers the licensing authority when granting or renewing a licence to impose restrictions on the gaming area of the premises or on the games to be played there, but only where this appears to it expedient having regard to its findings under paragraph 16 as to the demand for the facilities. The Amendment removes that limitation which might otherwise have prevented the grant of a licence limited to bingo, even though the applicant was asking for suoh a licence.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Callaghan

I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 50, leave out lines 27 to 33.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 56.

Mr. Callaghan

Paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule, as it stands, requires the licensing authority, in deciding whether to impose restrictions under paragraph 23(1), that is, on the gaming area of the premises or on the games to be played there, to take into account any advice given to them by the Board under paragraph 17(1), dealt with by an earlier Amendment.

These Amendments require that, additionally, the authority shall take account of any advice proffered by the Board as to restrictions limiting the purposes other than gaming for which the premises may be used under paragraph 23(3).

Let me give an example. We discussed yesterday the prospect of my making regulations after I had advice from the Gaming Board on the cabaret-cum-gaming clubs. If I decided not to lay regulations before the House on this it would still be possible under this Amendment for the Board to advise the licensing authority so to do in any particular case. This, therefore, might be a way of narrowing down what might otherwise be a broad determination and I think gives the maximum flexibility in determining how this should be done. That is basically the meaning of the Amendment.

Mr. Buck

The Home Secretary has raised an interesting point which we dealt with pretty fully yesterday. He has in his heart of hearts the sentiment he expressed on Second Reading that he does not very much like the idea of the combination of gaming and other activities of an entirely innocent character such as dancing, drinking and dining. Originally the Home Secretary was out to ban this utterly but we have moved him along the road. We have the view that establishments are better when there is a combination.

The Home Secretary has, as he pointed out, armed himself and others at every turn with powers to deal with this problem, if he regards it as a problem. Licensing justices can so organise the licence and put limitations on a licence to limit there being anything but roulette or other gaming, eliminating other pleasant facilities such as dining rooms, dancing and discotheques. They can do it and he can do it through regulation. It is rather hard that anybody should be able to do it. They should in properly regulated premises be allowed to conduct a combination of these activities. We have no objection to the licensing justices having this power and therefore do not intend to divide the House on this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: Amendment No. 56 in page 50, line 45, at end insert:

(5) In determining whether to impose any restrictions under this paragraph, the licensing authority shall take into account any advice given to them by the Board (whether given for the purposes of this paragraph or in pursuance of paragraph 17 of this Schedule), as well as any representations which, at the time when the application is being considered by the licensing authority, are made to the authority by or on behalf of the Board or any other person entitled to be heard on the consideration of the application.

No. 57, in page 50, line 51, at end insert:

Notification of advice given by Board

25. The Clerk to the licensing authority shall at the request of any applicant for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Act, furnish him with a statement setting out any advice given to the licensing authority by the Board which the licensing authority propose to take into account in determining the application.— [Mr. Callaghan.]

Mr. Cafllaghan

I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 53, line 47, at end insert:

Revocation by Board of certificate of consent

31.—(1) Where under the preceding provisions of this Schedule the Board have issued to a person a certificate of consent to his applying for a licence under this Act in respect of any premises, then, subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the Board may at any time revoke that certificate, whether before that time—

1. (a) the holder of the certificate has applied for a licence under this Act in respect of those premises, or
2. (b) in pursuance of such an application, the licensing authority have granted him such a licence,

or not. (2) Subject to the next following sub-paragraph, the Board shall not revoke a certificate of consent in respect of any premises at any time unless it appears to them—

1. (a) that, if the holder of the certificate were then applying for such a certificate under paragraph 4 of this Schedule, the Board would be precluded by sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph from issuing such a certificate to him, or
2. (b) that the matters stated in the application on which the certificate was issued were false in a material particular, or
337
3. (c) that, since the certificate was issued, a licence: under this Act held by the holder of the certificate (whether in respect of the same or different premises) has been cancelled by virtue of a disqualification order made under section 23 of this Act or under this Schedule or in the exercise of the powers conferred on the licensing authority or the court by the following provisions of this Schedule.

(3) Where the holder of a certificate of consent in respect of any premises has in pursuance of the certificate applied for the grant of a licence under this Act in respect of those premises, and such a licence has been granted and is for the time being in force, the Board may revoke the certificate at any time if it appears to them—

1. (a) that, in relation to the conduct of the premises or the conduct of gaming on those premises, effective control is beine exercised by a person other than the holder of the certificate, and
2. (b) that the other person in question, in view of his character and reputation, is not a person to whom, if he were then applying for a certificate of consent under the preceding provisions of this Schedule, the Board would issue such a certificate.

(4)Where the Board determine to revoke a certificate of consent by virtue of this paragraph they shall serve a notice on the holder of the certificate stating that the certificate is revoked as from the end of the period of eight weeks from the date of service of the notice; and the revocation shall take effect at the end of that period, unless before the end of that period the Board have served on the holder of the certificate a further notice stating that they have rescinded their decision to revoke the certificate. (5)Where the Board serve any such notice as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph they shall send a copy of the notice to the clerk to the licensing authority, to the appropriate officer of police and to the appropriate collector of duty. (6)On the revocation by virtue of this paragraph of a certificate of consent in respect of any premises, any licence under this Act in respect of those premises which—

1. (a) specifies that certificate as being the certificate in pursuance of which the application for the licence was made, and
2. (b) is in force at the time when the revocation of the certificate takes effect,

shall thereupon cease to have effect.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may also discuss the proposed Amendments to the Amendment, in line 32, at end add: (c) that the gaming on those premises is not being fairly and properly conducted. In line 35, leave out 'eight' and insert 'four'.

And Amendment No. 66, in page 57, line 39, after 'whether', insert: 'in consequence of the revocation of a certificate of consent or'.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan

Although the hon. Gentleman thinks that I want to prevent a lot of things happening which he approves of, I hope that he will concede that I am doing my best to maintain the liberty and freedom of the subject in these matters. I am proposing here, in relation to the cancellation of licences, something whereby I am trying to safeguard the legitimate interests of licence-holders. Indeed, on a more factitious occasion I would say I am showing myself as being the true friend of liberty as opposed to hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the time the licence can be taken away. I take this responsibility seriously, and I do not want the House to push me into doing things which I think are going too far in an arbitrary direction.

The discretion of the Board to withdraw a certificate of consent is more closely circumscribed than the discretion given them to refuse an application for a certificate in the first place. A power for the Board to revoke a certificate on the grounds that it no longer believes the applicant himself to be trustworthy would be too far-reaching, since it could be invoked, for instance, whenever the Board considered that any of the conditions of the licence had been broken, or that there had been unfair play, or that the premises had been conducted in a disorderly way, or that they had become a resort of criminals or prostitutes.

These are all grounds on which the justices will be entitled to refuse renewal of a licence or to cancel it, and which could satisfactorily be dealt with at a hearing in open court. If the Board could decide these issues at its sole discretion this would encroach on the proper jurisdiction of the courts, and would leave the licence-holder—and all his employees —in constant peril of arbitrary process. It would also involve a substantial transfer of responsibilities of enforcement from the police to the Board's inspectors, who could not be recruited in sufficient number properly to assume them.

The general principle adopted in this paragraph, therefore, is that once a certificate of consent has been given, and even if experience should suggest that the Board's initial judgment of the applicant has been faulty, it may be withdrawn only in certain defined circumstances, leaving—for the rest—any un-trustworthiness on the part of the licensee to be exposed in proceedings before the courts or justices.

The circumstances in which a certificate may be withdrawn are broadly those (a) in which it is found to have been issued on misinformation; or (b) following cancellation of a licence by a court or the justices; or (c) in which the licensee has come under the control of influences —financial or otherwise—which the Board considers to be untrustworthy.

Various sub-paragraphs provide for the circumstances in which the certificate can be revoked. Paragraph (2) deals with the circumstances I have outlined. Sub-paragraph (3) empowers the Board to revoke a certificate of consent where it appears to it that effective control over a licensed establishment is being exercised by someone, other than the certificate-holder, whose character or reputation is such that were he himself to apply for a certificate the Board would not be prepared to issue one.

As regards the timing revocation, I do not want to anticipate the hon. Gentleman's argument, but in deciding the time as provided in sub-paragraph (4) we propose to give eight weeks. I think that we ought to give the certificate-holder an opportunity to remove the cause for complaint if we can, for example, by rearranging his financial affairs so as to rid himself of undesirable influences, to give proper notice to his staff, and perhaps negotiate for the transfer of the licence to somebody else. Four weeks is a little too short if he has the employment of many people in his hands. I do not think that eight weeks is too long. I know that there is an Amendment down for four weeks, but I should need a lot of convincing that this time was correct. However, I do not think that there is much between us in the four and the eight weeks. I think that eight is reasonable.

Mr. Buck

The Home Secretary has explained the purpose of the Amendment—it is virtually a new Clause—and we agree that it is desirable. It gives very considerable powers indeed to the Gaming Board, although we have tabled Amendments to provide even more extensive powers for the revocation by the Board of a certificate of consent. We would arm the Board with power to revoke a certificate where gaming on premises is not being fairly and properly conducted. This, as the right hon. Gentleman said, would go further than his Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman anticipated my argument and explained that in a case involving dishonesty or maladministration by an operator, the matter would be brought before the courts and determined there. It is difficult to reconcile his argument to that effect with the arguments that have been adduced by the Government concerning croupiers. The purpose of an Amendment which we discussed yesterday relating to croupiers was to deal with what might not be a justiciable issue as to whether or not there had been criminal conduct. That was the reason for seeking to remove the right of appeal for a croupier.

Why should not the same apply to the owner of a casino, who may be able to operate in a way which smacks of chicanery and which indicates that cheating has occurred? It may be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove that beyond a doubt based on reason in court. Would it not be right, therefore, to arm the Board with power to revoke a licence where it takes the view that gaming has not been fairly and properly conducted?

This brings us to the question of enforcement. We will have a relatively small inspectorate and we gather that the police will be working in co-operation with it. As I said on Second Reading, and as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) explained, we need a gaming squad. Be that as it may, the Bill will work only if there is a sufficient degree of co-operation between licensed operators of casinos and the staff of the Board. Casino operators will be more likely to put their house in order if they know that the Board has extensive powers, even to the point of putting them out of business. If gaming is not being fairly and properly conducted, the Board should be empowered to act in a severe fashion.

I agree that there should be a waiting period during which the operator may put his house in order. The Home Secretary has suggested a waiting time of eight weeks. Although we suggested four weeks, the right hon. Gentleman is probably right on this occasion. But the waiting time should not be too long, remembering that if there is a change of ownership or if a casino operator has been told to mend his ways he should be prepared to take prompt action.

Perhaps additional power is required by the Board to stop a casino from operating. The position concerning an offence under Clause 23 covers this to some extent, but we are here dealing with an extraordinary sphere of activity. People may move in, take over an establishment and start operating a crooked game.

The Board must be armed to act quickly and to react with severity if cheating is taking place. That is the purpose: of our proposal and I hope that the Home Secretary will, between now and the Bill reaching another place, look into the matter further and consider arming the Board with additional powers, either

Mr. Kitson

I cannot agree with either my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) or the Home Secretary on this point. The only method of control found satisfactory in America has been to give the gaming boards in, for example, Nevada, the right to close a club within 24 hours. I believe that we will find this power necessary for our Gaming Board. After all, if a club is operating a crooked roulette wheel and if it is discovered by one of the Board's inspectors, he should, after reporting the matter to the Board, have power to close the club while inquiries are made, This is done in Nevada, Puerto Rico and also in France.

Mr. Rees-Davies

Although my hon. Friend refers to the power in some countries to close clubs for 24 hours, I believe that it is more in the nature of a temporary suspension. Later, it is possible for clubs to be reopened.

Mr. Kitson

"Temporary suspension" is the correct phrase and I believe that we will need this power.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester pointed out, if a club knows that a possible revocation is hanging over its head, it should put its house in order promptly. A waiting time of eight weeks is too long and a club which is running a crooked wheel or a crooked game of baccarat with marked cards could make a killing in eight weeks, particularly in the holiday season. We are by the Bill drastically reducing the number of gaming clubs. I hope that even in large cities there will be only one such club. I trust that the Home Secretary will give further thought to the matter because he is being far too generous in this provision to the casinos.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

The Board will require considerable information if it is to fulfil the conditions which the Home Secretary had in mind. It seems inevitable that it will require access to records which are normally regarded as confidential to all except the police. Without wishing to give the impression of looking a gift horse in the mouth—since most of the time my hon. Friends and I have been asking for the sort of powers which the right hon. Gentleman is introducing—we must strike a balance.

I am not sure of the relationship which the Board will have with the police; whether there will be a complete exchange in matters of confidentiality relating to all information which the police may have and which may be relevant to the Board's operations. I do not see how the Board can act in the way that is envisaged here without access to criminal records. I think that they have to know things which normally nobody outside the police ought to know.

8.30 p.m.

There is one further complication. I also believe that the Board will find it impossible to work without very close relationships with the proprietors, at least of the most respectable clubs. In a sense this is another relationship which the Board has to establish. I believe that the Home Secretary accepts that unless it is really working with those proprietors who want to keep their clubs straight it will not get the information that it should have. If we put these two things together we begin to see there may be difficulties—and I do not want to exaggerate. If, on the one hand, the Board must have access to records which nobody else would see and, on the other, must deal on a mutually confidential basis with the proprietors of clubs it feels it can trust, then we open up here a new field.

I do not want to anticipate difficulties, but I see that difficulties could arise. If the Home Secretary feels able to do so I would like him to tell us how far he feels that the Board has to work with the police. If in a year or two's time we get on to a computer record which enables the police to keep exact statistics and get instant retrieval of information on individuals, it would be interesting to know how much of that the Board might be able to see. That is the kind of thing we should be anticipating now.

Mr. Rees-Davies

I follow all that my right hon. Friend has said. In my earlier observations I assumed that the Board would have power to be able to see all records and fingerprints, and more important than that, would have a direct liaison officer with Interpol; because we must have all the information from abroad. There are at present in this country a number of croupiers who have been struck off in France and are not permitted to operate there. They are in this city at present.

There are also a number of international gamblers who would not be permitted to gamble in any casino in Europe or America who are gambling in this country at present. Consequently, we have here a situation in which we will need the co-operation of an international police as well as our own. I have assumed we would have these powers.

Mr. Deedes

My hon. Friend says he assumes this would have to be so. That is rather an alarming assumption.

Mr. Rees-Davies

I had raised earlier the question which my right hon. Friend has raised in probing this matter, that of close liaison with the police; and at no time has anyone suggested that the Board would not have this relevant information. Personally, I take the view that this particular schedule as set out is right and that on revocation there should be a period of eight weeks, because a person will need all that time before ultimately losing the licence. But I said yesterday on Schedule 2—and probably at the time I did not make it clear—that it seemed to me to be absolutely essential, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) has rightly said, that there must be power of suspension at the time.

If we find out that on a particular occasion there is cheating going on in a club then one recognises that leads to immediate disorder and if it turns out that a person knows he has been cheated it can often lead to assault or behaviour of that kind. In those circumstances, as the police and the inspector have right of entry, no doubt the police will turn up at the club. If the persons are rejected that is quite insufficient for most people, because if there is cheating in a club by the croupier the manager, no doubt, will sack him on the spot and let him take the blame, but the probability is that someone is in liaison with that croupier.

If cheating is going on at poker it usually takes the dealer as well as a person in the game to turn it into a crooked game. If one is operating at chemin de fer it means that not only the croupier, but someone planted in the game, usually at No. 5 immediately opposite, is concerned. It is usually dealt with through a hearing device which enables them to hear with much greater accuracy the riffling of the cards.

I, or any person who is a card player, playing in a club in which cheating is found, would be quite right in believing that the club was a crooked club, not merely that the person engaged in it was cheating, unless it arose between two quite separate players at, say, a bridge club. That is why we believe that power of temporary suspension should be added. At the same time, I entirely agree with the Home Secretary that if that is to be done it can not only lead to substantial financial loss but to rumour going around that the police had closed the club and, if the club gets a bad reputation, people will not go there. That power should be written into the Bill in another place, but it is not affected by consideration of this Schedule.

Mr. Kitson

No club could be even temporarily suspended unless it were found to be actually cheating in a very sophisticated fashion.

Mr. Rees-Davies

My hon. Friend is quite right. It has to be a clear case.

That will make it difficult for the Parliamentary draftsman to make this provision. It will mean devising a Clause in another place to deal with the situation where there is reasonable cause to believe that cheating has taken place and that the Board or the police should have power to make a closing order. I am sorry that this has come up at this late stage. I would have proposed an Amendment in Committee if at that time I had not been voiceless and incapable of attending. Some of the noble Lords in another place, with wide experience, might be very usefully employed when they deal with the Bill.

Mr. Callaghan

This has been a very useful debate. I am much obliged for the experience of the hon. Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) and Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees Davies), both of whom always impress me by their knowledge of these matters, although I am sure that they have always been on the right side of the law.

Coming straight to the law of temporary suspension, I should have thought, but I do not speak with the great experience of the hon. Members, that if it was known that a club was cheating it would hardly be likely to make a killing over the following eight weeks of the holiday season. Is anyone to be deliberately fleeced by a club which is known to be cheating?

Mr. Kitson

They would not know. It would be a very clever inspector who found a club cheating, let alone members of the general public going there to play a game, unless a notice was to be put up at the entrance saying, "This club is running a crooked game."

Mr. Callaghan

That is exactly what I was thinking would happen. If it is known, and we must assume that it is, the Gaming Board will say, "We find that you are cheating. This information will soon be made public"—presumably by the Board. Then the "Society for the Protection of Gamers" will parade up and down in front of the entrance with placards saying, "Do not come here. They fleece you". I should have thought that that would happen, but perhaps I am wrong.

I think that there is a case for considering again the powers of temporary suspension. I can see that it is obviously a clean way of doing it and between now and the Bill's going to another place I shall see whether this should be done. But I cannot think that a club found and known to be cheating will get any clientele.

Mr. Buck

The right hon. Gentleman would be surprised.

Mr. Callaghan

In that case, there must be one born every minute. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is."] Then thank goodness I never did it!

I turn to the point of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who had a lot of experience of the position of the police in his former Ministerial office. No detailed arrangements have yet been worked out between the Board and the police because the Board does not exist. But there have been general discussions with the police and I can give the specific assurance that the Commissioner and the chief officers of the other principal police forces have told me, when I have discussed the matter formally with them, that they welcome both the Bill and the Board, and the powers given to the Board. They intend to co-operate very closely with the Board. They feel that the setting up of the Board will help them considerably and I think that close relations will be established between them. I do not think that I can say any more than that.

I turn to the Opposition Amendment to the Amendment, spoken to by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet that it is a different matter to take away a man's licence rather than to refuse to give him one. Other people, including the employees, are concerned, and I think that it is right that there should be different procedures. The question is whether we should give powers to the Board to cancel the licence on the ground that gaming on the premises is not being fairly and properly conducted.

I think that there is a difference with the croupier. I have taken the view that these are matters susceptible of knowledge and judgment by the justices and that is why I think that it should go to them. Paragraph 18(b) says that they may refuse to grant or renew a licence if the applicant is not a fit and proper person.

Under paragraph 19(6) they may refuse to renew a licence on the ground that while the licence has been in force, the relevant premises have not been so conducted as to prevent disturbance or disorder;". I suppose that there we have the kind of situation envisaged by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet. A croupier has cheated, there is a disturbance, and the police move in. It is clear that the licensing authority could take this into account.

Paragraph 19(c) says that they may refuse to renew a licence on the ground that while the licence has bee,n in force, gaming on the relevant premises has been dishonestly conducted.' That will become obvious from the dismissal of the croupier, even though the owner of the premises is sheltering behind him.

Under paragraph I9(d) they may refuse to renew a licence on the ground that while the licence has been in force, the relevant premises have been used for an unlawful purpose or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes. All these are matters that can and should be known to the justices.

We have just agreed Amendment No. 48, which said that when the Board has withdrawn an employee's certificate of approval at a time when he is still employed by the club the justices should have the power to refuse to renew the licence of the club where he was employed. So this is one of the considerations which the justices will take into account. It becomes a matter for the justices to decide whether the licence itself should be cancelled, either because they believe that the licensee could have been implicated in the employee's offence or because they consider that he has failed to exercise the supervision that he should.

The Board will be entitled to give whatever evidence it likes to the justices bearing on these matters, and all of it will be evidence of a kind which can be given in open court. But the Board will not be left in the position of being the sole and indisputable judge of the issue. It will be a matter for the licensing justices to decide whether they can properly exercise their jurisdiction.

Where we can get proper supervision and use the normal processes of law, we should err on that side. I hope that the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Colchester will not be borne out. If they are, no doubt someone else will have to look at the matter again, but for the moment I believe, although I concede that I may be wrong, that there are sufficient powers here and that the evidence will be of such character that it will be proper for the justices to consider the matter and decide on it. I would prefer not to accept his Amendment as drafted.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Buck

By leave of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

This is most unusual, normally requiring a special explanation from the Chair.

Mr. Buck

The Home Secretary has attributed the Amendment to the Amendment to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But in view of the assurance he has given about considering the matter of suspension again, I would wish not to move it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 54, line 1, at end insert: 'by licensing authority or court'. This Amendment is purely consequential on the new paragraph 31, dealing with the revocation of certificates of consent by the Board, on which the relevant licences automatically become void.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 57, line 4, at end insert: 'prohibiting such a licence from being held in respect of the relevant premises during a period specified in the order'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It would be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments No. 61, 62 and 63.

Mr. Morgan

These Amendments are similar to those made to Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill, by which a court convicting a licence-holder of an offence under the Act may no longer disqualify him—it being left to the Board to decide whether to revoke its certificates of consent in respect of any other licences he may hold—but may still disqualify the premises concerned. These Amendments make a similar change in relation to the power of licensing justices to disqualify under paragraphs 44 and 45 of Schedule 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 61, in page 57, leave out lines 5 to 14.

No. 62, in line 20, leave out 'disqualification or'.

No. 63, in line 25, leave out from first 'of' to 'the'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 57, line 32, after 'shall', insert '(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this Amendment we can discuss Government Amendment No. 65.

Mr. Morgan

These Amendments provide that a licence issued by the justices must specify, in addition to the name and description of the club, the certificate of consent in pursuance of which the application was made, and in such a manner as to identify it. They thus supply a necessary link in the documentation in case the fruit should fall with the tree on the revocation of a certificate of consent.

Mr. Buck

I do not wish to do other than commend the hon. Gentleman's somewhat biblical remarks, which we expect from him from time to time. Having gone into this matter, one finds that the Amendment is necessary to get the chain of documentation correct and we welcome it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 65, in line 34, at end insert: 'and (b) specify (in such manner as may be sufficient to identify it) the certificate of consert under this Schedule in pursuance of which that application was made'.

No. 66, in line 39, after 'whether', insert: 'in consequence of the revocation of a certificate of consent or'.

No. 67, in line 47, at end insert: (2) In the application of sub-paragraph (l)(a) of this paragraph to a licence which is in force on the date on which section 1 of this Act comes into operation, for the reference to the month of May therein mentioned there shall be substituted a reference to the first month of May following the first anniversary of that date.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The next Amendment is No. 68, with which, I think, it would be for the convenience of the House to take No. 69 and No. 71.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move, Amendment No. 68, in page 50, line 20, at the end to insert:

Certificate of consent for purposes of application for transfer of licence

50.—(1) An application for the transfer of a licence under this Act from one person to another shall be of no effect unless the Board have issued to the applicant a certificate consenting to his applying for a transfer of the licence to that other person, and that certificate is for the time being in force and the application is made within the period specified in the certificate.

(2) In the following provisions of this Schedule any reference to an application for the transfer of a licence under this Act shall be construed as not including any application which by virtue of the preceding sub-paragraph is of no effect.

51.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to any application to the Board for such a certificate of consent as is mentioned in the last preceding paragraph.

(2) The Board shall not issue a certificate on any such application if it appears to the Board that the person to whom the licence is proposed to be transferred (in this and the next following paragraph referred to as ' the proposed transferee ')—

1. (a) not being a body corporate, is under twenty-one years of age, or
2. (b) not being a body corporate, is not resident in Great Britain or was not so resident throughout the period of six months immediately preceding the date on which the application was made, or
3. (c) being a body corporate, is not incorporated in Great Britain.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, in determining whether to issue such a certificate of consent the Board shall have regard only to the question whether, in their opinion, in view of the character, reputation and financial standing—

1. (a) of the proposed transferee, and
2. (b) of any person (other than the proposed transferee) by whom, if the licence in question were transferred to him, the club specified in the licence would be managed, or for whose benefit, if that licence were so transferred, that club would be carried on,
351
• the proposed transferee is likely to be capable of, and diligent in, securing that the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under it will be complied with, that gaming on the premises specified in the licence will be fairly and properly conducted, and that the premises will be conducted without disorder or disturbance.

(4) If on an application made under the last preceding paragraph the Board issue to the applicant a certificate consenting to his applying for the transfer of the licence to the proposed transferee, the certificate shall specify a period within which an application to the licensing authority for the transfer of the licence can be made.

52.—(1) Where the Board have issued a certificate of consent in respect of the transfer of a licence under this Act, then, subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the Board may revoke that certificate at any time before the licence has been transferred to the proposed transferee.

(2) The Board shall not revoke a certificate by virtue of this paragraph unless it appears to them either—

1. (a)that the matters stated in the application on which the certificate was issued were false in a material particular, or
2. (b) that, since the certificate was issued, a licence under this Act held by the proposed transferee has been cancelled by virtue of a disqualification order made under section 23 of this Act or under this Schedule or in the exercise of the powers conferred on the licensing authority or the court by this Schedule.

(3)Where the Board determine to revoke a certificate by virtue of this paragraph they shall serve a notice on the holder of the certificate stating that the certificate is revoked; and the revocation shall take effect on the service of that notice.

(4) Where the Board serve a notice under sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph they shall send a copy of the notice to the clerk to the licensing authority, to the appropriate officer of police and to the appropriate collector of duty.

The effect of these three Amendments, put briefly, is that they are complementary in their effect to that of Amendment No. 40. They deal with the issue by the Gaming Board of certificates of consent to the transfer of licences and with the grounds on which the Board may subsequently revoke such certificates.

It is not my intention to go into any of the detail. The Amendments are absolutely complementary to the vetting machinery set up for the grant of a licence in the first place. If there are any points of detail which any hon. Member wishes me to touch on I shall be very glad to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 69, in page 58, line 25, at end insert: and shall be accompanied by a copy of the certificate of consent issued by the Board for the purposes of that application.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 58, line 36 to leave out from the beginning to 'except' in line 37 and to insert: 'On an application for the transfer of a licence under this Act the licensing authority shall not refuse to transfer the licence'. This is a purely drafting Amendment to paragraph 52 and it is consequential upon the need for a certification of approval before a valid application for transfer of a licence can be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 71, in page 59, line 4, at end insert:

Revocation of certificate after transfer of licence

54. In relation to a licence under this Act which has been transferred, and in relation to the certificate of consent in pursuance of which the application for the grant of such a licence was made, the provisions of paragraph 31 of this Schedule shall have effect as if, in sub-paragraphs (2), (3)(a) and (4) of that paragraph, any reference to the holder of the certificate were a reference to the person who is for the time being the holder of the licence.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]