Schedule 5 (Hansard, 12 June 1968)

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 71, line 24, at end insert: 4. Where on an application under this Schedule it appears to the Board that the applicant requires their approval in respect of performing the function in question on, or acting in the capacity in question in relation to, all or any of a number of premises specified in the application, and the Board determine to give that approval, the Board may, if they think fit, issue to him a single certificate specifying all those premises. The object of this Amendment, briefly, is to remove any doubt that, in issuing a certificate of approval to a gaming operative, manager, organiser, or supervisor under Clause 19 and Schedule 5, the Board is entitled to approve of the individual performing the relevant functions, or acting in the relevant capacity, in a number of different premises. Thus a bingo "caller" who acts during the week at several premises owned by the same organisation, as some of them now do, can be covered by a single certificate in respect of all, and so be saved some unnecessary inconvenience and expense. The principle may also have a wider relevance, as where a single person is appointed to manage two or more casinos in common ownership.

§ Mr. Buck
I am grateful that this Amendment has been put down. It is in direct response to a point made by myself and other hon. Members in Committee. It would be absurd if a "caller" at a Rank bingo hall, for example, was not able to operate in any one of the halls in that particular chain.
In Committee, I raised the point relative to croupiers. In this case there was a little more doubt about the need for this Amendment relative to them, although I suggested the Amendment be made, because one may well get a chain 356 of casinos or a link up between casinos in various parts of the country. For instance, the Playboy Club might have other branches. So it is sensible that that person, rather than the persons connected with particular premises, should be licensed. We are grateful to the Government for putting forward this Amendment. It seems to us to be in direct response to an interesting and prolonged debate in Committee.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I beg to move Amendment No. 78, in page 71, line 39, leave out from 'and' to first 'the' in line 40.
The Amendment has the same effect as Amendment No. 77, and in fact other Amendments, namely, that it removes all provisions in the Bill for appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of the Gaming Board to refuse or to revoke a certificate of approval for operatives, managers, organisers, or supervisors in licensed clubs.

§ Mr. Buck
On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that we considered this Amendment and the next one, No. 79, with an earlier Amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sidney Irving)
My record is that we disposed of Amendment No. 77, but not No. 78. We have dealt with Amendments Nos. 79, 80, and 81, but not No. 78.