Schedule 9 (Hansard, 12 June 1968)

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I beg to move Amendment No. 106, in page 83, leave out lines 4 to 8.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this Amendment, we are taking Amendment No. 107.

§ Mr. Morgan
The purpose of these Amendments is to delete paragraph 11 of Schedule 9 and paragraph 8 of Schedule 11. The intention of these paragraphs was to enable a local authority, in granting or renewing a permit for the use of amusement machines under Schedule 9 or for amusements with prizes otherwise than by machines under Schedule 11, to stipulate that, while the permit is in force, the premises shall not be used for any specified purpose
There have been complaints that sometimes during the currency of a permit, which the House is aware is for three years, premises have been converted to purposes with which the local authority would never have allowed the use of amusement machines, often mere fruit machines, or other amusements to be associated; for instance, where a cafe is taken over and converted into a shop, 360 perhaps a toy or sweet shop frequented by children. The object of these paragraphs, therefore, was to enable the local authority, when granting or renewing a permit, to provide for it to lapse should the premises be put to any specified use which the authorities would consider unsuitable.
It was evident from the representations made both before and in Committee that these provisions were open to misinterpretation. My predecessor, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), undertook to have the drafting reconsidered to remove the ambiguity, and this has now been done, However, there seems to be no ready solution without instituting an unduly elaborate system which the nature and size of the problem would not justify and which would be likely to result in difficulties of enforcement as well as inconvenience to local authorities and permit holders alike.
A permit holder might be required to notify the local authority of a change of use of premises; but would, for example, the conversion of a cafe to a licensed restaurant be a change of use for this purpose? It is likely that different authorities would take a different view of this, depending to some extent on their policy as regards the issue of permits. It would also be unreasonable to expect a permit holder to incur the expense of a new permit for the restaurant if the unexpired permit for the cafe lapsed when the change was made.
It is not possible to specify in the Bill the circumstances in which application for a new permit should be made. It has been decided that, on the whole, it would be better to omit the paragraphs altogether than to leave them in their present ambiguous state or attempt to provide a more elaborate arrangement. It must be left to local authorities to state clearly in the permit the premises to which it relates and the use to which the premises must be put if the permit is to be allowed to continue. If that is done in every case, no difficulty should arise.

§ Mr. Buck
A complicated drafting point was raised on this matter in Committee, and I think that this solution is a very sensible one. It is refreshing to see, for once, the content of a Bill cut 361 down. A simple case of surgery has been effected here, cutting out part of the Bill which was superfluous. As the hon. Gentleman says, no difficulty should arise if local authorities make their conditions clear.