§
Lords Amendment No. 47: In page 48, line 26, leave out from "made" to first "the" in line 31 and insert:
(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date appointed under section 54(4) of this Act for the purposes of this paragraph, or
(b) after the end of the period of fifteen months beginning with that date and before.
§ Mr. Elystan MorganI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Lords Amendment No. 51.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have no objection to that course. Nor, I understand, has the House.
§ Mr. MorganThe first Amendment, on which the second is consequential, deals with the timing during the transitional period of applications made to 764 the Gaming Board for certificates of consent to a licence. The timing must be altered because of the failure of the Bill to become law by the end of July. The opportunity is also taken to impose a delay of 15 months between initial applications for consent from the great mass of clubs already existing and further applications from clubs established or intending to be established after the passage of the Bill.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment No. 50: In page 51, line 15, 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
§ Mr. Elystan MorganI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt might be convenient if the House discusses, at the same time. Lords Amendments Nos. 69 and 76.
§ Mr. MorganThe Amendment requires the notice published by an applicant for a licence to give the name of the applicant, the name of the club, and the address of the premises, and to indicate whether it is a bingo licence or a general licence that is being applied for. This Amendment relates to applications made during the initial period; that is, during the time when the Bill is being brought into force. There is already a similar provision in paragraph 6 which relates to the period when the Bill is fully operative.
The question of a bingo licence does not arise in relation to registered clubs and, therefore, the consequential Amendments are required to Schedules 3 and 4.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment No. 52: In page 55, line 41, leave out "to and from".
§ Mr. Elystan MorganI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ Mr. SpeakerI suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, 765 at the same time, Lords Amendments Nos. 53 and 54.
§ Mr. MorganThese are largely drafting Amendments and I do riot think that I need say more about them.
§ Mr. CarlisleWhile I do not wish to delay the House, I suggest that there is more than a drafting point involved in these proposals, which raise a matter of major principle, although it may perhaps have been overlooked at an earlier stage. I now have an opportunity to go into the matter and ask some questions.
It seems that by means of this Amendment the Government are saying not only that on the grant of a licence must one prove that a substantial demand exists, but that, on every future annual application, the applicant must be placed in the same position of again satisfying the authority that a substantial demand exists. I am not happy about this.
I understand that we are attempting to put the position of gaming clubs very much in line with that of betting shops. If my recollection of the law is correct, no such provision is required for betting shops. One can oppose the grant of a licence on the ground that there is no demand, but once a licence has been granted, one does not have power to oppose its renewal on a similar ground.
What will arise under this provision? A perfectly respectable company or individual may apply and get a licence, having proved that there is a substantial demand in the area. Having got that licence, he may expend a considerable sum of capital to fit out the club. Then, at the end of the year, although he may have been running the club perfectly correctly, unless he can again prove to the magistrates that a substantial demand exists, he may be in danger of losing his licence. I am enough a believer in my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to think that there are some things in which the market should certainly work, and this seems to be one of them.
If a licence has been granted to a person to carry on a legitimate business, one should not then attempt to decide at a later stage whether a demand exists. The person running the club will know that by whether or not he has been getting 766 a return on his money employed. Although I concede that the Amendment is drafting to the extent that this matter was not fully investigated at an earlier stage, when it probably should have been, there is an issue of importance and principle here. I understand that the Amendment envisages that on every annual renewal of a licence, the holder must call evidence to support his claim that a demand exists. The burden of proof should be the other way round if objection is taken to the licence being granted.
The Home Office may find itself in a lot of trouble with licensing justices if every renewal must be like a full-scale trial, with evidence having to be called to prove that demand exists—and that merely to retain something which the applicant legitimately obtained the previous year in respect of an establishment which he has been legally conducting for the previous 12 months.
Dr. BennettThis seems to be an absurdity, although the position may be resolved satisfactorily if the Minister says that the evidence which needs to be produced would be thought sufficient if the club's books showed that the premises had been doing successfully financially. This should be implicit in the fact that the applicant is applying for a renewal of his licence. This seems a totally unnecessary provision. The onus of proof should be the other way round. If objection is taken, the person taking the initiative, and not the applicant, should prove that demand does not exist.
§ Mr. Elystan MorganHon. Gentlemen opposite have made interesting contributions to the debate, but I suggest that they are completely irrelevant to the matter at issue. Their remarks are made on the assumption that the Amendment brings about some changes in the original Bill. If hon. Members pay particular attention to the beginning of paragraph 21(1) of Schedule 2 they will see that that is not so. It says:
The licensing authority may refuse to renew a licence under this Act on any one or more of the following grounds, in addition to those specified in paragraphs 18 and 20 of this Schedule, …Paragraph 18(1) says:The licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence under this Act if it is not shown to their satisfaction that, in the area 767 of the authority, a substantial demand already exists …".It is true that whilst paragraph 18 speaks only of the grant of a licence—the giving of a licence in the first instance—the wording of paragraph 21 is very clear that the authority might take into account the content of paragraphs 18 and 20.
§ Mr. CarlisleI hope that I made it clear that I accept that to a large extent this is a drafting Amendment. The matter should have been raised at an earlier stage, but as far as I could see this was the only way I was likely to be able to make the comments I wished to make and to keep in order, without incurring the wrath of Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder, we now come to the Amendment.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment No. 55: In page 56, line 30, leave out "game or games" and insert:
kind of game or particular kinds of games".
§ Mr. Elystan MorganI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It is a drafting Amendment which makes no real difference to the substance of the paragraph.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment No. 56: In page 56, line 32, leave out "next following subparagraph" and insert "following provisions of this paragraph".
§ Mr. Elystan MorganI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ Mr. SpeakerI suggest that we take with it Lords Amendments No. 58, 59 and 60.
§ Mr. MorganThe only substantial Amendment is No. 58. The first merely paves the way, and the last two are consequential.
The object of Amendment No. 58 is to secure that where an applicant receives a certificate of consent from the Board which is limited to a bingo club licence, not only must the justices when granting 768 the licence impose a restriction limiting the gaming to bingo, but that restriction must be re-imposed on any subsequent renewal.
In other words, if the holder of a bingo club licence wishes at any time to provide other games, he must apply for an entirely new licence and approach the Board anew for a certificate of consent to it. This is reasonable and necessary, since the Board may well take the view that an applicant is to be trusted to run a bingo club, while it may consider him, through lack of experience or financial resources, or for other reasons, not to be trusted to provide casino gaming. The two sets of considerations are entirely different.
The provision will also prevent a person who has paid the relevant fee of £250 for a bingo club licence from introducing other games without paying the full licensing fee of £1,000 normally chargeable to a casino.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment No. 61: In page 56, line 51, at end insert:
25A. Any restrictions imposed under paragraph 24 or paragraph 25 of this Schedule shall be imposed so as to have effect until the licence ceases to have effect or is next renewed (whichever first occurs), but without prejudice, where the licence is renewed, to any power or duty of the licensing authority under either of those paragraphs to impose the like or any other restrictions on renewing the licence.
§ Mr. Elystan MorganI beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ Mr. SpeakerI suggest that we take with it Lords Amendments Nos. 62, 64, 65, 71 and 78.
§ Mr. MorganThese again are drafting Amendments.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment No. 63: In page 60, line 34, leave out from "that" to "false" in line 35 and insert:
any information which, in or in connection with the application on which the certificate was issued, was given to the Board by or on behalf of the applicant for the certificate was".
§ Mr. Elystan MorganI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ Mr. SpeakerI suggest that we take with it Lords Amendment No. 68.
§ Mr. MorganParagraph 34(2)(b) of the Schedule empowers the Board to revoke a certificate of consent for the grant of a licence if it appears to it that the application on which the certificate was issued contained any false particulars. Paragraph 56(2)(a) makes corresponding provision for the revocation of a certificate of consent issued for the transfer of that licence. But in applying to the Board for a certificate in respect of a grant of a licence an applicant is required only to specify the premises concerned and to state whether the application is for a bingo licence or another licence. Not even this is needed in the cafe of a transfer, since, a transfer being between individuals and not between premises, and the licence being otherwise totally unaffected, both of these matters would be self-evident. Therefore, it is hardly likely that anyone would be tempted to falsify information of such a rudimentary kind. But when the Board receives an application it may be expected to seek a great deal of other information bearing upon the applicant's record, experience, financial backing and so on. It is here that the temptations to falsify will arise, and it is such falsification that the Amendments will now penalise by making them a ground for withdrawal of a certificate, so making the licence void, whenever they may come to light.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendrnents agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment No. 69: In page 69, line 7, at end insert:
§ "Relinquishment of licence
§ ( ) The holder of a licence under this Act may at any time relinquish the licence by notice to the clerk to the licensing authority; and, where such a notice is given, the licence shall thereupon be treated as cancelled.
§ ( ) Where the holder of a licence under this Act relinquishes the licence under this paragraph, the clerk to the licensing authority shall give notice of that fact to—
- (a) the Board;
- (b) the appropriate officer of police;
- (c) the appropriate local authority;
- (d) the appropriate fire authority, if that authority is not the same body as the appropriate local authority; and
- (e) the appropriate collector of duty."
§ Mr. Elystan MorganI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I trust that all I need say is that the Amendment ties up a loose end in the Schedule, which provides elaborate procedures for the cancellation of a licence or refusal to renew it for various infringements of the law, falling off in demand or irregularities of various kinds, but makes no provision for licences to be simply surrendered. That deficiency is now made good.
§ Mr. BuckIt is rather surprising that despite all the attention we gave the Bill at no stage did we make any provision of this character. Thank goodness it has been detected in another place. It would have been absurd if procedure had not been laid down whereby a person could properly give up a licence. One could raise technical points concerning the expression "appropriate officer", but the attention given to the Amendment in another place makes it clear that it is a satisfactory way of dealing with requirements for the relinquishment of a licence.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.