I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment to the Lords Amendment is not selected, but hon. and right hon. Members who have signed it may speak to the first Lords Amendment.

The object of the Lords Amendment is to make it clear that, in addition to the particular responsibilities assigned to the Gaming Board by the Bill in respect of licensed and registered clubs and other functions, such as certification of gaming operatives and machine retailers, the Board would be expected to keep under review the extent and character of gaming of all kinds throughout the country. The Amendment is of particular value in its impact on Clause 50, which is the Clause dealing with the annual reports to be made by the Board to the Secretary of State for presentation to Parliament.

In these reports, the Board is required to account for

"the performance of their functions",

and now for the function of reviewing gaming as a whole.

The Board will be expected to include in its reports a general conspectus of gaming both in relation to licensed and registered clubs and more widely so as to touch, for instance, on the use of gaming and amusement machines, gaming at charity fetes and non-commercial entertainments and on amusements provided at fairs and pleasure grounds under the 1963 Act. A comprehensive account of this kind would be of considerable value to Parliament and all concerned with the social aspects of this subject. It will provide a setting against which the working of the individual controls can then be judged.

The Lords Amendment emanates from an Amendment moved in another place by the noble Lord the Bishop of Chester, and I hope that I shall not be considered unduly presumptuous if, at this stage, I say that on both sides of the House we have very much welcomed the help which we have received from the Churches in the whole consideration of gaming. The Churches Council on Gambling has produced some of the most useful material which we on this side of the House have received and I think that the Government themselves have been in close touch with that Council. This is another useful example of the work which it has been doing.

The Amendment makes it entirely clear that the Board is to be charged with the duty of effecting an overall review of the whole national gaming picture and, under Clause 50, it will be charged with providing an annual and compendious review of the whole situation.

Because of the Amendment, this report will be somewhat akin to the annual report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary relating to police affairs and the overall state of crime. But there are differences. One of the differences is that the overall review made by the Inspector of Constabulary is made by a person who has spent years in combating crime and who is steeped in police affairs. Because of the appointment of Sir Stanley Raymond, it cannot be said that this will be the case in 18 months' time.

We have grave misgivings that someone whose distinguished service has been entirely in transport has been given the job of being charged with the overall review of gaming. It is difficult to acquire knowledge about this subject. Sir Stanley will have to deal with some of the most difficult people in the world, because people will try to cash in on gaining in this country and he will have a very difficult task, especially as a result of the Amendment, which charges him with the overall review of gaming. We have misgivings because he is totally without experience of gaming, and a lifetime's distinguishd service in transport is not, in our view, an appropriate apprenticeship for the man who is to be the first chairman of the Gaming Board. However, it is entirely correct that the Board should be charged with the overall review of gaming.

I was particularly sorry that you, Mr. Speaker, were not able to select the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and myself, to disagree—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman reflects for one second, he will understand why the Amendment was not selected.

I was not intending any criticism of the decision in the slightest. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, know me well enough to realise that.

May I help the hon. Gentleman. He seeks in his Amendment to disagree. He is entitled to seek to disagree on the Motion before the House.

I appreciate that entirely. I disagree and, what is more, many of my hon. Friends disagree. I venture to think that practically all of my hon. Friends will disagree when they have heard what I wish to say.

I know perhaps better than most what was the purpose and intention of a Gaming Board, because the original suggestion came from me. I investigated very carefully all the matters which led to the setting up of the Board, its ideas and the concept behind it before putting forward the various schemes which later were elaborated and substantially adopted by the Government.

The purpose of the Board is to carry out the administration of gaming. The purpose of Parliament is to decide what we want in Britain with regard to the extent and character of gaming. This is a Parliamentary function. It is not a function to be delegated to the Gaming Board. The idea of the bishop who dealt with this matter in another place was completely misconceived purely through lack of political knowledge of the situation.

The matter was perfectly well set out before in Clause 10. The Board was enjoined to carry out its proper function, namely,

"to keep under review the extent, character and location of gaming facilities …"

The Amendment in another place imposes a duty on the chairman and the members of the Board to keep under review

"the extent and character of gaming".

In other words, they are to report on matters of morality and practice and to consider the character and quantum of gaming. If they are to do that, no doubt they are to give their own personal opinions.

11.15 a.m.

It is not sufficient for my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) to say that we have apprehensions about this matter. Apprehensions are nothing. The gentleman whom the Home Secretary has seen fit to appoint to carry out this task has acknowledged that his concept of a "flutter" is the movement of a female skirt. He does not know what a "flutter" is. From beginning to end, when this matter was debated, we made it only too plain to the Home Secretary that the man appointed to execute the necessary gaming facilities should have breadth of vision and a considerable general knowledge of the world and, in particular, of gambling.

If ever there was a clear case in which a political appointee should not have been a party political appointee, this is it. Plenty of hon. Members opposite, even if this had been a political appointee, might have asked the former Member for Dudley, Lord Wigg, for his opinion about whom might be suitable for the appointment. I am sure that he could have assisted in ensuring that it was someone who had at least the mere elements of a knowledge of gaming.

Or the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

No doubt he could have assisted them in this matter, too.

That would have meant a by-election.

Yes—a by-election which I am sure would have been very happy for hon. Members opposite in one sense, but perhaps not in another.

Order.

I accept the implied rebuke. Mr. Speaker.

The country is full of eminent men in commerce, agriculture and other walks of life who have a considerable knowledge of the broad ambit of betting and gaming. Unfortunately, one cannot just be tutored in these matters. A knowledge of gaming is something which is built up from experience over the years. I am sure that those who have recently been associated in the efforts of the Churches recognise how difficult it is to understand the follies, mistakes and evils of this subject.

It is a tragic error that the job of chairman of a Board which is to be given for the first time in Parliamentary history completely autocratic powers should have been landed in the lap of an ex-railway chief who does not have the support of all parties in the House or of the country, and that he. having frankly admitted, as one would expect him properly to do, that he had absolutely no knowledge of this subject and must, I think, by implication have said, "Why have you chosen me? I am quite unsuited for this purpose", should be persuaded by the Home Secretary, no doubt against his will, to undertake this task. I say "no doubt against his will" because I assume in his favour that an honourable man would point out the very limited assistance which he could be in this matter.

I should like to divide the House on this Amendment, albeit on a Friday morning, although I hasten to add that many others would not wish to do so, and I do not propose to do so. I cannot see what value there will be next year in having a report from a Gaming Board headed by this chairman with a total absence of understanding or knowledge of gaming, but we will do our best to try to make him understand what it is about.

I greatly hope that we shall have a first-class deputy chairman appointed. This is essential, because this Board will obviously be run by the deputy chairman. Therefore, let us see a person with no political bias appointed. I do not ask for a Tory, Liberal or Labour appointee. I merely ask that it should be a man not only of wisdom, but a man of the world with a thorough going knowledge of racing, betting and gambling facilities.

Let it not be said that there are not many such people about. There are plenty to be found in this country who have had knowledge of this matter throughout their lives. Indeed, there are such men who have served on one side or the other in this House.

The hon. Member must come to the Amendment which seeks to add "gaming" to "gaming facilities".

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The whole essence of the argument is: what is the purpose of having a Board to tell us about the character and the extent of gaming unless we can respect the opinions and views of the precise people on the Board when they express them next year? If we could be certain that we had a first-class Board, the best that could be expected, with specialist understanding, its recommendations would be worth receiving. In my judgment, the Government, having taken these powers at the express request of the Opposition, have clearly let us down by not appointing the sort of person in whom we could put our trust to carry this Board into effect and to carry out the first truly autocratic Measure in Parliamentary history.

I do not suggest that the present chairman or the Board will not do their best. But it is very difficult in this sphere to decide, for example, who shall or shall not receive a licence, who is the right type of operator, without having a considerable understanding of and sympathy for the industry. How can a man have sympathy for the industry when he has never in his life had a flutter?

I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), although I would moderate my support of the latter to this extent. I see no objection to the Amendment—in fact, I find it quite praiseworthy—in that it adds the extent and character of gaming in Great Britain to the total responsibilities of the Gaming Board, which is an utterly desirable development. This is in line with what I and my right hon. and hon. Friends in Committee were pressing for.

Throughout the long Committee stage upstairs we on this side took a very clear line devoted to make the responsibilities of the Gaming Board greater and the perhaps capricious interventions of local justices less in this serious matter. The addition of such an Amendment underlines the stresses and responsibilities, great as they should be, on the Gaming Board not only for the limited objective of supervising gaming facilities, but, in addition, to watch the extent and character of gaming in Great Britain as a whole. In principle, this is an absolutely unexceptional Amendment.

We have always sought—and the Government have been good enough to accede repeatedly to our requests—that an almost autocratic, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet said, an almost absolute, powerful Board, with certain knowledge of the whole affair of gaming, should take charge of the subject. Therefore, I find it absolutely bewildering to be faced with the first and most important appointment of a man who knows nothing about the subject. I go further. I believe that he knows less about this subject than most Ministers know about theirs—and this is very hard to beat. I do not know the man and I have nothing against him.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said, he has given eminent public service in the transport industry, but this is so irrelevant that I dread now what we shall find next in appointments to this Board. It makes me regret not only this Amendment, but the fact that we successfully obtained the establishment of a most important Board with such extremely arbitrary powers when those powers are put in the hands of people, who, in my humble opinion, are totally unfit to wield them. This smacks grossly of "jobs for the boys", as we used to know them in this House during the period 1946–51. It makes me feel that the Emperor Caligula was statesmanlike in the light of what we have seen recently concerning appointments.

Order. We are all aware of Caligula and his horse, but we are discussing whether the Board shall extend its powers to gaming as well as gaming facilities.

I acknowledge my fault in bringing horses into this matter. It is nothing to do with horses and I withdraw that point.

However, I resent completely this snub that the Administration has administered to Parliament after all the weeks of voluntary effort spent by Members of the House in Committee hammering out a good and workable scheme, now to be brought to nought by the appointment of people utterly incapable of running the great responsibilities put upon them. Therefore I feel sick at heart about what has come of the Bill.

rose—

If the hon. Member wishes to reply he must obtain the leave of the House.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) have bowled rather fast in this matter, but none of their bowling was on the wicket. The issue before the House is whether the Gaming Board should have its remit extended concerning the scope of its study and report. I submit that not one word uttered by any one of the hon. Gentlemen I have mentioned has been relevant or material to that issue. I appreciate that they have indulged in what they probably regard as a pleasant Friday morning knock-about on this subject, but I regret their remarks concerning Sir Stanley Raymond.

I do not subscribe to the theory that to fill this post properly a person must have knowledge of gaming as an operator or as a participant. I am sure that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet has spent a great deal of his life addressing High Court judges in technical cases. Take, for example, a medical case where there are fine and involved points of medical evidence. Knowing full well that the person to whom he was addressing his remarks was not medically qualified, the hon. Gentleman knows that he will come to a first class and firm decision in that connection.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, while a barrister has to learn his case, one would not appoint a man, however good a counsel, as superintendent of a great hospital, or as a consultant surgeon? That is the difference.

I do not accept that parallel. I was not talking, so much of counsel, as of the judge, the court to whom the arguments are addressed.

I am sure the House agrees that the qualities needed in a person holding the post of chairman of the Gaming Board are that he should be able to put himself in a judicial capacity, that he should be a person of high ability with wide and varied administrative experience, and that he should be able to come to intelligent and firm decisions.

I deny that this is a political appointment. I submit that the qualities which I have mentioned appear very clearly in the character and record of Sir Stanley Raymond. The remarks made by hon. Gentlemen opposite are unworthy of them, and I feel that they are seeking to introduce an element of partisan politics which, happily, has been absent from any of the stages of the Bill so far.

Order. Now that we have explored that controversy, I think that the Minister must come to the Amendment.

Perhaps I might add, because it might be of advantage for the House to know this, that there will be a secretariat to advise the Board on all detailed technical matters.

The Amendment does not extend the Board's powers in any way. It merely widens its remit and will enable the Report which is envisaged in Clause 50 to embrace all gaming activities in this country. I am sure that the House as a whole welcomes that principle, and that it will accept the Amendment.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Subsection (2) allows cheques to be accepted to obtain cash or tokens to be used in gaming, provided they are not post-dated. Subsection (3) provides that such a cheque must be presented for payment or collection on the day it is paid, or not more than four banking days later, or such longer period as may be prescribed. The Amendment requires the cheque to be presented not more than two banking days after it is paid, and it also removes the power to prescribe a longer period.

I appreciate that Amendment will bring the Bill back to its original state. It was amended in Committee, but if the Amendment now before the House is accepted the four-day period will be altered to the original position, and the power to vary the period by Regulation will be omitted.

The reason why we are insisting on the prompt presentation of cheques is to prevent them being held by a club in agreement with the player and so constitute a form of concealed credit, which the Clause otherwise prohibits absolutely. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite appreciate that it was strongly argued in the other place that four days was too long a period because it would be likely to allow the abuse which we wish to prevent. One banking day would be sufficient, but this would be unreasonable and would bear more heavily on clubs than is necessary. It was therefore decided to allow two days' grace, and to remove the power to allow a longer period. I commend the Amendment to the House.

I regard the Amendment as somewhat extraordinary. I think it should be pointed out to the Home Office that this is a fantastic change-round on its part. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill started with a provision that a cheque must be presented for payment within two days. That led to a substantial volume of criticism by the interests concerned who said that, for various reasons, two days did not seem a wholly adequate period, that errors could occur, and it was suggested that four days was a reasonable time in which to allow them to present cheques for payment.

What surprises me most is that the Amendment has been brought in despite an extremely short debate on the Amendment which I moved in Committee to delete two days and insert four days. My speech in Committee covered about half a column of HANSARD, and must, therefore, have taken between 30 seconds and a minute to make. It was replied to by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in these words:

"I should like to ask for the tolerance and goodwill of the Committee in making my maiden speech, and I should like it to be in this form: I have great pleasure in accepting the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th March 1968, c. 273.]

Having accepted the argument without any debate, we now find—although I have sympathy with the argument about blackmail I find it unconvincing—that the House is being invited to accept an even more stringent proposal than the original one, and without any adequate explanation for the change.

I do not propose to force the matter to a Division, but I regard it as unfortunate that, after matters of importance were put to the Home Office by the trade interests concerned and were accepted as being important and sensible, we now find that the Government have changed their minds without, apparently, any adequate reason for doing so.

I am not prepared to comment on the vacillation shown by this volte-face, but I might perhaps draw the attention of the House to the fact that new circumstances have arisen which I do not think have been taken into account.

The Amendment says that a cheque shall be presented

"not more than two banking days later …"

With our present postal service, which was debated so interestingly last night just before 11 o'clock, it will take much longer than two days for letters to get to the bank. Does "cause the cheque to be delivered to a bank" mean that it should be received by the bank, or will proof of posting be adequate, and if it gets lost in the mail will the credit which accrues therefrom be regarded as an act of God, or an act of the Postmaster-General?

Perhaps I might have the leave of the House to reply.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) knows as well as I do exactly at what point in time a cheque is presented, and that there can be no two ways about it. The Government need not apologise too much in this connection. They are entitled to change their mind. It has been quoted often in this House that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and the Government are facing in exactly the same direction now as they were when the Bill was first presented.

Can the Minister say why it was thought necessary by the Amendment to remove flexibility—the right to make regulations to alter the time limit?

I was coming to that point. On the question of the two days' limit, I am sure that the House agrees that on balance it is better than four days, and that there is a great danger of abuse in that if the limit is increased to four days it could bring about a situation of concealed credit. Only in exceptional circumstances could there be banking days on which banks are not open—situations of international crisis, which happily do not occur very often.

If they did occur I doubt whether it would be possible for the House to pass regulations in the short time allowed in any case. The removal of the provision for flexibility that appeared in the letter of the Bill does not change the situation in practice.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I suggest that with this Amendment we take Lords Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17.

These again, are largely drafting Amendments which do not bring about any substantial change in the character of the Bill. The only substantial Amendment is Amendment No. 9. The others are consequential. As subsection (1) now stands, only a licence holder may be prosecuted for breaches of the law on licensed premises and only a club officer for breaches of the law on registered premises, and they are given the defence that they had no knowledge of the contravention and had exercised all reasonable care against its occurrence. There might therefore be flagrant offences committed by an employee of a club for which neither the offender nor anyone else could be penalised.

The Amendment accordingly extends liability for contraventions beyond the licence holder or officers of the club to whoever may have been concerned in the organisation or management of the gaming in question. It does not touch the mere participants in the gaming, because they are more likely than not to have been the sufferers from the offences which have been committed.

I agree entirely that it is sensible and right that those who are responsible should be held responsible. I am glad to see that we are avoiding the error which has been fallen into in some other recent Bills, of creating absolute criminal offences. As far as I can see we have managed to avoid that error throughout the Bill. I hope that the Home Office will always give careful thought to these questions and will provide defences to the people concerned and not create absolute offences as was done in some other unfortunate legislation.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 14.

The Amendments deal with penalties to be imposed on licence holders or officers of clubs and institutes for infringements of the conditions of licensing or registration provided under Part II.

At present subsection (3) provides for summary proceedings only, with a fine of up to £400 and imprisonment up to three months, or both. The Amendments, which were foreshadowed on Report, remove all liability to imprisonment on summary conviction and provide an alternative of proceedings on indictment and allow for an unlimited fine and to imprisonment up to two years, or both. I sincerely trust that this meets with the wishes of the House.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment is little more than drafting. First, it applies the new expression "charge for play" in place of the expression "amount inserted in the machine". Secondly, it takes account of the fact that tokens may be used in these machines for the purpose of playing.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Subsection (3) allows amusement machines to offer a number of alternatives which are mutually exclusive. The alternative set out in paragraph (a) is that of a money prize not exceeding 2s. or a single token exchangeable only for such a money prize. We agree that it may be convenient for a machine which offers different money prizes to deliver one, two or three tokens, depending on the degree of success in the game, instead of having always to deliver only one token.

The Amendment achieves this without affecting the maximum prize of 2s., which can now be delivered by, say, four 6d. tokens instead of one 2s. token, as hitherto.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment applies to offences committed in connection with machines on licensed or registered premises. The principle is the same as that which applied to the Amendments in Clauses 23 and 24 in respect of offences against a general gaming loss on those premises. It does this for exactly the same reasons. It extends the liability from the licence holder or club officers to whoever else may have allowed the offending machine to be on the premises.

I wish only to make the same comment, and to ask whether the Home Secretary can confirm—although he has not actually said it—that these are not absolute offences, but ones to which there is a defence.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I think that it would be convenient to consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 33, in page 32, line 20, leave out subsection (2).

These Amendments deal with the penalties for infringements of the law relating to the supply and use of gaming machines and amusement machines under Part III. They provide for the alternative of summary proceedings with the liability of a fine up to £400 but no imprisonment or of proceedings on indictment with liability to an unlimited fine, imprisonment of up to two years or both.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is largely a drafting Amendment, but I apprehend that hon. Members opposite might want to know something about it. Clause 42(1)(a) prohibits any advertisement

"informing the public that any premises in Great Britain specified in the advertisement are premses on which gaming takes place or is to take place,"

The words "specified in the advertisement" add nothing to the sense of this provision. There is therefore a risk that the provision will be construed as requiring that the premises should be specified in some way, as, for example, by giving the postal address. Such a construction would leave the provision open to evasion, or, if an establishment were already a household word, there might be some doubt if these words were to remain in the Clause. Accordingly, the Amendment takes them out.

I can accept that the Amendment helps the Government in their avowed purpose of not allowing any form of advertising of these establishments, but that is a purpose with which we are not in sympathy, and therefore we are not in sympathy with the Amendment. It is absurd to set up all this panoply to provide legal and well-supervised establishments and then tell the people that they are not allowed to advertise. This pushes the matter under ground. We are against the purpose of the Amendment and this whole restriction. It suggests a presentiment of failure, because if we succeed and have a relatively small number of well run gaming clubs it is nonsense that people should not have access to information about them.

I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It would perhaps be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 36.

Clause 42(3)(c) except from the restrictions on advertising applying to commercial gaming clubs newspaper advertisements issued within 14 days of a licence being granted and in a form approved by the licensing authority. The object is to allow the new club some chance of announcing its arrival and so establishing itself in competition with the clubs already in being. The Amendments will allow the newspaper advertisements to be inserted still for 14 days but not necessarily for the 14 days immediately after the grant of a licence.

Instead, the period may run from any other date approved by the licensing authority. The reason is that, very often before making an application for a licence, the proprietors of a club might wish to carry out substantial structural alterations or additions and would wish to do that only after the licence had actually been granted. They would not wish to commit themselves to substantial capital expenditure on the mere contingency of a licence being granted. This enables the 14-day period to run from a date which has been specified by those granting the licence. I trust, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will have no fundamental objection to the Amendment.

Does not this illustrate the absurdity of the situation? What the Government are saying is that one can announce the arrival, the birth, of a new club in advertisements but one is never thereafter allowed to advertise the facilities on which one's survival depends. But in so far as this provides a little flexibility, to allow the period of the advertisement to be extended or to take place once the club and not just the licence is in existence, we welcome it. Probably the Government can see how absurd the situation is. This is sheerest nonsense. We condemn the absurdity but welcome the slight additional flexibility.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment is intended to meet the criticism of Clause 43 that if the police or gaming inspectors were obstructed when seeking to enter licensed premises or inspect the equipment and accounts there in the absence of the licence holder, no offence could be brought to him. The Amendment deletes the words "and with the consent of" and, therefore, widens the scope of liability somewhat.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment gives officers duly authorised by the fire authority the right to enter a licensed club at any reasonable time to see whether the fire precautions are being observed. The Government have given further consideration to this point, and I can, I think, chivalrously congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite who raised this matter on Report and now find that their advocacy was not in vain.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment raises from £100 to £200 the maximum fine which may be imposed on summary conviction of an offence under the Clause of obstructing the police or a Gaming Board inspector. Since these inspections are so important and constitute such an integral part of the Bill's structure, I trust that the House will not find the new maximum excessive.

We should like to know why. Is this a recognition by the Government of the rapid rate of inflation since this matter was first raised? The sudden doubling of the fine suggests simply that someone in the Home Office thought that it was a little low. Is there any real reason for this? Are the Government simply changing their mind?

Perhaps, by your leave, Mr. Speaker, and by leave of the House, I may be allowed to say that, of the two sums, the sum of £200 seems to be by far the more appropriate.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this Amendment the House will take Lords Amendment No. 41.

The first Amendment is a paving Amendment for the second. It amends Clause 46 to provide that before a court orders the forfeiture of any article such as a gaming machine which has been produced in evidence before it, it must give an opportunity to anyone claiming to be the owner of that article to be heard.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Clause 51(5) provides for all regulations and orders under the Act to be made subject to the negative Resolution procedure. As it stands, the provision applies to commencement orders made under Clause 54 to bring the Act into operation by stages. I am sure that the House agrees that that procedure is quite inappropriate to such orders, and the Amendment provides that it shall not apply to them.

I am not very happy about the Amendment. We are bringing into operation a very important Act, which the Under-Secretary will agree will require, among other things, a great deal of very careful initial preparation by the Board before various parts of the Act are brought into force. The House may well wish to probe the Home Secretary to know about the preparations which have been made and about the reports which he has received from the Board, for example, before he chooses to bring various parts of the Act into operation.

I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that an order bringing these parts of the Act into force should be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. It would not be a great hardship on the Government. It would not necessarily be used on every occasion, but it would give hon. Members the right to raise on the Floor of the House points about which they wish to be satisfied on the arrangements which have been made.

If I may reiterate what some of my hon. Friends said on the first Lords Amendment, our concern is heightened by our considerable concern at the person who has been appointed Chairman of the Board. It seems even more likely that one might wish to raise questions on the bringing into force of parts of the Bill.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this Amendment we shall take Lords Amendment No. 45.

Amendment 45 is consequential on Amendment 44. It brings the provisions establishing the Gaming Board. with powers for the appointment of the staff and their inspectorate and their payment, into effect immediately on the passage of the Act instead of leaving them to be made operative by a commencement order. There would be a saving of several weeks possible delay if the Amendment were accepted.

It is sensible that we should bring the Gaming Board into existence as soon as the Bill becomes an Act, but I hoped that the Under-Secretary would take the opportunity to say a little more about it. We have commented sufficiently on the appointment of the chairman of the Board and have told the Government our misgivings. Some of my hon. Friends expressed them strongly.

One further matter with which we should deal is his pay. Is £7,000 a year enough? What will be the scale of pay of the remainder of the Board's staff? By the Amendment we shall bring the Gaming Board into effect as soon as the Royal Assent is given to the Bill. If the chairman is to receive £7,000, how much will be paid to the deputy chairman and to those who will operate the Board? Those who operate the Board will be subjected to most fantastic pressures and temptations, and I worry whether the amounts which the lower grades will be receiving will be sufficient to insulate them from such pressures. If the chairman is to receive £7,000, shall we get people of the proper calibre lower down the scale? We should have an announce-merit from the Government about their intentions.

May I reply by leave of the House. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) spoke of fantastic pressure on the members of the Board but half-an-hour ago he was advocating the appointment of members of the Board from inside the gaming business. There is a fundamental inconsistency between those two statements.

I made no such suggestion. I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends made that suggestion. Experience of or some knowledge of the gaming business may well be useful to members of the Board, but I have never suggested appointing someone who is operating in the gaming business.

I accept that correction. I thought that there was solidarity of view between the hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett).

I am sure that the House appreciates that the establishment of the Gaming Board is the first and indispensable step without which the remaining provisions of the Bill cannot be operated. It is the heart and kernel of the Bill. To leave the establishment to a commencement order might involve delay of as much as a month, which could not subsequently be made good and which would react on the whole of the transitional arrangements, which will take long enough to complete as it is.

The principal provisions brought into effect at once are those in Clause 10 and Schedule 1, which deal with the establishment of the Board and its headquarters staff, and in Clause 43(1), which deals with the appointment of gaming inspectors. It is also necessary to make effective, at the same time, the following matters: first, the financial provisions in Clause 48, which deals, inter alia, with payment of the Board's expenses out of moneys defrayed by Parliament; secondly, the regulation-making powers in Clause 51, which require the Secretary of State to consult the Board before any regulations are made; and, thirdly, the interpretation provisions in Clause 52, which contain the definition both of the Gaming Board and of its inspectors.

rose—

Order. I do not wish to prevent the hon. Member from speaking, but it would be helpful if interventions in the debate were made before the Minister gave his reply.

I wish to reply to an accusation levelled at me by the Minister in his last speech—an accusation which I could not have anticipated and which surprised me very much. I did not suggest, as the Minister hinted, that the Gaming Board should be recruited from inside the gaming business. My contention all along has been that people with knowledge of gaming should be available to perform this task, and they are not necessarily confined to those who operate gaming machines. Some hon. Members—

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not attempt to debate this whole issue again. The matter has been fully ventilated this morning.

I am defending myself against the Minister's imputations about words which I did not use. It has been established that a Board which we thought would be strong might turn out to be weak in knowledge. We have reason to fear, from an announcement in the Press, which is our first intimation in this matter, that the members of the Board may be weak in pay and—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to order. We are discussing an Amendment which decides the date when certain parts of the Bill come into operation.

This is the last chance we have to discover the scale of pay.

Order. It may be the hon. Gentleman's last chance, but he must address his remarks to the Amendment.

I 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.

I have no objection to that course. Nor, I understand, has the House.

The first Amendment, on which the second is consequential, deals with the timing during the transitional period of applications made to 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.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It might be convenient if the House discusses, at the same time. Lords Amendments Nos. 69 and 76.

The 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.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Lords Amendments Nos. 53 and 54.

These are largely drafting Amendments and I do riot think that I need say more about them.

While 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 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.

This 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.

Hon. 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 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.

I 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.

Order, we now come to the Amendment.

I 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.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I suggest that we take with it Lords Amendments No. 58, 59 and 60.

The 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 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.

I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I suggest that we take with it Lords Amendments Nos. 62, 64, 65, 71 and 78.

These again are drafting Amendments.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I suggest that we take with it Lords Amendment No. 68.

Paragraph 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.

I 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.

It 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.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I suggest that we take with it Lords Amendments Nos. 73, 79, 80 and 81.

The Amendments provide for the relinquishment of certificates of registration of members' clubs and institutes in exactly the same way as the Amendment to Schedule 2 provides for the relinquishment of licences by commercial clubs.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in said Amendment.

The object of this Amendment is to go as far as we reasonably can to meet the wishes of the Churches, with which we greatly sympathise, that the sources of information on gaming made available to the Board, and through the Board's report, to Parliament, should be enlarged to the maximum possible extent. I am sure that this is an aspiration which commends itself to the whole House.

At present the justices are required to provide the Board, on request only, with such statistical information with respect to the performance of the functions as the Board may require. This is a very narrow provision. The Amendment obliges them to compile, from such information as is for the time being in their possession, such statistics as the Board may require. In other words it makes producible to the Board all data on gaming which comes to the knowledge of the justices, incidental to their licensing and registration duties.

This is very different from requiring them to account only for the actual discharge of their duties. At the same time, the Amendment falls short of requiring the licensing authorities actively to seek out information on the Board's behalf, which is not a proper obligation to put upon a judicial body, especially one which will be as busy as this.

I can summarise this by saying that this requires justices to hand to the Board information that they already have in their possession, but does make them agents or inquisitors for and on behalf of the Board. The present provisions only deal with information about the exercise of the functions of the Justices, purely mechanical information which is only a fraction of the information that could be transferred if this Amendment is allowed.

I accept what the Under-Secretary has said about it not being desirable for the licensing authorities to be charged with a duty to seek out information for the Board. This would be quite wrong, but does this not go too far? They have to provide, to compile statistics. I know from experience in another sphere how busy the clerks to the Licensing Justices are, and this is placing an additional burden upon them.

Is it right to require them to compile "from such information" statistics and other matters? They are not a seeking out body and that is recognised. I am not convinced that they should be a statistical compilation body. I dare say that common-sense will prevail here, and no undue demands will be made, but I am not entirely happy about it, and believe that a totally unnecessary burden is being placed upon the people serving the licensing justices.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

In Committee, the power in Clause 5(4)(b) to confer additional functions on the Medicines Commission was criticised by hon. Members opposite, as being far too wide. The point was also made on Report, and I said then that the power must be exercised within the ambit of the Bill. I thought then it would be better to leave the wording as it was rather than to accept the very narrow wording offered as an alternative.

The matter came up again in another place and on further consideration we decided that an Amendment should be made to make it perfectly clear that any additional or varied functions given to the Commission under this Clause must be related to the subject matter of the Bill.

Might I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his new appointment. I am sure that there will be people, inside and outside the House, who will be sorry that he is leaving the health sphere.

We welcome this Amendment. As the Minister said, we had fears that as the Clause stood, it was far too wide and we are glad that he has made it clear that no new powers can be conferred which are not within the compass of the Bill.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I suggest that it will be convenient if we also take Lords Amendments 18, 20, 21, plus the Amendment thereto, 22, plus Amendments, 23, 24, plus Amendments, 25 to 54, 57 to 62, 65 to 71, 76 to 79, 133, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152, and 169 to 175. It looks a formidable list but the grouping makes sense.

May I thank the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) for his kind remarks and good wishes. It is perhaps unusual that a translation of this kind takes place with delay action, but at least it gives me time to see through the final stages of this Bill, for which, complex though it is, I have developed a somewhat perverse affection.

Amendments 2 and 18 prepare the way for the new Clauses A to E which replace Clause 31, covering clinical and field trials, which was in the Bill as passed by this House. The replacement gives rise to these numerous consequential Amendments, and I am grateful to you Mr. Speaker and the House, for agreeing to discuss them together. The five new Clauses concerned with clinical trials and medicinal tests on animals were drafted in the light of some of the criticisms and suggestions made in Committee by hon. Members opposite.

My hon. Friend said then that Clause 31 and the succeeding Clauses would be considered further in the light of those criticisms. One criticism was that Clause 31 did not sufficiently distinguish between the different factors which affect the use of drugs in men and in animals. As to drugs for humans, control is first imposed under Part II, when a new drug is to be used in a clinical trial, that is therapeutically, in circumstances where there is a doctor-patient relationship.

The field trial was envisaged as the equivalent therapeutic control trial of animals. Under Clause 31, control was also first imposed at this stage. However, even at the pre-clinical stage, animal tests can give rise to hazards to human or animal health, for example from undesirable residues in animal products sold for human consumption.

New Clause D in particular is designed to deal with this by controlling the sale of animal products for human consumption. We came to the conclusion that further safeguarding provisions would be appropriate, and in the new Clauses control is not limited to those tests on animals which have a therapeutic purpose. The expression "medicinal tests on animals" has been substituted for the expression "field trials" throughout, since the latter expression was felt to be too narrow in its connotation to cover the extended kinds of tests with which these new Clauses are concerned.

A further objection to Clause 31 was that in limiting the requirement to hold a certificate simply to the importer of the drugs or the person "responsible for its composition" it imposed too narrow a control and could have allowed an entrepreneur, or a manufacturer acting through a third party, to escape the need for a certificate. The new Clauses stop up this loophole.

We have found it necessary to table four further Amendments to this group of Lords Amendments. The first two, which are new Clauses B and C, are to bring certain provisions relating to medicinal tests on animals into line with the corresponding provisions in Amendment 20 relating to clinical trials on humans. These provisions were amended to their present wording in the final stage in the House of Lords and it was not then possible to move consequential parallel Amendments in relation to medicinal tests in animals.

The other two Amendments to Amendment No. 24 are consequential on an Amendment introduced at the last stage in another place. This added to new Clause A a new subsection (6) modifying the exemption in subsection (5), and the other exemptions in what were originally subsections (6) and (7) were renumbered (7) and (8). The references in subsections (8)(a) and (10) of new Clause E to these exemptions consequently need to refer to all four subsections.

As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee, Clause 31 and the following Clauses were breaking new ground and we therefore welcomed the constructive spirit in which the suggestions made in Committee were put forward. I think that the outcome has been to add appreciably to the number of Clauses in the Bill and to involve a fearsome collection of consequential Amendments, but I think that the House will agree that the total result is a real improvement.

It would be ungracious of me if I did not thank the Minister of Health and join my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) in congratulating him on his new position. The right hon. Gentleman has done a mammoth task in bringing these new Amendments before the House, and I thank him for doing so. They very closely follow the points we made with such force in Committee. There were real difficulties as the Clause stood originally. These Amendments and the new Clause in place of Clause 31 add substantially to the benefit which will accrue from the Bill. I have had consultations with many interests since the Amendments were put forward. I have found very little criticism of them. These Amendments fulfil the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman claims for them and meet most of the objections we raised at earlier stages.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I suggest that with this Amendment we discuss also Lords Amendment No. 154.

The purpose of the Amendment is to clarify the definition of responsibility for composition on which, apart from imported products, the requirement to hold a product licence depends, in particular by making it clear that such responsibility does not transfer to the manufacturer producing a product to the order of another simply because that other person's specification is incomplete. This point is of particular importance in the making up of a special order where a practitioner may leave some latitude in formulations to the manufacturer. The Amendment to Clause 118 is consequential.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The House will recall that under the Clause authority was given to exempt pharmacists from licensing provisions otherwise applicable in the matter of stock mixtures. The Amendment merely extends such authority to the preparation of stock mixtures in hospitals and in health centres, subject to their being prepared under the supervision of a pharmacist.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The purpose of the Amendment is to remove the doubts expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) about the meaning of the expression "for his own personal use" in relation to exemption from import control, and, in particular, to make it clear that the exemption from the need to hold a product licence for the purpose of importing a medicinal product does not cover importation by a farmer of a product intended for his own animals or by a veterinarian for use in his professional practice. During the course of subsequent discussion the question arose as to whether pets were part of the household. Speaking personally, it usually works that way. In point of fact it was considered to be rather too large a loophole and of danger to the agricultural industry.

Is it correct that the Parliamentary Secretary said that it does not include animals in the veterinary surgeon's own household?

Yes, I said that.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Though differently worded, the Amendment is very similar in its object to an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), its purpose being to limit the transitional exemption in subsection (2) to products which the promoter himself had effectively on the market at the first appointed day.

My right hon. Friend resisted the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, on the ground that it would at an early stage in the operation of the new licensing scheme involve extra work for the licensing authority in dealing with standard preparations—that is, those for which a standard appears in such official compendia as the British Pharmacopaeia and the British Pharmaceutical Codex—and that in any event the requirement for the new product to be of the same description as the older one was a very severe test in the light of the provisions in Clause 117.

However, since that time additional arguments have been advanced on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry and, in the light of this, my right hon. Friend thinks that there has been some underlining of the potentially dangerous situation which could arise if a manufacturer were to launch a new product during the transitional period without a licence and based purely on his own assessment, which was unchecked, as to his own product being of the same description as another product already on the market.

In the light of these representations, which underly what was said by the hon. Gentleman, we think it right to make the Amendment.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this Amendment I suggest that we take all the Amendments up to No. 17, Amendment No. 19, and Amendments Nos. 156–165, all of which are akin.

The purpose of Amendments Nos. 7–16 is to improve the procedure under the Clause relating to the grant or refusal of licences under Clause 20, by ensuring that reasons are given in certain cases where this is not explicitly provided in the Bill as drafted and by making some additional requirements about the hearing of representations made to the licensing authority.

Briefly, the Amendments provide, first, that the appropriate committee or the commission will now give advice or findings and advice throughout, together with the reasons for the advice, which the licensing authority must notify to the applicant or licence holder at all stages where he has the opportunity to request a hearing or make written representations.

Second, the person appointed by the licensing authority to hold a hearing under Clause 21(5) is not to be an employee of the Health or Agriculture Departments unless the applicant agrees.

Third, the hearing by such a person is to be in public if the applicant so requests, and a copy of his report is to be furnished to the applicant if he requests it. Later Amendments make similar changes in other parts of the Bill.

Thus, the applicant or licence holder will know at all stages the reasons for the adverse advice or the proposed adverse decision. The final decision itself will be reasoned, and the applicant will not be left in ignorance of the relevant particulars if he wishes to consider applying to the High Court under Clause 99 questioning the authority's decision on the grounds there provided.

As regards publicity, the Amendments do not propose that hearings should automatically be in public or that the report of the person appointed should be published in the Press, because they may well concern matters which the applicant would regard as confidential. For example, he might not wish his competitors to become aware of his plans to market a new product.

The important point is that the aggrieved party should be fully informed of the relevant matters. I am sure that the House will regard these as valuable improvements to the Bill.

I do not propose to thank the right hon. Gentleman every time for meeting points which we put from this side, for otherwise I might well be accused of tedious repetition. We very much welcome this change in the Bill. When one is dealing with matters of great importance such as the grant or refusal of a licence, it is only right that those concerned should know the reasons which are given.

The industry at large will, I am sure, regard these Amendments as eminently sensible. The factor of greatest importance in relation to the Bill is that there should be a sense of fair play and that justice should be seen to be done. I am sure that the Amendments will go some way towards meeting that requirement.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have an interest to declare here, but I am sure that it is in the interests also of his late Ministry and of the new Department as well as of the whole pharmaceutical industry and others concerned that there should be such an arrangement as is now proposed.

I also welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has done. I have one question only. The applicant is to have the right to request a public hearing if he wishes. Does the same apply to the person appointed if he should consider that it is in the public interest to have a public hearing? May

No; it is a one-sided option.

I suggest that we take, at the same time, the consequential Government Amendment to the Bill, in page 94, line 24, after 'incorporated', insert:

'or in which any substance or article has been incorporated for a medicinal purpose'

and also Lords Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 75, 101, 141, 143 and 144. They are all linked.

I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The new Clause "F" set out in Lords Amendment No. 55 has been introduced in the light of the constructive comment made in Committee and as a result of further Departmental consideration. It is generally accepted that any substance or article added to an animal feeding stuff for a medicinal purpose should be the subject of appropriate control. The object of this Clause is to treat any substance or article as a medicinal product for the purposes of Clauses 36(3) and 37 if, although it is not a medicinal product, it is incorporated in an animal feeding stuff for a medicinal purpose.

Subsection (1) achieves this end. The important point to note is that, whereas, for instance, a mineral or vitamin added to an animal feeding stuff for such a purpose would be subject to the provisions of the Clause, a vitamin or mineral added to the feed solely to balance the dietary mixture would not be subject to such control because it would not be "for a medicinal purpose". I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) will have instances in mind, for example, the use of a mineral such as copper to balance the diet but which can also be used in larger quantities to help growth, and so on.

Subsection (2) enables a person selling, supplying or manufacturing a substance which may be added to feeding stuffs for a medicinal purpose to apply for a product licence for that substance as though it were a medicinal product.

Similarly, subsection (3) provides that a person who proposes to obtain such a substance in order to add it to an animal feeding stuff for a medicinal purpose may also apply for a product licence for that substance. This is to enable the substance to be so used as a medicinal feed additive even though its importer or the person responsible for its composition does not choose to get a product licence for this purpose.

Subsection (4) makes clear that a product licence, in so far as it relates to any substance to be incorporated in animal feeding stuffs, may include provisions about such incorporation whether by the licence holder or anyone who may have been told of those provisions.

1.0 p.m.

Subsection (5) provides that a feeding-stuff shall not itself be taken to be a medicinal product simply because the provisions of the Clause apply to a substance included in it.

Finally, subsections (6) and (7) provide for Ministers by Order to terminate or modify the provisions of Clause 36 or subsections (1) to (5) of this Clause. The Order would be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. This provision has been introduced in the interests of maintaining an appropriate degree of flexibility, a word much used in Committee for a complex field.

The other Amendments are consequential to the new Clause as is that to Clause 102(4). This allows arrangements to be made by the Northern Ireland Ministers relating to enforcement in Northern Ireland in respect of

I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on bringing this subject before the House again. These Amendments get over one of the most difficult problems which we met when we discussed the matter in Committee. As the hon. Gentleman said, one does not want to penalise those manufacturers who want only to bring a compound to a balanced diet level. This has been a very thorny problem and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ingenuity with which it has been solved.

This, too, has met with the approval of those in the industry who will have to deal with it, because not only does it get over the problem, but it gives the manufacturer a choice, because he will be able to apply for a product licence if he wishes. The final safeguard, for which I thank the Parliamentary Secretary, is the fact that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which is a very satisfactory way in which to deal with them.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after 'sells', insert 'supplies'.

With this we are to take the following consequential Amendments to the Lords Amendment:

In line 8, after 'sells', insert 'supplies'.

In line 11, after 'sale', insert 'supply'.

In line 12, after 'selling', insert 'supplying'.

In line 15, leave out from first 'a' to 'unless' in line 16 and insert:

'transaction whereby a person, in the course of a business carried on by him, sells a substance or article by retail or supplies a substance or article in circumstances corresponding to retail sale'.

In line 18, after 'sold', insert 'or supplied'.

In line 25, after 'sell', insert 'supply'.

In line 28, after 'sells', insert 'supplies'.

In line 28, after 'selling', insert 'supplying'.

In line 33, after 'sell', insert 'supply'.

The purpose of new Clause G is to extend the requirement to hold a product licence in respect of a medicinal product to some substances not at present covered by the Bill. Under the definition in Clause 117(1), it is possible for a substance or article to be something other than a medicinal product at its time of manufacture or import, but subsequently to become a medicinal product on being marketed wholly or mainly for medicinal purposes. For example, this might arise when an ordinary chemical substance which has many uses is packaged, labelled and sold with medicinal directions.

When the person who first markets such a product for medicinal purposes is its importer or the person responsible for composition, Clause 7 requires him to hold a product licence if he sells or supplies the product, but as it stands the Clause does not place a licensing obligation on other people selling or supplying. This is because where the person responsible for composition holds a licence, it would not be reasonable to place a licensing obligation on each successive dealer in the product as well.

But the consequence is that, as the Bill stands, if the first person to market the product for medicinal purposes is someone other than the importer or the person responsible for composition, no product licensing obligation arises. It is this loophole which new Clause G is intended to fill by providing that a product licence should be held and enabling the person concerned to apply for a product licence. Subsection (2) is intended to put the retailer in the same position as the wholesaler where he is consciously setting out to sell the substance as a medicinal product.

There is, however, a defect in the new Clause as it was included in another place in that no mention is made of "supplying" otherwise than by way of sale. The absence of such a reference would mean that the loophole which I have mentioned would not be closed in such circumstances as where a single fee for treatment covered both professional advice and the supplying of medicine, or where artificial arrangements not amounting to sales were made between mushroom companies operating at "wholesale" or "retail" levels and the person who is really setting out to market the product. The 10 Government Amendments to the Lords Amendment are accordingly intended to improve the Lords Amendment by inserting appropriate references to supplying.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 73 and 74.

The special defence in Clause 40(3) in proceedings for a contravention of the Clause relating to medicated animal feedingstuffs dealt with the case where the person concerned was not the holder of a product licence or animal test certificate and the act constituting the contravention was done to the order of someone else.

These Amendments make the defence apply where the person concerned had reasonable grounds for believing that some other person, not necessarily only the person to whose order the act was done, held the licence and that the substance or article to which the contravention relates was incorporated in the feedstuff in accordance with the licence or certificate.

This extension would be relevant, for example, in the case when the manufacturers of the medicinal additive held the product licence and some other person who proposed to market a feed containing the additive requested a compounder to mix it for him in accordance with the provisions of the licence held by the manufacturer.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this we are to discuss Lords Amendment No. 81, which is new Clause H—"Special provisions in respect of exporting certain products".

The purpose of new Clause H, to which Lords Amendment No. 80 is a paving Amendment, is to exclude a limited category of export products from the provisions of Clause 42 which postponed for export-only products the operation of the licensing provisions in Part II. The excluded products in question are the "therapeutic substances" whose manufacture for sale is already now subject to licensing under Part I of the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956, or Part II of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, and this includes sale for export, The need for this provision has been accepted by the pharmaceutical trade associations and I referred to it on Report and I think that the need was also accepted by hon. Members opposite.

The products to which the new Clause is to apply are to be specified in Orders made under subsection (2). It is the Government's intention that initially the list should be the same as that to which licensing currently applies and that it would be extended in future where appropriate on the same general principles as are currently followed under the two existing Acts which I have mentioned, that is, control would be related to the therapeutic importance of the substance and the need for strictly controlled biological tests to ensure safety, quality and potency. The principal provisions of the Clause are to be found in the first two subsections. The remaining provisions apply appropriate transitional provisions and provide for licences of right to cover products which were being exported before the first appointed day.

We on this side of the House seem to say very nice things to the Minister about him and his Bill. Having taken an interest in the export provisions of the Bill at an earlier stage, I should like to express appreciation to him for the constructive way in which he has dealt with some of the points which we raised earlier. We accept them and are grateful to him for them.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It will be appropriate to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 134 and 135.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 48(1) were inserted by Government Amendments on Report stage in this House to fill a gap in the Bill when we realised that the supply of a drug to a hospital patient or to the patient of a nurse or midwife technically involved a retail sale or

"supply in circumstances corresponding to retail sale".

It would not have been reasonable to leave such sale or supply subject to the requirements of Clauses 45 and 46 which were specifically designed to cover sale or supply at pharmacies, retail shops, and the like.

The amended Clause has, however, been criticised on two grounds. First, that by giving a total exemption for health centres and for hospitals—and "hospitals" is a word which has quite a wide connotation—the Bill would make it impossible to introduce, without amending legislation, safeguards that might one day be felt to be essential relating to the organisation of hospital and clinic arrangements for the supply of medicines to patients. The second criticism was that exemption for nurses and midwives selling or supplying medicines in the course of their profession might be misinterpreted as being wider than we intended.

There is some substance in both points. Amendment No. 82 accordingly restates the exemption for nurses and midwives and limits it to products specified in an order. Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 give a power to terminate or modify by order subject to affirmative resolution the exemptions in Clause 48 for hospitals and health centres and for nurses and midwives but not those for practitioners.

Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 are consequential. The first makes the orders listing products which nurses and mid-wives may supply subject to negative resolution, which is in line with other provisions for listing medicinal products in connection with other restrictions under the Bill. The second is purely consequential to the Amendment to Clause 50.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It would be appropriate to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 86, 87, 88 and 89.

These five Amendments are concerned with the interpretation of monographs in official compendia. Amendment No. 85 makes it clear that all relevant provisions of an edition of a compendium apply to the interpretation of a monograph in it.

Amendments Nos. 86 to 89 enable the Medicines Commission to approve synonyms which are, for the purposes of Clause 58, to have the same validity as the name at the head of a monograph in the European Pharmacopoeia. This is necessary because a decision by the European Pharmacopoeia Commission to limit the number of names at the head of a monograph would otherwise result in the loss of official status for recognised synonyms.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

During the Report stage, an Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), and was accepted, which made it clear that requirements as to construction, layout, equipment and the other matters mentioned in Clause 59(2) can be included in regulations only in so far as they can be related to one or more of the purposes in Clause 59(1).

It became evident in another place that the purposes listed in Clause 59(1) might not cover all the points which it would be important to cover in regulations relating to the suitability of premises used for the preparation, sale, storage, and so on, of medicinal products. The purpose of the Amendment is to include specific references to these matters.

Clause 68 provides for the registration of new pharmacy premises to be withheld if they do not in a material respect satisfy the requirements of regulations as to suitability made under Clause 59, this investigation being made by the health department concerned. The Bill must enable regulations to be made providing an adequate basis for this.

The additional points mentioned in paragraph (aa) in the Amendment are related specifically to preparation and dispensing and would therefore have no application to ordinary shops. Those in paragraphs (ab), (ac) and (ad) with regard to selling space, space for customers and storage are of general application, but different provisions would need to be made as appropriate to different kinds of premises, and there must, as the House knows, be consultation with the interests appearing to the Minister to be likely to be affected before any regulation can be made.

I hate to disturb the general euphoria, although I, too, am very sorry that the Minister is leaving the Ministry of Health. Others who have lived through the Bill with him will feel the same.

In Committee, my hon. Friends and I protested loud and long about the apparent restrictions which were to be placed on the ordinary village shop and the difficulties which the ordinary village shopkeeper might find himself in simply by wishing to sell aspirin tablets. We thought that we made our point fairly adequately. We are therefore disappointed that this Amendment appears to impose even more restrictions on the private village shop. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that different regulations would need to be made in different cases.

We urge him, or his successor, when making such regulations to let off the village shopkeeper lightly, because such shops serve a real purpose in supplying simple household remedies to a large number of people who live nowhere near a chemist's shop.

I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has said.

I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify one point. He said paragraph (aa) does not apply to the ordinary shop. I am not clear whether the same argument goes for the other paragraphs.

With leave, may I say that paragraph (aa) is related specifically to preparation and dispensing. Therefore, it does not apply to ordinary shops. Paragraphs (ab), (ac), and (ad) deal with selling space, space for customers and storage, and they are of general application. But different provisions would need to be made for different premises.

We are completely sincere in our assurance about consulting all interests likely to be concerned before any regulations are drafted.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It will be appropriate to take at the same time Amendment No. 92.