Clause 2.—(PERMITS FOR THE PROVISION OF AMUSEMENTS WITH PRIZES.) (Hansard, 26 June 1964)

§ Sir Stephen McAdden (Southend, East)
I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, after "means" to insert "(a)".

§ Mr. Speaker
I imagine that it might be convenient if we were to discuss at the same time the following three Amendments: In page 3, line 8, leave out "(a)"and insert "(i)".
In page 3, line 10, leave out "(b)" and insert "(ii)".
In page 3, line 11, at end insert: and (b) premises which comprise or form part of a pier undertaking and in respect of which a permit for the provision thereon of amusements with prizes was granted under paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to the Betting and Gaming Act 1960".

§ Sir S. McAdden
I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
I declare at once that I have an interest in this subject because the whole purpose of my Amendments is to include seaside piers within the definition of amusement places. I have to declare this interest because, of course, Southend pier, the longest pier in the world, 1⅓ miles long, obviously offers great opportunities for amusements of this kind and it should be brought within the scope of the definition.
It seems to some of us that the definition of amusement place in Clause 2(5), while adequately covering such places as amusement parks and arcades, does not include seaside piers. The effect of the omission is that a local authority could, if so minded, refuse to renew a permit for this kind of activity on a pier or could surround the granting of a permit with all soils of unpleasant restrictions which would not apply if piers were brought properly within the definition.
It is very difficult for those of us who have not the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen to devise a form of words which will bring piers within the definition of amusement place. I believe that the Home Office is sympathetic to the idea, and I am quite sure that the promoters of the Bill have no desire to penalise seaside piers or deny to them opportunities to carry on their commercial operations as other amusement places do.
For this reason, I hope that the Amendment, which is intended to achieve 803 something comparatively harmless and would, I think, reflect the general feeling of most hon. Members, will be acceptable.

§ Sir L. Heald
We have, of course, no hostility to the proposal, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State has difficulties about it and we must consider what he has to say before we can form a view.

§ Mr. Woodhouse
It is very appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), representing the longest pier in the world, should be speaking up for the proprietors of such establishments. He referred to seaside piers "and such like places". I think that, in adding the phrase "and such like places", he put his finger near the difficulty with which we are confronted. One cannot write into Statutes phrases like "and such like places". One has to approach very carefully and, I am afraid he may think, pedantically, the question of definition. The Amendment is skillfully drafted for his purpose in that it seeks to bring only those seaside piers which have already been granted permission to provide amusements with prizes within the definition of an amusement place in Clause 2(5), and the effect would, of course, be that, when renewing permits in these places, the local authorities concerned would not be able to exercise in respect of them that greater 'degree of discretion which is conferred by Clause 2(1).
Nor would they be able to make use of the power in Clause 2(3) to limit the number of machines or types of amusement to be provided. When the House debated the Second Reading I was asked whether piers came within the scope of amusement places and I expressed the opinion, again without having had the opportunity to consult legal experts, that a pier would not be an amusement place by definition.
I had in mind the fact that there are all sorts of piers, some of which would not be, in the ordinary sense, places of amusement at all. I have since taken advice and have satisfied myself that seaside piers used wholly or mainly for the provision of amusements by means of machines are already amusement places 804 by definition and that an amusement arcade on a pier would also be an amusement place.
But the problem arises where a pier, although it contains a number of such machines, cannot be said to be wholly or mainly used for their provision, and it arises also where a caterer applies for a permit both for an amusement arcade on a pier and for the use of machines elsewhere on the pier. In such a case, a permit has to be granted in respect of the pier as a whole, so that the arcade, which would be an amusement place if taken by itself, might not in the larger context qualify to be treated as such.
I am sorry to appear to be pedantic but it is important to get clear what we are talking about and the difficulties involved. The Amusement Caterers' Association has represented to us that the situation I have described is an anomaly and it would like piers to be treated as amusement places whether wholly or mainly used for the provision of amusement by means of machines or only partly so. The Association has reasonably recognised that, to extend the definition of an amusement place to cover premises largely used for the purpose described, although it would serve its purpose, would be unacceptable to us because it would let in far too many other establishments and thus open a wide door to abuses.
The Association has, therefore, fallen back on the expedient of trying to deal with piers specifically and that is how the Amendment is drafted. But, of course, there is a genuine difficulty in finding a satisfactory definition for a pier. References to a pier undertaking would not be sufficiently specific and would cover a wide variety of structures that happen to project over the sea. The Association has tried to narrow down the incidence of these words by the qualification that the piers must have been granted permits for amusements with prizes under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960. But although, as I have said, this is a skilful approach to the problem it is unfortunately also a discriminatory one, in that it would leave outside the definition of an amusement place and, therefore, subject to more rigorous control, any new piers or any piers which have not so far provided amusement 805 with prizes but may in future wish to do so.
One may defend that or seek another way of getting round the difficulty but it would be less defensible to extend to piers concessions which, under the terms of the Amendment, would not extend to show grounds which exist in certain resorts and which are in every way comparable to piers, except that they do not stand over the sea.
These are, of course, largely technical objections, but I must also add that the Amendment seems not only objectionable in principle but also—and I hope this will give my hon. Friend some comfort—probably in practice unlikely to be necessary because, if piers remain outside the definition of an amusement place, we believe that it is most unlikely that local authorities of seaside resorts will seek to use their enlarged discretionary powers under the Bill to limit the number of machines or types of amusement in an unreasonably restrictive way on such piers. That would be contrary to their own interest.
We think, on the other hand, some powers of limitation should exist because not all seaside authorities would want to see a virtually uncontrolled proliferation of amusement machines on the piers. We think it reasonable that they should have some power to put a check on their number if they so wish, but we also believe that this power is, in circumstances of this kind, likely to be very reasonably used.
My hon. Friend said that it is difficult for those who have not the services of Parliamentary draftsmen to get exact definitions. In this case, even those who do have their services have been unable to devise an exact definition that would meet my hon. Friend's purpose and only his purpose, neither falling short nor going beyond it. I hope that my hon. Friend will also take into consideration the view I have expressed that the kind of Amendment he wants is likely to be unnecessary as well as difficult and that he will not, therefore, feel disposed to press it.

§ Sir S. McAdden
In view of what, I hope, will prove to be the excellent advice which my hon. Friend has given to local authorities on how they should conduct themselves, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.