BETTING AND GAMING DUTIES BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 10 April 1972)

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House will appreciate that this is a pure consolidation Measure, consolidating the provisions relating to five different excise duties—the general betting duty, the pool betting duty, bingo duty, duties on gaming licences, and duties on gaming machine licences. It involves consolidation of enactments going back to the Betting Duties Act, 1963.
The Bill has been through all its stages in another place. It has been the subject of a report by the Joint Consolidation Committee on 16th February of this year. The Committee made one set of changes of substance to correct some errors in the Bill as originally produced and to ensure that it produced something that was in conformity with the existing law. Those were concerned with Clause 7. The Committee, apart from reporting that the Bill was pure consolidation, reported that the reference in Clauses 22(5) and 26(4) to 1.25p required, in the opinion of the Committee, to be retained in the Bill, even though no coin or coins are lawfully current which amount to that sum. The Committee made that report because the Bill is indeed pure consolidation and must reproduce the existing law, which refers to money values of that size.
It is upon that basis that I commend the Bill to the House.

§ Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich)
The House will be grateful to the Solicitor-General for his very clear explanation of this consolidation Bill. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, being a consolidation Bill it should not amend existing law. However, I am a little concerned that it 986 has done so, although not by intention. I will explain why I think this may be so, so that the Solicitor-General will have an opportunity of considering it, and, if he thinks that there is some force in my opinion, he can take the necessary steps.
As the Solicitor-General told the House, during the course of the proceedings of the Joint Consolidation Committee there was, as is shown by the Third Report of that Committee, some discussion on Clauses 21 and 22, and in particular on the inclusion in the Bill of the expression "1.25p". That is to be found in Clause 22(5) and later in Clause 26(4).
The Committee agreed, and so reported, that in its opinion this figure should be retained in those Clauses notwithstanding that no coin or coins are lawfully current which amount to that sum. The reason for that was that the sum of 1.25p represents 3d. in the old coinage, and under the relevant provisions of Section 10 of the Decimal Currency Act, 1969, references in previous enactments to old currency are to be construed as references to the equivalent sum in the new currency. We are forced to have this rather curious 1.25p as the equivalent of 3 old pennies. In the context of Clause 22(5)(a) and Clause 26(4)(b), this retention of a sum which does not exist, although curious, is nonetheless comprehensible.
The problem appears to arise in relation to Clause 22(5)(b) which has to be read with 22(5)(a) Subsection (5) relates to the amount which is chargeable for an ordinary licence for a gaming machine. There are a higher rate and a lower rate, the higher rate being double the lower rate, set out in Clause 23(1). Subsection (5)(a) makes the lower rate applicable if the machine can be played only by the insertion into it of a coin or coins of a denomination or aggregate denomination not exceeding 1.25p. That leads one to the word "coin" which is defined in Clause 27 as meaning: coin lawfully current in the United Kingdom. It follows that "coin" does not include an old penny since by virtue of Section 1(3) of the Decimal Coinage Act, 1969, and Statutory Instrument No. 1123 of 1971 the transitional period under the Act ended on 31st August, 1971, and the old penny then, no doubt lamented, 987 ceased to be legal tender. The old penny is not now a coin lawfully current.
It follows that if a machine can be played by an old penny Section 22(5)(a) does not apply. In that case subsection 5(b) applies; that is, in any other case than the case comprehended by subsection (5)(a). In that case, the high rate applies. What we get from that is that where an old penny is a coin which can be used in a machine it would seem that the higher rate applies rather than the lower. Such a machine, which can be used with an old penny, appears to be a so-called penny machine, as defined in Clause 27(2), where it is defined as a gaming machine which, in order to be played once, requires the insertion of—

(a) a single new penny, or

(b) a single new halfpenny, or

(c) a single penny"—
that is to say, an old penny— and which cannot be played in any other way…".

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have been listening with close attention to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but on the Second Reading of a consolidation Bill the only question which can be discussed is whether the law should be consolidated as it appears in a number of different Statutes. I am not sure how his argument bears upon that matter. He appears to be showing certain dissatisfaction with the existing law and he is not entitled to do that on a consolidation Bill.

§ Mr. Silkin
What I am seeking to express, Mr. Speaker, is that the Bill is not purely consolidation because, although no doubt unintentionally, it amends the existing law. I have read the appropriate passage in "Erskine May" and if that passage is to be read as being exclusive what I am putting to the House would, I agree, be out of order. But it would in my submission be odd if, on the Second Reading of a consolidation Bill, one were not able to submit that the Bill is not in fact consolidation but goes beyond consolidation into the realm of amendment. That is my argument. I naturally seek your guidance on whether it is permissible. If it is not, it is a little difficult to see how the point can be made to the House 988 so that that which is not consolidation does not pass as though it were.

§ Mr. Speaker
As often happens in our debates, the answer is that, provided the point is put fairly briefly, the Chair will overlook any question of order.

§ Mr. Silkin
I am obliged, Mr. Speaker, and I will seek to do that. Indeed, I had largely made the point.
I had referred to the definition of a penny machine which, under the Bill, attracts the higher rate, whereas a machine which can only be played with one new penny or a half new penny attracts a lower rate, so that it follows that if, in addition to being able to use one new penny or a half new penny, one can also use an old penny, or if one can only use an old penny, one pays twice the rate. That, apart from being absurd, is the reverse of the law which is being consolidated and is where, it seems to me, the Bill is not consolidation but amendment, because under the old law the lower rate was chargeable if the machine could be played only by the insertion of a coin or coins of denominations totalling three old pence. That is in Section 5(5)(a) of the Finance Act, 1969, which was subsequently amended by the Finance Act, 1970, to bring in the present definition of a penny machine.
Under the Finance Act, 1969, as amended, a machine which could be played by a new penny, a half new penny or one old penny was chargeable at the lower rate, whereas under the Bill such a machine is chargeable at the higher rate, the double rate. That clearly was not foreseen by the Joint Committee, which confined its attention to the oddity of retaining the 1.25 new pence in place of the old 3d. It would seem, therefore, that to produce both true consolidation and common sense an Amendment may be needed to put the matter right. If that is so, I trust the Government will consider the point—it is an important point, because the duty is very much greater in the case of the higher rate—and will seek to restore the law to what it was before at an appropriate stage.

§ The Solicitor-General
The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has discovered in the Bill a new 989 penny farthing, which he has propelled around the ring several times with no great celerity but with some intellectual dexterity. I think I understand the point he is making. I do not think I accept it, but I will certainly see that it is examined.