HL Deb 20 December 1983 vol 446 cc696-706

10.2 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL CATHCART in the Chair.]

Clause 1: [Conditions and Operations of Amusement Machines.]

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 8, ("licence") insert ("for the premises").

The noble Lord said: This is a clarifying amendment. It marries with Amendment No. 25. This amendment, No. 1, is self-explanatory. It was spoken to on Second Reading at column 770. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("a") to end of line 10 and insert ("reasonable fee determined by the licensing authority in accordance with subsection (1A) below.").

The noble Baroness said: I should like to move this amendment and at the same time move Amendment No. 3:

Page 1,line 10, at end insert— ("(1A) In determining the amount of the fee under subsection (1) above the local authority shall seek to ensure that from time to time the total amount of fees receivable by the local authority is sufficient to meet the expenses of the authority in exercising its functions under this Act.").

As is self-evident, the purpose of these amendments is to allow for flexibility and to allow for the fee to be fixed in accordance with the particular circumstances which prevail at the time, according to the level of inflation, and so on. This is an amendment which meets the requirements of the local authorities and I have the assurance of the AMA that it is a necessary amendment. Moreover, I have discussed it with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is equally in agreement with the spirit behind it. However, I am aware that the wording is open to criticism. Therefore, I should like to present this amendment as something that is required, but to look again at the wording and to bring it back on Report. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

The amendment is wholly acceptable. It seeks to reflect, in principle, paragraph 18of the Second Schedule of the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982, but the drafting went adrift and it will be returned to on Report. I support the amendment.

On Question, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 4: Page 1, line 13, after second ("money") insert ("of the value in aggregate of 5 new pence or more for a single operation of the machine")

The noble Lord said: This is a qualifying amendment. It was spoken to on Second Reading at columns 769 and 786. It is self-explanatory. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 5: Page 1, line 13, leave out ("either affords") and insert ("may afford either")

The noble Lord said: The next three amendments are little more than drafting amendments. I think that it will be agreed that the words "either" and "affords" should be transposed and that the word "may" should be added. While the machine "may afford either the freedom of further operation", it also certainly may not. In those circumstances, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 6: Page 1, line 14, after ("operation") insert ("of the machine")

The noble Lord said: This is also a drafting amendment. It is a clarifying matter to insert the words "of the machine" after the word "operation" in line 14. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 7: Page 1, line 15, leave out ("value") and insert ("cost")

The noble Lord said: I need not remind your Lordships of the definition by Oscar Wilde of a cynic. I think that it will be agreed that even a cynic will see that in this case when we speak about the money put into a machine we are talking not about "value" but about the "cost". I therefore beg to move that the substitution be made.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 2, leave out ("sections 32 and") and insert ("section")

The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment. It was spoken to on Second Reading. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("regards") to end of line 6 and insert ("amusement machines")

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the interests of brevity. We have already defined in Clause 1(2) the meaning of "amusement machine". Therefore, as the meaning of the phrase has already been defined, the words "amusement machines" can be substituted for the four lines which I intend to delete. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 11: Page, 2 line 10, leave out from ("any") to ("the") in line 11 and insert ("permit granted under")

The noble Lord said: Again this amendment is in the interests of brevity. In lines 10 and 11 there is a reference to: any licence, direction or permit granted pursuant to such provisions of the Gaming Act 1968". The existing premises function under a permit granted under that Act and not under any direction or licence. Therefore it is unnecessary to include those words. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 12: Page 2, line 14, at end insert— (" (5) If within the period of 3 months from the commencement of this Act an application in writing is received by the local authority for the grant of a licence pursuant to the provisions of subsection (1) above the provisions as to number and lay-out of machines under section 2(1)(b), and the provisions of section 2(2)(a) and (b) shall not apply unless at the time of such application, or at the hearing thereof, the number of machines mentioned in subsection (2) above situate on the premises exceeds the number so situate at the commencement of this Act. (6) Such licences as may be granted pursuant to the provisions of subsection (5) above shall, if the applicant has carried on business on the premises within the meaning of subsection (1) above far a period of at least 2 years prior to the commencement of this Act, be granted for a minimum period of 2 years with effect from the date of application.")

The noble Lord said: These are transitional provisions. They were spoken to at some length on Second Reading. They are self-explanatory. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)

I am sorry to check this marvellous career through legislation. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway on the extreme swiftness with which he is conducting his business. I am sure that the Government can take lessons from him both in that and in the ready acceptance of clarifying amendments. But I think that it is a moment to pause. It is the traditional occasion for the Government to make clear their position. I do not wish to detain your Lordships long on this clause or indeed on any other.

In the course of the Second Reading of this Bill I made it clear that the Government recognised the concern over this subject and explained the consultation and consideration that was being undertaken. I also said that legislation ahead of consultation was perhaps not the best way to proceed and suggested to my noble friend that he might consider withdrawing his Bill while consultation took place. He decided not to do so and we did not obstruct him on Second Reading. Nor would we wish to obstruct him now, but we cannot support the Bill or, more important, devote resources to any attempt to correct what amount to a number of severe and, I fear, in some cases, irredeemable defects in it.

Since Second Reading, there have been some developments of which I should inform your Lordships. Arrangements are now in hand for my right honourable friend the Minister of State to meet representatives of the Amusement Arcades Action Group in the new year. I also understand that the Department of the Environment will shortly circulate for comment a draft revision of the development control policy note on amusement centres. Until the need for legislation is firmly established—and even those pressing for controls recognise that this is necessary—we cannot consider the form that such legislation might take. I know that my noble friend disagrees with me on this, and I think that we shall have simply to recognise our differences.

Although there was general support for the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, there were noble Lords who differed from my noble freind on the detail of what was proposed. This illustrates the need for consultation. Our view is that this ought to be carried out without the constraints imposed by my noble friend's Bill and without diverting resources away from consideration of the subject and towards the Bill. As at Second Reading, I shall note the points made in debate and take account of them in our further consideration.

I do not wish to comment on every defect in the Bill, but Clause 1 is now before the Committee and there is a major defect in Clause 1(4) to which, as I am speaking, I feel I should draw attention. The clear intention is to disapply the provisions of Section 34 of the Gaming Act 1968 to machines located in premises licensed under this Bill. The effect of such a change would be that the monetary limits prescribed by Section 34 of the Gaming Act would also be disapplied. This would mean that machines licensed under this Bill could offer far larger prizes than machines which complied with Section 34 of the Gaming Act.

Coupled with amendments to be moved to Clause 2, this would permit the local authority to set the maximum charges of playing machines and the maximum prizes the machines may offer. This could lead to different authorities following totally different approaches. At one extreme, it could lead to an unreasonable restriction on what is, after all, a legitimate commercial activity: at the other, we might end up with a British Las Vegas. Even if the disparity was not as wide as that, the position of the Gaming Board would be undermined and central control would be lost. The desirability of this as opposed to the existing uniform system whereby the Gaming Board makes recommendations to the Secretary of State and any changes in stakes or prizes are made by regulation is something I leave for the Committee to consider. It would certainly open the way to potential abuse. Local authorities could be pressed to boost prizes, while machine manufacturers would have to have different equipment for different areas. Other premises, such as pubs and bingo clubs, in which similar machines might be located, would inevitably press for comparable payouts on machines located there.

There is another effect of Clause 1(4). By removing certain machines in premises licensed under the Bill from the restrictions in Section 34 of the Gaming Act, the effect of the provision is to make them wholly illegal. That is because Section 35 of the Gaming Act has a blanket prohibition on the use of these machines except in certain circumstances. These do not include the circumstances set out in this Bill.

As for the rest, I shall be brief. On Second Reading, I mentioned the difficulties over definition, including the definition of "amusement machine", which is at the heart of the Bill. Although my noble friend sought to clarify, at col. 777, the type of machine he had in mind, the definition in the Bill seems to be simultaneously too vague and too wide. The main problem is that the Bill seeks to tighten controls over machines which are already subject to control and at the same time to bring within its scope machines which do not come within the ambit of the gambling laws. I am also doubtful of the soundness of my noble friend's drafting as it relates to licensed premises. For example, off-licences would be exempt from the licensing provisions of the Bill as would other premises on which drinks were sold.

I do not wish to say any more but I hope that what I have said has served to illustrate that the whole question is a great deal more complex perhaps than this Bill is at present equipped to deal with. That complexity is what we believe time should still be spent on.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Let me say in answer to my noble friend the Minister that of course every consideration will be given to every point of criticism, as it will be to the defects which he has just mentioned. But I have given thought to his criticisms about the legal analysis. I have been wrong on many occasions, but I think that my noble friend and his department are wrong, misconceived and totally in error in their legal analysis on this occasion. If only my noble friend had had the time or the courtesy to afford an opportunity for leisurely and objective discussion, instead of coming to your Lordships' Committee to criticise the drafting in this way, we could no doubt have gone along the road a little further. Perhaps the less that I say the better. Time is short. I do not expect support from my own Front Bench, and I am seldom disappointed.

Lord Kilbracken

In view of what the noble Lord has said, I should like to add that I feel that the definition of "amusement machine" is not as good as it might be, and that the simple way out is to use the same definition as that which appears at the beginning of Part III of the Gaming Act 1968.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

I should like very briefly to say that I accept the criticisms of the noble Lord the Minister, but I would ask him to remember the expressions of concern that came from many speakers on Second Reading and which had already been voiced in the debates on the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill last year. I hope that the noble Lord will bring on with a certain amount of urgency the research work that is now going to be carried out into this very worrying aspect about which teachers and people in the youth service are genuinely very concerned.

Lord Elton

I do not want to be put into a false position. I welcome what the noble Baroness has said because, indeed, we are bringing this work on and I have already announced two stages this evening. Nor do I wish unnecessarily to offend my noble friend. Nothing could be further from my intentions. I had hoped that the conversations we had already had with him at the department would have eased his way to seeing our point of view, and that the criticisms which I made would be regarded as a helpful indication of what might be done at Report stage. If that is not the case there is no point, of course, in my giving further criticism at the other stages of the Bill.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Before my noble friend sits down I should like to say that he referred to conversations in the department, and I can do so, too. None of the criticisms which he has mentioned from the Front Bench was made to me at the short interview at his department on the eve of the Second Reading. Had they been made they would have been considered. That is my complaint.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I follow the point that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I hope that the Government will reflect on this matter between now and Report stage. It is the general view of many in the Committee that this is a worthwhile Bill, and we want to see some progress made on it. We all know perfectly well, if I may say so, having occupied a job not dissimilar to that held by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that when one hears words like "full and detailed consultation", or words to that effect, in many cases it means a great deal of inactivity for a very substantial period of time.

The Government have to recognise that there is widespread concern as regards this particular problem, and we do expect and hope to make some progress on it. What the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said a few moments ago indicated some slight shaft of hope; namely, that if a number of amendments are put down between now and the Report stage of the Bill the Government may (if I understood him correctly) change their attitude towards the Bill. I very much hope that that is, indeed, the position, because I think many of us would deeply regret it if the Government took an entirely negative view of what is, in fact, an entirely worthwhile measure.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich

From these Benches I was encouraged that the Minister used the phrases "recognises the concern of Her Majesty's Government", "did not obstruct on Second Reading", and "does not intend to obstruct in the future"; these are all generous and encouraging statements. Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government realise that there is very widespread concern about the moral issues behind what is apparently a rather straightforward and even mechanical Bill, because there are grave moral dangers lying behind this.

Those of us who have done some research into it would like to urge the Government very strongly to look with some sympathy on this Bill and to help with the work on Report, so that the very criticisms of Clause I which the Minister has so trenchantly put before us can be ironed out with the help of the Government. In that way a Bill of fairly widespread importance throughout the country may not be killed and then left for a long time. This is an issue on which I believe time is not our friend, and therefore I hope that the Government will feel strongly urged to act and to improve what is before us in preparation for the Report stage.

Lord Elton

I made the Government's position pretty clear on Second Reading and I shall not repeat the arguments now. I shall refer noble Lords to Hansard. We recognise the great concern that there is; we also recognise the conflicting views about what needs to be done and we think that there should be a degree of agreement about this before we launch on legislation. This cannot be achieved in the span of time or, indeed, under the constraints of the proceedings of this Bill. Equally, we do not wish to oppose the Bill. I had hoped that by pointing out defects as they occurred to us it would be possible to be of some assistance to my noble friend. I cannot devote the full resources of the department to producing an effective instrument and, therefore, neither can I promise time for this Bill in another House. I made that absolutely clear on Second Reading, and anything else I did was intended to be constructive. But it is taking time and I do not think my noble friend wants to take advantage of that, so I shall merely sit here and not obstruct further.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Licences]:

10.23 p.m.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 13: Page 2, line 20, leave out ("and").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 15, which in turn should be considered in conjunction with Amendment No. 14, which is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and is intended as an alternative to it.

Amendment No. 14: Page, 2 line 24, at end insert ("including maximum monetary values of means of single operation of such machines.")

Amendment No. 15: Page 2, line 24, at end insert—

("and

( ) to limit the maximum cost, and the maximum return payable, in respect of an operation of the machine.").

When I tabled this amendment, No. 13, it appeared that the local authorities would be given just about all the duties of regulating the conduct of business in general upon these premises, and, as I said on Second Reading, I felt that it should be specified, particularly that they should lay down both the maximum stake for which one plays and the maximum that one can win.

Amendment No. 14 states that the: maximum monetary values of means of single operation of such machines should be decided by the local authorities. My amendment puts it in rather simpler language—that both: the maximum cost and the maximum return payable, in respect of an operation of the machine", should be decided. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, I see the strength of his argument that both the maximum stakes and the maximum payout should be the same throughout the country. If that is the case, it would require a completely new clause which would have to be drafted at a later stage. However, in the meantime, as it has to be laid down in the Bill that both stakes and winnings are subject to control, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 as a paving amendment to Amendment No. 15.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 15:

[Printed above.]

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this. I beg to move

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 16: Page 2, line 24, at end insert— ("and ( ) to ensure that the licensed premises and persons there are adequately supervised at all times when the premises are open to the public;").

The noble Baroness said: I should like to move Amendment No. 16 and speak to Amendment No. 17.

Amendment No. 17: Page 2, line 24, at end insert—

("and

( ) to regulate the numbers of persons on licensed premises at any one time and to ensure that adequate means of escape are provided in case of fire.").

Again, the purpose behind these amendments is self-evident. It is clear that they are to provide safeguards which will help to combat the dangers which we discussed at Second Reading. The dangers are prostitution, the incidence of pickpocketing, and any kind of criminal activity generally that could go on in these places of entertainment. Again, Amendment No. 17 is to facilitate the means of escape in case of fire. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that there will be orderly conduct in these places of entertainment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 17:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 18: Page 2, line 30, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— ("( )the applicant is unsuitable to hold a licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence or for any other reason;").

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to render the present wording in the Bill more explicit. However I realise, and it has been pointed out to me, that the drafting of this amendment is not acceptable. I should like to take advice on it and return to it at Report when, as the Minister has already said, there will be a great deal new that will go into it. I shall not move this amendment.

[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 19: Page 2, line 33, leave out ("previously").

The noble Lord said: This is drafting. I suggest that the word "previously" in line 33 is unnecessary. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 20: Page 2, line 34, at end insert ("unless it be shown that all reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such breach").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to insert at the end of line 34, unless it be shown that all reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such breach". I feel that it is fair that these words should be inserted in view of the great difficulty in ascertaining in many cases whether a child is, or is not, under the age of 16, and it should be a sufficient defence to show that all possible steps have been taken to prevent such persons from entering premises. I beg to move.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I am not going to delay the Committee, but I should like to register the point that I am not clear what the effect of this amendment would in reality be. If one is going to create some form of defence of this kind, I am not sure how the term "reasonable precautions" would be interpreted in the courts. I make the point today, but I may conceivably want to come back to this on Report, because if this Bill is, as I hope, going to proceed further we must be clear that it is undesirable to put in forms of words of this kind which could drive a coach and horses through the meaning of this particular Bill.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I agree in the main with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that this is a matter with many other matters, which requires leisurely consideration on Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 21:

After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

("Financial Provisions.

—

  1. (1) All expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under this Act as approved with the consent of the Treasury shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  2. (2) The prescribed maximum fee mentioned in section 1(1) above may be varied from time to time by order of the Secretary of State.
  3. (3) The power to make an order under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  4. (4) All fees charged under this Act shall he paid into the Exchequer.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this formally because I am accepting Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. I beg to move.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved, as amendments to Amendment No. 21, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:

Leave out subsections (2) and (3).

Leave out subsection (4).

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 to the new clause, which will now take effect with the insertion of my amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments to the amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment No. 21, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 24:

Insert the following new Clause:

Interpretation

(" . "Local authority" in this Act means the Council of a district, a London borough, or the Common Council of the City of London.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is simply to give the exact definition of a type of authority, either county, district or London borough. It represents the normal interpretation. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Citation, commencement and extent]:

On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Elton

I assure my noble friend that I merely want to he helpful in drawing to his attention something that was brought to my attention this morning. I am not certain whether he is aware—it would seem not—that the whole subject is a transferred matter for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. As such it would normally be dealt with by a Northern Ireland enactment. Northern Ireland has its own legislation on the control of gambling. I do not think that that has been taken into consideration in the drafting of this Bill. As it appears under Clause 4(3) that the Act is intended to apply to Northern Ireland, I should be less than helpful to my noble friend if I did not point this out.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

May I express my unreserved gratitude to my noble friend the Minister. I had not considered that and I am indeed grateful.

Clause 4 agreed to.

In the Title:

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 25:

Line 1, leave out ("amusement machines") and insert ("premises upon which certain amusement machines are situate.").

The noble Lord said: This is little more than a drafting amendment; I seek to change the wording of the Title to read: An Act to provide for the licensing of premises upon which certain amusement machines are situate". It is the premises that are licensed, not the amusement machines. But if this amendment is accepted it will not. I suggest, be necessary to amend the Short Title which can still remain the "Amusement Machines Bill" since it is concerned almost entirely with amusement machines. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.