HL Deb 13 March 1984 vol 449 cc701-22

Report received.

7.24 p.m.

Clause 1:

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("shall") to ("to") in line 6 and insert ("use, cause or permit the use of, any premises, vehicles, vessel or stall").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I would like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the purpose of the amendment and others which I am tabling this evening is truly an effort to make a positive contribution to his Bill. The noble Lord is well aware, I believe, that we on these Benches are fully in support of the spirit and the purpose of the Bill. In order to translate this support into something more tangible, I have, with the advice of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, put forward these amendments with a view to strengthening the structure of the Bill. It is possible that what the AMA and I see as improvements will be regarded by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in another light and that he will consider them either not workable or unacceptable. I should like him to know, however, that they are put forward as a token of our concern that there is at present a lack of power to control amusement premises to the detriment of young children. There is ample proof that this is still so, and that there is a positive addiction to these machines.

We consider that the Bill is worthwhile. We hope, therefore, that the Government will put their weight behind the measure. If, however, as the Minister has inferred, they prefer to carry out some consultations and then bring forward proposals of their own later, we hope that this will be done with some urgency.

So far as Amendment No. 1 is concerned, I believe that the words at present used in the Bill where it reads, cause, permit or participate in the carrying on of business upon premises", make the prohibition in Clause 1(1) too complicated. It would make assessment of what is actually going on in the premises easier if the words in my amendment were substituted, namely, use, cause or permit the use of, any premises, vehicles, vessel or stall". This leaves out any mention of business. It would be a better way of reflecting the object of the Bill which is, after all, to control amusement machines and not business. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I am most grateful, as always, to the noble Baroness, Lady EwartBiggs, and to the party opposite in particular for the very constructive support that they have given at all times and at all stages of this Bill which seeks only to introduce a system of local authority licensing and control to prevent addiction of those under the age of 16, and to provide planning control when none exists. It is to my great regret that I have to say that I am unable to accept the amendment as it stands. I want to give my reasons carefully so that the noble Baroness will not think that I am seeking to deal with it in a cavalier manner.

The problem is that the amendment to Clause 1(1) read in conjunction with the noble Baroness's amendment to Clause 1(4), which is reflected in Amendment No. 5, would, I am afraid, seriously undermine the whole structure of the Bill as it stands and as envisaged by the amendments which I propose to move. This, therefore, would not serve any valid purpose; it would not serve my purpose and it would not serve the purpose of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs.

Furthermore, it extends the incidence of the Bill to vehicles, vessels or stalls, which is inappropriate for two main reasons. First, it would include temporary and movable structures in respect of which, apart from practical administrative problems for the local authority, there is no proven need for control. But far more importantly, the form of the amendment lies in direct conflict with Amendment No. 9, which is to be moved later by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and which makes it plain for the avoidance of doubt that movable structures—in particular a travelling showman's stall—are excluded. I have told the noble Lord that it is my intention to support that amendment.

Therefore, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the problem is that the cast of the drafting in this amendment introduces the amendment to Clause 1(4)—that is, her Amendment No. 5—which in turn leads to the conflict to which I have referred. This conflict also affects Amendments Nos. 24 and 29. So, however well intentioned, the substitution of these words to seek to omit reference to "business" would, in fact, far from reducing complexity, add such a measure of complexity as to render it virtually impossible at this stage to pull the Bill together, and it would, therefore—although such is not the intention—defeat the formation of a valid Bill.

As this is the first amendment, I should like to say that I am always able to entertain further discussion with the noble Baroness or any noble Lord between Report stage and Third Reading to seek to improve the structure and the content of this Bill with a view to limiting its incidence to the bare minimum requisite to secure these twin objectives. But for the reasons given, I am afraid that I am unable to accept the amendment as it stands. I hope that my reasoning will have been sufficient or tight enough to convince the noble Baroness that I have taken the point seriously, but that I am unable to accept it. In those circumstances perhaps the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. He is, without any doubt, better placed than I am to regard the effect of this particular amendment upon the entirety of his Bill. I will therefore accept his offer of a discussion later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the time being.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.34 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 9, after ("fee") insert ("to the local authority which shall be charged against each such machine upon the premises").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is twofold. First, it acknowledges the very helpful amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, at the Committee stage and it completes it in the manner in which we both informally agreed it might require completion. However, the amendment is also put forward to secure pro rata charges to protect the interests of the single user or users of few machines compared to the multiple users so that the licence fees are not extortionate. That is the sole object of the amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.

The Earl of Liverpool

My Lords, this is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on this Bill in your Lordships' House and I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and the whole House, for not being present at Second Reading or the Report stage. My absence was due to long-standing business engagements. There are certain aspects of this legislation which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, knows do concern me, and I am extremely grateful to him for sparing the time to discuss some of them with me yesterday.

I have an interest to declare in that I am a director of two companies based in the East Midlands—one operates a group of public houses and the other supplies all types of amusement machines. We do not, however, either supply or operate any arcades.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in moving this amendment. The noble Lord talked about the need to protect the small trader and therefore be proposed a pro rata charge. But I am, nonetheless, concerned about the question of charging a fee on the machines instead of the site itself. All amusement with prizes machines, with a cash pay-out of £3 in a combination of cash or tokens, are already required to pay a licence duty of £300 per annum. The costs of each local authority in implementing the legislation as proposed in the amendment will vary from area to area and it will, I believe, result in differing overheads for neighbouring operators. I believe that it would amount to an arbitrary tax but I would, perhaps, like to modify that in view of what the noble Lord said in moving the amendment. But I feel that there would be an additional burden here for every business which had even one machine on the premises, and that encompasses fish and chip shops, fast food take-aways and even petrol stations.

It is estimated by the trade that, excluding public houses, there are approximately 100,000 such machines currently in use. This amendment would put a substantial burden on local authorities to administer them and I believe that they are concerned about this at a time when they are trying to streamline their departments and cut overheads.

I do not wish to detain your Lordships unduly, but it would seem that the Bill comes before your Lordships ahead of any really substantive research into the extent of the problems which we are told emanate from arcades. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made this point during Second Reading. If a substantial case can be made to show that serious problems exist—and the noble Baroness, Lady EwartBiggs, did say that she had evidence—then I would support some form of legislation which had the benefit of a balanced judgment and consultation with all interested parties. But such indicators as are available to me would seem to show that the problems are not as intense or as widespread as the media would have us believe.

In an effort to quantify the problem, the Merseyside Council set up, as a registered charity, a body now known as the Merseyside Council on Gambling Addiction—MCGA for short. That was set up in May last year and its terms of reference were set out in a press release at the time. As it was the first body of its type to be set up in this country, I think that it is of interest. It said: Recently there has been much attention in the media given to allegations that excessive gambling occurring in amusement arcades is responsible for truancy, child prostitution, crime and various other evils. None of these somewhat alarmist statements have been substantiated with hard facts, and have been responsible for a confused and distorted view of the machine industry in general." "There is obviously a crying need for empirical research to ascertain the true situation. We believe that MCGA is in a unique position to administer and conduct such studies from a suitably unbiased standpoint. I see that I may be losing the sympathy of the House in what amounts to a rather lengthy sortie on this Bill. But I am concerned that we should go forward with legislation if there is a true need for it.

A number of noble Lords conducted their research at first hand and brought these findings to the attention of your Lordships at Second Reading—particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. Indeed, I have conducted research into arcades in Margate. I was eagerly encouraged in this by my two sons aged 11 and 9, and of course they came with me. I visited at least four establishments and I can tell the House that on no occasion did I find that there was anything untoward, and all the sites were well supervised.

I am concerned that coastal arcades will be decimated by this Bill. I am concerned about the interaction of this Bill with existing legislation, and I believe that the Gaming Board shares my concern. I shall not detain your Lordships longer, but I do not think that I can support this amendment.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for giving us that very full explanation—one might almost call it a Second Reading speech—of the points he made, and I am sure that we are most grateful for his openness in declaring such a very deep technical interest in the matter. From what I say it may appear that I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The question of research can very often be used as a blocking device until a situation becomes so large that it is even more difficult to control. I believe that there is a sufficient amount of knowledge, which is gradually but steadily coming in, concerning the moral issues that arise on two fronts in the so-called amusement arcades.

One is the tendency of youngsters much younger than 16 years old to become concerned, first, with gambling and, secondly, with a desire to make more money. The Holy Scripture says that the love of money is the root of all evil; it is not the money, it is the love of it, and the love is encouraged by this. This means that it is very easy for rootless youngsters to become so caught up in the use of these machines that they turn to petty crime to get the money to play them. I am sure the noble Earl would be glad if the various Church bodies concerned with these moral issues heightened their research. The second area is the rather terrible one of the development here and there of young male prostitution coming from assignments in such places.

For those two very simple reasons I am quite sure that the attempt, under this amendment, to provide for care for both the single and the multiple uses means that we should support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. It means that, in the case of a single use, where obviously those two major evils of which I have spoken are much less likely to crop up, the point the noble Earl made about the pressure of money is a very small one if it is on a pro rata basis.

However, if I quote him right, the noble Lord himself said that his interest was concerned with amusement machines and he was concerned about multiple use. It seems to me that it is the multiple use area that this particular amendment hopes to contain. It will help the local authority so that the local authority will, in fact, over and against what the noble Earl says, be able to afford to control this potential danger. For that reason I hope that your Lordships will support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his amendment.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, could go a little further in his explanation of this amendment. Perhaps I am being rather stupid, but can he tell me whether he envisages that the operator of an arcade with many machines would pay the same fee as the owner of a single machine?

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, quite the reverse.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I quite understand the noble Lord's explanation. If, for my benefit, he would repeat it, I should be very grateful.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. There are always two views and it is right that both should be firmly and frankly expressed.

Above all, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for what he said on the moral issue, which after all is the issue which has been concerning your Lordships' House. It is the issue which concerns the party opposite; it is the issue which concerns the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and all sides of this House, and it is the issue which concerns me. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 18, after ("contrivance") insert ("device, equipment or mechanism").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is simply to make the definition of "amusement machine" much wider, for I think it is evident these days that the pace of technological development is very great. I think it would be right to say that especially in this field this advance is greatest. Therefore, perhaps through specifying the definition of "amusement machine" a little further, as I have tried to do in this amendment, future arguments based on technicalities may be avoided. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. The amendment is wholly acceptable.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

7.49 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 4: Page 1, line 18, after ("contrivance") insert ("other than such as may only provide goods, dispensing of cash, reproduction of sound or light, or means of telephonic communication) ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to take on hoard a point which troubled my noble friend Lord Elton both at Second Reading and in Committee. There had to be some means of removing from the definition, which is a difficult definition, a device such as a telephone. My noble friend Lord Elton was good enough to write to me, and I have taken his advice. He is in no way responsible for this drafting. Alas! I am responsible for all the drafting, and that is why there is so much trouble with it. The amendment reflects the concern that the department felt about this aspect. I should add, of course, that the Government are in no way committed to this Bill—yet. I beg to move.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to tell me what he means by the "reproduction of light"? I understand all the others.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, the operative word is "only", but one can substitute "exclusively". If one has a machine which produces only sound, such as a gramphone, or which produces only light, such as an electic light bulb, or is only a means of telephonic communication, it cannot fall within this definition of "amusement machine". It is difficult to draft. It is a simple concept; it was simply stated by my noble friend Lord Elton. I have done my best to meet it with this form of drafting. I cannot do more. It is on that basis that I have put it forward.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter)

My Lords, Amendment No. 5. I am instructed that, if this amendment is carried, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 6 to 9.

Baroness Ewan-Biggs moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert— ("() Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to premises, or a vehicle, vessel or stall where there is currently in force a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor granted under the provisions of the Licensing Act 1964").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is purely to make subsection (4) of Clause I consistent with my suggested amendment to subsection (1) of Clause 1, which I have already moved. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, would it be for the convenience of the House if, by leave, I could speak on Amendments Nos. 5 to 9, all of which are concerned with Clause 1(4) of the Bill, the exclusions subsection? I am grateful to your Lordships.

Amendment No. 5 proposes to remove Clause 1(4), the exclusions subsection, and substitute the words of the amendment. I have already referred to the problem of extending the definition of "premises", which gives rise to unacceptable consequences as regards extending the incidence of this Bill beyond what is necessary. But the area of exclusion proposed in this amendment is not sufficient to avoid anomalies under the Licensing Act 1964, a point which was well taken by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at Committee stage and which is reflected—and again he was good enough to write to me about this without commitment—by my Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 which I propose to move in due course.

With the utmost respect, Amendment 5, although designed to be helpful, in fact adversely affects the structure of the Bill and does not afford a sufficient area of exclusion. This leads one to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Amendment No. 8, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, is a complicated amendment. The conditions laid down in Section 27 of the Gaming Act relate to general restrictions as to the "Sale, supply and maintenance of machines" to which that Act applies. This Bill is not concerned in any way with the sale, supply or maintenance of machines.

Section 27(3)(a) to (c) of the Gaming Act is concerned with the sale, supply or use of machines, for use exclusively at a travelling showmen's pleasure fair or…on premises used or to be used— (a) wholly or mainly for the provision of amusements"— and this would include arcades, which the proposal is to exclude— (b) wholly or mainly for the purposes of a pleasure fair consisting wholly or mainly of amusements, or (c) as a pleasure pier".

One has only to think for one moment to realise that to exclude such uses from the incidence of the Bill would defeat one of its main objects, which is to deny access to amusement machines to those under 16 if of the 5p or upwards variety. Such exclusions, even if they would virtually wreck the Bill, would provide vast scope for evasion: and an important distinction between access to premises and access to a machine in an operable state is drawn by Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which I propose to move.

In drafting those amendments, Nos. 13 and 14, the interests of those who run pleasure fairs and pleasure piers were very much upmost in my mind. There is no definition—I am dealing with Amendment No. 8—of the premises in Section 27(3)(a) to (c), only a description of uses to which such premises are put as excluding general restrictions as to the "sale, supply and maintenance of machines". The concept of this Bill is that it should apply to premises, irrespective of the use, whether exclusive or otherwise, which are the subject of Clause 1(4) as amended by Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. But a stall—and this leads one to the amendment which I propose to accept—at a travelling showmen's fair is not premises; it is a movable structure, and Amendment 9 should be accepted for the avoidance of doubt.

I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to deal with that gamut which in fact concerns the exclusion clause, but in the circumstances I am bound to oppose, for the reasons that I have given, Amendment No. 5, although in due course I propose to move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 and to accept with gratitude Amendment No. 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am most grateful for the explanation that the noble Lord has given of the effects of the amendments set down in my name. When I look at the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 8, I realise that he may well be (in fact, I am sure he is) absolutely correct that I have possibly taken the wrong subsection. Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I try to explain what I was trying to achieve.

In Amendment No. 9 I was trying to make clear that a showmen's fair, a travelling fair, was something quite different from any ordinary form of entertainment. It was something that one went along to in a particular mood and with a particular attitude, and therefore there was unlikely to be any great involvement other than for the short period that the fair happened to be on the common, in the public park or on the piece of ground. Therefore, I was anxious that that should be excluded from the operation of the Bill.

The next point that concerned me when I was approached by a number of people was that there are one or two other areas which almost come within the same category. Here I certainly take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, when he talks about the difficulties of framing legislation. He is a skilled barrister and I am a layman, and therefore I can see the problems even more sharply than he can.

I would consider that a pleasure pier was in a different category from an arcade in some industrial city. The noble Earl who spoke earlier spoke about going to a place in Margate. I would say—perhaps because I do not go to Margate all that often—that Margate is rather different from an arcade in the middle of an industrial city, or even in a country town, because people tend to go to Margate for entertainment and for short or long holidays, depending on whether they are lucky or unlucky.

I feel that there are a number of areas that could be reasonably excluded from the operation of the Bill. I have the correspondence from the Merseyside Council on Gambling Addiction mentioned by the noble Earl.

I had it sent to me possibly because I had amendments down. Perhaps the noble Earl could explain more fully, but I do not know what the Mersyside Council on Gambling Addiction is. I believe it is true that we have very little actual information on what the social effects are of arcades. I think it is probably something we all think we know about, but the facts may be different. I do not believe that the evidence sent to me by the Merseyside Council on Gambling Addiction is terribly powerful. Unless I was given a great deal more information, I would not be willing to take the ordinary arcades in industrial or rural towns out of the ambit of the Bill.

I was concerned to try to find a form of words that would include, first and primarily, travelling fairs and, secondly, the places which are by definition entertainment—places such as the Golden Mile in Blackpool and the pier at Brighton. That was my purpose. If I have failed in my purpose because I have used the wrong section of the Act, I apologise to your Lordships. Perhaps there will be a chance in another place or later in our consideration of the Bill to deal with the matter again. But if it is possible for us in the House to consider Amendment No. 9—I am not sure because of the ruling whether we can do so—I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has accepted the amendment.

Lord Diamond

My Lords, I rise shortly to support the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, on Amendment No. 9, which I gather is under discussion at the moment, and it would perhaps save time in the long run if I said what I need to say now rather than to wait until the amendment is separately moved. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for what he has already indicated. My purpose is to maintain the law as it stands, namely, that travelling fairs are excluded. It is simply that, and that is why I support it.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I want to support what my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove has said, from one particular point of view. That is that he has made quite clear the dangers of interfering in any way with entertainment which is a family affair. The thought of interfering with that wonderful and totally innocent pleasure that a whole family can have together at a travelling showman's pleasure fair, or indeed at any of the holiday resorts, is of great concern. For this reason I am glad that my noble friend has made this point clear in putting forward his amendment, which I support.

The Earl of Liverpool

My Lords, I, too should like to support the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, may I be absolutely clear which amendment we are discussing? Is it Amendment No. 5?

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, without leave of the House, I cannot speak twice. We are on Amendment No. 5. I sought leave of the house to deal with the other amendments, merely to speak to them because they were germane to the exclusion clause. But as I understand the procedure of your Lordships' House, Amendment No. 5 either has to be moved or withdrawn. Then, the next amendments are called and, as they have been spoken to, they have to be moved or withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton)

My Lords, if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 inclusive cannot be called.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I am sorry that I had not realised that the question about Amendment No. 5 had been put. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.5 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 2, after ("to") insert ("a Justices on-licence including those granted for restaurants and guest houses in accordance with").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this already. This is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Elton. It is merely designed to extend the exclusion to cover those aspects which are stated under the Licensing Act and the Theatres Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 3, after ("1964') insert ("or any licence granted under the Theatres Act 1968".).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment already. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 3, at end insert ("or the operation of amusement machines under conditions laid down in section 34 of the Gaming Act 1968 at a travelling showman's pleasure fair as defined in section 52(1) of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords. I have already spoken on Amendment No. 9, and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 10: Page 2, line 5, after ("34") insert ("of").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, if I may I shall speak to Amendment No. 11 at the same time as moving Amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 11: Page 2, line 5, leave out ("or) and insert ("(except paragraphs 6, 11 and 13 which relate to refusals and appeals and shall apply to refusals and appeals under this Act) to").

In its present form the Bill lacks a provision whereby an applicant for a licence may obtain a hearing by a licensing authority and appeal against refusal to renew or grant a licence. Under Clause 1(5) the Bill removed the provisions of Section 34 and Schedule 9 to the Gaming Act 1968, including the hearing and appeal provisions. These are to be found in Sections 6. 11 and 13 of the Gaming Act specified in my amendment and which, to put it briefly, provide for a hearing by a local authority committee prior to refusal, for grounds to be given for refusal and appeal to the court by the applicant. The court may allow or dismiss the appeal, or reverse or vary any part of a local authority's decision and deal with the application as if it had been made to the court in the first instance. Therefore, the object of this amendment is to preserve the rights and procedures which already exist in the Gaming Act 1968. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I cannot accept this amendment, I am afraid, for the following reasons. On analysis this amendment falls into two parts. The first part is paragraphs 6 and 11 of Schedule 9 to the 1968 Act which is applicable only to gaming machines, as defined under that Act, and do not extend to include amusement machines as defined under the Bill. These paragraphs make provision for a hearing, notice of decision, grounds of decision to be given to the applicant. The spirit of this part of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, is wholly subsumed, and indeed extended, by an amendment that I propose to move, No. 26, which provides for hearing and a reasoned decision.

The second part of the amendment of the noble Baroness relates to paragraph 13 of Schedule 9 to the Act of 1968. This relates to appellate procedure and designates quarter sessions as the appropriate forum. With respect, this runs counter to one of the main principles of this Bill spoken to and expressly approved on Second Reading and not challenged in any way in Committee. That was, that it was for the local authority to exercise the system of licensing and control, it being a matter for the local authority because they were best fitted, they knew the local conditions, and it was they who should exercise their discretion. If that he right—and it was right; and that was the principle that we agreed—then some form of automatic appellate procedure would be wholly inappropriate, I submit, in the circumstances.

Apart from the expense and uncertainty involved, that there should be a full appeal, a re-hearing de novo in the Crown Court and subsequent appeals on points of law, is not only inappropriate but far too cumbersome. With great respect, I would suggest that the only appropriate appellate procedure is by way of judicial review of such administrative decisions—for that is what they are—a procedure which is assisted by Amendment No. 26, to which I have referred and which I propose to move, which ensures that a hearing be afforded and a reasoned decision given.

Therefore, I have to say, with regret, that I am unable to accept the amendment for three reasons. It does not extend to and include amusement machines; the first part is subsumed and extended by Amendment No. 26, already tabled, and the second part runs counter to the principle of the Bill accepted on Second Reading and is cumbersome and, indeed. I would have suggested, inappropriate.

I want to say this having appeared to be rather churlish, which I do not wish to appear to be. I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for affording us this opportunity for discussion, for clarification, on this important aspect of the Bill. My only hope is that, in the light of such clarification as I have been able to give her, she will feel able and sufficiently reassured to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for that clear explanation and also for his explanation that the responsibility for this should be left with the local authority. The reason that I had originally thought my amendment preferable to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 26 was that my amendment preserves the well-tried system which has been operating under the Gaming Act until now. This is what gave me the idea that this was a better way of doing it. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained matters, and I now see that his own amendment, No. 26, covers this aspect probably in a better way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 11A:

Page 2, line 6, at end insert— ("(to which the public has access other than machines excepted by subsection (4) above)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. I should like to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Liverpool for his suggestion that this should be included for clarification. I accept that. It gives yet another instance of how very much indebted one is to all noble Lords who take the care to try to assist in the formulation of this difficult process of discussions. This amendment is for clarification. I beg to move.

The Earl of Liverpool

My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Campbell for putting down this amendment at a late hour and speaking to it. Without it, it was my understanding that pubs and other unlicensed premises would be taken out of this Bill and the Gaming Act 1968. They would effectively have been consigned to a sort of no-man's-land with no means of renewing their permit. I am satisfied the amendment covers the point and I am happy to support it.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, with respect, I do not accept, if my noble friend will forgive me, that the fears he has expressed could have materialised. But there are certainly other reasons why clarification is requisite. As what one says goes on record, I do not want to accept the way in which my noble friend has put it. The plain fact is that this amendment appears to be acceptable by way of clarification.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 2, line 28, at end insert— ("() The provisions of section 35 of the Gaming Act 1968 shall not apply to gaming machines to which Part III of that Act applies if such machines are situate upon premises licensed under subsection (1) above while such licences remain in force.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another of the ministerial points. Again, I wish to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Elton, who raised this at Committee stage. He also wrote to me about it. The object is to avoid conflict between the two sets of legislation, and to avoid doubt. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2[Licences]

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 13: Page 2, line 31, after ("fit") insert ("which shall obtain at all times when the public have access to any machine in an operable state such as is mentioned in section 1(3) above").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, with this amendment I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 20. Amendment 14: Page 2. line 33, leave out ("enter the premises") and insert ("operate such machines"). Amendment 15: Page 2, line 33, leave out ("(without a parent or guardian)"). Amendment 16: Page 2, line 36, leave out first ("the") and insert ("such"). Amendment 17: Page 2, line 36, leave out ("mentioned in section 1(3) above"). Amendment 18: Page 2, line 40, leave out ("the") and insert ("any such"). Amendment 19: Page 2, line 40, after ("machine") insert ("to such maxima as obtain under Part III of the Gaming Act 1968 for gaming machines to which the public has access"). Amendment 20: Page 2, line 42, leave out ("at all times when the premises are open to the public").

These amendments all relate to drafting amendments to Clause 2(1) of the Bill. As to Amendment No. 13, it is a qualifying amendment which limits the jurisdiction of the local authority so that conditions may only be imposed when the machine is in an operable state: that is to say, when it has not been immobilised. This affords, for example, freedom from regulation as to hours of opening when the machine cannot be used. This is designed so that it may be to the advantage of such a person who has a single machine in a small establishment where the regulation of hours of opening, just because the machine happens to be there, would be appropriate. It is not the intention of this Bill to seek to assume or to give to the local authority any oppressive or unnecessary powers, and it is in that spirit that the qualification is introduced in Amendment No. 13, to restrict the power of the local authority.

Amendment No. 14 refers to Clause 2(1)(a). This is also a qualifying, restricting, amendment to curtail the incidence of the Bill so as to enable those under 16 to enter the premises but not to operate these machines. This is specifically designed to meet certain representations received from trade associations which otherwise might have felt that the Bill was acting harshly in preventing entry. I take on board the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has just put it—"the family considerations". This change of drafting is designed expressly to seek to assist family considerations.

Amendment No. 15 stems from a ministerial suggestion, and again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Why leave out the words "without a parent or guardian"? It had not occurred to me, but apparently the view has been taken that the young ought to be protected from evil influences—and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich made some reference to this—and from those who pretend to be a parent or guardian. It has been pointed out to me by the Ministry in the letter that therefore the qualification in the Bill as it stands—"without a parent or guardian"—not only serves no useful purpose in practice but may indeed encourage the reverse effect. I accept the advice tendered.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are drafting corrections. Numbers 18 and 19 refer to Clause 2(1)(c). This is introduced to avoid disparity—a point which was first made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, as is on the record in Hansard. The point was also taken up by my noble friend Lord Elton.

Amendment No. 20, which is the last of the series, refers to Clause 2(1)(d). That requires excision as a matter of drafting. It was originally part of the amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, in Committee, but is subsumed by Amendment No. 13, and it would duplicate the drafting to have it twice. I have sought to explain it carefully so that the noble Baroness may not think that I have done any injustice, conscious or otherwise, to the original form of her amendment. The spirit is wholly maintained. Seriatim, then, I move Amendment No. 13.

The Earl of Liverpool

My Lords, I am somewhat concerned about this amendment because, if I understand it correctly, it would be possible for an arcade to switch off machines which are covered by this Bill. If they did that they could still have video machines, which are not so covered, pool tables and other forms of recreation operational, and children of any age could go into these places unaccompanied by a parent or guardian. I think that this is an anomaly, because the main thrust of the Bill, as I understand it, is, first of all, to protect children from a gambling addiction (if that is what occurs) and also to protect them from child sexual abuse. It is unlikely, I admit, that an arcade would switch off its machines hut, if it did, am I right in thinking that what I have suggested would obtain?

8.23 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I should like to speak on Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, which I must admit I do not feel very happy about. I think it would be extremely hard to allow children into these premises and yet make sure that they do not use the machines. Indeed, I thought one of the main purposes of the Bill was to stop children going into some of these arcades and establishments because of the bad company they would encounter, and to avoid the possible dangers there might be within those places. So I feel that this is a dilution of the Bill which, to my mind, changes it very much indeed, because these amendments seem to stop the protection of children, which is what some of us have most in mind in connection with this Bill.

As I say, I think there is enough proof that children do run risks—I know that we have been through all this before on Second Reading—to satisfy many of us, especially those of us who have fairly young children, that these are bad places for children to be in. These amendments would allow children in without either parent or guardian, and therefore they would risk the dangers from which we would particularly wish to protect them.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

I wonder whether the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Alloway, could perhaps explain slightly more fully the effect of Amendment No. 13. I think it may be one of the things that you get in British law occasionally which raises ridiculous anomalies. For example, what really is meant by "an operable state" of machine? Has a machine to be broken down, or would it be a question of one machine being switched off so that it was not operable although in two seconds it could be switched on again? I find it difficult. There are these rather silly anomalies, such as people not being able to buy cigarettes at a certain time or when you can buy butter but not cheese, and silly things like that, which we used to have in Britain. If we could have a definition of "operable" it might help us: and had there been a schedule to make things more flexible and explain more fully, it would be more understandable.

I realise, the more I look at this Bill and other Bills, how incredibly difficult it is to put intentions into words. We all know what is meant, but actually putting intentions into words is difficult. I can imagine the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, wearing a different cap and in different circumstances, perhaps having a great deal of fun trying to find out what was meant by the word "operable". I would be grateful if he could perhaps go further and explain what is meant. There may be some clear legal definition, and I should be very happy if he could let us know.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I am grateful, again, to all noble Lords. Dealing directly with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, the problem is really this. If I can state the problem in plain English, then the drafting may fall into place. The problem is that there may be a fish fryer somewhere in Balham who has one of these machines and yet, under the Bill as it is drafted without these amendments, the local authority, because a machine is on his premises, is entitled to regulate his opening hours. That appears to be oppressive and therefore, to try to cope with what could be an oppression, I have sought to restrict the jurisdiction of the local authority to imposing conditions only when a machine is in an operable state. So the local authority can say to the fish fryer in Balham, "Switch it off, Charlie, at 10 o'clock and stay open as long as you like". That is what the amendment is designed to achieve.

As the noble Baroness is shrewd to observe, this does—I do not intend to deny it—involve a dilution of the Bill. But, if you move to a situation where a Bill could work injustice, then you have to dilute. I submit that it is an acceptable dilution, because the main purpose of the Bill, its twin purpose, to prevent access of those under 16 to the machines and to deal with the planning problem, is still fully implemented or sufficiently implemented without causing unfair oppression. If my noble friend Lord Liverpool will forgive me, I think that if I were to reply to the points he made it would be much the same sort of reply that I made on a previous occasion, and the hour is getting on.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 14:

[Printed earlier.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 15:

[Printed earlier.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 16:

[Printed earlier.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 17:

[Printed earlier.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 20:

[Printed earlier.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 21: Page 3, line 4, after ("affected") insert ("by the positioning of any such machine as sought in the application")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a qualifying amendment of limitation to avoid prejudice, in the sense that any local council which was prejudiced against machines as such might give an unfair decision. It is included as a result of a representation that I received from one of the trade associations and I hope that it commends itself to your Lordships. It may be over fair, but I commend it to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 22: Page 3 line 8, leave out ("or").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, may I speak to Amendment No. 24 at the same time, as Amendment No. 22 is a paving amendment to it?

Amendment No. 24: Page 3. line 11, at end insert ("; or () that grant or renewal of the licence would be inappropriate, having regard to the layout, character or condition of the premises, vehicle, vessel or stall in respect of which the application is made.").

Amendment No. 22 seeks purely to ensure that premises are adequately and suitably kept, that the condition of the machinery and the physical appearance of the premises are of a generally high state and that they are maintained at a sufficiently high level. This amendment is purely to see that such premises are kept in a very high state of repair. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Yes, my Lords, Amendment No. 22 is a paving amendment, but, even so, the word "or", on ordinary drafting, is perhaps operative to govern paragraphs (a) to (d). But as to Amendment No. 24, that extends the incidence of the Bill to enable a local authority, in the exercise of its licensing functions, to take into account the layout, character or condition of the premises, and then to include vehicles, vessels and stalls. As to the layout, character or condition of the premises, one wonders whether this is truly necessary. I have an open mind on this, but I would have accepted the amendment if the definition of "premises" had not been extended to include vessels, vehicles and stalls, and I have already spoken on that aspect.

Therefore, for those reasons that I have already given, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. But, in view of the information that I have given, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, would care to consider whether she wishes to have further discussions with me, or whether she wishes to table an amendment on Third Reading which retains the layout, character and condition requirement. In those circumstances, I hope that she will not press the amendment.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said about this amendment. I tried to include the words "vehicle, vessel or stall" by means of a previous amendment. The noble Lord understands that I am seeking to ensure that these premises are roomy enough for people to move around in without bumping into each other and that I am trying to avoid the very dangers about which we have previously spoken: that children get too close to other people on these premises. The noble Lord has said that he will consider a shortened version of the amendment, for which I am very grateful. I shall therefore put forward a revised version of the amendment at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.41 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 23:

Page 3, line 10, leave out ("all reasonable precautions") and insert ("every precaution").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this amendment is self-explanatory. It is my small homage to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who took this point.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 25:

Page 3, line 11, at end insert— ("() Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 3(1)(b) of this Act that person is the holder of a licence, the licensing authority may make an order revoking the licence.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new subsection (3) is designed to strengthen the powers of the licensing authority. It is right to say that the likelihood of the loss of his licence is a greater penalty for an operator than a fine, especially if the fine is to be decreased by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his Amendment No. 28. A fine on some of these premises might make very little difference to the profits made, whereas the loss of the licence would make a very great deal of difference. May I add that the reference in the amendment to Section 3(1)(b) relates to my Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I find myself in an embarrassing position. I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that I would accept this amendment. And in spirit I do accept it. However, I had not observed—and therefore I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for mentioning it—that the amendment relates to her Amendment No. 29, which for various reasons I cannot accept. I accept wholly the spirit of the amendment. For reasons which will become apparent when I speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28, I shall not be in a position to accept Amendment No. 29.

However, at Third Reading I would accept—and this will be on the record—the whole spirit of Amendment No. 25. In view of the form of drafting which ties it into Amendment No. 29, an amendment which I cannot accept, I would ask the noble Baroness not to press Amendment No. 25.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I am sorry about the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to my Amendment No. 29 before I have reached it. However, I hope that I shall be able to present it to him in a way which will make him a little more optimistic. I thank the noble Lord for what he has said about Amendment No. 25 without the reference to my next amendment, Amendment No. 29. I should be grateful if we could talk about the amendments, as the noble Lord agrees with the spirit of Amendment No. 25, and find some way around the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 26: Page 3, line 11, at end insert— ("()In the exercise of their functions under this section the local authority shall afford the applicant for a licence an opportunity to make full written and oral representations, and shall give a reasoned decision.—).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. Its concept was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, when we dealt with an earlier amendment. It is designed merely to secure natural justice for the applicant and a means of effective judicial review of administrative decisions. I beg to move.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I very much welcome the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I endeavoured to persuade the House—and we very nearly succeeded—on the Cable and Broadcasting Bill to include a similar provision. I am warmly in favour of local authorities and others being made to give reasoned decisions so that there is always the fall-back possibility of a judicial review. I am sure that this is the right way to deal with it. Therefore, I very much welcome the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Penalties]:

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 27: Page 3, line 12, after ("Act") insert ("or of any condition imposed by virtue of section 2(1) above").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to a drafting omission for which I am wholly responsible. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for having pointed it out to me in a letter since the Committee stage, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 28: Page 3, line 15, leave out ("£10,000") and insert ("£2,000").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will no doubt cause your Lordships some concern. Why should one reduce £10,000 to £2,000? The position, simply, is that again since the Committee stage I have been grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who, contrary to the view which some of your Lordships might entertain, has taken some interest in the Bill since the Committee stage and has been most helpful, for having pointed out to me that it is all very well including £10,000, but the maximum fine in a court of summary jurisdiction has only just gone up to £2,000; therefore, would I mind very much reducing £10,000 to £2,000? As there is still Amendment No. 25, which I am comforted to know the noble Baroness will bring hack on Third Reading (that is, revocation of the licence) and as there is still the imprisonment section, I beg to move in the light of the advice that I have received—although, personally. I would much prefer to keep the figure at £10,000.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich

My Lords, I can see the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I am glad that he has explained it to us. On a first reading of the amendment one receives the impression that because the figure has been reduced from £10,000 to £2,000, the seriousness of the offence is likewise reduced. Therefore, I am glad that the noble Lord has given the reason for this reduction.

It was Martin Luther King who once said that law cannot change people's hearts but that law can control heartless men. Because of the moral issues which have been mentioned on Second Reading and at various times tonight, it must, I believe, be clear to your Lordships' House—and later, I hope, to the country—that there is the serious danger that people will break what we hope will become a very good Act when it has been through its various stages both here and in another place. Reluctantly, therefore, I think we must agree to the amendment, so long as it is quite plain to all concerned that it does not weaken the strength of feeling underlying the promotion and activity of the Bill.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for explaining the reason for this mind-boggling decrease, because it had not occurred to me. It does stress the importance of my Amendment No. 25. I believe we would agree that the sum of £2,000 as a fine—having heard at Second Reading about some of the profits that were being made through these machines—would not in any way be a deterrent. For that reason, this amendment focuses a great deal of attention on the provisions of Amendment No. 25.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 29: Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause—

("Penalties.

3.—(1) A person who—

  1. (a) uses, causes or permits the use of any premises, vehicle, vessel or stall contrary to section 1(1) above; or
  2. (b) being the holder of a licence granted under this Act, or the servant or agent of such holder, without reasonable excuse, contravenes or permits contravention of a condition specified in the licence.
shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or to a period of imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or to both.

(2) Proceedings under subsection (1) above may be instituted by the local authority.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the entire substitution of this clause means that the person who is responsible for contraventions is more clearly specified together with the circumstances of the liability generally. The amendment introduces much more certainty as to who is liable and for what he is liable. It also incorporates the express right of a local authority to prosecute. After all, as it is the local authority who is already responsible for licensing administration, it seems only logical that it should be empowered to prosecute, too.

From another point of view, in this way all the dossiers can be kept together, making the process of monitoring very much more possible. This aspect is a very important one and should be kept in mind. The substitute clause suggested in my amendment makes the penalty clause much more reasonable. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I very much regret that I am unable to accept this amendment as it stands. I am unable to do so, first, because of the inclusion in it of the extension of premises and the concept of user, to which I have already spoken and which permeates through to this clause. Secondly, it does water down—if the noble Baroness will keep these most respectful criticisms in mind with a view to producing a new amendment at Third Reading—the concept of reasonable excuse. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in Committee and reflected in Amendment No. 23. Third, the amount of £10,000 raises problems to which we have already spoken. Lastly, subsection (2) is already covered in the existing form of draft.

I mention these matters not in a spirit of carping criticism but in the hope that, my having mentioned them, it will be possible for the noble Baroness and myself to engender discussion on the form and content of this penal clause on Third Reading. I do not say "re-open" discussions, because unfortunately we have not had sufficient opportunity to discuss these matters. I quite agree that the form of content of the penal clause is very important, but I hope the noble Baroness will acknowledge that I cannot accept her amendment in its present form for the various reasons I have given; it is for those reasons that I oppose this amendment.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for telling us why he is unable to accept Amendment No. 29, and I think it would be delightful if he and the noble Baroness could get together in order to put suitable fears in the minds of potential customers. It is true that there is a lot of money in this area. I hope that by now your Lordships will have received the parliamentary video group document concerning video violence. It is a magnificent document, very fully researched. I shall be delighted to provide a copy to any Member of the House who would like to have one.

In exactly the same way, the unevenness in the magistrates' courts in that area is so pronounced that in the case of one particularly unpleasant video nasty, "I Spit on Your Grave", one magistrates' court produced a very small fine while another produced a very large fine with imprisonment. The same danger applies here. We have to be quite firm and definite about making it clear that the penalites do not make the danger of contravention worth while, so that once again heartless men will be firmly controlled. This will mean no loss of liberty because it is caring for the liberty of the children of our nation and so it is in fact a very liberalising Bill. I hope that the discussions between the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will he most fruitful. Time will tell.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for explaining very clearly why he cannot accept this amendment. I do, of course, understand that it has already been sullied by parts of my previous amendments which he has also been unable to accept. I would like to think that the noble Lord accepts the purpose and spirit of this amendment and that he agrees that the proposed new clause would introduce much more clarity and a more logical way of seeing the responsibility of the local authority.

I hope that if we can get rid of those parts which the noble Lord has already committed himself to oppose then we might draw something out of it all which will still retain the purpose and the spirit which I am very keen on. I hope that we shall bring this forward again at Third Reading, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 [Citation, commencement and extent]:

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 30: Page 3, line 25, leave out ("Her Majesty") and insert (Vie Secretary of State").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment emanates from my noble friend Lord Elton, and I accept his advice. I am not quite sure why it has to be "the Secretary of State" and not "Her Majesty" but I want the Bill to receive a favourable reception when it reaches another place and so I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 31 Page 3, line 27, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I again acknowledge my indebtedness to my noble friend Lord Elton, who raised this point at Committee stage. For this Act to apply to Northern Ireland would not be appropriate for various reasons which, at this late hour, your Lordships will not wish to hear about. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.