HL Deb 06 February 1986 vol 470 cc1332-40

7.27 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

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 Harris of Greenwich.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL CATHCART in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Amendment of section 16 of Gaming Act 1968]:

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 13, leave out ("(not being a cheque which has been dishonoured)").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Bill, as I am sure those of your Lordships who have remained here will be aware, is to legalise what is known as the redemption of cheques in gaming clubs. As I hope I made clear at Second Reading, I am completely in favour of this Bill.

If one goes to a gaming club and writes a cheque to pay for one's chips and then, for once, wins a lot of money, it is extremely annoying that it is then not possible to get the cheque back. Also, gaming club proprietors of course would much rather return the cheque to you and have your cash instead, because it is always possible that the cheque may be dishonoured.

It was not the intention in 1968 that the redemption of cheques should be illegal, but Section 16(3) unintentionally made it so.

I have put down these four or five amendments. They will not in any way affect the operation of the Bill but I believe that they would improve it and remove one or two points that are not clear at present. This first amendment deals with the question of dishonoured cheques. Of course, the gaming clubs have a great deal of trouble with dishonoured cheques because players come in and write cheques for more than they can afford and when the cheques are presented they are returned. It is then up to the gaming clubs to collect the money one way or another, and in many cases when cheques are re-presented they are honoured. If not, in most cases the player will eventually go back and give the money that will enable the cheque to be returned to him.

The Committee will notice that in Clause 1(3) of the Bill, the redemption of cheques is permitted provided that certain conditions are complied with. The words to which I am taking objection are those in parenthesis: (not being a cheque which has been dishonoured)". My amendment would delete those words. My reason for doing so is that the subsection reads: shall permit to be redeemed any cheque (not being a cheque which has been dishonoured) accepted in exchange for cash or tokens", etc.

My point is this. A cheque that has been dishonoured cannot be redeemed. It cannot be a redeemed cheque because that is defined in subsection (7) as meaning: a cheque accepted in fulfilment of the conditions specified in subsection (2)", and one of those conditions is paragraph (b): it is redeemed during the playing session in which it was accepted, or within thirty minutes after the end of the session". Of course a dishonoured cheque would have been accepted a day, two days or three days before. Therefore, a dishonoured cheque can never become a redeemed cheque and there is no need to talk about redeeming any cheque (not being a cheque which has been dishonoured)". For 18 years, since the Gaming Bill of 1968 became law, there have been well-established procedures between gaming clubs and their members for the members to make good—I must not use the word "redeem"—cheques that have been dishonoured. None of those procedures has ever been thought illegal and could not be illegal in any way because neither subsections (1) nor (3) of Section 16 of the Gaming Act could conceivably have been contravened. There is therefore no need to legalise what has been held to be legal ever since the Gaming Act became law. I therefore feel that those words should be deleted, and I beg to move.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. As he rightly reminded the Committee, he indicated his firm support for the Bill on Second Reading. As he pointed out, the intention of these amendments is in no way to affect its central purpose. In some cases they are rather more than drafting amendments. I can assure him, as I have told him already, that we have looked at them carefully to see whether they could be incorporated in the Bill. I apologise in advance if he thinks that in any sense I am taking a negative attitude to what he has proposed, but substantial problems arise in relation to the amendments. If I may, I shall deal with the one that he has just moved in order to explain the problems that would arise if it was incorporated in the Bill.

As the noble Lord said, the law as it now stands applies in this way. Dishonoured cheques can already be discharged and recovered by a player. That is as it should be. They have already gone through the banking process; that is, they have gone through a bank within two days as a result of Section 16 of the Gaming Act 1968. The central purpose of the Bill is that their position should not in any way be affected. Players have always been able to redeem by payment of either cash or chips a cheque given for gaming on a previous visit to the casino which was subsequently dishonoured and returned. There is no reason why they should not continue to be able to do so.

The words in parenthesis are designed simply to make it absolutely clear that such dishonoured cheques are outside the scope of the Bill. By definition, having already gone through the banking process—a point that I have made already—a dishonoured cheque could not comply with the second condition, (b), required for any redeemed cheque under subsection (3) of the Bill. The general prohibition against redemption specifies in the two words immediately preceding those in parenthesis, "any cheque". If that is construed as including dishonoured cheques, they could no longer be redeemed. The words in parenthesis eliminate that possibility and are therefore I am afraid absolutely essential. It could lead to all sorts of extremely vexatious litigation if the form of words set out in the amendment were added to the Bill. I very much hope that as a result of my explanation the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Viscount Davidson

The Committee will be grateful for the close interest that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has taken not only in what the Bill sets out to achieve but in its drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has explained why the words referred to in the amendment were included in the Bill. We take the view that the words are helpful and important in making it clear that a cheque which has been dishonoured may be returned to the person who offered it in the normal way. It is conceivable that without the words there might be some confusion as to whether the conditions which will apply before cheques can be redeemed also apply to dishonoured cheques. For this reason we cannot agree to the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Kilbracken

I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said. I still feel that a bouncing cheque cannot be redeemed under the definition in the Bill; it is in a sense beyond redemption. But in view of the line that both noble Lords have taken on this point. I do not intend to press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— ("(c) any substitute cheque is not post-dated; and").

The noble Lord said: My second amendment deals with the question of post-dated cheques. Under the 1968 Act it is of course illegal to give a post-dated cheque because that would amount to the giving of credit and would be contrary to Section 16(1) of the Act. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has included paragraph (c) of Clause 1(3) which extends that prohibition of post-dated cheques to any substitute cheque that is given by the player when he redeems it.

But the matter to which I must draw attention is that, as the Bill is at present worded, it seems to me certain that that prohibition would apply only if the substitute cheque were for the full sum of the cheque that is being redeemed.

Paragraph (c) reads: where the cheque is redeemed in exchange for a substitute cheque".

We have to consider the case where the original cheque was for £100 and the member who comes to leave the club has £50 in chips and wants to pay in the £50 and write a substitute cheque for the other £50—something he is quite likely to want to do and something that is specifically permitted under subsection (3). It seems to me that this is a drafting matter, but that it would not be possible because the whole cheque is not redeemed, only part of it. To get around this I have left out the wording, where the cheque is redeemed in exchange for a substitute cheque because that is unnecessary. It is only when a cheque is exchanged for a substitute cheque that a substitute cheque will be involved. The paragraph would instead read, any substitute cheque is not post-dated". That would include a case where a substitute cheque was only in respect of part of the amount involved in the original cheque. I feel that there is a mistake that should be corrected. I beg to move.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has rightly said that this is really a drafting amendment. We looked at it carefully with the legal authorities responsible for these matters. I do not believe that the problem, as the noble Lord has set it out, will be a matter of any difficulty. It is primarily a question of the use of language rather than any particular issue of principle. Reasonable men can take different views on what is the right form of words to use. On the basis of the advice that we have received, we have concluded that the present form of wording is preferable to the alternative. It is a narrow issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, indicated, when he pointed out that it was a drafting issue. The position is that we preferred our own choice of language, having, as a result of what the noble Lord said, discussed this with the authorities concerned. I do not know whether the noble Viscount cares to add anything.

Viscount Davidson

I should perhaps add that I can confirm that, while we appreciate the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, to simplify the wording of the Bill, we do not believe that this suggestion fits in grammatically with the surrounding provision. It is, in our view, desirable that the words, where the cheque is redeemed in exchange for a substitute cheque should appear to make the position as clear as possible.

Lord Kilbracken

I am grateful to both noble Lords. I am sorry that the Minister accuses me of being ungrammatical. As a working sub-editor, one of my duties is to follow the laws of English so far as I can. It seems to me that the Bill would read: unless the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say— and then, any substitute cheque is not post-dated". That seems to me to be a condition just as, it is redeemed during the playing session in which it was accepted", and so on, is a condition. If I may take it, as I think I may from what has been said, that the wording of the Bill will not prevent a member or a player from redeeming his cheque in part with cash or tokens and in part with a cheque that is not post-dated, I am perfectly content to leave it as it is, and to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 11, leave out paragraph (d).

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with what the Act, in its rather quaint way, refers to as tokens but what I and everyone else in the gambling world describe as chips—the chips are down. This is an amendment to paragraph (d) of Clause 1(3), which I had better read out. One of the last of the conditions is that, where tokens are given in whole or in part exchange for the redeemed cheque, the value of each token is equal to the amount originally given in exchange for it or, if the token was won in the gaming, the value it represented when won". This seems to be considering a situation in which the chips that you get for your £25, your £100, or your £10,000, depending on your scale of play, may in some way or other differ from the amount of money you pay for them. In other words, you go in and cash a cheque for £100 and get only £95 worth or £90 worth of chips—or maybe it will be £105 worth of chips; if there is any such club I would immediately become a member of it. But that is not, of course, the way that it happens.

The way that it happens is that if you give the cashier £100 you get chips with a face value of £100. That, as I have confirmed, although I knew it already, is the situation in all the licensed premises in Britain and also in France, Monaco and elsewhere. It would probably be illegal—in fact, it would be illegal—for a casino or gaming club to give you chips with a face value of less than the amount you gave, under Section 15 of the 1968 Act which makes clear that Section 4 of the Act also applies in Part II. Section 4 states that no gaming shall take place where a levy is charged on any of the stakes or on the winnings of any of the players, whether by way of direct payment or deduction, or by the exchange of tokens at a lower rate than the rate at which they were issued, or by any other means".

Section 15(2) states that, in the case of licensed premises, regulations made under the section may provide that a levy may be raised. However, this has never been done. There is no sign that it ever will be done. And the gaming clubs are surely making enough money already without giving them 5 per cent. up front when you go to buy your chips. Since the face value, which the dictionary defines as the value written on the coin or other object, is always what you have given for it, I do not see why there is any necessity to go into all the detail in paragraph (d). I do not see why the question has to be raised at all, in which case paragraph (d) could be omitted altogether. That is what I propose in my third amendment. If, however, that is too radical a solution, I would suggest instead my Amendment No. 4, which would leave paragraph (d) reading, where tokens are given in whole or in part exchange for the redeemed cheque, each token is given its face value". I beg to move.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, quite reasonably asked the question: why does this issue have to be dealt with at all? I shall endeavour to explain very briefly why it does indeed have to be dealt with. It would be a matter of substance were this amendment to be incorporated in the Bill.

The paragraph (d) which the noble Lord is seeking to strike out governs the value of tokens. It is simply there to ensure that the player receives the same value for them as he gives. It is a simple addition to Section 16(2)(b) of the 1968 Act. It would prevent any possibility of the licence holder, for example, discounting a proportion of the value of tokens in any such transaction. It is a necessary safeguard against the possibility of malpractice. That is indeed the purpose of it. It is to safeguard the position of the player. I think it is essential to have that provision in the Bill, and that is why it is there.

Viscount Davidson

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has explained that it is a prudent precaution for paragraph (d) to provide that tokens used to redeem cheques should be given the same value as when they were first obtained. We regard that as an important safeguard in ensuring that cheque transactions are conducted fairly. We consider that the provision should be retained.

Lord Kilbracken

In view of what both the noble Lord and the noble Viscount have said, I do not propose to take the matter any further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 26, leave out ("a") and insert ("any").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 28, leave out from ("period") to ("on") in line 30 and insert ("throughout which gaming is taking place").

The noble Lord said: This is a proposed amendment to subsection (7) of Clause 1, in which there are three definitions. The first definition is of a "playing session". The need for this is because that phrase is used in paragraph (b) above—one of the conditions which is imposed. The condition is that the cheque must be redeemed, during the playing session in which it was accepted, or within thirty minutes after the end of the session". The "playing session" is defined as meaning: a continuous period during one day, or two consecutive days, throughout which gaming is permitted by or under this Act to take place on premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force".

I would first point out that in the 1968 Act there is no reference to any time when gaming is permitted to take place. All the Act has to say on this matter is that gaming may not take place for a period of about 11 or 12 hours on Sunday. But in one of the schedules to the Act—I do not have the reference in front of me—it authorises the licensing authority, when granting a licence, to lay down the hours to which gaming should be confined if the licensing authority feels inclined to do so, and the licensing authority in fact always does.

I am not sure whether an order made by the licensing authority as to the hours when a club may be open does or does not constitute hours permitted by or under this Act. They are not permitted by the Act but they are permitted by the magistrates, who are authorised to permit them by the Act.

However that may be, it seems to me that this paragraph does not say what it intends to say, because what this means is that a cheque may be redeemed until 30 minutes after the time prescribed by the licensing magistrate for that particular club on that particular day. That is probably three or four o'clock in the morning. We can well understand that it is essential, if a cheque is going to be redeemed, that it has to be redeemed during that playing session—in other words, before the player goes home—or within half an hour after gaming has ceased.

But the position may quite well be that the hour at which gaming ends is perhaps considerably earlier than the hours during which gaming is permitted. For example, it may be snowing very heavily, no one comes to the casino, at midnight the club is deserted, they are entitled to continue until three o'clock in the morning, but they close down. Sometimes these clubs decide to have a staff party in the casino, so on that particular night they stop playing at half-past 10 or 11 o'clock although they are perfectly entitled under the law to go on playing until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning.

Under those conditions, under the Bill as drafted at present the man who wants to redeem his cheques could come back three or four hours after the club has completely closed to people and demand to redeem his cheque because it is during the period for which gaming is permitted. My point is that it should be for the period during which gaming is actually taking place. That is what I hope my amendment would do.

The words "during one day, or two consecutive days" are not necessary. I found them confusing I see what this means: that gaming is normally going on both before and after midnight, so it has to apply to the day that ends at midnight and the next day which begins at midnight. But I do not see that we have to say that. Surely what the Bill is trying to say is that the "playing session" means a continuous period throughout which gaming is taking place on premises, etc., not "is permitted … to take place". That is the whole object of my amendment. I beg to move.

8 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

The problem about this particular amendment is that it would make no allowance for a situation arising in a casino which necessitated some temporary interruption to gaming. One has to accept in these days that not only is there the risk of a fire alarm going off, but there could easily be a bomb scare as a result of which the casino had to be evacuated. The wording of the Bill in terms of: continuous period … permitted by or under this Act would accommodate that particular contingency which otherwise may entirely fortuitously bar players from redeeming their cheques. I am sure that that is not the noble Lord's purpose, but that is why that particular form of wording appears in the place that it does in the Bill.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for having written to me and given me a clear explanation of the amendments which he proposed to move. I must admit that I have been rather baffled by the descriptions of cheque transactions and so on and I am not sure whether the Minister, if he did not have the full weight of the civil servants behind him, may not also feel rather baffled. I should like to thank the noble Lord for the very interesting description he has given of the changes that he has tried to make to the Bill. However, as I, with my limited experience, understand the Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, it has the very clear objective of trying to rectify an imperfection in the present Act. The Bill which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has received the general agreement of the many people who have worked on it.

Therefore, although I fully recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, would like to make it even better, I personally should like to accept the very minor alterations which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is making today through his amendments and which will leave the Bill very much as it was on Second Reading. I should like to wish the Bill a very safe passage.

Viscount Davidson

I should also like to thank again the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for the interest which he has taken in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord does not feel too isolated.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has explained the importance which the Royal Commission attached to restricting the redemption of cheques to the period of the playing session and immediately thereafter. The Bill seeks to follow the Royal Commission. In so doing, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that it is important to be completely clear about the playing session, and the present definition appears helpful and informative.

Lord Kilbracken

This seems to me to be quite a difficult point. I can quite see that if there were a fire or some emergency and all play suddenly stopped for 15 minutes while people hid under the roulette table it would constitute an end of play. On the other hand, I believe that what I said was true. If it refers to the hours during which play is permitted, then play may end several hours before that time and that would be unfortunate too. However, on balance, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the Minister are right because if it has to be one or the other it is better that it should be too late than too early. I have raised the point in order to clarify the issue, but in the light of what has been said I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 38, leave out from ("accepted") to ("in") in line 39.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This is a drafting amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 40, at end insert ("by either the holder of a licence under this Act or a person acting on behalf of or under any arrangement with the holder of such a licence.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8. This is also a drafting amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Interpretation, short title and commencement]:

Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 3, line 6, at end insert— ("(4) This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Kilbracken

If the 1968 Act does not apply to Northern Ireland, then surely it follows automatically that this one cannot do so?

Lord Harris of Greenwich

It is always difficult to decide how clear to make a statute. On balance, we came to the conclusion that it was desirable to make it absolutely clear and that is why that particular form of words appear.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.