|
Dr. Pugh: If I may add an anecdotal reference, there is a thriving Kirkby Liberal club, but the return from my constituency does not reflect the club membership. Similarly, Labour clubs are not universally full of socialists, although I suppose that the same could be said of the Labour party. There is a serious possibility that discrimination by category may not be that friendly to the interests of the clubs. [Interruption.]
The Chairman: Order. In the spirit of seasonal good will, I ask the hon. Gentleman to come back to the amendment.
Dr. Pugh: I was just pointing out that there is a real possibility of unfair discrimination.
Mr. Caborn: This question depends on the type of discrimination that we are addressing, because the main purpose of the clause is to distinguish between different types of gambling, not political persuasion.
Amendment No. 348 addresses the maximum participation fees that clubs will be able to charge members to take part in certain forms of equal-chance gaming. The fees will be set by regulations. The amendment would ensure that such regulations do not discriminate unfairly among different classes of clubs or institutes. The regulations would never be used unfairly. The regulations should not discriminate between groups without proper justification. The purpose of the flexibility is to enable different participation fees for different types of clubs. For example, bridge and whist clubs enjoy higher allowances under current law. Without the flexibility, we would not be able to maintain that.
Why have the power at all? Section 40 of the 1968 Act, as amended in 1973, allows different sums for
Column Number: 509
members' and commercial clubs and institutes. The power already exists, and that is why we are following it through. With that explanation about flexibility without discrimination, I hope that the hon. Member for Colchester will withdraw his amendment.
Bob Russell: I thank the Minister for clarifying and explaining how the Bill interprets fairness and discrimination. With that on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 255 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 256 and 257 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 258
Club machine permit
Bob Russell: I beg to move amendment
No. 350, in clause 258, page 115, line 44, at end add—
'(6) for the purposes of this section ''available for use'' shall mean a machine which is in fully functional order sited in accordance with its premises licence which is accessible at that time by at least one customer whether or not the machine is actually being played.'.
If we were just decent people dealing with common sense, there would be no problem. However, unfortunately, we must recognise that lawyers in time to come will pore over this legislation. Common sense and the law do not necessarily always go together. We therefore propose new subsection (6). Any normal person would know what was meant by a machine being available for use, but there will be some who wish to interpret what is available and what is available for a machine in working order. The main purpose of our amendment is to provide a clear definition of ''available for use'', which can be important in interpreting the clause. We feel that the phrase is subject to opinion without a clear definition. It mainly clarifies the terms of the clause. The phrase ''available for use'' is not defined, and it should be clear that when a machine is damaged or not sited in part of the premises available to customers, it should not be included as part of the limit in subsection (2).
3 pm
Clause 226 provides that it is an offence to make a gaming machine available for use unless subject to an exception such as accordance with a club machine permit under clause 258. It should be noted that the offence is not simply making a gaming machine available, so the question arises why the words ''available for use'' have been included. Failure to define when a machine is available for use will lead to needless litigation; that definition should be in the Bill, but it is not, despite the phrase being used many times. Providing a definition in the clause is important because there is nowhere else to ascertain the meaning of the phrase.
The problem with not having a definition is that the regulator can suggest that the operator is breaking the law if it has broken machines on the premises or additional working machines in a storeroom which are not intended to be used at that moment. An operator
Column Number: 510
may have three machines for use and one spare in the stockroom. The amendment would protect clubs from unforeseen circumstances, where they may have more machines than permitted but only three available for use in the permitted area at that time. We appreciate that such circumstances will be relatively rare, but the amendment would simply provide clarity in the clause.
Mr. Caborn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the amendment. I do not think that it is necessary; indeed, in some respects it could do harm. It is self-evident that if a club or institute is offering a machine or machines for the use of their members, the machines must be regulated at all times and not just when someone is playing. That is why we deliberately chose the words ''available for use'', and we used them not only in this clause but wherever in the Bill we have referred to gaming machines being offered.
We do not want to include lots of detail on this point in the clause. If we did, there would be endless arguments with unscrupulous operators seeking to exceed their limit. We want to catch any gaming machine that someone makes available. Some of the examples suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not count as making a machine available. If a machine is damaged, or is not on the premises, it cannot be available for use, and would not come under the definition.
Bob Russell: If a club has three working machines, but a fourth one in reserve in the stockroom—in working order but not in use—in anticipation of one of the others breaking down, would it be illegal to keep that fourth machine on the premises in working order, albeit not in a licensed part of the building?
Mr. Caborn: Yes, a premises could have a fourth machine in the stockroom. If it was not available for use by members, it would not fall under the definition. That would only happen when it became available for use. If a machine is damaged or locked away where it is not available, it is not available for use and is not covered by the clause. We want to catch any gaming machine that is made available. That clearly does not mean that someone has to be playing the machine before it counts. The question is whether someone could use it; if so, the operator is providing a gaming machine. If it were locked away in a stockroom, it would not be available.
I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. I appreciate that such machines offer an important source of revenue for clubs offering entertainment. The clause allows quite properly allows them to offer three machines. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, and given my explanation, I ask him to withdraw it.
Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister because we now have that confirmation on the record, and I hope that no one will want to enforce a provision that they perceive to be in the Bill, but which was, in reality, never intended. The Minister has explained that, if anybody did try to pull that stroke, it would be disallowed. On the basis of those reassurances, for which I am grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Column Number: 511
Clause 258 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 259 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10
Club Gaming Permits and Club Machine Permits
Amendments made: No. 174, in schedule 10, page 183, line 7, at end insert
'( ) This paragraph does not apply to Scotland.'.
No. 175, in schedule 10, page 187, line 7, at end insert
'( ) In relation to premises in Scotland
(a) sub-paragraph (5)(a) shall have effect as if it referred to a sheriff within whose sheriffdom the premises are wholly or partly situated,
(b) sub-paragraph (5)(b) shall not have effect,
(c) the reference in sub-paragraph (6) to the magistrates' court shall have effect as a reference to the sheriff, and
(d) the reference in sub-paragraph (6)(e) to costs shall have effect as a reference to expenses.'
No. 176, in schedule 10, page 188, line 11, leave out ': ''prescribed'''.
No. 177, in schedule 10, page 188, line 13, at end insert
'except that in paragraphs 1(2)(e), 14(2)(a) and 15(2) it means, where the application in question is made to a licensing authority in Scotland, prescribed by the Scottish Ministers by regulations.
This Schedule shall, in its application to Scotland, have effect as if references to a chief officer of police were references to a chief constable.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Mr. Moss: Having looked through schedule 10, I have a simple question. Much of it replicates the wording of the Licensing Act 2003, and the procedure for applying for references, appeals and hearings follows that of the Licensing Act.
Paragraph 10 talks about the fast-track procedure, which is for holders of club premises certificates. Sub-paragraph (1)(a) defines what that means. It says that
''the applicant for a permit is the holder of a club premises certificate under section 72 of the Licensing Act 2003''.
I am trying to recollect what we discussed when considering the Act. I thought that most, if not all, clubs had to register under that Act if alcohol was being served in any shape or form.
My question is: unless there are different types of gaming clubs, which do not need an alcohol licence because they do not serve alcohol—which I cannot believe is possible—why do we need the rest of schedule 10? I am trying to clarify the matter in my own mind. I am sure that there is a simple answer and that the Minister will have it at the tip of his tongue.
I obviously welcome fast-tracking for those with a club premises certificate. They have been through the application to the local authority and all the procedures—being vetted and so on. All they want to do is add some gaming permits. I need to know which clubs might need to go through the long-winded procedure rather than taking the short circuit.
| 
