| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the Minister sat down, I was going to ask him to take account of that very point. No evidence has been produced as to any shortcoming of the inspectorate in the exercise of its powerto investigate anything when asked to do so. I hope that when we return to this on Report—I am sure that we shall—the noble Lord will be able to point us to any evidence of such shortcoming, if there is any; or perhaps he will have to say that there is none.
Will he take account also of this matter. Since the power applies to Northern Ireland, will the noble Lord bear in mind that it is the dearest ambition of the IRA to secure the destruction of Special Branch of the police service there? With this power to require such action of an inspectorate which does not consider an inspection limited to Special Branch to be necessary—nevertheless it is a requirement—comes a potential danger. This is because such an inspection may be considered to form part of the peace process, to the great operational disadvantage of the police service in Northern Ireland as a whole.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The balance sheet is stacking up—and against the Government rather than for them. It is well known and established in this House that under the existing regime the inspection service does a good and thorough job. It keeps its ear to the ground. If it gets a hint of problems developing, it has the power to deal with those matters if necessary.
Inspections of parts of a force can be performed under the existing remit. My concern about inspections of part of a force is that one must recognise that no basic command unit (BCU) in a force is a free-standing enterprise. Those units are heavily reliant on a swathe of essential central policing services provided usually from the police headquarters. I refer, for example, to firearms, finger printing, criminal investigations or data processing. An inspection of a BCU inevitably imposes burdens on the core of that police force.
We have heard many reasons why the Bill would be better without the clause. We have not heard many which convince me that it is a better Bill with the clause. I suspect that noble Lords would like a break rather than a walk. I shall not press the issue.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
7.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these short draft amending regulations make two changes to the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2001 which came into force on 2nd April last year following approval by both Houses of Parliament.
The first proposed amendment addresses an anomaly in the principal regulations made last year. The effect of the amendment is to make clear that it is possible for a local authority to hold an all-postal referendum in combination with an election that is also being held on an all-postal basis. It will, of course, continue to be the case that an all-postal referendum may not be combined with an election held using the traditional polling station method.
The second change proposed is the opening up of these referendums to the full scope of the electoral innovation pilot schemes provided for in the Representation of the People Act 2000. The electoral pilot provisions were not originally extended to referendums because there had been no referendums of this type yet held so there would have been nothing for a referendum pilot to be properly assessed against. We have subsequently seen a succession of mayoral
referendums. The Government believe, therefore, that the time is right to open up the full scheme allowing local authorities to apply for pilots using innovations other than all-postal balloting. In line with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2000 we have consulted the Electoral Commission. It has expressed its support for the policy that would be given effect by the draft.Finally, I should like to place formally on record that I am satisfied that these regulations comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. I commend the regulations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the trouble to write to me and, I suspect, other opposition Members about the regulations. It was courteous to do so, and I am grateful.
I have no objection to the amendments. However, it is disappointing to note the results from the all-postal votes on the mayoral referendum. The turn-out of voters has not increased. Considering that people are sitting in the comfort of their own homes, the average turn-out has been about 26 per cent. In the two electoral results where people were required to go to the polls, the figures were 10 and 13 per cent—so 26 per cent is double those figures. It does not look as though the changes to voting arrangements are having the desired effect.
Even with referendums on what was meant to be the exciting issue of elected mayors, the turn-out for elections, particularly for local government, has not increased as we would all have liked. It is sad when people do not take the opportunity to vote. If more effort is required to get them to do so, clearly we have no objection.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister not just for introducing the regulations, but for writing to me about them. Sometimes such regulations can be a little opaque without the gloss that is provided for us. Of course we support the regulations. How could we oppose making voting easier? However, when I read the Minister's letter I felt that the measures were more about encouraging a greater number of people to vote on schemes for which there has been so little enthusiasm with regard to the "modernisation" of local government.
Having said that and noting the disappointingly low turn-out for all the referendums so far, which all of us, as politicians, must feel ashamed about, we support the regulations.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the support from both Front Benches. I share the disappointment that has been expressed about the turn-out. We all realise that such measures help, but perhaps there are more fundamental questions relating to why people do not vote in elections that need to be addressed as well.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Deregulation (Bingo and Other Gaming) Order 2002
7.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone) rose to move, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 28th January be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order before you is one of the last to come before Parliament under the terms of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It makes three modest changes to the law governing commercial bingo clubs.
The legal controls on commercial bingo are strict. Clubs operate on a membership basis under the licences that are issued by the courts in England and Wales and by the local authority licensing board in Scotland. They are strictly regulated by the Gaming Board, which approves the companies that own them and their senior staff. Commercial bingo is popular. There are more than 700 licensed clubs around the country. Between them they attract 250,000 customers every day.
The proposals in the order would not significantly change the way in which clubs operate. However, they would help clubs to respond to customer demand and a changing gambling market.
The three changes that the order makes would remove the need for clubs to notify their licensing authority of changes in their charges to players, allow them to offer their customers a greater variety of gaming machines and allow for more prizes in games of multiple bingo, otherwise known as the national bingo game. There will also be a minor benefit for casinos.
Paragraph 2 removes the part of the Gaming Act 1968 that requires clubs to inform their licensing authority of changes in their charges to players. That will not disadvantage anybody. It will save time and money for the bingo club and the licensing authority. The paragraph will also affect casinos, which can charge players for using their card rooms. Under the current rules they must notify changes in that charge to their licensing authority 14 days in advance. Again, there is no reason for that and nothing to be lost by removing the requirement.
Bingo clubs can have gaming machines for their customers to play, and most do so. Most clubs have AWP machines with a £25 top prize. They must agree the number of such machines that they can have with their licensing authority. The law also allows them to have jackpot machines with a £500 top prize instead, as long as they do not have more than four. However, clubs cannot have both types of machine. They can have £25 AWP machines or up to four £500 jackpot machines, but not both.
Paragraph 3 would change that. If bingo clubs wish, and if their licensing authority agrees, they will be able to have up to four £500 jackpot machines alongside £25 AWP machines. They will be able to mix the two types of machine. That does not mean that bingo clubs will turn into Las Vegas-style gambling dens. Clubs will still be playing bingo. It will not be a case of wall-to-wall machines. The Government see no case for the present ban on mixing the two types of machine in bingo clubs. It should be a matter between each club and its licensing authority. That will increase choice for players and the ability of the clubs to respond to customer demand.
Paragraph 4 makes a minor change to the law controlling multiple bingo—the so-called national bingo game. The Gaming (Bingo) Act 1985 allows for customers at bingo clubs throughout the country to play a single game at the same time to the same set of numbers. There is a single national top prize. The Act says that there must also be one regional prize in each region or one house prize in each club, or both. Paragraph 4 makes a simple change to that Act to allow the organisers to decide whether to give more than one prize in each category. It will be a matter for them. The change gives clubs more scope to meet consumer demand.
Last summer, the Government published the report of an independent review of the entire body of controls on gambling in Great Britain, including on bingo, which was chaired by Sir Alan Budd. The Government plan to announce shortly the steps that we will take in view of that report to carry out an overall reform of gambling law. Nothing in the order will prejudice or cut across whatever steps the Government or your Lordships' House might think necessary to bring about the reform of our gambling controls. The gambling review has specifically endorsed the mixing of £25 and £500 gaming machines in bingo clubs, which the order will bring about.
There has been extensive public consultation on the proposals and most careful scrutiny by the parliamentary deregulation and regulatory reform committees. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in your Lordships' House expressed no concerns about the order. The Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee in another place expressed some concern about the provisions to allow bingo clubs to mix the two types of gaming machine. It commented on what it saw as the limited scope of consultation about the order by the Home Office with groups that might speak for the interests of elderly or vulnerable people. The committee suggested that the mix of machines proposal be dropped from the order.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport therefore undertook further consultation among those groups, which revealed no objection to the proposals. The order has now been approved in the other place in the form in which it is before your Lordships this
evening. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended approval by this House. I confirm to the House that I am satisfied that the terms of the order are fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 28th January be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page