New Clause.—(PROVISION OF CERTAIN AMUSEMENTS WITH PRIZES AT CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENTS.) (Hansard, 26 June 1964)

§ Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I think it would be desirable if I were to say just a word of introduction to explain that the somewhat alarming appearance of the new Clause is really nothing to cause concern. The origin of this new Clause is a discussion which took place in Committee, where it was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State that there was some question of the actual wording of the Bill as it stood, and that trouble might arise if it were not corrected. There were representations from interested parties, and it was pointed out that Clause 1 as it stood would prevent the use of a common type of amusement machine which operates by tokens and which, if the player is lucky, returns a quantity of tokens then exchanged for articles. The difficulty with Clause 1 as drafted was that such a machine may not produce anything, either money or prices, and a token is clearly on the face of it neither of those two things. Therefore, it was felt that the best way of dealing with the matter would be to remodel the Clause.
It was my hon. Friend who was good enough to say he would consult with us and consider whether it would be desirable on Report to produce a new Clause which would deal with the whole matter. We said we would be very happy to do so. Those consultations took place, and the result is this new Clause. I think it is really sufficient for me to say first of all that its sole purpose is to carry out the intention expressed in Committee, and that the only new provision is that contained in subsection (2,c), though there is no question of the new Clause going substantially beyond the provisions in the existing Clause 1. It is for purely drafting reasons that the new Clause is proposed to be substituted, rather than amending the old one.
The new Clause is desirable in the interests of manufacturers and amusement caterers who had made representations, discussed in Committee, and we hope 799 and believe that the Clause now proposed will meet their concern and also put the whole matter without any doubt.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse)
May I briefly add a word of confirmation to what my right hon. and learned Friend has said? We believe that this new Clause which, although it looks formidable, is in fact quite small, will be acceptable both to the manufacturers and the amusement caterers and will not put any new difficulty in the way of local authorties who will have to licence the places with which we are concerned.
There is a considerable number of this type of machine in use, and they are expensive, and we are told that they cannot readily be adapted to take money or to yield articles instead of tokens, so that unless the provisions were to be modified in this way they could cause very considerable capital loss to both manufacturers and caterers and would also severely restrict the future possibility of providing prizes in kind from amusement machines. It is difficult to devise machines which can directly produce prizes in the form of goods in any variety.
We feel, moreover, that this change is consistent with the original recommendations of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming and that not to incorporate it in the Bill would hinder the award of prizes as distinct from money prizes, which would have a retrograde effect.

§ Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)
Whatever praise may be showered upon the new Clause, and although I have no doubt that it will prove acceptable to the House, it strikes me that its provisions will be extremely difficult to supervise and enforce. The weakness of the whole Bill hinges upon the extent to which it will be possible to limit prizes.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State has referred to the difficulty of adapting machines to give prizes in kind. A large amount of money is invested in these machines. I cast no reflection upon the manufacturers of the machines or upon the majority of amusement caterers who are interested, but it is a fact that this kind of gaming or prize-giving machine has attracted a 800 rather dubious element consisting of slick operators who cannot always be easily traced. If it is to be the job of the local authorities to have inspectors going round to watch what happens to the tokens which come out of the machine and are then exchanged round the corner or at the back of the shop, or if the police are to be expected to enforce the new Clause, we shall, in my submission, be putting a very heavy burden upon them.
I hope that the Clause will have the effect desired by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and others who were responsible for formulating this lengthy provision, but I must express my own doubts. I am very pessimistic about whether the new Clause will be easily enforceable. I am sure that there will continue to be a good deal of evasion. Some of the people who operate these machines will continue to argue that the heavy capital outlay involved cannot be recovered legally if the prizes are limited in this way. There are still many opportunities for evasion, and I do not think the problem will be solved in this way.
Any attempt to impose what many people would regard as the unreasonable limit of 1s. in cash or 5s. in goods is bound to give rise to a lot of jiggery-pokery. If the promoters of the Bill had thought fit to raise the level of prize money or gifts, the possibility of jiggery-pokery would, to some extent, have been reduced.
I shall not oppose the new Clause, but I think it only right to express my great doubt about whether it will achieve any useful or readily enforceable purpose.

§ Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)
I did not serve on the Committee and, for my own information, I should like to put this question. What effect will the new Clause have if one hires machines for a fête or garden party for a charitable effort or to raise money for a political party, as parties on both sides of the House might wish to do? As hon. Members know, for garden parties, barbecues or fêtes it is occasionally desired to hire this kind of machine. How would the new Clause work in such circumstances? Will it put an extra burden on the local authorities? Will the man who is organising the fête for 801 charity or for his own political party have to suffer the heavy hand of the law, with lots of regulations? In a rural area will he have to go off to see the inspector of police or the chief constable of the county?

§ Mr. Woodhouse
I appreciate the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). He, in his turn, will appreciate that the very reason for introducing the Bill has been to give local authorities a tighter control than was provided by the original Act which contained the loophole which we are now proposing to fill by the present Bill.
The local authority associations have been consulted in the preparation of the Bill. Although I cannot say in advance that there is no possibility of any further loophole being found by the ingenuity of operators of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it is the intention to make it very much more difficult, if not impossible.
I must apologise to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), because I have not had time to study the detailed implications of his question or take expert advice. However, my impression is that the kind of occasion to which he referred would not fall within the scope of the Bill at all. The Bill only amends a very small sector of the very wide range of the original Act. My impression is that that kind of occasion would be governed by other provisions.