HC Deb 11 June 1968 vol 766 cc123-31
Mr. Callaghan

I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 13, line 27, after ' section ', insert 'and'.

I should offer a word of explanation, because this is a very important Amendment. The Amendments which, if it is agreeable to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we would discuss are not only Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12, but also Amendments Nos. 77, 79, 80 and 81.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I believe that that would be convenient.

Mr. Callaghan

Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are related here and Amendments Nos. 77, 79, 80 and 81 are those concerning Schedule 5. If hon. Gentlemen will look at that they will see that these Amendments carry the same principle into the Schedules as I am about to enunciate on Clause 19. This is a significant Amendment which arises out of a concession given in Committee and in which the Government have been substantially influenced by the Committee.

I am asking Parliament to remove the right of appeals to me in respect of the issue and revocation of certificates and decisions by the Board. These Amendments would remove from the Home Secretary appeals to him against decisions of the Gaming Board. Such decisions could, of course, concern refusal or revocation of a certificate of approval to gaming operatives, managers, organisers or supervisers in licensed clubs. The Board's decisions on these matters—and this is the most important sentence that I have to utter—lawfully arrived at, will be final and there will be no appeal to me from its decision.

I wish to bring this out fully to the House. The change is consistent with provisions to be introduced by Amendments which I will later move to Schedule 2, whereby all applications for licences are to be subject to certificates of consent by the Board which will also be entitled, in certain circumstances, to revoke such certificate and, therefore, to render a licence void.

I point out that the Board's decision is to be final. It would be out of keeping for an individual employee to enjoy rights of appeal denied to a licence holder. I heard the discussion on this in the Committee and was influenced and, indeed, converted by it. I will not go deeply into the philosophy, because it was discussed in Committee, but this provision emphasises the Board's authority. No one has a right to engage in commercial gaming. This is the effect of the Amendment. The Board's decision will be final, which means I must take very great care in the persons I appoint to carry out these responsibilities; and I am now considering this matter in order to find the right people.

Obviously, there will be discussions on this matter in the House from time to time, but the view of both sides of the Committee, which I have accepted, was that appeals to the Secretary of State from the Board's decisions would diffuse a responsibility that ought to be kept concentrated, and might bring such decisions within reach of political pressures which is something to which I am sure I nor any of my successors would wish to be subjected.

That is what this group of Amendments is about. They are technical only in the sense that they are carrying through this intention in the Clause and the Schedules.

Mr. Rees-Davies

The Home Secretary has said, I believe rightly, that this is a very important question. I entirely agree with the view that he has expressed in principle. I want to speak about a very important matter which is not included directly within the Amendment although it is implicit in it—the need for immediate power of suspension under Clause 19; because this has, as yet, still been overlooked. I believe that a little time of the House ought to be taken on this Amendment, and that so that the public should fully realise what Parliament is doing under Clause 19 we ought to get the situation clear.

My own view, which I expressed to his predecessor in the Home Office about 18 months ago, before the Bill was published was that, first of all, there must be a Gaming Board; secondly, that the Board should have full executive power; and, thirdly, that if it was to have that power it must be given the initial responsibility of considering whether there shall be a consent certificate. I will say no more on that because we will deal with it on Schedule 2 and others.

Under Schedule 5, if we are to have some control at the inception of gaming then, equally, the Board must have power of revocation of that control. I have always taken the view, which is shared in France, Belgium and many other civilised European countries and in the United States of America as well, that there is not an inherent right to have a licensed establishment for gaming, and that it is a privilege. It is not the same as a public house or even the same as a betting office, although the Betting Licensing Committee has been given the power.

I personally would not have given it. It would have gone further and taken the matter to the Board, subject to certain rights and certain other forms of control which it would be out of order for me to develop now. But I feel strongly that if we are to pursue this course then not only must the Board have the initial power of refusal, but also complete power over withdrawal or revocation. Why do I say this?

8 p.m.

There are certain establishments in London, of which, if necessary, I can give notice to the Home Secretary, which are undesirable. They are undesirable because, in the first place, they use outside collaborators to collect their debts. Those outside collaborators are the protection racketeers in London. They are the men who go and insist, if I may use the phrase, on the payment of certain debts. It is very difficult to pinpoint or to prove these matters up to the hilt when subject to judicial control, because those who can give the information are not willing to do so in a court of law. They are too frightened to do so.

There is one particular club I know of which colleagues in the House, to my certain knowledge, have visited quite recently. It would not be easy, in the atmosphere of a court, to tackle with certainty the question whether this particular club and those particular directors should be permitted to have a grant or not.

The same position applies on revocation. It is extremely difficult to establish in a court of law whether cheating has taken place in a club. It is almost impossible to prove with absolute certainty whether electronic instruments have been used to defeat the natural play of machines. In the United States it has become almost impossible to prove the use of electronic controls for cheating at roulette except by putting in the people whom it is necessary to feed into the establishment to give the requisite kind of advice to lead to prosecution. I therefore think that if the paraphernalia of effective control is to be given to the Board, it must not only decide in advance the cases which it will refuse, but it must have complete control over revocation.

That leads me to what is perhaps my most important point, and one with which I ask the Minister to deal. Let us suppose that in certain premises there is some cheating or misconduct in the evening. There appears to be no power for the inspector to suspend the employee concerned forthwith, and, in a bad case, to suspend the operation of the club that evening. I am not referring to the power to revoke, but if there is a really serious complaint, and it is shown, or admitted, that evening that the croupier has been engaging in misconduct, surely there must be a power to suspend forthwith the operation of play at those tables?

Mr. Buck

Would not my hon. Friend agree that if certain Amendments which have been tabled by this side of the House to various parts of the Schedule were accepted that power would be available? The issue does not, however, arise so much on these Amendments.

Mr. Rees-Davies

I agree with my hon. Friend, and when we come to those Amendments we may have an opportunity to elaborate the position.

What both sides of the House recognise is the necessity for a form of relatively arbitrary rule which would not be permitted in any other respect, purely because of the dangers inherent in gaming and gambling. It is because of this that the House is willing to give the Board these special powers.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Home Secretary when he says that he has a grave responsibility to see that his appointees, particularly the chairman and others, are of the highest calibre. I hope that he will bear in mind what was said in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) about the need for the inspectorate to be of high calibre, and well paid.

It is suggested that there will be about 15 inspectors. I think that in due course the Home Secretary will probably want about double that number, because, when he studies the problem with the police, I doubt whether he will find that they want to engage very much in the enforcement of gambling—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is not obvious to me what that has to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Rees-Davies

Under the Clause we are giving the Board arbitrary powers. These powers will be exercised by the inspectorate which is to be appointed, and I am saying that if we give such arbitrary powers, it is essential that those who wield them, to wit the inspectorate and the other officers appointed, are of the highest calibre.

I welcome the Amendment. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to obtain the right type of people. I believe that he will. If he does and if he works along the broad lines of drawing on people with a great sense of public service, and a chairman who knows a fair amount about gaming, in the same way as people are appointed to the Turf and Jockey Clubs, and so on, he will have a successful Act.

Mr. Buck

As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is an important Amendment which, taken with the other Amendments, gives the Board consider- able arbitrary powers relating to the categories of persons who are employed in connection with gaming. That is my understanding of the position, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong.

The Amendment is confined to the employees of gaming clubs. In particular, to take the most obvious example, a croupier has to be licensed. He has to receive the Board's accolade as to his bona fides. He has to establish that he is an appropriate person to be a croupier. He has to do that by way of his antecedents. A person in that position has enormous opportunities for corruption, for taking money from his employers, for defrauding people at the casino, and so on. We have always thought it right that the Board should have power to approve such a person before he has the right to hold what is described as an operating certificate.

By the Amendment the serious step is taken of saying that such a person has no right of appeal against a decision by the Board that he should not be allowed to operate as a croupier. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has reservations about giving the Board arbitrary powers of that kind. My first predilection is against giving anybody arbitrary powers to deprive someone of the right to earn his livelihood. That is my basic prejudice, and I imagine that it is shared by the Home Secretary, but after deep thought I take the view that in the exceptional circumstances with which we are dealing here it is right to arm the Board with this considerable power. One does not like the Star Chamber atmosphere, or giving any body of people the power to deprive a person of his living, but in these circumstances it is right to do so.

It may not be possible in a court of law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person who wants to act as a croupier has behaved in a criminal way, but evidence may well be available to the Board which will satisfy it that the person concerned is not appropriate to be a croupier because of the additional temptations, and because of the fantastic opportunities for making illicit gains. The Board will have the power to say, if the person concerned has a bad record, if he has behaved in a way which leads the Board to suppose that he may be dishonest, " Thou shall not have an operating certificate ". On balance I think that that is right.

I have always put forward the view that it is right for the Board to be armed with considerable powers of regulation, and I think that it would be inappropriate to go off that line now, because the Amendment goes as far as I would be prepared to go. At a later stage we shall be discussing a group of Amendments which will deprive retailers of gaming machines of the right of appeal. I shall reserve my position as to whether they are in the same category as employees of casinos and so on. It may be going too far, but I shall wait to hear what the Government have to say.

This probably goes as far as it should. I would have been against the Amendment had not concessions been made over the classification of employees who may have an " operating certificate ". Large numbers of those employed in bingo clubs, other than those actually operating the apparatus, will not now have to have such a certificate. Without that concession, I would have been more reluctant to allow the Board these powers.

We are dealing here with spheres of activity which I do not go along with the right hon. Gentleman in describing as evil. I do not think that a modest game of craps or a few pounds spent on roulette is evil, but there are forces at work in certain aspects of gaming which will make it necessary for the Board to be able to act quickly and sometimes arbitrarily. We must realise that we are providing the Board with considerable arbitrary powers, but on balance we are right to do so.

Mr. Deedes

I was glad that the Home Secretary expressed awareness of the gravity of this Amendment, since we will probably deal with none graver. He has given himself a major instrument of control, the most effective in the Bill, because, where there is no appeal, if a man falls below a standard set by the Board, that is the end of the story and that is the only way to operate in this field. There are aspects of this which make it, objectionable though it may seem, essential. One, of course, is the manner in which the Board will acquire its information, since it is bound to be privy to a good deal of information which it may share with the police and, I hope, with the proprietors, but which at its highest, will be circumstantial rather than conclusive.

The Under-Secretary put his finger on it in Committee when he said: There may be all sorts of occasions on which an operative has been guilty of behaviour of an undesirable kind which does not amount to an offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th March, 1968; c. 285.] That is what we are talking about, and we are producing something unique in English statute. Someone who is not guilty of an offence but none the less has an unsavoury "aroma" will be able to be dealt with by the Board without appeal. I am not saying that this is wrong. Those of us who have been trying to get more powers for the Board cannot now say that the right hon. Gentleman has overdone it, but to fire on suspicion is one thing and it is quite another to exclude someone from a walk of life on suspicion, as we will do here.

How much this will depend on circumstantial evidence was made clear to those of us who have talked to proprietors of these clubs. The fact is that one rarely has conclusive evidence of misconduct by croupiers and so on. It is nearly always suspicion.

8.15 p.m.

I do not say this in derogation of the Amendment, but I do not think it will survive in its present form. When the Board has got going, it will have to provide, I think, on its own behalf, some additional safeguard for the individual. It will not involve us, but I am certain that it will have to happen. Although we have good reason for doing it, we have overstepped the mark, and when the Board has been operating for some time I believe that it will discover that the weight of responsibility imposed on it by the decisions which it will have to take about certain individuals will be more than it wishes to carry. I think that the Board will say to the Home Secretary at an early stage, " This is not quite what we need or can bear," and will produce some amendment, so that this will not last in its present form. The Board will have to preserve some safeguard for the individual.

At one stroke we have built up the Board to what we now know it ought to be. It has been given powers over individuals and will have to be of a different calibre to the Board we were discussing on Second Reading. We cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to give us any clearer picture of the Board, but the bearing of this on its composition, and its relations with the Home Secretary and Parliament, is very considerable. I hope that before we part with the Bill the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some idea of the composition and status of this body to which we are giving such considerable powers.

Mr. Callaghan

I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I do not have to demonstrate my bona fides, since it was in my Bill that the powers of the Board were originally watered down, but I was overturned in Committee by hon. Members on both sides. Now, the House is rightly saying that we must be careful of individual rights. If the Board comes to me saying, " We want to devise a different form of procedure along the lines which the right hon. Gentleman described", it will not find me unsympathetic, because I hope that I have as deep a sense of the rights of the individual as any other hon. Member. We must be careful what we are doing here, but there is no doubt that the analogy with corresponding boards in other fields was weighty, and I accepted it.

I give the assurance now, as I did originally, that, first, I want a good Board and, second, that if it wants to propose to me alterations which will preserve additional rights I shall consider them sympathetically, knowing—I think that I have a feeling about the House—that the House will want me to do that in the end.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 10, in page 13, line 28, leave out from 'certificates' to end of line 30.

No. 11, in page 13, line 32, leave out from ' approval' to 'shall' in line 33.

No. 12, in page 13, line 37, leave out from ' section' to end of line 40.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Forward to