HC Deb 11 June 1968 vol 766 cc185-92
Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 114, in page 31, line 25, after ' not', insert: ' gaming to which Part II of this Act applies or'. This Amendment continues the process by which all gaming conducted on premises licensed or registered under Part II of the Bill is confined to the ambit of that Part. It removes the right of licensed and registered clubs or institutes to promote equal chance gaming for purposes other than private gain under the provisions of Clause 40.

That Clause is designed in particular to allow entertainments such as charitable bridge and whist drives; but it would also allow a members' club to provide bingo —an equal chance game—in aid of the club funds, a purpose other than private gain. There is nothing that the Clause permits in the way of the games that may be played, or the charges that may be made and the prizes that may be offered—which are confined to very moderate sums—that are not also likely to be permitted under the normal conditions of licence or registration. The essential difference is that under Clause 40 the public may be admitted, so that the provision might be invoked by the clubs to evade the restrictions on participation in gaming on licensed or registered premises contained in Clause 12. The Amendment is, therefore, introduced primarily in the interests of enforcement, and it involves little deprivation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rees-Davies

I beg to move Amendment No. 146, in page 32, line 30, at end insert: (9) In relation to entertainments held pursuant to this section application may be made to the licensing authority to grant a special certificate of exemption from the provisions of this section and the licensing authority may permit such entertainment (promoted for purposes other than private gain) upon such terms and conditions as they shall set out in writing. In determining the merits of the application the Board shall pay due regard to the benefit which may accrue to charity or other benefits arising by reason of the grant. There is one mistake in the Amendment. It should not be … the Board shall pay due regard ", but … the licensing authority shall pay due regard to the benefit which may accrue to charity or other benefits arising by reason of the grant. This is an important matter, because the present provision of Clause 40 is absolutely fatuous. One may be trying to raise money for a new kidney unit for somebody suffering from a kidney disease, for the Empire Cancer Research Fund, for polio victims or other cases of that kind and may want to give a substantial charitable entertainment right across the board in one of the leading hotels, providing, for example, a first-class dinner and dance, with a large tombola upstairs and, incidental and pursuant to it, some game, and possibly a separate gaming room.

Under the Clause as it stands—and this I feel is a sobering fact—all one can give, in respect of all games played at the entertainment which constitutes gaming is one payment by a player which must not exceed 10s.; and the totality of the prizes for those games under subsection (4) shall not exceed £50. The average tombola first prize in a first-class charitable entertainment is £750, and it is quite common to find that £2,000 or £2,500 is given to charity at the end of an evening at one of the leading hotels as a result of a charitable entertainment.

I urge the Home Secretary to find some way in which this can be done, with proper safeguards—and this is one. I do not necessarily suggest it is the best one. I would have preferred to have amended the whole of the Clause, but it seemed that the best course was to provide for a special application to be made. There is a clear precedent for this in the special occasions which we have in the Licensing Act provisions. I would draw an analogy between this and occasions when there may be a wedding or a particular Rotary Club feast and one is able to go to the local justices and apply to be permitted to drink into the early hours.

I specifically set down that the terms and conditions should be set out in writing so that there could be no question of abuse. When an order is made by the justices they would say that games may be operated. As in other parts of the Act, a precisely similar provision is being imposed on the justices to consider whether additional games may be played. It is not imposing any undue burden on them. Obviously, charities will make applications of this kind only for fairly substantial affairs, in the main in the metropolis, and in certain major cities throughout the country where there is some substantial charitable entertainment.

One of the ways in which nowadays one can get a lot of money for a really worthwhile charity is by giving a function at which there can be substantial lotteries and also an evening of gaming. A person may be willing to lose money at gaming during an evening of this kind knowing that it is for charity. This is particularly true of Jewish charities. Jews are particularly generous, as one knows, to many functions—to their own and other charities. I have seen Jews sit down and lose hundreds of pounds for the sake of charity. They will win the prize and give it back to be put up again.

I want to ensure that we do not inhibit all this in the creeping paralysis which comes into certain corners of this Bill, and that we take a robust view. It is no good saying there can be abuse, for there can be abuses of everything. But people who promote these large scale entertainments are usually people of some position in public life. They usually employ a professional secretary. They have to do so in order to operate large fetes, bazaars and entertainments for charities. I hope we can take a generous attitude towards those who are doing this for the sake of charity.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

The Amendment relates to gambling and entertainment promoted otherwise than for private gain, and allows changes to be made or levies to be made on stakes. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has very much minimised or toned down the difficulties of deciding when licences should be granted, and indeed generally enforcing such provisions. It is necessary that a concession of this kind, of which anyone may take advantage without having to submit to licensing or registration, should be closely fenced round to prevent excesses and abuses developing which could be seriously prejudicial to the whole of the control system.

We could not willingly entrust powers of variation to licensing justices all over the country, nor, on the other hand, is the detailed scrutiny of individual applications, which are likely to be anomalous and petty, a proper responsibility to put on the Gaming Board which will have a great deal else to do without this sort of distraction. But wherever the responsibility might be placed, it would be an impossibly invidious one to discharge.

I submit that judgment of the relevant merits of charities and other causes can only be subjective, and the inevitable result would be that concessions made in one case would be found impossible to refuse in others, so that the whole system would snowball and be in danger of getting completely out of hand. This in itself would be bad enough, even if the scope for variation were confined to charges and prizes. If it were extended to allow games of unequal chance to be played, it could become very dangerous indeed.

The limits on charges and prizes set out in the Clause are extremely generous. In particular, we have increased the prize limit by as much as 150 per cent. on the present level. In doing so we have stretched the concept of an entertainment, which is what these activities are supposed to be, to its ultimate. With any further extension the activities could not be regarded as anything but gaming, and we have not yet accepted the principle that charities should be subsidised by gaming in the serious meaning of that term.

Mr. Rees-Davies

Surely Parliament has accepted that principle. We have said that there can be lotteries for purposes other than private gain, and there are special Acts of Parliament in that connection. The only question which we have to discuss is quantum. The principle that there can be lotteries and gaming for charity has been established. The amount of money is a matter of degree. The only question here is whether magistrates will be permitted to decide the amount and the terms of the quantum which will be laid down.

Mr. Morgan

I accept that, but the degree can be so regulated as to change the very substance of society's outlook on this matter. At the moment charities are subsidised by minor gaming, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware of the provisions of Section 48 of the 1963 Act. We do not pretend that we or anybody else can fairly distinguish between one disinterested object and another, and we believe that the same opportunities—neither more nor less— should be open to all charities. For that reason I invite the House to reject the Amendment.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle

The Clause is designed to give exemptions to charitable functions and would permit gaming which was otherwise limited by Part II if it were an entertainment. The Under-Secretary's answer, therefore, is wholly inadequate. We are concerned only with the quantum. What can possibly be the objection to a charity making substantial sums for a worthy cause, and the reason for limiting it in the way proposed?

Mr. Morgan

Although a charity is mentioned, it is only one of presumably innumerable factors which the licensing authorities would be enabled to consider.

Mr. Carlisle

I accept that, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Amendment is not particularly well drafted. If the principle were accepted, I am sure that my hon. Friend would be willing to withdraw it on the assurance that it would be reconsidered in another place.

This is the same gaming which Part I permits, if done privately. So we are saying that gaming in a private house is all right but not gaming to which Part II applies, for stakes above 10s., if it is done in a public place, although part of an entertainment to benefit a charity. Since it will cover such things as roulette to benefit a charity, I regret that the Government cannot accept the principle of the Amendment, which would allow the licensing authority to consider all the facts, which might lead it to increase the amounts allowed to be staked and won.

Mr. Rees-Davies

Could we have a reply on this? I meant to Limit the Amendment to what the justices determined to be a charitable entertainment. If it goes wider, would the Government consider limiting it in another place to such entertainment as the justices considered suitable? That would meet the point of me and my hon. Friends.

Mr. Morgan

With the leave of the House. I am willing to consider this, but I issue this warning to the hon. Gentleman, lest he be disappointed. His arguments would be valid, were it not for the provisions of Section 48 of the 1963 Act, which gives everything for which he could ask in the case of charitable dinners, drives and dances. This Clause is directed at something quite different from the weekly church whist drive.

Mr. Hogg

But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take a broad view. We all know that, in the great urban centres, and particularly the metropolis, there are large national charities which, for reasons good or bad, raise substantial sums by entertainment of this kind, which may not be limited to dances or gaming. It might include gaming, but if one looks at the broad purpose of this Bill, we are seen to be dealing—as the Home Secretary has more than once reminded us—with a considerable social evil. There has been extortion and even, again as the Home Secretary has said, murder. But that is because commercial interests have got out of hand; and they have got out of hand because of the defective state of the law.

However, it is wholly outwith, wholly outside, the province of commercial activities that we are talking now. We are, of course, concerned with the morality of gaming for purposes of charity, but we should not take too puritanical a view. Great national causes can be served by sums of money where £50 is offered as a prize, or ten shillings is charged for admission; but those amounts may now be wholly inadequate. Sums which to our forefathers seemed to be very large are not necessarily very large to us. Will the whole of our society be subverted by giving a more favourable reception to an Amendment of this sort than has been given by the Government's spokesman?

One does not want to die in the last ditch for figures of this kind, but is it not rational to believe that a more permissive attitude to this kind of thing is now justified in the realm of charitable or quasi-charitable activities? Then one could ask if the right hon. Gentleman has not been too submissive to the licensing justices. They are very wise in their own generation and my opinion of them—for what it is worth, and that may not be much, although I have appeared before them in recent months—is that they are restrictive rather than permissive. Over a fairly long life I have found that they are restrictive in the granting of licences.

Is it necessary to be so grudging in this matter? We shall not press this to a Division at this hour of the night, and if something like this Amendment could be pursued in another place, I would hope that the Government would approach the matter in a wholly receptive spirit. There is a great deal to be said for it. I hope that what I have said will be borne in mind should the matter be considered again elsewhere.

Mr. Callaghan

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made an appeal which, with respect to him, has been answered by the Under-Secretary. Clause 40 is really intended to deal with, say, Church whist drives run as weekly events, and my advice is that the case which he has made, and which has been made before, is covered by Section 48 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963. That would give the organisers everything they could want in relation to this kind of entertainment or charity. [Interruption.] I am told that this is the case.

I do not want to approach this in what hon. Members may think is a grudging spirit, but if it is covered by Section 48 of the 1963 Act, then there is no need for any of us to do anything about it. If it is not, then I will certainly look at his arguments.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

The next Amendment selected is No. 154.

Mr. Callaghan

Before we come to Amendment 154, I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned. It is nearly 11.30, which is the time I had in mind for adjourning. We have dealt with half the Clauses in terms of numbers and half the pages in terms of acreage. When I look at the work which we must do on the Bill tomorrow and remember that we will not start until 7 o'clock, and when I see that the overwhelming number of Amendments to be considered are Government Amendments designed to meet points which were raised in Committee, although some of them are not, I believe that, if we are sparing in our speeches in explaining those Amendments, we should be able to finish tomorrow night at a reasonable hour.

Mr. Hogg

I thank the Home Secretary for his consideration for us in this matter. Ft is convenient that we should adjourn at this stage. We have made considerable progress and it is not our fault that we will not begin at 3.30 tomorrow afternoon, as we had all supposed, but at 7 o'clock. If the atmosphere which the right hon. Gentleman has engendered so far today is continued, as I hope it will be, we should be able to finish tomorrow night; and, in these circumstances, I support the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.