HC Deb 11 June 1968 vol 766 cc163-72
Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 19, line 7, at end insert: 'for use exclusively at a travelling showmen's pleasure fair or'.

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment Nos. 25, 26, 27, 102 and 37.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

The first three Amendments which you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, on which the others are largely consequential, have the effect of giving the travelling showmen the same degree of exemption from the provisions requiring machine suppliers to be certificated by the Board, that is Clause 26, and prohibiting profit-sharing arrangements for the supply of machines, that is Clause 27, as the Bill already confers on amusement caterers operating on piers, pleasure grounds and other permanent sites.

Sir S. McAdden

In speaking to this Amendment I want to speak to the other Amendments to which you have referred, Mr. Speaker, particularly the Amendment to Amendment No. 25, and Amendment No. No. 25. Those two Amendments give expression to an Amendment which I moved in Committee stage.

I do not know whether it was due to the late stage at which we came to it, or to the inadequacy of my advocacy, but it did not seem to have a great deal of success. Although it is recorded in the proceedings of the committee that I subsequently withdrew the Motion which I proposed, it was not due to any lack of conviction on my part about the cause that I was espousing, but to the fact that I could not get any support from the Committee.

I am convinced that the decision at which the Committee arrived, in other words, not to accept the Amendment, is one which they will greatly regret, and one which they will give effect to this evening by accepting these Amendments. I am convinced that the Committee came to its conclusion in an atmosphere of lack of understanding of what was involved.

I am sure that the Committee was under the impression that we were discussing machines of a hard gaming nature, whereas we were in fact discussing machines offering amusements with prizes which are limited in value and where there is no evidence of the kind of intimidation which was brought to light so nobly by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) and which resulted in a great deal of publicity in the national Press—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered. That the Proceedings on the Gaming Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. Ross.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Sir S. McAdden

I am very unlucky. Even in Committee I was interrupted and had to continue my speech next day. However, it may be that that interruption will help us come to a clear and sensible decision on this matter.

Whilst it is right to seek to prevent the excesses which occur in the operation of gaming machines and try to stamp out rackets of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, surely it is not suggested that racketeers are involved in machines providing amusements and prizes on licensed premises. Indeed, I asked the hon. Gentleman to give me some examples of where racketeering might have occurred, but even he, with his great experience, could not quote any.

I felt that the hon. and learned Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill had been inadequately briefed on the subject, because he appeared to think that there was some possibility of brewers being intimidated by the retailers of these machines. I have no interest to declare, and I am not here on behalf of the brewers, but I find it difficult to imagine the brewers being intimidated by racketeers. These operations are well conducted. In most cases there is a profit-sharing arrangement between the brewer, the licensee and the retailer of the machine. It is an arrangement which works satisfactorily, and there is no evidence of racketeering. The brewers, the licensees and the retailers of the machines like it. It works very well, and I hope that consideration will be given by the Government to allowing the existing state of affairs to continue.

No one denies that the accounts are kept meticulously, and the division of what I may call the spoils is exceptionally fair as between the interested parties. It is an arrangement which enables some of our country public houses to have machines offering amusements with prizes which would not be possible if it were not for the existing sharing arrangements, because they cover a large number of public houses some of which will be more profitable than others. By taking the rough with the smooth, all are able to enjoy the benefits of the machines, which do not ruin the country or cause great vice and corruption.

I am sure that the Committee's decision was due to a misunderstanding. From time to time Parliament makes mistakes. If we have made a mistake in this case, why should we not admit it and put it right now by saying that the operation of these machines is not a vicious form of gambling and does not cause public scandal? After all, if it is permissible on seaside piers and in amusement arcades, why should it not be in public houses?

For those reasons and in the hope that on this occasion my humble proposal will be accepted by the House, I resume my seat with a spirit of optimism. I hope to hear some cheerful words from the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Buck

At the moment, we are dealing with the group of Amendments associated with Amendment No. 24. As I understand it, they put the position of the travelling showmen and members of the Showmen's Guild on the same basis as members of the Amusement Caterers' Association. We raised the point in Committee, and we were assured that the matter would be looked at because there was some doubt about it. We are glad to see that it is now to be put to rights. Now the same concessions which had been made earlier to amusement operators operating from a static position are extended to travelling fair men and fair operators. We are glad of that and in due course hope to have similar sympathetic treatment on other Amendments relating to similar topics.

Mr. Rees-Davies

The Committee went gloriously astray on this matter. It is plain that it was not understood. I have been closely concerned on many occasions with the presentation of the arguments which are necessary in this sphere. I have no interest to declare, save that in another place I had to present the case for the best known company operating in this sphere and also originally to look at the position about amusements with prizes contrasted with gaming machines.

It is essential to understand the background. For the last 25 to 30 years in areas of my constituency, such as Dreamland, there has always been a clear distinction between gaming machines or one-armed bandits in the proper sense and amusements with prizes. The two are in no way connected and it is important to realise the difference. A one-armed bandit may give a jack-pot with a substantial money prize. It is properly subject to control and only two such machines are permitted in clubs. In this Bill a one-armed bandit is subject to rigorous control and licence.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It would appear that the hon. Member is addressing himself to Amendment No. 142, which is not selected.

Mr. Rees-Davies

No, Mr. Speaker. I am addressing myself to the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone and myself, which is, upon licensed premises in respect of which a permit is granted pursuant to Section 49(1) of the Act of 1963 (Provision of amusements with prizes at certain commercial entertainments). We would like that added as one of the exceptions. I should have made it plain at the outset that I was speaking to that.

I am all for adding travelling showmen. I am seeking to argue that in the case of amusements with prizes one should be permitted to have them on a fairground or on a pier, in the case of travelling showmen, and also that one should have them in licensed premises provided they are not gaming machines but are properly amusements with prizes. Of all the arguments I would address to the House, I am convinced that this is absolutely unanswerable when one really understands the position.

When the 1960 and the 1963 Acts were passed certainly the Home Office did not think that people in public houses would be able to get permits for what they thought were one-armed bandits. The Committee at the time did not recognise that it would be possible to invent a disc-operated machine for use in a public house. What happened was that the operators went to counsel in this country and sought advice. As a result of that advice, it was pointed out to the publican, and thus to the brewer, that he could apply for a permit for a machine in his public house provided it returned to the operator a prize not exceeding 5s. and a machine was specifically devised which led to applications for permits in public houses so that people could engage in this harmless game.

I say "game" because it is just the same as the one on a pier except that it is in public. It is identical. Nobody can suggest that this is gaming. When the application goes before the local authority, and on appeal before the committee— and many have gone on appeal before the committee—the overwhelming arguments of the recorders of this country, which can all be seen on the files of the Home Office—and they include Baptists in the West Country, Roman Catholics in the East of England and good solid church-going folk up and down the country— have been that it is perfectly proper. They have all passed them as amusements with prizes, after very rigorous and proper control.

That being so, the publicans entered into contracts and the really impossible feature of the Bill as it stands at the moment is that if it is carried into effect in its present form it will have a very serious retrospective operation. Let me give just one example. Three of the leading brewers in this country have obtained permits, one in the case of 350 public houses, another in the case of 175 public houses, and a third for an almost equivalent number. Those permits have been granted, this year in some cases, last year in others, for three years. They have, therefore, an existing permit for some three years to enable them to have these amusements with prizes. Once a brewer has obtained a permit he is no longer engaged in running the machines and the brewers have entered into profit-sharing contracts with the well-known companies which supply these machines; and the brewers are bound to that contract to continue for the period of their permit, that is, for at least another two and a half years. They are bound by a contract to take these machines from the supplier into their public house in pursuance of their permit and on terms agreed.

If this alteration in the law is made it will cause acute hardship on the suppliers or the publican, or both, because we are changing the law in the middle of an existing situation. I know that this has not been seen. If it had been seen and appreciated by the Home Secretary he would, I am sure, have recognised that there was here a very serious fault that needed looking at. Furthermore, I believe there have been one or two—dare I say?—somewhat wayward suggestions from the bench who also did not understand the difference between an amusement with prizes and a gaming machine. I am not suggesting everybody should understand the difference straight away. I; one sees one of these monstrosities with its long name and its big handle to be pulled, one might well think that one machine is the same as another. But there have always been, in our law and in our practice, a very real difference. The only reason why the public house machine looks like the other machine is because they wanted the machines to look alike so that people in public houses might be encouraged so to use it. That is the only reason.

If the Government are willing to permit even children to go into a fairground or to a travelling showman's fair around the country in which these machines are in operation, how can it be contended that it is wrong to have them in a public house? Why should we change the law from a position which is perfectly satisfactory for most circumstances? Permits which have been granted by local authorities under Section 49(1) of the Act of 1963 for amusements with prizes at those entertainments have been perfectly properly given. Are we now to say that Parliament having given this authority and this power and having permitted all these people to make their arrangements for the next three years on the reliance of the word of Parliament, Parliament now turns round and says, "We are terribly sorry. We are changing the law and we are going to do this."?

10.15 p.m.

The Minister may well have been given some food for thought by what I have said, and by what my hon. Friend said. What my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) said in Committee was true, but nobody seemed to grasp the significance of it. We do not propose to divide the House on this issue, but it is a matter which I hope the Government will consider carefully in another place, because an injustice is being done to those who have entered into contracts, and I can give the Minister any information that he wants on that. I can give him the names of the breweries, the companies, and the contracts to show that they are binding for years.

I ask that careful consideration be given to what has been said, and that we continue the principle enshrined in the 1963 Act of drawing a clear distinction between a gaming machine, which has to be the subject of rigorous control, and a machine which happens to be an apparatus which does nothing more than provide idle and reasonable pleasure at very small cost.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

The Amendment is technically defective in that Section 49(1) of the 1963 Act, which is amended by Schedule 11, applies only to amusements with prizes in which machines are not used, whereas the Amendment is concerned exclusively with machines whose supply and use are now to be governed wholly by Part III of the Bill.

The object of the Amendment is to get rid of the ban on amusement machines on licensed premises. The objections to profit-sharing arrangements are that they give retailers a continuing interest in the amount of use made of the machine, a claim to be on the premises to see how they are being used, and a right to check the accounts and earnings. They thus accentuate the pressures which unscrupulous retailers can bring to bear on their customers.

That apart, when dealing with relatively inexperienced customers the percentages can well be fixed in such a way as to leave the suppliers with an undue advantage.

Mr. Rees-Davies

The hon. Gentleman may be reading from a brief, but does he really believe that brief when it says that the licensed trade will be fooled by these operators? These are all professional licensees, and in the majority of cases they are great chain establishments with the finest advice that money can buy.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I am not naive enough to believe that this situation is not open to abuse. There is a precedent in the law of mortgages for the law to intercede between a brewery or substantial interests and the owner of licensed premises. There is, therefore, a precedent for saying that the law looks with especial favour upon protecting the publican. There is also a danger for inexperienced customers of percentages being fixed unfairly so as to leave the suppliers with an unconscionably substantial profit. The system tends to the detriment of the occupiers, who were supposed to be the chief beneficiaries of these machines; they are merely so many commercial outlets for the retailers and relegated to the position of junior partners.

These objections have long been recognised. Section 54 (2) of the 1963 Act already bans profit-sharing in the supply of gaming machines and Clause 27(2) of the Bill now extends the ban to amusement machines. I note the point about the possibly retrospective effect of the Clause and give an assurance that this will be examined in detail. I merely throw out the consideration that the law of frustration could apply to such a situation, but I should like time to consider all the ramifications.

I plead that the use of these amusement machines has proliferated since 1960 as it was never expected to do when the permit system was introduced in that year. They are often identical in design with gaming machines, being the familiar one-armed bandits. I believe that, mechanically, it is impossible to distinguish between the two, and that the only one is the monetary distinction, the limit set by Statute. They offer the same temptations to methods of pressure and extortion as do gaming machines, and the more closely the supply of the latter is regulated, the more one may expect more unscrupulous retailers to turn their attention to this other market—

Sir S. McAdden

I have asked several times for any evidence of undue pressure being put on anyone. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of notice of this and has not given one single example to justify this claim.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I do not pretend that I have this evidence to hand. In a relationship such as exists between a publican and the brewers and retailers, few people may be anxious to air their complaints publicly. But often, the same people are responsible for the manufacture of amusement machines and gaming machines. Many of those retailers have unimpeachable characters; some have not. Abuses have appeared and are well known in relation to gaming machines and there is, therefore, no reason why those abuses should not in time appear in relation to amusement machines—

Mr. Rees-Davies

There is every reason. They are harmless. No money can be made. To get a permit under Section 49, demand has to be established and that demand comes from the public. The publican would then go to his brewer, who would then make his contract. These are amusements. They are not gaming machines and will not give any volume of money to anyone. They are not even like bingo—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Interventions must be brief. We are on Report, not in Committee.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

It is no part of my case to say that this can constitute as lucrative a prospect for the retailer as gaming machines, but once that avenue has been closed it is possible, likely and virtually certain that the attention of would-be racketeers would turn to amusement machines. Therefore, while it is true that the restriction may at this stage be considered precautionary, we would be foolish, in view of the evidence of racketeering in the supply of these machines, if we were to neglect that precaution.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 25, in page 20, line 11, after 'machine' insert: 'for use exclusively at a travelling showmen's pleasure fair or'.

No. 26, in line 14, after 'machine', insert: 'at any such pleasure fair or'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Forward to