HC Deb 11 June 1968 vol 766 cc100-11

No premises to which Part II of this Act applies shall be open for the purpose of gaming for more than 12 hours in any period of 24 hours.—[Mr. Deedes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deedes

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I understand that my predecessor in the Chair ruled that when taking new Clause 5, which we should have taken with new Clause 3, we might have a backward look at new Clause 3, "Permitted hours of play": The Board shall regulate the hours of play during which gaming will be permitted to take place on premises to which Part II of this Act applies. In imposing restrictions limiting the gaming the Board shall take into account the locality, the nature of the games and the circumstances of play and may provide different hours of play according to the local needs. in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), and take Government Amendments No. 100 and No. 101.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Deedes

We recognise that the question of hours is difficult. My hon. Friends and I found hitting on the right answer very difficult. It is not only a question of how long clubs should be open, but who shall determine that. In our search for the answer we consulted a number of clubs, some of which I think even the Home Secretary would accept as reputable, and other witnesses. The new Clause roughly represents our thinking in the light of that experience.

As we left that matter in Committee, the hours were to be primarily a matter for local decisions. The Under-Secretary of State took the view that this was just the sort of thing which local justices could best do, having regard to such factors as clubs in residential areas where activity after one or two o'clock in the morning would be thought intolerable by the residents, and other considerations.

We remain of the view that as far as possible, effective control should be with the Board. I take it that that is the sense of new Clause 3 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). We accept, of course, that the Board should have regard to the local conditions and all the other considerations which the justices would take into account.

That said, I think that the number of hours in the 24 in which gaming should be possible is a matter on which Parliament should have the last word. We should take a view on it. It has been accepted through all our earlier proceedings that in certain matters of principle Parliament should define the intention and determine what the line is to be, but that in matters of administrative detail as far as possible the Board should have effective control, and that where that is not possible the Home Secretary should act by means of the regulations.

This is a matter of principle, and that is how a great many clubs see it themselves. A number of them consider that the totality of hours in the 24 is a matter on which a central decision should be made. They do not see, any more than many of us would see, that clubs open for 24 hours during the day and night around the clock, and even around the week, are good for them or for the social good.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

Is the new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman proposes intended to be in addition to the powers which would be given to my right hon. Friend under Amendment No. 100, or in substitution for them?

Mr. Deedes

That is a point which I shall make later.

Those whom we have consulted generally take the view that 12 hours' gaming would be enough. Most of them added, though this is a matter of opinion, that 4 o'clock in the morning is late enough for most gaming clubs to be open. It would follow, therefore, that 4 o'clock in the afternoon would be early enough for them to open. I recognise that their views are not decisive, but there are two practical considerations. We are not just telling people what is for their own good.

The first practical matter is that of enforcement. We are to have inspectors who, I hope, will work in a reasonably harmonious relationship with the clubs, for how otherwise will they get their work done? It is clear that unless we limit the hours we shall require a large number of inspectors. If gaming is to take place around the clock, instead of the hours being limited to half that time, roughly double the number of inspectors would be required.

The other practical consideration—and this meets the point that the Home Secretary has in mind, to which we are not unsympathetic—is the need to contain gaming in general. If it is round the clock, the last thing we shall do is to contain its extent. This coincides with the view of the reputable clubs. From time to time the Home Secretary lets fly at the clubs as if they were a comprehensive evil which we are here to repress. I am impressed by the point of view expressed by the owners of the reputable clubs.

I said this on Second Reading and since then I have met some of them. They feel that on the whole their businesses will succeed according to the reputation they achieve, partly among people in this country and partly among people abroad. No club in this country which wants to attract lucrative custom wishes to have a reputation for fiddling or running a bucket shop round the 24 hours to which nobody in his senses wants to go, at least for amusement.

The Home Secretary proposes to empower himself to restrict by regulations. We have never favoured allowing him to overburden himself with regulations under the Bill. The more the Board does, and the less the Home Office administration makes itself responsible for, the better. The Home Office is already overburdened and regulation making added by this provision would increase that burden.

The second objection is that the Bill would produce a very inflexible result. If the Home Secretary is to determine by regulation—I am not clear whether he means the totality of hours or the area of hours or the right to apply them locally— and goes too far in this direction, we shall find ourselves being advised by the Board in a year's time of the need for a fresh set of regulations. Generally speaking, we think that the less the Home Secretary requires to resort to regulation here the better. It is a matter on which the Board's experience would be quite invaluable. It would know the local variations.

But it is for Parliament to say what, generally speaking, the area and extent of gaming within the 24 hours should be and then for the Board to regulate these within the limits with regard to local conditions. That is the effective approach we want to make and even if the Undersecretary of State adheres to the wish to control by regulations—which we think wrong—I hope that he will accept that Parliament should determine what the totality of hours should be. That is a principle we should declare in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker

I remind the House that we shall also be debating with new Clause 5 Government Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 and that, if that is the wish, the House can divide on them when we reach their proper place on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Paget

It is my experience generally that if we put in a maximum it becomes a minimum. To put in the maximum of 12 hours—which, in my view, would be far too much for most clubs—would be to make them a minimum. Inter-club competition, in so far as it exists, imposes a minimum all round. This is something which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ought not to do.

New Clause 3 is unnecessary. Once there is the situation in which application for a licence depends upon a consent having been negotiated with the Board, surely that consent must involve the rules having been negotiated and approved. The rules will surely set out what the hours are to be. Thus, the Board is already involved in deciding the hours of opening.

Mr. Rees-Davies

The purpose of the latter part of new Clause 3 is for Parliament to lay down the criteria to which the Board and the Home Secretary should apply their minds. They are the main criteria for determining what sort of hours a particular club ought reasonably to require.

Mr. Paget

If one has confidence in the Board—and in a sense the Bill depends on the Board—these are the very considerations which it will bear in mind when negotiating with applicants what the rules should be. I cannot think that we should pick out a list of criteria and assume that the Board has not got the sense to think of them itself and, indeed, of others we have not thought of.

Finally, we have as a backstop Government Amendment No. 100, which provides for the Home Secretary to impose restrictions if he should think it necessary. I hope that it will not be necessary, because I believe this matter is better left to the rules as negotiated with the Board. But it will be there should it prove necessary and, therefore, I cannot see that new Clause 3 and new Clause 5 are either of them needed.

Mr. Rees-Davies

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not having been here when I should have been in my place to move new Clause 3. My aircraft was somewhat late in arriving in this country and I was unable to get here sooner. I owe another apology for having been voiceless during the Committee stage, but I have read most of the proceedings, and certainly all the Ministerial and other leading speeches. I do not propose to repeat what was said in Committee about points which, due to unavoidable absence, I was unable to pursue.

I share the general tenor of the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), although I do not actually agree with new Clause 5, for obvious reasons. I agree that the Board is really the body which must regulate the hours and that it is inherent that there must be some regulation of hours. I still adhere to the view that the Board should, however, be given some specific criteria by Parliament as to its consideration. Such guidance has been forthcoming in the licensing laws.

In the main, these gaming clubs are not in residential areas. The prime consideration here is that they are generally in the centre of cities or major towns. The nature of the games played is of the greatest importance to fixing the hours. There should be one set of hours for a bridge or poker club, but when dealing with chemin de fer and roulette, for example, we find that these games do not even begin until perhaps 9 p.m. or usually 10 p.m. and may well go on till 5 a.m. or thereabouts. So some assistance should be given by Parliament about hours.

I do not think that the criteria are really so obvious except to those of us who have had international experience of the effects of gambling. I would be horrified if we were to permit in this country the situation which rules in Las Vegas, where one can gamble round the clock, 24 hours a day. I believe that that would also be the overwhelming view of the British public. Clearly, there must be regulation of hours.

However, it is idle to say that the Secretary of State will impose restrictions. He will take the advice of those whom he believes will be of assistance to him— no doubt the Board and, I hope, this House, because, having read most of the Committee proceedings, I believe that the Committee gave a great deal of admirable counsel and wisdom. Therefore, the criteria, even if they are not to be set out in a new clause should be specifically incorporated as part of the criteria on which the Board should have the advice of the Secretary of State.

We have to know the type of criteria which will be provided. It is curious that, whereas the Home Secretary has provided for almost every type of contingency in the Bill, he has not provided for different hours in different areas.

The Under-Secretary is new to the Bill —and it must be an extremely difficult task for him to come new to a Bill of this sort, unless he has a great wealth of gaming experience behind him. I am sorry that his predecessor, who was wholly admirable, as one can see from the Committee stage proceedings, is not able to be sitting on the Front Bench with him during the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) specifically asked if he might be loaned to the hon. Gentleman for this debate. I hope that he will come back to discuss these points with him, because he showed a very shrewd sense of observance of these matters in many ways.

7.0 p.m.

Some provision must be made for different hours in different localities. The position is wholly different in the West End of London and perhaps places in Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool which have hours applicable to certain clubs operating there. They will be operating into the early hours and very much later than the normal club will require.

I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that if one is to have a board and to try to set up the best board possible one has to give it the residual power to be flexible and to be able to regulate the hours according to the need as it may arise.

Mr. Paget

It is not merely a question of localities; it is a question of games. For instance, there is the old ladies' bridge game which ends about tea-time; and there is the businessmen's game which is between office-leaving and going home to dinner. Then there is the "chemmy" game, which begins about 1 o'clock. It is very difficult to have one form of hours for the lot.

Mr. Rees-Davies

That is true. I have referred to the locality, the nature of the games and circumstances of play, and we may provide different hours of play according to the local needs. I think that that replies to this point and covers everything from the bridge club and the poker club, to what I may call the real hard game. This, of course, takes into account cabaret facilities, if they are operating in an area of or adjacent to a gaming club. Therefore, whether this Clause is written into the Bill or not, I would invite the Home Secretary to consider carefully giving the Board the criteria which it would then have to consider, and leaving the decision to it.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

There is no great fundamental difference of opinion between any of the views that have been put forward by hon. Members in this connection. In moving, as I do, Amendment No. 100—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is not moving the Amendment. He can speak to it, but not move it at this point.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.

I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the view that there must be some limitation of hours. There can be no question whatsoever of 24-hour gambling. Indeed, every hon. Gentleman who has spoken has made the point that there should be consideration of three jurisdictions here: that of the local licensing justices; that of the Home Secretary; and also that of the Board itself.

When this matter was dealt with in Committee the main arguments that were advanced in favour of restriction were, first, as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), that if the hours were limited it would be easier for gaming clubs to be supervised by the police and the gaming Board. Second, that it was necessary to restrict hours because gamblers were more likely to be easy prey during the early hours of the morning when their resistance was lowered. Again, it was put that it was undesirable that gaming establishments should be open during normal working hours. It was also pleaded that the staff of gaming clubs would be caused to work excessively long hours if gaming were not limited. Lastly, it was said that it would often be uneconomical for clubs to remain open for 24 hours a day, but that unless there was a statutory restriction the competition would force them to do so.

The Government undertook to give further consideration to those arguments, and this they have done; the Amendment to Clause 21 is the result. As hon. Members will have noticed, this gives fairly wide powers to the Home Secretary to make regulations in this connection. Hon. Members will also be aware that under paragraph 22 to the Second Schedule licensing justices already have power to impose such restrictions—if any —on the hours during which gaming will be permitted to take place on the relevant premises, as appear to the authority to be necessary for the purpose of preventing disturbance or annoyance to the occupiers of other premises in the vicinity.

I would point out to the House that when the Home Secretary is exercising those powers to make regulations he has the benefit of the Board's advice. He must consult the Board under subsection (2) of Clause 49 before making regulations, and indeed, as already mentioned by the Home Secretary earlier, under subsection (3) of that same Clause he is empowered to make different provision for different areas or in relation to different cases or different circumstances to which the power is applicable.

I therefore submit that the three jurisdictions that have been referred to by hon. Members are brought into the picture and, I would submit, brought into this matter in the right order. The Home Secretary, by regulation, empowers Parliament to consider, after all, what is a matter of general social policy as far as the Tightness or wrongness of laying down the restriction is concerned, and where the broad lines should be drawn.

The Board, collating evidence that it collects, is able to submit advice to the Home Secretary and to licensing justices and within this framework the licensing justices, who have the detailed intimate knowledge, are then able to come to a proper conclusion with regard to the hours that it is proper to allow gaming to take place in any establishment.

In the circumstances, it is my submission that the provisions of new Clause 3 and new Clause 5, whilst their general motives and objectives are laudable, are rendered unnecessary on account of the provision of Amendment No. 100; Amendment No. 101 is, of course, consequential upon the new subsection that would then appear in Clause 21.

Mr. Carlisle

May I say at once that I have no intention, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ash-ford (Mr. Deedes) and myself, to attempt to push new Clause 5 to a Division and that at the appropriate moment I will ask leave to withdraw it. Equally, we on this side of the House have no possible intention of voting against Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 when we reach them, because of course, as the Undersecretary has said, our new Clause and the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the Government Amendments really are all aimed at the same end. They are only a different— and, obviously, since we put them down we felt our ways were slightly better— means of achieving the object.

All who have spoken in this debate have agreed that we do not want 24-hour gaming. I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet, who said firmly that we do not want 24-hour gaming, that at the moment we have it in this city. To my knowledge there are at least two, and I suspect many more, clubs which are open for 24 hours a day for the purpose of gaming. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, other hon. Friends and I tried to come to a decision on what would be the right regulations to be made. We felt that there were many social arguments against 24-hour gaming and we put down these new Clauses.

Turning to the Amendments, against which we shall not divide, and the fact that we thought new Clause 5 would be a better way of achieving the object, licensing justices will, of course, have power under the Schedule to fix the hours for any particular club, but the hours they can fix, and the grounds on which they can fix them, are considerably limited. Paragraph 22 of the Second Schedule says: On granting or renewing a licence under this Act, the licensing authority may impose such restrictions (if any) on the hours during which gaming will be permitted to take place on the relevant premises as appear to the authority to be necessary for the purpose of preventing disturbances or annoyance to the occupiers of other premises in the vicinity. It seems that the magistrates are to concentrate their attention on the question of hours which would effect disturbance. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will agree that in deciding the overall number of hours other matters have to be taken into consideration.

In view of what has been said, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with the suggestion that 12 out of 24 hours is adequate. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that the danger is that if one makes a maximum it becomes a minimum. That is often true, but I do not think that it will be true when licensing justices fix the maximum.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I should like the hon. Member to say how the 12 hours could be married to Clause 18, dealing with Sunday, which expressly allows at least 13 hours.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle

Had we been intending to push the new Clause to a Division we would probably have put forward relevant Amendments to Clause 18 which would have been consequential. Perhaps I should reconsider my statement that 12 hours is the right maximum. Gaming clubs open morning, noon and night at a time when all honest people should be earning an honest living other than when they are on holiday, and clubs open all through the night in holiday towns where people have an opportunity of enjoying themselves in those premises during much of the evening, are not providing a great social service for the country.

Under these proposals the Home Secretary proposes to lay down regulations. I hope that he will make them wide and flexible. It would have been better if within a limited number of hours it were left to the Board and the magistrates to decide rather than to have the matter decided by regulations. I should like the Under Secretary to answer a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. Is it true that the Board, before giving a certificate of approval, will have no say about the hours? The hon. and learned Member spoke with great conviction, but from my reading of the Bill it does not seem to be a necessary ingredient of approval that the Board should agree to the hours. It seems that the hours to be laid down by regulations are likely to be the hours, subject to local alterations, which will be permitted.

We think that it would have been more flexible if Parliament made clear that it did not approve of 24-hour gaming and left this matter to the Board rather than to the Home Secretary making an actual restriction on the hours. We are all aiming at the same end. We believe that gaming should be limited. In view of the comment of the Home Secretary earlier, when he reminded me that part of the object of the Bill is to limit opportunities for gaming, I am sorry that he has not been present in this debate. He would then have realised that hon. Members on both sides of the House are equally aware that that is the intention.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I understand that it is not within the Board's power to come to any decision in regard to hours. Under Clause 49(2), before the Home Secretary can make regulations he must consult the Board generally on the matter.

Mr. Deedes

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to