HC Deb 11 June 1968 vol 766 cc46-77

(1) Except as provided by this section, no person shall issue, or cause to be issued, any advertisement—

  1. (a) informing the public that any premises in Great Britain specified in the advertisement are premises on which gaming takes place or is to take place, or
  2. (b) inviting the public to take part as players in any gaming which takes place, or is to take place, on any such premises, or to apply for information about facilities for taking part as players in any gaming which takes place, or is to take place, in Great Britain, or
  3. (c) inviting the public to subscribe any money or money's worth to be used in gaming whether in Great Britain or elsewhere, or to apply for information about facilities for subscribing any money or money's worth to be so used.

(2) The preceding subsection does not apply to any advertisement in so far as it relates to gaming which is, or is to be,—

  1. (a) gaming as an incident of an entertainment to which section 32 of this Act applies, or
  2. (b) gaming to which section 40 of this Act applies, or
  3. (c) gaming on any premises to which paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 to this Act applies and in respect of which a permit under section 33 of this Act is for the time being in force, or
  4. (d) gaming on any premises to which paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the Act of 1963 applies and in respect of which a permit under section 49 of that Act is for the time being in force, or
  5. (e) gaming at any travelling showmen's pleasure fair.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to—

  1. (a) the display, on any premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force, of a sign or notice indicating that gaming takes place, or is 47 to take place, on those premises, whether the sign or notice is displayed inside or outside the premises, or
  2. (b) the publication or display of a notice, where the notice is required to be published or displayed by any provision of Schedules 2 to 4 to this Act and the publication or display is so made as to comply with the requirements of that provision, or
  3. (c) the publication in any newspaper of a notice stating that a licence under this Act has been granted, if the notice is published not later than fourteen days from the date on which the licence was granted and the notice is in a form approved by the licensing authority by whom the licence was granted;
and, in the case of any premises in respect of which a club is for the time being registered under Part II or Part III of this Act, subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any advertisement by reason only that it contains the name of the club.

(4) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to the publication of an advertisement in a newspaper which circulates wholly or mainly outside Great Britain.

(5) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that he is a person whose business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that he received the advertisement in question for publication in the ordinary course of business and did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amount to an offence under this section.

(6)For the purposes of this section an advertisement issued by displaying or exhibiting it shall be treated as issued on every day on which it is displayed or exhibited.

(7) Subject to subsection (5) of this section, any person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

  1. (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400;
  2. (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

(8) In this section 'advertisement' includes every form of advertising, whether in a publication or by the display of notices or by means of circulars or other documents or by an exhibition of photographs or a cinematograph film, or by way of sound broadcasting or television, and references to the issue of an advertisement shall be construed accordingly; and 'the public' means the public in Great Britain, and includes any section of the public in Great Britain, however selected —[Mr. Callaghan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan)

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

Mr. Speaker

With the new Clause we are taking the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), in line 35, at end insert: 'or, (d) the publication in any newspaper of a notice containing the following and no other particulars namely the name and address of the club, that it is licensed for gaming, the native of the games played and the hours of play'.

Mr. Callaghan

The effect of the new Clause is to put back into the Bill a Clause which appeared originally and which was taken out in Committee by eight votes to seven, with one dubious vote being counted. It was a very close Division.

My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, who was in charge of the Bill, undertook before the vote that the Government would consider carefully what had been said by hon. Members in relation to the Clause, and I have done so.

I think that the House is entitleq to know why I ask it to put back the Clause in a slightly different form from that which was defeated in Committee. The purpose of the Clause is to restrict the advertising of gaming. There is a view to be taken here about whether the advertising of gaming is good or not. I, for, one, do not believe that it is, good, and I am in favour of restricting it as far as possible.

I think that is a specific social attitude that one can accept or reject. I tell the House quite frankly where I stand on the matter. I should explain the reasons why I ask the House to put back this Clause and, in the course of that explanation, to examine the reasons advanced against so doing.

First, the arguments in Committee were directed almost solely to the proposed restriction of advertisement by licensed clubs. But subsection (1) of this new Clause is a great deal wider than that, especially paragraph (c), which is designed to strike at the promotion of activities organised elsewhere. I quote as an example postal bingo, organised in the Isle of Man, which, frankly, takes the form of a lottery and, therefore, is not within the province we have been discussing.

Secondly, it strikes at gaming touts who invite people to subscribe money to the State on their behalf. Whatever may be said on behalf of permitting advertisement of postal bingo in the Isle of Man, there is little to be said for permitting advertising by gaming touts to invite people to subscribe money. Their claims often verge on the fraudulent. Their activities, in any case, are a highly undesirable form of propagating gaming. The measures taken against this abuse— and I use the word advisedly—fell foul of the Committee when it struck out the whole of the Clause, although there was no argument about it at that time. Therefore, I would like to put it back on those three grounds.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

Does subsection (l)(c) make it a criminal offence to offer tickets in either the Irish Sweep or the Calcutta Sweep?

Mr. Callaghan

I should like to answer the question about criminal offences later, because I want to get some information about it. But what applies to the organisation of postal bingo in the Isle of Man would apply also to others of these matters, certainly.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone)

I should like to get this clear. Subsection (l)(c) refers to gaming, not lotteries. I think that these are lotteries.

Mr. Callaghan

I am obliged. I am told that the right hon. Gentleman is right. These are lotteries. It applies to gaming, not lotteries.

The three arguments advanced in Committee were, first, that once the gaming clubs had been licensed and made honest and respectable there was no reason why they should not be allowed to advertise; secondly, that it was wrong to try to restrict advertisement of a single form of gambling whilst leaving others like betting in touch, although restricting advertising of such activities as strip tease; and, thirdly, that these restrictions can be evaded.

Let us take them one by one. First, that commercial gambling is to be licensed subject to strict conditions. That does not mean that we should assist its propagation. We are controlling it. We should try not merely to contain it, but to cut it back. To allow the clubs to advertise freely would be incompatible with that approach which the Government have made during the course of the Bill. It would be incompatible with the requirement that, before a club can be licensed, there must be shown a substantial demand already existing for the facilities offered. There is little point if gaming activities are to be allowed to stimulate demand. I ask the House to take the view that we should not allow gaming clubs to persistently stimulate demand. This is an attitude and approach about which the House will have to make up its mind.

Secondly, it is erroneous to argue that all forms of gambling should be treated alike. Gaming is potentially the most dangerous of all forms of gambling. I say that for these reasons: first, that there is continuity of play; secondly, that there is rapidity of turnover; and, thirdly, that there is a prevalence of competitive staking. These things make gaming not only potentially, but actually, very dangerous indeed.

The advertising of betting is already restricted. Credit bookmakers can advertise, but betting offices may not. With the removal of the Clause gaming is now more leniently treated, which is surely the reverse of what anybody expected or intended. In any case, we cannot use the vehicle of this Bill to deal with other forms of gambling, let alone some of the arguments advanced in Committee about strip tease. We cannot wrap up everything in this Bill.—[Laughter.] That is a Freudian slip. It shows that I am not much of a strip teaser, I regret to say.

It is surely not a good argument to say that because one is unable to deal with a number of other abuses one should leave unchecked the one that can be dealt with. Therefore, I do not accept as particularly relevant the fact one should not restrict advertising because one cannot do it in some other sphere of activity.

On enforceability, a great deal was said in Committee about the fact that a determined gamer would find it possible to game in certain places and that clever people would find ways to advertise. A great deal of ingenuity was expended in Committee in discussing this matter. I think that some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Gentlemen opposite have a good living to make should they decide to leave the House and go in for devising ingenious advertising campaigns, for gambling. Although I do not pretend that one can prevent news or feature items appearing in the Press, or that astute public relations officers for the gaming clubs will not be able to get newsworthy items publicised, we come back to the simple point in the end: is it not worth trying to restrict advertising by putting in these prohibitions? My answer is, "Yes".

The Clause is not seeking an absolute or impossible object. It is not relevant to criticise it as though it were. The object is none the less valuable because it is limited. To abandon these provisions would prejudice the whole policy of restraining commercial gambling. To permit the free advertising of gaming would be contrary to what underlies the Bill.

I said that there was one amendment to the Clause as originally devised to which I should draw the attention of the House. That was the penalty provision in subsection (7), which was raised in Committee two or three times. The liability to imprisonment on summary conviction has been removed. That is consistent with similar changes made by the Committee elsewhere in the Bill—for example, in Clause 8(4), where there is the alternative of proceeding on indictment. The view has been taken that the authorities should resort to that alternative where imprisonment is sought. Apart from that, the Clause is as originally placed before the Committee.

I believe the Clause to be right for the reasons I have given and I invite the House to reverse the decision taken by eight votes to seven. This is an attempt, which I believe will be much more successful than some of my ingenious hon. Friends believe, to prevent advertising of gaming which it is socially desirable to restrict. Therefore, I ask the House to restore the Clause.

Mr. Speaker

I remind the House that I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) may be discussed with this Motion.

Mr. Antony Buck (Colchester)

On a point of guidance. Is the position that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) can be discussed, and at a later stage, if that Amendment were to be moved, there would be an opportunity to vote upon it?

Mr. Speaker

The difficulty is that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet is not here to move it. It stands in the name of one hon. Member.

Mr. Buck

I understand that it can be moved.

Mr. Speaker

I am advised that it can be moved. It has not, however, been selected for a Division.

Mr. Buck

Do I understand that at this stage the Amendment has been selected for discussion, but not for Division? Is that the position?

Mr. Speaker

If am hon. Gentleman feels very keenly about an Amendment which is not selected for Division it is open to him to make representations to the Chair. The Chair will take note of them, but does not always accept them.

Mr. Buck

I will see that such representations are made to you, Mr. Speaker, perhaps during the course of my remarks on the new Clause just moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

I express myself disappointed that the Government should have sought to restore this Clause, relating to advertising, which was removed by the Committee. I believe that during the Committee deliberations no fewer than 11 members of the Committee spoke on this whole question of whether or not there should be a ban on advertising; and all the 11 whom I counted spoke more or less against the whole tenor of this ban. I must express my disappointment that the Government should have chosen, without any Amendment, merely to seek to restore this provision at this stage.

There is a variety of reasons why we on this side oppose this ban on advertising. The Home Secretary himself has dealt with some of them. First, I feel that we should be extremely chary of passing prohibitive legislation. As a rule, we do not like such legislation. We should pass Clauses which are prohibitive in character only if there is the clearest need for such provisions and they are to fulfil a real purpose. Apparently, the real purpose of the Government's Clause is, as expressed by the then Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, to control the total level of and demand for activities relevant to gaming.

That is what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, but so far as I am aware there is no evidence that a ban on advertising will be effective for that purpose. The Home Secretary may recall that some of my hon. Friends drew attention to the position that has arisen relative to certain restrictions on the advertising of cigarettes, and so forth. In my submission, there is no scientific evidence to support this prohibitive legislation which we are being asked to pass today.

In any event, a ban on the advertising of casinos and bingo halls makes no sense, in my view, when it is permissible to advertise pools and similar forms of activity. It makes even less sense when one considers, as we understand, that the Government are adopting an attitude of sympathy towards a national lottery. If they are seeking to calm down and diminish the activity and the amount of money involved in this kind of sphere, it seems illogical that they, should be putting their weight behind a Bill which inevitably will cause a very great increase in this kind of gaming or lottery activity.

If the Government are to support a national lottery they will have to back it up by advertising and we shall have the absurd and anomalous position that the Government will be advertising activities of a similar character to those we are here considering, while the bingo hall will not be allowed to advertise the modest facilities it provides. This does not seem to make very great sense.

We should be chary of passing a prohibitive law of this character, a law which does not, in effect, accord with common sense. It does not accord with common sense for us to ban the advertising of bingo halls and casinos and to allow that advertising on pools betting and other activities of that type.

Similarly, under the actual provisions of the Clause apparently it will be permissible for the full extent of gaming activities and the facilities available in this country to be advertised abroad. That seems something of a nonsense. In New York, for example, one will be able to read in a publication about the Playboy Club and the various casinos which are available in London, but similar information will not be available to the tourist when he comes to this country. Once again, that makes a nonsense. That is the effect of the Clause as it is at present framed.

The Home Secretary dealt with the matter I raised in Committee relative to the types of advertising which are permitted. Again, it seems illogical not to permit the advertising of casinos and bingo halls when one can and does find advertisements for four hours of non-stop strip-tease cabaret. That is to continue to be permitted whereas we are not to be allowed to read of any advertisement telling us of a modest family game, as the Home Secretary would have us believe it is, of bingo. That, again, seems to be a nonsense.

The whole absurdity comes into fuller perspective when we consider it in the context of the whole purpose of the Bill. The Home Secretary dealt with that, but in my view he did so unsatisfactorily. The whole purpose of the legislation we are considering today is to regulate gaming and especially to eliminate clubs which might form a foundation of criminal enterprises, and to eliminate clubs which cheat or defraud. All of us, on both sides of the House, hope that that purpose will be fulfilled and that we shall have in this country gaming clubs and bingo halls of the very highest standards —and only those of the very highest standards; that we shall ensure that the people who get licences have the highest bona fides, and that the actual clubs are well run and the premises are satisfactory.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the Clause.

Mr. Buck

I shall return to it in the next sentence, Mr. Speaker.

If we seek to ensure that those places are of that high standard how absurd it is that they should not be able even to tell the public about their very existence. It seems to me that this highlights the absurdity. If we have confidence, as I have, that legislation may be successful and that we shall have a small number of good quality establishments of high standard then those should certainly be allowed to advertise. In any event, they should certainly be allowed to advertise within the limits delineated by the Amendment we are able to discuss put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), namely, that those club, casino and bingo hall owners should be able to publish newspaper notices containing the bare facts of the name and address of the club, the character of the licence and the actual games to be played on the premises. Surely, that should be permitted.

I would hope that in reply to the debate on the whole question of advertising we shall hear, either from the Home Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary, why they oppose this—if, in fact, they do; because a limitation on advertising of this character would seem to me to make advertising entirely unexceptionable, even on the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary. I trust I shall be in order in raising this point, but I shall be interested to hear why the Home Secretary takes the view that bingo is, in this instance, in the same category as hard gaming. The arguments of the Home Secretary on the compulsive nature of gaming, and so forth, seem to apply only to hard gaming and not, in my opinion, to bingo. I would like to hear why the Minister feels, if, indeed he does, that bingo should be put in the same category as hard gaming for the purposes of advertising.

There are many matters of detail which were dealt with in Committee, and no doubt my hon. Friends will wish to discuss them today, with regard to the drafting of the Clause which, I think, presents great difficulties. Has the Minister had consultations with those who operate the local Press throughout the country? Has he discussed with them the difficulties referred to in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)? Has he considered the sort of difficulties which arise when there is a mixture of editorial comment and advertisement? I hope that the matter has been investigated, because I think that the Clause as drafted will give rise to real difficulties in that respect.

If the Government suppose that by enacting the Clause Parliament will do good, they are asses. What is more important, we shall pass a law which in the words of a Dickens' character is liable to make the law look an ass. It will be unenforceable. It is an undesirable Clause. It is based on an inappropriate philosophy, and I hope that today we shall follow the procedure adopted in Committee and have no ban on advertising relating to any of these matters. I hope that we shall reject the new Clause.

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Bolton, West)

I voted for the Clause in Committee, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is proposing to restore it to the Bill today. It is essential to the Bill, one of whose objects is to control gaming, and the other to contain it. It would be utter folly to introduce a Bill to contain gambling, and then to allow the unrestricted advertisement of gaming clubs.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) realises the effective power of advertising. If advertising takes place on a large scale, the power of the advertiser to attract people to gaming clubs is enormous. We are restricting the number of clubs, and we shall, therefore, be giving people a licence to print money if we allow unlimited advertising. The difference between the present position and the position as it will be when the Bill becomes law is that then there will be a restricted smaller number of licensed clubs, and if we allow unrestricted advertising for these clubs they will have an enormous power to attract people to them.

Although the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) restricts the content of the advertisements, it does not restrict their size, and a full-page advertisement in a newspaper, even though it contained only the bare facts which the hon. Gentleman would allow, could be a powerful stimulus to attracting people to that club, or to other gaming clubs.

The other argument which the hon. Member for Colchester advanced today, and which he put forward in Committee, is that the Clause will be ineffective and that the Government are asses if they proceed with it. They may be, but they are following in the path of other asses. They are following the path of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who, in 1963, introduced a similar Clause in respect of betting shops, but which has proved satisfactory in practice. All the ways round the Clause which were mentioned in Committee, and which have been mentioned in passing today, were not adopted in respect of the 1963 Act. There was no attempt at a massive evasion of the section which prevented the advertising of betting shops. It is, therefore, erroneous of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and of some of my hon. Friends, to think that the Clause will be ineffective.

I supported the Clause upstairs, and I support it here. It is an essential part of the Bill, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is proposing to bring it back.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

I appreciate the Home Secretary's motives. He wants to reduce the totality of gaming. He feels that if advertising is allowed to be free and plentiful it will have an adverse effect. I see the evil which he has in mind, but I think that greater evils will arise if advertising is prohibited.

In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), I remain convinced that the Clause will not work. I am not strongly in favour of paternalism in any form, but ineffective paternalism is the worst of all worlds. The Clause will not work for two important reasons. First, the inconsistencies to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) referred are too glaring. Too much advertising on similar lines is permitted now, and in the eyes of reasonable people this prohibition will seem absurd.

The second reason why it will not work is that there are too many ways in which it can be evaded. When we put forward this argument in Committee, we did so not with a view to obstructing what the Home Office had in mind. I know half a dozen ways in which local newspapers will find their normal run of business in difficulties. Many local newspapers run full-page features which are part-editorial and part-advertisement. It is very difficult to tell who is paying for what, but it is an accepted form of local journalism. I think that it will continue in this style and form, with a certain amount of surreptitious evasion taking place.

I wish that a distinction could be made between gaming clubs and bingo halls, because it is bingo which interests the largest number of people, and they have a right to know where the entertainment which they pursue, rightly or wrongly, is to be held. For this reason, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has a point in wishing to restrict the advertisement to information and not to the seductive need which troubles the Home Secretary.

The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that he aims to reduce gaming, but there is another object behind the Bill. We are trying to straighten out this business. We are trying not only to reduce the totality, but to make the whole business sound and look straighter than it has been. If we are to encourage the straight dealers, and discourage the others, it is an ill start to put into the Bill something which will encourage the fly dealer to do something to get round what Parliament has proposed. I am convinced that this will result in a rich harvest for the lawyers. Innumerable borderline cases will be brought forward. I want to see the Bill work, just as much as the Home Secretary does, but we shall finish up with cheating, and this is what I find objectionable.

I remember the era of Radio Luxembourg which, between the wars, managed to do a number of things which we did not manage to have done. I do not say that that era will recur, but there are other ways of doing what was done then, and I think that they will be adopted.

Obviously, the Home Secretary is not going to think again. We should, therefore, stick to our guns and do what we did in Committee and reject the Clause.

Mr. Paget

I, too, was wondering about Radio Luxembourg and similar institutions. Can one prevent that form of advertising? Is not one progressively getting to the situation in which there is less and less advertising that can be controlled?

My attitude is that this is a good Bill. I think that it is irresponsible to try to put on the Government, who have to run the Bill, things which they do not want, or to take from them things which they do want. I voted against the Clause in Committee because I thought that it was extremely silly and required further consideration. I then said, and I shall stand by it, that, if the Government brought the Clause back again after further consideration, I would support them on the general principle, but I do so on the principle and not because I am convinced in detail.

4.30 p.m.

Among the difficulties of our gambling law which have plagued us for years are the flagrant anomalies. We cannot get public opinion behind a law which is manifestly absurd. A man could go into a town for business with nothing to do in the evenings and find greyhound racing, which is no more than an animated roulette wheel, and horse racing, two forms of less controlled gambling, advertised freely, but it would be wrong for him to be told where he could spend the evening playing a little quiet bingo. That shows how absurd the position is.

If we are trying to take gambling out of the muddle which has plagued it for a century and to ensure that the general public are behind the law as a reasonable method, we need at least an enforceable and understandable law. Suppose that I advertised, the "Crockford's Club is having a gala evening and here is the menu". Would I be informing the public that these were premises "upon which gambling takes place"? Not in the advertisement, but everyone who remotely wished to gamble would know it. If one called clubs in the provinces "Crockford's", or any other known gambling name, and advertised their floor show, menu or entertainment, one would walk straight through the Clause because that would not be prohibited.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) said that the prohibition of advertising of betting shops was more successful. I disagree with him; I think that it has totally failed. Corral's, Hills and all those who own these shops advertise, and since they advertise the name, they effectually advertise every shop bearing their name. The advertising of those shops goes on, effectively, all the time. The same sort of thing will happen in this case.

I am not convinced by the argument. We would be better without the Clause, but, nevertheless, the Government must run this, and if they think that it is necessary, having reconsidered it, I will not say them nay.

Sir Stephen McAdden (Southend, East)

I was delighted when the Committee decided to delete the Clause and I am disappointed that, after consideration, the Home Secretary proposes to put it back. I thought that the arguments against it were conclusive. He said that his intention is to confine gambling and that that is why he does not want it to be advertised. If he wants to control and sanctify it with the odour of legality, why does he want to keep quiet about it? If this legislation will produce a purified creature and remove some of the odium from gambling, why should we not know where it takes place? Why should we have to search the proceedings of the courts to know who has been given a license before we can know where to go to play? Surely this is expecting too much of the public.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he will prevent people from knowing where gambling goes on by restricting advertising? Surely he knows that Rank, Mecca and others run bingo. Will it be wrong for them to put an advertisement in the paper saying, "Rank, from 10 to 12"? Is that advertising gaming or not? How will he prevent organisations whose names are associated with a particular form of gambling from advertising their names so long as they do not mention that they will be gaming on the premises, and simply advertise their building? I do not see how he will prevent advertising at all.

What will happen to such publications as "What's On in London", which are filled with advertisements about gaming? Can we not have a modest advertisement so that those who want to indulge in bingo or hard gaming can know where it is available? In the barbers' shop in this building, the right hon. Gentleman will find many copies of this magazine which will tell him what is going on in London. I am sure that life is much more respectable in Cardiff in relation to these vices, but in London they exist and are advertised and we must not try to apply the standards of Cardiff to the great cities where these things take place and people want to know where.

What is wrong with advertising the places and the times at which these activities go on? Why should not a newspaper publish an advertisement containing the name and address of a club which is licensed for gaming, and the nature of the games played, and so on? Why should people not have this information if they want it?

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)

I am sorry that the Government have brought back this Clause, which I voted against in Committee. I regarded it from two points of view—that it was hypocritical and that it would be easy to drive a coach and four through it. I pictured a person who wanted to gamble walking the streets of London looking at the signs on doors and then being able to enter. I said that it was hypocrisy because my right hon. Friend, in referring to criticism that other forms of gambling were allowed to advertise, said that that was no argument. against the subject which we were then dealing with. But it is absurd.

The pools and the betting shops openly advertise, yet the Government now say that a Casino and a gaming establishment should not be allowed to put one word of an advertisement in a paper. Why not? What effect will it have? This is sheer hypocrisy by the Government and will prevent no one who wants to gamble from doing so. This long Clause, so carefully drawn up, can be so easily evaded, with notices outside, and so on. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown how absurd this is by pointing out that one can advertise as much as one likes in foreign newspapers. No doubt we want tourists to indulge in gaming. No doubt that is why we will allow these forms of gaming to be advertised abroad. Is this not hypocrisy?

The object of the Bill is commendable in its desire to restrict the number of gaming establishments. Before an application comes to a licensing authority the people who intend to run such an establishment will be vetted. They will then be charged heavy registration fees and their takings will be heavily taxed. All this will be done to restrict the number of establishments and everything will be wonderfully respectable. Now the Government are going a step further and are saying, "We must be careful to protect the innocent and gullible public by preventing them from hearing about these establishments in advertisements." This is ridiculous.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

Hon. Members have pointed out the com- monsense and practical reasons why the new Clause should not be introduced. There is a Parliamentary point to consider here, which is that certain tests should be passed by the Government before the decision of a House of Commons Committee is overruled. To begin with, the Government should show that they have new arguments to support a Committee's decision being negatived. The Home Secretary has not adduced any new arguments to justify the reintroduction of this provision.

It is a different matter if there has been a manoeuvre in Committee to secure an Opposition majority; for example, by Government supporters being locked out of the Committee room. In those circumstances, the Government would be justified to use their majority at a later stage to put the matter right. There is something to be said for reintroducing a provision deleted in Committee if the argument has been all one-sided, so that the question under consideration has become a party point. That cannot be said in this case.

This provision was discussed in great detail by hon. Members of both sides of the Committee. While they were poles apart politically, common sense led them to take the right course, reflecting the view of the country. They considered that a provision of this sort was neither sensible nor practicable. The Home Secretary should now have stronger arguments to negative that decision and he should certainly not proceed merely in the knowledge that he has a majority at his command.

In Committee, hon. Members crossed the "t"s and dotted the "i"s of every line in the Bill and, in addition to making other changes, removed this provision. The right hon. Gentleman is now reintroducing it in the knowledge that he can command the support of his supporters, the majority of whom were not members of the Committee. They will, therefore, be voting for him and the right hon. Gentleman will be relying on uninformed support. Perhaps this is why we are sometimes called Lobby fodder. It is sad that the standing of Parliament should be denigrated in this way. I trust that the good name of Parliament will be maintained and that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that back benchers are of value. Unless he can produce new arguments to show why this provision should be reinstated, he should not negative such an important Commitmittee decision.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has reintroduced this provision. I see no reason why we should regard it as hypocritical to try to limit the commercial exploitation of gaming. I accept that how far we can achieve this may be challenged, but any step that we can take towards bringing about this limitation is to be welcomed, particularly in the present atmosphere of the country.

Hon. Gentleman opposite answered their own question. When they have referred to the amount of commercial advertising, of premises for this purpose and how every effort is made to increase the number of people who make use of these facilities, they have explained precisely what we want to limit. This is not a question of prohibiting, but of limiting the knowledge of some of these practices.

I also fully agree with those who say that bingo should be included in the provision. Bingo on its present commercial scale is very different from what hon. Gentlemen opposite have described it as. Anyone who has visited a major commercial bingo establishment must regard it as an operation providing anything but a quiet little game of bingo. Bingo, in its modern form, is a highly commercialised and greatly exploited type of gaming. I see no reason why it should be excluded from the provision. It is becoming another form of drug addiction. Hon. Members who are concerned with drug addiction must welcome the reintroduction of this provision. It is not hypocritical. It is a small but useful provision which should be in the Bill.

Mr. Timothy Kitson (Richmond, Yorks)

I could not agree less with the hon. Members for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). The remarks about a homely, family affair which my hon. Friends have used in relation to bingo were first used by the Home Secretary when speaking about bingo on the introduction of the Bill. The comments of hon. Gentlemen opposite come ill when one considers that they are members of a party which is introducing a national lottery.

Mr. Callaghan

Despite the somewhat unusual doctrine from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), I urge the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) to be clear about this. The voting in Committee was eight to seven. If that is not a case for asking the House of Commons to reconsider something, I do not know what is.

Mr. Kitson

We improved the Bill a great deal in Committee. To reintroduce this provision is a terrible mistake. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that it will provide people with an opportunity to tout games of cards, bingo, chemin de fer, and so on? They will be able to say, "I know where you can have a game of cards tonight", because operators will not be able to advertise and people will not know where the establishments are.

Therefore, people who want a game will get into the hands of an individual who takes them to a basement for a game of chemin de fer, or roulette, which is completely uncontrolled, an illegal game that is not operated by the Gaming Board, because they do not know where the devil to go.

Here we are cleaning up gaming, making it quite respectable, and then inserting a Clause in the Bill which will help to drive it underground. I know that that is the last thing the Home Secretary wants, but he is creating that opportunity for those who want to take it underground. We all know that the Clause will not work. Touts will be able to take advantage of the situation. The larger organisations will have advantages over the smaller ones, because Mecca and Rank just have to show their name for people to know what is going on. The small bingo hall will not be in a position to compete with the better known organisations.

We discussed at great length in Committee methods of getting round advertising restrictions. I told the Committee how cigarette manufacturers get round them by running races which are shown on television where their names appear. The larger organisations will be able to do this while the smaller organisations will not. It will not be possible to operate what the Home Secretary intends to do. The Clause may give an opportunity for touts to try to run games of cards underground, which none of us want to see when we have succeeded in producing a Bill which has gone a long way to clear up gaming.

Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

Like almost every other hon. Member who has spoken in the debate, I very much regret the Home Secretary's decision to bring back the Clause. In speaking very briefly on it, I wish also to move formally the Amendment in the name of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we dispose of the new Clause.

Mr. Carlisle

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the appropriate time it will be the Opposition's intention to do that, since I understand that Mr. Speaker has intimated that if that is done he will allow a separate Division on it.

We must consider the Clause in the whole context of what we are trying to do in the Bill, which sets out to allow gaming and bingo to take place in this country provided the premises used are properly controlled. That aim is accepted by both sides of the House, and, therefore, I entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) when he said that to have that as the aim and then to prevent advertising of any kind is pure hypocrisy. What is really said in the Clause is that we are producing a Bill which accepts gaming as a lawful activity, but that whatever one does one must not mention that it exists in this country. This is hypocritical. It will not work, and it is not justified.

How does one justify the prohibition of any form of advertising gaming, of bingo in particular, when the pools and racing openly advertise? It cannot be said that we are tempting people to take part for vast stakes, to gamble with the chance of winning vast sums. The amounts of money won on bingo, for example, nowhere near compete with the amounts won on the pools, which we see regularly advertised in the newspapers. How does this fit in even with the advertising of Premium Bonds, with a possible first prize of £25,000, or the advertising, as we assume that it will be advertised, of the national lottery which the Government say they propose to recommend to the House?

Therefore, I do not believe that there is any justification on the basis of the background of the Bill and the permission we give to the advertising of other forms of gambling to prevent advertising, certainly of bingo, and, on principle, there is no basis for preventing advertising of hard gaming.

I wish to refer particularly to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). One would be foolish not to accept that the Home Secretary had some argument when he said that we did not want to encourage by seductive advertisements people to rush into gambling. But that cannot apply to an advertisement which merely states the name, address and the opening hours of clubs which we are permitting to exist. The Clause specifically allows for the advertising of the name but apparently not the address. I assume that this means that if one goes to Blackpool on holiday one can see a large advertisement in the newspaper saying something like "Rank in town", but unfortunately it cannot tell you where the Rank premises are. That is absolute nonsense.

With respect to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), the Government have made considerable concessions in favour of bingo throughout the Bill in Committee. The Home Secretary has said that bingo is a harmless family game. The Government have permitted multiple membership of bingo clubs so that if one belongs to Rank, Mecca, Granada or whatever it may be in one town one is entitled to play bingo at that company's club at a seaside resort without rejoining when one goes on holiday. What is the justification for saying that one can announce its existence but not the address of its premises? Equally, as regards casinos, if one can say, "Crockford's are here", or words to that effect, why cannot one give its address? My hon. Friend's Amendment sets out reasonably the type of information which should be permitted to be given without encouraging people to rush to gambling.

Where does the telephone directory stand? What about "What's On In London"? If one can advertise every other form of club in London why cannot one advertise the address of a bingo club or casino? I do not believe that restrictions of this kind are in any way justified.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) said that to negative a Committee decision was an important matter. I remind the Home Secretary of a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in Committee which I think was accepted by the then Under-Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend said that it was not so much a Committee as a working party of both sides of the House trying to improve the Bill.

I suggest that it had three objects in mind: First, that gaming must be accepted as here and be permitted; secondly, that it should be strictly controlled; thirdly, that we should produce a Bill that is workable. I believe that part of succeeding in that end was the removal of what was then Clause 39, and I regret very much that the Home Secretary is now attempting to bring it back at this stage.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan

Often when I listen to arguments about a Clause I am supporting, I feel, "They are very good. Perhaps I was not right after all." But I have had the reverse feeling about the arguments made today against this Clause. The voting was eight to seven in Committee. It was fairly evenly balanced. All I can say now is that, if those who support advertising for gaming cannot put up better arguments than those they have put up today, I still feel I am right. It seemed to me that they were standing on so many different legs that it was almost impossible to trip them up. If one deals with one argument, they slide off on to another.

First, we had the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) telling us that the innocent citizen who goes for a quiet game of cards will find himself lured into a subterranean den, where, amidst lowered lights, he will find himself playing an illegal game because he will not know where to find a legal game. Then the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said that everyone will know about it and it makes no difference. Both cannot be right.

Mr. Kitson

The point I was making was that, if a man wants a game of cards, and does not know where to get one, he may go somewhere which is not licensed. After all, there are many places in the country where one can get a drink after hours. It is the same thing.

Mr. Cailaghan

The hon. Gentleman is only repeating his argument. He has not added anything to it. Either everyone will know or they will not know. I take the view which, in other circumstances, I think most hon. Members would take—that advertising is a very potent weapon. People put large sums of money into it because they believe that it will bring them a return. I assume that to be true in gaming as it is true in advertising for things like Daz, or chocolate, or anything else. That being so, the only intention of advertising for gaming is to increase the number of people who game. If that is not the intention, I do not know what we are arguing about.

The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has played a notable part in our proceedings. I acknowledge that he and his hon. Friends have helped the Government on the Bill very much, just as my hon. Friends have. This has not been a party matter—I agree with him there. But the Bill has twin objectives and he only named one.

One of these objectives was to clean up gaming, but the second was to contain it. Perhaps that is not as important, but it is important. I take a social attitude on this matter. I believe that it is wrong for the House of Commons to encourage gaming. We may have to regulate it and try to straighten it out, but we should not encourage it by permitting advertising on a large and uncontrolled scale. That is my view. That is where I stand and that it what I believe.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney North (Mr. Weitzman) said that we want people to come here from abroad and that is why we permit advertising overseas. But I do not want anyone to come here just to game. I would not care if a tourist never came again if all he wanted to come for was to game. I would not attempt to try to restrain anyone in this country from advertising abroad, whether in New York newspapers or anywhere else, but because I make no attempt to control advertising in foreign newspapers—it would be a fruitless attempt, anyway—we should not conclude from that that I should not seek, ill possible, to restrain advertising in British newspapers.

Mr. Weitzman

What is the purpose of permitting advertising abroad specifically?

Mr. Callaghan

I thought that I had answered that. My hon. and learned Friend is already arguing that I shall find it difficult to control advertising here. I do not want to take on the labours of Sisyphus. I would find it even more difficult to attempt to restrain advertising abroad. I do not want people to come here in order to gamble. Advertising will increase the knowledge of and the number of people who are likely to come here gaming. That, in my view, is not a good thing socially.

The right hon. Member for Ashford says that gaming club proprietors would cheat—that was his word. Perhaps they will. If they do it will be because they think they are going to get material advantage out of it, because they think that they will be able to lure more people into gaming than they would do otherwise. I hope that they will not cheat. I agree that ingenious persons might try to get round this Clause, but I ask all gaming clubs to observe the spirit in which this Clause is being put on the Statute Book —that advertising of gaming is not regarded as socially desirable by Parliament. That is a simple stand. Whatever some clever people may cheat about, I believe that the great majority of gaming club proprietors will accept the Clause and will not attempt to evade it.

Mr. Deedes

It is wrong to imply that those who get round the Clause will necessarily be cheating. If, for example —and his would be legitimate under subsection (4)—every gambling club in London decided to take a full-page advertisement in Life, how would the Home Secretary react? It would be a legitimate and effective step.

Mr. Callaghan

They could do it.

Mr. Deedes

It would not be cheating.

Mr. Callaghan

No, it would not be cheating, but it would be opposed to the spirit of this debate.

I think that a social attitude should be taken here. There are many things lawful, but not desirable. As the right hon. Gentleman and I agreed this morning, we cannot legislate to make people good but there is no reason why Parliament should not take a stand on an issue of this sort. I am asking Parliament to insert a Clause which, whatever its defects, says that we do not believe that encouraging people to game by advertising on a substantial scale is socially desirable. That is what I am arguing and that is what I stand by; and I am unshaken in my attitude.

I turn now to why we should not allow gaming club proprietors to state the name and address and nature of their games and the hours of play. I can only state my view. I do not think that it is a good thing that these things should be constantly held before the public gaze. I hope that, after this Bill becomes law, a lot of the publicity will subside. I hope that there will not be as much publicity of gaming as there has been. Gaming is not a socially desirable way of spending leisure. Therefore, I do not accept the view that it would be a good thing to keep the club addresses, the games they play, their prizes and hours, before the public view. This is why I recommend the House to accept the new Clause, which will undoubtedly put prohibitions on advertising. I hope that, by this means, we shall be able to limit and curb the desire of those who do not now indulge in gaming to do so. If that is done, and they do not take part in gaming, it will be socially more healthy for the country.

Mr. Buck

Why does the Home Secretary suggest that all his arguments apply with equal force to bingo, which in other spheres he has sought to regard—I think rightly—as very different from hard gaming?

Mr. Callaghan

The Government have made concessions on gaming which go a little further than the family game I spoke about on Second Reading. In so far as it is a local game—and bingo is very much a local game—I know of no one in the areas affected who does not know where the local bingo hall is. Therefore, I do not think that we need get ourselves into contortions about permitting advertisements for bingo which we do not permit for any other game.

Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)

The Home Sectary talks in a rather high falutin' way about the House deciding, giving the

impression that everyone in the House votes in the way his heart and conscience wishes. Nothing of the sort. It is the Socialist Party which decides, and the Whips are put on to see that hon. Members opposite do what they are told—or else.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 143.

Division No. 208.] AYES [5.12 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Fraser, John (Norwood) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Alldritt, Walter Freeson, Reginald Moyle, Roland
Anderson, Donald Galpern, Sir Myer Newens, Stan
Archer, Peter Garrett, w. E. Norwood, Christopher
Armstrong, Ernest Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Oakes, Gordon
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Ogden, Eric
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) O'Malley, Brian
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Orme, Stanley
Barnes, Michael Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Oswald, Thomas
Barnett, Joel Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Owen, Or. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Baxter, William Hamling, William Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Bence, Cyril Hannan, William Paget, R. T.
Bidwell, Sydney Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Palmer, Arthur
Binns, John Haseldine, Norman Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Bishop, E. S. Hattersley, Roy Parker, John (Dagenham)
Blackburn, F. Heffer, Eric S. Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Pavitt, Laurence
Boston, Terence Hooley, Frank Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Boyden, James Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Pentland, Norman
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Bradley, Tom Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W) Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Price, William (Rugby)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Probert, Arthur
Buchan, Norman Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Randall, Harry
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.) Rankin, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Rees, Merlyn
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Reynolds, G. W.
Cant, R. B. Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Kenyon, Clifford Richard, Ivor
Chapman, Donald Lawson, George Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Coe, Denis Ledger, Ron Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Coleman, Donald Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Concannon, J. D. Lestor, Miss Joan Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Crawshaw, Richard Lipton, Marcus Rose, Paul
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Lomas, Kenneth Ross, Rt, Hn. William
Dalyell, Tam Loughlin, Charles Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Luard, Evan Sheldon, Robert
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek) McBride, Neil Short,Mrs.Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) MacColl, James Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey MacDermot, Niall Silverman, Julius
Dempsey, James Macdonald, A. H. Slater, Joseph
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John McGuire, Michael Small, William
Dickens, James McKay, Mrs. Margaret Snow, Julian
Doig, Peter Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Spriggs, Leslie
Dunnett, Jack Mackintosh, John P. Stonehouse, John
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Maclennan, Robert Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Symonds, J. B.
Edwards, Robert (Bliston) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Taverne, Dick
Ellis, John Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) Tinn, James
English, Michael Manuel, Archie Urwin, T. W.
Ennals, David Marks, Kenneth Varley, Eric G.
Ensor, David Marquand, David Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Wallace, George
Evans, loan L. (Brim'h'm, Yardley) Mendelson, J. J. Watkins, David (Consett)
Faulds, Andrew Mikardo, Ian Watklns, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Millan, Bruce Wellbeloved, James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Wilkins, W. A.
Forrester, John Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) Winnick, David TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Willis, Rt. Hn. George Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. Mr. Joseph Harper and
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) Woof, Robert Mr. Charles Grey.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Grant, Anthony Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Astor, John Gresham Cooke, R. Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Grieve, Percy Neave, Airey
Awdry, Daniel Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Gurden, Harold Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Balniel, Lord Hall, John (Wycombe) Nott, John
Bell, Ronald Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Onslow, Cranley
Biffen, John Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Black, Sir Cyril Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Bossom, Sir Clive Hastings, Stephen Page, Graham (Crosby)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter Higgins, Terence L. Peyton, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hiley, Joseph Pounder, Rafton
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Burden, F. A. Hooson, Emlyn Pym, Francis
Carlisle, Mark Hordern, Peter Quennell, Miss J. M.
Cary, Sir Robert Hornby, Richard Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Chichester-Clark, R. Howell, David (Guildford) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Clegg, Walter Hunt, John Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Cooke, Robert Hutchison, Michael Clark Royle, Anthony
Corfield, F. V. Iremonger, T. L. Russell, Sir Ronald
Costain, A. P. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Scott-Hopkins, James
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Crouch, David Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Cunningham, Sir Knox Joplin, Michael Speed, Keith
Currie, G. B. H. Kaberry, Sir Donald Stainton, Keith
Dance, James Kershaw, Anthony Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.) King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Stoddart-Scott, Col Sir M. (Ripon)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kitson, Timothy Tapsell, Peter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Lane, David Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow.Cathcart)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F, (Ashford) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Temple, John M.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Tilney, John
Drayson, G. B. Loveys, W. H. Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Lubbock, Eric van Straubenzee, W. N.
Eden, Sir John McAdden, Sir Stephen Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) MacArthur, Ian Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Emery, Peter Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty) Wall, Patrick
Errington, Sir Eric McMaster, Stanley Ward, Dame Irene
Eyre, Reginald Maginnis, John E. Weatherill, Bernard
Fisher, Nigel Maude, Angus Webster, David
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Mawby, Ray Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Fortescue, Tim Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Wilton, Geoffrey (Truro)
Foster, Sir John Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Worsley, Marcus
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Glyn, Sir Richard Miscampbell, Norman TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Goodhew, Victor Morgan Geraint (Denbigh) Mr. Jasper More and
Gower, Raymond Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Mr. Hector Monro.

Amendment proposed: At end of subsection 3(c) insert: or, (d) the publication in any newspaper of a notice containing the following and no other particulars namely the name and address of the club, that it is licensed for gaming, the

nature of the games played and the hours of play.'—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 196.

Division No. 209.] AYES [5.20 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Buck, Antony (Colchester) Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Astor, John Burden, F. A. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Carlisle, Mark Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Awdry, Daniel Cary, Sir Robert Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Clark, Henry Digby, Simon Wingfield
Balniel, Lord Clegg, Walter Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Bell, Ronald Cooke, Robert Drayson, G. B.
Biffen, John Cortield, F. V. du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Black, Sir Cyril Costain, A. P. Eden, Sir John
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Bossom, Sir Clive Crouch, David Emery, Peter
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Cunningham, Sir Knox Errington, Sir Eric
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Coi.SirWalter Currie, G. B. H. Fisher, Nigel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Dance, dames Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Fortescue, Tim Lane, David Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Foster, Sir John Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Pym, Francis
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Glyn, Sir Richard Lloyd Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Goodhew, Victor Loveys, W. H. Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Gower, Raymond Lubbock, Eric Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Grant, Anthony McAdden, Sir Stephen Royle, Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R. MacArthur, Ian Russell, Sir Ronald
Grieve, Percy Mackenzic, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) Scott-Hopkins, James
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Macleod Rt. Hn. Iain Sharples, Richard
Gurden, Harold McMaster, Stanley Shaw Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Maginnis, John E. Silvester, Frederick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Maude, Angus Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh) Mawby, Ray Speed, Keith
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Stainton, Keith
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Hastings, Stephen Mills, Peter (Torrington) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Higgins, Terence L. Miscampbell, Norman Tapsell, Peter
Hiley, Joseph More, Jasper Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Hooson, Emlyn Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Temple, John M.
Hordern, Peter Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Tilney, John
Hornby, Richard Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Howell, David (Guildford) Neave, Airey van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hunt, John Nicholls, Sir Harmar Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Iremonger, T. L. Nott, John Wall, Patrick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Onslow, Cranley Ward, Dame Irene
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Weatherill, Bernard
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian Webster, David
Jopling, Michael Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Kaberry, Sir Donald Page, Graham (Crosby) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Kershaw, Anthony Page, John (Harrow, W.) Worsley, Marcus
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Pardoe, John
Kirk, Peter Peyton, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Kitson, Timothy Pounder, Rafton Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Mr. Hector Monro.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) da Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Alldritt, Walter Dempsey, James Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Anderson, Donald Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cras,S.)
Archer, Peter Dickens, James Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Armstrong, Ernest Doig, Peter Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Dunnett, Jack Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Lawson, George
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Ledger, Ron
Barnes, Michael Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Barnett, Joel Edwards, William (Merioneth) Lestor, Miss Joan
Baxter, William Ellis, John Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Bence, Cyril English, Michael Lipton, Marcus
Bidwell, Sydney Ennals, David Lomas, Kenneth
Binns, John Ensor, David Loughlin, Charles
Bishop, E. S. Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Luard, Evan
Blackburn, F. Faulds, Andrew Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) McBride, Neil
Boston, Terence Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) MacColl, James
Boyden, James Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) MacDermot, Niall
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Forrester, John Macdonald, A. H.
Bradley, Tom Fraser, John (Norwood) McGuire, Michael
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Freeson, Reginald McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Galpern, Sir Myer Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Garrett, W. E. Mackintosh, John P.
Buchan, Norman Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Maclennan, Robert
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Grey, Charles (Durham) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Cant, R. B. Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Manuel, Archie
Carmichael, Neil Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Marks, Kenneth
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Marquand David
Chapman, Donald Hamling, William Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Coe, Denis Hannan, William Mendelson, J. J.
Coleman, Donald Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mikardo, Ian
Concannon, J. D. Haseldine, Norman Millan, Bruce
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hattersley, Roy Mitchell, R. C. (S''th'pton, Test)
Crawshaw, Richard Haffer, Eric S.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Dalyell, Tam Hooley, Frank Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Moyle, Roland
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Newens, Stan
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Norwood, Christopher
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Oakes, Gordon
Ogden, Eric Rhodes, Geoffrey Symonds, J. B.
O'Malley, Brian Richard, Ivor Taverne, Dick
Orme, Stanley Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Tinn, James
Oswald, Thomas Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) Urwin, T. W.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as) Varley, Eric G.
Owen, Will (Morpeth) Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Paget, R. T. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Wallace, George
Palmer, Arthur Rose, Paul Watkins, David (Consett)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Ross, Rt. Hn. William Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Parker, John (Dagenham) Ryan, John Wellbeloved, James
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Pavitt, Laurence Sheldon, Robert Wilkins, W. A.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontyprldd) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E. Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pentland, Norman Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Silverman, Julius Winnick, David
Price, William (Rugby) Slater, Joseph Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Probert, Arthur Small, William Woof, Robert
Randall, Harry Snow, Julian
Rankin, John Spriggs, Leslie TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Rees, Merlyn Stonehouse, John Mr. Joseph Harper and
Reynolds, G. W. Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

Clause added to the Bill.

Forward to