Mr. BockI beg to move Amendment No. 152, in page 21, line 1, after 'machines', insert:
'or such greater number (if any) as may be specified by an order made on the advice of the Board by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection'.We now come specifically to consider machines known as one-armed bandits. The House should be aware of what the Bill does at present relative to these machines, because there is one aspect of the Bill's; treatment of these extraordinary machines about which one cannot be entirely happy. If two of these machines, as laid down by Statute, are on the premises of proprietary clubs, the profits emanating from them must go to charity. This position is eliminated by the Bill and I am not entirely happy about that.The Amendment is similar in character to Amendments tabled in Committee. It seems to my hon. Friends and I that there is no logical reason why the number of one-armed bandits, or fruit machines as they are otherwise called, should be two on any club premises. Why, in logicality, should there be two? We have not been told why or how this number was arrived at.
It seems absurd that there should be two machines in a club catering for thousands of people while in a miniscule club in which one can hardly get in there should be two machines also. We propose that the number should remain at two for the time being but that, on the recommendation of the Gaming Board, a different number could by order be substituted. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) wondered whether it was appropriate to clutter up the Board with matters of this kind. He hoped that a more appropriate way would be found to add flexibility in this respect. As usual, there was considerable substance in my right hon. Friend's argument, but, since no other way of introducing this flexibility has been found, I am thrown back on this Amendment. It would make greater sense than continuing the entirely arbitrary position which enables clubs, great and small, to have each just two gaming machines.
174 I hope that the Under-Secrelary and his colleagues have given extra thought to this matter since Committee, and that now we shall have either acceptance of the Amendment or an indication that in another place the position will be dealt with by providing greater flexibility.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Elystan MorganGaming machines, because of the large jackpots they offer, and the rapidity of turnover, represent, in my estimation, unequalled chances of gaming in its most addictive form. For that reason, the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, which sat between 1949 and 1952, recommended that they should be prohibited absolutely.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) has asked why the number was fixed at two. The Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, departed from the Commission's recommendation, because there was thought to be little harm in allowing clubs—that is, genuine members' clubs—to make a modest profit from the use of these machines, and, therefore, it allowed up to two machines to be installed on premises to which the public had no access. The provision was perpetuated by Section 33 of the 1963 Act, and is now being confirmed, in respect of licensed or registered or specially registered clubs, by Clause 30(2) of the Bill.
In practice, these machines have proved to be every bit as addictive as the Royal Commission supposed they would be, and, consequently, a great deal more profitable than those who framed the 1960 Act ever expected. A great mass of vested interest has built up behind their supply and use, and their commercial and gaming use has so developed as to make the controls in Part III of the Bill imperative. As for the permitted number of machines, it is, the Government realise, too late to turn the clock back, but an ordinary club should be well content with the profits which two machines can bring it. In many cases, it is appreciated that those profits already subsidise a large part of a club's activities. There seems to be no need to increase further their number, and to make this market still larger.
§ Amendment negatived.
175§ Mr. Elystan MorganI beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 21, line 43, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 13 on page 22 and to insert:
'at any time when the public have access to the premises, whether on payment or otherwise '.Clause 30(8), as it stands, provides that gaming machines, on the premises of a licensed club or institute registered in respect of the premises under Parts II or III of the Bill, shall be used only by members of the club or institute or their bona fide guests. This Amendment substitutes the requirement that they shall not be used at any time when the public have access to the premises. The chief significance of this Amendment is that it would allow machines in, for instance, a working men's club, or Conservative club, to be used by associate members who are not or may not be bona fide guests of one of the club's members, but, from their associate status, are not members of the public, either. Also, it would allow machines in golf clubs to be used by visiting competitors.
§ Amendment agreed to.