HC Deb 12 June 1968 vol 766 cc363-75

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move Amendment No. 122, in page 94, line 4, column 3 at end insert Section 49(4).

I am pleased to move the last of the Amendments to be selected. This is a drafting Amendment which repeals Section 49(4) of the 1963 Act, which is concerned with the use of machines for amusements with prizes. This matter is now dealt with in Part III of the Bill. The substance of this provision is reproduced in Clause 33(4).

Amendment agreed to.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Bill began its course through Parliament in February and I would like, before taking leave of the Bill, to express my gratitude to the House and not least to the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) for the constructive manner in which they have approached the consideration of the Bill.

I hope that it will be agreed, also, that my hon. Friends have done a great deal to assist in its improvement. I would particularly like to mention my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, who, in Committee, carried the burden of the debate and who has now been translated—I will not say as a result of his work on the Bill, although it must have been good preparation for his translation—to the Treasury. I also thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, for whom I am filled with admiration for his comprehensive mastery of the Bill. I am grateful for the assistance that he has given me.

There have been differences, as there are bound to be, about the Measure, but there has not been a fundamental cleavage of principle. They have been differences about practical matters and, as a result of the joint effort of both sides, there have been two major changes of emphasis introduced into the Bill. With the consent of hon. Members—indeed, with me being pressed to assent to the change—the powers of the Board have been greatly increased. The supervision which the Board can exercise over the licensing system has been strengthened by the right given to it to advise the justices over a wide sphere in which applications fall to be considered.

More important, the Board, as we have recently been discussing, has been given powers to investigate the bona fides of applicants and their financial sponsors— powers of a far-reaching character which, I believe, are quite unprecedented for a statutory body. The principles on which these powers rest is that nobody can claim the right to provide commercial gaming, whether as principal or as agent; it is a concession and it is to be granted only as the authorities see fit. The condition is that the authorities must behave in a responsible manner, subject to the overall check of the courts in the process of natural justice and the check of Parliament in a continuing review of the manner in which the powers are exercised.

We have accepted the principle and the paramount need to prevent criminal elements from establishing themselves in gaming. It is for this reason that we have given the Board by general consent of the House, powers that are of an absolute and arbitrary nature and are of such a character that they must, in all justice, be restricted to circumstances in which the normal processes of judicial hearings cannot be expected to provide the safeguards which are needed in a matter such as commercial gaming.

It is difficult for the ordinary member of the public to realise, as some hon. Members have realised, what lies beneath some of the soft lights and sweet music of gaming. It is made no more civilised because of the soft lights and sweet music. Those of us who have studied this matter know that we are dealing with a very ingenious group of people who will take advantage of the law unless it is carefully drafted.

Another major point which overshadowed our Second Reading deliberations was the fact that we have drawn a distinction, as was my desire, between the pastime of bingo and other forms of gaming of a potentially more dangerous kind. As for the commercial bingo clubs, important concessions have been made, especially in Clause 20. These are conditional on bingo clubs abandoning other forms of gaming, to which reference has been made. One of the most unwelcome of recent developments has been the adoption of hard gaming by bingo clubs, with the resulting wide popularisation of these forms of gaming. Now the bingo clubs can confine themselves to bingo and, provided that they do that, there are concessions of a valuable nature for them.

The Bill also helps many genuine members' clubs, working men's clubs, miners' welfare institutes, and so on, many of which provide bingo non-com-mercially for the enjoyment of their members. The concessions which the House has made in Clauses 39 and 40, both for them and for others who promote gaming for strictly disinterested objects, such as charity, are significant.

Mr. Rees-Davies

Since the right hon. Gentleman's comments yesterday on Clause 4, in the "charitable" debate, I have carefully studied the relevant part of the 1963 Act, which is Section 48, and I think that one can be satisfied that that provision does not cover the position of what one might call real gaming for charitable entertainment. I suggest that it covers virtually only amusements with prizes. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the matter carefully between now and the Bill reaching another place in view of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said in his speech, to which the right hon. Gentleman replied.

Mr. Callaghan

I understand that the prizes are of a substantial character. In any case, I have undertaken to look at the matter again. My advice is not the same as the hon. Gentleman's. I assure him that I will consider the matter before the Bill gets to another place.

We have no intention of interfering with legitimate interests of a largely social character, but as for hard gaming—that is, games for profit, such as chemin de fer, roulette and blackjack—I would like once again to make it unmistakably clear that the object of the Government, I believe with the approval of the House, as shown in our debates, is that we should restrain this activity and cut it back. It is necessary for me to repeat this because it is the general regulation-making powers of the Bill which will be mostly invoked for this purpose and I do not wish there to be any misapprehension about the use of these powers.

Leaving moral judgments aside, we cannot hope to control this activity in such a way as to prevent profiteering, dishonesty and sheer criminality except by reducing the number of clubs to a manageable proportion—to, say, one-third or one-quarter of the present number, although I would not at this stage like to make a clear pronouncement. This is a case in which the regulation-making powers of the Bill, which I shall be bringing before Parliament in due course, will be used for this purpose.

The system will remain as it was conceived, in which the local responsibility of the justices and the police will be closely married together and will be expressed through the medium of the regulations and not through rigid statutory provisions—and, as the hon. Member for Colchester said, with the Gaming Board occupying a much more pivotal position than it was expected to occupy when the Bill was originally introduced.

I approach the Bill with some trepidation in expressing a conclusion about it because I know what my predecessors said about the Measures which they introduced and the manner in which they dealt with that legislation. I therefore say, in a spirit of humility and without reflection on my predecessors, that I approach the Bill in the knowledge of past failures. We have seen the ridiculous spectacle which the gaming proprietors have been able or have been allowed to make of the law as it stands.

I have recognised—and the House has appreciated this—that on this occasion nothing superficial will do. As a result, hon. Members have examined the nuts and bolts of the Bill with great care. I hope that we are right this time. In the present state of knowledge I believe that we have a workmanlike machine here, but in view of past experience we will have to leave history to show whether I am being as inaccurate as my predecessors were in forecasting the success of their efforts? It has been an exhausting task, but if we have succeeded it has been well worth while.

I will only say, in conclusion, that we are not dealing with a minor matter. I believe that the House will agree with me that the curbs that are introduced by the Bill have not come one moment too early. Probably it would be rash to say we have found a complete answer to the problems, but I believe that with the Gaming Board and the powers with which it has been invested, and the responsibilities which have been given to licensing authorities, we now have a framework of control which is strong and yet flexible; and it gives at any rate every hope of achieving what we expect it to do.

I hope, therefore, that the House will feel that it has been engaged on a worthwhile task. I know that there was a spirit almost of cameraderie between members of the Committee in their efforts to improve the Bill. I hope that the House will also feel that the Government have played their part by being willing to listen to reasonabe argument and to make concessions whenever they felt it was important and necessary to do so. I commend the Third reading to the House.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Buck

The saga of major legislation relative to gaming over the last few years has not been a happy one, but I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will perhaps hope that this is perhaps the end of the road in relation to major legislation on gaming and that such legislation can at some time come to a happy end.

Of course, the House is quite right not to be too optimistic about it in view of the unhappy time that we have had with major legislation in the past. It is, unfortunately, the case that the 1960 Act caused grave difficulty, first to the courts. Then, from the difficulties into which the courts got, the police were placed in what I believe has been an impossible position in attempting to enforce that Act. So were, and so are today, the operators of gaming establishments which are really seeking to run good and reputable gaming establishments.

We hope to see before long an end to the uncertainty and we hope that this will be a successful Bill. I have feelings of guarded optimism about it. It may well be necessary to reorientate certain parts in the light of experience, and perhaps give greater powers to the Gaming Board on the lines suggested from both sides of the House from time to time. By and large, gaming has been described as a pervasive social phenomenon and it has also been suggested by an authority on gaming, Mr. Rubner, who wrote a book on the economics of gambling, that it is both desirable and possible to view gaming with detachment and without immoderate passions. I like to think that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee, on the whole, dealt with the Bill with a certain degree of detachment and without immoderate passions.

On one or two occasions I have been accused of putting forward with too great fervour the position of bingo as being, as I feel it to be, very different in category from hard gaming. Hon. Gentlemen opposite at one stage accused me of espousing the cause of bingo perhaps too fervently and perhaps to some extent I was guilty of that. But we on this side from time to time have detected a slight tendency of the Home Secretary towards semi-Cromwellian puritanism. That appeared to be creeping in a little and lately it has been echoed in Celtic terms by his hon. Friend the Undersecretary. There have been these tendencies in different ways towards im-moderacy from time to time, but I believe that, on the whole, we have done what we can to keep within Mr. Rubner's maxim that this is a matter which should be considered with detachment and without immoderate passions.

Major changes have been effected by the Committee and now by the House during the course of the passage of the Bill and I would like to thank the Home Secretary very much for the gracious and pleasant tributes he paid to some of us on this side for what we have tried to do to improve the Bill. We have enjoyed very great co-operation from the other side—and that is their responsibility—and we have done what we could to help. There is a point which has arisen on the Report stage. I lost count of the tally, but I believe that, in all, about 140 Amendments were put down, the vast majority of them by the Government. When suddenly confronted with a vast number of Amendments on the Notice Paper even a Member who has lived with the Bill for a long time may have to spend hours trying to find out exactly what each Amendment involves, and whether it is a drafting Amendment or contains an important hidden point. Because of personal difficulties, I approached the Home Secretary, who said that I could contact someone in his Department and he was extremely helpful in this matter.

I should like the Home Secretary to consider whether on the Report stage of Bills such as this, when Government Amendments are put down, there should be something in the nature of an explanatory memorandum as there is to the Bill when it is produced de novo. That, in effect, is what happened in this case, through latitude for which I was grateful. It saved hours of work and much time on Report. One would have had to delve much more deeply but for that prior explanation.

The major redrafting of the Bill has meant a very great strengthening of the powers given to the Board. Although on Second Reading it was described as the pivot of the Bill, it was not the pivot for largely its powers were advisory. Now the Board has been given very significant powers. It has the power to veto an applicant and to prevent him getting a licence to operate a casino. The chairman of the Board will now be a real pivot. Its success will depend very much on him. I hope that we shall soon be told the calibre of the person who is to be chairman. It is of great importance that he should be of the greatest calibre.

The chairman must be supported by inspectors, probably a larger number than was envisaged in Committee. They should be paid more than £2,500 a year as was originally suggested. This, in a sense, has been provided for in the Bill because of the large increase in the amounts of charges we have considered. It is vitally important that the staff of the Board should be paid highly because they will be subjected to very considerable temptations by some of those who are operating on the fringe of these casino-type activities. It is vitally important to have someone of the highest calibre as chairman and for him to have trained accountants to support him as inspectors. I am glad to have had the assurance about co-operation with the police. The police welcome the role they will be asked to play. It is important to have properly qualified people. I commend again the possible formation of a gaming squad.

There have been matters which have divided the House concerning the Bill, but I hope that now it will go forward rapidly because it is important that the Board should get down to its work of advising the Home Secretary so that he can make the Orders which he is empowered to make and can "vet" those who wish to apply for licences. The present position in London and throughout the country relative to gaming is most unsatisfactory.

Mny of us on this side of the House have done some research on this, and we know very well, as I imagine hon. Members opposite know, that there are some very undesirable casinos operating in the metropolis. The sooner the Board gets to grips with them the better. There are also some very well run casinos where hard gaming goes on and where people are striving to keep within the law. They are in the greatest difficulty at present because of the great uncertainty of the legal position, and the police are also in considerable difficulty.

I therefore hope that the Bill will speedily and efficiently go through its remaining stages and will bring to an end the uncertainty and rather sorry saga of gaming legislation in this country.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. George Younger (Ayr)

As one who did not serve on the Standing Committee, I should like to add my congratulations to the Government and Opposition members of the Committee not merely for producing a good Bill in the circumstances but also for considerably improving it since it was introduced.

It may be a measure of the improvement in the Bill that when it was first published I produced a considerable list of points which I wished to raise but now find myself with only one left on which I think a little thought is still required. Many of us who did not serve on the Committee feel that a good job was done by both sides, and I hope that the Bill will provide at least some of the answer to the very unsatisfactory position we have had in the past year or two in gaming generally.

The one point I want to raise was covered in Committee and again last night. It concerns the ban which the Bill puts on sharing arrangements for amusements with prizes machines in licensed premises. I declare an interest in the matter—if it is necessary for a person with my name to do so. I raise the point not because of that but because I know a little of how this works in practice.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot amend the Bill on Third Reading. He can, however, denounce what is in it.

Mr. Younger

I did not intend to amend the Bill but merely to ask the Government if they would sympathetically consider my point, or perhaps I should say the denouncement which I wish to make, possibly in another place. The case has not been made for the refusal to allow sharing arrangements in licensed premises. They are being allowed in amusement arcades, and I cannot see any essential difference between those two types of establishment, in the relationship between the suppliers of the machines, the operators and the public, that would require the rules to be different.

The object is not to abolish the use of the machines but the method by which they are made available. It was stated in Committee that this was to prevent abuses. There has been no evidence that there is any difference between those two types of premises in the possible abuses.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We discussed this Amendment on Report. We are past Report stage now.

Mr. Younger

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that it was in order on Third Reading to refer to matters in the Bill and to suggest to the Government that in another place they might consider doing something more about them. That is my only object. I shall be as brief as possible on this subject, and I hope that I shall be in order. It seems to me that three people are involved in these transactions. We have the supplier of the machine, known as the retailer—

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to an Amendment which was debated in Committee and defeated.

Mr. Younger

Of course I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I must confine myself in my remarks and shall not be able to put some of the arguments with which I had hoped to persuade the Government to reconsider the matter. However, perhaps they will take it in good faith from me that there are sound arguments for saying that, with the best of intentions, they are making a mistake in this distinction. I hope that they will give some indication that they will look at the matter sympathetically in the weeks ahead and, if they think fit, will make a change in another place.

I repeat that I am a supporter of the Bill. It makes an improvement and I hope that the small further improvement which I have mentioned will be added at a later stage.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Deedes

I want to begin with a short tribute to the former Under-Secre-tary of State, now Minister of State, Treasury. I am sure that all of us who served in the Committee with him will wish to make that tribute. We were sorry when he parted from us and I pay tribute to the contribution he made.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman speak up? I think that the reporters might have some difficulty in hearing him.

Mr. Deedes

These are almost confidential asides to the Home Secretary, Mr. Speaker, but I accede to your request. I apologise for not being here for the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Bill as a framework which we can fill in. The Board has become central, as some of us intended that it should, to the purpose of the Home Secretary. I thing that this is quite inevitable because the longer the Bill has gone on the more I have become convinced of the expertise which will be required to fulfil the purpose. Good intentions are not enough. We shall need some very clever people to see that the intentions we have expressed are fulfilled.

When I began work on the Bill with some of my colleagues, both on the practical as well as on the legislative aspect, and after a short time, I thought I knew something about it. I have finished up by realising how little I know of the subject of gaming and those who go with it. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that as well. But this has impressed upon me the fact that we shall be tremendously dependent on the experts he appoints to the Board and those experts which the Board appoints to see this thing through. We always finish with a Bill feeling that we have done a great job of work but I think that we should acknowledge that point. For that reason, I think that the relations between the Board and its staff and the clubs left in operation after a year or two will also be critical.

I have formed the view, although some of my hon. Friends may not agree, that the Board and its inspectors will not be able to operate effectively in an uncooperative club. If a club really wants to blanket what it is doing, I am not saying that it will not eventually be uncovered, but the process will take a long time and a lot of work. I foresee a working relationship of a certain kind between the Board and the clubs, under which, eventually, the right sort of relationship will be established. Obviously, the relationship should not be too close but if it is too distant, if the Board tries to establish itself as a kind of outside police force, I believe that some of our intentions will founder. Therefore, I put some weight on the respectable clubs and the example they will set to others.

One should refer to the Church of England Committee, which has done an enormous amount of work on this and has supplied all of us with a lot of information we would not have otherwise have had. Its last memorandum did not escape my attention. It still feels that the arrangements we have made will leave too many clubs in existence. It has one sort of anxiety about this. Some of us have another sort. Undoubtedly, however, the effectiveness of control will depend on numbers. I think that a figure of 1,500 dubs was mentioned in the early stages and I do not know what we have in mind as the final number. But, if there an; too many, control will be difficult. It is, therefore, to be concluded that the fewer there are the easier control will be, and, in a sense, the objective of the Home Secretary will be gained.

With respect to the Church of England Committee I would enter a word of caution. I think there is a danger in assuming that a reduction in the number of the clubs will in itself achieve the objectives which we want to gain. We have by one way and another induced a certain public demand for bingo and gambling, and unless it is met, and unless there are enough establishments in certain areas to meet it, there will be a danger of illicit establishments starting up even within the terms of the Bill. I know they can eventually be put down: they will be illicit; but they can be a tremendous nuisance and require a great deal of difficult, tiresome work by the police. I hope we shall not attempt to reduce the number of clubs to the point where the law of supply and demand will tempt certain people to provide establishments of another kind. That would be to pass the point of balance which we want to achieve.

I am sure we have to be guided by the Board and by the information it gives, and I would make a plea to the Home Secretary that as soon as possible the information which the Board will acquire in the light of its experience shall be made as public as possible. The Board will have to report to Parliament. It will have to get a lot of information—rather like the Race Relations Board. It will have to give the information at the end of a year's work. That sort of information it will be very much in the public interest to share, and the more we know of the experience of the Board and what it feels it will do in the light of experience the better. Whether we have an annual report or not, I plead with the Home Secretary that the experience of the Board be as widely publicised as possible to assist us in what I think will be further stages on the road we have now entered upon.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Kitson

I should like to echo the tributes which have been paid from both sides of the House to the splendid work which the Committee did in improving the Bill. As a Whip in that Committee I thought it the least political Committee I had ever been on. The task of the Whips was not difficult. Indeed, we had voting in most combinations on occasions. I am sure we improved the Bill a good deal in Committee.

I should like to make two points. I welcome what obviously will be a reduction in the number of clubs and I welcome something that has not been mentioned but which I think extremely important, and that is the stricter control of credit, and I am sure that that will be a great advantage.

I do not share the Home Secretary's thoughts that gaming is all that wicked an occupation. Life, I think, is largely a gamble. Some have more luck than others. I only hope that on this occasion with this Bill on gaming the House will have more luck than it has had with previous pieces of legislation on gaming and when, obviously, it did not have as much luck as it should have done.

Now the Board will have a tremendous job to do. We all wish it well in the task it will take on.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.