Schedule 6 (Hansard, 12 June 1968)

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I beg to move Amendment No. 82, in page 73, line 42, leave out from beginning to second 'the'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I think that with that Amendment we can take Amend-bent No. 83 in page 73, line 44, leave out from 'and' to first 'the' in line 45, and Amendment No. 84, in page 74, leave out lines 1 to 20.

§ Mr. Morgan
These Amendments are important in that they remove all Tight of appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of the Board to refuse or to revoke a certificate required under Clause 26 for the repair or maintenance of machines. They are concerned with the removal of rights of appeal where the Board refuses or revokes a certificate of consent for a gaming licence under Schedule 2, or a certificate of approval to a gaming operative, a manager, or a supervisor under Schedule; 5. The considerations are the same as in those cases.

§ Mr. Buck
The arguments in support of these Amendments are the same, but the person involved is different, and I am not very happy about the Amendments. One can see, and one has ack-knowledged, that croupiers have tremendous opportunities and scope for operating dishonest gaming for their own personal advantage, perhaps in connection with others, perhaps entirely on their own. A croupier who works in a casino is in a particularly advantageous position to put any dishonest tendencies which he may have to lucrative use.
I am not sure that the same considerations apply to the retailers and suppliers of gaming machines. It is true that at an earlier stage hon. Gentlemen opposite revealed certain corrupt practices relating to gaming machines, but the retailer, the supplier, and the maintainer of machines are in a different position from a croupier, a worker, or an operator in a casino. I am not content that a retailer should have removed from him the right of appeal.
I find myself in a different position from that in which the Government find themselves. In fact, our positions are reversed from what they were on an earlier Amendment. Here I want additional safeguards for the operator of the machine, where as earlier I was in favour of the Board being given a more arbitrary power. I am not happy about the matter, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to look at it again to see 358 whether it is appropriate to remove the right of appeal from suppliers and retailers of this type of machine. It may not be necessary to have such Draconian powers.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
The hon. Member has argued for a distinction between machines and gaming clubs, but, whereas the retail of gaming machines has been legitimate business since 1960 and of amusement machines for much longer, it can be and has been argued that gaming clubs have been established in defiance of the law. But putting that argument at its strongest, the distinction is not in propriety of conduct. We all know that there has been as much racketeering, if not more, in the supply of machines as in the conduct of clubs.
I appreciate that there is a great difference of opinion about whether the Board should have the power to grant or withhold approval, but this does not arise under the Amendment. What arises is the question of whether there should be a right of appeal from the Board's decisions. One of the difficulties about an appeal system here is that the weight of responsibility tends, with the passage of time, to pass to the appellate authority. In other words, the body charged by Parliament with responsibility in the matter has to consider not only whether what it does is right but also what the appellate authority is likely to be willing to sustain. The inevitable result must be a division of responsibility, which in the long run makes for weakness, uncertainty and muddle.

§ Mr. Buck
Then would the hon. Gentleman explain why the right of appeal was provided for croupiers and these people generally?

§ Mr. Morgan
I accept that we are seeking to correct our own provision, but, although it was originally felt that a review system was desirable, despite the fact that it would involve the Home Secretary in judicial functions not properly within his province, since then there have been introduced functions which have changed the Board's character and stature. In the circumstances, it would be wrong to vest these judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the Secretary of State, since it would inevitably lead to a twin-headed system of licensing and to uncertainty.
359 There is no doubt a strong case, as regards certain tribunals, where a number of units all over the country all have the same jurisdiction, for having an appeal to one executive body. It is often only in this way possible to preserve the necessary uniformity. But this is one Board and it would not strengthen but would weaken it to have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, which would be inappropriate in any event.