HC Deb 18 November 1969 vol 791 cc1249-75

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt (Isle of Wight)

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Gaming Clubs (Licensing) Regulations 1969 (SI, 1969, No. 1110), dated 31st July 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th August, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker

There are two Motions, one relating to England and the other to Scotland— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Gaming Clubs (Licensing) (Scotland) Regulations 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 1115), dated 31st July 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th August, in the last Session of Parliament be annulled. —and it has occurred to me that we might take both of them together if there is no objection from either side of the House. I must point out to the House that we have now one hour and 11 minutes and that some 20 hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.

Mr. Woodnutt

This Motion has been signed by 73 Members other than myself. Its importance may be seen in the fact that it has been signed by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and from the number of hon. Members who, you have told us, Mr. Speaker, have put in their names as wishing to speak.

We who support the Motion do not wish the House to be under the impression that we are a gaming Lobby; we are not. Many of my hon. Friends would be happy to see gaming abolished altogether, but if it is to be legal in this country, there must be equal opportunity for all to participate. We believe in putting into practice a slogan with which hon. Members below the Gangway opposite who are now making so much noise will not be unfamiliar—"Fair" shares for all.

The main reason for annulling the Regulations are set out in the early day Motion No. 7. This has been signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and from all parties in:he House. First, we deplore the discrimination exercised in the Regulations For example, why, if gambling is to be allowed at all should it be restricted to 31 closely defined areas in England, two in Wales and only three in Scotland? It is quite wrong that gaming should be permitted in one part of the country and not in others. For instance, why should it be permitted in Brighton and Hove, two adjacent seaside towns, but not in Eastbourne or Hastings; why in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, but not Sunderland?

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)

Or Bexhill?

Mr. Woodnutt

Why should it be permitted in Portsmouth and Southampton, but not in Worthing or the Isle of Wight? We in the Isle of Wight suffer more than oveners, because people on the mainland can get into a car and go to another area,

however far away it may be, and can return at night, but, as the last ferry to the Isle of Wight leaves at ten to nine on a Saturday evening, we can go to these casinos only if we care to swim five miles across the Solent.

Secondly, we deplore this discrimination which gives an unreasonable competitive advantage to holiday resorts in the permitted areas. Does the Home Secretary believe that he is behaving fairly in giving Southend a competitive advantage over Herne Bay or Great Yarmouth an advantage over Shanklin?

Most reasonable people would agree that gaming should be restricted, and it was the intention of the 1968 Act that it should be. But it was not the intention of that Act to restrict it in this arbitrary manner, and it is certainly not within the spirit of the Act or the spirit of the discussions which occurred in the Standing Committee which considered that legislation.

I leave the House with the thought that these Regulations may be ultra vires. I can find nothing in the Act which authorises the Gaming Board to put forward Regulations of this type. I am inclined to believe that they have been presented by the Board for administrative expediency and no other reason. In that connection, I should like to be told how many inspectors or enforcement officers are employed by the Board.

Our third point in the Early Day Motion is the manner in which these regulations have been presented. They were laid before Parliament on 1 1 th August and were to be operative on 1st October. The House was in Recess on both these dates and in between, and there was no opportunity until now, three months later, to express our objections. I feel strongly that this is an affront and a discourtesy to this House. Perhaps even more important are the large losses of capital expenditure caused to so many people.

It must have been a great shock to hundreds of businessmen and employers, with no offence even suggested against them, to read on 24th July that they were out of business, especially when, with no reason to doubt that they would be granted certificates of consent, they had spent thousands of pounds, now

abortively, on developing their premises. I am told by the Gaming Association that the figure of wasted capital expenditure is assessed at no less than £1 million.

Why did the Gaming Board not announce its intentions earlier? It is shameful that it should wait all this time without telling people what it was about to do, permitting them to go ahead developing their properties and providing all the modifications which they thought would be necessary under the Regulations.

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham)

They brought it on themselves.

Mr. Woodnutt

No doubt the hon. Gentleman will say that the employees brought it on themselves as well?

Mr. Kerr

I was pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that the gentlemen for whom he is such an eloquent spokesman have made such a welter of the concessions granted to them that they have brought it on themselves.

Mr. Woodnutt

That may be the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but it is not what I am saying. I am saying that they were misled. Whether or not they brought it on themselves, it is fact that they were given 28th February as the last date on which they could make an application for a casino licence. They were kept waiting all this time and had no knowledge until 24th July, five months later, after they had submitted their applications. Meanwhile they were wasting their money. How on earth can anyone say they brought it upon themselves? It is only when hon. Gentlemen opposite speak through malice and spite that they think like that.

There are many other arguments and detailed examples to justify what I have said. I will, however, cut my speech as there are so many other hon. Members wishing to speak. The Home Secretary should scrap these thoroughly bad Regulations and at least existing operators who are people of good character and abiding by the Regulations should be granted licences to continue, whether or not they are in a restricted area, and the limitation should not be by the exclusion of specified areas. The Home Secretary is a fair minded and reasonable person. I hope that he will justify this opinion by accepting our plea.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House will see how many Members want to speak. Hon. Members should speak briefly.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier (Sunderland, South)

I, too, would hope to speak briefly and also seriously on this. I hope that the House will take a very serious view of what is placed before it this evening. I can appreciate that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) has argued most of his case on geographical locations—where these gaming establishments may be.

The House should not castigate the Gaming Board, but should appreciate the enormity of the problem facing the Board in trying to control what has become a large growth industry.

If a proposal had been put forward 10 or 12 years ago to establish gaming in 31 places in this country, it would have been opposed by the House, but, because of the accident of the 1960 Act and its interpretation by the courts, there is now fairly widespread gambling in this country. Three or four years ago some hon. Members noticed what was happening. The then Home Secretary saw fit to ban 13 American citizens who were involved with gaming and were assocrated with the American Cosanostra, and this demonstrates the seriousness of the situation which we are faced with trying to control. On the north-east coast, for example, a type of establishment was built up which provided cabaret, gaming and so on on a smaller scale than in the Metropolis. There was no party difference on this, and we tried to bring some sense into the situation, to clear out the undesirable aspects and the undesirable individuals who were involved in gaming.

I know that the Statutory Instrument is laid before the House after consultation with the Gaming Board of Great Britain, with whom I have a lot of sympathy. The Board did not receive the power which the Committee which considered the Bill thought it was being given. The Committee believed that the Board was being given power to sit in judgment on persons organising gaming, and would be able to judge whether those individuals should be allowed to do so. But the Gaming Board is faced with the courts, and there are individuals who are involved in gaming who should not be in the business. If persons with only a "soft" record and not a "hard" record are denied a licence, they may say that their individual integrity is being attacked and they have no recourse to the courts.

This is where I appreciate the problem of the Gaming Board. The advice tendered to my right hon. Friend has been concerned not with dealing with individuals and refusing to grant licences, but with selecting places to which licences will be given, and with selecting the individuals themselves.

Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirk-dale)

The Committee did not disallow all the things my hon. Friend has said, but neither did it say that there should be geographical discrimination. Although I appreciate that there may be some difficulties for the Gaming Board, would it not be better to judge the matter on standards rather than on anything else?

Mr. Bagier

I am trying to illustrate the difficulties which face the Gaming Board. I have received 1,700 signatures from a night club in my constituency in Sunderland from people who ask." Why cannot we have the licence they have in Newcastle?" Perhaps one can appreciate their point of view.

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

Has my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) considered that there is specific provision in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 of the Gaming Act? That paragraph says: The licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence … if it is not shown to their satisfaction that, in the area of the authority, a substantial demand already exists on the part of prospective players for gaming facilities of the kind proposed to be provided on the relevant premises. It was intended in the Committee that the licensing authority should deal with the question of demand. There was never any question that the. Gaming Board would deal with the question of demand.

Mr. Bagier

I appreciate that this was the intention of the Committee. But I suspect that, although tie Gaming Board may not wish to grant a licence to an individual, for reasons best known to itself, but not in the form of evidence that would stand up in court, its hands are tied because a court may say that it

is denigrating the character of the person concerned.

Having outlined the thinking behind this matter, I ask whether it will solve the problem. I do not think it will. I fail to see the relevance of the argument that the geographical situation in regard to gaming will solve the problem. My right hon. Friend may have to look at the matter in a separate way as regards the situation in various parts of the country. The situation in metropolitan London is vastly different from that in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, as the situation in Birmingham is different from that in Carlisle. There are some small mining villages that enjoy a flutter.

I am not anti-gaming, but the situation facing the House in trying to find a solution has become so bad and is so infiltrated by sources which have undermined the whole structure of life in certain parts of the western civilised world that the House is bound to look at the matter in a sensible manner.

Hon. Members may well argue their constituency points. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight asked, "Why not the Isle of Wight when provision is made for facilities in Portsmouth?" I could well ask, "Why not Sunderland, when there is provision in Newcastle?" In some ways I accept the hon. Member's argument.

The formula put by the Gaming Board to my right hon. Friend is one answer, but I do not accept that it is the right one. My underlying fear is that if the House makes gaming so restrictive and so difficult to participate in, it will go underground. There is now a known register of individual members of hundreds of clubs throughout the country who are known to like gaming and are approachable and able to be contacted. If we become so restrictive and, to pursue the logic further, if those gaming establishments which are allowed have to bear the brunt of increasing taxation, since each successive Chancellor tends to regard gaming as a profitable source of revenue, it is likely to go underground. If that happens, we shall have a situation similar to that which has frightened the life out of our American cousins.

My object in intervening is to say that this is an extremely serious and difficult

situation which will not be solved on the basis of parliamentary or constituency considerations of where a gaming establishment should or should not be permitted. I hope that hon. Members who have given deep thought to the problem will try in a constructive manner to put forward more logical arguments than that of the Gaming Board. This is not the best answer, and I hope that in the course of the debate we shall hear some better suggestions.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

I wish to declare a disinterest. I have never entered a casino, and I may well never do so. As a matter of pure prejudice, I have a certain distaste for gaming. Nevertheless, I have an interest which I share with every citizen. It is that the regulation-making powers of Ministers—delegated legislation—should be exercised properly, that the powers which Acts of Parliament confer upon Ministers should not be abused. I believe that the Regulations now before us are a signal example of abuse and should be rejected on that ground.

The words of the Act under which the Regulations are made give the Secretary of State power to provide that licensing authorities shall refuse to grant or renew licences under the Act … in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations … In form, those words are about as wide as can be imagined. I understand that those who may be affected by the Regulations, on taking legal advice, have been told that the Regulations are intra vires. One cannot be sure of that until the matter has been tested by a court, and nothing which is said in this House can affect that issue one way or the other. But it is certain that the use which has been made of that Section was not envisaged, so far as can be ascertained, by any hon. Member who took part in the debates on the Bill and was in no way foreshadowed. In fact, the opposite is the case.

In all the proceedings on the Bill, there is only one reference to the sort of use which it was anticipated that the Government might make use of the power. It was made by the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who said in Committee: If we expand to some extent the kind of thing which the justices may do under Schedule

2, then it is clear that that is the kind of thing on which the regulations under Clause 21(3Xa) can bite." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 21st March, 1968; c. 327.] In Schedule 2, we find exactly the kind of ground on which every hon. Member who participated in the debates imagined that not only would licensing authorities act as they are directed by the Schedule, but general limitations would be placed upon them by the Regulations to be made by the Secretary of State.

I do not impugn the sincerity of the hon. and learned Gentleman whose words I am citing. He could not have envisaged these Regulations when he used those words to the Committee. Nothing could have been further from his mind, if that was the sort of illustration which he gave of the use which was intended to be made of the regulation-making power.

I recognise that both on Second Reading and on Third Reading the Secretary of State said that these Regulations were to be one of the principal instruments … to reduce the number of casinos.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 1174.]

But it does not follow that he would use his powers in this sort of manner, because any limitations, on whatever grounds they were imposed, and with a view to whatever circumstances, would reduce the number of casinos; and if those limitations were strict, then the reduction would be correspondingly greater. I repeat, there was nothing from beginning to end of the proceedings in either House upon this Bill which gave anyone reason to suppose that "circumstances" would be interpreted by the Secretary of State to mean not being within 36 defined areas in Great Britain.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will not use the argument, but I suppose it could be said by the Secretary of State: "What is the House complaining about? The Regulations come before the House. If the House does not like the Regulations, then it can throw them out." To say that is to deny the whole procedure of Parliament in both Houses.

Suppose that in the course of proceedings on the Bill an indication had been given that this was the way that the regulation-making power would be used. Does any hon. Member imagine that that would not have given rise to long debate or that there would not have been Amend- ments put down, debated, and voted upon both in Committee and on Report, and perhaps in another place? It is for this purpose that we have our procedures in this House. They are obliterated if the Secretary of State, a year after, can come back and say: "I am advised that the words are wide enough to allow me to do virtually anything that I like. Therefore, although no one in the course of debating the Bill imagined that this kind of use would be made of it, I am going to make these Regulations and I will put them before the House on a take-it-or-leave-it basis." It may or may not be that there is a good case—I doubt whether there is, after listening to the first two speeches—for using this kind of limitation to restrict gaming in this country. If there is, there is only one way in which it should be done. It should be done by Act of Parliament so that it can be properly considered and debated. To attempt to do it in this way is an abuse which the House as a whole ought to reject.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

I was one of those who opposed the Butler Act, which had the consent of both parties. I did so because I foresaw the evils which would result from it The Butler Act was aimed at illegal gaming —street bookmakers, parties, and that kind of thing. The remedy that it proposed opened the floodgates of gambling and the far greater evils that came with it. It was to correct that that the 1968 Act was brought in.

Frankly, it reminds me of a neighbour of mine in the last century, Jack Mytton, who sought to cure his hiccups by setting light to his nightshirt. It is said that the hiccups were cured, but the burns were considerable. It seems that the 1968 Act restores the hiccups without putting out the fire. It does so because the Government ignored the advice tendered from all sides of the Committee by hon. Members who knew anything about gambling. They have, therefore, landed themselves with an unworkable Act, and, in consequence, the Gaming Board has produced Regulations which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, were completely out of the contemplation of anything that anyone on that Committee was thinking about.

Having said that generally, I shall deal with one particular item, which is something that has grown up in consequence of this Act, and that is the carbaret club, with dining, entertainment, and gambling on a relatively small scale. This kind of club is the gambling opportunity of the areas outside the 31. If it is banned now, that gambling will merely be sent underground. It is not possible to turn the clock back. Since the Act came into force, a habit has been formed. There are lists of people who are known to want to gamble, and if all gambling is banned in the area—Northampton if one likes, or any other city—all that happens is that the illegalities that occurred before the Butler Act are restored, and they are restored in a much worse form because a habit has been formed.

I believe that there is a way of dealing with this. In France, where they have far more experience of this than we have, gambling is either nationalised or municipalised, and I believe that that is a very good thing. The casino is run for visitors. That is where the gambling is high. That is where the odds are right for the gambler; they are half in zero, one in 72 in favour of the bank. That is to attract the real gambler.

No local inhabitant is allowed into the casino. He can go there for the cabaret and to dine, and outside the gambling rooms he can play boule. Boule is roughly roulette with four zeros. It is a game in which the odds are rigged against the punter. That is the way to keep the game small, because nobody goes on betting high. The inhabitants of Cannes or Deauville are allowed to play boule. They will not gamble very high at that. They are not allowed into the casino, because there the odds are sufficiently attractive to induce the real gambler to play.

I therefore urge that there should be a new level of club to provide a legality that can absorb the relatively small gambler who wants a game for entertainment, rather than a big game, by allowing in these carbaret clubs roulette with a minimum of four zeros. If that is done, I think that the cabaret clubs will be kept going. I think that that would substantially stop the illegal gaming, because we shall then have on our

side all the cabaret clubs which want to stop illegal competition, instead of having all the community against us.

That is a workable idea, and I think that it can be done within the Act. Paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Second Schedule to the Act refers to restrictions limiting the gaming to a particular kind of game or particular kinds of game. If that can be confined to boule, if we were to follow the example of France and have roulette with four zeros we would provide an outlet. We would mitigate the damage which the Act has undoubtedly done, and I think that we would have something workable. The present situation is simply an illustration that the Gaming Board has found the Act as presented to it, and its job as contemplated by the Government, unworkable, and these Regulations show that.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)

The Scottish Regulations restrict gaming to three places only in Scotland—Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. This is an entirely new restriction and it is arbitrary, illogical and unjust. If the Government wish to ban gaming altogether, let them bring a proposal to the House and we can discuss the proposal on its merits. If they wish to restrict the number of clubs, let them propose stiffening the licensing conditions, and we can discuss that proposal on its merits. But there is no merit at all in this arbitrary geographical limitation, which will force clubs in many parts of Scotland to close while encouraging gaming in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen.

What is the logic of selecting these three cities for this favoured treatment? Is it because of their size? But size is not a guarantee that gaming will be better run there than elsewhere. Indeed, one could argue the reverse. Is it because they have large populations? If so, why should these large populations be treated more favourably than the smaller places? If so, why is Aberdeen included, while Dundee, with a population as large or larger, is deliberately excluded?

May I mention just six of the many places in Scotland which now have

gaming clubs, but which are excluded from the Schedule? They are Perth, Dunblane, Dundee, Arbroath, Montrose and Peterhead, and there are many others. The local members of these gaming clubs will have to travel between 3:2 and 55 miles if they wish to continue gaming. It is unlikely that they will do so. I ask the Government how they can justify denying to these people the freedom to enjoy a pastime which they pursue legally? What logic can justify that sort of interference? Is it not likely to bring an unjust law into contempt and drive gaming underground?

What logical argument can the Government advance for including Ramsgate in England with a population of under 39,000, while excluding Perth in Scotland with a population of over 41,000? I know that Ramsgate is an important holiday place, but so is Perth. Why has not the Secretary of State acted to protect the interests of tourism in Scotland? Indeed, what has the Secretary of State been doing throughout this sorry affair, beyond mutely accepting a blind 10 per cent. formula in Scotland, touching his forelock to the Home Secretary and naming three Scottish places to match the 31 in England?

Is the Secretary of State aware of the many inquiries received by the Perth Tourist Association about gaming facilities in Perth? Is he aware that Perthshire and Kinross is the second largest tourist area in Scotland? The Scottish Tourist Board figures show that it exceeds the tourist record of Edinburgh and far outstrips the records of Aberdeenshire and Glasgow combined. Yet he proposes to prohibit gaming in Perth and Dunblane, the two Perthshire clubs, while blessing Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow. There is certainly no logic in this.

The proposal is also unjust. The clubs in Perth and Dunblane are admirably run and the police speak well of them. I know from my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) that the club in Arbroath is also well regarded by the police. No doubt the other clubs which I mentioned are also well run. When the Minister replies, will he tell us if there have been any complaints at all against these clubs? I have been round the Perth club, and I know that it is

admirably conducted. The gambling is modest. The standard roulette stake is 2s. on a straight number. The refreshments served are coffee at a shilling, tea, sandwiches, lemonade and milk. I am told that this respectable club has not been openly visited by any official of the Gaming Board; yet it is to be suppressed.

The proposal is unjust also to those who operate these clubs. In Arbroath and Dundee, for example, there was a very large capital investment this year to separate bingo from the other forms of gaming, to comply with what was thought to be the Minister's wish. But within a few months the legal and properly conducted clubs in these places are to be closed down, and for no comprehensible reason. I trust that the Government will withdraw the Regulations and scrap this absurd restriction.

11.0 p.m.

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

I approve the laudable desire of the Government to limit the number of gaming establishments, but it is clearly wrong to confine gaming to certain areas as set out in the Statutory Instrument. So far as I remember, there was never any suggestion in the Committee, of which I was a member, that there would be an arbitrary list and a monopoly, irrespective of the demand from or the circumstances in other areas.

In an intervention I referred to paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 of the Gaming Act, 1968, and I should like to refer to it again because it seems to me to be a very strong point. In paragraph 18, which is headed Grounds for refusal to grant or renew licence", licensing authorities are told that they may refuse to grant a licence if it is not shown to their satisfaction that, in the area of the authority, a substantial demand already exists … It then goes on to say in sub-paragraph (2): Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the licensing authority that such a demand already exists, the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence … in certain circumstances.

In this Measure it was clearly contemplated that the question of the demand in an area was one to be dealt with not

by the Gaming Board but by the Licensing authority. I remember in Committee opposing the suggestion that the initial consent should be given by the Gaming Board. I did so because if the matter was in the hands of the Gaming Board it would be dealt with in secret and the applicant would never have an opportunity of contradicting or challenging the decision, whereas if the licensing authority dealt with the matter everything would be done in open court. I believe the conduct of the Gaming Board proves how right I was.

I am told that not only are the inquiries of the board carried out in secret but that it frequently acts discourteously to applicants. As one applicant told me, applicants who appear before the Gaming Board are treated as dirt; they are not allowed to talk or put their cases and they are treated officiously.

I have some knowledge of applications made to the Gaming Board. The applicant may have a conviction against him. It may be a technical conviction, and in a case that I have in mind it involved two police officers who, passing themselves off as members, entered a bingo club where no other game was being played. A nominal fine of £5 was imposed on the applicant. The Gaming Board takes the view that when that sort of thing happens the person is unfit to hold a licence. The person to whom I refer has built up five bingo clubs and depends upon them for his livelihood. He may now be deprived of that livelihood although he may be fit in all respects to carry out the provisions laid down in the Regulations.

I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will have this matter inquired into.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

Everybody who has spoken in this debate has opposed the Regulations, and it has been made clear that we on this side of the House are opposed to the Regulations—

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

rose—

Mr. Carlisle

With respect, 1 cannot give way. I have promised to resume my seat at 11.15; I am limiting my speech to 10 minutes.

These Regulations limit the power to apply for a gaming licence, and they define geographical areas; they also prevent gaming clubs being used for purposes of live entertainment where gaming takes place. Like hon. Members generally, I wish to limit my remarks to that part of the Regulations which limits the provision of gaming by geographical areas. I remind the House that the purpose of the Gaming Act passed last year was to permit, but at the same time to control and limit, commercial gaming in Britain. The means of control were clearly laid down, and they were twofold.

The first form of control was to be by the Gaming Board, from which a certificate cf consent had to be obtained before an application for a licence to the licensing justices could be made. The only matter with which the Gaming Board was to be concerned was the suitability of the applicant from the point of view of his character, reputation and financial stability.

The second form of control, as the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) pointed out, was to be by the licensing justices, who, with their knowledge of their localities, were to decide whether or not a licence should be granted to any particular premises in any particular locality. I emphasise that the Act clearly laid down in Section 18(1), that The licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence … if it is not shown to their satisfaction that, in the area of the authority, a substantial demand already exists on the part of prospecive players for gaming facilities of the kind proposed to be provided on the relevant premises. It had to be satisfied that it was a demand which was satisfied neither by gaming facilities within the area concerned nor by those in an area reasonably accessible, and that was to be a decision for the local licensing justices.

What is more, it gave power not only to the Gaming Board to make representations to the justices on whether such an unmet demand existed, but specifically gave the Gaming Board the right to appeal against the grant of a licence to an applicant. Local residents were clearly entitled to object. That was the position, and that was the framework within which

gaming was to be controlled, as laid down by this House.

The Home Secretary has chosen to use his Regulation-making powers under Section 22 of the 1968 Act in a way that was never envisaged when the Measure was passed. He has decided to make Regulations to prevent any application from being made in any but very limited geographical areas.

I repeat what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who was an eminent member of the Committee which examined the 1968 Measure; that is, that the use of Regulations in this way was never suggested at any time during the Committee stage of the Act. It was never suggested that the Home Secretary would say that the provisions of the Act would apply in one area yet not in another. No warning whatever was given at any time of the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to use the Regulations in this way. It was always envisaged that the question whether or not a gaming club should be allowed to obtain a licence would be a matter for the licensing justices to decide.

The Regulations will have the effect of saying that after the date up to which applications for certificates for consent may be made, the Home Secretary has decided to lay down arbitrarily certain areas where in certain circumstances gaming shall not be permitted. What justification does the right hon. Gentleman have for this decision? The Under-Secretary wrote a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) in which he said that the opportunity to apply for a gaming licence was a "privilege to be conceded".

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan)

indicated assent.

Mr. Carlisle

Is the Under-Secretary really suggesting that obtaining a gaming licence is a privilege?

Mr. Elystan Morgan

indicated assent.

Mr. Carlisle

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should indicate assent at that.

Various words may be used to describe gaming.

Mr. Blenkinsop

rose—

Mr. Carlisle

I wish to be brief. I will not give way.

Whether gaming is attractive, desirable or boring is a matter for individual decision. What was clearly decided by that Act was that it was a lawful but a controlled pastime.

I am amazed to hear the word "privilege", which implies an honour being conferred upon somebody, being used in these circumstances. The effect of these Regulations made by the Home Secretary is to attempt to make gaming lawful in some areas whilst unlawful in others. Presumably, it limits gaming to 31 areas in England, to two areas in Wales, and to three areas in Scotland. We have not been told how those areas were arrived at.

I shall not give a long list of examples of the areas. The Under-Secretary, as myself. must have had many letters on this subject. I would merely say that any consideration of the areas which have been arrived at shows how ludicrous the Regulations are. We are told that seaside resorts are in, but Scarborough is out. To give an example from my own part of the country, Blackpool and Lytham St. Annes next door are permitted. Southport, where the local authority has passed a resolution, as the Under-Secretary knows, deploring its removal from the area where it is conceded a demand exists, is out. The examples are numerous. All that they show is that it is wholly indefensible to attempt to limit areas in which gaming can take place in this arbitrary way.

Many clubs have applied. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) said, they have provided their premises on the basis that, if they could satisfy the Gaming Board that they were perfectly respectable, well-run clubs, they would get a certificate of consent and they were then prepared to take the risk of arguing their entitlement to a licence before local justices. However, without any warning whatsoever, the Home Secretary brought in Regulations which are used to prevent them from making applications.

The purpose of the Regulations, we shall be told, is to limit the number of gaming clubs. I accept that. I agree

with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), who was another member of the Committee, that it is an enormous problem. There is no dispute about that. The dispute is about the way in which these Regulations attempt to achieve that end.

The Bill which the House debated last year has already proved to have imposed a considerable limitation on the number of people applying. We were told when the Bill went through the House, that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 gaming clubs in Britain. Yet only 702 applications were ever made for certificates of consent. So, before the sieve of the certificate of consent and the sieve of the local justices had been applied, we had already reduced the number to 702.

I have been told by the Under-Secretary that, in regard to the 31 areas permitted in England, only 295 of the 702 are within the areas which are now open to consideration. If the purpose of the Bill was, as I believe it was, to avoid the involvement of criminals in gaming it is much more likely to attract the criminal element into gaming by limiting gaming to these few centres and by driving gaming underground elsewhere in Britain, as it surely will. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton pointed that out.

The limitations of a geographical nature means almost inevitably, because of the numbers who are left even to apply for certificates of consent, that some clubs within the areas will be approved merely because they are within the geographical areas whilst other far more suitable clubs, far more respectable clubs, and very well run clubs will be excluded, for the simple reason that they are outside the geographical areas.

Once the House accepted, as it did, that gaming, whilst controlled and limited, was to be lawful, we believe that the Government should not have treated gaming in a way in which they would not have dared to treat any other lawful activity. We believe that the Regulations are arbitrary, unjust and unfair. For those reasons, unless the Joint Under-Secretary of State tells us tonight that he proposes to withdraw them and introduce new Regulations which do not rely

on a form of geographical basis we shall vote against them.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since we have been told that the Joint Under-Secretary of State requires the last 15 minutes it is apparent that I shall not be called. Therefore, I shall not have an opportunity to explain how it is that my name appears on the Order Paper along with those other hon. Members for whom I have respect and affection, but with whose views I am not often in accord. Since the continued presence of my name on the Order Paper could lead to misunderstanding about my position and that of my party, may I beg leave to withdraw my name?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

That is not possible at this stage.

11.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan)

The issue before us is how best to implement the will of the House as expressed in passing the Gaming Act of 1968.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) said that the making of the Regulations was an affront to the dignity of the House. I welcome the opportunity to debate them, because it enables me to dispose of the criticism that they came into operation before Parliament had a chance to debate them.

The fact is, as all operators of gaming clubs will be well aware, that there is nothing in the Regulations which can begin to affect the way in which any club is at present operating until 1st July, 1970, when the substantive provisions of the Act come into operation.

Mr. Woodnutt

rose—

Mr. Morgan

I shall not give way.

The Regulations fall into two parts: the administrative provisions—procedural matters, forms of application and so on—for licensing clubs, and a number of matters of substance. The Regulations operate from 1st October only for the purpose of the administrative provisions, and there have been no representations about these.

The provision which has attracted most comment has been the limitation of

general gaming to scheduled areas. The broad principle of limiting the total volume of gaming is generally accepted by the vast majority of hon. Members, I believe, but the method of control has been criticised on a number of grounds. The main criticisms both in the House and outside are that this method conflicts with the intentions of the Act, and that it is wrong in principle to discriminate in this way. I do not accept that these criticisms are well founded. No one would disagree that the object of the Act was to control gaming. I am sure that Members who clearly showed their approbation of such a principle when the Act was before the House would not now wish to renege.

One of the main features of the new system of control created by the Act is the establishment of the Gaming Board, with its role not only of vetting all applicants for licences but of offering expert advice to the Home Secretary about gaming. To enable it to discharge this role, the Act requires the Home Secretary to consult the board before exercising any of the wide powers conferred on him to make Regulations. Hon. Members will find them in Section 51(3) of the Act.

A great many matters were left to be dealt with by Regulations, precisely for the reason that neither the Government nor Parliament then had sufficient detailed knowledge of gaming and its problems to be able to work out in detail some aspects of the control which would be needed. It was the deliberate intention to leave these matters until the Gaming Board had been able to give the Home Secretary expert advice and it is the advice of the Board that my right hon. Friend is now implementing in these Regulations.

It is clear that it was the intention of the Act that the board should advise on a matter such as this, perhaps indeed of Parliament itself. Perhaps here I might recall what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg): This, above all, is a matter in which a priori thinking ought to be avoided and experience ought to be our guide as to what we do in the future, which is precisely why we on this side of the House are anxious to give the Board the maximum degree of power, and rejoice that the Home Secretary has, to some extent at any rate, yielded to our persuasion, because he has said that he proposes to take that advice of the Board. While I recognise that the legal responsibility must, under the framework of the Bill, remain with him, I hope that he will take the Board's advice and not simply receive it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1968; Vol. 766, c. 98.] The criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) was that confining gaming to particular areas conflicts-with Parliament's intention, but I maintain that his view cannot be supported.

The same argument was put forward by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I think that in his speech there was the usual hidden conflict of logic in his argument. He said, on the one hand, that, of course, the question of vires would have to be decided by the courts looking objectively at the words of the Act and not at what was said in the House of Commons or in another place. He went on to examine the stare of mind of a Home Office Minister looking at these recommendations at the time the Act was going through Parliament. In other words, the objective approach had all the sanctity in one context but the subjective approach was the one he applied on the other hand. This is yet another example of the right lion. Gentleman's contorted logic.

It is proper that the House, in looking at the powers given under Section 22, under which these Regulations are made, should read them side by side with the powers given in Section 51, subsection (3) of which reads: Any power to make regulations under this Act may be exercised so as to make different provision for different areas, or in relation to different cases or different circumstances to which the power is applicable. The argument has been advanced that the Act conferred on the board the role of vetting the character and standing of the applicants for licenses and on the licensing justices the role of determining whether premises might be licensed in their area, and that to impose a further restriction goes far beyond what Parliament intended. This criticism overlooks the fact that the object of the Act was to make it possible not only to make gaming free from abuse—and this is an object with which the whole gaming industry will agree—but also to ensure that it was possible to limit the total volume of gaming in this country.

It is right to bear in mind the prolific increase which had occurred in this country since the 1960 Act. When the 1968 Act was passed, we had no fewer than 1,200 gaming licences compared with 150 casino licences in France and 50 gaming clubs. The House made it clear during the passage of the Act that it regarded the level of gaming which existed at that time as wholly unacceptable and that it intended to exercise the powers conferred on it by the Regulations to reduce it drastically. The role of the board and the licensing justices will serve to guarantee the respectability of the clubs which operate under the new system.

But once the industry has been purged of the undesirable elements which have given it a bad reputation, I would expect it to afford an opening to new proprietors who had previously been reluctant to become involved. When this development occurs, it might well be that the Gaming Board and the licensing justices would have some difficulty in refusing applications of this kind, with the result that clubs of guaranteed propriety would start to grow in numbers in parts of the country where one would not normally expect to find casinos.

It is, therefore, vitally necessary to introduce a restriction at a national level to supplement the system laid down in the Act. This is the objective which the Gaming Board had in mind in making its recommendations. In the board's view, it is right that casinos for general gaming should be confined mainly to entertainment areas, cities and resorts. These are not only the proper locations for casinos, but are also the areas where they will be able to satisfy the greatest demand. If casinos could also be licensed in areas of small population, the demand which such casinos would be able to satisfy would be much smaller.

Therefore, the only logical and justifiable way of ensuring that the total volume of gaming should be contained at a reasonable level and, at the same time, that facilities should be available to satisfy existing demand is to impose a limitation on the areas where clubs for general gaming may be licensed. This is the principle which the board has recommended.

I should make it clear that this list of 31 areas which appears in the regulations should not be regarded as being in any way immutable. I have listened carefully to what has been said in the House tonight. We have carefully studied the representations which have already been made to the Home Office. We are aware that a number of certificates of consent still remain to be granted. It is necessary that the Gaming Board should consider the whole situation in the light of what has been said in this debate and the representations which have been and are yet to be made.

The guide lines adopted by the board in this situation in deciding the locality of the areas named in the regulations are such as to include the density of the population, the character of an area, the propensity of that area for the attraction of tourists and the availability of good communications between that urban area and the hinterland which it serves.

In considering whether there should or should not be an addition to this list, it will be necessary for the board to consider responsible local opinion and how much that opinion has grown naturally in that locality and how far it may have been synthetically engendered. When the board has advised the Home Secretary on this situation, it will be proper for him to consider whether a short list of towns should be added to the Schedule which we are discussing, if it is his opinion that the list should be added to, appropriate substituting regulations will be brought before the House as soon as possible and before the date of 1st July, 1970, from which this is to apply.

We deny that this is in any way arbitrary or discriminatory. The standards which are laid down are general for the three countries of Britain. This is entirely in accordance with the explicit wishes of Parliament as expressed—

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the very garbled reply of the Under-Secretary and as it is clear that a number of hon. Members still wish to speak, is it your view that there has been sufficient time to debate this subject?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Speaker has already ruled that there was sufficient time to discuss the regulations.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pur-

suant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, & c.(Procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes, 206.

Division No.9.] AYES [11.30 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Peyton, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Harvie Anderson, Miss Pink, R. Bonner
Astor, John Hastings, Stephen Pounder, Raftan
Awdry, Daniel Hawkins, Paul Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Prior, J. M. L.
Balniel, Lord Heseltine, Michael Pym, Francis
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hill, J. E. B. Rees-Davies, W. R.
Biffen, John Holland, Philip Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Biggs-Davison, John Hordern, Peter Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Blaker, Peter Hornby, Richard Rossi, Hugh
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Hunt, John Royle, Anthony
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hutchison, Michael Clark Russell, Sir Ronald
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Iremonger, T. L. Scott, Nicholas
Braine, Bernard Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Scott-Hopkins, James
Brinton, Sir Tatton Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Sharples, Richard
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Jopling, Michael Shaw, Michael (Sc'h'gh Whitby)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Kaberry, Sir Donald Silvester, Frederick
Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N & M) Kimball, Marcus Sinclair, Sir George
Buck, Antony (Colchester) King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Burden, F. A. Kitson, Timothy Speed, Keith
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Knight, Mrs. Jill Stainton, Keith
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Lambton, Viscount Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Carlisle, Mark Lane, David Stoddart-Scott. Col. Sir M.
Chataway, Christopher Langford-Holt, Sir John Tapsell, Peter
Chichester-Clark, R. Lawler, Wallace Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Clark, Henry Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Cooke, Robert Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Crouch, David MacArthur, Ian Temple, John M.
Crawder, F. P. McNair-Wilson, Michael Tilney, John
Currie, G. B. H. McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) van Straubenzee, W.R.
Dalkeith, Earl of Maddan, Martin Waddington, David
Dance, James Marten, Neil Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Mawby, Ray Walters, Dennis
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Ward, C. (Swindon)
Donnelly, Desmond Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Weatherill, Bernard
Eden, Sir John Mills, Peter (Torrington) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Monro, Hector Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Eyre, Reginald Montgomery, Fergus Wiggin, A. W.
Farr, John More, Jasper Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Fisher, Nigel Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Fortescue, Tim Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Woodnutt, Mark
Foster, Sir John Murton, Oscar Worsley, Marcus
Gibson-Watt, David Nabarro, Sir Gerald Wright, Esmond
Glover, Sir Douglas Neave, Airey Wylie, N. R.
Gower, Raymond Nott, John
Grant, Anthony Osborn, John (Hallam) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Page, Graham (Crosby) Mr. Humphrey Atkins and
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Peel, John Mr. Walter Clegg.
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh) Percival, Ian
NOES
Abse, Leo Boston, Terence Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Bradley, Tom Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Alldritt, Walter Bray, Dr. Jeremy Delargy, Hugh
Anderson, Donald Brooks, Edwin Dempsey, James
Arstrong, Ernest Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Dewar, Donald
Ashley, Jack Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Diamond, Rt. Hn, John
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Dobson, Ray
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Doig, Peter
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Buchan, Norman Driberg, Tom
Barnett, Joel Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Dunnett, Jack
Bence, Cyril Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Carmichael, Neil Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Coe, Denis Eadie, Alex
Bidwell, Sydney Coleman, Donald Edelman, Maurice
Bishop, E. S. Concannon, J. D. Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Blackburn, F. Conlan, Bernard Ennals, David
Blenkinsop, Arthur Crawshaw, Richard Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Dalyell, Tam Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Booth, Albert Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Faulds, Andrew
Fernyhough, E. Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Finch, Harold Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Luard, Evan Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McElhone, F. Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Foley, Maurice Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Probert, Arthur
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) McBride, Neil Rees, Merlyn
Forrester, John McCann, John Rhodes, Geoffrey
Galpern, Sir Myer MacColl, James Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Gardner, Tony McGuire, Michael Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Garrett, W. E. McKay, Mrs. Margaret Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Golding, J. Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Mackie, John Roebuck, Roy
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Maclennan, Robert Rose, Paul
Gregory, Arnold McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Grey, Charles (Durham) McNamara, J. Kevin Rowlands, E.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Ryan, John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Sheldon, Robert
Hannan, William Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Harper, Joseph Manuel, Archie Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mapp, Charles Silverman, Julius
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Marks, Kenneth Small, William
Haseldine, Norman Marquand, David Spriggs, Leslie
Hazell, Bert Mendelson, John Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Heffer, Eric S. Millan, Bruce Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Miller, Dr. M. S. Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Hilton, W. S. Milne, Edward (Blyth) Tinn, James
Hobden, Dennis Molloy, William Urwin, T. W.
Hooley, Frank Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Varley, Eric G.
Hooson, Emlyn Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Horner, John Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Morris, John (Aberavon) Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James Moyle, Roland Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Huckfield, Leslie Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Wallace, George
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Murray, Albert Ward, C. (Swindon)
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Neal, Harold Watkins, David (Consett)
Hunter, Adam Newens, Stan Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Hynd, John Oakes, Gordon Whitaker, Ben
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Ogden, Eric White, Mrs. Eirene
Janner, Sir Barnett O'Halloran, M. J. Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas O'Malley, Brian Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Oram, Albert E. Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Orbach, Maurice Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Orme, Stanley Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Oswald, Thomas Winnick, David
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Judd, Frank Palmer, Arthur Woof, Robert
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Park, Trevor
Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Latham, A. Pavitt, Laurence Mr. James Hamilton and
Lawson, George Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Mr. Ernest G. Perry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)