HC Deb 07 May 1970 vol 801 cc696-703

9.36 p.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis (Morecambe and Lonsdale)

I beg to move, That the Gaming Clubs (Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1970 (S.I., 1970, No. 242), dated 17th February 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th February, be withdrawn. I have been listening to the measured and considered tones of the earlier debate and I hope that I can at least bring some degree of detachment and logic to the involved matter which is the subject of my Motion.

These are the first regulations to be debated since the first report of the Gaming Board was published. They were laid before the House before that report was printed, but we have now had the benefit of seeing it. As a background to my comments on these Regulations I should like to tell the House that the board's report shows that considerable success has been achieved in tightening control, and on this substantial progress the board is to be congratulated, and I wish to make it clear at the outset that the critical comments which I shall make about these Regulations in no way diminish my recognition and appreciation of those achievements.

A satisfactory regulation, control and supervision of gaming is what I want to see, and I am sure that that is what the House wants to see. I believe that we are now well on the way to securing that the individuals conducting gaming establishments are fit and proper people to do so, and to securing that the way gaming is conducted is fair. I find the references to the mathematical researches of the Gaming Board and the esoteric vocabulary which accompanied the description of the various games quite fascinating, and I am not surprised, having read the report, that the services of Professor Lindley were called upon, and that his capacities were reinforced by the use of a computer. We are also well on the way to securing that the premises used for gaming are suitable.

Having said that, I must say that I still find the general basis of the regulations against which I have tabled this Motion to be disturbing and over-rigid. In saying that, perhaps I should add that I have moved my ground a little since the Minister's Department adopted its initial attitude. I hope that I can at least show that the Minister should consider whether the time has come for his Department to move its attitude a little now.

When similar Regulations were debated on 18th November last, a number of hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee which examined the 1968 Bill said that the use of regulations in the way that these Regulations are framed was never suggested at any time during the Committee stage.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to these Regulations. He cannot amend the Act or the Schedule under which these Regulations are made.

Mr. Hall-Davis

I am not seeking to amend the Act or the Regulations. The Under-Secretary indicated, when we were debating the earlier Regulations, that they were not in any way to be regarded as unexpected. Therefore, I think I can anticipate that he will deploy the same argument tonight, namely, that the Regulations and the way they are framed were not in any way unexpected, because of Section 51(3) of the Act.

It is the very nature of the Regulations which was the cause of concern on an earlier occasion and is the cause of concern now. I have therefore looked to see whether it was a reasonable representation that we should accept these Regulations as a normal development of the approach shown in the Act. I could not find any reference in the proceedings in Committee on the 1968 Bill to the likelihood of Regulations such as these—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that these Regulations add to the areas already licensed the county boroughs of Luton, Scarborough and Southport, the non-county borough of Ryde, and the urban district of Shanklin. This is what we are discussing. Whether we do this cannot be governed by what he thinks about the previous Regulations.

Mr. Hall-Davis

It is the way in which the Department is seeking to do this that I suggest is unsatisfactory. The fact that proposals come before the House does not necessarily mean that we can accept these areas if the reasons and the means by which the Department chooses to bring these areas to our notice are ones which the House finds it difficult to accept.

It is wrong that these areas should be designated by the House in these Regulations and not, in effect, by local gaming authorities. I believe that that was the purpose of the Act and that these Regulations do not constitute the right way of designating these named areas. It should not be necessary for the House to deal with these named places. The purpose of the Act was to enable local licensing committees to assess demand and to enable them to enjoy the benefit of the board's advice. The board's report gives no reason why these areas should be brought before the House by this process—that is, by Regulations. The board says that the local licensing committee is the kingpin of the licensing machinery. This is significant to our consideration of these Regulations.

The fact that we are considering these Regulations is a clear indication that, as the machinery is being operated, it is the Home Secretary and the House who are operating as the kingpin of the licensing machinery and not the local licensing committee. I do not believe that this could have been foreseen.

I do not think that the House should arrogate to itself the responsibility for approving these places when the decision-taking power should reside, and was intended to reside, in the local licensing committees. I do not know how far you will allow me to illustrate this point without perhaps treading on forbidden ground.

Mr. Speaker

There has been an Act of Parliament passed containing a Schedule. This enacts the principle of licensing by areas. We are tonight seeking to extend the areas. The hon. Gentleman may advance whatever argument he likes against extending areas as specified in the Regulations.

Mr. Hall-Davis

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance. The reason that I would advance for not extending the areas as contained in the Schedule is that we in this House and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in his Department are not the people best qualified to judge how these areas should be extended. With respect, I do not believe that, taking into account the words of the Act and the scant attention that was paid to the Clauses of the Bill when it was debated, it can be held that in all areas this was the process to be followed.

The submission I wish to make tonight is that the time has come and we have reached the stage in the control of gaming, when the balance between central government and local licensing authorities, which has been referred to in the past and is again referred to, should be brought into play; and that instead of Regulations of this kind extending the area the decision should be taken by the local licensing authority in those areas with a knowledge of the conditions in those areas and particularly a knowledge of demand; and that it should be unnecessary after the initial stock-taking phase for us to proceed step by step using the machinery of this Schedule. It is certainly not the case that the Act provides only this machinery, and only the machinery of these Regulations, to enable the permitted gaming areas to be extended.

I would submit that where there is any marginal question of doubt, where the issue is not clear cut—and this is where I have gone some way in my own thinking, having had perforce to address myself to the subject because of representations made to me—where there is a reasonable case that can be made regarding demand, and where one leaves the area of certainty of decision on this subject and passes into the area of judgment and evaluation, I do not believe that Regulation such as these should be before the House extending the areas. Nor do I believe this is the only way the areas can be extended.

I believe the other aspects of this should now come into play and that local knowledge should be allowed to play its part, with the advice of the board, which is clearly available to the local gaming authority. As an illustration of why I believe the extension should not be made in this way and why the Schedule should not be before this House, may I make a passing reference to the problem that this creates for the House when considering these Regulations. It is difficult for us to judge these Regulations in the House, which we have a right and responsibility to do, since we do not know the local conditions. As Members of this House we cannot judge whether responsible local opinion supports this extension. Only local men and women serving on the local licensing authorities can do that.

In the case of my own constituency, representations were made by two local authorities with responsibilities in one particular area. I would have thought that it was not by means of a Schedule such as we are considering that we should say whether that opinion was responsible, but it should be by means of the other Sections of the Act and by the local licensing authority. There are strong geographical reasons for many areas and no doubt some of the places in the Schedule. It is often said that to a Londoner the North starts at Watford, but this is the first time I have reason to believe that it stops at Blackpool.

That summarises the reasons why it is felt that there is an over centralised control of the matter. It is in a belief that our knowledge and the Department's are not such as to enable us to frame the Regulations accurately that I ask for them to be withdrawn.

I do not say that I am qualified to judge whether the places in the Regulations are the right places, any more than I would say that I am qualified to judge whether my constituency is the right place to set up a gaming establishment. But neither the Home Secretary nor the Gaming board is the sole repository of wisdom, as is suggested by the Regulations. I believe that the Act made express provision for power to go to local licensing justices in these matters, with the right of the board to be heard on application and to appeal against a decision if it considered that there were grounds to do so.

If the places in the Regulations had been brought within the areas where gaming might take place or continue by means of an application to local licensing authorities, when the Gaming Board could be heard and make representations, and have the right of appeal, I should be quite satisfied. But I believe that as they are now framed the Regulations are moving away from certainty into the area of marginal decisions.

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your feeling that I have been able to keep within the limits of order. I feel that where there is a degree of uncertainty, where there is an arguable case, it is not by means of Regulations such as we are considering that the decision should be taken. I believe that, without undue risks of unwelcome elements creeping into gaming, the matter could safely be left for the local licensing authorities to decide.

Mr. Speaker

I remind the House that we are discussing specific Regulations.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

Perhaps I should make it clear at the outset that I find all the games of chance covered by the Gaming Act incredibly boring. I do not take part in gaming, though I must confess that during the Easter Recess, when attending a parliamentary conference in Monte Carlo, I caused considerable embarrassment to the Casino by winning no less than 150 francs. But apart from that I have taken very little interest in it.

However, like all hon. Members, I think, I represent constituents the majority of whom are gamblers in one way or another. They gamble on the pools, horse-racing or bingo, or buy Premium Bonds. A certain section of the population likes to get its relaxation in indulging in its particular form of gambling at the casinos the activities of which are covered by the Act and the regulations.

There are two reasons why I wanted to oppose the regulations and join in the Motion against them. I was interested to see that Luton was one of the additional areas selected. But I find it hard to understand why Luton was chosen when the whole of Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire were not selected.

I agree with my hon. Friend that this House is not the proper place to consider additions to or deletions from the Act since we have not the knowledge to arrive at a proper conclusion. In the Report of the Gaming Board for Great Britain for 1969, which was published on 7th April this year, attention was drawn to this aspect. In paragraph 44 the board asked: How should the geographical restrictions be applied? The board came to the conclusion in previous paragraphs that the only way in which it could carry out what it regarded as the will of Parliament was to reduce the number of gaming clubs or apply geographical restriction. In paragraph 44 the board went on to say Since the pivot of the licensing control set up by the Act is the local licensing authorities it was perhaps inescapable that the licensing authority areas should be mainly used as the basis of the restriction. This has the further advantage that the areas in which clubs are to be allowed are the only areas in which licensing authorities and police forces need to master the very complex problems involved in the control of licensed gaming clubs. I believe that is right. The local licensing authorities are in a good position to decide whether or not a particular area needs a club and whether the people who apply for licences are the right people. It is far better to let the local licensing authorities deal with this matter than to go through the procedure of bringing Regulations to the House to add to the areas already provided for in the Act as extended by orders from time to time since we here do not have the knowledge.

Furthermore, this procedure leads to a certain amount of injustice because we are not able to bring to the attention of the House, as perhaps local people can to licensing authorities, the needs of certain areas. When I saw Luton included in the Regulations, because of representations made to me by my constituents to write to the Home Secretary about a case in my own area—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing himself out of order. He should know that he cannot amend these Regulations.

Mr. Hall

I was not seeking to amend the regulations. That is the last thing I was attempting to do. I was attempting to bring in an example to support my arguments to show how unwise it is that this responsibility should be laid on the House and not left with the local licensing authorities, which are best fitted to make the decisions. I was referring to a situation in regard to an extension of areas laid down in the Motion and saying that it was difficult for people without similar facilities to understand the situation. I was saying that this could be avoided if the House, through the Gaming Board, were to delegate to local licensing authorities.

I do not, of course, wish to trespass, Mr. Speaker, against the rules of order by drawing attention to the barren area surrounding London and the Home Counties and the inability of people who wish to do so to take part in gaming of the kind controlled by the Act in Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire or Berkshire. I know that it is not possible to amend the Act, but if local licensing authorities were given the right power I am certain that, in collaboration with the police, they would be prepared to make recommendations to the Gaming Board which the board would accept. I feel that certain areas should have been added, including areas in my constituency and in the surrounding areas.

I strongly support the case which has been made by my hon. Friend that we should not agree to this Motion. We do not have the knowledge to cope with this matter effectively, we do not know whether or not the areas selected are the right ones, and we do not know whether the police have reported favourably on these areas. We do not know whether the clubs to be set up are likely to be in accordance with the Gaming Act. We know nothing about it, but are expected to accept the Minister's "say-so". We are not the right body; it should be left with the local licensing authorities working in collaboration with the police and the Gaming Board.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.