GAMING BILL

HL Deb 01 August 1968 vol 296 cc404-508

11.24 a.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)

My Lords. I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Special provisions as to persons under 18]:

LORD HAWKE moved Amendment No. 1: Page 5, line 12, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("the age of majority").

The noble Lord said: I realise that I have put this Amendment down in the wrong Part of the Bill, and I therefore intend to withdraw it, but I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be able to tell me that at the next stage he will deal sympathetically with any Amendment which would enforce the age of majority as the age of entrance into casinos. I beg to move.

LORD STONHAM

I certainly was not going to criticise this Amendment on the grounds that the noble Lord had put it in the wrong Part, and I assure him that I will deal sympathetically with any Amendment that he moves and will acknowledge now his particular helpfulness in the Committee on this Bill. But I am bound to say, with regard to the content of the Amendment, that I find it unacceptable because Clause 7, which we are now considering, is modelled on Section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964, which prevents people under 18 from drinking in public houses. In our view it is clearly convenient and right that there should be consistency between the two rules if possible. Similarly, Clause 17 of the Bill fixes the age of 18 for purposes of gaming in licensed clubs, although of course in relation to bingo clubs a person under 18 may be present provided he does not play. There is no difference of opinion between the noble Lord and the Bill about the age of 18, as I understand it. but—

LORD HAWKE

May I interrupt the noble Lord for one minute? I am not quite sure that we are not at cross-purposes. At the moment the age of majority is 21. I understand that it may be lowered to 18 at some future date. I want to ensure that between the passing of the Bill and the lowering of the age of majority the age of majority will prevail rather than 18 as the age of entry into gaming establishments.

LORD STONHAM

No, we are not at cross-purposes. The noble Lord's Amendment is perfectly clear. But I am dealing with it on the assumption that what he has just said is likely to take place will take place. We consider that in all cases it is desirable that the age should be fixed by the Bill—that is, the age of 18—so that it is dealt with at a time when Parliament is dealing, as we are now, specifically with the question of gaming, rather than that the matter should be left over to be determined by reference to some other, more general proposition. The age of 18 may be right or it may be wrong, but in any case it should, in our view, be fixed definitely in the Bill, and we think that 18 is right.

But I would mention to the noble Lord that the immediate effect of his Amendment—that is, as the law now stands and if his Amendment were accepted in this Bill—would be that a person aged 20 could game in a licensed club but could not play dominoes for drinks in a public house unless and until the law relating to the age of majority is altered; and I am sure he will agree that that could not possibly be right. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying in advance that he proposed to withdraw his Amendment, but I thought it right to say now why we think that in any case his Amendment would not be acceptable.

LORD HAWKE

I thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

I am glad that the noble Lord has agreed that his Amendment belongs, if it belongs anywhere, to Clause 17 rather than at this point, because if a person is able to have a drink in licensed premises at the age of 18 then it seems rather stupid that he should not be allowed also to play dominoes or cribbage, or to take part in the very limited gaming that is permitted in a public house. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will give some consideration to whether this condition could not apply in Clause 17 of the Bill, since, in view of the great responsibilities which are accepted by someone who is gaming in a gaming club, I think there is some case for considering whether the age of permission should not be that allowed by the law as regards majority rather than the stated age of 18.

LORD STONHAM

As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I most certainly will look at this particular point, but I thought it right to make it clear now, because of the other anomalies and difficulties which would thereby be created, that I do not hold out much hope of making this change.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Gaming Board for Great Britain]:

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 2: Page 7, line 18, at end insert ("the extent and character of gaming in Great Britain and, in particular, to keep under review").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment implements an undertaking I gave to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester in Committee that the description of the functions of the Gaming Board in Clause 10 of the Bill should be enlarged. The object is to make it clear that in addition to their particular responsibilities in respect of licensed and registered clubs and for the other functions (such as the certification of gaming operatives and machine retailers) assigned to them by the Bill, they will be expected to keep under review the extent and character of gaming—of all kinds—throughout the country. The Amendment is of particular value in its impact on Clause 50, which deals with the annual reports to be made by the Board to the Secretary of State for presentation to Parliament. In those reports the Board are required to account for "the performance of their functions". These will now include the function of reviewing gaming as a whole. The Board will, in fact, be expected to include in their reports a general conspectus of gaming in relation both to the licensed and registered clubs and more widely, so as to touch, for instance, on the use of gaming and amusement machines, gaming at charity fetes and non-commercial entertainments, and indeed on the amusements provided at fairs and pleasure grounds under the 1963 Act. A comprehensive account of this kind should be of considerable value to Parliament and to all concerned with the social aspects of this subject. It will provide a setting against which the working of the individual controls can be judged. I beg to move.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

I should like to thank the noble Lord warmly for the way in which he has replied to a suggestion I made on this point. I know that my gratitude will be shared by many people who have this matter at heart. I think it is of vital importance that it should be made clear beyond doubt that the Gaming Board will be concerned not merely with the extent or running of gaming but with the overall view of the character of what is taking place. I am also glad to hear what the noble Lord said because one of the difficulties in the past has been the extraction of information about the extent and character of gambling in one form or another. Therefore, what the noble Lord has said will leave no doubt that the Board will have a duty and a power to get what information they need in order that they may be able to report on the overall picture that is presented to us year by year. Therefore, I express my sincere gratitude to the noble Lord.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I think the Committee is indebted both to the right reverend Prelate and to the Government for this Amendment. It will be a very great advantage if the annual reports to Parliament are able to cover these wider aspects and expose what I may call the deep roots of gaming in this country. If it had not been for the wisdom of the right reverend Prelate, this important point might not have been raised. I am sure that it is advantageous that the Government have accepted his suggestion.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Who may participate in gaming to which Part II applies]:

11.35 a.m.

LORD JESSEL moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 8, line 20, at end insert— ("or (c) he is a temporary visitor to the United Kingdom, whose normal place of residence is outside the United Kingdom, and who shows satisfactory evidence that he is permanently resident abroad by the presentation of a valid passport at the premises at the time when he begins to take part in the gaming.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to exempt foreign visitors to this country from having to apply for membership or give notice in person of their intention to game on the premises of a club 48 hours before they take part in the gaming. It would allow them to be admitted at once by presenting their passports at the door. It is on the same lines as an Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, moved in the Select Committee. The difference in this Amendment is the reference to "satisfactory evidence" which would require that the passport be examined with the particulars of address, visas, endorsements or restrictions by the immigration authorities and the proof that the permanent place of residence is outside the United Kingdom. The point was made in the Select Committee that there are many holders of foreign passports living here permanently who are not British subjects. This Amendment would ensure that such people are not treated as foreign visitors and are not given preferential treatment.

The Government opposition to this proposal seems to be based on three arguments. They claim that it would create a difference between foreign and British nationals. Why not? That does not worry me at all; it is commonplace all over the world. The insistence on the 48-hours' delay results in the foreign visitor going somewhere else to gamble and this country thereby losing foreign exchange. On this point, Her Majesty's Government say they do not care in the slightest; that they would rather not have this tainted money. I am afraid that I do not agree. It is reckoned that several million pounds of foreign exchange will be lost. The other argument is that people will come here on what are called "junkets", just to gamble, and that many may be undesirable.

Throughout the proceedings of the Select Committee I got the impression that most of its members were basing their arguments on the state of gambling in this country as it exists to-day and not as it is going to be when this Bill becomes law. I have some faith in this Bill. I hope we shall have well-run, licensed casinos when this Bill becomes law. The proprietors of these licensed casinos will not want to admit criminal elements, foreigners who write dud cheques or drunken "junketeers", if there is such a word.

I want to put this Amendment—and subsequent Amendments that I am going to move—to a Committee of the Whole House because the majority of the Select Committee seemed incapable of looking forward. They concentrated on the evil of gambling as it exists to-day. They voted automatically against any small practical improvement such as this which, in fact, does not affect the citizen of this country at all. I beg to move.

LORD MOYNIHAN

I rise to support this Amendment which, as my noble friend Lord Jessel said, is similar to one that I moved in the Standing Committee—although I believe the drafting of this Amendment is much better than that of mine. I do not intend to go through the arguments that we have already had. Let me just point out that, as fat as I know, every country in the world which has casinos allows foreign nationals to enter those casinos on the production of a passport. We should be setting a precedent by not following that example.

I should like to repeat what I said in Standing Committee. Surely, undesirables should be stopped at the port of entry, at the frontier; and not at the casinos. I would finally point out that this Amendment (or any similar Amendment) was not voted against in the Select Committee. These Amendments were withdrawn. No Amendment such as the one we are now discussing was ever defeated in the Select Committee.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

I very much hope that the Government will stand firm and reject this Amendment, and that the Committee will support the Government. I assure the noble Lord Jessel, that those of us who were on the Select Committee did not vote or consider our opinion on these matters simply because we were looking backwards. It is precisely because we are looking forward that we are determined to prevent any kind of diminution of the firm purpose of this Bill, which is to reduce and contain the gambling that has grown up during the past eight years. We have had a very severe warning of what can take place, and we must therefore be on our guard to ensure that there are no loopholes in this Bill such as there were in the 1960 legislation.

As I understand this Amendment, it would mean that overseas visitors would be able to go and play in a gaming club without being either a member or a bona fide guest of a member. There would be no "screening", except the presentation of a valid passport. The whole point of requiring people to apply in writing on the premises is to allow clubs to "screen" applicants, and there is no particular reason why foreign visitors should be exempted from this. Indeed, there is very good reason why they should be as much, and more, under "screening" and scrutiny as the people of this country. It seems to me that if a person coming to this country cannot contain himself for 24 hours or more before he goes to a gaming club, he is not the kind of person we want going to gaming clubs in this country. Therefore I very much hope that this Amendment will not be accepted.

As many of your Lordships know, during the last eight years London has attained what many of us would regard as the highly undesirable notoriety of becoming one of the gambling centres of the world, with special trips being run to bring rich people into London in order that they may indulge in gambling. That is something which we want to stop and something we want to contain. It would be impossible if this Amendment were approved.

11.43 a.m.

LORD KILBRACKEN

Having myself also put down an Amendment during the proceedings of the Committee "upstairs" (if I may use that metaphor), which would have the same effect as that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, I must say that I support what he said. My own wish is that the volume of gaming in this country should be cut down, but I do not see why facilities should not be given to visitors from overseas to play as soon as they arrive, instead of waiting 48 hours, if they have taken the necessary steps proposed by the noble Lord. Lord Jessel, in his next Amendment; namely, given 48 hours notice.

I do not think the fact can be disregarded that very large sums of foreign currency are paid by these visitors, and we need this currency. A great deal has been made of the so-called "junketers" coming to this country. I think that this has been very much exaggerated. These visits by so-called "junketers" are very much less frequent than is alleged. In any case, I would point out that already, under the 1963 Act, playing in a casino is not allowed unless a certain delay has taken place. Yet these junketers may be found playing within a few hours of arriving in London. Therefore there are ways in which the law may be circumvented by pretending that these people are in fact bona fide members, although they are not very bona fide. I think that the law will still be circumvented in this way. Finally, I should like to comment on a point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, that, as he understood it, such players would not be members of the club. If he looks at the next Amendment he will see that a person is not allowed to take part in the gaming unless he is a member. Therefore I think that criticism does not arise, and I give my support to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel.

LORD ST. JUST

Not as a member of the Select Committee, but as one who visited it occasionally, I should like to support the Amendment. I have travelled a great deal on the Continent. I am not a heavy gambler but very often, as most of your Lordships may know, when one enters a casino on the Continent one has to produce one's passport, not from the point of view of gambling but to be able to get a good meal—because all this takes place in the same area. I cannot see why the clubs in this country should not be able to write out a ticket for foreigners who come to play which would contain the information on their passports. If need be, the clubs could keep tiles: it would not need a great deal of organisation to do this. For these reasons I support the Amendment.

LORD MOYNE

I have not made up my mind on this Amendment, on which the arguments seem to me rather evenly balanced, and I am puzzled by the wording. I do not see how the mere production of a passport can be complete evidence of permanent residence abroad, but perhaps the noble Lord will enlighten us on that.

LORD STONHAM

I felt that there was no need for the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to point out that when a similar Amendment was discussed in the Select Committee there was no vote on it. Throughout our discussions in Committee we were aware that any member of the Committee was free to raise exactly the same Amendment here on Recommittal if he wished. And I notice that the noble Lord has exercised that freedom regarding an Amendment to Schedule 2 which is in exactly the same words as were discussed in the Select Committee; and there the Amendment was voted on and defeated. There is no inhibition on anyone. But, if I may express a personal wish, I should hope that members of the Select Committee would, so far as possible, refrain from making exactly the same speeches here as they made in the Select Committee. If we all exercise that restraint, I am sure it will expedite business and be to the general satisfaction of the Committee.

I wish also to mention something about which I was happy regarding the Select Committee—and I am sure that the same will apply in this Committee: that such Divisions as we had (we had only five) were conducted on strictly non-Party lines. There was only one member of the Select Committee who voted for the Government on each of the five occasions and that was myself. The staunchest "adherents", or perhaps I had better say "supporters", of the Government were the noble Lords, Lord Brooke of Cumnor and Lord Hawke, and my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. The only member of the Committee who voted every time, except once, against the Government was my noble friend Lord Kilbracken. So we did make decisions entirely, as I believe, on merit and on the arguments, and I am sure that we shall do so to-day. It is as I see the merits of the argument that I should like to discuss this Amendment, which would permit temporary visitors to the United Kingdom whose normal residence is abroad and who can show satisfactory evidence to that effect, to game in a licensed club, other than as a member or a bona fide guest, immediately they presented themselves, and with no kind of formality whatsoever.

The Government have made it clear at all stages of the Bill that they do not intend to relax the restrictions on participation in gaming for the benefit of foreign visitors. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said that in his very wide experience—and he detailed the countries of the world where he has experience of gaming—we are the only country where this attitude is adopted. That is not the only thing regarding which Britain is "the only one". In many instances we are very pleased that we are the only one.

This, in my view, is a matter of satisfaction. We think it right that those who come here should abide by the law which applies to our own citizens and residents, even if it means that they must apply for membership of a club on a proper form and wait 48 hours after they get here before they can game. Despite what noble Lords have said, we just do not want London to become a place of popular resort for foreign gamblers the world over, and to take our chance, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, suggested, on putting the barrier up at Heathrow or wherever it may be. We shall, of course, in that way, keep some out who are known criminals. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, says, we do not wish to encourage junketing trips for parties of gamblers from the United States or anywhere else. As I have made clear before, we are not in the least moved by the reference to alleged losses of foreign currency which it is said would otherwise be earned in this way. In our view, it would be a poor sort of British Government who allowed their social objects to be perverted by swallowing bait of that kind.

There is another consideration. The Government's object is to reduce the number of clubs to the essential minimum necessary in order to prevent gamblers being driven underground. Foreign gamblers who cannot conveniently come here will not go underground, but will go elsewhere. In our view, there is no reason why, by allowing special concessions to be made to foreigners, we should artificially stimulate the demand for gaming in London, and in that way in our view—and this should appeal to my noble friend Lord Kilbracken—help more clubs to stay in existence than would survive on native demand alone. We have carefuly considered this matter. It is one of those things on which we have to say that there is a difference of opinion. The Government are taking their stand here, and they stand firm on it.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

In Committee I did not venture to express an opinion on this Amendment, and I am therefore exempt from Lord Stonham's strictures about duplicating our speeches. In the Committee, as he has said, we all voted according to out own consciences and understandings, so far as some of us amateurs were able to understand the more technical and esoteric parts of the Bill. This, however, is a relatively simple point. I feel sure that in our proceedings today all your Lordships will vote according to your consciences and understandings.

I simply rise to say that if this Amendment goes to a vote I shall vote against it, for two reasons. The first is because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the right reverend Prelate are correct in saying that if an Amendment of this character were written into the Bill it would lead to a substantial increase in the amount of gaming; and the main purpose of this Bill is to seek to set a maximum limit to the amount of gaming in the country.

My second reason has not been mentioned hitherto. In my past, I have had a certain amount to do with the entry of both Commonwealth and foreign visitors to this country, and I am aware how important it is in matters of immigration not to grant to aliens advantages which Commonwealth visitors do not possess. A fortiori I would say that it is desirable to avoid, if we can, granting to aliens privileges which British citizens resident in this country do not possess. That would be one result of passing this Amendment.

LORD MANCROFT

I was not a member of this Committee, though I followed its proceedings with care. I happen, however, to hold office as President of the London Tourist Board, and I also serve on the British Travel Association Council. One of my jobs in that office is to study carefully reports from tourists, both in their own overseas newspapers and in correspondence through the London Tourist Board, about the various things in our way of life that attract tourists, that appeal to them, or do not appeal to them. The things about which they complain most—taxi services from London Airport, licensing hours and so on—are too obvious to need repetition in your Lordships' House. But I cannot ever remember in the course of the six years that I have held that office having heard a complaint made about this matter from a tourist coming to this country. If it is a deterrent, it is a minor one, and one that is mentioned very seldom. Much as I should like to support my noble friend Lord Jessel, there are strong reasons I think for not passing this Amendment, and I think this is one point that may be added to the general sum of opinion upon it.

LORD SORENSEN

I confess that I am strongly biased against all forms of gambling, even though occasionally I adulterate my own conscience by having a handful of raffle tickets for the Labour Party and similar bazaars. I always return anything I win, and particularly the large bottle of whisky that I secured some four years ago. But, in spite of my bias in that direction, I am also biased in favour of freedom and democracy. Therefore, I recognise that although I am not attracted to centres of gambling and waste of money, nevertheless others are, and therefore I do not object to the principle of supplying to those who require them certain facilities by which they can waste their money. At the same time, I would suggest to the noble Lord that it is highly desirable that we should not try to advertise London to the whole world as a great centre of gambling.

The suggestion that has been put forward once or twice this morning, that this is a source of revenue, does not appeal to me in the slightest. If one were to carry this to the extreme, one would seek to increase the number of casinos in the country until there was one in every street in order that we might benefit financially. That, I am sure. would be detrimental to this country. I must confess that when I heard the noble Lord's speech from the Liberal Benches I wondered whether he was at all troubled by the shades of his Non-conformist Liberal ancestors, or whether he was trying to demonstrate that the Liberal Party today is quite unlike the Liberal Party as it used to be.

LORD HENLEY

I hope the noble Lord will not think that my noble friend is necessarily in line with the rest of us on this point.

LORD MOYNIHAN

Perhaps I might just say that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made it entirely clear that everything that was being said in this Committee was on totally non-political lines. Therefore, I did not think it necessary to point out that I was not speaking for my Party.

LORD SORENSEN

I never suggested that the noble Lord was. But he still has a conscience and he belongs to the Liberal Party. I was suggesting in a very charitable way that he was possibly disconcerted by the shades of Liberal ancestors. I would not for the life of me suggest that the Liberal Party was entirely identified with the noble Lord, or with any other noble Lord on those Benches. They are free to make up their minds in a variety of ways, and invariably do so.

I hope we appreciate that this is an attempt at least to check what would otherwise be a great flood of visitors to this country. They do not come to see our real treasures and appreciate our way of life, but merely to waste their time with gambling. Let those who wish to gamble do so; but let us adopt some checks upon what otherwise might be a flood of visitors, particularly from America. I understand that many of them book seats on aeroplanes simply to come to London for this purpose. They may be a small number now, but they may grow. Surely, the last thing in the world that anyone wants is that this Metropolis of ours should be the centre of world gambling. That may be a somewhat extravagant statement. At the same time, I submit that this is only a mild check, which will not prevent a large number of people wasting their money if they wish to, but it will mean that we shall check what might be a large number of undesirables coming to this country.

LORD CONESFORD

If this Amendment goes to a Division I intend to vote against it. But I rise only to welcome the very unusual contribution from the Front Bench opposite, when the Minister actually said that if there was something unique in this country it was not necessarily had. That is a perfectly true statement, a statement very often made from this side of the House, but very often denied from the other. One has only to read the declarations of members of Her Majesty's Government about the nature, composition and powers of this House to find that again and again they say that there is something terribly wrong with this House because no other country has anything like it. That is a ridiculous argument. No argument is ever brought forward as to whether, as a result of that, this House is better than other Second Chambers or worse. It is said that just because we are unique we must be wrong. I welcome the fact that a representative of the Home Office on this occasion has discarded all that nonsense.

LORD JESSEL

I do not propose to divide the Committee on this matter, although I remain quite unconvinced. I am afraid that I do not agree at all with what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said. The Minister when replying said that the fact that we were unique gave him great pleasure—unique in this treatment of Parliament. It does not give me great pleasure. I call it an extremely smug attitude, but I will let that pass. With permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.2 p.m.

LORD JESSEL moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 8, line 38, at end insert— ("or (c) he is a member whose permanent place of residence is outside the United Kingdom and who since becoming a member has given notice in writing to the holder of the licence, or to a person acting on behalf of the holder of the licence, of his intention to take part in the gaming on those premises, and at that time at least 48 hours have elapsed since he gave that notice.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on the same sort of lines. It is what I call another sensible Amendment. It seeks to exempt overseas residents who are already members of a club—note, already members of a club—when this Bill becomes law, from having to give notice in person on the premises of the club 48 hours before taking part in the game. It is designed to exclude them from the full retroactive effect of the requirement for admission under Clause 12, and thereby would make it possible for them to be eligible for admission by giving 48 hours' notice by post of their intention to game, instead of in person on the premises. This means that a foreigner or anyone living abroad, who is already a member of the club and who decides to come to England and may want to gamble during his two days in London, can write to his club and say so in advance, before he arrives here.

Under this Bill the club will be licensed and presumably respectable, so why should Her Majesty's Government wish to make this petty restriction? The answer, apparently, is that anything which makes gambling more difficult is justified. I cannot for the life of me see why it is all right for overseas visitors to gamble after 48 hours, and not on the night they arrive in London. Under the Amendment one has already to be a member of the club and must have written to it to say that one wishes to be a gaming member. Why should he have to wait? I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take a common-sense view of this Amendment, which is designed to improve Clause 12 in accordance with the facts of life. I beg to move.

LORD STONHAM

The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is an extremely reasonable person and he put his Amendment in a very reasonable and attractive way. But he put forward what he wants his Amendment to mean; he did not put forward what the Amendment does mean—and they are two very different matters. It seems not at all unreasonable. Somebody, perhaps one of our own people living or working abroad, is a member of a club and he comes home on furlough and wants to go straight to his club. Why should he not? But it is not that way at all by the nature of this Amendment. It would have the effect of meaning that anyone on arrival here could walk straight into a club of his choice, without signing on and waiting for 48 hours.

Under the Bill he has to sign on in person. One of the reasons for the requirement that someone should sign on in person at club premises is to prevent the 48-hour rule from being evaded by arrangements which would enable people to join clubs in bulk, or join a "club-man's club", or something of that kind, which would in effect confer universal membership of all gaming clubs in the scheme. That would be possible under this Amendment. In relation to bingo clubs now, for example, it is common for an applicant to join a whole chain of clubs by a single stroke of the pen; and in relation to bingo clubs the Bill allows that to continue. But in relation to other clubs we insist on personal application.

The substantial question here, therefore, is whether the Bill should allow bulk applications by foreign residents so that if the necessary administrative arrangements have been made a person proposing to visit Great Britain could game by signing two forms—one to join, and the other to give notice under the Amendment—and become a member of, and entitled to game on arrival at, any club which was party to the general arrangements. One can see advertisements in the Press of a whole list of clubs of which one can be a member and have their facilities merely, I think, by paying a subscription of four guineas a year, and a good many of these clubs are gaming clubs. This situation would be organised. A person living abroad—a stranger, a foreigner—would not stumble upon this on his own initiative. Therefore the only use likely to be made of it would be in cases where the whole initiative came from the gaming clubs, acting individually or collectively.

In practice, therefore, what the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, proposes would be unlikely to be something of service to anybody except the organisers of junkets; in other words, it would be a junketeers' charter. I am well aware that the noble Lord meant a very much more limited purpose, but I have indicated what his Amendment does. I am afraid that it would merely be another loophole—the kind of loophole we discovered under the 1963 Act—which would make possible to a large extent the very thing which we were discussing on the previous Amendment, which the noble Lord withdrew. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot give him a favourable answer on this one.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

On a first reading of this Amendment I had a good deal more sympathy with it than with the previous Amendment moved by the noble Lord, and I was anxious to hear Her Majesty's Government's views on it. What the noble Lord. Lord Stonham, has said has convinced me that this would be a very dangerous loophole, and therefore I support the Government in their opposition to the Amendment.

LORD JESSEL

I am afraid that I did not follow properly Lord Stonham's reply when he said that the Amendment as I put it down did not coincide with the case I put forward, but if he says that, he is probably right. However, if he had not used that argument I should certainly have pressed this Amendment to a Division, because I think it is eminently sensible that somebody who is already a member of a club and lives abroad should be able to give notice in writing of his intention to game. But apparently that is not what the Amendment says, and I will therefore reserve my right to put the Amendment down again at a later stage when I have studied what the noble Lord has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

12.10 p.m.

LORD JESSEL moved Amendment No. 5: After Clause 13 insert the following new clause:

Transitory power of Secretary of State to permit gaming

(". Until such time as the provisions of section 13 of this Act shall come into operation and notwithstanding any other enactment the Secretary of State may make regulations to provide that gaming may take place if the game is of a kind specified in the regulations and is played so as to comply with such conditions (if any) as may be prescribed by the regulations in relation to that kind of game.")

The noble Lord said: This is what I think is called a probing Amendment. It really concerns policy. The purpose of this proposed new clause is to give the Home Secretary power, as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, to remedy the extraordinary situation which at present exists in gaming in this country. The rights and wrongs of that situation, and the attribution of blame, have been discussed at great length and I do not think there is any need to go into that now. What must concern us is the continuation of prosecutions against clubs and the overall effects that such prosecutions are likely to have on the working of the new system of control when it comes into operation under the Bill.

I should like to quote from Monday's Financial Times, which puts my point very much better than I can. It says: The basic problem is that the 1963 Betting and Gaming Act was designed specifically to exclude commercial gaming, whereas the present Bill accepts the need for gaming provided it is strictly organised and licensed. But until the Bill is implemented the gaming clubs will face the prospect of further prosecutions under the old Act, which will force them to close entirely or to operate at a loss until the Bill's provisions take effect, or devise methods of trying to get round the present law.

The Financial Times report also pointed out what the Government have already made clear, that the provisions of the Bill to permit commercial gaming cannot possibly be implemented until about 18 months from now—I think that what was actually said was 18 months after Royal Assent. This means that for nearly two years the gaming industry is going to be treated as if it did not exist.

There are some people (I can see some here) who are opposed on moral grounds and who will say that it is a good thing this state of affairs should continue over this period. My belief, however, is that it would lead to a deplorable situation. The disreputable elements in gaming would gain at the expense of the responsible clubs, and the ultimate operation of this Bill might well be compromised. Generally, the present state of affairs, I think, will almost certainly result in driving out a number of clubs which would be more deserving of licences than many which are financially able and willing to run the gauntlet of prosecutions. Certainly the mere threat of prosecution would bring about the closure of some clubs, for no reason other than that they were reluctant to face court proceedings, even on a technicality, a reason quite unrelated to standards of behaviour which might be expected from them under the new control system. In short, eligibility of candidates for a licence under the new legislation will depend on sheer luck or the ability to survive prosecution and conviction under the present law.

It is clear that at the moment a gaming club is confronted with three choices; to close down entirely; to continue to operate at a loss, or to lay itself open to the charge of trying to get round the law by seeking to devise ways of applying the House of Lords' interpretation of the 1963 Act in order to remain commercially viable. As for closing down entirely, it would obviously be impracticable for a well-run club to close down for more than a year, because that would involve difficulties with employment of capital, premises, staff; and it would seem almost certain that the club—and on this I should very much like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, says when he replies—not actually operating would find it impossible to get a licence. For instance, the justices and the Board can, under paragraphs 18 and 19 of Schedule 2, require an applicant to show that the demand exists; and this would be particularly difficult it he was not in business.

In regard to operating at a loss, it would be impossible for clubs with premises of a high standard and heavy overheads to run at a loss for any length of time. On the other hand, it is very likely that the clubs with low running costs could run even-chance games, marking time until they were able to apply for a licence with a completely clean record. It is inevitable, if prosecutions proceed, that many undesirable clubs will adopt this course, and by so suriviving become highly eligible candidates for the Board's certificates and gaming licence. So the only course remaining for the reputable clubs—and it should be remembered that a number of them are public companies—is to devise a method of play which are described as "getting round the law." It is that position which such clubs may be forced into if they eventually want to be candidates for a licence.

The absurdity of the whole situation is underlined by the fact that during this interim period clubs will be required to pay gaming licence fees—in some cases as much as £75,000 a year. This represents an extraordinary contradication in that the Exchequer would be levying a tax on those organisations which would be prevented from making a profit. I suggest that this kind of pressure will provide a strong inducement for unscrupulous operators to filch a profit from non-commercial, even-chance, games by cheating the players I suggest that the only solution is to empower the Home Secretary to intervene to regularise gaming during this interim period. I hope that any technical deficiencies there may be in the drafting of this new clause will not be allowed to detract from its purpose, which I have endeavoured to make clear. I await with great interest the Minister's comments on this Amendment. What I want to know is, has the Home Secretary a policy, and how is he going to deal with the interim period until commercial gaming becomes legal. I beg to move.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, for making so clear to the Committee what is the purpose of his Amendment, in that he hopes that the Home Secretary would have power to make legal games which are at the moment illegal but which are being played very widely, and so be able to bridge the gulf between the existing situation and that which will arise when this Bill becomes operative. I must say that I find this a very strange argument, because we have to ask ourselves why we are in this position at all, why a new Bill is necessary. And the plain answer is that the law has been broken time and time again, openly and knowingly; and virtually what we are now being asked to do is to condition ourselves and to create legislation in the light of the situation into which we have been forced because people have been breaking the law in the past.

The noble Lord has mentioned the moral aspect of all this. Some of us, like the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, have principles about gambling in itself, but as regards this particular point my moral attitude is that I do not like seeing the law broken, and if people deliberately do that then they must face the consequences. Indeed, the Court of Appeal has now made it clear that the 1960 and 1963 legislation is applicable and must be applied; and the Master of the Rolls has said quite clearly that the day of reckoning has arrived. Therefore, I should greatly regret the Home Secretary's taking powers, or being given powers, to legislate to allow games which are illegal to be played quite knowingly and deliberately, simply because we have been forced into the situation which obtains at present.

On the other hand, I hope that the Amendment which the noble Lord is moving will have the effect of moving the Government to assure us that, as soon as possible, the powers under Clauses 13, 14 and 15 will be made clear, because I think it important that adequate regulations should be made under those clauses before any club operates under a licence under this Bill. Meanwhile, I hope that the law will be applied, and that those who are allowing illegal games at the present time will conform to what is the law of the land at present.

12.22 p.m.

LORD KILBRACKEN

I should like to express my strong agreement with what the right reverend Prelate has just said. It seems to me that the position at present is that until the decision of your Lordships' House sitting in its judicial capacity last December, there was possibly some doubt as to what games were illegal. But the position was made absolutely clear by that decision and by subsequent pronouncements by Scotland Yard and by the Court of Appeal, and now there can be no doubt whatsoever that in 99 per cent. of the clubs in this country that are still playing the law is being broken. These are clubs which the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, described as being "reputable clubs". I do not see how a club can be considered reputable when it is openly, night after night, playing games, or allowing games to be played, that are illegal games, for which it may have been convicted or for which it is about to be summoned.

The action that such clubs should take, if they are reputable clubs, and if they wish to continue, is perfectly clear. They should confine their play to games that are permitted: that is to say, to games of equal chance, which in effect means chemin de fer, roulette without a zero, backgammon, poker and so on. If they find that they cannot continue under these conditions, then they can do what the Windmill Club has done. Some of your Lordships may remember the Windmill Club long ago as the Windmill Theatre. It was decided to change it into a cinema and to use its former dressing rooms (or perhaps I should say "undressing rooms") as a gaming establishment. They have now received a summons, and they have immediately decided to stop the gaming activities which were taking place and to install a sauna bath. Now your Lordships can go and have a sauna bath in what used to be the undressing rooms of the chorus girls, which may be a bigger attraction than the gaming. What the club is hoping to do is to operate their sauna bath for a couple of years and then to apply for a licence; and may be they will be granted one.

I value the noble Lord's Amendment as what he called "a probing Amendment", if it will give any indication of the kind of regulations that the Secretary of State may make. This is something we do not know. We do not know what games are to be allowed to be permitted under Clause 13, but I hope that they will be restricted to fair games and those which are close to being equal chance games. Certainly, I think there is no need for such regulations to be made at the present time, and that the clubs should simply stop breaking the law.

12.26 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, said that this was a probing Amendment, and I would say at once that the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Kilbracken have made my task much easier in replying to it. What Lord Jessel's Amendment pleads for is that because of recent court decisions on the legality of zero roulette and their bearing on other unequal chance games, and the numerous prosecutions now launched by the police, commercial clubs will find it impossible to survive for the two years before the Bill becomes operative, unless some kind of lifeline is thrown to them.

He asked me whether the Home Secretary has a policy for dealing with clubs during the interim period? This particular matter has nothing to do with the Home Secretary; he has no powers to interfere. Parliament passed the 1963 Act, which is still the law of the land, and the police are discharging their duties under the Act. When the police bring prosecutions before the courts, the courts then do their duty under the Act. That is, and it remains, the position. The right reverend Prelate made it perfectly clear why this situation has arisen, and spoke of the enormous sums of money that are being made by these firms. They now come, as it were, with tears in their eyes and say, "Yes we have managed to evade or to break the law. Tell us how we can go on doing it for the two years before the Act comes into force."

As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken pointed out, one famous club, the Windmill, has already decided what to do. They have decided to close down and to install a sauna bath which, in the words of Mr. Eric Rhodes, who is, I believe, the general manager, would be "a much cleaner activity". I would say that this is entirely in keeping with the great meritorious and renowned history of the Windmill. It is significant that they are giving a lead in this matter.

Then the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, put to me, quite rightly—I am glad that he did—the point that clubs which had had to close down would stand no chance of a licence. I could not, and would not, say that it was impossible for them to be granted a licence, but it would indeed be difficult for them to show a demand, as he himself indicated. But I must not be taken as pre-judging the issue, and certainly it would not be impossible for them to be granted a licence. I think my noble friend Lord Kilbracken said that after a couple of years they could, and would, certainly apply. But we are not insisting on their closing down. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, quoted from the Financial Times, arguing that such a large-scale closure of clubs as is forecast, and the dispersal of their skilled staff and assets, would make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to revive when the new law is in force, and the possibility, meanwhile, that illegal gaming promoted by criminals would have taken such a hold that it would be incapable of being eradicated.

I do not accept that assessment at all. But even if it were correct, it is my duty to tell the noble Lord at once that the remedy he proposes in his Amendment is constitutionally impossible. What he proposes means that Parliament at this late stage of the Bill is being asked to give the Secretary of State a suspending power over the operation of the law as it now is, with no indication at all of the principles on which that power should be exercised, except that it should all be done in the utmost faith, and should take the form of allowing unequal chance games to be played with advantages to the bank held in the club's behalf. It is just not acceptable to give the Executive (that is, the Government) power to waive the operation of the law in this way in order to cast a cloak over the very practices which the courts are now condemning. In other words, in a sentence, the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is asking us to legalise illegality by Act of Parliament. That just is not possible.

With regard to the merits of the case, it is true that for the next two years the clubs are likely to find themselves in great difficulties and that, as a result, a number of them may not survive. But this reduction in numbers is what this Bill is about: it is the objective, therefore such reductions could be positively beneficial. In any case, since they have established themselves by a flagrant disregard of the intentions of the law, and, as it now appears, in contravention of the letter of the law, we are certainly under no obligation to them.

Our concern, therefore, in this context is with the possible dangers of illegal gaming. And on this point we just do not believe that, whatever the longer-term dangers of illegal gaming might be, it could develop on any considerable scale during the next two years. It would be far from easy to organise. The majority of players would not, we believe, find the prospect attractive; a communal activity of this kind cannot nearly so easily escape detection as, say, the slipping of illegal bets to a street bookmaker; and none of the present proprietors would dare to have anything to do with that as they value their future chances of a licence. Moreover, while the penalties under the 1963 Act may not constitute any very serious deterrent (and this is a point which seems to not have had the publicity I think it should have had) the provisions of the 1963 Act are now powerfully reinforced by those under the Finance Act for gaming without the payment of appropriate duties. A person who allowed his premises to be used for illegal gaming, even on a single occasion, without paying duty would be liable on a first conviction to a penalty of three times the amount of the duty or imprisonment up to two years, or both.

The Government do not accept the prophecies of disaster which the clubs are making. I suggest to them if they want to stand a chance, other things being equal, of getting a licence, they ought to sweat this one out and have their gaming according to the law; and if it costs them money, well, it will be skimming off a little of the fat and giving their customers and members a better, fairer chance than they have yet enjoyed. I assure noble Lords that the provisions of the Bill will be made operative just as soon as the requirements of vetting by the Gaming Board and licensing by the justices will allow.

With regard to the right reverend Prelate's mention of Clauses 12, 13 and 14, and the regulations made thereunder. I have given in Committee some general indication of our thoughts on this matter, but the actual making of regulations must, of course, await the Board's views, when they have decided what powers they want the Home Secretary to provide under the regulations. In the meanwhile, On the subject of the noble Lord's Amendment, I have to say that the clubs will have to cope with their own problems which they have brought entirely on themselves.

LORD KILBRACKEN

May I ask my noble friend a question? It seems to me that a club like the Windmill, which received a summons and almost immediately stopped gaming (they said that they had apparently made a mistake, in that what they thought was legal gaming had turned out to be illegal gaming) and went over to some other profit-making activity should be treated very much more favourably when applications for a licence are being considered than one which more or less disregards a summons, goes on playing after paying its £100 fine. I feel very strongly that the example of the Windmill should be followed by other clubs rather than the example of some other clubs which I would prefer not to name but, which ignore summonses and go on playing in the same way.

LORD STONHAM

I entirely agree with my noble friend, and that is why I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. I cannot pre-judge what the Board is going to decide, but I have said in Committee that clubs which suffered a number of convictions in this way would gravely damage their chance of obtaining a licence. It follows that clubs which, having had the law pointed out to them, then obey it, will, conversely, improve their chances.

LORD KILBRACKEN

I thank the noble Lord very much.

LORD JESSEL

I thank the noble Lord very much for his reply, which I think is most useful. I would only say one thing. He holds up his hands in horror at the idea of legalising what is now illegal. But, of course, that is what he is going to do under this Bill. The only thing I was asking was whether it could not be done in the interim period. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD KILBRACKEN

The noble Lord has said that what is now illegal is going to be legalised. We do not know whether it is going to be legalised. This depends on the regulations which will be made, and there is no guarantee that the regulations will allow a game played illegally since 1963 to be played legally.

LORD STONHAM

I persistently talked about illegal games in Committee. Perhaps I may be forgiven for thinking that I need not fill in all the i's and dot the t's, but the purpose of this Bill is to remove illegalities, and to permit only certain forms of gaming in certain places, under very strict conditions, which will have to be approved. That is the final effect of it.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

May I ask the Minister this question? Under the 1963 Act the zero as played at roulette has been held to be illegal, and prosecutions have been brought, or are being brought on this ground. Is it conceivable that under the new Bill, when it becomes an Act, the zero may be allowed? Because, if so, the police are wasting their time.

LORD STONHAM

It is possible that a single zero would be allowed under certain conditions. What I said in Committee is that we would certainly not allow the double-zero. In many of the places where they have entertainment, a cabaret plus gaming, they have a double-zero now. I was perfectly clear on that. But this again is something that will have to be decided by the Beard. Therefore, I cannot categorically say that there will not be permitted games under a zero. It all depends what the board decides is the best method, or methods, to enable those clubs which are being licensed to get a profit to carry on.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

I am sorry to press this point, but the police would be entitled and justified—and, indeed, would be doing their duty—were they not to prosecute under the present Act games in which the single zero applied and which under the new Act will not be illegal. This must surely put the police in a very awkward position.

LORD STONHAM

The noble Lord persists in putting up a hypothesis which I am not able to confirm. May I just put it straight to him? We are dealing with the law as it is now, and the police are acting on the law now in its relation to games of unequal chance; and the noble Earl just specified one with the zero. It is possible, when this Bill becomes an Act and becomes effective, that the Board may countenance the playing of certain games of unequal chance, under certain conditions. That is all it is possible to say at the present time. It is no good the noble Earl shaking his head: if the Board then, under those conditions, allow games with a single zero it will be under a new Act. We are dealing at the moment with the law now. But the Board will not be able, retrospectively, as it were, to condemn what we are now doing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Provision of credit for gaining]:

12.40 p.m.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME moved Amendment No. 6: Page 11, line 22, leave out from ("gaming") to end of line 5 on page 12

The noble Lord said: I want to explain that I am trying to protect both the gambler and the gambling club in putting down this Amendment. What I want to do is covered in Clause 16(2), but the clause then goes on to find other ways in which a member may cash a cheque. My experience in gambling—and I have been quite a big gambler throughout my life—is that when you are winning you go on winning, and when you are losing you go on losing, and what I am trying to do is to protect the young and inexperienced gambler who, when he goes into the club with £20 or £50 in his pocket and loses that money, can then go up to the caisse and cash a cheque. In my experience that is bad business. He may cash a cheque for more than he has at the bank, and then there will be further trouble. Therefore it is not in the interests of the club to cash a cheque, or in the interests of the gambler himself. I feel most strongly on this point and I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

LORD KILBRACKEN

I should like to support the Amendment, however idealistic, of the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme. I believe that betting by means of cheques is one of the great evils in gaming to-day and that this is a way in which, over and over again, men and women lose far larger sums of money than they intend to, and in fact enormous fortunes are gone through by young men in this way. They go along with £50 in their pocket and they end up by losing £500 because they have the right and the ability to sign cheques. This Amendment would also to some extent be welcomed by the gaming clubs because of the great trouble they have in collecting bad debts. The proprietor of one club told me on one occasion that he had £1¼ million owing on cheques which he had not been able to collect. This leads to the "strong arm" methods of collection, and so on, that we all greatly deplore.

I know it is impracticable for a heavy gambler to go along to a club with £5,000 or even £1,000 in his pocket, but it is perfectly possible for him to go along to his bank in broad daylight, cash a cheque and deposit the amount that he is prepared to lose in one session or one week with the club; and when that sum has been exhausted he has to leave, and that is all to the good. If cheques were cut out altogether it would help probably more than anything else in this Bill to secure a reduction in the volume of gaming.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

I should like strongly to support this Amendment, which admittedly has been sprung upon us. It seems that the idea was not thought of, at any rate "upstairs" in the Committee stage, but I think it will mean that a lot of people who might otherwise lose a great deal of money which they cannot afford will not be able to do so. If this Amendment is accepted they would have to get the cash beforehand and would not be able to get any more on the club premises. In that way a great deal of unhappiness and even some suicides could be avoided. At one fell swoop my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme would knock the bottom out of this problem. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter said to me just now in the Prince's Chamber that it would do a great deal for the "cosh" men. One does not like to carry large sums of money about, but that is another question. We want to avoid the situation whereby a man who has lost money can then cash a cheque for £5,000 or even £50,000 at the club.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I should like to support this Amendment most strongly. There is nothing easier in the world than for a young man, by signing gambling cheques, literally to sign himself away. If you sign a cheque for £100 you may think very little of it but if you hand over £100 in cash you see what you are doing, and it makes you think.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

The noble Earl has pointed out that this Amendment has come as rather a surprise to us, and I always find, with something which appears to be an extremely good idea on the surface, that unless one has time to think about it first one subsequently discovers some hidden flaw which makes it impracticable. Therefore I shall listen with the greatest interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will say to us, because I was anxious to say on the next Amendment, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that one of the things about which we must have concern is the protection of the weaker brethren. We cannot altogether protect them but we can at least make it as difficult as possible for them to lose their money. Therefore, superficially at any rate, this Amendment seems to have a great deal to commend it.

LORD JESSEL

I think it only right that somebody should speak against this Amendment, because I have a shrewd idea that the Home Office will speak against it. It was touched on in Committee, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, used a phrase like "exceptional cases make bad law"—with which I agree. I also agree with the noble Earl, Lord Arran, that there have been very distressing cases of young men signing cheques for more money than they can afford. But under this Bill there are two new features: one is that the cheque cannot be post-dated but has to be presented within two days, and the other is that the Gaming Act does not apply and the writer of the cheque can be sued. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has to say, but my inclination is to vote against this Amendment if it is divided upon.

LORD MOYNIHAN

I believe my noble friend Lord Arran is wrong, and that this matter was in fact discussed in the Select Committee, at which time, if I remember rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, raised a similar point. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made great play of the fact that this might lead to people carrying large sums of cash, through the streets, and with this argument he convinced me that he was right. Having now listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, it occurs to me that this difficulty could be overcome in the way suggested by him, by depositing a sum of money "in broad daylight" as he put it, with the casino concerned. I am inclined to support this Amendment as I feel that this is the basis of a great deal of tragedy in this country.

LORD STONHAM

This is a matter on which in principle every noble Lord will be in agreement. We wish to protect people, particularly young people, from the consequences of their folly. That is what the whole Bill is about. And it is not only young people. We are trying to cut down the volume of gaming, and in particular the number of places where gaming can be legally indulged. That is what it is all about. The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, said that he has been a heavy gambler all his life. I can only say that his experiences have left him unsoured. I admire the spirit of benevolence with which he now approaches the subject in order to try to protect others from the miseries which he doubtless has suffered during his life. Therefore, we are in agreement on the principle. I was very sorry to hear the noble Earl, Lord Arran, even before I had said a word, encouraging his noble friend to divide the Committee and to go into the Lobby. It is always reasonable to wait until the end of the discussion when all has been said before one forms a balanced opinion on the matter.

The noble Lord's Amendment would take up almost a page of the Bill. It would prevent any cheque being given in a licensed club to purchase cash or tokens to be used in gaming. That would be a virtual absurdity. My noble friend Lord Kilbracken said that this could be got over by people driving up to the clubs, presumably in Securicor vans, with large sums of money. We have carefully considered this. This is an important matter which has taken the best part of a century to alter. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, mentioned that the Gaming Act does not apply. My noble friend Lord Kilbracken told us of a club proprietor who said that bad debts totalled £1,250,000. That was in the main because people gave cheques under the influence of gambling fever which they knew were "stumers". They knew that nothing would happen to them when the cheques bounced, except that they might find themselves, if it was that kind of club, under the cosh, but they knew that they could not be forced to pay by any legal means.

Anybody who in future gives a cheque in a club will know that by law it has to be presented to the bank for payment within two days. He knows, too, that if the cheque is not met, the payee will have a legal right to sue in the courts for it, just as in respect of any other form of debt. Those are two very strong deterrents. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that we all find it easy to use cheques. I certainly find it easier to pay by cheque, even my gas bill, than to draw the money out of my pocket. But here we are talking about large sums of money. My noble friend Lord Kilbracken has spoken of sums as large as £35,000 changing hands in a few minutes.

LORD KILBRACKEN

Would not this Amendment put a stop to that?

LORD STONHAM

Let us start from the point we are at. If the 1963 Act had not been broken and flouted, we should to-day be in a very different position. The position we are in to-day is that we have a thousand or more clubs where illegal gaming is going on. We are determined to cut that number down with this Bill—to cut them down only to that level which will not encourage illegal and criminal gaming underground. Let us stay at that point and not go back to the idyllic situation which we would have had but for the situation which has arisen over the last six or seven years.

If this Amendment is accepted, we shall destroy the very valuable change which has been made with regard to the Gaming Act, the fact that one can sue on these cheques. We have this quite firm procedure about presentation of the cheque within two banking days. Therefore, that will be a very considerable deterrent. The most important argument is that we are trying to discourage the criminal element. When this Bill becomes law and is in operation, there will be fewer clubs. Their situation and circumstances will be well known. The "joints" can be "cased" by the criminals and by the cosh boys. Is one then, by definition, going to set up a situation in which very large sums of money must be carried into the clubs and carried out again, often late at night or in the early hours of the morning?

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

If I may interrupt for one moment, there is no reason to carry the money out. There is no reason for the member of the club not to accept a cheque for his winnings.

LORD STONHAM

The noble Lord is quite wrong. His Amendment takes out of the Bill all the provisions in this respect. I said that it would prevent any cheque being given in a licensed club to purchase cash or tokens to be used in gaming. This means that any gamer who wishes to game in a club would have to take the cash in with him.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

But not out.

LORD STONHAM

Very well, but he has to take it in. One could be knocked out and have one's money stolen if one were carrying £50,000 on one's person into a club. I do not know whether that is what noble Lords want. Then noble Lords say that money will not be carried out. Perhaps they mean that the man may lose it in the club, but, if he does not lose it all, then at some time the cash will have to come out.

LORD JESSEL

The noble Lord has not got it right. People do win occasionally. Supposing you take in £500 and you are lucky and win £2,000, there is nothing to stop you taking the £2,000 out with you in a cheque.

LORD STONHAM

If the noble Lord will look at Clause 16, page 11, line 22, he will see that the noble Lord is proposing to leave out all the words from "gaming" to the end of line 5 on page 12. They comprise virtually all the provisions in the Bill with regard to payment by cheque.

LORD KILBRACKEN

The Amendment leaves out all the words after "gaming" in line 22, so that the subsection would read: Neither the holder of the licence nor any person acting on his behalf or under any arrangement with him shall accept a cheque... It does not say that he may not give a cheque in payment of winnings.

LORD STONHAM

It is true that this Amendment appeared on the Marshalled List only this morning, which was when I saw it, but I will read what it says. It is in line 22, to leave out from "gaming" to the end of line 5 on page 12. Is not that the Amendment which we are discussing? If one leaves out those words after line 22, one is leaving out paragraphs (a) and (b), and subsections (3), (4) and (5)—which, indeed, are provisions which my noble friend Lord Kilbracken helped us to improve and amend. We did not merely have discussions with clubs to consider carefully how we could cut down impulse gaming, but we discussed this also with the police. The police would be very concerned if we deliberately created conditions which would increase the volume of cash carried.

We are quite certain that it would lead to organised crime of the worst possible kind—crimes of violence, for instance—on a substantial and planned scale. That, I submit, would be a very retrograde step. The Government are as anxious as any noble Lord in the Committee—we have proved it by this Bill—to cut down gaming, to protect people from their own folly; but we cannot agree that this Amendment would be helpful. Indeed, we are sure that it would create even greater evils than those which it is designed to prevent. I hope that after hearing what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

Before the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, answers, may I ask the Minister whether he would consider having an Amendment on Report stage to fix an age limit of say, 25 or 27, below which no one could draw a cheque for cash in a club? That would protect young people.

LORD STONHAM

I cannot give an assurance at this stage. The noble Viscount meant an Amendment on Third Reading, and of course it would be open to any noble Lord to put down such an Amendment. One would have to look at the way such a provision could be implemented. Would people have to bring their birth certificates to show that they were 25, and so on? There are always difficulties in drafting changes of this kind, as the noble Viscount will be well aware. Certainly, we will look at anything of that kind, but essentially we must preserve the cheque provisions in the Bill.

LORD MOYNIHAN

Would the noble Lord consider the possibility on Report stage of an Amendment which would require the cheque to have been cleared before the gaming took place? That would seem to serve two purposes. First, it would mean that cash was not carried through the streets, as presumably, payment would be made by cheque 48 hours before the gaming started. Secondly, it would cut out compulsive gaming, which so many noble Lords wish to do.

LORD STONHAM

I do not know whether I understand the noble Lord aright. I think he asked whether I would consider—I hope not on Report stage; it would have to be on Third Reading in the overspill period—cases where, a cheque had been paid in and cleared before the person started gaming. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that now.

LORD MOYNIHAN

It would be compulsory. It would not be possible to cash a cheque in any other circumstances.

LORD STONHAM

I do not know whether that would be possible. Certainly, that is something we could look at.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

I have listened to all the arguments against my Amendment, but I cannot help feeling that they are very weak. It is said that the police would object to large sums of money being carried about late at night, but I do not think it would be necessary to do that. If I had gone to a club with £50 in my pocket and won £2,000, I would leave it there till the next day and then take it to my bank when there were a lot of police about. Also, what about all the betting shops in London to-day where betting is done in cash? We do not hear of a great many cases of robbery from clients. Therefore, the whole argument of the Government is very weak, and if we make it impossible for people to cash a cheque in a club we shall control gaming very much better than it is controlled at the moment.

Clause 16 agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended at 1.14 p.m. and resumed at 1.45 p.m.]

Clause 17 agreed to.

LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 7 After Clause 17 insert the following new clause:

Certificates of exclusion

("—(1) If any person applies to the Gaming Board for a certificate of exclusion, the Board shall grant him such a certificate and shall enter his particulars in the Register of excluded persons, which shall be maintained by the Board.

(2) It shall be the duty of any holder of a licence under this Act in respect of any premises to exclude from those premises any excluded person.

(3) The Register of excluded persons shall be conclusive evidence on the question of fact whether a person is an excluded person or not.

1.5 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS
Albemarle, E.	Falkland, V.	Portsmouth, L. Bp.
Arran, E.	Faringdon, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Audley, Bs.	Kilbracken, L.	Royle, L.
Barrington, V.	Manchester, L. Bp.	St. Just. L.
Chester, L. Bp.	Moyne, L.	Sempill, Ly.
Chorley, L.	Moynihan, L. [Teller.]	Southwark, L. Bp.
Craigmyle, L.	Nunburnholme, L. [Teller.]	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Effingham, E.	Ogmore, L.	Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Dudley, L.	Morrison, L.
Ailwyn, L.	Dundee, E.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Auckland, L.	Erroll of Hale, L.	Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]
Belstead, L.	Foley, L.	Redesdale, L.
Beswick, L.	Gaitskell, Bs.	Ritchie-Calder, L.
Birk, Bs.	Goschen, V.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Bowles, L.	Granville of Eye, L.	St. Davids, V.
Brooke of Cumnor, L.	Gridley, L.	Sandys, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Henderson,L.	Serota, Bs.
Burden, L.	Hill of Wivenhoe, L.	Shepherd, L.
Chalfont, L.	Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]	Sorensen, L.
Champion, L.	Jessel, L.	Stocks, Bs.
Citrine, L.	Kinnoull, E.	Stonham, L.
Clwyd, L.	Lindgren, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Conesford, L.	Longford, E.	Summerskill, Bs.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Crook, L.	McLeavy, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Denham, L.	Merrivale, L.	Williamson, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Milverton, L.	Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

(4) The Board shall send particulars of any excluded person—

1. (a) forthwith, to the holder, in respect of any club of which that person claims to be a member, of a licence under this Act; and
2. (b) at least once every two months, to all holders of licences under this Act.

(5) A certificate of exclusion shall last four years, but may be renewed on the application of the person to whom it was granted.

(6) This section shall not apply to bingo club premises.")

The noble Lord said: In this very depleted Chamber, which just constitutes a quorum, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 7. The purpose of this new clause is to help what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester described as our weaker brethren"—and I am not quite sure that I am not myself one of those weaker brethren. Its purpose is to help the compulsive gambler to give it up: and not only the compulsive gambler, but the one who plays against his better judgment, often for more than he knows he should; the person who knows that he is destroying himself and wants to give up the habit, but finds the temptation too great in certain circumstances and, despite all his good resolutions to the contrary, goes along after all and plays. I moved a similar Amendment in Select Committee, and it was then pointed out that apparently I had drafted it in more general terms than I had intended, and that as drafted it would apply not only to those who wished to be excluded but also to those whom the Board thought it wise to exclude. This was not my intention, and the clause has now been redrafted expertly and, I am assured, would have the effect that I originally intended.

The way in which this Amendment would work is that if such a gambler decided that he wanted to give it up once and for all, or at any rate for a period of four years, he could apply to the Board for a certificate of exclusion, and his name would then be entered on the register of excluded persons. So long as his name remained on that list he could not be admitted to any gaming establishment. When I moved a similar Amendment in Select Committee it had very considerable support from noble Lords present, and also from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Stonham himself said, referring to the Amendment (col. 131 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee): I am sure that we all have sympathy with it". Unfortunately, because of the form in which the Amendment was then drafted, his sympathy could not be turned into support. However, it has the very strong support of organisations such as Gamblers Anonymous, who have said that it would certainly ensure that a large number of gamblers who want to "kick" the habit would be enabled by this Amendment to do so. I should mention that a similar provision already exists in France, where anyone may apply to be excluded. I am informed that four or five or more do so apply every week, and this provision has been found to be completely effective there.

One or two doubts have been expressed as to the efficacy of this Amendment, and I should like to deal with them. One is that it would necessitate some extra work for the Board. I suggest that in proporticn to the amount of work which the Board will have to undertake this would in fact be extremely small. It would involve only a very junior secretary, perhaps, sending out a standard form to three or four clubs a week and then sending to all gaming establishments once every two months a list of all persons excluded since the previous such list had been sent out. This is absolutely routine work which would not occupy an appreciable amount of the Board's time.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester pointed out, when I moved a similar Amendment before, that it had a weakness in so far as in this country there is no system of identification as there is in France, and that it would therefore be possible for a compulsive gambler to go along to a club and give some other name, thereby securing admission to it. This is, in a way, a weakness but not, I think—and I hope that I may be able to reassure the right reverend Pelate to some extent—a weakness which invalidates it. In the first place, we hope that in the clubs as established under the new Act much greater care will be taken (although, in many clubs great care is already taken) to identify those who seek to join them. Very often they insist on positive identification of a member by the production of bank references or positive identification of some kind or another.

In those cases where the clubs do not insist upon these provisions there are two further considerations. One is that we hope that the 48-hour rule will be strictly enforced under the new Act. What happens with a compulsive gambler is that at about 11 or 12 o'clock at night when he has had a few drinks he suddenly feels that he could win £500 and thus get out of all of his troubles. He jumps into a taxi and goes to the club of which he is a member and, very promptly, instead of winning £500 loses £500. If he were an excluded person, this would be impossible. Of course, it may be that when this impulse comes to him he will go to the club and present himself under a false name. When he gets there he will be told, "We should like to have you as a member, Mr. Smith; but, of course, you cannot play for 48 hours." In the course of those 48 hours, in the cold light of dawn, when he becomes himself again, he will be able to ring the club and say, "I applied for membership last night. But I must admit that my name is not Mr. Smith, that I am an excluded person and that you should not admit me."

It was also stated "upstairs" that an Amendment on these lines would be imposing a criminal liability upon the licence holder for faults which were not his. It is already the case that a licence may be lost if, for example, the club is used as a resort for criminals and prostitutes; that is to say, if criminals or prostitutes use the premises as an habitual resort, the licence is automatically lost. But if the club licence holder is expected to keep track of every criminal and prostitute and not to allow them to enter, I do not think it is more difficult for him to exclude excluded persons.

If a subterfuge were used by an excluded person—and a compulsive gambler might be expected to use all kinds of them—then, if charges were brought against the licence holder on the grounds that an excluded person had been admitted, Clause 23(2) would apply. It is there stated:

"Where a person is charged with an offence...in respect of a contravention...it shall be a defence for him to prove...that the contravention occurred without his knowledge and...that he exercised all such care as was reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the provisions in question would not be contravened."

Finally, it has been said that there is no precedent in English law for a provision of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that that does not mean that we cannot make such a precedent; but that if we are going to create one it must be something that can work. I believe that this Amendment can work and will work. It may have other uses beyond helping the addict to give up gambling. Parents or trustees could make settlements with a proviso that application under this proposed clause should be made to the Board; or a wife, or former wife, might offer not to take action for arrears of maintenance if her husband, or former husband, agreed to apply to be an excluded person.

It has been emphasised several times in the course of this debate that this whole Bill, from its inception and throughout the consideration in Committee, has been completely non-political. Voting has not gone on political lines. I do not believe politics enters into it in any way. I hope that it will commend itself to the Committee, that your Lordships will support me in it, that you will consider it only on its merits and that you will vote in favour of it. I beg to move.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, reminded us that in the Committee stage "upstairs" I expressed a good deal of sympathy for his Amendment. If my memory serves me aright the Amendment was withdrawn mainly on the grounds of wording. I understand that a good deal more care has now been taken in drafting and that the Amendment is more acceptable. I support this Amendment because I think it is a protection which is being asked for and which we ought to give. We all know that a great many very unfortunate consequences have come from the proliferation of gaming in this country, but surely the most serious and the most distressing is the harm that it has done to individual characters and personalities. The 1960–63 legislation attempted to make commercial gaming impossible and provided a protection for the foolish and the weak, and one of the anxieties that some of us have had about this Bill has been that some of that protection is to be removed.

Of course there has always been the compulsive gambler, but undoubtedly the increase in gaming in this country during the last eight years has added in very great measure to the number of those who are now compulsive gamblers; even to the extent, as the noble Lord has reminded us, of the creation of an organisation known as "Gamblers Anonymous" which brings the techniques of group therapy to the aid of people who want to get rid of this curse which has entered not only into their own lives but the lives of members of their families. If, therefore, there are people who are trying to get away from this curse and would like protection I very much hope that we shall be able to give it to them.

I quite appreciate that there are very great practical difficulties involved. It may be that from time to time the provisions would be broken by those who in a moment of weakness take such measures as they can—using false names and so on to get into a gaming club to indulge their weakness. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is very sympathetic to the idea that we must put in as many safeguards as we can for those who are compulsive gamblers. I hope very much, therefore, that he may feel able to accept this Amendment as something which would provide a very necessary protection.

LORD MOYNE

I should like strongly to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilhracken. I became interested in this matter by chance when listening in the Select Committee, and the common sense of the noble Lord's proposal greatly appealed to me. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was very much concerned with initiatives which might seem to be demanded of the Board, and he promised to look at the matter when it came before him again, in the light of the new wording, which I think is absolutely plain. It is only at the request of the individuals that the Board has to take any action.

The only other argument against this Amendment which I have heard outside your Lordships' House is that not many people would want to avail themselves of an opportunity to deprive themselves of their rights. If that is so, why not help the few? It would not cause much trouble. And if a lot of people wanted to avail themselves of this provision it would be very useful. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, have covered the ground so fully that I will not say another word, but I wanted them to know that I am behind them.

LORD ST. JUST

I, too, should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in this Amendment, but I should like to approach the matter from a slightly different angle from that taken by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I agree that compulsive gambling is a weakness, but I think that it is also an illness, and a severe illness. Your Lordships may have seen a report in the newspapers not long ago—one which absolutely horrified me—that it had been necessary to operate on the brain of a boy by frontal lobal lobotomy to try to cure him of compulsive gambling. That was going to the extreme.

If I may quote another case, mentioning no names, one of the greatest concert pianists in the world to-day has become a compulsive gambler. He will perform only at places where there are casinos. If, in the early days, something could have been done for him from a doctor's point of view—because this becomes a disease—there might have been a chance to save him. I feel, and I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with his enormous knowledge and great experience would agree, that compulsive gamblers must be helped at an early stage, and that they cannot be helped unless they face the situation. "Alcoholics Anonymous" cannot help the alcoholic unless he says, "I am an alcoholic". If a man has the courage or, if I may use the word, the "guts", to go to the Board and say, "I am a compulsive gambler; I want to be protected", I think he should be supported in every possible way.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

I should like to add my small measure of support to this Amendment. What is suggested is a self-denying ordinance. There are people who need to be protected from themselves. I think it rather magnificent that such people are prepared to go voluntarily and put their names on a list and so prevent themselves from doing the wicked and dangerous things which they might be inclined to do. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said in the Select Committee that it would be alien to our principles to allow a statutory body to deprive individuals of their legal rights.

It would not be the statutory body but the person himself who would be deliberately depriving himself of his rights, and I do not think that, because our legal system is necessarily different from the French, we should not accept advice from the French. "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." We have much to learn from the French as they have much to learn from us, and I do not think that we should stick by our British legal system when we are faced with a humanitarian and self-denying proposal such as would be made by the individual. When a man wants to stop, let him be allowed to stop.

2.7 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, which, as he said, is a restricted version of the one he moved in the Select Committee, would enable a person addicted to gaming to give notice to the Board to get himself black-listed for four years in relation to all licensed gaming clubs in Britain. I am quite sure, and the debate has made this obvious, that no one would oppose my noble friend's objective. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, said that it was protection that we were being asked to give and that we should give it. I agree with that, but you cannot put into a Statute what amounts to a motion of good intent.

Although my noble friend has taken up the major objection which I pointed out in the Select Committee, he has left his new clause as nothing more than a motion of good intent. It would require the Board to do certain things in case an addict should make his application. It does not do anything about enforcing the provisions. The effect of being blacklisted would be that all the licensees and all the licensed clubs would be obliged to exclude that person from the club premises altogether. The clause does not say how that is to be enforced. If it is to mean anything at all, there would have to be criminal sanctions, quite apart from the fact that people would be put in peril of losing their licences. I am not at this moment judging whether or not they would be unfairly at peril for their licence, although, as has been admitted, there would be great difficulty in making quite sure that these people had been blacklisted. It is no good trying to put a clause in the Bill which is nothing more than a good resolution. If it is to have any effect, there must be means of enforcing it; and this means stating what the sanctions and criminal penalties are. On that ground alone this clause would be unacceptable. I know that some members of the Committee may feel that, however unwise or irresponsible it would be, and even though it has been pointed out how defective the Amendment is, they should insist on putting it in the Bill. I have always deprecated such a policy, and I still do.

I would point out that the proposal is not limited to clubs of the casino type, and it is not limited to the time when gaming is in process. Nor is it limited to the attendance of a member of the club: it applies equally to a person attending as a guest of a member. I know that my noble friend has given a good deal of thought to what I said on the Committee stage when we considered his other Amendments, but these are all major defects in this present proposal. I agree entirely—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, for mentioning it—that people addicted to gaming, just like people addicted to drugs or alcohol, are a real problem. We certainly hope that when gaming has settled down the tendency for the clubs, in consultation with one another, will be to deal with problems of this kind, and problems arising from the need to vet members generally.

On the question of addiction, I entirely agree that Gamblers Annoymous are doing very good work. Indeed, it might be far more effective than this clause, or a certificate from the Gaming Board, if an addict were to get in touch with Gamblers Anonymous and see what help they could give him; because, whatever happens, certificate or not, I am sure that this is the only kind of help that is likely to be effective. There are limits to the number of problems that we can tackle in this Bill. However much we want to prescribe the numbers of clubs and the conditions under which they will be required to work there are limits to the duties which can be legitimately placed upon licensees, and which they would fail to perform at their peril. In the view of the Government, any proposal of the kind that we are now considering must be regarded as falling on the wrong side of the line.

It is just not reasonable, however much we may want to help gambling addicts, to put every club in the country under a criminal obligation to vet all members and guests on arrival against the blacklist with the object of saving a limited number of people from themselves. If they want to protect themselves from their addiction, they can do so merely by resigning from the club. This clause requires a positive act on the part of the addict; namely, that he has to apply for a certificate. It does not require any more effort than that to resign from his club, and then he cannot go into the club. In the Government's view, that is as far as the Bill can go.

My noble friend mentioned that the Amendment would involve extra work for the Board. That is almost the smallest objection to it. The objections to this proposal in its present form, and without penalties, are that it is impracticable. We should not be so irresponsible as to draft Statutes which cannot be carried out. There are no penalties proposed for non-compliance. We must not make well-meaning gestures, and then leave it to the hard-pressed authorities to struggle to police something which is virtually unenforceable. I am sorry, because I sympathise with what has been said by every noble Lord. I should like to see it possible to do what is asked, but it certainly is not possible through this Amendment.

BARONESS STOCKS

Even if this Amendment were passed, and were enforceable and enforced, I take it that it would not keep the addict from patronising betting offices. This would give him ample scope for his addiction, would it not?

2.16 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I, too, am sorry that the Government have felt it necessary to reply to Lord Kilbracken's Amendment in these terms, I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will have sensed that the general feeling of the Committee is in favour of some action for this purpose being taken. Nothing the noble Lord said convinced me that it would be impossible to re-draft this clause to meet the principal objections that he raised against it. Clearly, it needs penal sanctions, and included in them there must be some form of penalty against those who ignore the requirements of the clause—

LORD KILBRACKEN

If I may interrupt for a moment, as I understand it, this Amendment would fall within the clause referred to in Clause 23, which deals with offences under Part II. That states: ...if any of the provisions...of this Act"— one of which would be this Amendment— are contravened, the holder of the licence...shall be guilty of an offence".

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

The noble Lord may well be right, but the Government, with the help of their expert advisers, have evidently interpreted the matter differently, and I think we must give thought to that. At any rate, the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has made it clear that he accepts that there must be some sanction behind it whether it is in the clause or elsewhere. This means, that apart from the actual drafting of the clause, the principal difficulty appears to the Government to be that it would impose an unacceptable obligation on the clubs if they had to take special measures to exclude these persons or otherwise commit an offence. I should have thought that the clubs, in any case, would have to take considerable care about whom they admit. They can only admit members; they can only admit those who have been members for 48 hours and more. These clubs, surely, must have competent door-keepers.

Not knowing any gambling addicts among my personal acquaintances, I have no notion how many there are. I should not have thought that there was a great number of addicts in the country, but I should have thought that those who exist are a great nuisance both to themselves and to everybody else. It seems regrettable, therefore, when we are carrying through comprehensive legislation on this subject, that it may he impossible to take some action which would help not only these unfortunate people but also the reputation of gaming in this country: because though in this Bill we are seeking to limit gaming, we are not outlawing it. Therefore, as this is not the final stage of the Bill, I hope that further consideration can be given to this matter and that the Government will seriously consider whether it is possible to put something of this kind into the Bill. I do not know what the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, are. I personally think that the underlying purpose of this new clause is thoroughly good. I believe that the Government think there is a great deal of good in it, too, but are simply dissatisfied about the drafting of the clause and about the feasibility of the proposal.

As to the drafting of the clause, we may take it that any difficulty can be overcome and there will be some two months to overcome it. As to its feasibility, that seems to me to turn on whether the clubs can have at the door people who, in addition to excluding non-members and those who have been members for less than 48 hours, will be capable of excluding the small number of persons who would have applied to the Board for certificates of exclusion under this clause. If I am right in sensing that the general opinion of the Committee is in favour of something being done on these lines, I trust that the Government will endeavour to take a less hostile attitude to the proposal and will co-operate in trying to put something of this kind on the Statute Book.

2.21 p.m.

VISCOUNT BARRINGTON

Before the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, finally answers, may I ask one question for information only, because I know extremely little about this matter? The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that if an addict wishes to be cured, all he has to do is to resign from his clubs. Am I wrong—and I may be wrong—in thinking that it is possible to be taken to these clubs as a guest, and that if an addict feels the sudden urge to gamble he may be tempted to apply to somebody he knows and the same difficulties of giving a false name may arise? I should like that point to be dealt with in the final answer, if I have made it clear.

LORD JESSEL

I am against this Amendment. How "governessy" can we really get? This Amendment is impossible to impose. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, the addict can easily resign. If he has good friends who are members, they are not going to take him. I think this is the worst type of "governessy" legislation. I very much support the Home Office view here.

LORD KILBRACKEN

I again find myself in considerable difficulty in dealing with this Amendment because, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel (who unfortunately does not agree with my Amendment to the extent that I agreed with his; but that is fair enough), every noble Lord, including the Minister, has seen a great deal of merit in it. A number of those who have spoken have said or indicated that they would vote in favour of it. On the other hand, I feel diffident about dividing the Committee, particularly when it bears a rather unusual skeletal appearance at this time. Although there may be a number of Peers in other parts of the House who could vote on the subject, they would not have listened to the debate and there would be no Party line which they could automatically follow when the Division bells were set to ring.

I should like to deal with one or two points which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has said that this is a most objectionable proposal; all one has to do is to resign from one's clubs. But as the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, pointed out, it would be perfectly easy to get a good friend, or a bad friend, who was a member and to say to him, "I must go along and play to-night. Do please take me as your guest." There would in fact be no restraint on such a gambler from continuing to play. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, wondered whether a large number of people would be involved. I was most grateful for his support. On this point, I am informed by Gamblers Anonymous that a very considerable number, somewhere between 50 and 100, might be expected to apply in the initial stages when first this privilege, this right, became available. If we may judge from the example in France, it is found there that five or six are applying every week. That comes to a considerable number over the years.

A point which I omitted to mention was that even if an excluded person managed to get admission to a club under a false name, at least he would not be able to draw cheques there, unless he went to the trouble of opening a banking account in another name as well; therefore he would be the less likely to lose money because he would not be able to draw cheques when he was in the club.

The point which worried me most was what the Minister said about there being no criminal sanctions and that my Amendment would not enforce the provision. Having made the mistake of trying to draft my last Amendment myself, I took the trouble to have this Amendment drafted by a legal expert whom I will not name but who is well known to very one of your Lordships. I am not saying that the Home Office lawyers may not be more infallible than anybody else, but my advice was this. I state in subsection (2): It shall be the duty of any holder of a licence...to exclude from those premises any excluded person. I mentioned, when I intervened in the course of what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was saying, that if we look at Clause 23 we see that there it is quite clear—or so it seems to me and seemed to my adviser—that a contravention of my proposed new clause would be caught. A contravention would make the holder of a licence guilty of an offence, and therefore this sanction would in fact exist. I do not know whether my noble friend would like to answer that point at this stage.

LORD STONHAM

My answer to my noble friend in relation to this clause is that he does not indicate the penalties for the commission of this new offence.

LORD KILBRACKEN

Under Clause 23 it is stated that one who contravenes one of the clauses named, among which my Amendment would fall, shall be guilty of an offence. Then it goes on to say, as I mentioned, that if he can prove that the contravention occurred without his knowledge he is not guilty, and that avoids the danger that he will be found guilty because someone has come in under false pretences with another name. Subsection (3) goes on to say: Any person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)...shall he liable...on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400", and so on. Therefore, it seems to me that it is clear that if a person knowingly admits an excluded person he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of £400. That seems to me to be the criminal sanction which would in fact ensure that this provision was enforced.

My noble friend pointed out that my Amendment would also have the effect of excluding an excluded person even though he was merely the guest of a member. Certainly; I think that is exactly what it should do. Also he mentioned that it would exclude an excluded person even when no gaming was taking place on the premises. I do not see that that is the least bit important. Why should someone want to go along when no gaming is taking place on the premises? A gaming club at that time is a most miserable institution, and I should not want to go anywhere near it.

I think I have dealt with all the points raised. I had intended to divide the Committee on this matter but I now do not intend to do so, for two reasons: first, and mainly, because of the advice given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that it is clear that the Committee is sympathetic to the principle behind my proposal and would like to see it on the Statute Book. I have until October in which to try to work out some form in which I think this important provision can go on to the Statute Book in a form acceptable to the Government. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, I do not see how a vote could be obtained on this Amendment which would truly reflect the opinion of the Committee. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Special provisions as to bingo clubs]:

2.32 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment. No. 8:

Page 14, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— ("(b) the maximum amount which may be won by any player in respect of that game shall not exceed such sum as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection.")

The noble Lord said: The Bill as it stands at present allows linked bingo, but then in Clause 20(3)(b) it makes it almost impossible to operate, as I explained in considerable detail in the Select Committee, and I do not want to repeat those arguments here. This Amendment has certain basic differences as compared with the clause as it stands at present. For example, it bases the maximum amount to be won on the game, and not on some arbitrary period like a week. From the point of view of mechanics, this is almost the only way in which linked bingo can be run in an attractive way.

The other proposed change is that the maximum amount to be won is left open to be specified by order. In my view, the Government are making a great mistake in putting an exact sum in the Bill. I suggest it would be safer to leave that to be decided later, when the matter has been considered by the Gaming Board. The amount could then be varied periodically, in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time. This change would bring Clause 20 into line with the rest of the Bill, where the Government have—absolutely rightly in my view—left details of this kind to be specified in regulations after rather more is known about the implications involved. I beg to move.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

I am glad to come back to the side of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, having been critical of the last two Amendments before us. I very much hope that the Government will stand firm and will reject this Amendment, because it is merely an attempt to expand the value of the linked prize and therefore to expand the attractiveness of playing bingo. Large prizes are a good advertisement, and undoubtedly they lead many people to form the bingo habit and to gamble with that medium more than they should do.

The Government have made a number of concessions to the people who want to play bingo, but they also, quite properly in my view, want to keep the temperature down and to control bingo as a modest, inoffensive opportunity for some gaming. Any attempt to expand the opportunities for bingo and the opportunities for making it commercially more attractive would, in my opinion, defeat the quite reasonable objective of Her Majesty's Government to keep bingo within strict control.

LORD STONHAM

I am very much relieved to learn from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester that I am once more in a state of grace, and I shall endeavour to remain so for the rest of the day!

The Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi which, as he said, was fully discussed in Select Committee (and I am grateful to him for moving it briefly now), would drastically alter the conditions to be applied to the playing of linked bingo, and it would do it in three ways. It would impose a limitation not on the total value of prizes but only on the maximum prize; it would substitute for the limit of £1,000 at present specified in Clause 20(3)(b) an amount to be determined by order; and it would relate that limit to the individual game instead of leaving it to apply, in sum, to all the linked games played by a club in a week. None of these propositions is acceptable to the Government.

If any predictable limit is to be set to the scope of linked games this can be done only by stipulating a maximum for total prizes. A maximum set to individual prizes would not do it, because bingo can be played so as to allow an almost infinite number of prizes to be given on a single game, and there would be no means—certainly under this Amendment—of regulating this. The argument that a limit to total prizes would be impracticable, taken with the requirement that all stakes must be returned in winnings, is not one that we can accept. I have already explained to my noble friend in Committee how it could be brought about.

With regard to the second point, the maximum of £1,000 on total prizes was intended to do no more than allow a number of small clubs, say in neighbouring market towns, to combine so as to provide from time to time prizes as high as those that might be produced by a single large club in an urban area from its own attendances. On that calculation it is a very generous figure, since there are very few clubs indeed capable of attracting, say, 4,000 members at a single sitting and charging 5s. for each book. It is generous in another respect, too. Linked bingo closely resembles a lottery run for private profit; yet even charitable lotteries are allowed far less than this under Section 45 of the 1963 Act. In their case the total value of the chances sold is restricted to £750 (not all of which can be returned in prizes since expenses have to be deducted) and no single prize may exceed £100. In these circumstances the Government can offer no prospect of the maximum of £1,000 being increased and they therefore see no point in leaving the figure to be decided by order. Incidentally, if the intention is to leave the matter to the judgment of the Gaming Board the Amendment will not achieve that, since there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the Board on orders as distinct from regulations.

Finally, it was of deliberate intent that the Government imposed the maximum of £1,000 as a sum applying to all linked games played by a club in a week. It will be for the club to decide whether, for instance, to join in one such game a week with prizes up to £1,000, or in two each with prizes up to £500. But the Government wish linked games to be the exception, not the rule. The Amendment would allow every game of bingo to be linked and high prizes to become the norm. In general, linked bingo is a form of gaming which the Government wish to restrict rather than encourage. By allowing many different clubs and large numbers of people—running into tens of thousands—to participate in a single game it strains the conception of gaming to the limit, but retains all the characteristics of a lottery. The sole object of this is to allow ever higher prizes to be given. This is the very antithesis of what bingo should be—a friendly, social, happy game such as was described by the right reverend Prelate.

We have done our best during the passage of this Bill to meet the demands that have been made upon us, and we have gone a long way. We have made a number of concessions, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi is aware, and I have to say that we can go no further.

LORD STRABOLGI

I thank my noble friend for that full reply. I greatly appreciate the concessions that the Government have made during the passage of this Bill through the other place in connection with linked bingo, but I think it is a great pity that they will not meet the requirements of the Amendment by leaving out the specified amount. I still think it is a great mistake to have an exact amount in the Bill which will last for a great number of years. It takes no account of the value of money, and I think it would be better for the Gaming Board to go into the whole matter of linked bingo much more closely.

This is a very big subject. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, it does not consist of a few hundred or a few thousand people in the West End of London and the big cities. Bingo is played by 8 million people, 20 per cent. of all the adults in this country. This subsection is going to be a very unpopular measure. As the Government know, they have to take unpopular measures sometimes, and I have always supported them, but this is an unpopular measure which is not necessary, and I very much regret that they should have adopted this restricted and rigid position, which I am sure they will come to regret in the end. I realise that I shall not be able to persuade my noble friends, and as I do not want to divide the Committee at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Further powers to regulate licensed club premises]:

On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

This clause is headed "Further powers to regulate licensed club premises", and I believe this is the most appropriate point for me to raise a question which seriously concerned a number of us in the Committee and which seems to me to be one of the central issues of the Bill. It is this. It is the avowed policy of the Government and one of the main purpose of the Bill to limit the total number of gaming clubs in the country to a certain figure, whatever that figure may be. That is an essential part of the control—to reduce the amount of gaming in the country; and I think that that purpose is almost universally accepted by all noble Lords who have been taking part in the discussions on the Bill, whether here or in the Committee beforehand.

What has puzzled a number of us is how the provisions of the Bill will suffice to secure it. They would obviously suffice if the Gaming Board had power to refuse licences. They would suffice if the Secretary of State had power to refuse licences. But in fact the licences are to be issued by local licensing authorities and there will be a two-way appeal against their decision to quarter sessions. How then can the Government be sure that out of this system of local licensing it will not emerge that the total number of gaming clubs that come through this process of local licensing will be far greater than the total number which the Government and the Board think to be acceptable for the country as a whole? I appreciate that a number of people who are running them now may not obtain certificates to run gaming clubs, and the number may be reduced somewhat in that way. I appreciate that a number of premises may not pass the tests under Schedule 2. But, even so, there is no guarantee that exclusions of that kind will reduce the present grossly excessive number to a figure that is acceptable.

How then, is that to be done? There was one point in the proceedings when I was inclined to say that if I were invited to become a member of the Gaming Board, which I shall not be, I would decline straight away on the ground that I was being given an impossible task; in other words, that the Gaming Board were being required to produce a certain result in respect of a maximum number of gaming clubs which they would have no sufficient powers to produce under this Bill. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will say something further about this matter and see whether he can allay our anxieties.

The reason why I think the appropriate place is this clause is because of subsection (3), which says: The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a licensing authority— (a) shall refuse to grant or renew a licence under this Act in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations... Those are general terms and I do not know how tightly the regulations could be drawn, but I cannot think that the Secretary of State could use this regulation-making power to insist that a particular club should be closed. On the other hand, I take it that he could use the regulation-making power to exclude clubs in a certain part of the country or of a certain type and so on.

I confess I do not fully understand how far these regulations might go, but it certainly seems to me that this is the ultimate control and that if this control by the regulation-making power under subsection (3) of Clause 22 is not effective we shall be passing into law a Bill that contains no guarantee that the main purpose of the Government and of Parliament will be attainable through the operation of the Bill. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, can give a satisfying answer upon this point. I think he will appreciate that this is one of the critical questions in the whole Bill.

LORD STONHAM

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for giving me this opportunity to do my best to deal with the vital question which I know is very much in all our minds; that is, whether the powers which this Bill gives to the justices, to the Gaming Board and to the Home Secretary are sufficient and powerful enough to secure the substantial reduction in the number of commercial gaming clubs which is our aim. We intend to reduce the number of clubs to one-third or perhaps one-quarter of those operating at present, so that no more will be left in existence than is necessary to prevent gaming from being driven underground or than are capable of being effectively supervised by the police and the gaming inspectors.

The Government have no doubt that this object can be achieved, and they are determined that it shall be. I hope that the facts that I shall now give will convince not only the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, but all noble Lords, and they will share our confidence, and also perhaps that certain misconceptions which have arisen during the passage of the Bll can be finally dispelled. In the first place, as we have made clear already to-day, commercial gaming clubs are faced with a serious struggle for survival during the period before the controls begin to operate, and during that period they are likely to be increasingly harassed by court decisions condemning the practices they have employed to make a profit from gaming, by resolute action on the part of the police, and by the fear that if they resort to the sort of twists and evasions which they have practised in the past they will be liable to imperil their chances of receiving certificates of consent when their applications come before the Gaming Board. I shall not be rash enough to predict what the full effects of this will be, but I shall not he surprised if as a result a number of clubs finally go out of business—and some are closing down already, as has already been mentioned to-day.

Next I would draw attention to the successive hurdles which the clubs will have to surmount before they finally obtain the privilege of licence. In the first place, the trustworthiness of all applicants and their financial sponsors will have to be vetted by the Gaming Board. It is impossible to say how many will fall at this hurdle but I expect it to be a considerable number. As your Lordships know, the criminal elements have been closely connected with gaming enterprises in this country and they have very dubious financial resources, although in saying this I intend no reflection on the respectable clubs, but they are not necessarily typical. Certainly a great number will fall at the first hurdle. That is entirely within the hands of the Board.

When they have obtained their certificates of consent from the Board the applicants will have to go before the licensing justices. At this stage a number of applications will certainly be rejected on the grounds of the unsuitability of the premises, and others on the ground of wrong location. Gaming clubs are not the most popular phenomena in their own neighbourhoods, and where they are sited in residential areas it would be surprising indeed if the strongest objections were not raised to them by local residents and others. Indeed, I can think of no single aspect of this matter about which the public in general are likely to feel more strongly, especially since the clubs are accustomed to remain open until the small hours of the morning, and are liable to create disturbance and nuisance. All these objections the justices will be expected to hear, and no doubt will give a good deal of weight to them.

But the main issue to be decided by the justices will be that of demand; and on this I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will agree with me. And here we are confident that they will pay the closest attention to the advice which the Gaming Board will give them on that subject. Your Lordships will be aware that we have so arranged the timetable of applications in Schedule 2 of the Bill that the Gaming Board itself will obtain a full conspectus of all the applications at least four months, and probably six months, before any of them go to the justices. This means that they will have ample time to decide the advice to be given on each application. Moreover, in the unlikely event that this general advice is ignored it can be reinforced by the Board's appearing before the justices to object to particular applications, a right which can be used so as to bring a strong selective influence to bear. It will not be enough for an applicant to show that there is a demand for gaming in the area; he will also have to show that it cannot be satisfactorily met by other facilities existing either in the area itself or within reasonable access to it. Thus it would be perfectly proper for the Board to object to an application for a club in a suburban or satellite area on the grounds that adequate facilities existed in a large centre nearby which the players could reasonably be expected to use.

If the Beard fail to convince the justices of their views they will have powers of appeal to quarter sessions of a quite unprecedented kind. They will not be restricted in their appeals to cases where they have themselves appeared in the first instance, but will be able to take up and champion, on appeal, objections made by any other party whatsoever—for instance, the police, the local authority, the fire authority, residents' associations, or even single individuals.

All applications will, therefore, have to pass through the double sieve of the Gaming Board and the licensing justices, with a possibility of a third sieve as well, through appeals made by the Board to quarter sessions. This will be an extremely searching process, and the number of casualties is likely to be large. Moreover, it will not be a question merely of decanting players from one club to another: those clubs that remain will be liable to be restricted both in the games they play and in their playing area. Their possibilities of expansion will be strictly controlled. And on all this, too, the Gaming Board will be entitled to advise and guide the justices. Any club which contravenes the strict controls imposed upon it, or indulges in dubious practices, will be liable to be put out of business at once, on an application for cancellation made to the justices by the Board, the police or anyone else.

Those which survive the initial sorting process will find their opportunities severely restricted in a number of other ways. In the first place, the membership provisions, which at present are often a mere fiction, will become a reality. Not only will the clubs be prevented from advertising, but they will be unable to behave, as so many of them have in the past, as though they were nothing more than public gaming houses. Saving the bingo clubs, no one will be able to become a member without giving notice in person on the premises and then waiting for forty-eight hours. The Government intend that this provision, which will prevent purely casual or impulse play, shall be strictly enforced from the beginning. This in itself will hamper the activities of the clubs very considerably. One effect of the provision will be seriously to discourage the influx of foreign gamblers into the West End of London, and this seems bound in itself to have an effect on the number of clubs which find it profitable or economic to remain open there. In the provinces the effects may be even more pronounced, though for different reasons.

To these restrictions there will be added the strict control over the sources of profit, contained in Clauses 12 to 14 of the Bill. The effect of these provisions is that not a single banker's game will be capable of being played, and no profits of any kind made from providing any other games, without the specific sanction of regulations made on the advice of the Gaming Board. Here the whole armoury of control will be left in the hands of the Government and Parliament. We believe that with the complete freedom of choice left to the authorities, in the case of any game, whether to prescribe table charges, advantages in the bank, or a cagnotte, very substantial inroads can be made into the clubs' profits, while still allowing sufficient of them to survive to meet the essential and irreducible demand for gaming facilities.

Finally, I come to the ultimate weapon, the clincher; namely, the regulation-making powers conferred by subsection (3) of this clause on the Secretary of State, powers which he will exercise on the advice of the Gaming Board. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that these powers are infinitely wide. As I have already foreshadowed during the passage of the Bill, they could be used to forbid absolutely the combination of gaming and entertainment in any circumstances, and such a prohibition would by itself dispose of at least 400 clubs up and down the country. Whether they will be used in this way it is too early to say, but certainly the grounds of principle for doing so are very strong, and this is one of the very first issues which the Home Secretary will wish to put to the Gaming Board for their advice.

But the potentialities of the regulation-making powers go a great deal further than this. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, rather doubted that the Home Secretary could exclude or close a particular club but he thought that he might be able, by regulation, to exclude clubs in a particular part of the country. The regulations certainly could be used, for instance, to forbid any clubs being opened in a rural area, in a suburban area, or indeed in any predominantly residential area; so in effect confining commercial gaming to the centres of the larger cities. This is by way of example only. There is no question that the powers could be employed to achieve virtually any effect that the Government wished, and Parliament was prepared to sanction. To take an extreme, they could even be used to restrict gaming clubs to spas and holiday resorts, on the French pattern, although so long as the chief demand is in the large industrial centres that would not be a very sensible proposition. I mention it, however, to illustrate exactly how extensive these powers are. The cloth can be cut to whatever pattern is thought most appropriate. But certainly these powers will be used, on the advice of the Gaming Board, to reinforce the control system at any point where that is necessary.

We have talked a great deal in this Bill about methods, the means to be adopted to secure ends and not so much about the ends to be achieved. The Government have rejected the proposal that the whole matter should be left to be decided behind closed doors by an independent body—the Gaming Board—over whose actions Parliament would have no control. This is because we believe that an autocratic system of that kind, although superficially attractive, not only would run contrary to commonly accepted conceptions of justice but would prove to be a blunt and cumbersome instrument, compared to the far more delicate and precise controls which can be applied through the Bill as it now stands. There is no question in our minds that we have here the means of reducing commercial gaming to whatever level is considered acceptable, but we are determined that this should be achieved through the application of general principles approved by Parliament and openly applied.

3.0 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

I should like to thank the noble Lord for the most important statement that he has just made, which will be welcomed by many of us and will have removed a great many of the apprehensions that we had. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has pointed out, there were many people who felt that the whole purpose of the Bill might fail on this one issue of the control of the number of clubs and the capacity of giving proper inspection. So great was my own feeling about this that in the Committee "upstairs" I moved an Amendment to remove the power to license clubs from the licensing magistrates and place it firmly and squarely on the Gaming Board.

I think my suggestions commanded a good deal of support in the Committee, but I fully appreciated the point which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had made. I did not want in any way to imperil the progress of the Bill, and for that reason I withdrew my Amendment. But what the noble Lord has told us, especially in drawing attention to the very wide powers under Clause 22, has been a matter of great reassurance; reassurance, I think, not only on the initial issue of the number of clubs but also reassurance about the immense flexibility that there will be in the Bill. Because one of the problems in the situation which confronts us at the moment is that we have felt so helpless to do anything to put right a situation which got out of hand. From what the noble Lord has told us in pointing out the powers under Clause 22 it seems to me that there will be great flexibility in the hands both of the Board and of the Minister, and I hope that that will mean that if there is any other trouble immediate action can be taken to stop it.

LORD KILBRACKEN

I should like to intervene for a minute to say how much I share some of the apprehensions expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and that with much regret I cannot fully share the optimism expressed by my noble friend. I do not want to elaborate, but I would lay quite long odds against the number of clubs being reduced in three, four, or even five years to the number he has in mind, and I fear greatly that a new Bill will have to be introduced, because despite what my noble friend has said the powers will not do anything to reduce the number of clubs.

LORD STONHAM

If my noble friend would like to name the odds, I would oblige him outside with a modest investment.

LORD KILBRACKEN: Nine to two.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

I share Lord Kilbracken's misgivings. I am not in the least reassured. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, may well be reassured, but I am not, and I propose to press my Amendment to a Division on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, did not tell me that he was going to raise this point, and to some extent he has taken the ground from under my feet. I do not find the Minister's statement at all reassuring; I think it is purely a palliative and I think we should press on with this matter and not be put off by these sort of words by the Minister.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 [Offences under Part II]:

LORD STONHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 9, and wish to take with it Amendments 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Of these Amendments only the second Amendment, No. 10, is a substantial one, and the others are all consequential. I foreshadowed these Amendments and explained their purpose in a discussion in Committee on the Motion that Clause 23 stand part. As subsection (1) of this clause now stands, only the licence holder can be prosecuted for breaches of the law on licensed premises, and club officers for breaches of the law on registered premises, and they are given the defence that they had no knowledge of the contravention and had exercised all reasonable care against their occurrence. Flagrant infringements could, therefore, be committed, for instance, by an employee of the club, for which neither the offender nor anyone else could be penalised. The Amendment accordingly extends the liability for contraventions beyond the licence holder or officers of the club to whoever may have been concerned in the organisation or management of the gaming in question. It does not touch mere participants in the gaming, because they are more likely than not to have been the sufferers from the offences committed. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 18, line 4, leave out ("next following subsection") and insert ("following provisions of this section")

Page 18,line 16, at end insert— ("(1A) Without prejudice to the preceding subsection, but subject to subsection (2) of this section, if any such provisions as arc mentioned in the preceding subsection are contravened in relation to any gaming (or, in the case of the provisions of section 16(3) of this Act, are contravened in relation to a cheque accepted in exchange for cash or tokens to be used by a player in any gaming), every person concerned in the oreanisation or management of the gaming shall be guilty of an offence.")

Page 18,line 17, leave out ("the preceding subsection") and insert ("either of the preceding subsections")

Page 18,line 19, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) of this section")

Page 18,line 26, after ("(1)") insert ("or subsection (1A)")

Page 18,line 37, leave out ("and") and insert ("to").

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 [Power of court to make disqualification order on conviction of certain offences]:

LORD STONHAM

I beg to move Amendments 15 and 16.

Amendments moved— Page 19, line 10, after ("(1)") insert ("or subsection (1A)") Page 19, line 11, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("either of those subsections").—(Lord Stonlzam.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 [Other uses of machines for amusement purposes]:

LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 18: Page 26, line 33, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").

The noble Lord said: Clause 34, subsection (3), lays down prizes which may be paid to the successful gambler on what is known as a "one-armed bandit" or, in the trade, as a "fruit". Under subsection (3)(a) we are concerned with the money prize that may be paid out, and under subsection (3)(b) with the non-monetary prize that may be paid out by one of these machines. Under subsection (3)(b), which has to be read in conjunction with subsection (8)(a) on the next page, the non-monetary prize which may be paid out must not exceed five shillings. This non-monetary prize is usually paid out in the form of tokens which may then be taken, if the machine is in a public house, as it very often is, to the bar and exchanged for drinks or cigarettes to the value of the tokens that you possess or, if the machine is on a fairground, the tokens may be taken to be exchanged for a large doll, or a "lovely bunch of coconuts", or any of those objects that fairground operators offer in exchange for the tokens in question.

It was pointed out by the Minister "upstairs" that in many cases such non-monetary prizes were in fact worth far less than the tokens given in exchange, because you could give five shillings' worth of tokens and you would receive a china dog which, even if you wanted it, was not worth more than 2s. 6d.; and he seemed to think that this was an argument in favour of tokens because it made more equal the difference between the value of the prize, if it was a non-monetary prize, and the permitted monetary prize. I should have thought it would be an argument against having non-monetary prizes. In any case, when the game is played in a pub you do, of course, get exactly the value of the tokens. You simply put them towards the next round of drinks, and if they are not enough to cover the round you throw in the extra shilling or two shillings, whatever it may be, to make up the sum.

If the machine is so designed that instead of paying out these tokens it pays out real money, whether pennies, threepenny bits or sixpences, then the prize which may so be paid out is limited, under subsection (3)(a), to two shillings. I cannot see any logical reason why a machine should not be allowed to pay out 5s.-worth of tokens, which can then go towards buying a packet of cigarettes, or 5s. in real money which, if you do not want to buy another round of drinks, or another packet of cigarettes, or a china doll, you can put in your pocket and take home with you.

There is another consideration involved in this matter. I am informed by the manufacturers of these machines that the tokens being used are extremely unpopular with them because they are very easy to counterfeit. In fact, large numbers are being faked and used to operate these machines in licensed premises and elsewhere. They put in a large number of faked tokens, and the real tokens which they get out can be exchanged for non-monetary prizes to that value. They are extremely easy to fake; almost anybody can turn them out on a lathe. It is much easier to construct a machine which will accept only coins of the realm. Incidentally, it is also being found that some of these tokens can be used to work parking meters and vending machines, including ticket machines on the Underground. Therefore, if a company wants to cut out tokens altogether and have a machine which pays out prizes in cash up to the same value as those of the non-monetary tokens, it is far better that they should be allowed to do so. I beg to move.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

I imagine that we shall not wish to spend a great deal of time discussing whether it is to be 2s. Or 5s., but it ought to be observed that these are machines which would be used on piers and at fair grounds, and are purely entertainment machines on which children will often amuse themselves. Therefore, it is probably better that the prizes should be lower rather than higher. The Government are on the right lines in restricting this to 2s.

LORD STONHAM

I am glad to hear that I am still continuing on the primrose path. I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate. These Amendments, like most of those which we have already discussed to-day, were moved in Committee and thoroughly discussed, but we are rehearsing them again.

Clause 34 relates to amusement machines, the sort of machines which are to be found on seaside piers, in amusement arcades, and at fun-fairs—the sort of machines which have recently been installed in cafés and in public houses under local authority permit and which are accessible to the public. As the right reverend Prelate has said, those which are to be found on piers, and so on, are much patronised by children. The whole purpose of these machines is to provide lighthearted amusement and not to give people a thirst for gaming. It follows that the prizes available must be strictly controlled.

I would remind the Committee that under the 1964 Act the maximum prize on machines of this kind which might be won at one "go" was fixed at 1s., but as an alternative a prize in kind worth not more than 5s. might be given instead. The thinking behind this is that a person is not likely to acquire much of a thirst for gaming by winning a series of 5s. prizes, such as kewpie dolls and so on, and things which are almost totally unusable, and certainly often unlovely except in the eyes of the beholder. The appeal of gaming—and here I am talking of gaming, not just of amusement—lies in the prospect of making a profit on the deal. The effect of the1964 Act was to encourage prizes in kind at the expense of those in money.

In this Bill the maximum money prize for amusement machines is increased: it has been doubled to 2s. The purpose of my noble friend's Amendment is to increase it further—to 5s. If that were done, the prize in kind would almost certainly disappear, because the money is so much more attractive. I agree with my noble friend on that, and I can understand the thinking behind the manufacturers and makers of these machines and why they would prefer a figure of 5s. They want to sell more machines and get more money out of them. This is the whole source of this device. It would make play on these machines something which was indistinguishable in principle from naked gaming: the prospect of twenty or thirty to one on one's stake, and in a game which can be played with great speed, all day and every day, by anyone anywhere that a machine is to be found. This is not the same as one-armed bandit gambling machines, but this proposal might bring that much nearer.

If we allowed this proposal to go forward, we should lose sight of the whole purpose of this clause, which is to confine machines installed in public places, which any child can play, to their avowed purpose of providing "amusement only". I think that with a money prize of a maximum of 2s., or the alternative of a prize worth 5s. in kind, we have gone to the limit to which we ought to go. I hope that my noble friend will agree that, as we have discussed this and since he has ascertained the Government's views, he will now withdraw his Amendment without further discussion.

LORD KILBRACKEN

My noble friend more or less accused me of having moved an Amendment which I had already moved "upstairs". I did not in fact move it "upstairs". I proposed there that the maximum cash price should be 10s., not 5s. This is a substantial reduction, which brings it down to the level of the non-monetary prices which may be won by the same machines. Therefore, a completely different principle is involved.

In regard to what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester, such machines could be available on pleasure piers and in fair grounds where they are available to children; but on such locations stakes are usually kept very low. I visited one near Victoria Station the other night to see how they worked. Although a maximum stake of 3d. is allowed, in fact the maximum stake in practically all the machines was Id. Therefore, I do not think that machines with a large cash pay-out would be used. In public houses it would be unobjectionable to have a machine which paid out 5s. in cash. Where it does not pay 5s. in cash but in kind, it is simply acting as an incentive upon the player to buy extra quantities of intoxicating liquor and cigarettes at the bar—which I should not think the right reverend Prelate would want to encourage. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.18 p.m.

LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 19: Page 26, line 33. leave out ("a token") and insert ("one or more tokens").

The noble Lord said: I regard this Amendment as nothing more than a drafting Amendment. Where one has a machine which is allowed to pay out cash up to 2s. in value, then it is provided that it may instead pay out a token exchangeable only for such a money prize. In all these fruit machines there is almost always a variable prize, depending upon the arrangement of symbols that come up; it may be 3d., 6d., 9d., up to a maximum of 2s. This Amendment would require it to be enabled to pay out one or more tokens, which is the phrase used in subsection (3)(d): "one or more tokens which can be used...". I cannot think of a machine which would be able to pay out only one token but not, if necessary, more than one token. I beg to move.

LORD STONHAM

This is a point which my noble friend raised in Committee and which I agreed to look at. I do not agree with my noble friend that it is purely a drafting Amendment; I think there is a point of substance in it. So far as we know, where money is to be given at all, all the machines in use in fact deliver the money automatically; and, indeed, the law as it stands at present requires that they should do so. However, the Bill which we are now considering offers the alternative of a token, and my noble friend wishes by his Amendment to allow "one or more tokens" instead of just one.

We accept that it may be convenient for a machine which offers different money prizes to deliver one, two or three tokens, depending upon the degree of success in the game, instead of having always to deliver one token only—which could, of course, be a different token depending on the degree of success. I understand that my noble friend does not intend that this Amendment should affect the maximum prize of 2s., and on that understanding I should be willing to advice your Lordships to support this Amendment. But I should like to make it clear that the Amendment is acceptable only on the grounds that it will merely allow alternative prizes within the maximum by reference to the number of tokens delivered. If the Committee approve of this Amendment, I should like to look at the drafting again between now arid Third Reading, in order to make sure that there is no ambiguity in this respect.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 33 [Offences under Part III]:

LORD STONHAM

I beg to move Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22. Amendment No. 20, on which the other two are consequential, applies to offences committed in connected with machines on licensed or registered premises the same principle as that applied by the Government Amendments to Clauses 23 and 24 in respect of offences against the general gaming laws on those premises, and for exactly the same reasons. It extends the liability beyond the licence holder or club officers to whoever else may have allowed the offending machine to be on the premises, subject of course to the defence in subsection (10) of "no knowledge" and "due diligence". I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 30, line 35, at end insert— ("(3A) Without prejudice to the last preceding subsection, but subject to subsection (10) of this section, where any such provisions as are mentioned in the last preceding subsection are contravened in relation to a machine on any premises, any person who allowed the machine to be on the premises shall be guilty of an offence".)

Page 31, line 43, after ("(3)") insert ("subsection (3A)")

Page 32, line I, leave out ("either") and insert ("any").—(Lord Stenham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 41 agreed to.

Clause 42 [Restrictions on advertisements relating to gaming]:

3.23 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 23: Page 36, line 16, after ("granted") insert "or from such later date as may be appointed by the licensing authority by whom the licence was granted".

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if with this Amendment we discuss Amendment No. 24. Subsection (3) of Clause 42 allows advertising in certain circumstances, and paragraph (c) permits a club to advertise, provided that the advertisement is published within 14 days of the licence being granted. In actual fact, this date is too early in most cases, as it will probably only be after the licence has been granted that the necessary conversion and decoration can be undertaken. I have in mind, particularly, the conversion of a cinema interior into a bingo club, which might take three or four months. My Amendment therefore seeks to change the starting date for the 14 days advertising period, to one appointed by the licensing authority in the light of the individual circumstances. I beg to move.

LORD STONHAM

This is a very proper and useful proposal. There may, for example, be occasions when the structural alterations—even, perhaps, the signing of leases for the renting of premises—will be deferred until a licence has been granted, and then the 14 days limit on advertising from the time of the granting of a licence may be virtually valueless. Therefore, this Amendment, which allows the licensing authority to fix a later date, as it were, will allow these things to be taken into account, and will allow a new club to advertise in the newspapers for the effective 14 days when they are able to provide the new facilities. I think this is a reasonable concession which we ought to make, and I advise your Lordships to support the Amendments.

LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to thank my noble friend and the Government for accepting this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRABOLGI: I beg to move Amendment No. 24.

Amendment moved— Page 36, leave out line 18.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 [Provision for inspectors and rights of entry and related rights]:

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 25: Page 37, line 20, leave out ("and with the consent of").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to meet a criticism of Clause 23 made by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken in Committee: that if the police or gaming inspectors were obstructed when seeking to enter licensed premises, or to inspect the equipment and accounts there, then, in the absence of the licence holder at the time no offence could be brought home to him. This is because, as subsection (3) of Clause 43 now stands, it has to be shown that the person committing the obstruction is acting both on behalf of the licence holder and with his consent. After my noble friend pointed this out, and after we had considered it, we agreed that the additional requirement of consent is too stringent, as it might be construed as requiring the police to prove that the licensee had consented to the particular exclusion complained of, even though it was shown that the doorman, for example, had general authority to exclude everybody, including the police. I beg to move.

LORD KILBRACKEN

I am most grateful to my noble friend for moving this Amendment, which entirely meets the point I raised earlier.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 39, line 11, at end insert— ("() In the case of any premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force, any person duly authorised in writing by the fire authority (within the meaning of the Fire Services Act 1947) in whose area the premises are situated may at any reasonable time enter the premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether appropriate precautions against the danger of fire are being sufficiently observed; and in relation to a person so authorised subsection (3) of this section (with the omission of paragraphs (c) and (d) shall have effect as if in that sub-section—

1. (a) any reference to an inspector or constable were a reference to a person so authorised, and
2. (b) the reference in paragraph (a) to subsection (2) of this section were a reference to the preceding provisions of this subsection.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cum-nor, during the Committee stage, that officers duly authorised by the fire authority should be given the right to enter licensed clubs at any reasonable time to see whether fire precautions are being observed. This is a very necessary Amendment. The points in it were fully gone into in Committee and, unless your Lordships think otherwise, I shall just move it. I beg to move.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for fulfilling in this way the undertaking which he gave in Committee. I was concerned about the fire authorities. I am not sure that this Amendment goes all the way to meet the points which I raised on a Schedule in Committee, but it is a very considerable help that these powers of inspection will be available to fire authorities all through the year, and we all hope that they will be effective in minimising the fire risk.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44 [Local authority not to maintain or contribute to premises licensed under Part II]:

3.31 p.m.

LORD GR1MSTON OF WESTBURY moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 39, line 16, at end insert— ("Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the letting by a local authority of premises which they maintain or to the maintenance of which they contribute for use by a licensed bingo club for the playing of bingo.")

The noble Lord said: During the last ten minutes the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has been in what I might call rather an accepting mood, so I rise not altogether without hope. This is an Amendment similar to one which was discussed in the Select Committee and was negatived, but I raise it again because there is a considerable feeling on the part of the local government associations that not to accept the Amendment is really to cast a slight slur on local authorities, because the present Bill takes away from them a discretion which they have at present to let a local authority hall on an occasional evening for commercial bingo. They have that discretion now.

During the discussion in the Select Committee the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, advanced two reasons against it, I think. One, he said, was that, so far as he could make out, there was only one place, in Flintshire, where the only hall which was available for commercial bingo belonged to the local authority. I am advised, however, that there are other places; and, of course, it could conceivably arise in the future in the case of New Towns. The noble Lord said that even if there was only one such case it merited consideration, so I do not think he placed too much weight on that particular argument. The other argument was that local authority halls should not be used for commercial bingo, which is perhaps regarded by some as rather an unclean thing; that they should not be used, any more than perhaps a church, for bingo. That may have been a very prevalent view in Victorian days, but I think we have got beyond that now.

The other day, when we were discussing the Town and Country Planning Bill, Her Majesty's Government made a great point, in connection with appeals against local government decisions about advertising, that local authorities should have a discretion with regard to matters which are very much on their own doorstep. I cannot conceive anything being much more suited to local authority discretion than whether or not it will allow occasional commercial bingo in the only hall in the place which is available and which belongs to that local authority. In support of that principle, and for the reasons I have already stated, I very much hope that the noble Lord will look at this again and will leave with the local authorities a discretion which they already have under the present legislation. I beg to move.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

I very much hope that the noble Lord's mood of acceptance will have come to an end and that he will not accept this Amendment. As the noble Lord has said, in many places there may be only one hall, and that in the control of the local authority. Yet there will be many claims upon the use of that hall, and many of those claims will be superior to that of commercial bingo. Local authorities, however, are not indifferent to the rent which they can get, and it is much more likely that persons who run commercial bingo will be able to offer larger rents than could be offered by, say, a "Darby and Joan" club, by the local badminton club or by the local drama group. I understand that there would be no objection to their allowing the occasional evening of bingo for charitable purposes under this clause, and that the local authority would be able to satisfy the desires of people living in a particular area to play bingo for a charitable purpose. But I feel quite sure that if commercial interests were allowed to have a claim upon halls run by local authorities then very soon, in places where there is only one hall, much more desirable activities would be squeezed out. For that reason, I trust that the Amendment will not be accepted.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I do not go so far as the right reverend Prelate over this Amendment. There are not a great number of places in which there is only one hall, and that owned by the local authority; but undoubtedly, as my noble friend Lord Grimston has said, there are some. But what I fail to understand is why we should not treat local authorities as responsible bodies. It does not seem to me that a local authority is likely, for the sake of "filthy lucre", entirely to ignore the wishes of the inhabitants, particularly as the members of that local authority will have to stand for re-election within three years. On the whole, I believe that local authorities should be trusted to take a reasonable view and look after local affairs, which are within their scope and purview.

I quite understand the wish of the right reverend Prelate that all other cultural activities—perhaps I should say "all cultural activities"—should not be excluded by the large rent with which promoters of commercial bingo are prepared to bribe the local authority. That is wholly understandable; but I wonder whether it would work out like this in practice. I am much more sympathetic than he is to this Amendment. When a similar Amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Ilford in the Committee I confess I was not altogether convinced by the Government reply, and I should be very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has to say about it now.

LORD STONHAM

In gaming or racing parlance the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester has brought off a winning treble, because he has correctly guessed my intentions on the last three Amendments; or, in football parlance. I suppose it would be, "Two home, and one away". As the noble Lord, Lord Grimston, said, this Amendment was thoroughly discussed in Committee, when I apparently failed to convince the whole Committee that it was a proposal which should not go forward. There is no question of not trusting local authorities. Equally, there is no question in this Amendment about its applying only to places where the one suitable hall is owned by the local authority. What we are asked to consider is whether in their premises we should have licensed bingo clubs; in other words, commercial bingo clubs.

The general principle on which Clause 44 of the Bill is founded is that the public authorities should have no part in the provision of commercial gaming, whether for their own profit or as a form of community service which is in fact a profit for somebody else. The Government do not regard any form of commercial gaming as a proper object of public support. In this we make no distinction between bingo and other games, and if I failed in everything else I hope that I shall have the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, with me on this principle, which I think is very important.

The noble Lord, Lord Grimston, said that local authorities regarded this as a slur on them, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that surely local authorities have a sufficient sense of discretion and responsibility to be trusted in this matter. I agree with that last proposition, but it is so easy, under local circumstances and local pressures, for this basic principle for which we are fighting in this Bill to be forgotten or overlooked, and we do not want it overlooked. With regard to the suggested slur on local authorities, may I remind the noble Lord, Lord Grimston, that it is only inadvertently that Section 39 of the 1963 Act has allowed them to do this now. It does so in error, and contrary to the intention when it was framed. The intention is expressed in the rubric Section 39.

Local authorities not to subsidise premises for gaming. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was then Home Secretary, but in any case he will probably remember this rather glaring error in the title of the section which expressed the intention not to allow subsidised premises for gaming, although in fact the section permitted it. Clause 44 of the Bill simply restores what was always meant to be the object and which, but for this mistake, would have been the practice since 1963.

LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY

Would the noble Lord tell me whether in the last five years local authorities have been abusing this power in the way suggested, not so much by the noble Lord but by the right reverend Prelate?

LORD STONHAM

If the local authorities are acting in accordance with the law, how can they be abusing it? What I am saying is that, whatever the law made in 1963, that was not the intention. So far as abuse is concerned, if by that word the noble Lord is asking whether I am aware of any excessive use of this power by the local authorities, the answer is, No, the use is quite small, and would be smaller in future, as I explained, even if this Amendment were granted. The reason is that the local authorities have not thought it right to let their premises for commercial gaming in that way. Most local authorities agree with what the Bill now provides and disagree, therefore, with the noble Lord's Amendment.

It was suggested that in some areas (particularly perhaps the areas most familiar to the noble Lord and myself, like the West Country), the local authority halls might be the only premises available to a licensed bingo club. The Bill allows such halls to be freely used for bingo played non-commercially, either by a members' club or as a feature of a charitable bazaar, a fete or other function, or as an entertainment promoted otherwise than for private gain under the terms of Clause 41. I think this is an important factor which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will take into account. They are not prevented from letting it for those reasons, but they cannot do so for use by licensed commercial clubs.

I want to make the point that these commercial bingo clubs often compete with the lesser charitable activities—and in the Government's view they compete detrimentally. They spoil the chances of success of the small social events and of those run for charity. I am aware that some local authorities have allowed their premises to be used for the playing of bingo by so-called clubs which are in fact commercial, fund-raising enterprises, using the guise of clubs simply in order to evade the limits on stakes and prizes set to non-commercial entertainments under Section 37 of the 1963 Act which Clause 41 of the present Bill replaces. We think it would be wrong for local authorities, perhaps unwittingly, to connive at abuses of this kind.

Finally—and I think this should be decisive—I cannot conceive that any commercial club which had to rely on the periodic hiring of a local authority hall, perhaps for one day a week, or over the management of which it had no control, could properly qualify for a licence under the strict standards set out in Schedule 2 concerning suitability of premises; or, for that matter, that a commercial club of this kind would be in a position to meet the financial obligations of a licensed club in the way of fees and of proper provision for internal control and supervision. Where we differ is on the one point of whether these licensed commercial clubs run for profit should be housed in premises owned or maintained by a local authority. We think not; and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and others will agree with us.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

May I ask the noble Lord to elucidate one point? I have in front of me Section 39 of the 1963 Act which is headed: Local authorities not to subsidise premises for gaming. The wording of that sections says:... ...nothing...shall be deemed to authorise any local authority to maintain or subsidise any premises wholly or mainly for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for the purpose of taking part in gaming: As I understand the speech of my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury, he was thinking less about the use of local authority premises continuously, or wholly or mainly, for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for commercial beingo, but rather of the periodic or occasional letting of a hall for such purposes.

It seems to me that in trying to correct a weakness in Section 39 of the 1963 Act the Government may have gone too far, and may be extending what was done in the 1963 Act so as completely to cut out the occasional or periodic letting of local authority premises for these purposes. It may be that under the pro visions of the Bill such premises could never get a licence. I do not know if that is so; but I think it would be helpful if that point could be further explained. I think most noble Lords, and even the right reverend Prelate might agree that there is a difference between the local authority building being let all the year round, every day of the week, for commercial bingo and, on the other hand, a hall which happens to be the only available hall in a town being let only occasionally or periodically for 'that purpose. Perhaps the noble Lord can clear up that point.

LORD STONHAM

I thought I dealt with it in the reply to the noble Lord, Lord Grimston. As a matter of principle, we object to the use of local authority premises for commercial gaming, whether such use is occasional, periodic or continuing all the time. We see no difference in principle; we still object to it. That is the first point.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that in the case of an occasional letting, the club so applying will almost certainly not get a licence. They would not satisfy the other needs attaching to the granting of a licence; they would not have the necessary financial backing, et cetera. So, if the case is only for the occasional letting, then there is no point in the Amendment because even if it allowed such lettings the clubs would not get a licence. With regard to Section 39 of the 1963 Act the noble Lord said that I had gone too far. We are content to stand on Clause 44(1) which says: No local authority shall maintain, or contribute towards the maintenance of, any premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force. What we are concerned about is commercial gaming and the involvement of a local authority in it; and we would add that the occasional use by a licensed club of premises in someone else's occupation is not feasible or practicable. Premises are either licensed or they are not licensed, and if they are licensed they cannot be used for any other gaming or even for charitable purposes. I do not think I can go any further in explaining this. There may be this point of principle in difference between us and so far as the Government are concerned we shall just have to adhere to it.

LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY

I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate has gone on record with such a very low opinion of the way in which local authorities would exercise their discretion. I think he is wrong. But, be that as it may, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—apart, as he says, from the principle that a public hall should never be used for commercial gaming—would say that there is anything else between us. I do not think the noble Lord had such a low opinion of the discretion that might be exercised by local authorities. As the Government refuse to alter their position on this matter and I certainly still think it is not in accordance with the attitude that they are adopting as regards discretion by local authorities in other respects, I feel that I cannot withdraw the Amendment. I am not proposing to press it to a Division but I cannot withdraw it, because that would imply that I agree with Lord Stonham's principle, which I do not.

On Question Amendment negatived.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 [Forfeiture]:

3.52 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

With Amendment No. 28 I should like to take Amendment No. 29. Amendment No. 28 is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 29 which amends Clause 46 so as to provide that before the court orders the forfeiture of any article such as a gaming machine which has been produced in evidence before the court, it must give an opportunity for anyone claiming to be the owner of the article to be heard. This meets a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, in the Select Committee that machines, and gaming machines in particular, are often very costly and that mostly they are not sold but hired for use. If wrongly used, the hiring firm may have no knowledge whatever of the offence, and therefore it is unfair that the firm should be liable to be penalised without being heard. In form, the Amendment follows the same principle as that adopted in Clause 25(3), which provides that where a court is contemplating the disqualification of licensed premises any person interested in the premises such as the landlord should have the right to be heard. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 39, line 39, at beginning insert ("Subject to the next following subsection")

Page 39, line 43, at end insert: ("() The court shall not order anything to be forfeited under this section, where a person claiming to be the owner of or otherwise interested in it applies to be heard by the court, unless an opportunity has been given to him to show cause why the order should not he made.")—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is quite right in saying that this arises out of an Amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Jessel. I supported him in this aspect of his Amendment because it seemed to me that it was unfair that the actual owner of a machine should have no locus standi before the court when there was a question of the machine's being forfeited. Therefore, on behalf of my noble friend and on my own behalf, I should like to thank the Government for these two Amendments.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 46 as amended agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Grant, renewal, cancellation and transfer of licences]:

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 48, line 26, leave out from ("made") to first ("the") in line 31 and insert— ("(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date appointed under section 54(4) of this Act for the purposes of this paragraph, or (b) after the end of the period of fifteen months beginning with that date and before.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 31 and I should like to take with it Amendment No. 35. The first of these Amendments, on which the second is consequential deals with the timing of applications made to the Gaming Board for certificates of consent to a licence. This now has to be altered because of the failure of the Bill to become law by the end of July and the loss of at least three months in consequence. The problem has always been to dovetail the transitional arrangements with the regular procedures which are to follow. First, the great mass of existing clubs will have to be dealt with during the transitional period, a start being made as soon as possible after the Bill has become law and with the work continuing steadily until all the first applications have been disposed of—a matter of 15 months at least, allowing six months for the Board to consider the certificates of consent and a further nine months or so for licensing and appeals against refusal. Secondly, the normal procedures, to be introduced once the transitional period is over, will be for applicants to approach the Board before the end of October in the year preceding that in which licences are to be sought; all hearings by the justices being conducted at a single session in the following May.

Had the Bill become law by the end of July, the two procedures would have dovetailed very well. Thus we should have been able to require all first applications to be made to the Board by, say, the end of November next; the Board might have been expected to complete its work by about May, 1969, and the justices and the courts to complete their work by the end of that year or in the early months of 1970. In the meanwhile the second flight of applications by newly formed clubs, or those which had for one reason or another failed to make use of the transitional provisions, would come to the Gaming Board under the normal procedure by the end of October, 1970, and to the justices for hearing in May, 1971. They would follow closely upon the transitional applications, but at no stage would there be an overlap. But now that the Bill cannot be enacted before the end of October there is serious danger of overlap. With the three or four months' delay, many of the original applications will still be before the justices in May, 1971, and the second flight of applications, having gone to the Board in October, 1970, will then catch them up. This would seriously overburden the justices and lead to impossible difficulties and confusion.

The Amendments deal with this problem by providing, in effect, that there shall be no second flight of applications in 1970 at all. Since the date appointed for the first applications under the new paragraph (a) cannot be before November of this year, it follows that under new paragraph (b) no further applications will be capable of being made until 1971, these to be finally disposed of by the Board some time after October in that year and to come before the justices for hearing in May, 1972. This enforced pause between the great bulk of first applications by existing clubs and subsequent applications after the transitional period is over is not merely necessary but will have many advantages. It will mean that the Board will have no work to do on certificates of consent between the spring of 1969 and the autumn of 1970, and that the justices will be relieved of all licensing duties between the early months of 1970 and the spring of 1971, a valuable interval for both, during which they can turn their attention to the many other duties imposed upon them by the Bill. And it will mean that clubs which fail to get their applications before the Board during the three months to be allowed for that purpose shortly after the passage of the Bill will have to wait two years before they have a chance of applying under the normal procedures. That, in our view, would be a most useful impediment. I beg to move.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I think we all appreciate the reason for these Amendments. The chronology of the solution I found extraordinarily difficult to follow, but I expect it was my fault and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was in no way to blame. What I should prefer to do is not to discuss the matter further now but to read over what the noble Lord has said, if necessary with a wet towel round my head, and then I may appreciate what the chronology is. I can say here and now that I see no reason why we should not accept these Amendments at this stage, subject to the further study that I have mentioned.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.2 p.m.

THE EARL OF ARRAN moved Amendment No. 32: Page 53, line 26, leave out ("the Board").

The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment perhaps at the same time I may speak to Amendments Nos. 33, 40 and 41, because they are consequential. These Amendments were submitted "upstairs" in Committee. They were defeated by five votes to four, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth not being present. It is because of this narrow majority that I presume to bring this matter before your Lordships again to-day. I am also encouraged by the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.

The Amendments could be called (I called them so "upstairs") "watered-down Chester", if the right reverend Prelate will forgive the phrase, for they are in fact a compromise on his original Amendments. In other words, they are an attempt to give to the Board that supreme authority of revoking licences which I believe, as he rightly said, they should have, without at the same time burdening the Board with responsibilities and the task of giving licences, which with its limited staff it would hardly have the power to do. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester originally put forward a series of Amendments calling for the Board to issue licences. No doubt he has been persuaded by the reassurances of the Minister. I have not been. I am frankly disappointed that the right reverend Prelate should have withdrawn and left it to others to try to persuade the Government that the powers of the Board as they at present stand are just not strong enough to be effective.

I wish I shared the right reverend Prelate's confidence that under the Secretary of State, with his vast and unlimited powers and regulations, all will be well, and that he will make the right regulations, at the right time and in the right place. The feeling of, "leaving it to daddy" is not one which impresses me overmuch. "Daddy", by which I mean the Secretary of State, is, of course, definitely very busy and may not necessarily come to the right conclusion.

What I am coming to, and indeed what these Amendments are all about, is the powers of the Gaming Board. As I understand it, the intention of the Bill is that this Board is to be supreme, and to have unusual powers—powers which so far have never been conferred upon any other similar body—which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to on Second Reading as arbitrary powers of an extreme and, indeed, unprecedented kind. The noble Lord went on to say that a system such as is proposed required a strong lynch-pin, and this, he said, we have provided in the Gaming Board. He went on to say: Indeed, it would be scarcely any exaggeration to say the efficacy of the system would turn upon the Board". On the one hand, the Minister says this; on the other hand, he is doing his best, or the Government are doing their best, to undermine the powers of the Gaming Board right at the outset.

It is true that the Board has the overall power of refusing what is called a certificate of consent to those who wish to start a gaming club, such a certificate of consent being permissible in a set of circumstances such as has been described in the course of the Bill. The Board can refuse to issue such a certificate of consent if in broad terms it has doubts about those who seek it. But having given such a certificate, it is then up to the local justices to decide whether or not they will issue a licence; and, of course, no certificate means no licence. But once such a certificate has been granted, it is left entirely in the hands of the local justices, subject to the advice of the Board, to give a licence or not to give a licence. In short, the justices may think fit to give a licence, despite the advice of the Board, and if I may use a vulgarism, to "cock a snook" at the Board. If the Board then disapprove, they have then to go and prove their case at the quarter sessions.

In the Committee stage "upstairs", the Minister said that it might be humiliating and insulting for the justices to have their powers overridden by the Board as is suggested in my Amendment. I suggest that it is far more humiliating for the Board, which is, or should be, far above any local considerations, to have to appear, as it were, cap in hand before the quarter sessions and to state a case. Is the Board to have supreme authority. or is it not? The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to the mingling of authority of the Board, on the one hand, and the local justices, on the other, as a potent mixture. I call it an impotent mixture.

I saw the point of the Minister's objection to the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, which sought for licences to be issued by the Board itself. It struck me as being a mammoth task, calling for a very large staff of permanent officials. But if, as has now been agreed, the Board is not to be responsible for issuing licences, should it not at least be given the power to revoke them? Are we really certain that the licensing justices are the right people to decide these things in the last instance? Do they have anything but the local position in mind? No one (the Minister need have no doubt about it) pays a higher tribute to the justices than I do myself, but it remains a fact that they cannot be aware of the general picture of the country as a whole, and they must be deeply sensitive to local pressures.

Gambling clubs bring money into the town. For instance, not twenty miles from where I live a club exists for which there is absolutely no need whatever, except that the town in question contains an enormous factory in which tens of thousands of people are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds each week in wages and salaries—a lush hunting ground indeed for the predators! I repeat that I am aware that the Board grant certificates of consent themselves, and on this, and on this only, the Board's decision will not be subject to appeal. The Minister spoke about "closed doors". These doors, I think he will agree, are closed. Thereafter the Board's powers virtually cease to exist. They can advise the local justices not to grant a licence, and if the justices are obdurate they can go to court. It may even be that they can take them to quarter sessions and try to get the licence withdrawn. A pretty little case that will be, and a long one, with learned counsel employed at vast sums; and, more important, there will be an authority, as it were, divided against itself as never before.

This Amendment is quite simple, and the Minister will know me well enough to know that it is not in any way intended as a wrecking Amendment. It simply gives the Board that extra amount of power which I feel, and which I think others feel, they should have. It simply says that the licensing authority shall refuse to grant or renew a licence under this Bill as the Board so direct. The Minister may point in vain to the powers of Government and of the Secretary of State under Clause 22. I remain, as I said before, totally unimpressed. What on earth is the Gaming Board there for if, in the last resort, the regulations are to be left to the Secretary of State? What is the purpose of appointing a Gaming Board at all? If they are, as he has said, to be dominant and, as it were, omnipotent, then why derogate from their functions and purposes? Are the Government really frightened of offending the local justices? Are they attempting an impossible compromise? Why not—I do not mean this literally, but in logic—abolish the Gaming Board altogether and leave it to the Secretary of State in his infinite wisdom to lay down the regulations which he may think are appropriate in any given circumstance? Are the Government not paying simple lip-service to something called the Gaming Board, which in effect will have no absolute authority other than to give a certificate of consent in the first place, and advise the local justices how to decide that the licences should actually be granted?

I have spoken for too long, but this is what really matters about the whole issue. Are the local justices going to see that the number of gaming clubs in this country is reduced by anything up to 90 per cent.? That, I think, is what we all want. Are they going to dare to do that? There are some of us who have been sitting on this Bill "upstairs" who are not altogether happy about the Bill as it now stands. I think this should be made absolutely clear. It is no part of our function to interfere with Government legislation which is clearly, if non-Party, aimed at improving the present situation, which indeed could hardly be worse. All I am trying to do in moving this Amendment is to put some guts into the Bill, some guts which I fear at the moment are lamentably lacking.

We shall meanwhile be carefully watching what action is taken by the police under the present law in regard to gaming clubs before the "overspill" legislation is dealt with—that is, during the next two or three months. I think it is at least possible that unless action, and vigorous action, is taken before we meet again in regard to stopping the flagrant and numerous evasions of the 1963 Act as it now stands, some members of the Committee which sat "upstairs" will ask the House, when we deal with the overspill, not so much to approve the new Bill as simply to enforce the present Act. I beg to move.

4.7 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

I found myself in a difficult position over this Amendment, since I owe a great deal to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the encouragement and sympathy that he gave to me in the Committee "upstairs" when I moved my Amendment to place the responsibility of granting licences upon the Board, rather than upon the licensing magistrates. I am grateful to him, and I share his passionate feelings about the importance of getting this Bill right. I was also grateful to him, when I had been defeated in Committee, for producing his Amendment, which he called "watered down Chester", though I wonder whether students of Hansard in the future will appreciate the particular undertones of that adjective in view of the proximity of the meeting of that Committee to Henley Regatta. I voted with the noble Earl on that Amendment, and again we were defeated, and I feel that having discussed this matter very fully in Committee and having heard the views of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I must accept defeat, though I do so with some reluctance.

My difficulty about the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl is that if it is to be a principle of this Bill that the local licensing magistrates rather than the Board are to grant the licences, then it seems to me that we cannot have it both ways and that it really would create an almost impossible situation for the Board to have a power of veto for the judgment of the magistrates to whom has been given this responsibility.

I do not in any way minimise the apprehensions which I still have about this power, though I would disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in that I am more assured by what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said earlier in the debate than they are. But I was faced with the situation that had I pressed my Amendment it would have been likely that the Bill could not have become law; and I would rather have this Bill and do my best to make it work than not have a Bill at all. If the principle is now to be that the licensing magistrates are to grant the licences then I do not think it practicable that the Board should be given a further power over those magistrates, virtually to take away with one hand the power which has been given to them with the other. Therefore it is with a great deal of reluctance and in no sense lacking in gratitude to the noble Earl that I feel I cannot at this stage support him in this Amendment.

LORD STONHAM

I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and your Lordships will forgive me if I reply briefly to Lord Arran's speech, for three reasons. First, as he himself said, this was thoroughly discussed in Committee, and we took a vote on it. Secondly, with his customary impulsive generosity and helpfulness, the noble Earl has already informed the Committee of his intention to divide, so that anything I may say is fairly academic. My third reason is because of the rather comprehensive statement which I made on the Question, that Clause 22 stand part of the Bill, which, while it did not completely dispel all the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, certainly from their remarks went a considerable way.

The Amendment proposed by the noble Earl would substitute for the power given to the Board to advise the justices in the exercise of their licensing functions, and to appear before them, a power to direct the justices without entering an appearance. I thoroughly agree with the right reverend Prelate that it would be quite intolerable for the justices to be put in a position where at any time the Board could intervene without reasons being given, to set aside their jurisdiction and substitute arbitrary decisions of their own.

Secondly, the system would deny applicants the elementary right of having their cases heard and determined in open court; or would allow that right to be taken away from them at the whim of the Board. There can be no justification in departing so radically from the accepted standards of justice in circumstances where all the considerations bearing on the application can be fully and openly presented in court. The noble Earl's intention, in fact, is that if the Board considers that a certain course of action should be followed, but is uncertain of being able to persuade either the justices or quarter sessions to this view, it should be able simply to foreclose the argument in its own favour. Put in that way—and that is the only possible way to put it—in my view it cannot possibly be acceptable to anybody in the Committee. The noble Earl argues a lack of faith in the justices to which I cannot subscribe.

I feel that I would not be doing a service to the Committee if I were to speak longer. The Government fully support what the right reverend Prelate has said on this. We feel that we have reached the best position we can on this particular issue. I respect the noble Earl's views, but I cannot accept them.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I, too, was one of those who in the Committee supported the noble Earl's Amendment, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has gone too far in suggesting that none of your Lordships could reasonably continue to support it, because it has many attractions. However, in my case I frankly confess that when we were discussing this Amendment in Committee I had not appreciated the latent power in subsection (3) of Clause 22, which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, explained at some length earlier in our proceedings to-clay. Throughout the Committee stage I was searching for a final weapon, which would be in the hands either of the Board or of the Government. to ensure that we did not end up through the decisions of the licensing justices and quarter sessions with a considerably larger number of gaming clubs than it was the desire of the Government, or I think of Parliament, to have.

At that stage, when we were discussing Schedule 2 in Committee, and after the right reverend Prelate had withdrawn his Amendment for the reason he has mentioned to-day, I could see no other ultimate weapon except this Amendment which on two occasions has been persuasively moved by the noble Earl. But I must bow to the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has just said, that we should be trying to get the best of two worlds and perhaps getting nothing. I do not think we can mix decisions in open court by the justices and quarter sessions with decisions behind closed doors by the Board. For my part, therefore, I would prefer to rest upon the ultimate power in Clause 22, and I could not find it possible to support the noble Earl's Amendment.

LORD KILBRACKEN

I must rise in support of the noble Earl, Lord Arran. We have had these references to what my noble friend Lord Stonham called the "clincher" clause, Clause 22, but that clause provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations under which a licensing authority is bound to refuse the grant of a licence, and if the Secretary of State is entitled to require that the licensing authority do not grant a licence I do not see that it is objectionable that the Board should so direct the licensing authority. I support this Amendment because it means that the Board is to have real power, and despite Clause 22, and despite the Board's ability to appeal on the ground that a licence ought not to have been granted, which would be very hard to prove in the circumstances, I do not feel that the Board has sufficient powers to see that the will of the Government is carried out. If we are to have a Board, let it be an effective Board.

LORD HAWKE

I cannot remember whether I was present at the Committee at this stage or which way I voted, but on reflection I am convinced that the thinning down of casinos and clubs in this country is a political decision and that therefore it is much better taken from the Home Office rather than from a Board. For that reason, in the interests of strong rule over gambling I think it is probably better not to accept the noble Earl's Amendment.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

May I make one point? The Minister made great play of the fact that these matters would be heard in open court and that everybody should have an opportunity to plead his case. As the Minister must surely know, the original granting of the licence is purely arbitrary and will be done behind closed doors. No evidence will be permissible, or rather no evidence will be published; the decision will rest with the Gaming Board sand its decision on that matter will be final. So, there is nothing new in the idea of its also hiving irrevocable power when it comes to revoking licences.

LORD STONHAM

I must correct the noble Earl. The one thing which will be decided by the Board is simply the certification procedure, which is a question of character. After that, once the certificate is forwarded to the justices, things will be done openly. They will be discussed in open court and there will be legal representations and everything else. That is what we are talking about. The noble Earl would have it that no matter what happens in the justices' court the Board have a veto. This is what I am saying is contrary to British justice.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

Is not the question of character the most personal and important thing of all? Yet this is to be heard in private.

LORD AIREDALE

What I do not quite understand about this subject is that the Board have this important power to issue a certificate of consent on the question of character. But suppose the Board subsequently heard something which caused them to say, "We should not have granted a certificate of consent had we known of these facts when we granted it". Have they no right to withdraw the certificate of consent? And if they have a right to withdraw it, what happens then? I should have it thought it was most unusual to have a Board of any kind with powers to grant certificates and apparently without any powers to withdraw or to revoke them.

LORD STONHAM

The noble Lord is quite right. This is a most unusual and exceptional power granted to the Board with regard to the question of the character of an applicant. The reasons have been fully explained, both on Second Reading and in Committee "upstairs", because many of the reasons why the Board would decide that an applicant was not of sufficiently good character cannot be disclosed and their sources of information cannot be disclosed. This is quite an arbitrary business.

As to the second half of the noble Lord's question, if the Board found themselves mistaken, assuming the justices had granted the licence by that time, or if, which is more likely to happen, the licence holder's conduct proved unsatisfactory, then either of those matters would be a reason for not renewing the licence. That is how that will operate. But that is not the point at issue. At the moment, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is not questioning this. What he is saying is that in addition to these powers the Board should allow the justices to make a decision and then have the power to veto it.

LORD KILBRACKEN

The point is that the decision whether you grant a certificate of consent or not can be based only on quite restricted conditions which are laid down in Schedule 2(4); and in granting a certificate of consent no other matter may be considered, including the question of the total number of clubs in the area. The number cannot be reduced because the Board think that there are too many.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Does the noble Earl wish to withdraw his Amendment?

THE EARL OF ARRAN

No; the noble Earl does not wish to withdraw his Amendment. The noble Earl wishes to press it to a Division, because he feels most strongly, as does the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that because of this lack of judgment given to the Gaming Board we may find ourselves with more gaming clubs than we had before the 1963 Act came into operation. I wish to press the Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 4; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS
Arran, E.	Barrington, V. [Teller.]	Kilbracken, L. [Teller.]
		Stocks, Bs.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Belstead, L.	Bowles, L.
Albemarle, E.	Berkeley, Bs.	Brockway, L.
Annan, L.	Beswick, L.	Brooke of Cumnor, L.
Auckland, L.	Birk, Bs.	Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.
Aylestone, L.	Blackburn, L. Bp.	Brown, L.
Burden, L.	Iddesleigh, E.	Sackville, L.
Carron, L.	Jessel, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Chalfont, L.	Lindgren, L.	St. Davids, V.
Chester. L.Bp.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.	St. Just, L.
Daventry, V.	Longford, E.	Sempill, Ly.
Denham, L.	Lovat, L.	Serota, Bs. [Teller.]
Faringdon, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Shackleton, L.
Foley, L.	Morris of Kenwood, L.	Shepherd, L.
Fortescue, E.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Sorensen, L.
Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Noel-Buxton, L.	Stonham, L.
Grenfell, L.	Pargiter, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.	Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]	Thorneycroft, L.
Hawke, L.	Rankeillour, L.	Walston, L.
Hill of Wivenhoe, L.	Ritchie-Calder, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
		Wolverton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

My noble friend Lord Moynihan, who has had to catch an aeroplane to Tokyo, has asked me to say that he will not be moving his Amendment No. 34, on the understanding that he will put it down for Third Reading. He hopes that that is in order.

LORD STONHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 35.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 32, leave out ("the last preceding paragraph") and insert ("paragraph 18 of this Schedule").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD STONHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 36, and with it I should like to take Nos. 37 and 38. These three Amendments, the first of which is a paving Amendment, effect a necessary clarification in paragraph 21 of Schedule 2, which deals with the grounds on which renewal of a licence may be refused. Paragraph 21(1), as it stands, contains a general reference to paragraph 18, from which it is to be inferred that the issue of demand may be considered on renewal as on first grant. That is the intention. But when it comes to renewals, the issue cannot be considered in the same context and terms as on a first grant. Simply to apply paragraph 18 as it stands to the case of renewal would be sufficiently incongruous for there to be a risk that the justices or courts would hold that the reference to the paragraph was mistaken, and for them to act, or fail to act, accordingly.

The intention therefore needs to be properly spelled out in the context of renewals, and this is what the second Amendment does. Clearly, when it is a question of deciding whether an existing club should be closed because of a falling off in demand, the only test required—or which can properly be applied—is whether a substantial demand still exists in the area for facilities of the kind that would be provided if the licence were to be renewed; and the Amendment confines the consideration to this one point. The third Amendment is consequential and merely attracts paragraph 19, which enables the Gaming Board to give advice about demand and requires the justices to take that advice into account. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 55, line 11, leave out ("paragraphs 18 and") and insert ("paragraph")

Page 55,line 12, at end insert— ("(aa) that it is not shown to their satisfaction that, in the area of the authority, a substantial demand exists on the part of players or prospective players for gaming facilities of the kind proposed to be provided on the relevant premises ")

Page 55,line 48, at end insert— ("(Paragraph 19 of this Schedule shall have effect for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(aa) of this paragraph as it has effect for the purposes of paragraph 18 of this Schedule.")—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 42: Page 69, line 40, at end insert—

("Relinquishment of licence

() The holder of a licence under this Act may at any time relinquish the licence by notice to the clerk to the licensing authority and, where such a notice is given, the licence shall thereupon be treated as cancelled.

() Where the holder of a licence under this Act relinquishes the licence under this paragraph, the clerk to the licensing authority shall give notice of that fact to—

1. (a) the Board;
2. (b) the appropriate officer of police;
3. (c) the appropriate local authority;
499
4. (d) the appropriate fire authority, if that authority is not the same body as vie appropriate local authority; and
5. (e) the appropriate collector of duty.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment tics up a loose end in Schedule 2, which provides elaborate procedures for the cancellation of a licence or refusal to renew a licence for various infringements of the law, falling off in demand or irregularities of various kinds, but makes no provision at present for a licence to be simply surrendered. That deficiency is now dealt with. Obviously, no complicated processes are required here, but merely notice given to the licensing authority and notified by the authority for information to the Gaming Board, police and other public bodies which would have need to know. I beg to move.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Registration of members' clubs under Part II in England and Wales]:

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 43: Page 73, line 32, after ("under") insert ("Part II of").

The noble Lord said: I know your Lordships will be relieved to know that with this Amendment I should like to discuss Nos. 44, 45, 47 and 48. These Amendments provide for the relinquishment of certificates of registration by members' clubs and institutes in the same way as the Government Amendment to Schedule 2 provides for the relinquishment of licences by commercial clubs. It is necessary to deal separately under their appropriate Schedules with members' clubs in England (Schedule 3), those in Scotland (Schedule 4), and with clubs registered in either country for the use of gaming machines only (Schedules 7 and 8), but in all these cases the provisions are substantially the same. I beg to move.

LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 44.

Amendment moved— Page 76, line 18, at end insert—

("Relinquishment of registration

() A club or institute registered under Part II of this Act may at any time relinquish its registration by notice given to the clerk to the licensing authority by the chairman or secretary of the club or institute; and, where such a notice is given, the registration of the club or institute under Part II of this Act shall thereupon be treated as cancelled.

() Where the registration of a club or institute is relinquished under this paragraph, the clerk to the licensing authority shall give notice of the fact to the Board, the appropriate officer of police and the appropriate collector of duty.").—(Lord Stonham.)

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Registration of members' clubs under Part II in Scotland]:

LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 45.

Amendment moved— Page 82, line 17, at end insert—

("Relinquishment of registration

() A club or institute registered under Part II of this Act may at any time relinquish its registration by notice given to the sheriff clerk by the chairman or secretary of the club or institute and, where such a notice is given. The registration of the club or institute under Part II of this Act shall thereupon be treated as cancelled.

( ) Where the registration of a club or institute is relinquished under this paragraph. The sheriff clerk shall give notice of that fact to the Board, the appropriate chief constable and the appropriate collector of duty.").—(Lord Stonham.)

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Certificates and permits under section 27]:

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 46:

Page 84, line 44, at end insert— ("—(1) Where on an application under this Schedule the Board refuse to renew a certificate, the applicant may by notice in writing to the Secretary of State appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of the Board. (2) Where the Board serve a notice on any person under paragraph 4 of this Schedule, he may by notice in writing to the Secretary of State appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of the Board to revoke the certificate. Before determining any appeal under this Schedule with respect to a decision of the Board, the Secretary of State shall afford to the appellant and to the Board an opportunity of submitting to him representations in writing with respect to that decision, and may also, if he thinks fit, and either the appellant or the Board so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose; and the Secretary of State, in determining the appeal, shall take into account any such representations and the report of the person (if any) so appointed.")

The noble Lord said: The Sixth Schedule is related to the issue of certificates under Clause 27 of the Bill. It is necessary to obtain a certificate in respect of the sale, supply or maintenance of slot machines of various kinds. Application for the certificate has to be made to the Board, and in paragraph 2 of the Schedule it is made clear that: In determining whether to issue or renew any such certificate, the Board shall have regard only to the question whether the person applying for it is a fit and proper person to perform the relevant functions".

Under paragraph 4 of the Schedule the Board has power to revoke a certificate if it appears...that the person to whom it relates is not a lit and proper person to perform the relevant functions".

In the Bill as originally presented in another place there was in this Schedule a provision for an appeal against a decision of the Board to the Secretary of State. That right of appeal was removed at the final stage in another place, and some anxiety was expressed on behalf of the Opposition at that stage to its removal. I think, in fairness, I ought to say that certain other rights of appeal from the Board to the Secretary of State had been removed at an earlier stage, but the question was raised as to whether it was right to make that removal so sweeping as to apply it to Schedule 6 as well. I am therefore moving this Amendment, but I have limited it to the case where the Board are refusing to renew a certificate or are revoking a certificate. Those, I think, are liable to be the hardest cases. In the case where a person is not in this business at all and applies for a certificate and does not get it, there seems to be no great hardship if there is not a right of appeal; but where somebody has been holding a certificate I think it is questionable whether, behind closed doors, the Board should be able to revoke or refuse to renew a certificate, thereby quite possibly removing a person's means of livelihood.

On many occasions during the passage of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has indicated how undesirable it is that the Board should have power, behind closed doors, to do things which interfere with liberty. Here is a case where the Government are undoubtedly providing that, behind closed doors, the Board may take action which interferes with liberty and which, as I say, may deprive a person of his livelihood. If, in the procedure before the Board, there was provision so that the person whose licence was being called in question could know exactly what complaint had been made against him and could arrange for the cross-examination of those who were making that complaint, it would be a different matter.

The kind of situation I envisage is where, let us say, a competitor decides that it would be rather nice to put a certain person out of business. He then makes allegations to the Board that that person's licence ought to be revoked or not renewed. If he is successful, that person will be put out of business. I am suggesting that there should be further protection for the person whose livelihood is threatened in that way. So far as I can see, he will not be assured of knowing precisely what the complaints against him are; he will not be assured of knowing who made the complaints; he will not be assured of any right to cross-examine those who lodge the complaints with the Board. This Board, whom the Government have been so anxious to protect against the charge that they may become an undemocratic body acting powerfully in secret, are being given exactly that power in this case.

As I said in the first instance, I have deliberately drafted this Amendment so as not to restore the original provision in the Bill which granted a right of appeal in every case; because I accept that the need for a right of appeal is not so great when somebody is applying for a certificate in the first instance. But I submit that it is most important where a man's livelihood may be concerned. He may have made his living for years out of the supply or maintenance of these machines; and, suddenly, on a mysterious allegation which he is not in a position to challenge face-to-face, the Board may revoke or refuse to renew his licence; and he is out of business. It is in cases like this that I suggest that there should be restored the right of appeal to the Secretary of State. I duobt whether the possible hardship involved in cases like this was fully considered by the Government when they decided to remove the wider right of appeal which extended not only over Schedule 6 but over other provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.

LORD STONHAM

As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned, his Amendment would restore provisions which were originally contained in the Bill as first published. Those provisions would give to a machine retailer or maintainer the right of appeal against a decision by the Board to refuse him a certificate of approval or to cancel the one already granted. The noble Lord made what I thought was a very appealing case on the ground that in a matter of this kind everyone should be given the right to be judged, and to know on what he is being judged, in a way in which it can be seen that justice is being done; and that if he is refused his application, he should know why.

I cannot accept that a certificate of approval can be revoked without giving the person concerned the reasons for the revocation and without giving him the opportunity of being heard on all the matters concerned in the complaint. I rather understood the noble Lord to indicate that this was the chief measure of his objection and the chief reason for tabling this Amendment. Had he been right in that, I should have thought there was undoubtedly a justification in what he said. But when the original right that was included in the Bill was removed in the Commons, similar rights given to gaming managers, supervisors and operatives were also removed. That is in relation to Clause 19. It was not only in the particular case that the noble Lord mentioned. It was felt that it would be altogether inconsistent to deny applicants for gaming licences any appeal against the decision of the Board to refuse or cancel a certificate of consent, yet to retain the provision for appeal in all those other cases.

Of course in the case of machine retailers and maintainers there is, superficially, some distinction which perhaps might be drawn. The commercial gaming clubs have been established and have flourished certainly in defiance of the spirit, and perhaps also of the letter, of the law, whereas the retailing of gam- ing machines has been a perfectly legitimate business since 1960, and of amusement machines for a good deal longer than that. But there is no distinction in the propriety of the conduct. There has been as much, if not more, racketeering in the supply of machines as in the conduct of gaming clubs. For that reason few noble Lords are likely to dispute the necessity of approval by the Board in this as in other cases.

If that is accepted, the question has to be considered whether there should be a right of appeal from the decisions of the Board; and if so, to whom? One of the difficulties about the appeal system is that the weight of responsibility tends with the passage of time to pass to the appellate authority. In other words the body really charged by Parliament with the responsibility of determining the the matter has to consider not only what it thinks is right but also what it thinks an appellate authority will be willing to sustain, and the result is a division of responsibility which in the long run makes for weakness. Where there are a large number of authorities responsible for determining cases at first instance some sort of appeal system is essential to secure uniformity of practice, but where one has a single body responsible, as in the present case, the question whether there should be a right of appeal resolves itself rather into the question: who is to be responsible for operating these controls? Is it to be an independent Gaming Board, or is it to be the Secretary of State? And if it is the Secretary of State, why is he, in cases of this kind, likely to be more right than the Board?

I submit that when the question is posed in that way, the answer seems clear. It is true that when the Bill was first introduced it was felt that some sort of review system was desirable, even though this would have involved the Home Secretary in functions which do not properly belong to the Secretary of State, but under the Bill as introduced the functions of the Board were more limited than it is now proposed that they should be. It would seem now to be abundantly clear that the whole responsibility should rest squarely on the Board, and debates in another place suggested that to have been the predominant wish of honourable Members there, quite apart from questions of Party. Certainly this would not seem to be a matter on which different views can be taken in relation to the different functions of the Board. We feel that there should not be one rule in relation to one class of certificate and another rule for the others, and in relation to all these cases the ultimate responsibility must rest, and should be seen to rest, somewhere. It is the view of the Government that it should rest not with the Secretary of State but squarely with the Board.

LORD AIREDALE

I thought the Minister said it was not true to say that a person would have the right to appear before the Board and to hear who had made complaint against him, and What was the nature of the complaint, and have the right to make his own case and cross-examine the people who had made complaint against him. If he does think it is right, can we please be told where in the Bill these rights are stated, because this seems to be a bone of contention between the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the Minister, and the Committee should know where in the Bill are the provisions which ensure these rights to a person who is claiming them.

LORD KILBRACKEN

My final word on this Bill is that it seems to me that my noble friend Lord Stonham is now taking exactly the opposite view to the one he took on the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Arran. On that Amendment he said that the Board's rights must be curtailed, and now he is saying that the Board must be given an absolute right in these cases to make its own decisions. That is the exact opposite of the argument he used some ten minutes ago.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

If I may follow that up, I did not want to use the example until the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had spoken, but in dealing with an Amendment a few minutes ago the noble Lord said of the clubs that they should have the elementary right of having their cases heard and determined in open court. I am seeking at any rate some rights for those who are liable to have their livelihoods taken away by the Board in private. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham did not lessen my anxieties by saying that this was a field in which a great deal of racketeering goes on. This is exactly my view. My fear is that there may be unfounded complaints made by unprincipled competitors against somebody, and that the person complained against will not have a full opportunity of ascertaining exactly what the. complaints are, and of refuting them.

I am not going to press this Amendment to-day, but I hope that between now and the final stage of the Bill the noble Lord will consider the inconsistency to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has just drawn attention. I am concerned here about the people whose whole livelihood depends on their obtaining a certificate under Schedule 6 and on its not being taken away from them. The Board would not have to be satisfied according to the rules of evidence, that such people were unworthy to hold a certificate. It would be the Board using their own judgment, and the people concerned would never have had the opportunity of meeting their accusers face to face. It appeared to me as a possibility that the Board, in fulfilling their duty of considering whether the person is a fit and proper person to perform the relevant functions"— that is in paragraph 2—might adopt a "safety first" attitude and might revoke a certificate in the case of anybody against whom there was any sort of complaint. That would be most unfair. I certainly submit that somebody whose livelihood depends, and has depended for some time, on his having a certificate under Clause 27 of the Bill should have the benefit of the doubt in his favour rather than in the favour of complainants.

If, by some means, the noble Lord could between now and the next stage of the Bill indicate with greater precision how the Bill provides what he has described in other cases as elementary rights for these people, I should be grateful. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Registration under Part in England and Wales]:

LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 47.

Amendment moved— Page 90, line 13, at end insert—

(" Relinquishment of registration

() A club or institute registered under Part III of this Act may at any time relinquish its registration by notice given to the clerk to the licensing authority by the chairman or secretary of the club or institute and, where such a notice is given, the registration of the club or institute under Part III of this Act shall thereupon be treated as cancelled.

() Where the registration of a club or institute is relinquished under this paragraph, the clerk to the licensing authority shall give notice of that fact to the approprate officer of police.").—(Lord Stonham.)

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Registration under Part III in Scotland:]

5.6 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 48: Page 90, line 34, leave out ("and 24") and insert ("24 and 25").

The noble Lord said: As this is the last Amendment to be taken in Committee, I should like to thank all noble Lords for their helpful co-operation during this Recommittal stage of the Bill, and also to thank them for their assistance, in that I got through as I did in Committee "upstairs", without a defeat of the Government. I did not get (although I dropped the hint) a pair of white gloves, but I am still hoping to receive them. I beg to move.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

For my part, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on having piloted the Bill successfully through these two stages. I hope that the proceedings to-day, which have not lasted too long, will be regarded as a justification for having tried the experiment of taking this Bill in a small Committee, because we spent 17 hours on the Bill there, and I cannot help thinking that if we had not done that preliminary work the Bill would have taken a great deal longer in Committee here than it has done to-day on Recommittal.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord for the courtesy and patience he has shown. It has been an extremely interesting experience for those of us who have had the privilege of taking part for the first time in a Committee "upstairs". It will be a memorable occasion. Although we have not always agreed with the noble Lord, we are all very grateful to him for his courtesy, and we congratulate him upon the skill with which he has piloted this Bill so far.

LORD HAWKE

I think we should also record our thanks to members of the Church of England in the Diocese of Chester who have managed to spare their Bishop for so many days.

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15), Report received.