GAMING BILL

HL Deb 20 June 1968 vol 293 cc869-908

4.12 p.m.

Second Reading debate resumed.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, as an hereditary Peer who speaks rarely in this House and at long intervals, having heard the Statement from the noble Leader of the House I feel that this may be my last chance. I am grateful, as I am sure is the whole House, to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for explaining this Bill to us so carefully and clearly, for it is, as he said, a complicated Bill. I was not at all surprised at his mastery of the subject, because I remember a few years ago in a debate on a Private Bill of mine he showed a great knowledge of the ramifications of betting My noble friend Lord Derwent, I am sorry to say, is unwell—and I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery—and therefore the task of following the Minister now falls on me at rather short notice. But I will do my best to deal with the points which some of us on this side consider need attention.

I am sure that this Bill will command general approval, except among those who disapprove of gambling in any form. Also, I am glad to see that the Home Secretary has faced the facts of life in seeking to control gambling rather than drive it underground. This Bill has been greatly improved since its passage through another place. I am sure this is not disputed. The Standing Committee met 12 times and, although it was inclined to say the same things 12 times over, did a thoroughly workmanlike job. At the last meeting of the Committee all congratulated each other, and I think a good time was had by all.

I could point out the main changes which have been made since the Bill was first published, and they are all to the good, but I do not propose to go over them again. There are, however, several points on which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention and which need attention either by way of clarification or amendment. The first is in regard to membership and admission. Under the Bill as originally drafted, all members of gaming clubs would have had to apply for membership in person on the premises where the gaming took place. This would have produced an absurd situation, whereby existing members would have had to resign and then re-apply for membership in compliance with the, new procedure. Happily, Her Majesty's Government introduced Amendments on Report which made it possible for members who wished to gamble to apply by giving notice in writing in person on the premises. They still had to wait 48 hours before they could take, part in the games, just as if they had applied for membership for the first time.

The result is two types of members are created, those who wish to game hand those who wish to use the club for social purposes. In practice this would require a club to seal off its gaming, with a member of the staff stationed at the entrance to make sure that only the right people got in. This would present almost insuperable difficulties where the layout of the premises was not suitable for such an arrangement. I think this is an exceedingly cumbersome method of enrolling new members, but I suppose it is feasible. But there are two points which I think need clarification. First, is the requirement retroactive? If so, it means that existing members will have to give notice in person on the premises in conformity with subsection (3)(b) of Clause 12 when the new law comes into effect. I am told that the Home Office takes the view that that is the case.

Now may I give a personal illustration. I am a member of one of these clubs, which I visit infrequently. Under this Bill, if I wish to gamble, shall I have to give notice in writing in person on the premises and wait 48 hours before I can play? This seems to me to be absurd, especially for people who live in the country or abroad. Why cannot existing members be allowed to give notice in writing from abroad or from their homes in the country so that when they come to London and want to play they can do so without waiting 48 hours? My second point is in regard to the position of a club when it moves to new premises. Will it be necessary for all its members again to give notice in writing in person on the new premises of their wish to take part in gambling?

My Lords, I should now like to say a world about chemin-de-fer which is a game probably unfamiliar to a great many of your Lordships, although I know the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, knows all about it. Under Clause 12, the last three lines of subsection (2) create an anomaly so far as chemin-de-fer is concerned. One of the main purposes of the last three lines of Clause 12(2) is that no club should be allowed to participate in the game of chemin-de-fer. Now subsection (4) of Clause 12 is designed as a saving to permit clubs to hold the bank in games such as roulette, black jack and craps, in case the Gaming Board decide that this is necessary to the manner they may determine for the playing of all or any of these games. However, the effect of this on chemin-de-fer will be to permit the club to hold the bank when its turn comes round, but not to play against the other players while the bank passes among them. Thus, the club would be able to play only when the odds were in its favour. The Home Office explanation of this is that in fact no players will play against the club in such circumstances and, therefore, the club would be unable to participate; and if it were in practice found that the clubs could continue to participate then the Gaming Board would step in and stop it.

LORD KILBRACKEN

My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene for a moment, because surely chemin-de-fer is the one game in which the club or casino is not taking part in the game; it is between the members.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I am suggesting that a member of the management, in order to make up the numbers, can, under the existing law, take his bank but he cannot punt against the other players. I think it will be found that that is the case if one looks at the Bill. I am not clear whether or not the Board, even through the powers of the Home Secretary, will be able to do this, since subsection (3) clearly permits it. In any case, it seems hardly desirable that an anomaly of this sort should be allowed to go on the Statute Book, especially in view of the history of gaming legislation and its disastrous ambiguities. To my mind, there is no harm in the representatives of a club playing at the chemin-de-fer table, but it is an absurd position at the moment. He can take the bank when his turn comes, but he cannot punt against the other players.

My Lords, I said earlier that the Bill had been greatly improved during its passage through another place. But in addition to the shortcomings in requirements governing membership and admission, which I have just dealt with, there are a few other points which need attention. First, there is nothing among all these provisions which would allow a club to be closed down at once pending an inquiry. It appears that under the existing Bill there are only two courses open: one, a disqualification order made by the courts under Clause 23 which according to Clause 24 could not take effect until the end of the period within which an appeal can be made; or, two, a revocation of its certificate of approval by the Gaming Board, for which notice of eight weeks has to be given. So as I read the Bill, if there were found to be cheating at a club, they could still go on for eight weeks. I feel that it is essential that there should be something in the Bill which would enable the Board to shut down a club immediately, where the circumstances showed it to be necessary.

A word about gaming machines. I refer to Part III of the Bill, which deals with those of a "jackpot" type, which come under Clause 31. I feel that the restriction in subsection (2) of the clause to two machines is unreasonable. There is a great difference between proprietary clubs and genuine members' clubs, where no question of private gain is involved and the machines often provide one of the clubs' principal sources of income. Therefore, I suggest that it be left to the Secretary of State to stipulate by regulation the maximum number of machines in both proprietary and members' clubs, probably allowing more to the latter. At the Committee stage we can put down the appropriate Amendment, but I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, comes to reply he will show some sympathy for the argument I have put forward.

I should like now to turn to the subject of bingo, which I do not know much about. The owners of the bingo halls have informed me that they are still unhappy on two points. They would like a maximum prize linked game of a modest figure of, say, £1,000, as opposed to a limit of £1,000 in one week. They would also like to be allowed time and place advertising and notification of social activities, which are precluded in the Bill as it now stands. I know that there have been discussions with the Home Office on both these points, but I thought it right that these views about bingo and the Bill should be put on record. As a gambler of many years' standing, I welcome this Bill in principle. I may put down a few Amendments on the lines that I have indicated, but I hope that all Members, on both sides of the House, will vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.

4.25 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

My Lords, at the outset I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on bringing forward this Bill, to thank them for it, and to welcome it—though possibly not for the same reasons as those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jesse. I should also like to thank Her Majesty's Ministers, and the officers concerned, for the great sympathy and understanding with which they have received the many representations that have been made to them. Those who are skilled in understanding of these matters of gambling have very much appreciated the kindness with which they have been received, and the courtesy which has been extended to them, and it is only right at this stage to express that gratitude to all those who have been concerned.

As the noble Lord, Lord Jesse', has pointed out, the spirit which pervaded the Committee stage of this Bill in another place was also very co-operative and had no Party spirit about it. I hope that a similar spirit may prevail in the considerations which this House will give to the Bill, and I hope that any points that I may make now will not be regarded in any way as critical, but will be regarded rather as probing points, designed to be helpful and possibly to strengthen still further this very important Bill.

I am sure that all Members of the House hope that the passing of this Bill will end eight years of humiliation and frustration. In 1960 the Gaming Act was passed with the clear intention and understanding that it would endeavour to contain gaming and that it would make commercial gaming impossible. It contained a fatal flaw, with the consequence, is the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has pointed out, that it was possible to turn the whole intention of Parliament upside down and to do, in a very considerable volume, precisely the things which the Government had intended should be prevented. During these eight years we have had to witness the purpose and mind of Parliament being defied. We know that illegal games have been openly and shamelessly played in clubs. We have watched, as Lord Stonham described it, the cat-and-mouse activities between the law and promoters trying one gimmick after another in order to find out whether a particular game is within the law, a series of test cases which has wasted time; and we have witnessed the police having to confess that they were helpless and that the law was inoperable—until the Appeal Count gave a good douche of common sense and said that the law was to be enforced.

I suggest that we have witnessed a very unpleasant and degrading eight years. Moreover, we have witnessed what we all knew would happen: that uncontrolled gaming and gambling draws to itself like a magnet all the most vicious and undesirable elements in society. Warning was given that this might be so; and as I say, we have had a very bitter experience. We have seen, as Lord Stonham has told us, that every kind of beastliness in society has arisen, as it always does whenever gaming is allowed to go on uncontrolled. So we hope that, before it is too late, this new Bill will put a stop to these things.

We sometimes hear that there are honest promoters and dishonest promoters; and we sometimes hear quoted that the honest promoters are asking for this, that or the other. I am quite sure that there are divisions between those who promote gambling, and I am sure that we respect the judgment of those who are experienced in these matters. But we should remember that the people who claim to be honest promoters are the people who have been driving a coach-and-horses through the intentions of the 1960 legislation. I therefore hope that, both throughout our own discussions and later, when the Bill becomes operative, we shall never forget what has happened and the people who have been responsible for it. We have learnt our lesson. We have a strong suspicion that people, if given half a chance, will again try to subvert the intention of the law, and therefore I hope that we shall be very tough in the way in which this Bill is administered. Indeed, I myself should have preferred an even stricter and clearer system of working.

Noble Lords may remember that when we debated this matter a year or two ago the noble Lord, Lord Derwent (whose absence this afternoon we very much regret, and we join in hoping that he will be well in the very near future), gave a detailed description of the system prevailing in France; and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made an appeal that the whole racing/betting system should also be brought into an overall system. I never thought that I should ever find myself in the position of pleading for a State monopoly, but I believe the matter has become so widespread and so intractable that that would have been the best way to deal with the problem. However, Her Majesty's Government have, in their wisdom, decided otherwise, and we must do our best to help them make this Bill operative and effective.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has reminded us, the focal point, the pivot upon which this Bill will centre, is the Gaming Board. Here I would only say that the persons who constitute this Board will have to be people of great wisdom, great understanding, very shrewd and very tough, and I hope that the Minister will consider those qualities when he comes to appoint those who are going to be responsible for administering this system. Of course, the tools which they will have to use and upon which they will have to rely will be the inspectorate; and, again, those men will have a very difficult task indeed. They will have to be men of the utmost integrity. They will doubtless be subjected to every kind of blandishment and temptation, and they must be strong enough to stand up to them.

Moreover, they must be given a task which is practicable, and that means, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has reminded us, that there must be a drastic reduction in the number of clubs. It will be quite useless to set up an inspectorate if they have as their area of control so many clubs that it is impossible for them to keep an accurate hold over what is going on; indeed, I think they will almost certainly need to be helped by a crime squad or a gaming squad of the police. I wonder whether it would not be valuable for the Home Office to find out, first of all, how many people they could appoint to the inspectorate, to ask the police how many of their staff they could give to the specialised work of gaming control, and then decide how many clubs could be licensed. Because if there is not an adequate inspectorate and control, then the whole purpose of the Bill will fall to the ground and become largely inoperable.

I should like to put two questions to the noble Lord. First of all, is he satisfied that under the terms of this Bill it will be possible to reduce drastically the number of clubs? We are told that there are about 1,000 clubs at the present time and that they ought to be reduced to between 200 and 300. That is a very drastic reduction but I believe it must be made. But can it be made reasonably quickly and effectively under the Bill? Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, devoted a good deal of his speech to commending the system whereby clubs will be licensed. I ask him to look again at this, because it seems to me that the system proposed in the Bill is very cumbersome. As I understand it, a prospective licensee must, first of all, go to the Board with a certificate or good conduct and then go to the licensing authority. But if he is given his licence and the Board think that there are too many clubs or that there are some reasons why he should not have it, then I understand that the Board can appeal against the decision of the licensing authority.

It seems to me that that is a very cumbersome to-ing and fro-ing, and I wonder whether the noble Lord will look again at the possibility of the Gaming Board's having the authority to grant the licences. They could—as I understand the French system provides—have full consultation with the local authorities, but it would be simpler and more effective if one national authority had power to grant the licences. They would be able to see that the spread was fair and reasonable, and they would get away from the possible difficulty that licensing authorities may differ in their judgment so that there is a collection of clubs in one area because that licensing authority has a slightly different standard from another. I feel that when the Bill is going through Committee in this House that matter should he looked at again very thoroughly.

But I would also make my plea that, underlying all the machinery that is going to be set up the Board will watch the spirit which will be allowed to motivate and underlie this whole new system. In particular, there are two elements which I hope will be kept very much in mind. The first is the importance of reducing and containing the volume of gaming that is going on at the present time. I myself do not find it any matter of satisfaction that London has now gained the reputation of being the gaming centre of the world. I do not believe that it is good for society in general that there should be this great volume of gaming, even though it may be more strongly controlled in the future.

Perhaps your Lordships will forgive a word of autobiography. Recently I made a tour of some of the gaming clubs in London. I did so travelling incognito but with the full knowledge, and indeed at the invitation, of the promoters of the clubs to which I, with my companion, went. I found it an intensely depressing experience. I am not sure which was the most depressing. I went into one club where I suppose one could say there was democratic gaming going on; the sums of money were not very large. It was a huge room, filled with tables mostly of the simplified American form of roulette and black jack. The croupiers were all young people only recently out of their teens. I was given to understand that they needed very high "A" level qualifications, since they needed their wits about them, but they were extremely well paid. One watched those young people, hour after hour, dealing out the cards or turning the wheel, and one felt: what a dreadfully dreary profitless and uncreative activity at a time when we needed all the creative ability of our nation enlisted in things which will serve society better.

Also, I recollect a visit to the most lush and plush of the gaming clubs in London. The game being played was baccarat, and about every hall minute one watched some £6,000 or £7,000 passing hands. One watched people gaming with a sort of mechanical intensity, in chips of £1,000, £500 or less, and again one wondered how intelligent people could find any satisfaction from that, in the knowledge of what could have been done with the money which was being so lightly used in that way. No one would want to interfere overmuch with the freedom of people to do what they like with their own. Nevertheless, I cannot think that that is a good thing for society or does anything to add to the happiness of people in general. I recognise that this Bill contains a number of disincentives. The rules about no advertising, the rules dissociating gaming from cabaret and other entertainments, the rules preventing more sophisticated forms of gaming at bingo, are all good. But the situation needs to be carefully watched for I cannot think that it is healthy.

Secondly, I hope that the Board will bear in mind their responsibility and duty, as I see it, of giving as much protection to the weak as is possible. We are very conscious of the need for controlling drugs of the body; we do our best to control the consumption of alcohol, through the purse; but here is a drug of the will and the mind, and there is a great deal of very heavy gambling and gaming going on by those who cannot afford it. Indeed, it is one of the phenomena of our age that it has been necessary to set up an organisation like Gamblers Anonymous to bring the techniques and the pastoral care of group therapy to help people who have become victims of compulsive gaming.

It is a pity, in a way, that we cannot, so to speak, receive evidence in this House. If so, members of Gamblers Anonymous could have told us of the very subtle ways in which those who are known to be victims of this compulsion are given opportunities, rather than discouragement, to indulge their uncontrollable emotions and activities. The restrictions on credit will do something to help here. On the other hand, if promoters are allowed to make their profit by taking a "cut" on the sums which are being wagered, then there will be a strong incentive to increase and to encourage gaming, and the people who will suffer most will be those who are the weakest. So I hope that the Board will remember those people and will do their best to control the situation and to protect them as best may be.

So, my Lords, I end as I began. We are, we hope, coming to the end of eight years of humiliation. We have now a chance to brine that to an end and to bring in a happier and more profitable era. It will need a new approach by the Government and by the public. It will need strictness, and it will need a firm grip on the part of those who are responsible. I hope I am not being impertinent when I say that in the speech by the Home Secretary on the Third Reading in another place I welcomed a note of humility when he said that he hoped this Bill was going to achieve what was required of it though in the light of the failures of his predecessorss there was always a matter of doubt. Let that warning be heeded, because, as in so many other branches of social legislation, this legislation for the control of gambling and gaming is bedevilled by the old fault of "too little and too late". One hopes, therefore, that the new Gaming Board will possess both the power and the flexibility to act immediately and firmly should it appear that there is any flaw in this Act of which unscrupulous people are going to take advantage. Let it be that the Board will have that power and that flexibility, so that the will of Parliament may not again be denied.

4.44 p.m.

LORD WILLIS

My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in giving a very warm welcome to what I think is a splendid piece of legislation. It started off in a first-class way, and I think it finished up even better than first-class when it left the other place. I would also say that the comments I make will be made in the same spirit as those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester; that is to say, they are probing questions rather than necessarily points of criticism.

I think we might first of all pause to see whether there is not perhaps some kind of Parliamentary moral for us all in what has happened because, as we have heard from two or three of the speakers so far, this Bill has been brought in as a direct result of the failure of an earlier Bill to do the very job which this Bill is trying to do. It is rather strange that a Bill which goes through both Houses of Parliament, and is subjected to all kinds of criticism in Committee, nevertheless brings about a result which is entirely the opposite of the intentions of the Government of the day—and that is what happened with the 1960 Act. It is rather like a man who brings home an Easter egg as a present for his wife, only to find that it hatches out into an alligator and eventually snaps his head off. I think that in future Parliament should look very carefully at its eggs. It may be that perhaps a couple of days ago we laid an egg—and Heaven knows how this one is going to hatch out in the future!

LORD STONHAM

It is addled, anyway.

LORD WILLIS

There is another point which the right reverend Prelate made and which I should like to emphasise. We should have no illusions about this Bill, or its effect. I think it does everything humanly possible at this point to contain large-scale gaming. But, my Lords, we have to face the fact that "large-scale gaming" is another phrase for "private mint". These operators were given, as was said in another context, a licence to print their own money, and huge sums are at stake. This Bill is an attempt to put the alligator, if you like, on a chain, or to put it back into captivity. I think it will help to restrain it; but I have no doubt at all that in three or four years' time we shall have to review the Bill and bring in new legislation, because men who have been handed such an easy way to make fortunes do not give up too easily, and they will find ways round even the enormous restrictions that are being placed upon them by this particular Bill. That is why I want to emphasise yet again the point that was made earlier: that the new Gaming Board and their inspectorate must be prepared, with the full backing of Parliament and the Home Office, to be absolutely ruthless in their operation.

I regret very much that we have not decided, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester said, to nationalise gaming, or at least to bring it under some degree of public ownership. I think it would have been better to take this step now, because I am perfectly sure that we shall have to take it in the next ten years. If the object is to reduce the number of clubs, I think this Bill will be partly successful, but I do not think it will achieve it altogether.

Part of the reason for this lies, I believe, in the issuing of licences and in the fact that local justices are to be allowed to grant licences on certain conditions and with certain qualifications. I think this is wrong, and I agree very much with the point that has just been made in this respect: that local justices cannot be expected to see the overall national picture and that, whatever we may say about it, they are sensitive to local pressures. if one town has a couple of successful clubs and the town next door has none, in the town without any club there may be great pressure generated publicly and through private conversations, over a period of time, to demand that they, too, should be allowed one or two clubs, and applications may be made to the justices for those clubs. Such an application may seem on the surface to be a perfectly just and reasonable one, yet in the national context it may not be reasonable. It may be wrong for all kinds of reasons which the local justices may not be able to see. I therefore think it would be much bettor if the Gaming Board themselves were given the last word in this respect, and I support the point which has been made on that. I hope that the Government will perhaps look at that matter again.

In any event, it may be a tall order to ask that the work that is involved should be carried through by a small Board of three. I am all for economy; I am all for streamlining and trimming the fat off public bodies of this sort, but I think that a small board of three may be not enough. It is possible that one, or even two, or them might be ill at one particular time, and if that happened the Board might be largely inoperative. I wonder whether the Government have thought of that, and whether they would be prepared to extend the number of members of the Board —perhaps to a maximum of five or, if necessary, seven.

I support the point made about advertising, so far as bingo is concerned. I think that there is some justification in this. There are huge memberships of bingo clubs. I am not thinking of the operators, I am thinking of the inconvenience to those members after some change of location has been made which the clubs are prohibited from advertising. It may be that I am wrong about that; but it seems to me that more flexibility should be allowed so that a reasonable service to the public can be provided. If the bingo venue is changed at very short notice from the local town hall to a hall, say, a hundred yards away, then some advertising should be allowed to let the customers know about the change.

Then I should like to hear from my noble friend Lord Stonham about the provision for closing clubs. It seems to me that if, despite all the precautions in this Bill, a club is being run in a violent, crooked or bad way, it should be possible to suspend it from operation at very short notice—say, within an hour or so. As the Bill now stands, there may be ways round this so that the clubs might be able to continue to operate in a crooked way for another eight weeks without there being any possibility of closing them. Therefore, I think that this is a point that should be looked at.

My Lords, I do not want to spend any more time on this Bill. I give it a warm welcome. I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, through the intricacies of chemin de fer but if he ever want a lesson in penny-blanket brag then I think I can help him. I support the point made about restricting the growth of compulsive gambling. When I was in Sydney, Australia, some time ago I was made an honorary member of the journalists' club there. It was supported by some of the most highly paid journalists in Australia. In the main bar, all round the wall, there were something like 50 gaming machines, "one-armed bandits", which, in those days, one plied with florins or half-crowns. That gaming room was thronged night after night with highly-paid, intelligent editors, reporters and so on from the Sydney newspapers. They used to put their stools beside the machines; they would get £5 or £6 worth of half-crowns or two-shilling pieces and sit there and feed these machines. Their wives would join them, bringing along another stool by the machine, and they would spend the entire evening feeding in their coins. At the end of the evening they might have lost £5 or £6.

Perhaps this was not the kind of large-scale gaming that we are talking about here, but I entirely support the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester when I say that I found this experience profoundly depressing. After a while, I had to move away from this club. All that one heard the whole evening was the crash of the "one arm" going down, the occasional tinkle of a win. About all that was in this smoke-filled room were the crowds of men in shirt sleeves with their wives or girl friends sitting at the machines and spending an entirely wasted evening. It seems to me that if we do nothing else in this Bill but restrain the weaknesses of human nature by removing temptation we shall have achieved a great deal.

4.55 p.m.

LORD KILBRACKEN

My Lords, particularly in view of the alligator's egg mentioned by my noble friend Lord Willis, a concept that I do not myself subscribe to at all, I wish to begin by considering—and I think this is relevant —why, and not whether, this Bill should be necessary. As has been pointed out by the right reverend Prelate and others, eight years have gone by since Parliament for the first time legalised certain games of chance—games which were carefully described—and when unequal chance games were specifically forbidden. It was supposed to be only the innocuous game of "chemmy"—although I, myself, have found it far from innocuous—which would be permitted. I think that within five years every known casino game was being played openly all over London and the rest of Britain.

How did this come about? Was it due to an addled, or an active, alligator's egg, or to bad draftsmanship in Parliament? It seems to me that the Acts of 1960 and 1963 were absolutely clear. When this Bill came up for the Second Reading in another place, it was suggested by no less a person than Mr. Quintin Hogg that the principal reason for the failure was the contradictory, unrealistic and erroneous decisions of the courts… He put the blame on the courts, including, he told us, the Court of Appeal. He wondered whether it had crossed what he called the innocent mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—I am not suggesting that Lord Denning has a guilty mind; but I do not think it is innocent in the ways of the world—that it was the judges who had been most responsible for the failure of existing legislation.

I do not know how the right honourable gentleman could have made such a suggestion. At the time that he was speaking, ten relevant cases—that is to say, cases of unequal chance games in licensed and registered clubs—had come before the magistrates; three had gone on appeal to the Divisional Court and one to your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity. In all but one of these 14 occasions convictions were secured. The exception was when what was known as the Kursaal No. 2 case came before the Divisional Court. This case was very extraordinary. The appeal succeeded largely because the appellants maintained that it was possible for a member of their club to take the bank in roulette and to restrict his maximum loss at any one spin to 2s. Any noble Lord who has ever played the game may find that rather odd, since if only 1d. is staked on a number the banker pays out 3s. But it was accepted by the Court; and this would mean that taking a bank (and therefore having the built-in advantage that goes with it) would be within the reach of any member; so that there were chances of alleged equality for all. It happened that this extraordinary conclusion was not accepted when the prosecution appealed to your Lordships' House. With that one exception the courts have always convicted when any club has been brought before them on gaming offences.

How can courts conceivably be held responsible for the failure of the 1960 and 1963 legislation? I was sorry that Mr. Taverne in the Second Reading debate in the other place seemed to agree that the courts are to some extent responsible when he said that the police faced conflicing court decisions and implied that this excused their inaction by adding that until the House of Lords' decision last December the way in which roulette was played at the Kursaal had been ruled legal by the Divisional Court. But, in fact, the way in which it was pretended that roulette was played at the Kursaal—I cannot believe that it was ever really played that way—was certainly not the way in which it was played anywhere else. I cannot imagine going into Crockfords and saying, "I want to take the roulette wheel for a few spins, and I am limiting my maximum loss to 2s. on a spin." Therefore I can think of no excuse of any kind for the fact that the police took virtually no action, only in the cases I have mentioned, throughout the whole period. They left the big clubs alone and never prosecuted the same club twice, in which case much higher penalties, including imprisonment, could have been imposed; and (although this I rather welcome) they never prosecuted any club members who were taking part, which would have acted as a very severe deterrent. Incidentally, I notice in the present Bill that the right to imprison, or to summons, those taking part in the play is no longer permitted.

My Lords, I want to follow this point of police inaction a little further, because so far from prosecuting, a confidential instruction—and I have here a copy of it—was issued by the Metropolitan Police in April, 1966, to ensure that no further prosecutions for illegal gaming would be brought in the Metropolitan area, and clubs could therefore play all games with complete and perfect impunity. This instruction was issued—and here I quote from an affidavit filed on behalf of the Police Commissioner in ex pate Blackburn—because the Assistant Commissioner, who is now the Commissioner, Sir John Waldron, considered that in view of the uncertainty of the law, the expense and manpower involved in keeping gaming observations were not justified unless there were complaints of cheating or reason to suppose that a particular club had become a haunt of criminals.' He goes on: At the time when this decision was taken the Kursaal case above referred to was believed to be going to the House of Lords on the point certified by the Divisional Cowl. Yet, my Lords, on the clay that it struction was issued no appeal had been lodged, and, moreover, the period of time during which an appeal could be 1Ddged had already expired. How, therefore, could the Assistant Commissioner have referred to the "uncertainty of the law" on gaming which caused him to issue this confidential instruction to the effect that no club would be prosecuted for playing roulette, baccarat or dice when, at that time, no prosecution brought by the police in any court in the country had ever failed to secure a conviction'' Indeed, I would say that the ease with which convictions have in general been secured—because only one has failed—shows no sign of any "alligator's egg" or faulty draftsmanship in Parliament.

My Lords, the intention of Parliament has been shown by the decisions of the courts to be absolutely and manifestly clear, and I am forced to the conclusion that the failure has been due solely to the extreme reluctance, and later in fact the refusal in a confidential instruction, of the Metropolitan Police to make any attempt whatever to enforce it. It is only now, to-day, by what I think must be described as a real irony, when this new Bill is at a very advanced stage, that the police are at last, largely w the result of the personal efforts of a private citizen, beginning to take some strenuous action. I do not know whether Tour Lordships saw the announcement in The Times (another pillar of the Establishment) this morning that 39 London clubs are now facing prosecutions for illegal gaming under the existing Act, the 1963 Act, for playing games of unequal chance. Another 43 have recently been visited by the police and a prosecution in many cases may be expected. Incidentally, among the 39 that face prosecution 14 are major clubs and papers are with the Director of Public Prosecutions; so a position of extraordinary uncertainty prevails and will continue.

The opinion has been put about that under the present Bill games of unequal chance will become legal. That, of course, is not the case. Games of unequal chance are specifically forbidden in fact, unless regulations are made by the Home Secretary under Section 13(2); and until such regulations have been made (and they cannot be made without consultation with the Gaming Board which has to be established) roulette, craps, black jack and baccarat all remain illegal. We have heard an estimate to-day, I think from my noble friend Lord Stonham, that it may be two years before the Bill becomes operative. It now seems perfectly possible that all clubs may be forced to close their doors, particularly if those that are now found guilty of contravening the law are prosecuted a second time and heavier penalties imposed; and above all, if an injunction is sought in relator actions against those that are convicted, which would prevent them from continuing to play, even if they were appealing by case stated to the Divisional Court. And one can well imagine that if the police continue to take action against almost 100 clubs, a great many others will be unwilling to go on with these games for fear of being prosecuted. So if the Act is going to become fully operative in a year, or eighteen months, or two years, and if by then gaming has ceased, which, so far as I can see, is now quite possible, is it really the Government's intention to open up the clubs again?

My Lords, it is in these most unusual circumstances, which I thought it wise to set out in quite considerable detail, that we have to consider to-day's Bill. My feeling is that I welcome it. I think it may be a very good Bill. It gives very strong powers, very arbitrary powers, to the Secretary of State, the Gaming Board, the licensing authorities and the inspectors. My principal objection to it is that we who have to vote on it—and I have no doubt, of course, that it will be approved—have no way of knowing how those powers are going to be exercised. So much is left to the Minister, the Board, the inspectors and the licensing authorities. It is for the Minister to decide which games may be played and subject to what rules, and that has always been the heart of the controversy when these matters have been discussed. It is for the Minister to decide what charges may be made for taking part in the play. And there are a dozen other matters for which orders or regulations of various kinds are required. Perhaps even more important, it is left to the licensing authorities (who may be advised by the Gaming Board though they need not accept the advice) to decide which of the existing clubs shall be allowed to continue.

We have had various estimates of the number of gaming clubs and casinos at present operating in Britain. A figure of over 1,000 was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester; I have heard 1,500. Much depends on how big a club has to be before it is recognised as a gaming club. My noble friend Lord Stonham indicated that the number was to be reduced to something between 200 and 300. In my opinion, even 200 to 300 is far more than is necessary in this country. I would say that 30 to 40 in the Metropolitan area, and about the same number again in the Provinces should be adequate, and to control that number would be far simpler. Even France has fewer than 150 casinos and many of these are open only during the tourist season. I should have thought that 60 to 80 in the United Kingdom would be more than enough.

On what criteria will these clubs be selected in the first place? This point has already been touched on, and I feel that it is extremely important. Once we have 200 to 300 clubs, the renewal of licences and granting of new licences is less important. It is the way we get this nucleus that is going to be difficult to work out. It stands to reason that if the number of clubs is going to be divided by x, then the profits made by those that survive and are given licences are going to be multiplied by x or a little bit more. These profits are going to be very big. I have spoken to the owner of a casino in London who told me that the winnings from his tables that he admitted to were £850,000 a year, and that outgoings (including bad debts, which were the most important debit item) were something under £250,000. So that one man, and not the biggest in London, is making a clear profit of over £600,000 a year. Therefore the way in which these clubs are chosen is extremely important.

As my noble friend Lord Willis said, licensing a club is giving the club owner a licence to print money. And how is the licensing authority to choose between club "A" and club "B" in deciding which should be given a licence? All I can say is that the authority will have an invidious task; that intolerable pressures may be brought to bear on them, and that an equitable solution may be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find.

Finally—and I apologise for detaining your Lordships—may I consider the question of the inspectors who will be appointed under this Bill? Their duties are onerous and extremely important. I understand that there will be about 15 of them and they will be responsible for 400 or 500 clubs. Is it really possible that these 15 inspectors, however conscientious, hard working and incorruptible, will be able to succeed, with about 30 clubs each, when the entire Metropolitan Police Force has so ignominously failed to exercise any control at all?

I want to make a suggestion to the Government. At first, it may seem that the cost will be completely prohibitive but I hope to show otherwise. The suggestion is that there should be a resident inspector permanently on duty in every club. Many of us tend to agree with what has been said about these clubs being owned by the State or by municipalities, but if they are in private ownership why should not a resident inspector be permanently on duty? Such inspectors would have to receive £2,000 or £3,000 a year. It would have to be a sufficient income to make them less susceptible to the corruption to which they would be exposed, and they would have to be men of unassailable integrity.

If there were only 60 or 70 clubs, the cost would be almost £250,000, which is a considerable figure. But there are two considerations that might make my suggestion feasible. The first is quite simple: that the Excise duty payable by the clubs should be increased by £3,000 or £4,000 a year, so that, in effect, the resident inspectors will be paid by the extra Excise duty, which the clubs are well able to afford.

The second point is that the inspectors should also be trained accountants and made responsible for personally supervising every penny in the club's accounts. Enormous sums are being lost to the Inland Revenue because it is quite impossible at present, and no attempt is made, to keep any check on what is won or lost in these casinos. My £50 just goes down and disappears for ever into eternal night. No one has any account of it, least of all the Inland Revenue. I feel that it should be a highly important part of the resident inspector's duty to keep a thorough check in detail of the account, of every club, and regulations could make this perfectly feasible. The additional Inland Revenue received, from even two or three major clubs, which otherwise might be evaded, might well pay the salaries of all the inspectors appointed under the Bill.

I do not wish it to be thought that I oppose the Bill, which has been greatly strengthened in Committee in another place, and I hope that it will be strengthened still further in its passage through your Lordships' House. I welcome many of the provisions, in particular those relating to cheques and credit, which are important. It is clear that great thought has been given to the Bill, that grave inherent problems have been tackled manfully, and that safeguards have been provided which can be adequate if they are fully used. My Lords, I hope that they will be.

5.18 p.m.

LORD FOLEY

My Lords, I should like, if I may, to declare an interest. I happen to be a director of Crockford's, the well-known London club, which as your Lordships doubtless are aware offers facilities for gambling to its members. But I should like to say right away that this in no way influences the short remarks I wish to make this afternoon. I personally welcome this Bill and con rider that the Government are going about things in the right way. I think that the idea of having the men on the Board detached and uninfluenced is an acceptable one and can have only the most meritorious effects.

If people wish to gamble, one wishes them to do so in a controlled, supervised atmosphere and so far as possible one wishes to stop them from frequenting undesirable clubs of an unsavoury nature. However, there is one aspect of the Bill which disturbs me to a certain extent, and it is on that point that I should like to make a few remarks. It is the question of overseas visitors. I understand that it is intended to introduce a regulation in the Bill whereby overseas visitors will have to register in writing on the premises if they desire to gamble in any particular club. They will then have to wait for a period of 48 hours before they are able to play in that club. Of course, some rule of this nature exists already, in that everybody is supposed to register 24 hours before becoming a member of a club, although they do not have to do so on the premises. This is all very fine, but surely what will happen, in practice, will be that visitors coming to this country and only staying for perhaps two or three days will be greatly inconvenienced by these new regulations.

Let us try to follow what will happen in practice. A man comes to England he knows there is gambling in London, and he wishes to gamble. Whether or not this is a good or a bad thing from a moral point of view is beside the point. If he wishes to gamble, he will inevitably do so, because facilities are available. He goes to a reputable gambling club, and is told that he must sign an application form and then wait for 48 hours. He says that he is leaving in two or three days, and he is told: "We are sorry, but there is nothing that can be done, because this is the law." Obviously, he will then make inquiries as to where he can gamble right away, and he will be sent by the porter of the hotel, or an acquaintance possibly, to a less desirable and shady gambling club.

The Government may think that when the new Bill is brought into effect all shady and undesirable gambling clubs will cease to exist. But in practice one cannot be sure of this. Where there is a demand, unfortunately there is a supply. I understand the thinking about this 48-hour ban on visitors gambling. I think the Government are anxious to avoid large groups of people coming to this country for the sole purpose of gambling—I believe the technical term for these people is "junkies". I agree that this is undesirable, but it is something that ought to be dealt with by the Gaming Board.

The Gaming Board will be a strong organisation which will have strictly to supervise the running of clubs. The Board will have power to revoke the licence of a club if they consider that it is operating in an undesirable way; so that if such clubs should encourage "junkies", groups of people coming to this country expressly to gamble, they will be in danger of losing their licence. Surely, this should be a matter for the Gaming Board rather than for the making of a general administration rule of a 48-hour ban. This seems to me to be unfair and also financially undesirable—and I will come to that point in a moment.

I should like to make the point that, in practice, any visitor who is personally known to a member of a club will be brought into that club as a genuine visitor. This, again, seems to me to create a bad situation, because people will be invited to clubs on the flimsiest pretext: you know somebody who knows somebody and, therefore, you come in as a visitor, and in that way get round the 48-hour embargo. This seems to me to be undesirable, and likely to lead to malpractice.

Another aspect of this particular point is that we want foreigners in this country to spend money and bring, in foreign currency. I do not wish to bore your Lordships with facts and figures, but there is an association of gambling casinos called the Casino Association, consisting of five well-known gambling clubs, and one of those happens to be Crockfords. Figures are available as to how much foreign currency has been spent in those clubs. One knows that approximately 50 per cent. of money used by foreign visitors is foreign currency. As I think the rough figures are that about £5 million worth of money was gambled in those five clubs in the London area, it means that about £2 to £2½ million in foreign currency was brought into the country and used in that way. It seems that if foreigners are to be restricted in this way a great deal of this money will be lost. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated in another place that he would rather that no person came to this country purely for the purposes of gambling; and I understand his view. But I think this particular point should be looked at again and I would ask the Government to reconsider their views on this clause in the Bill.

5.26 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, in company with other noble Lords who have taken part in this short and extremely interesting debate, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Stonham for introducing this Bill and explaining its clauses so clearly. As my noble friend has said, it strengthens the 1960 Act, and closes many loopholes in that Act. May I say how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Willis in hoping that this really is the last Bill. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken has said, this is such a complicated subject that legal experts are able to find many loopholes. Indeed, it is so complicated that I often wonder whether the kind of control that is envisaged is the right way of tackling the subject. I incline to the view put forward by the right reverend Prelate, that probably it would be better to have nationalised casinos run on a municipal basis: in fact, I think this is something we shall have to come to one day.

I have always been most impressed at the way in which casinos are run in France. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken said, there are only about 150 casinos in France. There are no casinos in the centre of Paris. They are restricted mainly to the seaside resorts, and they have the further advantage that the nature of the game allowed to be played depends on the resort. While baccarat may be permitted in a large city in the South of France, probably a small watering place in Normandy would only be allowed to play boule or a game of that kind. The other advantage is that they are supervised by the police and have their own staff of private detectives. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken said, you then have the great advantage that you have supervision inside the house itself. With the type of people that one is dealing with under the Bill, I can envisage that the word will soon get around: they will have a man on the street corner, and as soon as the well-known inspector appears, what is going on in the club will not be going on when the inspector gets there.

The Government have opted for the club system and strict control of it, and in my view this Bill is the best way of effecting it. It closes loopholes, prohibits certain games which have been going on in the past, and brings in stricter control of the people running the clubs. One hopes that the effect will be a reduction of from 1,000 or so gaming clubs to about 200 or 300, although I agree with my noble friend Lord Kilbracken that probably even this number is rather too many.

I support entirely what the right reverend Prelate has said about the problem of gambling in this country, and also the Report of the Churches Committee on this subject. I remember being told recently by the manager of a large well-known bank in the West End of Landon what a great problem this was, particularly among the younger generation—those who have possession of large fortunes. Indeed, I believe the days of the Regency bucks were absolutely nothing to what goes on to-day. It really is a social menace and evil, and one that has to be cut down so that temptation is not put in people's way.

I wonder whether we are going to, have enough inspectors. This, of course, is left open in the Bill under Clause 43, but I understand that the Government have in mind about 25 to 30. I hope that this number will be sufficient, but if it is not that the Government will then increase it. I also agree entirely with what was said previously, that these inspectors will need to be of very high calibre.

Clause 10 gives the Board the right to advise the local licensing authorities and to review the whole pattern, but I agree with the Church Committee on Gambling and with what the right reverend Prelate said: that it would really be much better for these licences to be awarded by the Board themselves. I think that the local authorities will, of course, consider this fairly, but there is always the risk of local pressure, campaigns boiling tip in the local Press, and so on, and I think it would be much better if we went for the French system and considered this on a national basis. I would submit that only a central court can do that.

I should like to say a few words about bingo—and here I must declare an interest, since I am connected with a film company which has converted some of its cinemas into bingo clubs because of the demand for this game and also because of the decline in cinema audiences. In these clubs only bingo is played, and there is no "hard" gambling. It is, of course, a very popular game, which appeals mainly to people over 35. I believe that about 5½ million people play bingo regularly. It is indeed the poor man's game of chance. It is of course the only game allowed in the Forces, where, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, it is known as "housey-housey".

When this Bill was first drafted there was no place for bingo in it at all, because the provisions of the Bill would not have permitted bingo in any form. This was recognised by the Home Office, and certain concessions have been made. I should like to pay tribute to the Government who, in their wisdom, have conceded that bingo is a special case. Clause 20 has been included, indeed, to cover this game. Persons under 18 will now, under the Bill, be permitted to enter bingo clubs, unlike the "hard" gambling clubs, provided that they do not play. The joining period has been reduced from 48 to 24 hours, which is of benefit to people on holiday, and the principle of the linked game has been conceded.

There are, however, I suggest, two clauses which still need further consideration in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, I think mentioned two matters, and I do not want to go into these in any detail beyond saying that I agree with everything he said. The clause relating to linked bingo will, I think, need looking at very carefully, because I believe that, with the way it is worded at the moment, the mechanics of the game are not going to work. It will be necessary, I agree, to have the prize money of a limited amount but based on the session rather than on the week. But that is a matter we can go into in more detail in Committee.

Also, I am not happy about the fact that bingo is included in the clause which prohibits advertising. I concede that there is a strong case for forbidding advertising in any "hard" gambling, but I think it would be very difficult for owners of bingo clubs to notify their members about the times and places of play, and also about certain facilities and social activities, and I think that there is a case for making an exception for bingo and for simple notification advertising of this kind. Bingo is, after all, a very useful outlet. It is a fairly harmless game, as I think the right reverend Prelate said, and I believe that if we make it too difficult for people to play, if we drive clubs out of existence, then the great danger is that people will move over to "hard" gambling. Apart from those two reservations, my Lords, I welcome the Bill and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

5.36 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I propose to address your Lordships for only a few minutes, mainly I would say to echo some of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, with regard to bingo. But, apart from that, I give a most hearty welcome to this Bill. Perhaps one of the reasons why I do is that I lived for a number of years in France where gambling is very effectively controlled; and I would agree with the noble Lords, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Strabolgi, that perhaps there is more merit in gambling at a casino than in gambling at a gaming club.

To come now to this question of bingo, although there has been a proliferation of both gaming and bingo clubs throughout the country since the 1960 Act was passed, bingo differs fundamentally from "hard" gaming. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, the amount of money which one can lose at bingo is comparatively small. It is now a social activity played by some 8 million people. The noble Lord referred to 5½ million, but that is the number of people, I understand, who play regularly. I believe that the others play about once a month.

I understand that throughout the country there are some 2,250 clubs licensed for this game only, and it was estimated that in 1967 there were 260 million admissions to commercial bingo halls, against an estimated 250 million cinema admissions. So one can see that bingo seems to-day to be more popular than cinema, though for my part I am rather more keen on cinema. If, however, one includes the admissions to working men's clubs and other places where bingo is played as part of the evening's entertainment, I understand that the total bingo admissions is a figure probably of the order of 1,000 million per year. So it would seem to be an increasingly popular game. The people who play it, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, are the lower socio-economic groups, mainly people over thirty-five years of age; and they are mainly women. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be aware of the trouble the Government can get into if they do not take into consideration the wishes of women.

With regard to this new clause which the Government inserted in the other place, Clause 20, I believe, like Lord Strabolgi, that it will be impossible to operate the linked games; and thereby members will be deprived of a very popular part of their evening's entertainment. The two points in the clause which make the game impracticable are, first, the fact that the total pool is limited to £1,000 in any week, because this, I believe, will cause severe administrative problems. I cannot see how in effect it can be limited. Do you limit the number of books that are sold, or do you say to people who are queueing outside, "I am very sorry. You can't come in now"? I am just wondering how in effect this provision can be achieved.

Also, it seems to me to be a difficulty, in so far as the winner of a game must be declared before proceeding to the next game, which in effect means that there would have to be an open telephone line between the halls. I should have thought that that was not very practicable. One organisation has, I believe, asked the Home Office to regulate the game by means of fixing a maximum prize per game, which would be paid out, as opposed to a maximum pool. This would be a far more effective way of limiting the prizes and at the same time ensuring easy control in regard to meeting legal requirements in relation to stake money.

In conclusion, I must say that I have come rather to the same conclusion with regard to bingo as that reached by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi: that if people are deprived of this facility of playing a linked game. and also have no opportunity of collecting a reasonable amount—that is, a sum of up to £1,000, which in effect is modest by comparison with premium bond prizes—there is a possibility that they will be tempted to involve themselves in "hard" gambling which would thus defeat the object of this Bill. With those few remarks, my Lords, I certainly welcome this Bill.

5.41 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I wish to speak for only a moment or two. I regard myself as wholly unqualified to participate as a normal contributor in this extraordinarily well informed debate. I lack the personal experience alluded to by my noble fiend Lord Jessel, the right reverend Prelate and by virtually all the other noble Lords who have spoken. My noble friend Lord Derwent fully intended to make a speech, on behalf of the Conservative Opposition, from this Dispatch Box, welcoming the Bill, asking a number of questions and promising his co-operation and the cooperation of my noble friends in improving the Bill in Committee and, where necessary, strengthening it. A day or two ago he was here in his place, but yesterday he was taken ill and it became quite impossible for him to fulfil his intention. If no one were to speak from the Opposition Front Bench in the circumstances it might be supposed, quite wrongly, that we were not sufficiently interested to take part. That is why I am speaking now.

I became Home Secretary not so many months after the 1960 Act came into operation. I quickly made up my mind that amending legislation to recast the gaming part of it was going to be a necessity. It was equally clear to me that up to that time we had not enough experience to see for certain what form the amendments of the 1960 Act should take. Moreover, there were a number of cases awaiting decision in the courts; and this was another factor rendering it impossible to take early decisions. It does not surprise me at all that it Las taken from then until now for the present Government to see on what lines they should prepare legislation for presentation to Parliament. I would only say that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was overestimating when he said at the end of his speech that there might be two years' delay after the passing of this Act before it came into full operation.

I was taken with the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to the alligator, and perhaps I may just add this to the allegory of the alleged alligator. It is a well-known characteristic of both crocodiles and alligators that if you put a young one into a fairly small tank it will grow to the size of the tank and no larger; but if, even when it has reached a considerable age, you let it out of the tank it will then surprise you by growing rapidly to its full size of 10 or 12 ft., or longer. Let us remember that characteristic of the alligator. If the alligator gets out again I trust that the Gaming Board will be both knowledgeable and swift enough to check its further growth, because we must not make a mistake a second time.

The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that the 1960 Act had been introduced with the most touching innocence. I know what he meant, but I should like just to put this gloss on those words of his. The Bill which became the 1960 Act was introduced by my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who has been a personal friend of mine for a great many years. He has been described by many adjectives in his Parliamentary career, but I cannot remember that ever, as a Parliamentarian, he has been described disparagingly as "innocent" The truth is that officials, Ministers and Members of both Houses of Parliament were outwitted in 1960. In this field, where very large profits can be made, certain people set their wits against Parliament and they have won. Now we have got to defeat them.

5.48 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for his references to his noble friend Lord Derwent. I very much regret the reasons why Lord Derwent cannot take part in this debate to-day, and we all wish him a speedy recovery.

There have been nine speeches in this debate and every speaker has welcomed the Bill—eight of them warmly, and my noble friend Lord Kilbracken (for quite good reasons) lukewarmly, but it has been generally approved. In the last two or three years I have been described in your Lordships' House as an expert on a good many subjects, including abortion and sexual offences. I have had no personal experience of either£ I have no doubt that within the next hour, when dealing with the Theatres Bill, I shall be described as an expert on obscenity; and now the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has said that I am an expert on gambling. I think horse racing is a wonderful sport—better over the sticks than on the flat—but my last visit to the Derby was in 1931, when I saw Cameronian win. Indeed that was the last and only visit. I have never played bingo, although when I was a Member of another place my constituency Labour Party tried to inveigle me in; but somehow bingo has not for me the fascination it has for other people, and I can only hope that my lack of knowledge of this fascinating subject does not reflect too much in what I now have to say.

In moving the Second Reading I referred to the fact that we should be dealing with this in a new form of Committee—a form new to your Lordships' House—and we shall then have an opportunity not only for detailed discussion but discussions in a special atmosphere which will encourage investigation in a detailed way, and in a completely non-partisan and objective way. Therefore, because we have such a big programme of Business still to get through to-night, it would not be doing a service to your Lordships if I attempted to deal in any great detail with points that have been raised. At the same time, I think I should say one or two things in answer to the questions that have been put to me.

The noble Lord. Lord Jessel, raised the question of club membership and asked whether the practice that we now propose would be retroactive. The answer is, Yes, because in our view membership, so-called, of a gaming club is very largely a fiction, and we want to bring firmly home to the clubs their responsibility for scrutinising members for whose good behaviour they will be responsible. He raised a point about chemin-de-fer. It is essentially a player's game, as he himself said, and there is no need for the club to take part; and we do not believe the players would agree to club representation, especially as in the circumstances it would occur only when the proprietors were, as it were, holding the bank. But in any case if the practice developed we would stop it by regulation under Clause 13.

A point was raised about delays. I think my noble friend Lord Willis spoke about the possibility of very bad cases where a club, as it were, drags on for a period of eight weeks. With regard to immediate closure of clubs, application can be made by the police at once for cancellation of the licence, and if people are not warned by that, pending hearing of the application, they certainly should be. But in our view closing without a hearing, without them being allowed to say anything on their own behalf, would be wrong because it would be a prejudgment.

The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, also raised a question about the limitation of two gaming machines in. as he called them, bona fide members' clubs. We think possibly two is at least one too many, and we are already overdoing it with two—and if for no other reason because I think of the dreadful picture which my noble friend Lord Willis painted of that hot smoky room in Australia with people standing fascinated. I was going to say that I have never been in a gaming club myself, but I had forgotten that ten days ago I went into one on the Isle of Man. I went at three o'clock in the afternoon, when they were not playing. It was a special visit, because I am responsible under the Home Secretary for the Isle of Man. The one thing that depressed me more than anything was the long row of machines against the wall. They did not seem to much sinister as unutterably stupid. I think, despite the fact that the machines make money, two is enough.

A number of noble Lords in addition to Lord Jessel raised the question of bingo, and particularly linked bingo. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi referred to the fact that in another place we had already made concessions with regard to bingo since the Bill was originally introduced. We think that this £1,000 prize is already a considerable concession, because linked bingo—let us face it—is not a game, it is a lottery; it is far more of a lottery than a lottery itself. And indeed the £1,000 allowed for linked bingo is already more than the maximum we allow for charitable lotteries. Again, this linked bingo, which enables many thousands of people to join in a single so-called game, is simply with the object of enhancing the prizes. That is the negation of what bingo was originally conceived to be, which is a friendly, modest, intimate neighbourly game. You cannot call it a game when there are perhaps 5 million people up and down the country just drawing a number. That is not a game.

The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, said that if we limit the prize to £1,000 it will cause severe administrative problems. It might also cause less people to spend a shilling on it and less people to have the pseudo pleasure of competing for one of these prizes. This is something which would leave us not considerably disturbed. Bingo has been going on for a long time. Linked bingo is a comparatively recent innovation, if I can call it that. It was enjoyed by many before, and I hope will continue to be enjoyed in a friendly way by many in the future after this Bill becomes law.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He said that linked bingo was a lottery. I cannot understand what is wrong with a lottery. If I understand it aright, the Government, provided they get the approval of both Houses of Parliament, are proposing to introduce a Bill which will make it possible to run a lottery as a lottery is run in France.

LORD STONHAM

That may be another Bill, another day and another set of circumstances. And if the noble Lord is referring to the terms of the Private Member's Bill which was introduced in another place but did not make progress, I must say that. I think it will be a very different thing indeed, even if it is a national lottery, and even what he hopes comes about the end product of that lottery will be very different indeed. I think, however, that on this question of bingo we have conceded as much as we can, and in fact, within the limits imposed by this Bill, it will be more a companionable and friendly and sociable game. I have seen people pouring out of bingo halls, which were formerly cinemas, and they are obviously happy; they obviously enjoy it. But I do not think they enjoy only the excitement; they enjoy—particularly a great many women—the company, too. But one cannot enjoy the company of linked bingo; it covers the whole country.

With regard to the question of advertising bingo, which was mentioned by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Willis, there will not be the need to advertise if the great prize is no longer there. And there will certainly be no difficulty about the organiser of a local affair informing his customers because that will not be advertising and will not come under the restrictions of this Bill. I think this is a perfectly satisfactory division.

I am sure we were all very impressed with the very thoughtful and knowledgeable speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I must say, however, that I found it a very intriguing picture of the right reverend Prelate going incognito, as he said, into a gaming hell: I wonder if he was as incognito as he thought. The right reverend Prelate (who mentioned to me a few moments ago that he might not be able to stay, as he had to catch a train) asked me two very important questions.

The first was whether I was satisfied that it would be possible drastically to reduce the number of clubs, and to do it reasonably quickly. This is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, also put to me, when he referred to my mention of a possibility of a period of two years. I am afraid that, with the best will in the world, licensing can hardly be completed before the end of next year, 1969, and therefore we could not bring in the controls before then. That is about 18 months from now. Other restrictions, on machines and so on, will take a further six months. So we think that if this Bill becomes law it will take about two years to implement it entirely.

The right reverend Prelate also asked me to look again at the licensing system, which he regards as cumbersome. He feels that our proposals leave too much room for "to-ing" and "fro-ing", and he asked how we are to avoid having too many clubs in one area. This was the main matter raised by many noble Lords on this Bill. My noble friends Lord Willis and Lord Kilbracken, and others, regard this as a vital question, because at least three of my noble friends, and indeed the right reverend Prelate, thought that we ought to have nationalised gaming houses. Others admired greatly the French system.

But, my Lords, there is an enormous difference between the situation with which we are confronted and the situation which started in France. They started virtually de novo. They were not confronted with a situation covering at least 900 gaming establishments My noble friend Lord Kilbracken said 1,500. He may well be right. We say about 900. In our view, without grave risk of driving gaming houses underground, we could not nationalise this industry now. It is possible that if my noble friends are right, and if in ten years' time we have failed to achieve what we think we have achieved by this Bill, we may have to take other measures. But for the present we believe that we are adopting the right method; that is, of first legalising and then controlling, and we believe that our control measures in this Bill are likely to be much more effective than noble Lords apparently suppose.

The question has been raised of the number of inspectors. My noble friend Lord Kilbracken suggested that we should have an inspector in every gaming establishment, and he put forward the most interesting suggestion that we should increase the Excise charge for a club to cover the extra cost that this would involve. He also suggested that, in effect, every inspector should be a qualified accountant who would keep a close watch on the books. These are points that we might look at, but, I would submit, not now, not in connection with this Bill, and not until we have had experience of how these proposals work out. We agree that the inspectors must be of high calibre and well paid, and we shall depend a great deal on them. But they will not be alone. They will be backed by the Board. They will be associated and assisted in their work when assistance is necessary, by the police. In fact, in some respects they will assist and advise each other.

The central point which the right reverend Prelate put forward is that we should have made the Gaming Board the sole instrument for licensing; that it should not be a joint effort between the Gaming Board, which will, as it were, yet the applicants as well as those behind them, for character, and the local justices who, having regard to the framework of advice which they will receive from the Board, would then grant licences to those who had been certified, as it were, by the Board, as being trustworthy and honest people.

First of all, we think there is going to be a great shake-out and reduction of clubs by the operation of the provisions of the Bill itself. For example, the restrictions in the Bill on cabaret clubs, which are also gambling clubs, will in our view reduce the number almost at once by as many as half when they are no longer permitted—

LORD KILBRACKEN

My Lords, if my noble friend will permit me to intervene, may I say that they will give up the cabaret rather than the gaming.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, that is so. But the people running these clubs are in it for the money. They are in it for the profit, as my noble friends fear. This is a part of the Bill where we shall attack them. When my noble friend spoke of one man—and not the largest—getting £650,000 net profit, he may well be right. There may be others who are making larger profits. But in this Bill we have powers which will enable us to make serious inroads into those profits first of all, by setting out the rates of profit per game which will be possible or allowable, and the charges on them. The operators will be mulcted in a good many ways. I agree that there must be control in regard to the end product. The tax man will come in, and the operators will be dealt with in various ways. If they are a corporation they will be subject to corporation tax, and the relevant provisions will apply in regard to limited liability companies. I agree that there are enormous profits in this business. That is an aspect that we have to look at carefully.

But the main and important thing that we are looking at, the central purpose of this Bill, is to reduce the volume of gambling, to cut down the number of clubs by 70 to 75 per cent. Although it is true that this will make those who have the licences, those who are left, virtually in the position, in the graphic phrase, of "having a licence to print money", we shall also take care of that. The other way in which I hope the numbers will be reduced will be by the prosecutions that will be taking; place under existing legislation. There is no need for me to detail them. The Times gave details to-day, and my noble friend repeated them.

We expect these clubs to use the whole machinery of appeal. We cannot prevent them from doing so, of course. The proceedings are likely to be protracted, and if one device is declared illegal there are no doubt many others which they will be prepared to fall back on and which, in turn, will need to be tested. The situation may be rather more harassing for the existing clubs; but if experience is a guide they, or most of them, will continue to spin matters out in one way or another, until they see whether or not they are to be licensed and the new dispensation is brought in under the Bill. Nevertheless, we think that because of these prosecutions there may be a considerable shake-out of clubs during this interval, and in our view this will be no bad thing.

On the question of powers of the Board, as your Lordships are aware the Bill requires the Board to make an annual report to Parliament, and we should want those reports to be as comprehensive and informative as possible. I should be willing to consider it Committee any ways that may be thought requisite for strengthening the Bill on these lines. As to the question of demand, my noble friend Lord Kilbracken committed himself to the view that we needed only 30 or 40 gaming clubs in London and some 60 to 80 in the United Kingdom as a whole, compared to the 200 or 300 I have mentioned. He may well be right, but whether it is 80 or whether it is 200 or 300 it must be related to demand, and it is the justices who will be in the best position to say, on the advice they get from the Board—and on this the justices will be advised by the Board, and they will certainly take heed.

We think that the attitude which was expressed by the right reverend Prelate, supported by at least half the noble Lords who have spoken, is influenced by current practice, particularly in France, but as I have already indicated that is liable to be dangerously misleading in the quite different circumstances which are now in existence here. For example, with the Board coming new to this work, it would take months and months to prepare a credible and reliable scheme of distribution of licences for the whole country in consultation only with the local authorities and the police. Therefore, we do not think this is something that could, or even should be attempted, because of the long delay, but it is for the Board to advise the justices and the justices, within the framework of that advice, to do their work. If the Board had to do the whole job, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said, the inspectors would not be numbered in tens, they would be numbered in hundreds and hundreds.

The noble Lord, Lord Foley, mentioned that he was a director of Crock-fords, and he gave a personal welcome to the Bill. He thought that the Government were on the right lines, but he strongly questioned the rule in the Bill about overseas visitors, which requires them to register in person with a club 48 hours before they are allowed to play. Well, my Lords, we feel very firmly about this. The noble Lord. Lord Foley, is quite right we wish to discourage the junketing gaming trips organised from the United States, and we have no wish to have London regarded as the gaming centre of the world. The noble Lord mentioned earning £6½ million in foreign currency by this means, and earnings of foreign currency are, or should he, welcomed but in our view to earn it in this way would be paying too high a price. It might be regrettable if visitors who are coming here from overseas for four days are inconvenienced for two days. That is too bad—they will just have to wait for two days before they can gamble if they are going to comply with the law.

My Lords, I hope that I have answered at least all the important questions addressed to me. I am most grateful for the very considerable, in fact complete measure of support which the House has given to the Bill. I look forward to discussing in detail in Committee Amendments to meet the points which have been suggested, and I know that we shall all do our best together still further to improve this very good Bill.

LORD WILLIS

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he has any comment to make about the actual size of the Board. I did mention the point about the three members.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I noted what my noble friend said, and certainly this is something which we will consider in the later stages of the Bill.

On Question, Bill read 2^a.