HL Deb 13 March 1969 vol 300 cc629-42

5.0 p.m.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

My Lord, I beg to move that the Gaming (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill be now read a second time. I should like to give a short explanation of its objects. Clause 1 of the Bill applies to amusement arcades. There is at present a great increase in the number of amusement arcades. Applications to open one of these places follow certain rules, but owing to the high rateable value of these arcades local councils are loath to refuse a licence. This seems wrong. The Gaming Board can only make a recommendation, and the local council can override it. And the council, after all, is dealing with it mainly as a planning matter. The only way to stop the expansion of the number of arcades now seems to be to curtail the profits. This can be done by the prohibition of gaming machines and by giving the Gaming Board the overriding power to grant a licence.

There are other objections to amusement arcades. First, young people and children under 18 can use them, thus encouraging the gambling fever. Secondly, the profits to proprietors of gaming machines are in my opinion excessive, and if they are not high enough to satisfy proprietors a man known as a "fixer" can be sent for to manipulate the machines to retain a bigger stake. Thirdly, I have been told, though without proof, that amusement arcades are being used to push drugs.

Clause 2 deals with licensed premises. Gaming machines in licensed premises are a nuisance. They distract the customers from the serious business of drinking and conversation; they are noisy; they encourage gambling, and my serious objections are the same as against the amusement arcades in Clause 1 of the Bill. I have noticed, incidentally, that gaming machines are rarely to be found in London public houses, but the reverse seems to be the case in country districts. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Nunburnholme.)

5.2 p.m.

LORD DERVENT

My Lords, I am somewhat surprised to see this Bill being introduced at this moment of time. Your Lordships will realise that Parliament passed the Gaming Act only last Session, and parts of the Act are not yet even fully operative. The 1968 Gaming Act received the sort of Parliamentary examination which very few pieces of legislation receive. In your Lordships' House it was not only given a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage, and a Third Reading stage, but it went before a special experimental Public Bill Committee upstairs, when every single line was exhaustively—the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, might say exhaustingly—examined. Surely it is a little early to have amending legislation before we even know how the Act is working.

The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, desires by Clause 1 of his Bill to put amusement arcades under the Gaming Board instead of under local authorities. As I understood him, that is being done not with the idea of restricting the number of gaming machines allowed under the Act, but with the idea of restricting "by the backdoor" the actual number of amusement places, simply by making it less attractive for people to go into them. This matter has been discussed at great length, and surely the people who know best whether an amusement place ought to be licensed are the local authorities. What will the Gaming Board know about them? All they can do is to ask the local authority whether the premises are suitable, and so on, since this all comes under the local authority. If there is any objection to the granting of a licence, then it is undoubtedly the local police who would bring an objection. I do not believe that it would improve the Act to alter its provisions so as to put these places directly under the Gaming Board, instead of under the local authorities, which is where Parliament thought they should be.

The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, in Clause 2 of his Bill wants to do away, with gaming machines in public houses. Why? Clubs have them, and so do other places. Why should not people in pubs have them? If they are noisy, and people do not like the noise, then they can go somewhere else. Some pubs like noise, as one can find out if one goes into a public house in the East End where one finds singing, bands—the lot: they are packed. People who do not like noise just do not go to them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, that most public houses in London do not have gaming machines—because the proprietor feels that they would not be popular with the people who go to drink there. The noble Lord further said that one ought not to have these machines in public houses because they interfere with drinking. That is one of the things that public houses are for.

It is quite extraordinary for the House to be asked at this stage to amend the 1968 Act when we do not know whether it is working. It would be another matter if such a Bill were to be put forward in two or three years' time, after experience of how the Act was working. But, as I have said, the present Act has received the most careful examination in Parliament, as well as having had a great deal of discussion in Committee upstairs when every detail was gone into. Parliament decided upon that Act, and I suggest that it is too early to think of amending it when nothing, so far as we know, has gone wrong up to the present.

5.10 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, the speech with which the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, introduced his Bill had the great advantage of extreme brevity, but I think he would be the first to agree that he did not advance any powerful arguments in favour of it. There has been considerable interest in this Bill and, I believe, some misunderstanding and misapprehension about it. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will bear with me while I explain not only the Government's attitude to it, but what the Bill would achieve if it were enacted and why the Government find it unacceptable.

As the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, pointed out, it was only last October, after a very thorough examination, that your Lordships gave a Third Reading to the Gaming Act 1968. I certainly did not imagine then that within a matter of months, before the Bill was actually in operation in this respect, that I should be talking to the House again about a Bill to extend the provisions of that Act to amusements with prizes and amusement machines, because that is what this Bill is about.

The objects of Lord Nunburnholme's Bill are twofold: to apply to amusement places in which gaming machines are installed the licensing procedure instituted by the Gaming Act 1968 for commercial casinos, and to prohibit the installation of gaming machines in public houses. I would emphasise that we are concerned here solely with amusement machines with minor prizes, and not the machines permitted under the 1968 Act in registered clubs which allow substantial prizes.

When the Gaming Bill was passing through this House no attempt was made to amend it in either of the ways proposed in this Bill, if there had been a need for legislation on these lines, that was the time I should have expected it to come to notice, and that would have been the appropriate occasion for the necessary provision to be made. In view of the detailed examination we made then of this part of the law, I felt that the noble Lord introducing this Bill had a very heavy burden to prove that further legislation on this subject is needed so soon after. With the greatest respect, I do not think he has discharged that burden.

I am of course aware that some local authorities are alarmed at the large number of applications that have recently been made for permits for amusement arcades. Some authorities have complained that neither the provisions in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, nor those in the Gaming Act 1968, which will in due course replace the earlier measure, sufficiently arm them to resist the spread of what many of them regard as a social evil. I do not accept that their powers are inadequate and declare, alternatively, that if they were inadequate the solution put forward in the Bill is not the answer. The noble Lord said that the only way to control proliferation of amusement machines was to limit their profits. The way to control these amusement places is for the local authorities not to license them if there is too great a number—just to say, "No". Of course, they have the power to do that.

Before I go on to deal with the provisions of the Bill, I shall have to explain the significance of some of the expressions used in this field of the law, the meaning of which is not always obvious. The "amusement places" to which Clause 1 of the Bill applies are premises used wholly or mainly for the provision of amusements by means of machines, or for the purposes of a pleasure fair consisting wholly or mainly of amusements. The expression includes amusement arcades, pleasure grounds and seaside piers, which specialise in what are described as "amusements with prizes". "Amusements with prizes" is a term of art, the meaning of which is apparent when we examine Part III of the Gaming Act 1968. Amusements with prizes may take two forms: they may comprise the use of machines, or consist of ordinary forms of games like the wheel of fortune or prize bingo. The Bill now before us is concerned only with machines and with machines for which when the relevant section of the Gaming Act 1968 becomes operative the maximum cash prize is limited to 2s. or a prize of cash and kind not exceeding 5s.

In addition to amusements with prizes, amusement places also provide machines which have no connection with gaming at all but provide pure amusement. They are "What the Butler saw",—if that is amusement—the football games, kiddy rides, as well as highly-sophisticated machines such as, "Sink the battleship" which offer no prizes but simply provide amusement. The "amusements with prizes" consisting of games do not directly concern this Bill. I mention them only to complete the description of the "amusement places" which we are discussing. It is to the "amusements with prizes" which take the form of machines that I want to draw your Lordships' attention. These are gaming machines in every sense. They are gaming machines within the definition of the 1968 Act. They are gaming machines in their method of construction and use. But the law says that if you operate a machine of this kind so that the prizes are limited in the way I have just described, then the machine is an "amusement with prizes"—a form of gaming, but gaming of a strictly limited kind.

The responsibility for issuing permits in respect of amusement places is placed on the local authority, which is given an absolute discretion, subject only to appeal to quarter sessions. If a local authority feels there is too great a proliferation they have the power to stop it. But Clause 1 of the noble Lord's Bill—and I ask him very seriously to consider this—would take this power away from the local authority (and they certainly do not want that) and transfer it to the Gaming Board, so that the Board could apply the full rigours of the licensing procedure provided in the Gaming Act 1968 which is intended only to deal with gaming of the most serious kind.

To understand the full implications of this we need to bear in mind that the Gaming Act already forbids the installation in amusement places of most gaming machines and allows only those that I have already described, which are constructed to offer these strictly limited prizes. The noble Lord's Bill would not touch those amusement places which provided no amusement with prizes machines, but concentrated instead on prize bingo and group games, which in some respects are more sinister because of the speed with which games can be conducted, and the high profits which result. Under the Bill local authorities would still be left with responsibility for these premises.

I turn now to the kind of controls which this Bill seeks to impose on these minor forms of gaming by means of amusement machines. A person who wished to run an amusement place with amusement with prizes gaming machines would, in the first place, have to apply to the Gaming Board for a certificate of consent before he could apply to the licensing justices. The Gaming Board would have to examine the character, reputation and financial standing of the applicant and his financial backers, even if he wanted six machines on the pier, and then decide whether or not to issue a certificate of consent to enable him to proceed with his application to the justices. Is it seriously suggested that is what the noble Lord wants?

The licensing justices would then have to undertake a thorough examination of the application, and hear objections from the Gaming Board, the police, the local authorities, the fire authorities and everybody except Uncle Toni Cobley. Presumably the noble Lord envisages that the Gaming Board would give advice on demand, layout of premises and similar matters. The licence would be subject to annual renewal. The provisions of Schedule 2 of the Gaming Act would require very substantial modification, which is not in this Bill, if they were to produce a viable scheme.

My Lords, in the view of the Government these proposals are quite unacceptable in principle, let alone in practice. The procedure proposed is wholly disproportionate to the problems of gaming of this minor kind. It would place an unjustified burden of work on the Gaming Board and the licensing justices, who will have quite enough to do with the important matters entrusted to them by the Gaming Act. They ought not to be troubled with the problems of amusement places, with which the local authorities, I should have thought, are fully capable of dealing.

The Government remain convinced that local authorities are the appropriate bodies to deal with amusement places. If their powers need strengthening—and there has been a lot of correspondence with the Home Secretary about this—there are simpler solutions. One has been put forward by local authorities themselves, and that is to give them power to pass policy resolutions to control the number of amusement places. At present, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not persuaded that the powers of local authorities are inadequate, but conversations on this will of course continue. The I-Tome Secretary has already given local authorities advice about the exercise of their powers both under the 1964 Act and under the 1968 Act. He is keeping a close watch on recent developments (and we are perfectly well aware of the concern that is felt, particularly with regard to children), and he has said that he will not hesitate to take action if necessary. So much, my Lords, for those proposals of the Bill that deal with amusement places.

I come now to the second object of the noble Lord's Bill, which is to amend the Gaming. Act 1968 so as to prohibit absolutely the use of gaming machines on premises (other than club premises) where a justices' on-licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor is in force. In the event of a breach of this ban the noble Lord's Bill provides the most drastic penalties, amounting, on indictment, to an unlimited fine, imprisonment up to two years, and liability to the loss of the liquor licence. These penalties, of course, are modelled on those included in the 1968 Act to deal with unlawful gaming of the most serious kind. But I must again remind your Lordships of the kind of machines under discussion here. The 1968 Act does not permit the use on these premises of gaming machines with large or unlimited jackpots, such as are to he allowed in gaming clubs licensed under the Act, or in genuine members' clubs registered under the Act. The machines allowed in public houses and other on-licence premises are those with limited stakes and offering limited prizes of the kind I have already mentioned.

My Lords, amusement machines have been allowed in these premises, in pubs, on permit from the local authority ever since 1960. Under the 1968 Act—this is a new departure, a new restriction—permits will in future be obtained from the liquor licensing justices, who have authority to refuse them or to limit the number of machines permitted, subject again to appeal to quarter sessions. It has been the practice in the past for machines to be obtained largely on profit-sharing agreements with the suppliers, but as your Lordships will recall this is to be prohibited under the 1968 Act as it has led to an artificial stimulation of demand. Your Lordships will remember, I am sure—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, will remember—that we discussed this particular point on Amendments in Committee, and again on Report to the House; and the issue was strongly fought. It was decided that we should prohibit these profit-sharing agreements for the sole purpose of, we thought, limiting, or at least reducing, the use of these machines in public houses, and we are convinced that it will bring about a substantial reduction.

While the installation of amusement machines in public houses may be irritating to some people, there was no suggestion during the passage of the 1968 Bill that they should be banned from those places altogether. Such a ban would be all the more keenly felt and resented because public houses are to some extent in competition with registered members' clubs but, being public places, have been denied the right to use machines with large or unlimited jackpots. I think we were right to take that course, but surely it would be quite unjust now to come back and say that they must be deprived altogether of these very strictly limited amusements.

Having said that, my Lords, I must tell your Lordships that it is the Government's view that it would be going too far and would be unfair to ban machines altogether from public houses. We are satisfied that the matter can now safely be left to the discretion of the licensing justices, who will exercise their discretion wisely in their knowledge of the circumstances of individual premises. Nothing has happened since the passing of the Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said, to persuade the Home Secretary that the provisions of the 1968 Act are inappropriate. I have considered the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Numburnholme, in support of his Bill. One of them I have dealt with. He said he had been told that these places were used to "push" drugs. This may well be so; I do not know. Unfortunately, there are a lot of places, including street corners, which are used to "push" drugs. I should not have thought that that was a serious argument for banning amusement places.

The noble Lord has also said that these machines are noisy, and possibly this is so, although the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, dealt with that point. He also dealt with the point that some people like one kind of pub and some people like another. I remember the story of the local village pub where silence was mostly the order of the day. A newcomer to the village came into the pub one night and said, "It's rather cold, isn't it?" Nothing else was said. Then, the next day somebody else said, "Seasonable weather". One of the oldest inhabitants hurriedly finished his beer, got up and said, "Too much talk round here for me". It takes all sorts to make a world, and I suppose that if people like pubs with singing, dancing and music, they will go to them. If they do not, they will go to the quieter places. But, my Lords, I am not persuaded that the noble Lord is right in saying that a complete ban would be justified. We so often have cases, both in the House and outside it, where complaint is made about restrictions, about limitations on personal liberty—and many of these complaints are right. Before we add to them, we should be absolutely certain and should satisfy ourselves that they are justified.

I have explained the objections of principle which the Government see to the proposals in this Bill, but I have not touched upon the drafting. Suffice it to say that substantial Amendments would be needed to produce a workable scheme to achieve the noble Lord's purposes if the House agreed to the principles of the Bill. I have made it clear that the Government do not accept the principles of the Bill. We believe that its proposals are unnecessary, unworkable and, in some respects, unjust. I have gone into this matter thoroughly, as I hope the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, will agree; and I have said what I have not only for your Lordships' House but also for local authorities and other people outside who are interested. I trust that the noble Lord will not persist in his Motion that the Bill be given a Second Reading, but that he will withdraw it. However, if he does not withdraw it I must advise your Lordships to oppose it.

5.29 p.m.

LORD KILBRACKEN

My Lords, I am sorry that I have to add one more voice in opposition to the Bill of my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme, and I regret doing so because I feel certain sympathies with his general principles. I believe that the fruit machine is a most diabolical instrument, and, moreover, that its proliferation in the course of recent months has really been frightening. I think that perhaps something ought to be done about it. But, having considered this Bill carefully, I must say that I feel that this is perhaps not the way in which it should be done.

May I deal with the two points that my noble friend has in mind? First, he is proposing that no fruit machine should be permitted in a public house. I find this rather a strange restriction to propose; because there are already fruit machines available in other establishments. It is probably much more serious that gaming machines in amusement arcades are available to young persons under the age of l5 or 16 who can go in without any restriction at all. I should have thought that in the pubs you would get a fairly adult, responsible person. There may be the objection that the fruit machine interferes with the serious business of drinking; but your Lordships will recall that these are known as "one-armed bandits" and that therefore you have the other arm which can be profitably employed holding a pint of beer. You can do both things at the same time.

My Lords, on the proposal that fruit machines, or rather the places in which they are installed—amusement arcades, fun palaces or whatever euphemism is used for them—should be subject to the same controls as gaming clubs. I must say that I find this is really unnecessary. In the first place, the local authorities already have absolute power to restrict the number of gaming clubs available. The relative paragraph in Schedule 9 says that the grant of a permit shall be at the discretion of the appropriate authority; I must pause here to say that in many parts of England the local authorities seem to have taken an extremely liberal view and not to have exercised their discretion in many cases where I should like to have seen them do so. But what has not been mentioned so far is that if the local authorities do not restrict the number of gaming machines and the number of amusement arcades then, in the end, on my reading of the Act, a right does reside in the Minister under Section 37, which states: … The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit, or impose such restrictions as he may consider necessary or expedient on, the sale, supply, maintenance or use of machines to which this Part of this Act applies…". Therefore, even if the local authorities should perhaps fall short of what we should like to see, the Secretary of State still has the absolute right, at his own discretion, to limit the number of gaming machines.

Finally, I can only agree completely with my noble friend Lord Stonham when he says that it is impossible to expect all these amusement arcades all over the country to come under this most elaborate mechanism that has been set up for dealing with gaming clubs, to expect each proprietor to have to apply for a certificate of consent and to have to go to the local authorities and so on. I cannot feel this is necessary in the case of an amusement arcade that has half a dozen machines in it. But I do think that these "one-armed bandits" are an evil in our society; I think that amusement arcades can be used for the distribution of drugs and certainly I think that they are breeding places of vice. I also think that many of the machines are rigged in a very unfair way to retain a far greater percentage of the pennies or threepenny pieces that is put into them than they should. There is absolutely nothing to stop the proprietor from adjusting the machine to keep 60 per cent., 70 per cent., or 80 per cent. of what is put in. What we should do, therefore, is to wait to see whether the licensing authorities see sense; wait and see whether the Minister takes action. If the noble Lord were to withdraw his Bill at this stage, he may perhaps, after we have seen what has happened, introduce a new one at some later moment.

5.36 p.m.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I am afraid that I, too, must join in the general chorus of disapproval of this Bill. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, reminded me of when we sat in Committee on the Gaming Bill—except that on this occasion I am behind him and certainly there were cases on that Committee stage where I was definitely not behind him. I also think it very strange that the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, should be seeking to-day by a Private Bill to alter so recent an enactment as the Gaming Act 1968. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, he had ample opportunity then of making his voice heard but he never availed himself of the opportunity. If he has suddenly seen the light—

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

Yes, my Lords, I have.

LORD JESSEL

Then, my Lords, we must pay attention to his views; but I think he might have restrained his enthusiasm until the Gaming Board had finished making their regulations telling us what they proposed to do. In regard to Clause 1 of the Bill, I think the noble Lord is jumping the gun: the local authorities do their job perfectly well. If they do not, I am sure that the Gaming Board will bring our attention to it when in due course they report. As to Clause 2, to this I am utterly opposed. You cannot put the clock back. These pubs have to compete with clubs who are allowed these machines—and not only these machines but also those which the noble Lord Lord Kilbracken, called the "one-armed bandit".

Furthermore, there is a genuine demand for these amusement machines; the public have got used to them. I think that it was on the Third Reading debate of the Gaming Bill 1968 that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth told us that he had been into a pub and had talked to several people all of whom told him that they did not want the machines. Well, my Lords, if a Bishop asks a question in a pub he is very likely to get the answer he wants. I should like to know how he framed the question and how many people he asked. These machines have been licensed by the licensing justices; yet the Bill seeks to eliminate them completely, at the same time leaving untouched the thousands of much more vicious "one-armed bandit" machines in the clubs. I hope that your Lordships will reject this Bill.

5.39 p.m.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

My Lords, I think that there is only one thin that I can do, having heard such round-the-House opposition to my Bill. I did not expect to get it through; and therefore I shall ask the permission of the House to withdraw it. But I do not think that it does any harm to bring out this danger of the proliferation of amusement arcades and also to draw the attention of the local councils to this fact. Whether one likes the "one-armed bandit" in pubs or not is a matter of opinion. I thank all my critics from all sides of the House, and I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion for Second Reading.

Bill, by leave, withdrawn.