HL Deb 21 November 1990 vol 523 cc761-70

7.51 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Some noble Lords have expressed a small measure of curiosity about the contents of the Bill that we shall discuss this evening and the fact that I am moving it. In the course of my remarks I hope that that curiosity will be satisfied.

The Bill carries out one task in particular in seeking to amend Section 31 of the Gaming Act 1968. That Act governs the operation of commercial casinos in England, Wales and Scotland. It also regulates other forms of gaming. The single amendment proposed by the Bill before us will affect only the approximately 120 premises (as of this evening, I believe that there are 119) which are currently licensed in Great Britain to provide casino games such as roulette, blackjack, baccarat and dice. I mentioned Great Britain. Your Lordships will note that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland.

The sole purpose of the Bill is to allow a casino to have on its premises up to a maximum of four jackpot gaming machines, as they are known. Under the 1968 Act the present limit is two such machines. That limit has applied since the Act came into force approximately 20 years ago. The change which an increase from two to four machines, as proposed by the Bill, will represent is significantly less than the limit which was recommended by the Royal Commission on Gambling in 1978. Its report reasoned that the number of jackpot machines permitted should be related to the size of the particular casino and specifically to the number of gaming tables on the premises. The report cautioned—I quote: No one wants to see jackpot machines installed in serried ranks in the way they are in Las Vegas casinos or in clubs in some parts of Australia". It added the observation that: most [British] casino proprietors themselves would dislike this prospect, which they would see as bringing about a detrimental change in the character and atmosphere of their establishments". Those are two important reservations.

I hasten to add that I have no interest in those areas. I have never been to Australia although I must confess—and noble Lords may be surprised to hear this—that I spent an interesting but unprofitable evening in Las Vegas as part of a parliamentary delegation studying defence, not gambling. I had a view of the gambling areas in Las Vegas, and it was a sight that I would not recommend to your Lordships or anyone of similar disposition.

In taking account of the two reservations which I mentioned as part of the Royal Commission's report of 1978, the commission concluded that: licensed casinos should be allowed to install one jackpot machine for every two gaming tables at the premises on which gaming licence duty is paid". That was a logical formula, but the Bill does not go nearly so far. It would not allow a casino with 12 tables to install six machines, or another casino with 24 tables to have up to a dozen machines. The Bill would apply a universal limit of four machines to any one premises. The reason is that the Gaming Board for Great Britain, which is the statutory body set up under the 1968 Act to regulate gaming in this country, is concerned that: the special character of casinos in Great Britain should not be altered". However, the board accepts that: the number of machines could be doubled without detriment but that four represents a limit which it would be undesirable to exceed". The Gaming Board has said that it is prepared to lend its support to what the Bill which is before us this evening proposes. That is very valuable support and I express my gratitude to the board for its comments and the support that it gave to me and to this Bill.

The board adds the proviso that it would only allow the support that it has expressed so far on the basis that the stipulated maxima for stakes and prizes remain the same for all jackpot machines regardless of the premises in which they are sited. There is nothing in the Bill which would alter that basis.

I shall not take your Lordships down the interesting avenue of different gaming machines. I shall simply refer to jackpot machines, which are the concern of this Bill. There are other machines called amusement-with-prizes machines but jackpot machines are regarded as primarily for gambling. The stipulated maxima to which the board's proviso referred are currently a stake of 20p for a maximum prize of £150.

Under the 1968 Act, the so-called jackpot machines are confined to premises which are licensed and for that particular category your Lordships will find that the premises are casinos and bingo clubs. Alternatively they are confined to premises which are registered. Those cover sports, political and similar types of members' clubs, and miners' welfare institutes, which are spelt out in interesting detail in the schedules to the 1968 Gaming Act. The current maxima for stakes and prizes were agreed in 1987 by an organisation called BACTA (the British Amusement Catering Trades Association) and the board. I understand that BACTA has a great interest in these types of jackpot machine.

The number of jackpot machines throughout Great Britain might arouse your Lordships' curiosity. According to the figures given by Customs and Excise, in the year ended 31st March 1989—the latest year for which figures are available—there were in Great Britain over 190,000 amusement-with-prizes machines (to which the Bill does not refer) and approximately 41,000 jackpot machines. However, of those 41,000 jackpot machines, not more than 232 machines were on casino premises, which are the only premises in Great Britain specifically licensed for what I shall call professional gaming. In fact there were even fewer than that number because, although each of the 116 casinos in 1989 was entitled to two jackpot machines, some of them (I understand about three or four) had none of those machines at all. A casino is permitted to apply instead for a specified number of amusementwith-prizes machines under a direction by its local licensing authority. I understand that some casinos are able to choose amusement-with-prizes machines in place of jackpot machines. Those are separate machines not covered by the Bill. However, casinos cannot have both. The Bill spells out the number of jackpot machines and the premises.

While most of the casinos that I have mentioned opt for the two jackpot entitlement with their casino licence, a few high stake casinos in London prefer no gaming machines. I understand that at present there are 119 casinos in England, Wales and Scotland of which 103 are in England, four in Wales and no fewer than 12 in Scotland. Thus, the measure proposed in the Bill adds no more than about 0.5 per cent. —a minuscule number—to the 40,000 jackpot machines around the country.

Noble Lords may ask: why bother? Only 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. of the adult population in Great Britain frequent casinos. However, it was precisely to meet the demand for professional or hard gaming by that minority that the licensing of casinos under strict regulations was introduced in the 1968 Act, with great skill and effort. I stress that point. To ensure that there is no emergence of public gaming houses, or easy access for those who might be unfamiliar with such games, casinos have to be clubs to which the general public—even your Lordships—will have no access save as a club member, and guests who have made a deliberate, considered decision to join that club. No one can enter the gaming taking place—whether at tables or on machines—unless they are over 18 years of age and members of the club who have signed at those premises a declaration of intention to take part in gaming in those casinos, and have then waited 48 hours before being allowed admission to play. That point may settle some points that have been raised by noble Lords to me in informal discussions.

Would noble Lords consider what other premises are safer, more secure, or more suited to the siting of gambling machines? Over the past 20 years, since the limit of two jackpots for each casino came into force with the Gaming Act, attendances have somewhat naturally increased. I understand that the largest group in the operation of provincial casinos has seen growth of some 10 per cent. per annum in all but one year of a five-year period in its number of members and players.

Even noble Lords who do not frequent casinos, or have no interest in these licensed gaming machines, may agree that it is unreasonable that casino club members and their guests who can play roulette, blackjack and dice without let or hindrance must queue up if they wish to play on one of the two jackpot machines. The maximum stake on such machines is 10p or 20p. That is a considerably reduced stake compared with the stakes which will be wagered on any other of the tables in that casino. They must queue up for no other reason than the arbitrary limit of two machines. That limit was set nearly two decades ago. The Royal Commission on Gambling recognised the anomaly 12 years ago. I have quoted a reference to your Lordships. It has not yet been found possible for the Government to find any time to amend legislation to remedy that point.

The remedy that I propose in the Bill is fairly simple. Section 31 of the original 1968 Act defines a jackpot machine by specifying the manner in which it must operate and the premises to which, as a gambling machine, it must be confined. The limits on stakes and prizes have already been mentioned. The premises are referred to in parenthesis in Clause 1 of the new Bill, and in Section 31 of the Gaming Act 1968. Clause 1 refers to, (use of machines by virtue of licence or registration)". Premises under licence are casinos and bingo clubs. However, bingo clubs are excluded from the effect of the amendment in the proposed new subsection (2) (a). The words are again in parenthesis. Both casinos and bingo clubs are licensed under Part II of the original 1968 Act.

Premises under registration are clubs or miners' welfare institutes registered under Part III, within which Section 31 of the 1968 Act falls, which are concerned entirely with machines, or Part II of the 1968 Act which deals with kinds of gaming other than on machines. Thus Clause 1(2) (a) of the amending Bill raises the limit from two jackpot machines to four on licensed casino premises other than bingo premises. Paragraph (b) maintains the limit of two such machines "in any other case". In other words, the provisions refer to bingo and all clubs and miners' welfare institutes which are registered, whether under Part II or III of the 1968 Act.

In the light of the very proper constraints that we have in this country on certain types of gaming, I wish to stress again that the amending Bill to the Gaming Act 1968 would be confined in its effect to casinos alone, and to no other premises. The number of casinos is small. They are places specifically licensed for gambling under very tight and professional control, with inspection by the Gaming Board and the police.

The change would be less than the limit recommended by the Royal Commission in 1978, which I read to your Lordships earlier. There is nothing in the proposal which would militate against the social objectives of the Gaming Act. I am advised that the Gaming Board supports the measure. I know that we have the support of the current chairman of the Gaming Board, together with the very distinguished past chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Sadly, through my fault in arranging the debate for this evening, he has to be away. However, I believe that he is with us in spirit although he cannot be here.

I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not object to what I have set out in the Bill. I await his remarks and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, with interest. I understand that the trade associations and national bodies who represent other users of the jackpot machines, whether licensed or registered, have no objections. Those organisations include the Bingo Association of Great Britain, the Clubs and Institutes Union, the Royal British Legion and other similar clubs.

I apologise that I have spoken for longer than I should have done. The Bill is simple and I believe effective. Above all, it has the support of the Gaming Board, which supervises the gaming that takes place in casinos which are professionally and well run. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(Lord Lyell.)

8.9 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his very full and clear explanation of the Bill. One of the merits of the Bill is that it is not too difficult to understand. The noble Lord has made quite certain that there is no part about which we are not clear.

We on these Benches have no objection to the changes proposed in the Bill for the following reasons. We understand, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has explained, that it is not inconsistent with the Rothschild Royal Commission on Gambling report which recommended that casinos might be permitted an even larger number of machines than is proposed in the Bill. We are very glad that it has the blessing of the Rothschild report. We also understand that the Home Office is happy with the Bill. That too must be in its favour.

We support the change because it is asked for on practical grounds rather than with the aim of attracting more people into the premises and therefore increasing the number of people who gamble. As the noble Lord made clear, the Gaming Board for Great Britain has no objection to the change because it is restricted to casinos where gambling already takes place. At this point I wish to stress that we on this side of the House are against—I am speaking outside the Bill—an increase in the number of gaming machines because young people and previous non-gamblers might be attracted.

I remember the first time I spoke from this Front Bench. The subject was amusement arcades and the anxiety that was felt then was that many schoolchildren were being drawn by the excitement and glamour of these machines. That led to truancy from school and on to petty crime in order to gain money to pay for gambling. The children became quite hooked on it.

I am a non-gambler although I seem to have spoken on this subject on many occasions. It is wrong to try to attract non-gamblers towards that pastime. I understand the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, as to why casinos wish to increase the number of machines. There are increasing numbers of people who go to casinos and there are queues for the two machines on the premises. The queues increase and therefore an addition in the number of machines would make life better generally in these clubs.

I wish to ask the noble Lord a couple of questions on the points about which I am not quite clear. I am not sure whether I should ask the noble Lord the questions or whether the Minister who is to respond will be able to deal with them. I should like to know the number of machines currently being operated in casinos. The noble Lord gave some figures but I was not clear whether he was referring to the number of machines in casinos or the number of machines in general. Can the Minister or the noble Lord tell me whether the number of machines in casinos has increased or decreased since 1968? I should like to be given an estimate of the increase in the number of machines which is expected as a result of the Bill.

Can the Minister or the noble Lord tell me whether the Bill will require any changes to the licences currently held by casino operators or whether they can operate with the licences already held? I should also like to know whether Her Majesty's Government have received representations from any other interested parties. I understand that working men's clubs feel that there is an anomaly in that casinos are able to increase their number of machines whereas the clubs, which also have an increasing number of clients, are not allowed to add to their total of machines under the Bill. Can the Minister say whether the Government have had representations from any other organisations which are affected by this Bill?

In principle, we certainly agree with the objective of the Bill. It will improve life within casinos and provide practical help in increasing the number of machines. We wish the noble Lord success with the Bill.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Reay

My Lords, it may be helpful if I indicate the Government's view of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Lyell has introduced and explained to us in a very full manner.

We see the proposal in the Bill to increase from two to four the number of jackpot gaming machines permitted in casinos as a modest proposal which fits well within the established framework of gambling in this country. Because jackpot machines provide for a much harder form of gambling than the common amusement-with-prizes machine, or fruit machine as it is usually referred to, their number and location are closely prescribed by law. Only premises licensed or registered under the Gaming Act 1968 are entitled to install these machines and Section 31 of the Act limits them to two each.

As my noble friend pointed out, as long ago as 1979 the Rothschild Royal Commission on Gambling concluded that it was anomalous for premises expressly set aside for hard gaming to be treated on an equal footing with, for example, a village cricket club. By way of a remedy the commission adopted the proposal put forward by the British Casino Association—I am pleased to see that the chairman of that body, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is in his place this evening—namely, that a casino's entitlement to jackpot machines be linked to the number of gaming tables, and recommended a ratio of one machine for every two tables. Such an arrangement is in our view no longer practicable.

The Royal Commission's recommendation was made when gaming duty was assessed, partly on the number of gaming tables, and casino proprietors were under an obligation to notify changes in the number of tables to Customs and Excise. Duty is no longer assessed on that basis. Since the 1984 Finance Act it has instead been assessed on the basis of a casino's gross gaming yield, that is to say, the amount staked, less winnings. Subject only to any undertaking given to the licensing justices, there are now no controls on the number of gaming tables; they are limited only by the available gaming area. As a result, entitlement to jackpot machines could vary without notice as a casino proprietor increased or decreased his complement of gaming tables.

The solution which has been developed by the British Casino Association and is now brought forward in this Bill to increase the entitlement to four machines per casino overcomes this difficulty. Furthermore, by maintaining a reasonable upper limit on the number of machines the Bill avoids Las Vegas style serried ranks of jackpot machines which were opposed both by the Rothschild Royal Commission and the Gaming Board for Great Britain as alien to the character and atmosphere of casinos in this country.

The Bill also, quite rightly in our view, maintains the existing limit of two machines for premises other than casinos which are permitted to use jackpot machines. I am referring to licensed bingo clubs and registered clubs. Such premises are not intended primarily for hard gaming and so are in many respects less tightly regulated than casinos. There is, therefore, no justification for extending to these other premises the concession contained in the Bill.

On a more general point, since 1986 there have already been three Gaming (Amendment) Acts, the last of which received Royal Assent as recently as July. In the past that exposed us to the criticism that gaming legislation was being reformed in a piecemeal fashion. The noble Baroness made that criticism on an earlier occasion. The basic framework for the control of gaming in this country which is provided for by the Gaming Act is generally recognised to have withstood the test of time. Complex legislation of this nature, which has been on the statute book for over 20 years, is bound from time to time to require updating to take account of changes in circumstances or to plug loopholes which have come to light. However, that does not warrant revamping the whole Act, which has generally worked well. From time to time amendments are necessary, many of which are instigated by relevant trade associations, as in this case, and not by the Government.

The noble Baroness asked what representations the Government had received. I understand that we have not received any representations other than those from the BCA and working men's clubs. In both cases they were made to the Gaming Board.

My noble friend's Bill must be considered in the context that I have outlined. As I said, it provides for a modest increase in the number of hard gaming machines permitted in casinos and in so doing does not disturb the framework of the 1968 Act. We understand that the Gaming Board has no objections, as my noble friend indicated. In those circumstances, the Government are content for the Bill to proceed, subject to the views of your Lordships.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I am very grateful for the welcome given to the Bill this evening. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for her kind and helpful comments. I am grateful to her for what she said. She asked me one or two questions. She quite rightly stressed her fears about young people. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, nobody under the age of 18 may become a member of or enter a casino as a guest in order to game. Therefore, young people under the age of 18 would not have access to the machines or premises set out in the Bill.

The noble Baroness asked about the size of the increase over the years. It is my understanding that as of last year 116 casinos were licensed. Of those licensed under the terms of the 1968 Act, between 80 and 90 per cent. took up their entitlement to the jackpot machines within the first year. The figures which I gave have been constant throughout the 20 years or so since the master Act came into operation. Therefore, there has been a demand which was recognised in the original Act. I hope that that demand has been satisfied, and according to figures which I gave to your Lordships there would be an increase of a maximum number of 238 machines as a result of the successful completion of this Bill through your Lordships' House and another place.

The noble Baroness asked about any changes in the Bill in terms of licences. As I understand it, the number of machines which a casino may have under the licences which are granted by the local authorities and the Gaming Board are set out in Section 31 of the Act which my Bill seeks to amend. Therefore, there will be no change.

The third question asked by the noble Baroness has been partially answered by my noble friend on the Front Bench. There have been no representations about which I have heard. One representation was mentioned to me this morning outside this Chamber. However, as my noble friend set out in his comments, it is likely that there may be objections to widening the scope of my Bill to other registered premises.

I am very grateful for the comments made and the welcome given by my noble friend on the Front Bench to the Bill and the measures proposed. He has raised a number of additional points which I do not believe your Lordships would wish me to go into this evening. I am grateful to him for what he said. I agree with him that Section 31 of the master Act is particularly important and I hope that the Bill which I have proposed to your Lordships this evening will go a long way towards remedying one particular aspect of Section 31 of the master Act.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at twenty four minutes past eight o'clock.