Earl De La Warrasked Her Majesty's Government:
What conclusions they have reached from their review of the gaming law in relation to amusement arcades.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)Following the introduction on 1st November 1983 of my noble friend the Lord Campbell of Alloway's Amusement Machines Bill, the Home Office has engaged in consultations with a wide range of interests concerned with amusement arcades and we have reviewed the operation of the gaming laws in relation to these premises. In looking at the case for change, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has considered carefully the available evidence on the extent of the problems posed by arcades and the alleged inadequacy of the present law. In particular, he has considered a submission by the Amusement Arcade Action Group.
The Home Secretary has concluded that there is no clear evidence of problems which would justify fresh controls over amusement arcades. He therefore has no plans at present to bring forward proposals for legislation augmenting the controls in the Gaming Act 1968.
The 1968 Act already gives local authorities a wide discretion to refuse to grant gaming permits to the occupiers of amusement arcades where they consider this appropriate. Much of the complaint about arcades has been about the location, appearance and noise associated with arcades which make the particular site in question unsuitable. These are planning considerations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently announced that his department is making available advice about the application of planning controls to a number of developments including amusement centres (H.C. Debates, 28th January; Vol. 72, cols. 5–6). I hope this will prove helpful. In addition, local authorities may wish to consider whether there are 735WA particular local problems which call for other remedies already available, such as by-laws under Section 75 of the Public Health Act 1961.
It has been alleged that young people need to be protected against the attractions of amusement arcades. However my right honourable friend has had to weigh this against the fact that many amusement arcades, particularly at seaside resorts are designed with young people in mind and have been in operation for many years without giving rise to undue criticism of this nature. It has also been suggested that the controls should be extended to cover video and other games not at present subject to the Gaming Act 1968. The controls exist, however, because of the problems which are traditionally associated with forms of gambling where the prospect of cash prizes may encourage people to participate excessively, and he is not persuaded that the law should extend in this respect to machines which do not meet this condition.
Before we could accept that there is a need for fresh legislation, my right honourable friend would have to be persuaded that hard evidence is to hand of problems which cannot be adequately dealt with under the law at present. We do not judge that the evidence presented to us at present meets this test.