§ 3.36 p.m.
§ LORD GOODMANMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I do not think I shall need to occupy your Lordships' House very long or to bore the survivors of the Sitting with a detailed description of what is really a simple matter. I think before anyone else says it I ought to say that this is not the most important issue troubling mankind at the moment. Nevertheless, we are fiddling while Rome is burning, and I think it is quite desirable that we should find at the end a piece of improved legislation relating to small bridge and whist clubs. Therefore, I do not apologise for taking your Lordships' time, although there are more momentous issues to discuss.
This particular Bill arises from the fact that an injustice was done to people who play rubber bridge and people who play whist in modest fashion and in modest circumstances for small stakes in modest clubs all over the country. I am told that this is a very prevalent activity and that many people use their leisure innocently and happily by playing these games in suburbs or in rustic villages, coming together in small numbers and forming groups for this purpose. The 1968 Act failed to make provision for this and created a situation where only an inadequate charge could be made by a membership club, which is a club consisting of at least 25 people, and equally it made it impossible for any charge at all to be made by a proprietary club, where in fact the word "proprietary" is quite inappropriately used in relation to the sort of club which organises this activity. Usually there is some local leader who has a home to which he invites his friends and neighbours. To regard this as a proprietary club is, of course, an abuse of language. Nevertheless, if the requisite number of people are involved, it becomes a proprietary club, and for any charge to be made at all it is necessary for it to be licensed, involving a payment of £1,000 as a licensing fee and additional renewal fees. It is an absurdity that people who want a game of bridge with their neighbours in some small town or village should be called upon to pay such fees. The position 1294 is slightly better in relation to membership clubs, because they could register as clubs and in that event would have to pay fees of £20, with recurring fees of £10. But even that sum is forbidding for people who want a single game of bridge at a penny a hundred.
Hence, the purpose of this Bill is to enable the Home Secretary to permit charges to be made by these small clubs to obviate the difference between the proprietary clubs and the membership club for this purpose, and to enable him to permit the persons organising the affair to make charges in excess of the five pence a day allowed by the regulation under the 1968 Act. Five pence per day is obviously inadequate, even to purchase the stacks of cards that are needed, to make provision for the cleaning expenses and no doubt for the cups of tea and biscuits and other amenities that go with this wholly innocent pastime. The purpose of this very simple Bill is to provide that the Home Secretary may first allow for larger charges than the 5p per day and, more important, that he can also discriminate in favour of bridge clubs and whist clubs as against other forms of gambling activity, so as to allow a special and higher charge to he imposed in respect of those clubs. It is apparently objectionable to allow necessarily the same higher charge to be permitted for all activities; that is to say, uniformity might be rather dangerous because the great number of people who assemble for the less desirable forms of gambling might be compelled to make payments which would give great and attractive rewards to people set on organising these activities. Hence, the discriminatory provision which is inserted to enable the benevolence of the Home Secretary to be directed to activities which cannot be challenged and cannot lead to social abuse.
There is another rather agreeable little amendment that arises, which is this. At the moment the proprietor of the proprietory club (if I may call it that); that is to say, the householder, has the galling experience, since he is obviously the most devoted and fanatical exponent of bridge in the district, of not being able to join in the game. If I may say so, it must be especially maddening if only three people arrive and the situation arises where he 1295 cannot have a game at all. This quite unnecessary restriction is removed by this piece of legislation.
The only other thing perhaps I ought to say, in the vain hope of disarming any opposition, is that in the other place this Bill was supported by the Government, supported by the Opposition, supported by every kind of organised, civilised thought. I do not think anybody opposed it. I make that observation not to deter your Lordships opposing it, but simply to acquaint you with the situation that prevailed elsewhere. I do not think —much as I should like to—that there is much more to be said on this matter, except to commend this simple little Bill to your Lordships' attention and to assure you that, so far as I have been able to study the matter, it is not open to any particular abuse and that it will enable life to be a little easier and leisure to be conducted in a more seemly and appropriate manner for quite a number of people. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Goodman.)
§ 3.42 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I do not rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. Indeed, it will be difficult to oppose anything—
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, but we have a list of speakers and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is next on the list.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, I shall not detain the noble and learned Viscount for long as we have had a very explicit explanation of this small measure from the noble Lord who introduced it. I may say that my own Front Bench has been waiting with bated breath for what direction I should give them as to how they should vote on this Bill! Those of us who have experience in charities know all too well that the Gaming Act of 1968, which was intended to deal with much larger and wealthier establishments, in fact created some anomalies for small groups. I have seen those who wished to run an innocent raffle having to go to 1296 some lengths in order to obtain a licence because they wished the general public to be able to indulge in it. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said, any Bill which will make it a little easier for people to enjoy a simple kind of leisure seems to me to be a reasonable thing.
It is perhaps, a little unfortunate that we always associate the word "gaming" with some casino-type operation, whereas in this case we are speaking only about very much smaller groups, often indulging in the rather harmless and enjoyable pursuit of whist or bridge. The Amendment made in the other place has written in a protection against any abuses and, therefore, from these Benches we wholeheartedly support the Bill.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, perhaps I may say now that I do not rise to oppose this Bill because it is always very difficult to oppose anything so persuasively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I rise to put one question to the noble Lord and it may be that if he cannot answer it possibly the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, whom one is glad to see present, can do so. My Question is this. Under Clause 1(2) of the Bill the word "members" is to be taken out of the Act so that, as I understand it, the Act shall apply to all clubs. Does that mean that the big proprietory clubs will now be allowed to do that which they were not permitted to do under the Act of 1968? It seems to me that by merely taking out the word "members" we are considerably enlarging the whole scope of the 1968 Act.
I entirely agree with the object of allowing people with small bridge or whist clubs to play a rubber of bridge or a rubber of whist for small stakes. I see no objection to that at all, but I should like to be satisfied that by that Amendment in that particular provision the scope of this Bill does not go far further than the noble Lord clearly intended it to go.
§ LORD GOODMANMy Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to answer that question now. It is indeed a question which occurs to one on first reading the Amendment, but the answer is that there are two ways in which a club will, after this Amendment, be able to reap rewards. It can do it by having its 5p a day or 6p a day or whatever it is the House Secretary directs. 1297 But whatever the amount directed by the Home Secretary—and it was made clear in the other place that he was thinking in terms of minimal fees anyway—this would be no attraction at all to the great clubs. They would happily register at £1,000 a time and would charge the sums that they are permitted to make; that is, at not more frequent intervals than at each hour. I should have thought that that would be sufficient for anybody, and I think the object is to procure that they do not take a "cut" in any particular game or play, or drop of the ball that occurs. The answer is that any great gaming activity would wish to be rewarded by making charges far in excess of those prescribed by the Home Secretary and, therefore, they would happily pay the £1,000.