HL Deb 04 May 1983 vol 442 cc148-57

8.21 p.m.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As a public company of which I am chairman has an interest in one licensed bingo club, I declare that as an interest; but I hasten to emphasise that the reason I am pleased to be taking the initiative in commending this Bill to Parliament is in no way connected with that interest. I am doing it because, in the first place, I believe in the content of the Bill of course but I also believe that the subject matter is ideally suited to the Private Bill procedure which we are using now. It covers the three main ingredients that I think a Private Bill ought to have. It is extremely modest in its scope and it has the approval of the Gaming Board, a statutory body set up by the Government in 1968. The third reason is that it will add to the enjoyment of something like 6 million people in this country.

In looking back at the beginnings of the Gaming Act, which this Bill is intended slightly to amend, history shows that the general intention which inspired the 1968 Gaming Act clearly has been attained: that is, the general intention. Then in 1968—and most of us will remember it—it was recognised that bingo had an innocent and worthwhile appeal to many people. It was recognised at the same time that without some legislative control there was a risk that ill-intentioned promoters might unfairly exploit the appeal of that game for self-advantage. There was that risk: anything that verges on gaming carried that risk with it. But now, after 14 years of that 1968 Act, it can safely be claimed that because of the Gaming Board's powers, plus the police surveillance and the quality of the promoters who have emerged under that Act, all the apprehensions of possible risks have been mitigated and in most cases removed altogether.

As is usual in such matters as this—thinking back again to 1968—when framing the original Gaming Act, Parliament built into its clauses every foreseeable protection against possible misuse of any of the licences that were to be granted under the Act—every one you could think of. That is Parliament's job in bringing forward legislation that gives new powers to people. It is Parliament's job to try to anticipate any weaknesses or possible misuses that may arise and to try to include them in the legislation in order to avoid such things happening on any scale.

That was certainly done as regards the 1968 Gaming Act. Every foreseeable protection against any possible misuse, however remote, was built into it. But now, with hindsight following 14 years' experience, it can be seen that, while the main structure of the 1968 Act has proved to be the right vehicle for implementing Parliament's intentions on that part of the Gaming Act, I think any reasonable person would admit that that legislation was over-protective in many of its detailed restrictions. As a result of that, because so many of these things were written in which I believe have proved to be unnecessary in actual operation, it means that the people who are now running the clubs that were allowed under that legislation are having to face all sorts of problems and obstacles which make it almost impossible for the fully approved clubs—and they cannot be a club unless they have passed the test of their suitability by the Gaming Board and all the investigation that carries with it—to attract new members to replace the inevitable fall-out of old members.

It is almost impossible to compete fairly with other forms of entertainment that do not have these restrictions built into legislation affecting them. It is almost impossible to combat the impact of the recently-arrived newspaper bingo competitions, with their jumbo-sized cash prizes. It is because the experience of 14 years has shown so clearly that this over-protection is defeating what was the main object of the original Act—to allow this to happen in a good, healthy way which would encourage lonely people to have somewhere to go without doing themselves any sort of harm—and because we have had that over-protection, that this Bill I am now presenting for the second time has been framed.

I have to say that it is mainly to meet this last newspaper competition that the Bill itself has been designed after lots of consultation with the authorities by the two official bingo associations, which are only too eager to comply with the law and to do it in a way that will bring satisfaction to their clients, who are many. It is a design which I am able to say—that is, this Bill I am now presenting—meets with the approval of the Gaming Board and I hope that it will be given a fair wind by all sides of this House in order that we can progress to the varying stages of amending the original Act in a way which will make it more acceptable and more desirable, both to the country and to the people who use the clubs.

The Bill sets out to permit a national scheme of bingo to be played regularly in many licensed bingo halls simultaneously—at the minute they are separate—by means of a telecommunication link and central control. It is now possible, with all the new inventions in telecommunications, for this sort of thing to be done easily and efficiently. As of the minute, it is not possible to have a wide number of clubs working simultaneously together with the use of that aid, which puts them at a disadvantage alongside the newspaper bingo schemes, which have no restrictions at all on them.

Linked games of bingo are already specially provided for under the present Act, but the Act limits the amount of prize money which can be won. As a consequence of this limit, at the minute it means that no more than four clubs at the most can play together under the type of scheme that would bring it somewhat within the realm of a newspaper scheme.

As I said, the Gaming Act 1968ߞ15 years ago—set this legal limit on prizes, and it has not been altered. The legal limit that was imposed in 1968 takes no account of inflation and the new value of money, which means that the figures, which may have seemed fairly reasonable then, have now dropped to a point which one can only describe as derisory in terms of their being a reasonable attraction to the people who want to use their leisure in this way. One must remember that prizes in other forms of small-stake gambling, such as football pools, horse-racing jackpots and, recently, newspaper bingo, run into six figures, with all the attraction and excitement that that brings. I am not suggesting that we want to compete at that level, but under this Bill it is possible to bring the derisory level under the 1968 Act to one which is more sensible and attractive.

This restriction on bingo hall proprietors, however well conceived it was thought to be in 1968, has had the effect of disabling club proprietors from legitimately defending their business from the incursions of these other forms of gambling. The difference between the position under the old Act and these other operations, which have no restrictions at all, is tantamount to a charge of unfair trading, although in much of our other legislation we have gone to a lot of trouble to try to avoid what we consider to be unfair trading between people who are competing with one another.

But it does not end there. The bingo proprietor is unable to tell people about the services he can offer, limited though they are. He is not able to tell the public at large about these comfortable, well-managed meeting places, where there is social intercourse and togetherness for many who would otherwise be lonely. I emphasise that. If we remove ourselves from the level of the High Court of Parliament and go into the towns and villages in this country, we will see that the people who regularly attend the bingo clubs, who are mainly middle-aged and elderly ladies find a happy atmosphere in well-conducted premises, which goes a long way towards removing that feeling of loneliness from which so many of them suffer. They are able to participate together in a way which suits them.

This Bill is merely intended to redress the balance, to some extent, by allowing the bingo halls to link together from time to time on a national scale, whereby larger money prizes may be offered to members of the participating bingo clubs. Even now, despite the uncontrolled competition outside, this Bill provides for a maximum individual prize under this linking of no more than £50,000. The stake being laid by each individual player will still be a very modest sum of money, and the licensed bingo hall will still have to adhere to the criteria laid down in the original Act. Under my Bill, sadly, the proprietor will still not be able to advertise this new attraction to the public, but must confine himself merely to telling members of his club all about it. This Bill does not ask for any concessions on that matter.

But I quite soberly warn that, unless the changed circumstances of today, compared with 1968, are taken into account the survival of this form of recreation is truly in peril. The word "peril" may seem an emotional and dramatic one to use in connection with the game of bingo, which we sometimes laugh at and pass off but it is a form of recreation which means a great deal to many people. Unless we can bring up to date the general circumstances in which clubs are run, and take present circumstances into account, I quite firmly warn your Lordships that the very existence of these clubs is in peril.

I would remind your Lordships that this is not an inconsiderable industry. It provides £52 million a year to the Exchequer; it provides jobs and a living for tens of thousands of staff; and it provides recreation for 13.5 per cent. of the adult population of Britain. This is the general case that I had in mind when this Bill received its First Reading in this House on 30th March this year. Though unbeknown to me then, four weeks later, on 26th April, an impartial report for 1982 was issued by the Gaming Board, which confirmed all of these last points. I quote Clause 45: The figure for the 12 months ended 31st August 1982 was £469 million. This figure represented a decrease of 4.5 per cent. compared with the figure for the previous 12 months. It is the first time since the Board have published figures that there has been a decrease. I quote Clause 46 of the Gaming Board's report, which states: The number of clubs licensed under Part II of the Gaming Act 1968 continued to decrease. The number of clubs licensed at 31st December decreased from 1,720 in 1978 to 1,556 in 1982.

I quote Clause 49, which states: The number of clubs participating in linked bingo declined slightly from 1,091 to 1,013. The number of links operated decreased from 344 to 322. I quote Clause 52(a): The number of regular bingo players seems to have decreased again, from about 5.7 million to about 5.4 million—which would mean that about 13.5 per cent. of the adult population played bingo. I quote Clause 67: The were 7,370 certificated staff in the bingo and gaming industries on 1st December. This is a reduction of about 600 in casinos and 200 in bingo as compared with 1981. That is confirmation of the peril that I say exists unless we bring the position up to date. It comes from the impartial report of the statutory body which was set up by the Government, which confirms the scenario that I have tried to describe, supported by facts, figures and impartial reports. It is because all those facts go together that I confidently ask this House to give the Bill a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.

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

8.40 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, with a lightness of touch and without too much of a sense of pathos, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has moved your Lordships from the problems of the third world to the problems of the bingo world. Because it is a world with which I am not too familiar, I, too, in order to judge the merits of the Bill which the noble Lord has presented to the House for a Second Reading, referred to the report of the Gaming Board for 1982, to which the noble Lord made very adequate reference. I shall not repeat the paragraphs he quoted to your Lordships. They showed without any doubt that there has been a decrease in the bingo industry and in the number of people who attend bingo clubs.

The noble Lord believes that one of the main reasons for this is the restrictive nature of the Gaming Act 1968 and the conditions which have been imposed thereunder. However, the noble Lord mentioned the competing force from Fleet Street in the form of the free bingo competitions, with lurid prizes, which so many Sunday and other newspapers now offer. It may very well be that this is a greater restraining element than the restrictions which the noble Lord mentioned. Your Lordships may feel it is a shame that our great newspaper industry does not use better presentation of news and more attractive features in its newspapers to increase circulation instead of competitions of this kind. However, the purpose of the Bill is not to try to restrict any newspaper competition which there may be; it is to ensure that the bingo industry, in the words of the noble Lord, does not die.

There are some interesting facts to which the noble Lord did not refer, only because he was limited by time. The information which he gave to your Lordships was extremely interesting. However, may I add that attendances have fallen drastically and that it is obvious that the majority of bingo players are ladies who are no longer particularly young. May I quote an interesting sentence which is to be found on page 18 of the Gaming Board's report: The percentage of the players who were men went down slightly from 17 per cent. in 1980 to 16 per cent. in 1982 and the percentage of players who were under 30 went down from 11 per cent. in 1980 to 10 per cent. in 1982". Therefore, one's first deduction is that most of the participants are ladies who no longer have the full bloom of youth. Secondly, it may well be—the Talbot Report which was recently produced by the industry said so—that this industry has a social content which is of use to the community.

Next I looked at the report of the Gaming Board to see whether the social content is nullified to a large extent because those who participate in the clubs are tempted to gamble with a quantity of money which they can ill afford. Therefore, I was interested and pleased to note, again on page 18 of the report, that the average amounts paid for admission and as participation fees over the past six surveys were, in the larger clubs, 20p in 1972, whereas they were £1.24 in 1982 (where the capacity was 751 to 1,000) and £1.40 where the capacity was over 1,000. So far as the smaller clubs are concerned, the figure was £1.11 where the capacity was up to 500 and £1.28 where the capacity was between 501 and 750. The average amounts staked with the larger clubs were £1.10 in 1972 and £3.27 in 1982 where the capacity was 751 to 1.000, £3.86 where the capacity was over 1,000 and £3.17 where the capacity was 501 to 750. Therefore, one approaches the subject—and certainly the proposals made in the Bill—in the knowledge that this is not hard gambling.

With both of those aspects in view, this Bill seeks to make it possible for bingo, on account of the benefits of modern technology and computers, to become a national game. When I heard the noble Lord say that, I pricked up my ears because I thought he was going to say "a nationalised game". However, bearing in mind where the noble Lord sits, I thought that that must be wrong and I found that indeed he was only talking about a national game. One can see that there are attractions about that, but I believe that the House will want to make very sure that if the Bill meets with the approval of the Government (the noble Lord has said that it has the approval of the Gaming Board) very definite safeguards are laid down.

One notices that, according to the Bill, concerted bingo games would have to be under the supervision of the Secretary of State, that rules and regulations would have to be laid down and that there would have to be the right to inspect the machines and the places at which this larger bingo game would be carried on. Your Lordships may believe that it would be necessary to have real safeguards because the opportunities for cheating, whether by the staff or anybody else, are great. I am sure that the public would want to feel that they were adequately safeguarded, otherwise the whole of the bingo industry would be disgraced and would fall into ill repute.

It seems that the Bill deserves a Second Reading, provided that care is exercised at the Committee and Report stages to incorporate the safeguards I have just mentioned. I do not wish to resist its Second Reading, but I await with interest, having heard that the Gaming Board favours the Bill, the Government's response.

8.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)

My Lords, I have listened to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls with great interest, as he has spelt out the background against which this Bill must be seen. Essentially, that background is one of decline in the popularity of bingo. Bingo seems to have reached the peak of its popularity in the early 1970s, when average daily attendances were near the half million mark. Since then, attendances have declined steadily (except in 1974 when there was a slight rise), and in 1982 average daily attendances were 358,550—which represented a drop of 13 per cent. on 1981 figures. The number of licensed clubs reached a peak in 1974, with 1,820 clubs licensed in Great Britain. The figure for 1982 was down to 1,556 of which only 1,451 were actually operating. The picture is thus one of steady decline since the early 1970s, with an accelerated decline in the past two or three years.

I shall not trouble your Lordships with speculation about the reasons for the decline in bingo—several have already been advanced. We could all, no doubt, think of different explanations for its loss of popularity. What is clear is that those who run the bingo clubs believe that their business is unduly restricted by the controls contained in the Gaming Act 1968. This Bill seeks to remove some of those controls, to enable bingo clubs to combine on a group, regional or even national basis to provide a joint game with aggregated stake money and a maximum top prize of £50,000.

Before I deal with the Bill itself, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I briefly set out the background to the controls in the 1968 Act which this Bill seeks to amend. The 1968 Act was introduced because the controls in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 had proved to be inadequate to prevent damaging social excesses in casinos and bingo clubs. To all intents and purposes, bingo clubs had converted themselves into public gaming houses. The purpose of the 1968 Act was to purge commercial gaming of its criminal elements, to cut out excessive profits, and to ensure that play was honestly conducted in decent surroundings. To that end a distinction was drawn between bingo clubs and casinos. Casinos were made subject to rigorous controls, to cater for confirmed or determined gamsters, while the controls on bingo were designed to restrict it to a neighbourly and sociable form of gaming for moderate prizes, and to encourage the provision of amusements and entertainments in the clubs.

Today we have only around 120 casinos—about one-tenth of the number which operated in the early 1960s—but almost every high street has a licensed bingo club, and these places have become an important part of the social life of many people. Indeed, recent research has shown that for many members, winning a prize is not the main reason for playing bingo. Many housewives and pensioners rely on the club as a place to meet old friends and make new ones. It is often their only recreation outside the home. The clubs therefore perform an innocent and important function.

But bingo is gambling, and gambling does have its dangers—particularly for vulnerable members of the community and those of limited means. Up to now, the controls in the 1968 Act have been effective in ensuring that bingo clubs have provided gambling on a modest scale—a scale which does not, by and large, attract the compulsive or avaricious gambler. That is the test which the Government believe should continue to be applied to proposals for changes in the law.

The question we have to ask ourselves is this: is this proposal for joint games consistent with the idea of the bingo club as a neighbourly and social place in which large sums of money cannot easily or quickly be lost? Our initial reaction was one of reserve but, on the basis of the information which the bingo associations have now given the Gaming Board about how it is intended these games should be run, and subject to certain qualifications which I shall mention, the Government now believe that the proposal is broadly acceptable.

Our understanding is, first, that the stakes will be low; about 10p or 20p for a card. Secondly, that these joint games will not drive out all ordinary games of bingo but will be played, at most, once nightly in place of one ordinary game. Thirdly, in addition to the winner of the joint game (who might win as much as £50,000) there will always be a club winner, who will also win a prize. None of these is evident on the face of the Bill; it is intended that these matters shall be dealt with in regulations or in the scheme to be approved by the Gaming Board—and no doubt the bingo associations have been reluctant to undertake too much detailed planning without having some confidence that the principle was likely to be accepted.

However, although the Government are prepared in principle to accept the idea of joint games, we are not prepared to give this Bill our support until the details of how the games are to be played and controlled are settled and agreed with the Gaming Board and the Home Office. We believe that Parliament should have that assurance before being asked to consider such a change in the law.

It may be helpful at this point if I indicate to your Lordships some of the points on which the Government believe that further work must now be done. As we understand it, the game and the cards used for each game will be controlled by computer. The numbers called in each game will be predetermined and printed on a master card distributed sealed to each club, together with the participants' cards to be used in that game. There is here a clear potential for fraud. Someone with access to the computer could find out which card had the winning numbers printed on it—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made that clear. Naturally the promoters will be as anxious as anyone to prevent this, but it is something on which Parliament will require to be satisfied.

Then there is the predetermined nature of the game. This poses difficulties. The essential character of bingo is that it is a game of equal chance. In normal bingo, which is played simultaneously, the numbers called are entirely random and known only at the time of calling—so that at the beginning of each game, each participant has a genuinely equal chance of winning. In this joint game, that will not be so. At the beginning of the game, the winner will already be determined because the numbers to be called will already be fixed. The game then becomes akin to an instant lottery—it will be the card picked that will determine the winner, not the numbers called. At the beginning of the game, most people will have no chance of winning because they will have cards with totally inappropriate numbers.

The fact that the game will be played at different times and places also poses problems. Suppose that the winner of the joint game is found in a club which plays the game early in the evening. Anyone buying a card for the same game in another club later that evening will clearly have no chance of winning the joint game. There is, of course, no statutory definition of bingo but it is not easy at first sight to see how this new game, with its predetermined numbers, can be woven into the fabric of the Gaming Act. That is why we believe further and more detailed discussions are necessary between the bingo associations, the Home Office and the Gaming Board so that these points can be sorted out. They will most certainly require amendments to the Bill.

There is one further and important qualification to mention, and this concerns the promotion of the game, and of bingo generally, through advertising. At present, the law prohibits the advertising of gaming—and that includes bingo. There are specific exemptions for a notice on licensed premises indicating that gaming takes place there; for advertisements in respect of grant, renewal or transfer of a licence; and in respect of newly-licensed premises. The effect of the relevant section of the 1968 Act, Section 42, is, however, uncertain. It is now not uncommon for advertisements to be displayed on premises licensed for bingo giving the amount of major prizes which are or could be won or the aggregatee amount of prize money won over a period. Your Lordships must have seen such advertisements in your travels around any town.

The Government believe that the opportunity should now be taken to clarify the position and to tighten controls in one area while relaxing them in another. We agree with the Royal Commission on Gambling that advertising the size of prizes gives undue emphasis to the gambling rather than the social aspects of bingo. This would be even more so were prizes of £50,000 nightly advertised. So we believe that the advertising of prizes should stop; but we see no reason why the clubs should not advertise their social facilities. They are rightly proud of these and they form much of the attraction of the clubs.

Clearly care will need to be taken in considering how to give effect to the intended relaxation in the law without negating the tightening aspect—and the Bill as it stands will need amending. Nevertheless, I hope it is clear from what I have said that the Government are not unsympathetic to the aims of this Bill. I have dwelt at some length on the points of difficulty, not because I want to pour cold water on the proposal but rather the reverse. It is because we are prepared to accept the proposal in principle that I have taken the trouble to indicate the areas where further work needs to be done if these joint games are ever to be played in practice.

I know that my noble friend Lord Harmer-Nicholls, is anxious to see this Bill make headway. The best way for it to make headway is for the bingo associations now to discuss and reach agreement on these matters with the Home Office and the Gaming Board.

9 p.m.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, I feel a certain amount of satisfaction from that reply, but I have to say that it is very limited. We agree in principle that what is behind the Bill, if it could be implemented properly, is satisfactory to the Government. We know that it is satisfactory to the Gaming Board. I believe that the time has come when it ought to be implemented. So we have agreed in principle. To that extent I am grateful to my noble friend for reflecting the Government's point of view.

I do not see why all the special protection that my noble friend suggested cannot be dealt with in Committee. I think it could. The object of a Committee stage is to put the flesh on the bones of a good idea which is set out on Second Reading. I feel that all the desires to make certain that there should be no cheating and that everything is properly run could be incorporated in the Bill, or the regulations that come under it, to give satisfaction to everyone. It is with that hope in mind that I think we ought to take this Bill through its next stages.

I can promise my noble friend that the bingo associations, who are expert in these matters, will tomorrow make contact with both the Home Office and the Gaming Board with a view to seeing whether we can find words which will meet the doubts expressed by my noble friend as to whether or not it can be operated fairly.

May I in a friendly way issue a note of warning? If my noble friend is so concerned about whether or not computers can be run correctly to meet the need of the nation properly and without cheating under this Bill, he must be careful that he does not throw doubt on the computer which operates for the ERNIE premium bonds. If a computer in one field can be manipulated, there is the suggestion that it can be manipulated in another. I purchased a lot of premium bonds when the scheme was instigated but I have not had any winnings. Is it because the computer has been manipulated, or is it that we know from the experience of operating ERNIE that this machine operates properly? I prefer to believe the second reason and I believe that that applies to the operation of this Bill.

I suggest that we now give the Bill a Second Reading in the knowledge that there is still much work to be done in Committee and on Report to satisfy the Government, very properly, on all the safeguards that are necessary. That should be done without any delay and I hope that the Home Office will not drag its feet in getting together with the experts on the side of the promoters to find the sort of answer to the queries put forward by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who I thank very much for his support. I recognise the apprehensions that he had if the proposals in the Bill are not properly implemented.

As we agree in principle, which is the main thing, and we have an undertaking from the Government that they look with sympathy to a little bit more advertising for the social side of the club premises, if not to the prize money levels, we have gained something. Let us hope that in the remaining stages of the Bill that we can reach a point where everybody will be satisfied with what, at the end of the day, is a very popular form of recreation. I beg to move.

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