HL Deb 18 December 1991 vol 533 cc1426-33

8.11 p.m.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

The Private Members' Bill procedure under which this Bill falls is a very valuable part of the legislative process which we go through to arrive at our law. It is well used because it plays an important part in dealing with things for which the Government and normal business cannot always find the time. It is a way of improving things and removing unpleasant and unnecessary provisions without having to take up formal parliamentary time as one has to with normal Bills which are introduced by the Government as part of their policies.

In my experience in both Houses, a Private Member's Bill may be used in one of two ways. First, it may be used by people who want to grab a topic which is very much in the public eye and want to get their name associated with it but not with any idea of letting it get through all the procedures to become effective legislation. Secondly, it may be used to rectify matters which have been brought into law but have proved to have certain inadequacies or omissions which can be put right. That is the purpose of this Bill.

I remember when the Gaming Act was brought into being in 1968. It was intended to deal with hard gambling. We were allowing casinos to run where hard and big money was the order of the day. We knew from experience in other countries that if the Mafia or similar people got hold of the business it could be dangerous. Therefore when we in this country agreed to legalise casinos we surrounded them with all sorts of proper restrictions in the nation's interest to prevent them being misused.

Unfortunately—it is rather surprising that it was not foreseen—while it was absolutely correct to do that and to be stringent in the restrictions placed on the hard gambling that went on in casinos, for some reason the bingo halls, which are really social centres, were brought into the same package by one of those oversights which are quite understandable when one is dealing with such matters. All or most of the restrictions which were correct when designed to deal with the possible dangers arising with casinos also surrounded the very innocent bingo halls. The situation was best put by the Royal Commission on Gambling, which in 1938 described bingo as a pastime where people, mostly women and often the lonely or elderly, can meet in a neighbourly way to enjoy an agreeable flutter. That is indeed what it is.

Those of us who are familiar with social habits in most parts of the country know that the local bingo hall has proved to be a haven for people who want a friendly night out. They can meet at a place where they are not committed to taking part in heavy gambling and where they can become members provided they have given 24 hours of their intention to do so. Bingo halls cannot advertise generally in newspapers the events which include the "flutter" part of their activities. That situation innocently and inadvertently came under restrictions intended to deal with something much bigger and with much more potential danger than bingo halls could ever cause.

It was seen very early that the restrictions which were inadvertently put around the bingo social clubs were a mistake. The process had gone too far. That fact was generally recognised. I know that that is so because this is my third Bill which, like the others, is intended to remove the unnecessarily restrictive parts of the gambling legislation which are interfering with the proper use and development of the bingo halls. I have no doubt that there will be other Bills which may be put forward as we learn from experience the need to be a little more helpful in removing such restrictions.

In the 40 years that I have been in one or other of the Houses of Parliament I have moved many Private Members' Bills. The advice that I give—and it is advice that I have taken—is that one should never use the procedure to do any of the big things—the things that are in the public eye. One should use the Private Members' Bill procedure to effect the small changes to rectify legislation. That is the purpose of this Bill.

In addition to the various unnecessary restrictions which have been imposed since we moved the Gambling Bill, this Bill is another step to help the people who organise bingo halls, which I believe are social service centres. If the Bill is passed—I hope that it will be—it will mean that one or two of the restrictions hampering those people will be removed. There are not many restrictions involved; indeed, they do not add up to a great deal. But it is another step in the direction of giving people the freedom that I believe they deserve.

If these organisations are playing a useful and helpful part in society generally, as the Royal Commission seems to indicate, we ought not to overlook the fact that since 1974, when we had 1,600 licensed bingo clubs, the number has fallen to only 980. Moreover, the actual membership is falling rapidly. In the eyes of the Bingo Association of Great Britain, which has looked at the matter with great care, the reason for that is the absence of advertising indicating where such clubs are and what activities are taking place in them. We are not asking that a big step be taken. We are merely asking that one or two extra local newspapers should be allowed to publish advertisements for bingo halls so as to encourage their use.

There may be those who in principle believe that anything that entails any form of gambling, however innocent or small it may be in a bingo hall, should not be allowed. To them I say that on this occasion what we propose is based upon experience. If by any mischance—I do not believe that noble Lords will find that we have been precipitate in introducing these proposals—something should need to be altered, Clause 1(11) provides, The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the provisions of this section for the purpose of imposing such additional prohibitions", and restrictions which may be necessary.

Although I claim with confidence that we are not asking the House to take a great step forward, the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to rectify any marginal mistake that we may make. No further parliamentary time will need to be taken up.

The Bingo Association of Great Britain has not sprung this proposal on us out of the blue. Talks have been going on with the Home Office for three years. The relationship between the Bingo Association of Great Britain and the Home Office is friendly and positive. The Home Office has been firm in that it wants to see the main points of the original Act retained. That is its duty. The friendly relations are a result of the talks. There is hardly anything in the Bill which has not been discussed and virtually agreed by the Home Office. That point should be borne in mind if there is any reluctance to take this tiny step forward which will allow freedom to what is a desirable social service enjoyed by ordinary, often lonely, people who do not have easy access to other forms of entertainment. We do not want to interfere with them.

The negotiations with the Home Office are continuing. I have learned within the past hour or so that there are one or two points in the Bill about which the Home Office has reservations. If that proves to be the fact—I believe that it will be—I shall be eager and delighted to move the necessary amendments to my Bill to meet those points should the negotiations show that that is the right thing to do.

It is with confidence that I suggest that to give the Bill a Second Reading will be moving in a direction which is generally accepted. It will be a tiny but significant step if we wish to preserve an amenity which has been well received in many parts of the country. It is with the confident hope that we shall do just that that I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

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

8.23 p.m.

Lord Butterfield

My Lords, I strongly support and sympathise with the thoughts that lie behind the Bill. There is no doubt that bingo is an important social service and event for many people in middle and later age. I shall remember the word "flutter", because that is what bingo is. It is probably one of the least expensive evening's entertainment that can be found in this country. In the winter it provides warmth and a great deal of social contact and opportunities. Many matters are sorted out at the bingo club.

8.24 p.m.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, I do not speak on this matter for, or on behalf of, the Labour Party, since on all Private Members' Bills we stand neutral. I speak for myself. Time, like an ever-rolling stream, bears all our Bills away. Your Lordships may recall that we have debated the game of bingo, and the necessity for any advertising of it to be most carefully regulated, on previous occasions—most recently on 25th March 1991 in the context of a Bill presented, once again, by the noble Lord, Lord HarmarNicholls.

On that occasion, I felt obliged to remind your Lordships of the not inconsiderable body of evidence which exists of the danger of addiction to bingo clubs and to commend the Government's cautious approach to any attempts to loosen the strictures contained in Section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968. I pointed out then the basic premise which underpins the whole of Section 42 of the Gaming Act—that advertising to stimulate a demand for gambling is in itself undesirable. I pointed out that gambling is widely felt to be an ineluctable fact of life, but is not in itself a moral or social good. In certain cases it is demonstrably disastrous; it has some real dangers; and we should not be patently worse off it it did not exist.

My concern on that occasion was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, who said: One of the basic features of long-standing government policy in this area is that gambling should not be positively encouraged… One of the principal methods of encouraging people to take part in certain activities is by advertising. It follows that advertising controls are at the very heart of gambling policy and any proposals for change need very careful consideration".—[Official Report, 25/3/91; col. 922.]

There seems to be general agreement between us.

I do not now wish to retract anything I said then, but in considering the Bill it may be possible to give weight to two arguments which underline the case made by the Bill's supporters and by the industry itself. First, it is reasonably clear now that bingo is a shrinking industry. The noble Lord, Lord HarmarNicholls, gave the figures. Since the peak in 1974, there has been a consistent and marked decline in the number of clubs. At that time, there were some 1,600 licensed bingo clubs; there are now no more than 980. Admissions to all the clubs has gone down in the same way. The diminution is felt most particularly by the small operators—one must bear those people in mind —the number of whose clubs has almost halved since 1974. The decline seems inexorable. The introduction of the national game through the Gaming (Bingo) Act 1985 was in response to, and sought to address, that decline. However, despite that, the number of clubs continues to fall.

Secondly, it is difficult for anyone—let us be clear —to lose a vast amount of money at the game. Bingo is different from other types of gaming in that a player is not subject to the continuing opportunity to place further bets in cash bingo sessions. One cannot chase one's losses in bingo. The level of participation is also limited by the number of cards or books that anyone is physically capable of handling in one session. Nevertheless, I should point out that I have seen certain ladies at bingo sessions perform feats of prestidigitation which would not have disgraced a first class concert pianist in moving from one card to another with remarkable skill and accuracy.

These constraining facts, taken with the extraordinarily carefully worded restrictions in Clause 1(2), (3A) and (3B), which are bewilderingly close in drafting and which in my suspicion go a long way to meet the reservations which we expressed when we debated the matter last March, lead me to the conclusion that the modest concessions which the Bill seeks are so small, careful and regulated that we might almost say, if we were minded to put it in that way, de minimis non curat lex; the law does not concern itself with trifles.

I cannot believe that the moral fabric of our nation would be rent in twain from top to bottom if we were to give this modest measure a fair and following wind. I hope we shall.

8.31 p.m.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, it may be helpful if I indicate the Government's view of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has introduced. As he himself indicated, this is the second occasion this year on which he has introduced a Bill to amend the provisions of the Gaming Act in order to allow licensed bingo clubs to advertise more freely. My noble friend will be pleased to hear that we can now endorse the overall aims of his Bingo Bill which was not the case when we were discussing his Gaming (Bingo) Bill in March.

However, although the Government are prepared, in principle, to accept some relaxation of the controls on bingo club advertising and have agreed outline proposals with the bingo industry, I have to say that we have considerable reservations about how this Bill seeks to put those proposals into effect. We should like to see these reservations addressed, perhaps in Committee, before we can give the Bill our wholehearted support.

Before I come to the drafting I should like to say something about the overall aim of the Bill. As your Lore ships may recall, during the Second Reading debate on the Gaming (Bingo) Bill last March, my noble friend Lord Reay indicated to the House that the Government were not then ready to endorse proposals for relaxing the controls on the advertising of licensed bingo clubs. At that time we were still considering whether there was a case for partial relaxation and, if a case could be made, what form the amendments to the law might take.

We have now completed our consideration of the case for partial relaxation of the advertising controls and reached agreement with the Bingo Association of Great Britain on a package of proposals. Before outlining that package, I should explain why we have concluded that some relaxation is justified.

The controls on the advertising of bingo clubs, and other premises where gambling takes place, are one of the principal manifestations of our long-established policy that demand for gambling should not be stimulated. In the case of gaming, including bingo, Section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968 forbids advertisements informing the public about any premises in Great Britain where gaming takes place or inviting them to take part in such gaming or to apply for information about it. Section 42 is not, however, a catch-all provision. For example, the game of bingo and the level of prizes may be advertised provided the locations of specific licensed clubs are not identified. Such advertising of bingo, as with all betting and gaming advertising is, however, prohibited on commercial television and radio under the broadcasting authorities' advertising codes.

We are satisfied that of the three principal types of premises where commercial gambling is permitted— namely, casinos, bingo clubs and betting offices— bingo clubs are in an altogether different category from the other two. Licensed club bingo is by intrinsic character a lesser form of gambling, both as to the amount the punter may risk and, with the exception of the national game—which has a top prize of £50,000 as to the size of prizes which provide the inducement to risk money. In contrast, there are no statutory or practical limitations on the amount the betting office or casino punter may hazard or gamble. The risks of excessive gambling are therefore considerably greater.

Aside from the nature of the gambling that takes place, licensed bingo clubs are also to be distinguished from casinos and betting offices by their overall character. Although gaming undoubtedly forms a major part of the activities and purposes of bingo clubs, they also perform a valuable social function. For many people, a weekly or twice-weekly visit to their local bingo club provides an important form of recreation or, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, a flutter is also a form of recreation. Because casinos and betting offices provide for "harder" forms of gambling, there are significantly more restrictions on the facilities they may offer and they cannot be said to fulfil the same social function as bingo clubs.

Given the nature and character of bingo clubs, we believe some partial relaxation can now be supported. In coming to this conclusion, we were mindful that in 1978 the Rothschild Royal Commission on Gambling, and more recently the Gaming Board for Great Britain, have been prepared to support a measure of deregulation.

Turning now to the proposals themselves, the bingo industry wanted greater freedom to advertise on local radio and in print. We do not consider that any relaxation of the prohibition on broadcast advertising can be justified. So far as print advertising is concerned, we are content to allow bingo clubs to advertise their locations and the facilities they offer, and to invite applications for membership.

However, to ensure that this concession does not lead to undue emphasis being placed on the gambling rather than the social aspects of bingo clubs, we believe that the freedom to advertise premises should be counterbalanced by tough new restrictions on the advertising of bingo prizes and of inducements which are offered to attract members. The Bingo Association of Great Britain—the industry's trade association— has agreed to such restrictions. In particular, it has agreed that, with one exception, all advertising of prizes away from bingo club premises should be prohibited. The one exception relates to prizes in the national bingo game.

I have given your Lordships a fairly brief summary of what is in fact a complex package of proposals. The package requires some amendments to be made in a complex area of the law. We and the bingo industry are in complete agreement on the principles. Unfortunately, the Government are not entirely satisfied that the Bill, as drafted, actually achieves what has been agreed. We shall be discussing further with the Bingo Association of Great Britain the points on which we believe changes are needed and how these might be formulated.

I am glad that my noble friend Lord HarmarNicholls has agreed this evening that it is important to ensure that the Bill does what we want. I hope it is clear from what I have said that the Government are not unsympathetic to the aims of the Bill; but more work needs to be done on it before I can wish the Bill a successful passage through this House and in another place.

8.37 p.m.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the sympathetic reception to the Bill. I anticipated that there would be one or two minor details to sort out, but these are now in the process of being agreed and will be incorporated in the Bill. That is gratifying.

I was particularly pleased with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. The last time he spoke on this subject he was a little more stringent than he showed himself tonight. When we return for the next step—and I can see from my noble friend's reaction that there will be yet another step —it could well be that the names of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and myself will figure together as sponsors. With that in mind, I commend the Bill to the House.

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