HL Deb 25 March 1991 vol 527 cc913-25

7.8 p.m.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I suggest that this Bill comes completely within the limits which justify the use of the Private Bill procedure. It in no way compromises the main features of the parent statute; namely, the Gaming Act 1968.

The Bill is very modest in its aims and the circumstances which justify it have been discussed in detail in a friendly way between the Gaming Board and the Home Office. Those discussions have gone on and on. I hope that my noble friend will not suggest that we should not proceed with the enactment of this legislation because discussions may continue. I can say with complete sincerity that following the discussions which have taken place over a long period the point of view which has been put by both the Gaming Board and the Home Office has been taken fully into account in framing the Bill as it now stands.

I should perhaps place on record that for 18 years I was chairman of a national company which controlled many bingo clubs. That perhaps gives me an insight into the problems, authenticity and practice of the arguments that I and other noble Lords will present. I have not had that connection for the past four years and to that extent I am able to look at the matter objectively.

Over those years I was always puzzled by the way the regulations arising from the Gaming Act continued to lump both casinos and bingo clubs together. One has always recognised the necessity of constraining the advertising of casinos where large sums of money are staked and all types of hard gaming are available; but that is a million miles away from the friendly social atmosphere of one's local bingo club where games are played for modest stakes. However, the restrictions on their advertising of what is mostly a social gathering are the same as those for casinos.

It is significant that in 1978 a Royal Commission, with all the detailed probing that it carries out, described bingo as a pastime, where people, mostly women, often lonely or elderly can meet in a neighbourly way and enjoy an agreeable flutter". I believe that sums up what bingo is all about. I have a shrewd feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, when he makes his contribution and with his special knowledge of the mining community and the north of England, will be in a position to produce first class evidence that the Royal Commission accurately described what he found in that part of the country. I certainly found it accurate in the Midlands and other areas where we had interests in past years.

At the moment bingo clubs may advertise their facilities as social clubs. However, the use of the word "bingo" is completely verboten; they cannot use it. That is the "flutter" to which the Royal Commission referred as being what attracted people to spend their leisure time in the clubs. The only place where "bingo" is allowed to appear is on the front of the club itself. When one compares that restriction with newspapers that circulate millions of copies emblazoning on front pages the astronomical wins that can be made from newspaper bingo competitions, only a deep reading of Freud could give any explanation as to why that blatant contradiction exists between those two leisure activities.

The Bill attempts to iron out one small part of those contradictions. That is why I ask your Lordships' House to give "God speed" to what is a practical but modest Bill. From my own point of view and knowledge of the industry I should have liked complete deregulation of advertising restrictions in regard to bingo. That would allow full advertising not only of the address and social benefits, but also of the fact that they play bingo with modest money prizes. However, discussions with the Gaming Board and the Home Office have been going on with all their authority and experience. At this stage I did not want to give the appearance of going hull-headed against their feelings of wanting to resist full deregulation. Therefore, the Bill does not cover that. It only asks that, when advertising, the word "bingo" may be used. I do not even ask that the amount of money involved in this modest level of gambling need be advertised. The Bill is only concerned with the use of the word "bingo".

It is important that that encouragement should be given, particularly in view of the fact that I do not ask for a precedent even in regard to the money. Both Houses agreed a statute not long ago which gave full approval to the advertising of national bingo. As it was agreed in that instance that it would not be damaging, I suggest that the least we can do at this time is to go that extra step further along the same road.

The Bill would allow the clubs to use the word "bingo" when advertising and to show when and where the game is to be played, the cost of the programme, the facilities that are available and how one may become a member. I do not suggest that the period that must elapse between applying for membership and receiving it should be altered. The Bill merely deals with the outlawing of the word "bingo". It is important that this step should be taken if we feel that there is a need to promote this leisure activity as described by the Royal Commission.

In 1974—the year in which I came to your Lordships' House and when I first took an interest in the matte—there were over 1,600 licensed bingo clubs operating. There are now only about 980. The decline is mainly among the smaller operators. They are the ones with which I am mainly concerned and which I have in mind when asking for this Second Reading to be given as a move towards placing upon the statute the freedom that the Bill would give.

Another puzzle which justifies the acceptance of the Bill is that present legislation allows the word "bingo" to be used only on the front of premises and nowhere else; yet the national game, which goes much further for bigger prize money, has already received permission under legislation passed a short time ago for extended advertising.

Perhaps I may remind my noble friend who will be replying from the Front Bench that it was the Minister from the Home Office who is now at Cabinet level who, when commending the approval to which I have just referred, said that legislation should be introduced because of the decline that continued to bedevil the bingo industry. It was a good reason then for wanting to give that bit of freedom, and that reason is now multiplied by 10 if we want to maintain the leisure activity which gives so much pleasure to so many people in areas where leisure activities are not as bright as they are in many town centres.

I said to my noble friend that an easy reply, if one does not want to give full-throated approval at this stage, is to say that the discussions are going on. The discussions have been going on. The relationship between the industry, the Home Office and the Gaming Board is very friendly. This Bill has taken into account the views that they have already expressed. I do not think that Parliament will be doing its duty if the Bill were to be delayed further on the basis of more discussions. Discussions have been taking place, but the time has come when Parliament itself should say "You have discussed this matter and evolution to the next small step should be proceeded with".

If your Lordships' House gives this matter its full approval and the Bill goes to another place that will take a certain amount of time. If during that time further discussions take place and full agreement occurs where the Government have the power to bring in the same regulations as my Bill would introduce, that can be done then. But that is not a good reason why we should not carry out our functions in your Lordships' House and set the Bill on its way in order to ensure that an activity which is now a full part of leisure activities in this country should be allowed to continue. It is with that in mind, modest though the measure is, but important to so many thousands of people, that I ask for this Bill to be given a Second Reading.

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

7.21 p.m.

Lord Mason of Barnsley

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. This small but worthwhile Bill certainly meets with my approval. It is a measure that is designed to assist the general social well-being of many elderly people, and especially elderly women, who like to congregate in a warm, friendly, safe atmosphere and play the game of bingo. I think it is quite remarkable how long this game has lasted. At the beginning I regarded it as a short-term craze—a fad—catching on for a while like the hula-hoop or a short-term fashion design. It has really amazed me that so many clubs are still in being nationwide. Obviously it has provided a most welcome source of satisfaction for millions of our citizens.

As the noble Lord has already mentioned, at one time there were 1,600 licensed clubs. There are still nearly 1,000 of them operating today. I gather that at the peak there were 6 million people regularly playing bingo. There are still 2,800,000 people participating today. Of course bingo is gaming or gambling, but it is tightly controlled. Bingo clubs are licensed, membership is necessary, admission is controlled and there are restrictions on prize money. There are not many millionaires from bingo: on the other hand, not many players are gambling themselves into debt and penury.

The Bill should help maintain this national gaming pastime of bingo. Perhaps the Bill may give the game a fillip. I am fully aware of the problems of the anti-gamblers about stimulating demand. It might just hold the figures. The aim is a minor deregulation of advertising for licensed bingo clubs enabling them to advertise where bingo can be played and only bingo, allowing the title "bingo" to be used. That is the real change. The new measure will also give the date of the session, the cost, the facilities available and how one can become a member. Prize money must not be advertised under this measure. I believe that would bring with it a slight smell of the casino. Nor must the measure be linked with either gaming or gambling activities. That is all to the good for the bingo organiser and for the helpful promotion of the game. It may well halt its decline. That is about all that can be said to those concerned about gambling.

What is of special interest to me is the promotion of bingo in working men's clubs, which are conservative, liberal, social, trade and labour clubs. Many of them have bingo nights or the game is played during the intermission of a concert. There are also Sunday morning clubs: all these activities are very popular. Hundreds of men and women attend these bingo sessions raising money for the club members' social well-being as well as enjoying the social atmosphere and the game. The cash raised from these bingo sessions helps the clubs to grant money to local charities. It also helps to sustain the clubs' indoor and outdoor sporting activities. The bingo sessions finance outings for pensioners and children. In the past this game has been known in the clubs as "lotto", "housey-housey", or "tombola", but under all those guises it is bingo.

Bingo is a satisfying gaming activity and all my working men's clubs would support this measure. Bingo is an innocent sporting form of recreation giving pleasure to nearly 3 million of our people and mainly to those who find some happiness in their visits to the bingo sessions in social centres and clubs. Therefore, I hope that the Government will see fit to accept this measure. It will allow bingo to be advertised and give it the fair prominence that it deserves.

7.26 p.m

Lord Bancroft

My Lords, I wish to make a very brief contribution to this debate and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on bringing forward a necessary and long overdue amendment to a measure which has been out of touch and out of date for quite a long time. I congratulate him, too, on introducing it with his usual eloquence. He and the noble Lord, Lord Mason, have treated the subject so thoroughly that it leaves the rest of us with very little to say, but I am going to say it all the same.

I start by declaring a personal interest. I am a director of a group of public companies which, among other things, operates licensed bingo clubs. I am more than mildly surprised that this issue has not been resolved long since. The Gaming Act 1968, as the noble Lord pointed out, sought in some respects to separate bingo playing and hard gaming but not as regards advertising. The separation has been achieved. Licensed bingo clubs have taken pains to foster their own separate social identity. On the whole they have a good atmosphere, as has been observed, where people can play in comfortable, congenial and pretty civilised surroundings. If the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate has any doubts on this score I shall be happy to arrange some familiarisation visits for him.

It is true to say, as both noble Lords have said, that the bingo industry has a pretty responsible attitude to gaming. Contrary to the original aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I myself am content that the Bill does not now include the advertising of prize money or gaming machines. The ability to advertise the basic information embodied in the Bill cannot conceivably be reckoned to constitute a threat to society as we know it. It merely allows the bingo industry to compete fairly with other leisure activities on, in the cant phrase, "a level playing field".

Moreover, it will induce healthy competition within the bingo industry itself. Is that not consistent with the Government's economic philosophy? Is that not consistent with the Prime Minister's wish to promote a classless society? It is obvious from the figures that the noble Lord gave us that the number of clubs is continuing to fall. I find the decline in the fortunes of the smaller operators particularly worrying. When their small local club closes where will the people who are unable to travel very far play bingo? We shall see a concentration of clubs in the big cities and among the big operators. No one wants to see that, least of all, to judge from what he said, the noble Lord, Lord Mason. Curiously enough, the larger operators do not want that either.

Complementing the Royal Commission's views, adverted to by the noble Lord, and complementing the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, nearly 10 years ago an authoritative study by Rachel Dixey and Margaret Talbot produced conclusions. They were that for many elderly people, particularly women, the local bingo club provides a source of companionship. Indeed, it often affords their only leisure activity. One could claim that in its way it performs a useful social service. Other forms of gaming such as betting on horse racing or participating in the football pools offer no such social benefits yet they are perfectly free to advertise. It is a matter for courteous derision that a bingo club, by contrast, is not able to indicate even such basic information as its address or the times of its sessions.

Surely, so far as advertising goes, it cannot be right to treat bingo, which, I repeat, is a modest form of social recreational wagering, on all fours with the hard gaming that goes on in casinos. As I have reminded your Lordships before, during his tragically short tenure as chairman of the Gaming Board five years ago, the late Sir Anthony Rawlinson said this: Were the legislation being rewritten in respect of advertising restrictions, I think the case could be made for distinguishing licensed bingo premises from licensed casino premises". This Bill provides an opportunity to do some very modest rewriting. I hope that your Lordships' House will grant it a Second Reading.

7.32 p.m.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

My Lords, as is so often the case, my noble friend Lord HarmarNicholls does the House a good service by bringing this modest but important measure before the House. In this case he is extremely well supported by the noble Lords, Lord Mason of Barnsley and Lord Bancroft, both of whom have spoken powerfully in support of the measure. All speakers this evening have said that the bingo industry is declining. There is no cause or call for the Government to support it. However, by the same token there is no reason for its survival to he impeded by unnecessary restrictions. That is really the issue that is before us this evening. The fact is that bingo quite clearly performs a valuable and important social function.

I am glad that in thinking about this Bill I have been able to find a very valuable ally in the shape of David Mellor, now an important Cabinet Minister, but in 1985 an Under-Secretary in another place. At that time, in connection with the debate on the national game, he said No one should doubt the importance of bingo in the lives of a good many people, especially women, in the community … For many people, a weekly or twice-weekly visit to a local bingo club provides a priceless form of recreation".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/85; col. 1180.] That seems to me to be powerful support for the measure before us today. The fact is that this industry is very well regulated, a point brought out by all the speakers in the debate. It does not abuse its position. Indeed, it is very well run. This is a small Bill which gives the industry a little fresh air and long overdue freedom. I hope the Government will support it and that it will find a place on the statute book very quickly indeed.

7.37 p.m.

Lord Monson

My Lords, this modest and well thought out Bill is to be welcomed. As other noble Lords in various parts of the House have already pointed out, bingo is a perfectly harmless pursuit which gives innocent excitement, together with companionship, to large numbers of mainly middle-aged or elderly and often lonely people. Bingo does not deserve to be lumped legally with big money gambling. The latter opens the door to the possibility of individuals incurring massive personal losses, plus the possibility—not the probability, I concede—of criminal involvement, not least in the fields of money laundering and suchlike.

The record of Conservative governments since May 1979 in resisting the insidious encroachment of the nanny state and in fostering the enlargement of non-economic freedoms leaves much to be desired. Indeed their record in this sphere is decidedly poor. The Government now have an opportunity to atone for this, albeit in a very minor way, by actively assisting this modest measure to pass into law.

7.39 p.m.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, on this matter I do not speak for the Labour Party, as on all Private Bills we are neutral. I am myself, alone. The Duke of Kent, in Act 1, Scene 1, of King Lear, says to the King: …in thy best consideration, check this hideous rashness". No such admonition need be directed towards the Government in this matter. Twenty-three years have passed like an ever rolling stream since the Gaming Act laid down, in Section 42, restrictions on the advertising of gaming, and included bingo in the category of activities so restricted. At that time the cries of outrage from the bingo industry were modestly mute, since bingo was doing rather well. It is only since the decline of the game, which reached its peak of popularity in 1974, that the sense of unjustified discrimination has become apparent and painful to anyone. However, your Lordships may care to note that, while more than 6 million people regularly played bingo in 1968, this number had dropped to 4.7 million by 1980 and to 2.4 million by 1989.

For more than three years the Bingo Association of Great Britain has been in discussion with the Home Office and the Gaming Board about the deregulation of advertising for licensed bingo clubs. Questions about it have been regularly put down and answered in another place. The BAGB made two submissions to the Gaming Board during the summer and autumn of 1990 and the board made its recommendations to the Home Office last November. Since then the Home Office has had the matter "under consideration". Whatever the verdict, whenever it comes, of one thing we may be sure: there will be nothing rash, sudden, impetuous, hasty, unconsidered or precipitate about it.

Why, we may ask, are the Government so slow, so careful, so cautious about this modest little measure? It is unlikely to unleash forces which they are powerless to control, or to bring about a Gadarene gallop back to the bingo halls by those who deserted them in search of headier pastimes. Why are the Government so preternaturally wary about this? May it perhaps be because they have good reason not to accede too readily to the BAGB request? On 17th January 1990 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State stated in a Written Answer: Licensed bingo clubs already advertise freely as social clubs, and specific games of bingo and certain prizes in them, are already advertised on the front of club premises".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/90; col. 265.] The Government clearly felt that sufficient opportunity already existed and there was no need for additional and special relaxation of controls in favour of bingo. However, the bingo industry obviously feels that it is a special case. In its briefing for the present occasion it argues that the removal of some of the existing restrictions is justified because of the special nature of bingo clubs, which provide a valuable social function, especially for women and the elderly. It quotes—we heard it—the then Under-Secretary of State, David Mellor, in 1985, when he said: No one should doubt the importance of bingo in the lives of a good many people, especially women, in the community. … For many people, a weekly or twice-weekly visit to a local bingo club provides a priceless form of recreation".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/85; col. 1180.] But, the same could be said of a weekly or twice-weekly visit to the Dog and Duck. Moreover, an equally valuable social function could be claimed for the local betting shop, or the dog track—which provides a good night out for the family—or even for the neighbourhood launderette.

There is plentiful evidence on the other side of the danger of addiction to bingo clubs. Many people, especially women and the elderly, have gambled money that they could not afford, neglected their work and their families and left children unattended to follow the lure of the bingo caller; that is, the poor person's Pied Piper. I do not claim that the moral fabric of the nation is under imminent threat; but the Government are surely right to be cautious. I say that because, as everyone agrees, bingo is gaming and the dangers of addiction are inherent in all gambling, as are irresponsible behaviour and financial disaster. Moreover, in 1991 the argument that bingo provides, "a valuable social function", seems rather thin in view of the fact that its devotees are deserting it in a steady stream and seeking social solace elsewhere.

However, there is a deeper social concern here, on which it seems that both Government and Opposition share a view. The basic premise which underlies Section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968 is that advertising to stimulate a demand for gambling is undesirable. Gambling is widely felt to be an ineluctable fact of life, but 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 evidently worse off if it did not exist.

Section 42 of the Act was carefully drawn to ensure that no form of advertising is permitted which stimulates demand for gambling in any form. The present Bill breaches that premise to some extent. For example, by advertising "the facilities available" in subsection (2A), it would be possible to paint a very alluring picture which would both stimulate and entice. That would run clean contrary to the intention of Section 42. But the central illogicality of the Bill seems to me to be exemplified in paragraph 1.7 of the BAGB briefing, which reads: The industry accepts that the Government has no obligation to protect any industry when in decline, but feels that partial deregulation of advertising would 'tidy up' provisions in the Gaming Act which are now out of date without constituting a major alteration in the principles of regulation in the gaming sector". That means that the purpose of the present Bill is to "tidy up" provisions which are now outdated. However, since 1968 the provisions have not changed, though bingo has. It is bingo which is outdated, as is proved by the fact that fewer and fewer people wish to play the game. Thus the BAGB's plea for partial deregulation of advertising can only be to protect, or discriminate in favour of, the bingo industry when in decline.

How often throughout the 1980s did we see this Government set their adamantine face against state intervention in the play of market forces? How often did we hear them pronounce the doom that no lame duck would be reprieved? How often did we watch good companies go bankrupt, and good ideas die unrealised, because the stern dogma of "no intervention" was in cold-eyed control? Will the Government now betray their principles and shamelessly abandon their beliefs by throwing a lifebelt to the drowning bingo industry, hauling it ashore, and giving it the kiss of life?

I cannot believe that the nation is crying out for concessions to be made to bingo. I know of no opinion polls which point to a public demand for the Bill. However, I note that on 19th March 1990 Mr. Waddington, as he then was, stated in a Written Answer that the Government had received, 102 letters from hon. Members—and one letter from a member of the public, about these controls".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 19/3/90; col. 455.] That is hardly an army with banners. I conclude that no great harm would come if this Bill did not pass and that, if the Government rejected it, they would save not only their principles but also their face.

7.45 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 Harmar-Nicholls has introduced. But before I comment on the substance, it is important to be clear about the broader context within which the Bill must be seen. I would not begin to dispute that bingo does have a very neighbourly and social tradition. It is by its nature a game which brings people together. It seems to appeal particularly to women and the older members of our community. For them, it performs a useful social function which might not otherwise be available. I accept everything that noble Lords have said in that respect, although I should be delighted to be a beneficiary of a familiarisation visit offered by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. I have no doubt that it would result in my being still better qualified to agree with him. However, having said that, bingo is still a form of gambling. The maximum single prize in the national game can be as high as £50,000. Successive governments have taken the view that gambling, including bingo, should be subject to special regulation which does not apply to all forms of leisure activity.

The question we are being invited to consider today, therefore, is primarily whether the controls on advertising a particular form of gambling should be relaxed. That requires us to look not just at bingo but also at whether any change would be consistent with the controls applied to other forms of gambling. What was conceded to bingo could be demanded by those with an interest in other forms of gambling.

One of the basic features of long-standing government policy in this area is that gambling should not be positively encouraged. It is, of course, a fact of life that gambling exists. It is no part of government policy to prevent people having a flutter if they want to. But it must be properly regulated and the demand for gambling should not be stimulated.

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. So far as concerns bingo, Section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968 forbids advertisements informing the public about any premises where gaming takes place, or inviting them to take part in such gaming or to apply for information about it. But the statutory framework makes different provisions for different forms of gambling. For example, lotteries are able to advertise quite freely because they are small-scale and are generally for charitable purposes. Bingo clubs can and do advertise as social clubs in the press. On the other hand, betting offices may not advertise their location or the facilities they provide. However, the broadcast advertising of all forms of commercial gambling is prohibited. That is because broadcasting has generally been considered to be the most effective advertising medium of all. It is able to reach a vast number of people of all ages. Therefore, to permit the use of this means of advertising would allow a significant stimulation of demand.

The balance of controls on the various forms of gambling is very difficult to strike. We recognise that casinos provide a harder form of gaming than bingo, and yet both are subject to the same statutory control on advertising, as my noble friend pointed out. On the other hand, any relaxation of the controls for bingo must he justified on their own merits and in relation to the general framework of controls.

The effect of the Bill is to remove all controls on advertising of bingo, subject to various requirements including any additional requirement which the Secretary of State may specify by regulation. The Government have previously said that the complete deregulation of advertising controls is not acceptable. However, Ministers have also indicated that they would be willing to consider some partial relaxation of the advertising controls if a good enough case could be made out, subject to one or two ground rules.

The first ground rule is that the Government are opposed to any amendment of the law which would allow, or lead to, wider advertising of inducements to game; for example, press advertising of prizes available at specific bingo clubs. Secondly, we are in principle opposed to making any exception to the general prohibition on the broadcast advertising of commercial gambling. The case for local radio advertising would have to be judged in that context.

For the past twelve months or so, the bingo industry has been in discussion with the Gaming Board for Great Britain about what, if any, partial deregulation of the advertising controls might be justified. We understand that the industry now seeks to be able to advertise in print and on local radio where and when bingo is played, the quality of clubs and their facilities, and the cost of the bingo programme. It also wants print advertisements to include applications for membership. There would be no reference to prizes in such advertisements, but we understand that the industry would still want to be able to issue general advertisements in the press or other printed matter which, as at present, would refer to prizes.

At the end of last year, following its discussions with the bingo industry, the gaming board made its recommendations for some relaxation to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Those recommendations are now under consideration. We asked the Bingo Association of Great Britain for further information which was supplied earlier this month. The Government are still considering whether there is a case for relaxing any of the present controls on the advertising of licensed bingo clubs. For example, it is not at present clear to us whether any new freedom to advertise specific premises should be allowed to operate alongside the continued use of general advertising of bingo in the press, which may include reference to prizes. We are also concerned that heavier advertising of bingo could change its social and neighbourly character, to which I referred earlier, by putting greater emphasis on the opportunity to gamble rather than on its social aspects. If that were to he the consequence of any partial deregulation, it would be harder to resist calls for compensatory deregulation from other sectors of the gambling industry.

Those are all points which the Government will consider in the light of the gaming board's recommendations and in the light of the arguments already put to us by the Bingo Association of Great Britain and of those made in this debate. It may well be necessary to have further meetings with the industry before reaching a decision, but we shall aim to reach a decision as soon as possible.

I shall now turn briefly to the drafting of the Bill. It has a number of weaknesses, no doubt in part reflecting the fact that no agreement has yet been reached on what relaxation, if any, the Government could support. The Bill would remove all controls on advertising of bingo, subject to various requirements, including any additional requirement which the Secretary of State may specify by regulation. There is no indication of the kind of additional requirement that might be specified. If, for example, the Government decided that the long-standing prohibition on broadcast advertising should remain, could the regulations exclude broadcasting from the forms of advertising allowed by the Bill? We have doubts about whether that would be a proper use of the regulatory power, and it is not, in any event, an approach which the Government would favour.

There are a number of other unsatisfactory aspects of the Bill where, for example, the meaning of certain terms is unclear. The Government recognise the difficulties of drafting amendments to what is a complex area of the law. The technical weaknesses which we see in the Bill are not in any way criticisms of the bingo industry's case; but we firmly believe that the best way to proceed is to agree upon what changes are justified before providing for them in a Bill.

Your Lordships may have gathered from my remarks that this is not a Bill to which the Government can give an immediate welcome. It may be that there is some scope for relaxing the controls on advertising of bingo. The Government are prepared to continue the process of discussion with the bingo industry, but at this stage it is not clear whether an adequate case can be made or what degree of relaxation, if any, would be sensible. The progress of the Bill through this House is, of course, a matter for your Lordships. The Government will watch its progress with interest.

7.54 p.m.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, in a way, that is not an unhelpful reply. I think we can now give the Bill a Second Reading without any problem. My noble friend said that the Government have some doubts about certain points, but they are not included in the Bill. It is true that there have been discussions, and all the points of view put by the Gaming Board for Great Britain and the Home Office have been taken account of. They were the points put by my noble friend, and they are not included in the Bill. If my noble friend feels that the Bill goes further than I explained; for example, that the word "bingo" should be allowed in advertisements which are now allowed, we can table amendments in Committee if we feel it right to have a Committee stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, had my spirits up and down as to how he felt about the Bill. If he does not mind my saying so, I am always a little suspicious when someone opens a speech with a Shakespearian quotation. I always feel that people want to hide behind something. There is nothing to hide behind in this case. The noble Lord made it clear that he was not speaking for the Opposition, but for himself. He delivered his speech in a delightful way, and I understood clearly that he does not like gambling. That should not stand in the way of those of us who do not accept the danger that he hinted at as a reason not to give the Bill a Second Reading.

If, by the time the Bill completes its passage through this House and is sent to another place, the discussions which my noble friend said the Government were prepared to continue are completed, and if agreement is reached on the points raised, there is no reason why the Government should not introduce regulations. The discussions have been going on for a long time. I believe that Parliament is doing its duty when it says, "You have been talking about this matter for long enough, let us do something". My noble friend said that the Government were prepared to recognise that there was a need to give a little more freedom. I can think of nothing more modest and in keeping with that aim than this Bill. It is with confidence that I move that the Bill be given a Second Reading.

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

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended from 7.57 to 8.10 p.m.]