Gambling Act 2005 (Gaming Machines in Bingo Premises) Order 2009

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these orders. I declare an interest: the lottery for my local church, which I have to tell the House will not be approaching any limit at all, goes forward in my name. According to the Henley report, bingo provides a social service and acts as a lightning conductor for gamblers, who without bingo might well drift into hard gambling, with its far greater percentage of problem gamblers. With over 100 bingo halls closing over the past two years, there is clearly a strong argument for assisting the industry by changing the restriction on the number of machines allowed. However scientific one pretends to be, it is anyone’s guess what the right number of machines is. The Minister might consider keeping the number under review to ensure that the restrictions thought necessary to prevent problem gambling still allow the industry to function properly. The other order before the House increases the ceiling from £2 million to £4 million for a society lottery—that is, a lottery run for the benefit of charities, sporting bodies and non-commercial activities. My first question is: why is there a limit? The Budd review called for the removal of a limit, and that was supported by the joint scrutiny committee in its report on the draft Gambling Bill. There is also a limit of £10 million on the amount that can be sold by any one society in a year. The restrictions on the activities of those working for the good of others do not make a great deal of sense. The argument has been made that, if there were not these limits, there might be an adverse effect on the National Lottery. I have two points on this. First, as societies give 58p or 59p of every pound raised to charity, as against the National Lottery’s 28p, the prize money that they offer could not compete with that offered by the National Lottery. If there was concern that, as the lotteries grew in size, societies would reduce the proportion of money received that they donated, the minimum amount that must be given under Section 99(2) of the Gambling Act 2005 could be amended from 20 per cent to a higher figure—say, 40 per cent. This would ensure that lotteries run by societies would retain their character, which is distinctive because, as the Minister said, the prime motivation is to benefit the cause rather than to win large sums of money. Secondly, if societies continue to give so large a portion of what they receive to good causes, they should get the maximum help and encouragement. Good causes would be better off and there would be more opportunity for people spending money on lotteries to ensure that the money went directly to the beneficiary of their choice. If there is to be a limit, it is disappointing that it is not to be increased to the £5 million requested by the Lotteries Council. Perhaps, rather than complain, one should be grateful for the increase that the order gives.