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

My Lords, I am sure noble Lords are aware that I used to be the executive chairman of Stanley Leisure plc and am currently the life president of Genting Stanley, the company which acquired Stanley Leisure plc. Therefore, I have considerable knowledge of the gambling industry. Bingo really is not gambling. I wish to declare that I hold no consultancies and never have. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be aware of the Henley Centre’s report of August 2007, which has been mentioned. The executive summary of that report states: "““The closure of Bingo clubs, especially those in the small, rural venues and deprived urban locations, has meant not only the loss of a pastime and form of entertainment but the disappearance of a unique social support network, relied upon especially by retired women. The demise of this pastime and network can have a detrimental impact upon the physical and mental wellbeing of patrons, particularly as there are often few other opportunities for this group to socialise. Bingo closures also appear to be both a manifestation and catalyst for a wider breakdown of local communities that could have a negative impact upon society””." What really concerns me is that the bingo business is declining rather more than many other industries because of taxation, the smoking ban, the reduced number of machines and now the bad economic situation. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be aware of the previous occasion that a cull of machines took place. My noble friend Lord Mancroft was extremely critical of what the Government have said and done. I do not disassociate myself completely from those comments but I am dealing purely with bingo whereas he dealt principally with the change to the lottery. As I say, all these things have happened and we now have a bad economic situation. The main plank of my argument concerns the Government’s desire to permit only eight machines. I know that this is an order but I also know that the industry asked for 16 machines. Machines account for a large part of the income of all bingo clubs. They are played mainly during intervals when bingo is not being played. While machine play is ancillary to the main social pursuit of bingo, it is important. There is no real evidence of problem gambling in bingo. I should point out clearly that people say that bingo is the softest area of gambling. It is even less than that; it is a social experience for elderly and lonely people. Arguments that bingo is soft gaming are generally wide of the mark. I have never been personally involved in the bingo industry as such but I know that those who play bingo—this is mentioned in the Henley report—are generally older people of about my age. People enjoy a game of bingo not from a gambling aspect but for social reasons. My plea is as follows. I know that the order stipulates eight machines, but I ask the Government to reconsider it and change the figure to 16. I also ask them, please, to take into account the large number of clubs which have closed—I believe that more than 100 have done so—throwing several thousand workers out of their jobs, which is very bad at present, and depriving people, particularly those in small communities, of a place to meet. The Henley Centre places great emphasis on the social aspect. In the present climate, that aspect is of maximum importance. I therefore urge the noble Lord to change the figure to 16 machines—if that cannot be done now, can it be done shortly?—as the industry has requested. That would help the industry at this very troubled time when job losses are occurring every day, as we read in the newspapers. All gambling activities are similarly affected, so will the noble Lord please soften the Government’s approach, thereby saving jobs and keeping the bingo industry alive?