My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Like them, I shall comment separately on the two orders. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, asked that we should at the very least keep under review the numbers that have been settled upon; that is, eight as regards bingo halls. His comments are supported strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Steinberg, with his great knowledge of the industry. I hear what the noble Lord says and agree with a great deal of what he says about the social role of bingo halls. As we all recognise, bingo is at the softest end of gambling. People play bingo as a social pursuit rather than with the specific intent of gambling, although that is obviously part of it. The industry has made the strongest representations that we should increase the relevant figure to 16. But the Government have wider considerations at stake. They have to be reassured that we are not unduly increasing levels of gambling. We have an obligation to the wider society. We have responded to pressure from the industry, and we have doubled the number. Putting it up to 16 would have been a stage too far, but I undertake that we will keep the figure under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, berated the fact that these issues have to be done by order. That is so because that is the basis of the primary legislation that set up the position. I give the undertaking that the Government will keep the position under review. One or two extravagant claims have been made that the bingo industry is being destroyed. With 614 bingo halls in regular existence, that point can be exaggerated. I hear what noble Lords have said. The Government’s judgment is that doubling the number of machines in each bingo hall that wishes to do so is about right. I listened to the representations.
On the wider representations with regard to the limits, it will be recognised that the Government have doubled the limits as far as the lotteries are concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, berated the Government and their position. He is an in an excellent position to identify that the Gambling Act 2005 was scarcely the Gambling Act that the Government set out to produce. He will know all too well, as he said, that we got the legislation through in the wash-up, and it betrays some of the weaknesses of having been rushed, with the Government having to settle for what the Opposition put as priorities in those very limited days. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, like I, has been in those negotiations when the Government have to get all their legislation through in the week before a general election, and he will know that the boot is on the other foot. Therefore, if the gambling legislation has weaknesses, he might look at the part played by his party—
Gambling Act 2005 (Gaming Machines in Bingo Premises) Order 2009
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davies of Oldham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 28 January 2009.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Gambling Act 2005 (Gaming Machines in Bingo Premises) Order 2008.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
707 c318-9 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-05-23 23:08:47 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523841
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523841
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523841