By the Select Committee appointed to report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny; to report on documents laid before Parliament under section 3(3) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and on draft orders laid under section 1(4) of that Act; and to perform, in respect of such documents and orders, the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

ORDERED TO REPORT

INTRODUCTION

1. The law on gaming is a mess. Years of piecemeal reform have added layer upon layer of complexity to the statute book. The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, for example, despite its title, is still in force but no longer deals with gaming and lotteries. Fortunately the end of this mess is in sight. The Gambling Review Body, chaired by Sir Alan Budd, was appointed by the Home Secretary to conduct a wide-ranging review of the gambling legislation which is now more than 30 years old. It is expected to make recommendations on the nature and extent of regulation for gambling activities in Great Britain. The Review Body had received 181 submissions by 27 November 2000, and is due to present its report to the Home Secretary in June 2001.

2. In the meantime, this is yet another deregulation proposal[1] for changes to the law about betting and gaming. In a letter to the House of Commons Deregulation Committee the Home Office said that "the Government considers that the proposals in the current draft Order are justified on their merits and that they will not cut across the work of the Review. They will result in immediate benefits for the bingo industry, and need not await the enactment of comprehensive legislation on gambling in the light of Sir Alan Budd's report. The draft Order will also remove an entirely unnecessary and redundant administrative burden from licensing authorities."[2]

3. The Home Office added: "the provisions about gaming machines in Part III of the 1968 Act, including Section 32, are already difficult to follow and we would not argue with the Committee's proposition that this change adds a further layer of complexity to the statute book. But we think that this is justified in the circumstances. While the statute book itself may be more difficult to follow, the overall effect of the law will not be."[3]

THE PRESENT PROPOSALS

4. The Explanatory Memorandum explains the proposed changes (there are three) and gives details of the consultative process. The three changes proposed are:-

(a) to end the requirement that bingo clubs must notify the licensing authority of changes to their charges 14 days in advance;

(b) to allow a mix of the two kinds of "gaming machines" (jackpot machines with 50p maximum stakes and a £500 maximum prize and "amusement with prizes" machines with 30p maximum stakes and a £15 maximum prize) in any bingo club; and

(c) to allow a greater number of prizes (subject to the present limit on the total prize money) when multiple bingo is played in linked bingo clubs.

PREVIOUS DEREGULATION ORDERS

4. The Home Office reviewed the restrictions on casinos in two consultation papers in February and November 1996 with a view to deregulation orders and secondary legislation to relax some of the rules on advertising, membership, alcohol, methods of payment, slot machines and casino locations. With effect from April 1997, the waiting period for new members was been reduced from 48 hours to 24 hours; debit cards may be used; and casinos in England and Wales may apply for special hours certificates under the Licensing Act 1964 to serve alcohol after midnight until 2am (3am in London). The Deregulation (Casinos) Order 1999 was laid before Parliament on 5 July 1999 to allow postal applications, limited advertising in written publications and to increase the number of jackpot machines in casinos from six to ten. This became law on 24 August.

BURDEN

5. Any lessening of the restriction on running bingo clubs must reduce a burden. We received only one written submission on this proposal, from Thomas Estates Ltd, which operates three Bingo Clubs under the brand name "Beacon". This submission suggested that the benefits of the first two proposals would be proportionately greater to smaller clubs.

6. The Committee is satisfied that the proposals reduce a burden.

NECESSARY PROTECTION

7. According to the Home Office website, the statutory arrangements for the regulation of gambling in Great Britain reflect three principles:

(i) controls are necessary to prevent the incursion of crime, public disorder and nuisance into gambling and to ensure that it is at all times properly and honestly conducted;

(ii) in the interests of consumer protection, punters should get a fair deal and be made fully aware of what they are letting themselves in for when they gamble;

(iii) restrictions are desirable to discourage socially damaging excesses and to protect the vulnerable.

8. The Committee considered whether necessary protection would be maintained under the proposal according to these three principles.

9. The Memorandum argues in paragraphs 10 to 13 that there will be no lessening of necessary protection. The Commons Committee questioned why the original legislation imposed a requirement to notify in advance changes in the charges made at bingo clubs. Clearly that Committee was concerned that the purpose may have been to protect the players and that that protection might still be regarded as "necessary".

10. The Commons Committee was also concerned about the proposal to allow a mix of gaming machines because it might expose children to greater temptation. That Committee asked about the enforcement of the Code of conduct agreed between the Gaming Board and the Bingo Association and about the position of bingo clubs which are not members of the Association.

11. In our view, the maintenance of necessary protection for children is the main issue to be addressed in the present proposal. As the Gaming Board for Great Britain said in its submission to the Gambling Review Body (21 July 2000) "the gambling legislation of the 1960s included a raft of controls which sought to ensure that there was no stimulation of demand. An issue for the Review Body is the extent to which any such controls remain necessary. In addressing this issue, the Gaming Board suggests that the following principles should be observed in determining what controls need or need not be retained. However measured, the vast majority of people who choose to gamble do so in a responsible way which provides them with enjoyment. They should be free to do so subject only to the controls needed to ensure that gambling is crime-free and fair. Nonetheless, a significant minority do suffer problems and can become addicted. Programmes, such as self-barring, licensee awareness and arrangements for treatment, need to be provided to help and support these people, and the industry should pay. Children should not gamble and, arguably, should not even be exposed to gambling of the harder sort. ..."

12. The Gaming Board went on to argue that "a single common minimum age for all gambling should be established. The Board suggests this should be 18. This would avoid any confusion of messages about the acceptability of gambling by children and ensure that, insofar as some underage gambling is inevitable, it is unlikely to involve people as young as 14 or 15. But if the minimum age for participation in the National Lottery were to remain 16, it would be unfair to raise it to 18 for other lotteries and football pools."

13. Our most serious concern about the present proposal is the risk of children using gaming machines - a risk which the Home Office, in its written evidence to the Commons Committee, admitted was real, particularly at clubs in holiday camps.[4] The Home Office evidence to the Commons Committee concluded, however, that its "proposals do not include any diminution of the controls on young people and gambling."

14. We doubt whether the risk to children is much increased by the proposed change and consider that it would be an exaggeration to regard the change as involving the loss of necessary protection for children.

15. The Commons Committee did not question the proposal to allow a greater number of prizes when multiple bingo is played; in our view it is difficult to see that any necessary protection would be lost if this change were to be made.

16. The Committee considers that necessary protection would be maintained under the proposal.

CONSULTATION

17. The Memorandum lists those who were consulted in Annex A and those who replied in Annex B. The responses are discussed in paragraphs 17 to 24. Safeguards for children are discussed in paragraphs 19 and 23.

18. The Committee considers that the consultation exercise was adequate.

19. We have also taken into account the written evidence which the House of Commons Deregulation Committee requested and received from the Government.

RECOMMENDATION

20. The Committee is satisfied that the proposal for the Draft Deregulation (Bingo and Other Gaming) Order 2001 meets the requirements of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and is appropriate to be made under it, without amendment.[5]

2   Home Office letter to House of Commons Deregulation Committee, paragraph 21. Back

3   Home Office letter to House of Commons Deregulation Committee, paragraphs 23-24. Back

4   Home Office letter to House of Commons Deregulation Committee, paragraph 14. Back

5   This report is also published on the Internet at the House of Lords Select Committee Home Page (http://www.parliament.uk), where further information about the work of the Committee is also available. Back