| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Grogan (Selby) (Lab): I am a gambler. I love gambling. I love the thrill of being beside the rails at a race track cheering my horse home or tearing up my betting slip in frustration. I love going to casinos to play roulette and I love going to Walker's bingo hall in Selby, which is one of centres of the community where people meet their friends. When the great Selby floods occurred three or four years ago, the community met in the bingo hall to discuss its response because the bingo hall was the only building big enough for the purpose.
I hope that I will not be accused of being a snob or do-gooder if I express my profound doubts about aspects of the Bill. To paraphrase a former American President, "It's the machines, stupid." Frank Fahrenkopf, the president of the American Gaming Association, told the Joint Committee that slot machines are now the economic driver for the casino industry. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) was right that the Bill will be a massive culture change. At the moment, casinos in this country contain 800 category B machines with a maximum payout of £2,000; one new super-casino will contain more machines than that. No one in the British industry wants those machines.
In the past few days, the British Casino Association has said that its reputation for integrity and honesty, the need for a low level of problem gambling and the recent public debate mean that no category A machines should be located in this country. The other casino operators' associations have long held that view, as has the British Amusement Catering Trades Association, so no British organisation based in the gaming industry advocates those machines.
It is not hard to see why British gaming associations take that view. The Secretary of State discussed prevalence studies and examining experience, but experience around the world, whether in Australia or in America, shows those machines' potential addictive capacity. The Bill will allow rows and rows of machines to be situated in gambling warehouses. The machines are designed to mesmerise people and keep them making three or four pulls a minute to try to win £1 million.
I do not want to be distasteful, but some big casino warehouses in the States change their carpets every three months, because some gamblers are so keen not to miss out on a win that they do not go the bathroom and stand in front of the machine all night. [Interruption.] It is distasteful, but it is true, and that is how addictive some of those machines are. We must examine whether we want category A machines in this nation and whether we should restrict them.
One argument is that if one has doubts about the Bill, one is elitist and is stopping the emancipation of the working classes by preventing them from going to casinos. If one examines who goes to casinos—I do—it is a cross-section of the British population. Only 7 per cent. of people currently go to casinos, and BACTA conducted a survey of their social class: 26 per cent. are A/B; 31 per cent. are C1; 22 per cent. are C2; and 22 per cent. are D/E. People who go to casinos are spread around the regions, one third of them are women and they are ethnically mixed, so casinos currently attract a small but diverse percentage of the population. The argument that some parts of the country do not have
1 Nov 2004 : Column 106
access to casinos is strong, and I can understand changes to the permitted area system and having some new casinos, but not in the way envisaged in the Bill.
I want to say a word about the Bill's implications for bingo. The bingo industry has tried, with some success in recent years, to build upon its strengths. What will happen to bingo as a result of the Bill? One cannot mix bingo, roulette wheels and machines in small casinos, but one can mix those activities in large casinos and really big regional casinos. The Government's regulatory impact assessment says that
"the regulations may lead to the formation of combined bingo clubs and casinos with a gaming floor of over 1,500 square metres",
"might lead to an increase in machine gambling among C2, D and E income earners and a reduction in bingo admissions."
"a widespread conversion of bingo clubs to casinos, which offer greater opportunities for machine gambling for their profitability, presents a risk of an increase in problem gaming among present bingo players."
We must think seriously about the extent to which soft and hard gaming should be mixed up. There is no need to be elitist about this. We can learn from the American experience—60 per cent. of all profits at Atlantic City are made from pensioners. The big casino companies bus in pensioners, offer them a couple of free games of bingo, then say, "You've got an hour to wait until the bus home—why not have a game on the slot machines?" That is the economic driver. If we do not have such a mix in small casinos, why should we have it in large ones?
The question of whether size matters has been debated. As the Secretary of State said, the Government have raised the minimum size of small casinos to 750 sq m. They rejected the Committee's view that for regional resort casinos it should be raised to at least 7,500 sq m. If size matters among small casinos, why does it not matter at the top end of the market as well?
This has been a fascinating debate in which virtually every Member—bar two, I think—supported a limit, to some degree, on large resort casinos. Almost no one adopted the Government position that it should be left to the market, because most of us recognise that this is a major, radical change that will, according to the regulatory impact assessment, benefit the casino industry but harm much of the rest of the gambling industry. There will be a series of unintended consequences across much of our social fabric. For example, many community pubs depend on small category C machines, and it is not clear whether those that serve food as well alcohol will be able to keep them.
I urge the Government to think again and to put a cap on the number of super-casinos—a move that would have widespread support in the House. I take the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whom I will be proud to follow into the Lobby. We need to send the Government the message that unless they compromise in Committee or on Report, an amendment will be tabled to try to impose such a cap; and, given the tenor of today's debate, that could turn out to be an interesting vote. I therefore
1 Nov 2004 : Column 107
appeal to them to think again and to legislate in the interests of the entire nation—those who gamble and those who do not.
8.47 pm
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I agree with the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) that this has been an interesting debate. The speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House show that there are substantial differences between us. The subject certainly stirs up a lot of passion. It makes a refreshing change to come into a Chamber that is relatively full by the standards of today's House. I know that many of those who want to participate may not have the opportunity because of time constraints, but it makes a substantial difference if Members are here listening to the arguments and a certain amount of dialogue takes place across the Chamber.
As Members of Parliament, we all, through our constituency surgeries and mailbags, get a good handle on where there has been bad law in the past and what should be a Government priority in future. Gambling is not necessarily an area that I would have said we needed to jump into. I have learned a great deal during the debate from Members who have lived with the issue over a period of time. The legislation that the House has passed previously, which goes back principally to the 1960s, has done a pretty good job for this country and has lasted very well.
At that time, the aim was to create a legal industry and to keep it away from crime. We have created a very successful industry in which last year £63.8 billion was gambled in one form or another, of which £7.8 billion resided with the industry—£3 billion for gaming, £2.3 billion for the national lottery and £2.5 billion for horse-racing associated gambling. There are also 130 casinos and a quarter of a million gaming machines in the country, so we do have a pretty successful industry. We have been left, however, with a bit of a compromise, in that gambling is available to those who go and look for it, but we do not have the kind of in-your-face casinos that entice us in with flashing lights and fountains that we see in foreign countries and places such as Las Vegas.
The 24-hour membership rule means that people have to be pretty committed and think through the consequences before they go in and start gambling. This has been an impediment. I have always thought that that rule was a bit like the warning on a cigarette packet. Anyone who is tempted is made to think again and consider their position before they start to participate.
I am sure that most of our citizens, being sensible people, like a bit of fun. We have heard that quite a few Members of Parliament like to have a bit of fun gambling small sums of money. However, gambling can be addictive, and some people have a problem with it. I think that we have all come across people who have gone out in the evening with their car and arrived home without it, or who have ended up having to pile up loans on their house. As politicians, we must pay attention to the fact that the consequences of the Bill could be very dire indeed for some people. The Henley Centre has suggested that there are about 400,000 addicted
1 Nov 2004 : Column 108
gamblers in this country, and has expressed concern that these proposals could lead to a considerable increase in that number. I do not think that we, as legislators, should lightly walk away from the possible consequences of what we are doing.
The legislation that we already have on the statute book has passed the test of time pretty well and left us with a robust industry that is free of crime and works pretty well. We all understand, however, that the internet, remote communication and online gambling have changed the name of the game, and that there now needs to be a change in the law. I am sceptical, however, about whether we need to redo all the legislation. The moment we start to do that, we shall find that the vested interests of all sorts of people who benefit from the present legislation will be threatened. This applies to quite a lot of fish and chip shop owners in Poole, as well as to people who run takeaways and minicab firms, who might be surprised to lose their gaming machines.
There is also widespread concern in the leisure industry, including the ten-pin bowling industry, and among certain pub people that, under the Bill as it is presently framed—we hope that it will be amended in Committee—they, too, could lose their gaming machines. Many of these are small businesses that derive a good percentage of their income from these machines, so the changes that the Government are trying to push through present them with a challenge.
Members on both sides of the House have talked about the penny-pushers and the grab-a-toy and grab-a-gift machines in seaside town entertainment centres, which provide relatively harmless fun. These, too, could be encompassed by the legislation if we are not careful. Almost all the small businesses that have written to me have expressed some concern and many have made a pitch for grandfather rights in regard to keeping particular privileges. I hope that the Committee, when it gets to work on the Bill, will look carefully at the interests of the small businesses that will be affected by it.
I have concerns about the super-casino concept because it would change the culture of this country. We must therefore be very careful about how we proceed. The history of our legislating on this matter is to be gradual and cautious, but the Government are departing from that in their present proposals. The suggestion of the Joint Committee that we should limit the number of casinos per region was probably more sensible, and the proposals from hon. Members on both sides of the House for pilot schemes in certain areas also have their attraction.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |