| Gambling Bill
|
|
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): We have heard a fair amount about seaside family amusement arcades and so on. However, small cafes, taxi booking offices and so on in inland areas are also affected. If the legislation were to pass, I suggest to the Minister, some companies would go out of business in the fine city of Sheffield because they rely on the amusement machines to make the difference between loss and profit. I hope that support and protection can be found in the other place for the indigenous low-key family entertainment gambling areas, which are predominately at the seaside. I am sorry that the Minister is yawning, but it has been suggested that for each major casino, the equivalent number of machines—1,250—will wipe out 600 small local businesses, with everything that goes with that. I wonder whether the Minister is complacent about businesses in Sheffield and elsewhere going under because of an ill-thought-out, ill-judged measure. Mr. Foster: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government, who pride themselves on consultation, have not consulted with the overarching organisation that represents all those bodies, the British Amusement Catering Trades Association, and have, so far as I am aware, refused to meet its representatives? They have not even met representatives of fish and chip shops. Bob Russell: I was not aware of that, but I am not really surprised. I think that provisions have been made up as the Bill has gone along. This one is a tiny aspect of a major Bill, but it is of vital importance to small firms and seaside arcades. Small neighbourhood businesses will be affected: fish and chip shops and so on—although I have heard it said that in Sheffield the pie is more of a gamble than the slot machine in the corner of the shop. If the clause goes through, many companies will go out of business. That is a serious matter. I regret the Minister's complacency and the fact that he finds the issue amusing. I suspect that many businesses will not share that view, and I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail in the other place. Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood) (Lab): A week ago, I had an interesting meeting with amusement arcade operators in Fleetwood, who had understandable concerns about the clause. However, they did not share the Column Number: 263 apocalyptic vision of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). In fact, their concern was less about the clause than about the proliferation of small and large casinos. They thought that their amusement arcades really would close down if there were casinos on every street corner.The concerns of those operators seemed to predate Second Reading and to arise from the publicity that preceded it. However, operators were reassured by the Secretary of State's statement on Second Reading that the Government were committed to the future of family amusement arcades. I was pleased about that, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to reconfirm that that is the Government's position. The representations that we have received contain clear advice from people who have real concerns about the impact of gambling on children. On the other hand, we are all aware that gambling provides jobs and adult entertainment. In my opinion, it can also provide fairly harmless pastimes for children. Like everyone else who has taken part in the debate, I have tried to win a teddy bear, but I have never won one. Perhaps I should challenge all the amusement arcades along the Fylde coast, because I feel sorely tempted to try every single one of them to win a teddy. Mr. Hawkins: Was the hon. Lady lucky enough to attend Blackpool pleasure beach when she was the distinguished Chairman of the social services committee of Lancashire county council? At the time, I had the honour of representing the constituency that contained the pleasure beach and its amusement arcades. On one occasion, all the machines were rearranged for charity, and that was the only time I succeeded in working one of the grabber machines and winning a soft toy. Mrs. Humble: I am not sure how I can follow that. If I go round saying I will play the machines, but only if they are rearranged so I can win, operators will not be very pleased with me. Nevertheless, there is a serious point, because we need to achieve a balance in the Bill. On the one hand, we have to reassure people with genuine concerns about the impact of the measures on gambling and especially on children. On the other hand, we have to recognise the role that category D machines and amusement arcades play, especially in a seaside economy. The Government probably have the balance right, but I hope that the Minister will reassure my constituents again. Mr. Moss: The hon. Lady thinks that the Government have got it right. Perhaps she can explain the difference between an £8 cuddly toy and a £5 cuddly toy. Mr. Caborn: It's £3! Mrs. Humble: I think that my right hon. Friend has answered the hon. Gentleman, although the Government should perhaps look at the matter. If I were ever to win one of these things, would I really notice the difference between a £5 one and an £8 one? Would I want the £8 one more? Actually, I probably Column Number: 264 would want the £8 one or one worth even more than that, but that is a dangerous route to go down so I will not.
3.30 pmMr. Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for agreeing with our proposition that all is not well with family entertainment centres or with the Government's proposals to attack the value of the prize rather than the cash payout. BACTA agrees that a 10p stake with a £5 payout is acceptable, but it takes issue with the Government over the value of the prize being reduced from £8 to £5. When she was talking to her constituents in Fleetwood, did they make that point to her? Mrs. Humble: They did not labour that point. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, when Sir Alan Budd produced his report, we had a long debate on the appropriate value of prizes and stakes for amusement arcades that admit children. The key issue with this clause is not that but the residual power that the Secretary of State has taken on this matter. I seek reassurance that it is residual and that the Secretary of State is including it in the Bill because there may be a moment in the future when she or her successor will want to readdress the issue. I want an assurance that the Government are fully committed to the continuance of family amusement arcades, which have a vital role in our seaside economy. Mr. Foster: I am delighted that the hon. Lady, like many Opposition Members, is expressing genuine concern for family entertainment centres and similar organisations. Given that she is merely seeking assurances from the Minister that the powers are reserved and will be used only in extreme circumstances—those were not her words but she implied them—does she not accept that even if she got that assurance, the clause would still put a huge blight on family entertainment centres and the firms that operate them? Therefore, there is a continuing danger that closures are likely. Would it not be better to persuade the Minister to delete the entire clause? Mrs. Humble: I am certainly looking forward to hearing the Minister's response, but I repeat that the concern of those who contacted me directly was much more to do with the general proliferation of gaming machines if there was an unlimited number of small and large casinos on every high street. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Minister, during his announcement on regional casinos, said that the Government were examining ways of restricting small and large casinos. That was a key point raised with me. When people are concerned about their livelihood, it is difficult to offer them reassurance. That is why I am asking the Minister to do exactly that, and I look forward to his response. Mr. Caborn: I shall answer one or two of the questions asked before I give the reasoning for the amendments and for clause 56.
Column Number: 265 We met representatives of BACTA on a number of occasions before and after the policy was announced, and that consultation continues. We have never been approached by representatives of fish and chip shops, but if they want to come along, I am more than willing to meet them—perhaps not all of them.Mr. Foster: As the Minister is offering the open door of consultation to fish and chip shop operators, will he offer to meet representatives of BACTA? Mr. Caborn: BACTA representatives know that we have an open door because they have been coming in and out of it for the past two years; there is no problem with BACTA. More importantly, as fish and chip shops were raised and as the open door of consultation is the hallmark of this Government, I invite their representatives to come and see us. I am sure that Mrs. Foster will be pleased to know that grabber machines are random. That is why they are gaming machines. As for the doomsday scenario painted by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, I think that her previous profession took over there. I was probably more factual than she was in some of her descriptions of what might happen if the Bill is implemented in full. As Minister for Sport and Tourism, I can assure the Committee that seaside resorts commend the Government for the increase in tourism that is taking place. It is important to encourage more tourism with the greater disposable income that it brings. I was in Whitby a couple of weekends ago and I went into one of these arcades with my grandchildren. A ride on a Bambi machine cost 50p. I put in a few 2p coins which I found quite entertaining. Mr. Banks: To save me wasting my pension in these arcades when I have time to spare, will my hon. Friend clarify whether grabber machines are random? If so, how is the grabber randomised? That is the important point. We need to know that. If the machines are random they should pay out a certain percentage of soft cuddly toys. I need to know that for my future.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 30 November 2004 |
