Gambling Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Caborn: Yes, and the role of the gambling commission will be important in that respect, as will the ongoing regulation and government of the industry. There has been an element of scaremongering in the debate this afternoon. However—I underline this, particularly for my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood—we are saying clearly that we believe that arcades with category D machines are an important part of the economy, particularly in seaside resorts. Indeed, they are a part of our history and culture at the seaside. We want to maintain them as part of that structure.

It is important that we respond to those who have concerns by conducting objective, transparent studies that will contribute to public debate. We are putting in place a regulator—the gambling commission. There will be ongoing regulation of the industry; there will be no sharp shocks in the system. Decisions will be taken after consultation; they will evolve.

I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. I will not deal with clause 56 until we come to it.

The Chairman: Order. There will not be any further debate on clause 56 stand part.

Mr. Moss: No one is disagreeing with some of the fundamentals of the Minister's case. We accept that the Government have to be vigilant, and we have no problem with tri-annual reviews and research; that is in everyone's interests.

However, how can the Secretary of State justify clause 56 on the basis of regulatory completeness? That clause focuses on category D and age limits. There are just under 1,000 family entertainment centres, and 70 per cent. of the machines in them are category D machines. If at some future date a Secretary of State were to alter the age limits of people who could play those machines, that would at a stroke attack the heart of those businesses. I heard what the Minister said; he is very keen that they should be retained in our seaside resorts, such as Blackpool. We all want that. However, he is missing the point. Because the clause deals explicitly with age limits for category D machines, there can be no ambiguity; this is a direct attack on the raison d'etre of a huge number of businesses.

Column Number: 270

We could go along with the Government. If the case were made that we need an enabling clause to revisit much of this subject at a future date, we would happily agree. There would need to be a review of such matters as the impact of category A machines in casinos and the impact of the fixed-odds betting terminals. Taking a holistic view, we have no argument against periodic reviews and careful research into such areas.

There might be less impact on the businesses we are talking about if there were a clause that covered all the machines—all category A, B, C and D machines—and all the institutions, and which enabled the Secretary of State to revisit the matter in the future. It would also be helpful if a clause set out the compelling evidence and the true independence of the research to be done so that there was no question about the Government's intention.

Miss Kirkbride: I agree with my hon. Friend's point about applying all that to all the provisions of the Bill. However, we know how this place works. Is it not likely that, with the Government encouraging problem gambling with its wider casino provisions, they will find a scapegoat by attacking those businesses that allow gambling among young people, saying, ''Well, we are dealing with problem gambling among adults by stopping them doing it as children?'' That is where this Bill is heading, and it will get there in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. She made it in her opening speech, too. The problem is that people can interpret the clause in exactly that way.

Mr. Caborn: The reason for the clause is that category D machines are the only machines to which no age limit applies. All the other categories are covered by an age limit. I am not saying that there is a valid argument for an age limit, but there might be one in future because of people's concerns, so we want to take reserve powers to introduce an age limit. Category D is the only category that does not have an age limit. Those powers do not apply to all machines, because the other categories of machine already have an age limit of 18. Category D machines do not have an age limit and therefore there is a concern. We can examine the evidence.

I want to ensure that the following is on the record. The trigger for using the power in clause 56 is better evidence of harm, available prevalence studies and other research, and advice from the gambling commission. There will be a lot of opportunity for people to put forward their evidence. This afternoon, we have heard a great defence of the archaic owners and not a balanced argument about harm to children. We are trying to put forward a balanced argument that involves transparency, consultation and the evidence base. That is why we have put these measures in the Bill. I am sure that nobody in the Committee would deny that where there is evidence to show that harm is being done, Governments should act.

Bob Russell (LD) rose-

Column Number: 271

The Chairman: Order. The Minister cannot give way.

Mr. Moss: That was a fairly long intervention from him.

We have not said that we are not concerned about harm to children; we have said that there is no evidence about that. The Minister quoted only one individual as producing evidence that there was any harm. Let us get this straight: we are not against measures to prevent harm to children, whether category D machines or any other machines are involved.

Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rare that young children are seen in taxi booking offices late at night and that an age restriction on the use of machines in fish and chip shops would answer the concerns that the Minister has just expressed?

Mr. Moss: The key is supervision. I am not going down that road because I can see that there is an argument in terms of protecting children from harm; in places where there is some supervision we at least have some control over what is going on. That is not a problem. I was trying to suggest to the Minister that we are not arguing against the Government's motives, but we are saying clearly that the clause, because it is specific to age limits and category D machines, strikes at the heart of 960 business in this country, which employ 8,500 people. If the age limit on category Ds is changed, they are wiped out at a stroke, and there should not be that focus in a clause. Anyone buying or selling a business might see that, and it would raise massive uncertainty. For a considerable time, nobody will buy one of those businesses while the clause is still in place.

The Minister and the Government have, at a stroke, devalued the balance sheets of 960 businesses. That is the point that we are trying to get across. There is no problem about having reviews or about research. However, the matter should be couched in a different way—one that does not focus everyone's attention on something simmering under the surface in terms of harm and category D machines. The evidence is not there. By all means reserve the power, but do not focus it in the way that is currently being done.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right to chide the Minister for seeking to suggest that Opposition Committee members are not interested in protection—of course, all Opposition Committee members are, just as Government Committee members are.

The Minister is keen on evidence. Can the hon. Gentleman help me and tell me where there are comparable powers for the Secretary of State to intervene and prevent any further category A machines or to remove category A machines from regional casinos where the evidence demonstrates that they are causing harm? Surely, there ought to be a comparable power.

Column Number: 272

Mr. Moss: That is the point that I was making. We ought to take a holistic view, and there should be a clause that says that the Government will revisit the issues about all of these machines and their operation in all circumstances.

Miss Kirkbride: Is it not a simple fact that the Government will not re-examine the number of category A machines in the big regional casinos because they are the Government's great white hope for all this investment? They have been bedazzled by the idea of all these new casinos. What they seek would not be forthcoming because they would create among the regional casinos the same uncertainty that they are creating for the smaller arcade by this provision.

4 pm

Mr. Moss: That is a valid point. However, uncertainty has certainly been created in those markets that deal with regional casinos. People thought that they would have two, three, four, 10—somebody told me yesterday that they were in the market for 12 casinos. However, now there will be only eight in total. A massive amount of uncertainty has been created. So be it; the Government have decided to go down that road. We were arguing for a trial—a pilot scheme—to test out the impact of category A machines.

Mr. Caborn: For the sake of completeness and to allow the debate to go ahead with the facts, I should say that the power to change category, in terms of restrictions on machines, comes under clauses 163 and 220.

Mr. Moss: In that case, why do we need clause 56 as well? I rest my case. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Order. I want to give a little guidance to the Committee. I recognise that an important issue of principle has been debated, but I have to focus Committee members' minds on the fact that we need to reach clause 218 by 5.30 pm on Thursday this week. The Chair does not have the power to determine on relative merits or importance what issues should be before the Committee. That is for the Committee and Members taking part in the debate. However, I have to have mind to the stage of the proceedings agreed to in the programme order.

As I do not know what time the Committee is to finish this evening, I should say that if we go beyond 5.30 pm I shall take a comfort break at some stage. I give that guidance in the hope that we will not need to take such a break. However, the power of deciding when we have a break is in my hands if I do not know when we are going to finish. I hope that that is helpful to the Committee, and focuses minds.

 

---

Prepared 30 November 2004