|
Column Number: 273 Clause 49
Employment for lottery or football pools
Amendment made: No. 29, in clause 49, page 22, line 15, after 'lottery', insert—
'(other than a lottery which forms part of the National Lottery)'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 50 and 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Employment in casino, &c.
Amendment made: No. 235, in clause 52, page 23, line 4, leave out—
'in reliance on the casino premises licence.'
and insert—
Amendment made: No. 30, in clause 53, page 23, line 20, at end insert—
', or
(c) a lottery which forms part of the National Lottery.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 54 and 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56
Age limit for Category D gaming machines
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 6.
Division No. 4]
AYES
Banks, Mr. Tony
Byrne, Mr. Liam
Caborn, Mr. Richard
Chapman, Mr. Ben
Cruddas, Jon
Efford, Clive
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Jones, Mr. Kevan
McKechin, Ann
Watson, Mr. Tom
Woodward, Mr. Shaun
Wright, Iain
NOES
Foster, Mr. Don
Hawkins, Mr. Nick
Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Prisk, Mr. Mark
Russell, Bob
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 57 and 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 274 Clause 59
Penalty
Amendment made: No. 159, in clause 59, page 24, line 33, at end add—
''( ) In the application of subsection (1) to Scotland the reference to 51 weeks shall have effect as a reference to six months.''.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Nature of licence
Mr. Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 61, page 25, line 26, leave out third 'A' and insert 'B'.
The amendment is very simple. It is one of a string of amendments and its argument is that, as we have no research evidence to convince us that category A machines will either provide enormous regenerative benefits or lead to a significant increase in gambling problems, we do not bother to introduce them into the country.
In earlier exchanges, particularly our rather abortive discussion about clause 7 and the proliferation of regional casinos, the Minister gave a clear assurance that he would table amendments that would stop a proliferation in the pilot period. I assume that we will receive confirmation before too long, but we understand that there will be a limit of only eight regional casinos. During the discussions, I asked the Minister whether he would put a similar cap on the proportion of category A machines in the regional casinos.
Bearing in mind that the Government have already said that the industry has advised them that only 10 per cent. of category A machines are likely to be in a regional casino out of a maximum of 1,250, it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to put a cap of 10 per cent. on them. I would prefer none at all, but given that I have not received an assurance about a proposed cap, I ask the Committee to listen to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.
Mr. Moss: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us where the figure of 10 per cent. came from. Was it in the debate on Second Reading? From my contact with those involved, I think that 10 per cent., or whatever, would constitute unlimited pay-outs and the rest would still be category A machines.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman asked me where that information comes from, but I cannot tell him. However, the Government say that they have it. My conversations with a wide range of organisations lead me to believe that nobody really knows the answer—but the Government do.
My point is simple. These are highly addictive machines that will undoubtedly lead to a significant increase in problem gambling in this country as people
Column Number: 275
seek to chase their losses. The current chairman of the Gaming Board has referred to such machines as having
''special dangers . . . because of their potentially addictive characteristics.''
The Government discussed the introduction of fixed-odds betting terminals with the bookmakers, which were initially going to be similar, but decided not to do so because of real concerns, and clear limits were placed on them with a maximum pay-out of £500 for a single transaction.
The Government recognised the dangers of unlimited pay-out machines in discussions with the bookmakers, but they do not seem to accept the problems in relation to regional casinos. I should like to see whether the Minister has something interesting to tell us about a planned limit, the rejection of any category A machines, a limit on the maximum pay-outs, or anything like that.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is right about category A machines, which have the high pay-outs. The operators run around 10 per cent. and they determine what the pay-outs will be and whether they want more, or fewer, pay-outs from their machine. They must have the input before the output. If the output were one big prize, they would want a lot more input. That is proven not just for category A machines, but for category B machines—with the £2,000 prize—because the pay-out is limited and therefore there are more pay-outs. That is just part of the marketplace. It is not a Government statistic; it is a reality of operation. However, the hon. Gentleman will probably know that from speaking to some of the operators.
On amendment No. 5, the Bill states that category A machines will be permitted in regional casinos only, which will offer a mixture of gambling and other leisure activities. Of course we need to make sure that category A machines are carefully regulated in the public interest. This category will be subject to controls over things such as speed of play and on-screen information and to stringent standards of supply, maintenance and, for the first time in British law, manufacture. However, not permitting category A machines would undermine the modernising principles of the Bill and deny customer choice. There is a market for machine gambling, subject to the tight controls that we are placing on the machines.
If category A machines could not be offered as part of the British gambling package and experience, it is likely that casino operators—be they British or from overseas—would be far less inclined to make the substantial investment necessary to set up regional casinos. In turn, that would mean that the potentially significant benefits from regeneration, to which several hon. Members referred, and job creation would be lost. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Column Number: 276
Mr. Foster: I am staggered by the Minister's response. He tells us that people want customer choice, and therefore we have the unlimited-prize category A machines, but makes no reference at all to his thoughts about what impact that might have on problem gambling. When he talks about customer choice and says that if there were not unlimited-prize machines, investors would be unlikely to come in and generate regional casinos, there is no thought given to the existing British industry, which is desperately concerned about the uneven playing field that is being created.
I am surprised and disappointed. However, Mr. Pike, you will have noted that we have had a relatively brief debate at this stage and no doubt there will be an opportunity to return to this issue at a later stage, because amendments have been tabled. Bearing in mind that I wish to return to this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 62 to 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Application
4.15 pm
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 214, in page 27, line 31, after 'activity', insert
'according to criteria set forth in a statement to be issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the criteria for prescribing different conditions to different classes of activity, but procuring that such regulations shall not unfairly discriminate between operators of such different classes of activity or consumers of such activities'.
This is a probing amendment, asking the Minister to make different provisions for applications to authorise different classes of activity. It should be clear that the Bill is not intended to discriminate between different types of activity.
Mr. Caborn: There is a lot of sense in the reasoning behind the amendment. A regulation about procedure that discriminated unfairly would be wrong. However, the amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State is already obliged to ensure that any regulation that she makes under the clause is fair to operators and consumers alike. In making regulations under this clause, which concerns the procedure for licensing applications, we must be able to set different procedures for different licences. That is the only way in which we can deliver tailored regulations for different parts of the industry. Nobody would want us to do otherwise. We would take a different approach only where one was warranted. We must always act reasonably and rationally in exercising statutory powers. Any regulation should be subject to proper criticism and would be defective if we departed from those principles. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that what he fears will not result from regulations made under the clause and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Column Number: 277
Mr. Moss: I am happy with the Minister's assurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
