|
Mr. Moss: I am listening to the Minister's argument extremely carefully. He seems to be suggesting that, because of market forces, many of the payouts in existing casino businesses that have machines that can pay out a maximum of £2,000 are much lower. Category A machines are flexible. If six machines went into a small casino, there is no way that any of those machines could pay out large amounts of money. Six machines does not provide the financial base for big payouts. There is no problem in terms of huge payouts from six category A machines. The argument is that they are flexible. They can be adjusted to pay out whatever is wanted and the stake can be put at any level. Market forces would come to bear among players in small casinos, and I do not see a problem with that. I thought that the Minister was agreeing.
Mr. Caborn: I am giving the hon. Gentleman the facts. Market forces have determined payouts in Las Vegas and in this country. We are not coming off the back of that decision. We made our decision on category A machines very clear: they ought to go into regional casinos. We believe that that is prudent at this stage. When the whole thing comes up for review, category A machines will also be reviewed. We are responding to the genuine concerns that manifested themselves on Second Reading about proliferation of regional casinos. We have addressed the concerns, and that is why category A machines will be in regional casinos. All I am saying is that there is no evidence for the Domesday scenario that our indigenous casinos will be wiped out if they do not have category A machines. Even with machines with £2,000 payouts—
Column Number: 381
as I say, only a small percentage make such payouts—I do not believe the Domesday scenario that has been painted this afternoon and previously.
Mr. Moss: I do not know about the Domesday scenario. I did not speak about casinos being wiped out.
Mr. Caborn: Others have.
Mr. Moss: I certainly have not. Existing casinos will no doubt continue to exist. Many are private clubs and will not want ambient gamblers off the streets. They will probably keep their membership, and the Minister has confirmed that they will be entitled to do so. However, in the top clubs in London, people play blackjack and roulette for huge stakes. What is the logic of telling them that they can put only a few pounds into a machine that pays out a maximum of £2,000? The Minister admitted that they do not all pay out the maximum. The setting of payouts is flexible and that would follow naturally with category A machines. For the Government to say that they are being prudent by not allowing those machines to go into other casinos makes no logical sense to me and does not make a lot of sense to many other people. We understand that the Government want to be prudent, but until recently they were going to allow 50,000 of those machines in up to 40 regional casinos. It was all right then, so why is it not all right now?
Mr. Caborn: One could rehearse these arguments ad nauseam. The number of 40 casinos was on the extreme side—we were talking much more of 20 to 25. However, we have taken the decision on the back of experience, including mine of Australia. The one thing that the Australians said to me time and again was, ''Do not go too far: it is far more difficult to pull back than to release incrementally as you go.'' Therefore, it is a judgment on what is proportionate, and we believe that what we are proposing is right. It will be tested by the way that we are rolling out the regional casinos and our formula of tying the number of machines to establishments, tables or whatever.
On amendments Nos. 270, 273 and 277, I think that it is a mistake to carve out yet a smaller number of category A machines in the way proposed. All the evidence shows us that the operators themselves limit the number of machines offering the very big stakes.
Mr. Moss: The Minister just said that.
Mr. Caborn: I know that—I was responding to amendments Nos. 270, 273 and 277. As Members know, what we say is scrutinised not just by the Committee, but in courts of law and by all the lobbyists and QCs, so we like to get everything on record. It may sometimes be boring for Members, but we nevertheless think that it is important for the proper interpretation of legislation. QCs on the Front Bench from certain parties have said that we have not been clear enough; we are now being precise, so I hope that the Committee will bear with me.
Column Number: 382
As I have said already, but repeat again, we have imposed a ratio of machines to real gaming tables on casinos so that they cannot become machine sheds, which the hon. Member for Bromsgrove was concerned about. We have put an overall cap on the number of machines allowed and given ourselves the power to review the ratio, the cap and the category of machines allowed in casinos should the need arise.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 274 and 227 is to make a triennial review of stake and prize limits a statutory requirement. I understand the desire to ensure that the gambling industry can use machines that keep pace with economic development as well as being mindful of the need to prevent problem gambling. However, we do not believe that the triennial review needs to be enshrined in legislation. The review of stakes and prizes under the 1968 legislation has operated effectively and for many years as a matter of custom and practice. I expect that to continue.
Amendment No. 6 would eliminate category A machines from the Bill. Under the Bill, such machines are subject to the tightest control.
Mr. Foster: When the Minister says that he expects the current arrangements for the triennial review to continue, would he welcome it if they did so?
Mr. Caborn: I suppose that I would welcome that, and I have no doubt that the gambling commission will ensure that that happens.
The argument that has been put this afternoon is that not permitting category A machines denies the customers choice. If category A machines could not be offered as part of the British casino experience, consumers would be forced, as they are now, on to internet casino sites offering precisely the same product, but in an environment that lacks the tight controls that we envisage under the Bill. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments for the reasons that I have explained.
I want briefly to turn to fixed-odds betting terminals—FOBTs. I understand the bingo industry's concerns that it too should be allowed to have what we call category B2 machines, which are currently known as FOBTs. As I have said before, one good reason for not allowing that is that FOBTs are offered in betting shops rather than licensed premises. There is also a concern related to children. We have been clear all along that we propose to bring FOBTs under regulation in the Bill, and part 10 now ensures that fixed-odds betting machines are a form of gaming machine.
I have heard a lot of concern in the past few weeks about the proliferation of gaming machines and worries about problem gambling. Having just described the various steps that we are taking to ensure that FOBTs in betting shops are safe and kept under review, I am afraid that I cannot do what the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire wants and, at a stroke of the pen, give bingo halls the same machines.
I have one other point. I have not seen the work done by the Association of British Bookmakers. I understand that it is complete; I have not seen it, but I
Column Number: 383
have no doubt that we shall share it with hon. Members in the Committee and the House at some stage.
5 pm
Mr. Moss: The scrutiny Committee recommended that FOBTs should be placed in a separate category because of the difference in stake limits between them and jackpot machines. The Government's response said that
''such distinctions would be unhelpful, and could reproduce the problems the Committee has considered in relation to FOBTs, where the technical nature of the definition of a gaming machine in the present law has not kept pace with changes in technology . . . As a result, having brought FOBTs within the core definition of gaming machine in the Bill, the Government proposes that machines which are currently being operated as FOBTs will become category B gaming machines.''
The Minister has confirmed that, but there are so many variations of those category B machines that something must be done to distinguish them, and to ensure that there is a level playing field and availability across the board.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is right. As he knows, that is why we had to come to an agreement with the industry. The Gaming Board at the time said that there could be difficulties in court so we came to a voluntary agreement, which is in accord with the views held today. We said that we would legislate and change the definition.
I shall put the categories on the record. FOBTs are category B2 machines; small and large casinos have B1 machines; bingos have B3 machines; and clubs have B4 machines. There is a description of category B machines in clause 220. They are sub-categorised, and on that basis I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.
Mr. Moss: I am sure that we will return to the matter at a later stage; perhaps when we have a clearer picture of the Government's overall plans for casinos.
I listened carefully to the Minister, but I still believe that there is inconsistency and illogicality in some of his points. He turned down the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, saying that if there were no category A machines at all, the great British public would be denied access to them. He more or less indicated that that was a bad move, and that they should be allowed access. Access has now been limited to eight regional casinos, but why should people have to go huge distances if it is so important to make these machines available to play? People will have to go to regional casinos to play them; why cannot they go to their local casino, be it large or small?
The idea that that there will be huge payouts if there are six category A machines in a small casino is total nonsense. They cannot pay out more than they take in, and if the stakes are set too high, no one will play on the machines. All we are asking for is a little flexibility
Column Number: 384
and a level playing field. There is inconsistency here, as I have said more than once. The Government have not, as yet, got a clear idea of what they want to propose.
We accept the point about protection, and the point about the trial, monitoring and research. However, to say that it is less of a problem to have 1,250 category A machines in a regional casino than it is to have 15 in a large existing casino, which has had no problems whatever during the past 25 years, does not make any sense. It is not logical.
Bearing in mind all the criticism that has come their way of late, the Government want to ensure that they present to the public a hard face on the matter. It has been said that they are having a free-for-all and that market forces are rampant in the gaming industry. We sympathise with their wish to present the view that there are constraints, and that they know what they are doing and are not unleashing all sorts of forces over which they have no control. We support all that, but even in that context there is surely still some flexibility to consider the overall picture.
Whether there are controls over the eight regional casinos or whether we or the Government suggest something for the other casinos, there is a possibility of having category A machines, which are only flexible machines—that is all. They are the latest technology. I can see no reason why one cannot argue for constraints, restrictions and controls, and at the same time allow existing businesses to have at their disposal that which will be made available to the new and mostly incoming capital.
There will be a mighty scramble for the eight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, one will be allocated for Scotland and one for Wales. Quite why we have to decide that I do not know, but if people there want them, fine. That leaves only six to go round the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom, but at least 20 sites, if not more, are already allocated in the minds of local authorities and investors. There will be an almighty punch-up over who gets what, where and when. I just hope that the Government have thought the situation through and ensured that they have covered every angle legally.
We support the constraint because a cautious and judicious approach is needed. However, I still cannot accept the logic of making 1,250 category A machines freely available to the 20,000-plus people who will go to a regional casino every weekend, which, it is said, is what is needed to cross the threshold to make any money. I do not see why that is less harmful than having six category A machines in a small private club in London which will retain its membership. I do not see the logic in that at all, but we shall return to the issue later.
| 
