| Gambling Bill
|
|
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): I want to respond to the comments made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire. He put one of the arguments for keeping category A machines in regional casinos. Those casinos cannot have it both ways. In one sense, they are sold to us not only as casinos, but as places Column Number: 414 with far more—as entertainment complexes as well. However, they are also sold to us as a particularly lucrative type of casino. One can run one of those arguments, but not both.Mr. Moss: People would not seek to invest millions of pounds unless they could see a decent return. Frankly, I think that the jury is out on whether the American experience can be replicated in this country. From the point of view of the incoming investors and the regeneration that we hope will take place, I hope that that is not the case. However, I see little evidence in this country that people are prepared to go in their thousands to play on machines in a casino.
10.45 amDr. Pugh: I did not express my point particularly well. I was trying to say that if casinos are to be so inordinately attractive because of their other entertainment advantages, there is not an overwhelming case for their being inordinately attractive because of their gambling machines. Mr. Moss: I am sorry that I missed part of the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. We have received conflicting evidence. Some operators say that half of their profits will come from gambling and half from other activities. Others have categorically stated that more than 80 per cent. of their profits will come from gambling, which means from category A machines—they will obviously have gaming tables, but the real money will be made from the machines. There is not an absolute model. Some expect to gain more from other activities, but even in those cases, more than 50 per cent. of profits would come from gaming machines. It is important that the Government rethink access to category A machines in an even-handed and balanced way. We are not talking about massive proliferation. If there is control of casinos at regional and lower levels, it is only fair that other players should have access to such machines. The Government intend a so-called pilot scheme involving a trial of eight regional casinos, and they will monitor both the effects of the scheme and the gambling experience to highlight any problems. Therefore, the pilot could be extended to all category A machines wherever they are located, and the gambling commission should be in charge of that. Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has left me very confused. In an earlier debate, he was keen to limit the number of regional casinos to eight. He now seems to be advocating the proliferation of major casinos by the back door by allowing existing casinos to have category A machines. What is his definition of a regional casino and of the new casinos that he envisages having category A machines? Mr. Moss: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is confused; I will try to explain myself as clearly as possible. We have a model of a regional casino with 1,250 category A machines, millions of pounds of investment, and a floor space for gambling of some 1,000 sq m compared with 9,000 sq m for other use, Column Number: 415 including hotels, restaurants and leisure facilities. We tabled an amendment suggesting a trial of four regional casinos, but the Government have decided on eight, and we are reasonably happy with that. However, that still means that there will be 10,000 category A machines. My argument about those machines going to some small and large casinos would mean a maximum of about 900 extra machines. Ten thousand plus 900 is fewer than 11,000.Until a few weeks ago, the Government were contemplating more than 40 regional casinos with a total of 50,000 category A machines, and they did not blink at that prospect. The only people who blinked were Labour Back Benchers who gave the Government a hard time on Second Reading, and Opposition Members. Where is the Government's consistency on this issue? There is none because they are all over the place. They have not explained why it is reasonable and proper to give category A machines to new regional casinos but deny them to existing casinos, which have caused no problems over the past 20 or 30 years and rightly feel that they are in an uncompetitive position. I turn now to category D machines, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford referred earlier. The Government intend to remove category D machines from a whole swathe of locations, including chip shops and taxi ranks, on the grounds of protecting children. They seem adamant that they will stand by that decision. They are attacking the members of BACTA in adult, but mainly family, gaming centres by saying that restrictions will be placed on category D games so that a prize of a teddy bear will be reduced in value from £8 to £5. That is causing much anger and concern because there does not seem to be any logic to such a change. The BACTA members say that they would prefer to keep the £8 cuddly toy as a prize for presentation purposes. They can then show something substantial to the punter, whereas if the value of the prize were reduced even by £3, it would make a difference in their ability to make a profit. Even at that level, the Government seem a little inconsistent. Why are they taking such action? What is the reason for reducing the value of the prize from £8 to £5? It has no basis in logic. Such a provision was not in the Budd report. I accept that it recommended that category D machines be removed from ancillary places, but I suppose the key to the problem is that, if the machines were in family amusement centres, activities would be policed and there would be management control over who was playing the machines. I go along with the Government in that that gives comfort to those who want to protect the vulnerable and children, in particular. The provision is giving BACTA members a serious headache. On the one hand, they are told that, at the bottom end of what they do, they have to make changes—in the wrong direction, in their view. On the other hand, they are told that they will not be able to move forward and have FOBT machines and others of that ilk. That means that all the time the competition Column Number: 416 is being enhanced and developed at their expense, as a result of which they will face even greater competition in the future.I return to the argument about the category B machines. Why will they only be in betting shops? Why will not some bingo places and adult gaming centres be allowed to have them? The Government may say that that will lead to proliferation, that controls must be exercised in one way or another, and that the gambling commission will be able to review matters later. However, huge swathes of the industry are now left with the uncertainty of wondering whether their businesses will survive. For whatever reason, the Government have decided to take certain measures without understanding the fundamental impact on the businesses concerned. Mr. Prisk: I am sorry to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend's argument; he is about to touch on an essential element. I want to return to my worry that, as is often the case with regulations, the people who will be most affected by the provision will be the small, family enterprises. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising that point. Perhaps I did not cover it in enough depth, but a huge number of businesses, especially BACTA members who run amusement arcades, many of which are fundamentally important to the leisure experience in many seaside towns, feel under threat. They are mainly small businesses. Their problem is that, if they do not invest, their businesses will deteriorate because their shop fronts and arcade fronts will being to look seedy and decrepit, which is the last thing that they want—[
The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) wishes to open her post, would she read it in the Corridor or, at least, less audibly?
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale. I thought that the hon. Lady was opening a big sweetie and I would not have minded one for later.
Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood) (Lab): It is a Fisherman's Friend.
Mr. Moss: That joke fell flat last time I made it. Not many people realise that Fleetwood is famous for the Fisherman's Friend lozenge. Have you got some?
The Chairman: Order. I have not.
Mr. Moss: Returning to the clause, many BACTA members are small businesses and they feel that they are being attacked from all sides. At the bottom end, on the category D machines, they are being attacked on the value of the prizes that they can offer, and in their adult centres they are not being allowed to expand into category B machines. They feel that the anti-competitive nature of much of the Bill is seriously deleterious to their interests and future, and many are worried about the uncertainty.
Column Number: 417
The Bill is about location and accessibility to gambling, gaming and betting, but this clause is about the facility that is available in each location. It is critical not just to look at where the locations are and how many there are, but to get the categorisation of machines right.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 7 December 2004 |
