| Gambling Bill
|
|
Mr. Page: Does my hon. Friend feel that when the Minister replies to his valid and wise comments, he should address the time scale for the measures? Any business, if it knew that there was to be a review and an outcome to be reached, would be prepared to handle that and to plan. The scrutiny Committee said that a number of category A machines should be allowed into casinos that were in operation before 7 August 2003; it then said that any casinos starting after that date should be considered after a period of showing that they are capable of running a proper operation. The Government responded by saying that their
11 amMr. Moss: My hon. Friend moves the argument on another stage. At this juncture, I was not attempting to be too specific or prescriptive. The key decision that the Government should be taking—they may well have to take it in the other place—is to be more even-handed, fair and balanced in their approach to who gets what machine. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which was addressed to the Minister. The timing Column Number: 418 of the introduction of many of these things is as important as the decision to allow them in the first place.I wind up my remarks on category D with the views of BACTA members. All in all, the Government could not have got it more wrong, because the Bill pleased no one in the industry. Many Government Bills do not find favour with sections of the business community, but to upset everyone must be the accolade of all time. I rest my case. Mr. Foster: I hope I shall be briefer than the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who covered many important points in a lengthy contribution, and I do not criticise him for that. I want to pick up on a couple of the points that he raised and to ask the Minister one or two questions. The hon. Gentleman rightly raised several issues in respect of category A machines, which, he pointed out, allow a wide variety of things to happen. Some of those machines will be set in such a way that the maximum stake, and the maximum prize, is unlimited. We understand from the Minister that experience worldwide suggests that operators are likely to set about 10 per cent. of their machines to take an unlimited stake and give an unlimited prize, although he was not prepared to cap the proportion, as some of us hoped that he would. In paragraph 2.18 of the regulatory impact assessment, the Government make it clear that they are concerned about the potential harm of the proliferation of high-prize, high-stake machines and wish to keep the matter under review. As we understand the current circumstances, when the Minister eventually proposes his amendments to clause 7, the proliferation of category A machines will be limited by restricting the number of regional casinos—the only casinos that can have category A machines—to eight. The Minister said that that would allow them the opportunity to carry out research into the effects of the introduction of category A machines, especially in relation to their effect on problem gambling. However, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire rightly pointed out that that will lead to a furtherance of the unlimited playing field between the new regional casinos and the existing 134 UK casinos. The Minister could have said that, if there is to be a trial of the effects of category A machines, especially in relation to problem gambling, a better set of circumstances in which a trial could take place would be having a limited number of category A machines in a wider range of settings—in other words, allowing a small number of category A machines in small and large casinos, which, as the Minister said, will be limited in some way. Mr. Page: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Foster: In a moment. Surely, by so doing, it would give a much better opportunity to provide a more level playing field and better circumstances in which the research could take place. I remind the Minister and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that I did a calculation last week Column Number: 419 based on the hon. Gentleman's figures that showed that if, for example, small and large casinos had a limit of 20 per cent. of their machines as category A machines, the existing 134 casinos would have a grand total of only 824 category A machines, which would be far less than the 1,250 category A machines that any one of the new regional casinos could have. I do not believe that that would add significantly to the number of category A machines in circulation, and it would enable us to have a more level playing field and a better set of circumstances for trials.We had a discussion about certain aspects of category B machines, particularly the FOBT machines, and I shall wait for the Minister's response to check what the circumstances might be in that regard. I want to conclude by making a few points in relation to category D machines. Mr. Page rose—
Mr. Foster: I do apologise. I promised to give way to the hon. Gentleman earlier. It was discourteous of me not to do so. Mr. Page: We all have senior moments; I am happy with that. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not being present for his opening remarks. I came in when he was talking about trials in certain large and small casinos. That sounds marvellous in theory, but would that not create an imbalance with other large casinos that were not part of the trial? Would the clientele not be tempted to go to the casinos that had the category A machines as opposed to those that did not? I am with the hon. Gentleman in his spirit of experimentation but I am not sure whether that is fair to the whole industry. Mr. Foster: I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but at the point of my speech when he entered he did not quite engage himself. I did not suggest that only some of the small and large casinos would have the opportunity for 20 per cent. of their machines to be category A. I suggested that all of them should have that opportunity. Whether they choose to take it up is a matter for them. If all took up the option—if my calculations are correct—there would be a total of 824 category A machines. To move on to the subject of category D machines, I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. I am not convinced by any of the arguments that I have heard advanced by the Government—although detail in those arguments has been scarce—to justify the reduction of, for example, an £8 cuddly teddy bear to a £5 one. There are no benefits for anyone in doing that. There is no research evidence that suggests that doing so would reduce the proliferation of problem gambling among young people and children. I am sure that the Minister, having heard our concerns, will have done a bit more homework by now and will have some information for us.
Column Number: 420 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire raised an issue that we have debated at length, but it is important to put it on record. There is a sword of Damocles, as I describe it, existing in clause 157 whereby the Secretary of State will have reserve powers to make it illegal for parents to enable their children to use category D machines. Apparently, it is a backstop power that might be necessary in the event that research demonstrates what we know is not the case at the moment, based on the rather limited evidence to date—the significant problem that the Minister suggests might arise as a result of later research does not exist.That sword of Damocles is of great concern to those people who own and run family entertainment centres. I find it totally bizarre that the Secretary of State will have backstop powers in relation to category D machines in those circumstances, but will not adopt similar reserve powers in relation to category A machines. I find that difficult. In the event that the Government find that there is no research evidence to suggest that category A machines lead to increases in problem gambling, will the Minister explain the arrangements whereby the Government will consider making it possible for small and large casinos to have them? Therefore, there is concern about the sword of Damocles and about the changes in prizes. There are also concerns about when the Government are likely to have a change of heart on prizes, categories, speed of machine operation and so on. An issue that we have touched on is the absence in the Bill, on the surface at least, of a triennial review, something that has proven helpful in the past. Mr. Prisk: The hon. Gentleman is making some pertinent points. Does he share the view that, while the continuing uncertainty about the nature and scope of the regulations is frustrating for us as a Committee, the uncertainty is more acute for the businesses that will be affected? Does he share my concern that that is often overlooked by Government, both at a ministerial level and in the civil service? Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is 100 per cent. right. Those concerns have been expressed to me by a large number of people, both those I have spoken to face-to-face and those who have contacted me by other means. He will, no doubt, be aware that there are 44,500 category D machines in 30,000 unlicensed premises, all of which look likely to lose part of their source of income. However, there is uncertainty about whether they will do so. To pick up that point, as I was going to come on to it, it worries me enormously that the Government are, based on no convincing evidence that I have come across, proposing to take away from fish and chip shops, taxi cab offices, cafes and so on the opportunity to have category D machines. That will have a significant impact on some businesses. It was suggested earlier that up to 30 per cent. of profits might be lost by some organisations. Some research that I did on fish and chip shops suggests that that figure is not totally out of order. My own figures Column Number: 421 suggest that up to 25 per cent. of profits might be lost; that is the same order of magnitude. That in turn is backed up by the Henley Centre report, which the Government generously make reference to in the explanatory notes, which suggests that up to 600 businesses may close as a result. The hon. Gentleman talks about uncertainty and the impact that it has on business. Even the Government, in their explanatory notes, make clear that there is cause for real concern.That concern is about what is proposed in the Bill. It does not include the concern about the other powers that the Secretary of State will have, not least those in clause 157, which include the reserve powers. Therefore, there are many concerns about category D machines, many of which have been picked up before. Perhaps the most important thing is to have some stronger suggestion from the Minister about what the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire called the time scale for a review of the decisions that are being taken. I remind the Minister of the exchange that he and I had when we were talking about the triennial review. The Minister will recall that I proposed an amendment to reinstate the triennial review, which mirrored an amendment that the hon. Gentleman moved during that deliberation. The Minister said:
I intervened to say:
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 7 December 2004 |
