| Gambling Bill
|
|
The Chairman: Order. If the Minister seeks to do that, he will have to persuade the Chair that it is in order because I cannot find any reference to it in the clause. Mr. Foster: I had sat down, Mr. Gale, but lest I am somehow tempting the Minister to speak words that might cause you to be upset with him, I suggest that the clause sets out the details of the various categories of gaming and gambling machines that are to be allowed in this country and that the triennial review provides the opportunity to make changes to that. The triennial review or some sort of review process is a crucial part of the clause. If within a short time the Government acknowledge, based on research, that they have got things wrong, we need assurances that they have the powers to put that right. More important, we need assurances that they have the powers to have research carried out to show that they have got things wrong. Column Number: 422 The Chairman: Happily, I suspect that Mr. Pike will have to make that decision.
11.15 amMr. Prisk: This is an important issue. It appears narrow, but it is not in so many ways. The excellent exposition from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire highlighted a number of questions. I want to concentrate on two aspects. The first is the purpose of the regulations in the clause, particularly with regard to the scope and nature of category A and B machines. I turn to the regulatory impact assessment, with which the Government have provided us, to understand their objectives for the regulation of gambling. They tell us—I will quote briefly from the RIA—that their objectives for regulating gambling are clear. Their first objective is to
I am at a loss to understand exactly how these regulations and the clause fit the Government's overarching objectives in terms of regulation. I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will tell us which of those three objectives the regulations are meant to fulfil. I now come to the pivotal question, which I have alluded to in a number of interventions on my colleagues and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). This is an important issue. The key word that was used several times by hon. Members is ''uncertainty''. It is easy for us to look at these issues as simply words on a piece of paper, but they are not. They will directly affect the livelihoods of millions of people. I am particularly concerned about owner-managers—people for whom this is not simply a job, but probably their livelihood and in many cases their pension. It is not just about whether they have employment. It is about the future of their livelihood and family. Therefore, I take the issue seriously. I raise that point because it appears, from the deliberations this morning and from talking to those involved with enterprises in my constituency, including a number of fish and chip shops and a number of other small enterprises, that those people really do not know where they stand and what future there is for their livelihood. Column Number: 423 Mr. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman share my considerable surprise that, responding to a parliamentary question of mine on 7 September, the Minister told me that at that time neither he nor his Department had had any consultation with the bodies that represent the owners of premises such as fish and chip shops and cab offices? Is the hon. Gentleman not surprised that, considering the huge impact the legislation might have on such organisations, there has been no consultation? Mr. Prisk: If I did not know this Government better, I would be surprised, but, as I am one of the officers of the all-party group on small business, which, I am happy to say, is the largest all-party group, dealing with a matter of concern to all Members, I know that all too often consultations ignore important groups and sectors, particularly the smallest and most vulnerable of our businesses. This legislation has had a large gestation period. The Minister is proud of the range and scope of the consultation, although as the hon. Member for Bath has highlighted, there have been significant flaws and absences from it. I detect a peculiar position. The Committee is considering amendments based on negotiations taking place simultaneously to our deliberations. The problem with that is twofold. First, it limits the House's ability to scrutinise effectively and thoroughly, because matters are changing almost as we discuss them. That has been illustrated by the six-page new schedule, which landed on us with less than 24 hours of parliamentary time in which to consider it. Secondly, it highlights the concerns among many businesses that policies are being dreamt up by the Government as they go along. I am concerned because we are dealing with real people. We have heard the Government's own estimate that 600 businesses are potentially at risk. I suspect that there will be more. I fully accept that I do not have any evidence for that, but in talks with many of my local enterprises, it has become clear that they genuinely do not see their way out of the process. The way in which this legislation has been brought about has been poor. We have seen it in other instances. I will not detain the Committee by Column Number: 424 highlighting them, as you, Mr. Gale, will quite rightly say to me that it would be inappropriate to do so. However, the way in which the Government are determined to muddle through, rather than establish the facts, create clear policies and introduce them with the full support of those affected, is not unfamiliar to us.Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how a proliferation of gaming machines in unregulated establishments on high streets throughout the country is consistent with his concerns about large numbers of category A machines? Mr. Prisk: The hon. Gentleman will realise that that was not what I was saying. I was talking of my concern about the impact on small businesses. The concept of proliferation is rather rich coming from the Government Benches. There has been no consistency from the Government. Without wishing to stretch the patience of the Committee any further, I will conclude by saying that the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire were right. Ann McKechin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Prisk: Not at the moment. We need to see a time scale established. It is important. If the hon. Lady wishes to contribute, she is welcome to do so after I have concluded, but I do not wish to stretch your patience any further, Mr. Gale. The Minister should in his reply ensure that a time scale is set out, so that those owner-manager businesses in my constituency and elsewhere are able to plan their businesses and have a sensible future. Ann McKechin: I have listened very carefully to the Opposition, and their argument that category A machines should be tested— It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
|
| |
| Prepared 7 December 2004 | |
