| Gambling Bill
|
|
Mr. Caborn: The answer to that is yes. It can make any recommendation it wants to the Secretary of State, and if he or she believes that the recommendation should be put to the House, that can be done by statutory instrument. However, the final decision rests with the House. Mr. Prisk: I am not clear whether the Minister has finished. Mr. Caborn: I thought the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) wanted to reply. I shall return to my point about category D machines and clause 56. The reason we have adopted the powers under clause 56 relates to the age of children playing. Maximum prizes have been reduced from £8 to £5 because machines with non-monetary prizes encourage people to play again. We have Column Number: 438 reduced the temptation to play, and that was generally accepted across the piece. With non-redeemable and non-monetary prizes, the maximum stake can be 30p.On BACTA, when I previously had responsibility for gambling, the number of concessions we made in trying to ensure the viability of seaside arcades in relation to what we got from Budd and the White Paper, ''A Safe Bet for Success'', was considerable. One concession we made was on 30p for non-monetary prizes. We had extensive discussions with BACTA. If, at the end of the day, BACTA's only problem and greatest objection is over a £5 teddy bear and an £8 teddy bear, quite honestly, I do not believe that that will bring down family arcades. Mr. Prisk: The Minister seems to say that the matter is of no great concern. However, may I ask for his response to the point made by my constituent, Mrs. Elliott, who runs Lakeside Superbowl? It employs 25 people, and the machines are crucial, because they represent 20 per cent. of her revenue. We wrote to the Minister on 28 October and have yet to receive a reply. Nevertheless, I ask him to respond to that point positively and to realise that it means people's livelihoods. That lady employs real people. In this case, they are not at the seaside, but they are still important jobs in small businesses that are struggling with the regulations he is proposing. Mr. Caborn: When I had that portfolio, we had extensive discussions. Those particular machines may represent about 20 per cent. of revenue, but moving from £8 to £5 does not mean that that part of the marketplace will disappear. That is not the case as far as I understand it. We accept that an £8 teddy bear is desirable, but we conceded 30p—from 10p to 30p—for non-monetary prizes in part of those discussions. Bob Russell: I ask the Minister not to change any minds today, because he is clearly in his stubborn mood, but to reflect on category D machines and cuddly toys as well as the £5 payout. Does not he accept that, although the headlines will be about super-casinos, the reality in many communities will be the loss of the fish and chip shop caused by the loss of an important part of the turnover and profit of that enterprise? Furthermore, perhaps the Minister can tell us when the value of the cuddly toy was fixed at £8, and will he also explain who will determine the value of the £5 cuddly toy? Is it the retail value, the manufactured price, the discounted wholesale price or the unit price per item as purchased by the person running the amusement arcade? I can think of at least four definitions of how to reach £5, and I am sure that the industry will find others. Mr. Caborn: The industry may. Clause 322 defines the value, so if the hon. Gentleman would like to wait until then, we can have another debate about teddy bears. Anybody would think that the greatest thing on this Bill was £5 to £8 teddy bears and that the whole viability of seaside resorts rested on teddy bears at £8. Column Number: 439 Mr. Foster: Given that the Minister has a detailed knowledge of the Bill, as judged by his answer, will he tell us where in clause 322 that definition is explained? My reading of the clause is that the definition will be by regulation. Do we have a copy of the draft regulation in order to answer my hon. Friend's question? Mr. Caborn: When I come to clause 322, I will answer those questions. That would be the most appropriate time to answer them, unless I get an answer quickly now. The answer is in a regulation because it is so complex, but that is the answer I will give when we get to clause 322. When we get there, I will explain how we will deal with the value of £8 and £5 teddy bears. We will enshrine it in regulation, and it will be laid clearly before the world. I do not know about the hon. Member for Surrey Heath not being told about some of the information he needed for the debate, but The Guardian reported this morning, ''Tories raise stakes over bingo.'' We were informed that their ex-colleague asked them to table some amendments this morning. That is the headline in that paper. At least we had some knowledge, but not to worry because the report quotes the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) explaining that the amendments were only ''probing amendments'' from the Tories. Question put and agreed to. Clause 220 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
3.15 pmMr. Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Pike, given that I suspect that you will include clause 226 in the list of clauses that you seek to put together, I ask you to reflect on the request that has already been made that before we move on to that clause copies of the document referred to by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath should be made available to all members of the Committee. I certainly wish to raise a number of points on that clause. The Chairman: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I will leave clause 226 at the moment. If anyone shouts out when I mention any of the clauses, I will take that clause separately. I will put clauses 221, 222, 223, 224 and 225 together. The question is that those clauses stand part of the Bill. Mr. Prisk: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. We would like to raise some questions. The Chairman: On which clauses? Mr. Prisk: In my case, as I indicated, clauses 221, 222 and 223. The Chairman: I will take them separately and then anyone who wants to make a point can do so. I am sorry; I misunderstood. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was nodding in agreement to taking the clauses en bloc. It was my misunderstanding.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 7 December 2004 |
