| Gambling Bill
|
|
Mr. Caborn: They would not like that. Mr. Page: The Minister may say that. I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government intend to deal with the matter. Will there be one statutory instrument, 50, or one per clause? How is it going to happen? Mr. Caborn: I am very disappointed by that contribution because the hon. Gentleman has missed the whole point of the Bill. If one wants to fix things in the Bill and have primary legislation like the 1968 Act, that is an option. However, I do not believe that it would go down very well with the industry, which has been asking for flexibility and a structure that can respond to innovation on one hand, and protection of the public on the other. If one wants to put everything to the House, which one can do—and the 1968 Act is a classic example of that—so be it. The hon. Gentleman has just argued forcefully for returning to the situation under the 1968 Act. If we want flexibility, we have to delegate to the gambling commission, in the first instance. To ensure that that regulator has some responsibility to Parliament, we must ensure that its recommendations are considered by the Secretary of State. That is what the Bill is for. The alternative is to return to the situation under the 1968 Act and put everything in the power of the Secretary of State, without any regulation or flexibility. Every time there was change in the industry, the legislation would have to come back to the House. We would be bypassed by the development of the electronic age in which we live; this place does not move at the speed of the electronic age. We would finish up with an industry that would move backwards. The Bill is intended to allow the industry to compete in this country and internationally. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tie the industry down, so be it. He can go back to the model of the 1968 Act, the case for which has been prosecuted in his contributions. Mr. Page: I thank the Minister, but he has not understood a single word I said. I am not asking for everything to be placed rigidly in the Bill. The use of regulation has become excessive, and it is all Secretary of State, Secretary of State, Secretary of State. The Minister may trust the Secretary of State now and for ever, but I am slightly sceptical. If the Bill included the words ''with reference to the commission'', ''following advice from the commission'' or ''with agreement by the commission'', that would be fine, but it does not. Other clauses do have such wording; I shall give an example. I genuinely pulled one out at random. I am sure that there are much better examples. Clause 115 states: Column Number: 450
4 pmMr. Caborn: I shall not prolong this exchange. I can only say that that was not the reflection of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman sat for a number of weeks. That Committee said that the legislation was good and that it wanted to reflect on it. We probably accepted 95 or 96 per cent. of its 100-odd recommendations. After that, people were saying that it was a good piece of legislation, and we have taken it forward. Some 90 per cent. of the Bill was still there, although we had to address the argument on casinos. There is a bit of a contradiction between what the hon. Gentleman says now and what was said during the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee's discussions. We published a delegated powers memorandum in February 2004 that explained the intention on delegated powers. We will publish a new delegated powers memorandum as soon as possible, but at least we produced the broad policy, which I think the hon. Gentleman was asking for. Mr. Moss: I wish to follow the theme of this debate. The Minister says that there has been proper consultation, mentions the scrutiny Committee and says that this flexible Bill allows the Secretary of State, the gambling commission or whoever to bring forward guidelines. If that is wholly true, why is it that no matter whom we talk to in the industry—the Bingo Association was mentioned in The Guardian but, as one would expect, we have also been talking to the ABB, the Casino Association, uncle Tom Cobleigh and all—none of them seems happy? If the Bill is so wonderful, why is there such disquiet? My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire put his finger on the reason: there is so much uncertainty. We accept that in large measure it is an enabling Bill and that it has to be flexible to keep pace with the rapid change of the industry. However, at the same time, assurances need to be given—otherwise everybody will be left hanging in the air. That is the point that my hon. Friend was making. Mr. Caborn: I shall give what I hope will be the definitive word on the issue. The duty to advise the Secretary of State is clearly laid down in clause 25. Clause 25(2)(b) states that such advice should be given
Column Number: 451 part of life and one has to make a judgment on it. I say very clearly that the Bill has been broadly accepted by the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. We broadly accepted that Committee's advice on the parts that it did not accept. Many said that it was a good piece of legislation and, although we are now into detailed scrutiny of the Bill, I do not believe that that has changed.Clause 224 allows regulations to be made to control any and every aspect of how gaming machines will operate. That ranges from how players pay for the use of the machine to displaying information on and around the machine. We want to give flexibility to regulations so that the detailed aspects of machine use can be controlled. That is a key part of the protection in the Bill. For example, if it helped to prevent problem gambling, the regulations could require warnings to be displayed on screens and compulsory breaks in play; the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford asked what would be displayed. Moreover, the regulations could control how smartcards and similar devices for electronically storing money could be used. The old method of inserting coins into a machine to make it work has long been overtaken by modern technology. Players could also be protected against unfair games; some machines will be required to operate truly randomly. Alternatively, we could set minimum returns for players: set a minimum proportion of the stake paid into the machine that must be returned as prizes, as is now required by the Gaming Board. We will look to the gambling commission to advise the Government on the details of what controls are best to achieve the licensing objectives. I expect that the commission, in advising Ministers, will draw on the experience of other jurisdictions, expert research, evidence and, as it develops, experience in this country. Mr. Prisk: I hesitate to stop the Minister in mid-flow, but I wonder whether he could allude to subsection 2(e), ''the display of information''. What kind of information do the Government intend to include? Mr. Caborn: We intend to include, for example, stickers saying that no under-18s can play a certain machine, or literature about breaks in play. All sorts of information can be displayed, which will achieve the objectives that underpin the Bill and to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Information will advise players of dangers of not doing certain things and of what machines are legal for under-18s to play. As I explained in earlier sittings, the regulations are at the top of the tree in terms of machine regulation. Neither the standards set by the commission on manufacture nor licence conditions can undermine those central regulations. As always, they provide us with the flexibility needed to regulate the industry. Mr. Hawkins: Unless I failed to spot it in what the Minister rapidly read out, I do not think that he answered my point about seeking a draft of the regulations. Reflecting on what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire said, I suspect Column Number: 452 that on Report hon. Members will want to reconsider clause 25 and whether the gambling commission or the Secretary of State should take the lead.Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman asked me to give a broad outline of the regulations. I have said that in February 2005 we will publish the delegated powers memorandum explaining our intentions. I am giving a commitment that we want to publish a new delegated powers memorandum as soon as possible. That will be to guide hon. Members on what we are doing on delegation. I cannot give any promises on individual regulations at this stage, but we will give guidance, as we already have done. Mr. Moss: The Minister has not answered my point about randomness and gaming machines. The Budd report stated that gaming machines should be random, and there is an acceptance that most machines in casinos should be random. Does he feel that that should be included in the Bill, or does he think it is already included, as I suppose it is, in the catch-all paragraph (f), which refers to
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. Paragraph (f) allows us to require a machine to be random. The Government's position is that category A machines should be random and others need not be. Question put and agreed to. Clause 224 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 7 December 2004 |
