|
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) (Con): I support what has been said by all hon. Members who have spoken and, of course, in particular what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.
On the subject of the need for decisions on places that serve food to be made in the legislation as it approaches its final form, the Government need to take seriously one other issue: the supply of machines by unauthorised, rogue operators. The Minister and those who advise him may well be aware that that issue has been raised by a number of legitimate operators in the most recent edition of the British Amusement Catering Trades Association magazine, Coin Slot International, to which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has referred.
Mr. Foster: A great magazine.
Mr. Hawkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a great magazine.
I have worked with BACTA on a voluntary basis for many years and I always take seriously what is said by the legitimate part of the business of supplying amusement machines, particularly when it points out that there are difficulties with rogue operators. In addition to the points raised by the British Beer and Pub Association, by other people and by hon.
Column Number: 537
Members this morning, I want the Minister to address briefly the care with which the Bill will deal with rogue suppliers, particularly in the pub trade.
There is a letter in the latest edition of Coin Slot International about amusement-with-prizes machines. It says that many legitimate operators have been forced to remove their machines because they cannot compete with rogue operators. The letter writer, Mr. Berg from Vendomat, talks about rogue operators who do not pay customs and excise duty, income tax, VAT or trading standards and Gaming Board licence fees. It is clear that there is a thriving trade in the improper supply of machines, and there is a worry among BACTA members that responsible traders will be driven out of business. There is a legitimate concern about pubs and hotels and even taxi firms, fish and chip shops, kebab shops and other places that serve food. I hope that the Government are considering the matter and that the Minister will be able to touch on it.
9.45 am
Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): I, too, endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. I wish to emphasise one small point, and I hope that the Minister will accept our arguments.
Pubs are commercial operations. If they do not make a profit, the game is over. I am concerned that pub operators who want gaming machines will install them to the detriment of the positive, family-friendly atmosphere that has been built up through various changes over the years. Allowing gaming machines only in public houses that are primarily for the consumption of alcohol may drive us back to the enclosed drinking parlours of the past. I certainly would not want that. The family atmosphere that has been created over the years is a positive step forward and should be encouraged.
On the amendments of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), I am with him all the way. If he wants to put them to a vote, I shall support him, and I would like him to know that before he makes any decisions.
Mr. Caborn: The point about the use of the word ''primarily'' has obviously excited the mob, and that is right.
We included the test of primary use to rule out the proliferation of gaming machines in every licensed restaurant. I believe that everyone agrees with the need to do that. As matters stand, however, people could probably drive a horse and cart through the provision, if they so wished, and I accept that we may have gone a little too far and created problems for premises that are more on the pub or bar side of the line, even though they may do more business selling products other than alcohol. We are trying to get the balance right, and we do take on board the considerable number of comments that have been made, including those from the trade itself.
Column Number: 538
Amendment No. 368 is on the right lines, but I cannot advise the Committee to accept it. It reflects useful discussions that the Department has been having with the pub trade, but it needs further consideration to ensure that we have a clear and practicable test. I can assure the Committee that the Government intend to table further amendments to enable gastro-pubs and family-friendly establishments, including hotel bars, to continue to offer category C gaming machines.
I will not be defending clause 263 as it is drafted; the Government will table amendments to reflect the view of the Committee.
Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): I may have momentarily misheard the Minister, but I think that he referred to gastro-pubs. It is early in the morning, so this may be an indelicate subject, but will he clarify what he means by ''gastro-pubs''?
Mr. Caborn: I go to a gastro-pub with my grandchildren. About 10 or 15 years ago, we would probably never have taken young children into a pub. My family can now go into Derbyshire—my wife is teetotal, by the way—and take my two grandchildren into a nice pub, which is what I would call a gastro-pub.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Oh, I see!
Mr. Caborn: I know that people in Colchester have a little difficulty in grasping such northern terms. The term refers to the cuisine that is available in what the hon. Gentleman would have traditionally called a pub. They are now called gastro-pubs—that is a saying from Yorkshire. I would describe the menus that are provided in gastro-pubs, but that would be taking matters a little too far.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and I were discussing whether we heard the Minister correctly, and the Committee is grateful for confirmation that we did. However, he was asked to define a gastro-pub, and has done it solely by reference to the institution that he visits—very admirably—with his grandchildren and his wife. If that is to be the model definition for all time, perhaps he would be good enough to give us a few more details about that establishment.
Mr. Caborn: As I said—
Mr. Illsley: This is an interesting debate. I refer the Minister to an article that appeared in The Guardian Review magazine a few months ago, which was devoted entirely to gastro-pubs throughout the country. It gave examples from my region, from London and elsewhere. The best definition of ''gastro-pub'' that I can provide is a pub that provides food of such quality that people will attend merely for the quality of the cuisine, rather than because it is a place where they can drink alcohol. Examples from my neck of the woods would be The Kaye Arms and The Three Acres, both of which featured earlier on.
Column Number: 539
The Chairman: Order. Before we ramble around the hostelries of northern England and their menus, it might be helpful if I were to make it plain that although I am quite prepared to permit such a fascinating discussion, I shall not be minded to permit a stand part debate.
Mr. Caborn: With that advice, and a dark look from the Whips, I shall get back to the script.
Amendment No. 349 would return to the clause to the form that it took when the draft Bill was published and would mean that any premises licensed for supplying alcohol for immediate consumption would be entitled to install two category C gaming machines and to offer bingo with low stakes and low prizes. As a result of comments on the draft Bill we decided that it would not be satisfactory to leave the clause in that form because it would extend machine entitlements far beyond the pubs and bars which now have them. It would have meant, for example, that a restaurant with a licence to supply alcohol became entitled to install gaming machines. There is no justification for any such large increase in what the Budd report called ''ambient gambling''.
However, in introducing paragraph (b), which the amendment would remove, we somewhat overshot the mark. Our intention was to make sure that pubs, bars and certain other licensed premises, such as ten-pin bowling alleys, were able to keep their current entitlement to install gaming machines, but that restaurants and other licensed premises did not acquire new entitlements. We acknowledge, however, that the test in paragraph (b) has caused concern to the legitimate pub trade, because some premises which are indisputably pubs may no longer satisfy the primary purpose requirement in the paragraph.
We have, therefore, undertaken to consider amending the paragraph to address those concerns. It would not be right simply to delete it. It would not be consistent with the policy of taking category D machines out of takeaways, such as fish and chip shops, to confer new rights to install category C machines on restaurants which had a licence and also provided takeaways.
I hope that, in light of that explanation and those assurances, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will withdraw his amendment.
Amendments Nos. 388 and 389 have the same general purpose as the amendments already discussed, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central will also accept the assurances that I have offered to the Committee.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) spoke of the threat of illegal gaming machines. That threat has led us to grant the gambling commission robust powers of regulation, including the power to initiate prosecutions. Those are new powers, which show that we take the threat of illegal machines very seriously. On the question of grandfather rights, we will use the powers in schedule 15 to ensure that all premises that are authorised to provide gaming machines will be permitted to provide the same number of gaming machines under the new regime. If they want more, they will have to apply for them.
Column Number: 540
Mr. Foster: When the Minister says that premises will be entitled to have the same number of machines as before, is he referring to their entitlement—that is, two? If they already have four, will they be able to keep the four without having to apply for two more?
| 
