|
Mr. Hawkins: It would be useful to put on the record the fact that my hon. Friend is, I think, referring to the Amusement Trade Exhibition International that the British Amusement Catering Trades Association organised at Earls Court.
Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend is assiduous about such matters. That was the exhibition that I visited. I am sure that he was also there but, sadly, we did not meet. He was also right to tell me that there will be eight and not 12 regional casinos, but that is still too many.
To return to my original point, the issue is the bureaucratic measures that the Government are seeking to introduce for pubs that want to have more than two gaming machines. Under the present benign regime for gaming in the United Kingdom, which offers plenty of opportunities and creates few problems in relation to those opportunities, the average number of gaming machines in pubs is just over one, although more are allowed. That means that many pubs throughout the country do not want machines, would not think of having them and would find that their clientele—I would be one—did not want to go into them if a wretched machine was dinging in the corner all the time. However, other pubs find them a useful way of maintaining reasonable profitability.
The market has already decided that only a certain number of pubs would find gaming machines attractive and that many others would not go near them with a bargepole. Given that the market has already established that loudly and clearly for the Minister, why can he not see for once that the way forward is not to create enormous bureaucracy and a paper chase to restrict pubs to two machines? If a pub is changing and wants more slot machines, or a new pub is being introduced, there could be a simple rule that it could have up to four, because few would take up that offer. Those that did would almost certainly be allowed to have them anyway under the Government's procedures for bureaucratising the process. It is a demand-driven issue. We have already established that, on average, only one gaming machine exists in pubs. Why not let those pubs that attract a clientele who enjoy gaming machines have their four machines without creating such bureaucracy? The country pubs that do not want machines should not have to have them. From a historical perspective, the market has been shown to work.
3 pm
I hope that the Minister takes up the offer on the new clauses from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. More discussions with representatives of the pub industry would be valuable. A much more reasonable compromise could be achieved, which would be good for everybody. It would be good for local council tax payers if we could cut the paper chase. It would be good for pubs to reduce bureaucracy—the average pub manager runs the gauntlet of bureaucracy every time he opens the
Column Number: 575
door to his customers. It would also be good for the UK if government in general stopped wrapping people up in red tape. It is a significant and potent charge against this Government that everything they seek to do, they seek to do by regulation, and by overly bureaucratic regulation.
The measures under discussion are the perfect example of bureaucracy gone mad. I hope that the Minister has listened to the arguments from Opposition Members and to what the broad brush of Opposition want to do with the new clauses, despite our differences with the Liberal Democrats over details. I hope that he will think again on Report.
The Chairman: May I make it absolutely clear in response to what has just been said that only one amendment, No. 369, has been moved? There are a number of amendments in the group. In accordance with normal practice Government amendment No. 360 is not selected—amendments to delete clauses are not selected, as I told the Committee earlier. I will put the question at the appropriate stage, when the clauses stand part of the Bill, and Members can vote against the amendments if they do not want them to be accepted.
Later, we will reach the Government amendments and new clauses in the group. They are being debated but they have not been moved. The Minister can say, if he wishes, what he intends to do at that stage, but those amendments have not and will not be moved during this debate. I hope that that clarifies the position for all members of the Committee.
The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): I have great sympathy with the concerns of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) about the proliferation of machines. She argued from a very good standpoint. Some of her arguments do not fit the conclusion, but we will leave that. It amazes me that here we are debating a permit, which probably includes a little bit of bureaucracy, but the amount of bureaucracy that will be removed has not been considered. I have referred to the Licensing Act 2003 on several occasions. In that legislation, we are condensing six licensing regimes into one. By any standards, that will save hundreds of millions of pounds over time, and that saving will, I hope, be reflected in efficiency and prices as well.
The Gaming Act 1968, again by any standards, is bureaucratic and draconian, but even if one wants only to change the amount of money put into a slot machine or the amount paid out as a prize, we in Parliament have to do so by statutory instrument. The aim in 1968 was to drive crime out of gambling, and as a result, one of the most draconian Acts ever—which included the casino licence, the most difficult licence to obtain—was put on the statute book. The authorities go back about four generations to ensure that there are no criminals in one's family, so it is a bit difficult to get a licence these days. Yet we are arguing about issuing a permit because it will supposedly bring down the industry. Quite honestly, I have never heard such
Column Number: 576
claptrap in my life. Hon. Members should stand back and look at what we are trying to achieve. We are removing bureaucracy; we are streamlining the system, which the industry has broadly welcomed; and we are modernising in a way that many people did not believe possible.
Miss Kirkbride: The Minister is being careful about what he chooses to draw the Committee's attention to. Even if I were to accept the Government's argument—I will in part, for the sake of this debate—the fact is that more bureaucracy could be removed and that would not be a bad thing to do. Therefore, if the Minister says that he is getting rid of some of it, that does not mean that he should not try a little harder to get rid of the other bits to which we object. If he were really being honest—I shall not press the indulgence of the Chair too much on this point—he would admit that the Government have introduced many other measures that the pub industry is upset about. The licensing of gambling is just one small part of the bureaucracy that has been the hallmark of this Labour Government.
Mr. Caborn: I shall not go down that avenue. I should be delighted to discuss the leisure and hospitality industry, and what the Government have done to try to streamline it, modernise its skill base and bring it into the modern electronic age. There are many parts to the hospitality industry, and this sector is one of them. If one were to link it with tourism, the figures would speak for themselves. It is clear that the measure is about removing bureaucracy, and streamlining the sector and making it fit for the 21st century.
Miss Kirkbride: I wonder whether the Minister would let us know when he last had a conversation with Mr. Bob Cotton, who represents the leisure industry. I do not believe that he would tell the same story.
Mr. Caborn: I probably speak to Bob Cotton every week.
Bob Russell: At the Sheffield trades and labour club.
Mr. Caborn: Not at the Sheffield trades and labour club but in London. I work closely with Bob Cotton on the hospitality and tourism industry, and he is on the committee that I just set up for the implementation group on tourism. I speak with him on many occasions. Just to digress—
The Chairman: Order. Please return to the amendments.
Mr. Caborn: I just want to put it on the record that Bob Cotton's job on the hospitality for the Olympics was absolutely superb—first class. It is very good working with him. I shall now try to answer some of the specific questions that have been asked.
I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire about the licensing authority's judgment when considering removing the exemption to allow gaming machines. However, I genuinely believe that it is right that an authority's use of judgment is not restricted. New
Column Number: 577
clause 18 goes further than clause 268 in setting out the steps that an authority must take when considering making an order to remove entitlements to gaming machines. It states that the authority must notify the licence holder of its intention to make such an order. It also states that the authority shall consider representations made by the licensee and hold a hearing if one is requested. If an authority decides to proceed with an order, it must inform the licensee in writing of its reasons for doing so. There is also a full right of appeal in the magistrates court against the making of an order. We believe that it is right to establish such checks and balances.
On application for a grandfather permit, the licence holder will have to apply for a permit and pay a fee. The permit will be granted automatically. Just to give a feel for the figures—the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked for them—the present fee for a permit is £32, and I would expect the new figure to be about that.
The hon. Gentleman asked why no conditions would be attached to the permit. The application will confirm the appropriateness of the applicant. The permit itself is clearly defined and needs no conditions.
The annual fee pays for enforcement and for inspections to ensure that there is not an excessive number of machines and that they are of the right category. Budd raised the problem of taxi offices and, to some extent, fish and chip shops and so on. The authorities had real difficulties policing such places. The problem had got out of hand, particularly in the capital, where some establishments were not even using what we now call category D or even category C machines. Some of the harder gambling machines were being found in some areas. The reason was that those areas were not properly policed, and we take responsibility for that.
People are concerned about this type of framework, as demonstrated by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, who is raising the issues. If we establish the structure, it must be properly licensed and policed. If it is not, the whole thing will fall into disrepute. To some extent, that is what happened before. It is something that we had to start pulling back on. People were putting all sorts of machines into taxi offices and they were never policed.
| 
