Mr.
Ellwood: I understand the Minister’s frustration at
being intervened on, but he must understand that we rarely get
opportunities to hold the Government to account on matters relating to
all forms of
gambling. If
I look at the website of the national lottery, I see that anyone over
the age of 16 can participate in any of the electronic internet bingo
games. If I look at any other official bingo site, I see that anyone
under the age of 18 is prevented from playing. Will the Minister use
this opportunity to explain why there is that difference?
Mr.
Sutcliffe: If we are not careful, we will be in danger of
straying on to the second order and the details about bingo. The hon.
Member for Bath raised the issue of similar games. The games on offer
in betting shops are obviously kept under review by the Gambling
Commission. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point but, as he
said, the national lottery and society lotteries keep an eye on the
situation, and if we feel that there are problem areas, we can do
something about them.
Hon. Members
have asked me to comment on problem gambling. We are concerned about
getting the context right. The whole basis of the Gambling Act 2005 was
to protect vulnerable people, and that was why we introduced the
voluntary levy, with which we are having difficulties. Perhaps I will
say more in the debate on the next order about contributions from
gambling companies and the amount of money needed to deal with problem
gambling. We have the Gambling Trust and GamCare, and I believe that we
cater well for the small minority who have a problem with
gambling.
My right hon.
Friend the Member for Croydon, North is right that when we take
decisions, we must keep things in context. As the hon. Member for Bath
said, although this may be seen as the soft end of gambling, there are
still those who do not believe that we should go as far as we do in the
measure. I hope that the Committee will support the order.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Gaming Machines in Bingo
Premises) Order
20084.48
pm
Mr.
Sutcliffe: I beg to move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Gaming
Machines in Bingo Premises) Order
2008. The
order increases the number of category B3 gaming machines that bingo
halls can offer to consumers. It is intended to help to address a
severe economic downturn in the bingo industry by increasing the number
of category B3 gaming machines that bingo halls can offer from four to
eight. Last June, I announced my intention to increase to eight the
number of category B3 machines that bingo halls are permitted to
operate. Those gaming machines have a maximum stake of £1 and a
maximum prize of £500. That was in response to a campaign by the
Bingo Association that attracted the support of a number of hon.
Members, and that widespread cross-party support was influential when I
made my decision. The order is intended to help the bingo industry,
which is facing difficult trading conditions. I recognise that the
current economic climate is a problem for the gambling industry as a
whole, but there is strong evidence to suggest that the situation in
the bingo industry is particularly acute.
A number of
special circumstances apply to bingo halls, and the industry’s
business model means that there is very high demand for such machines
during relatively short periods of the day, namely between sessions of
bingo play. Although gaming machine entitlements for casinos, betting
shops and adult gaming centres were increased by the 2005 Act, in
return for taking on enhanced social responsibilities, bingo halls
retain the same gaming machine entitlement that they had under the
Gaming Act 1968. Most important of all is the role of bingo halls in
local communities. They fulfil an important social function and provide
a softer gambling environment, and the gaming machines offered remain
ancillary to bingo.
There are
risks attached to increasing the number of the machines, not least with
regard to being seen to promote harder forms of gambling and problem
gambling in general. I hope that hon. Members realise that that is not
the case. These machines are already on bingo premises. The 2005 Act
put in place a comprehensive new system of regulation for gaming
machines that put consumer protection at its heart. Our No. 1 priority
is the protection of the public, and that is why I reject the view of
the Bingo Association that the number of B3 machines should be
increased to 16. That would have gone too far, but a modest increase to
eight would be consistent with the precautionary approach that the
Government should—and do—take to gambling
regulations.
I hope that
hon. Members will also bear in mind that all categories of gaming
machine must comply with strict regulations and technical standards to
ensure that vulnerable and problem gamblers are protected. Stringent
controls regarding entry by under-18s to areas in bingo halls offering
gaming machines are already in operation under the mandatory conditions
attached the premises licences.
A difficult
decision has been taken in the context of gambling. However, we think
that there are exceptional circumstances for bingo halls because of the
social activities that take place there. I hope that hon. Members will
accept the
order. 4.51
pm
Mr.
Ellwood: We have had the warm-up and now come to the main
focus of this debate on gambling. I thank the Minister for his opening
remarks. There is little there for me to agree with. However, the hon.
Member for Bath and I will cover the fact that our discussion informs
only one slice of what the gambling industry is up to or is allowed to
do. The measure is being taken in isolation, without looking at the
bigger picture of what is happening with gambling as a whole.
About 20
statutory instruments—a huge amount—have been made to the
2005 Act. About 15 of them came in before the Act was implemented.
Today’s SI allows category B3 machines in bingo halls to be
increased from four to eight. It is worth reminding ourselves of the
objectives of the 2005 Act. They are to prevent gambling from being a
source of crime and disorder, to ensure that gambling is conducted in a
fair and open way, and to protect children and vulnerable people from
being harmed or exploited. I shall come back to how the order fits in
with those points later.
The first
concern with the 2005 Act is that it has transformed the gambling
world. We are quibbling over the number of slot machines that can go
into bingo halls, but there is no debate whatsoever about the role of
FOBTs, where, instead of being able to put in 10p, 20p or 30p, one can
now put in £100 at a time. Where is the discussion about that?
How does it fit in with the movement of characters from one type of
gambling location—say bingo or the arcades—to another,
such as the bookies? Specifically, section 172 of the 2005 Act says
that four category B machines can be put in place, along with unlimited
numbers of category C and D machines. The Minister is therefore
misleading us when he says that this SI will increase the number of
slot machines in bingo halls because it is increasing only the number
of B3 machines.
It is also
misleading to take the matter in isolation. Will the Minister bring us
up to date on the number of consultations taking place on the various
forms of gambling currently available? Some of the information coming
out of the consultation is quite startling. There have been suggestions
that the amount one can put into category D machines will increase to
70p per machine. Is the Minister going to invent a 70p piece for that
purpose? The manufacturing industry will suffer unless it gets proper
guidance and is listened to. I do not understand how we can debate
moving from four to eight machines when the consultation is not yet
over.
The
Chairman: Order. I am trying to be flexible, but the
debate is not about consultation; it is about the instrument before us.
It is acceptable to bring in the wider Act, but I do not think we can
spend too long on
consultation.
Mr.
Ellwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr.
Caton. Perhaps I wandered because I have been denied the ability to
debate these issues in general in the House. I take your guidance and
will ensure that I stick to the statutory instrument that we are
debating.
As has been
pointed out, bingo is considered a soft form of gambling, which is very
popular in every constituency. For many people, it is their one night
out, their opportunity to meet friends, participate in an easy form of
gambling and bring the community together. The threats to bingo halls
from the recession, the smoking ban and other issues have put pressure
on them to make ends meet. That is why we had early-day motion
132—I think that the Minister referred to it, and it is
mentioned in the explanatory notes—and early-day motion 840,
which is specifically about arcades. Adult gaming centres is a horrible
name with a sleazy context, so I will call them arcades.
I do not
understand why we are debating the move from four to eight machines.
Early-day motion 132, which is about bingo, did not call for that.
Instead, it called for the removal of VAT. But we not debating that; we
are debating machines. The Bingo Association was not aware of the issue
and it did not come on to its horizon until we contacted it. We were
preparing a press statement in support of adult gaming
centres—arcades—saying that the number of B3 machines
should increase from four to eight and asked whether the association
would like its views to be included in the statement, as we thought it
appropriate. Initially it paused and said no, that it was focusing on
the VAT debate and was not so worried about the B3 machines. Yet here
we are, after a lot of consultation, talking about B3 machines, not VAT
at all.
The
explanatory notes provide more intelligence on Government thinking on
gambling than any other information or answer to parliamentary
questions that I have seen for a long time. Paragraph 7.8 states
that “the
situation facing the bingo industry was sufficiently grave...to
justify a smaller increase in the number of Category B3 gaming
machines”. Paragraph
7.10 states that
this “would
only apply to bingo halls which operated a strict over 18s entry
policy”. The
same paragraph then concedes that bingo licences already have stringent
controls regarding over-18s by virtue of
“the mandatory
conditions attached to premises
licenses.” The
Government want to bring in these machines because they are bigger,
harder forms of gambling. They are concerned that under-18s might use
them but are not aware that bingo hall licences already state that you
must be over 18 to get in. That suggests that the Government are not
aware of what is involved in putting together a licence or how things
work on the front line.
Paragraph 8.4
is interesting, as it admits that the bingo industry has not been
calling for B3 machines but for the removal of VAT. As I mentioned, the
increase in B3 machines was a Tory initiative which the bingo industry
picked up. The paragraph
says: “This
is a matter for Treasury but DCMS continues to put the case for this
reform.” I
am pleased to read that and will press the Minister on whether the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport would like to see the removal
of VAT in relation to gross profits tax for bingo halls. Is he working
to convince his Treasury of that, and is the only thing preventing it
the Treasury itself? I would be grateful if he put that on record as I
am surprised, although pleased, to see it.
The Minister
wants to increase the number of B3 machines, which will mean that bingo
halls gain more revenue. If that opens the eyes of the Treasury to the
possibility of increased revenue, will it say, “Ah ha, we can
increase the amusement machine licence duty because there are more B3
machines”? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no
change in the amusement machine licence duty, or are there plans to
increase it?
This is a case
of adult gaming centres—arcades—versus bingo halls. I
still do not understand why the Minister has not included arcades in
the order, when there has been a 21 per cent. decrease in takings
according to the British Amusement Catering Trade Association, and 186
closures since September 2007. Our arcade industry is changing. We are
talking about arcades on the seafront and in our town centres. They are
an important part of the spectrum in the tapestry of gambling. If we
remove arcades, as well as bingo halls, those wanting to gamble will
wander elsewhere. Where will they go? There is huge concern that they
are migrating to harder forms of gambling: the internet and the FOBTs
found in bookies that I mentioned. The big question is why arcades are
not
included. I
know, because I have had the same information, that the Minister has
been deluged with evidence and information from up and down the country
about arcades that are suffering since the implementation of the 2005
Act. They do not understand why they were hit so hard. The British
gambling prevalence survey 2007, which is the main yardstick used to
decide the prevalence of problem gambling, gives a summary of all forms
of gambling.
Mr.
Ellwood: I am being pre-empted. The FOBTs statistics are
well into the 14 per cent. range and those for bingo are down, at 3.1
per cent. We can see that bingo and arcades are not a huge part of
problem gambling, whereas the internet, particularly with the advent of
advertising on television and the growth of FOBTs, are a problem. I
have made it clear to the industry that a Conservative Government would
not legislate immediately, but we would go to the bookies and say,
“Please can you have a go at sorting this out yourselves and
bring the numbers down?”
Mr.
Sutcliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Ellwood: Let me finish this point. The first port of call
for any Government should not be legislation. Instead, they should ask
the industry to look at the figures. There are serious problems with
gambling, therefore the industry should try to rectify them itself
before the Government step in. Does the Minister still wish to
intervene? Perhaps he is happy with my reply and, no doubt, agrees
fully with what I am
saying.
Mr.
Sutcliffe: I will respond
later.
Mr.
Ellwood: The Minister is building himself up to a head of
stream, which is fantastic.
Will the
Minister please update the House on the various consultations? Again, I
am baffled about why they are not taken into consideration. Categories
C, B, B3, B3A, B4 and the split premises are all part of gambling and,
therefore, should be considered together. One cannot take something in
isolation and then expect to have an answer, without affecting
something else and then influencing the first
thing. The
Conservative party believes that there should be the right level of
regulation, regardless of the type of gambling. Gambling should be seen
as a form of entertainment in which one is likely to lose, rather than
a form of investment in which one might win. I have asked the Minister
a number of questions, and I hope that he will take advantage of this
rare opportunity to debate the issues because we need more clarity
about where gambling is going.
5.4
pm
| 
