Mr.
Foster: I am delighted to follow that amazing tour
d’horizon. I say gently to you, Mr. Caton, that I
thought we were opening up a can of worms when you said that it would
be in order to discuss the 2005 Act itself. I think that I am the only
Member present who served for many months on the Committee that
considered the Gambling Bill, which became that Act. I find it
fascinating that the issues that we are debating and the numerous
consultations to which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East referred
cover only a small bit of our deliberations in Committee. Were anyone
to do an historical analysis of those deliberations, they would see
that about a third of our time was spent discussing how internet
gambling based in this country would be regulated. That has been a
complete waste of time to date because nearly everyone has gone off
elsewhere as a result of different tax regimes.
As the hon.
Member for Bournemouth, East rightly said, more and more of these
websites are advertising in this country although they are regulated in
overseas jurisdictions. There are real concerns that there is not
enough security in place around them, yet we allow them to advertise.
Bingo halls bear a huge amount of taxation, they contribute financially
to this country and they make extra contributions to support research,
education and training in respect of problem gambling. The
overseas-based websites take large sums of money off people who live in
this country yet make no contribution either in taxation or in
supporting research, education and training. That is a ridiculous
situation which needs to be
addressed. The
second third of our deliberations in Committee was about casinos. There
has hardly been any increase in casinos and even the one super-casino
was dropped. Many of the 16 large and small new casinos are not being
built in the current climate. We are discussing that small bit of the
2005 Act that covers machines, casinos, adult gaming centres, family
entertainment centres and the like. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely
right: there are real problems in those areas. They are the soft end of
gambling and yet they have problems in terms of job losses, premises
closures and so on. We appear to be taking a long time to take some
simple, modest steps that would be of enormous benefit to
them. More
than 100 bingo clubs have closed since 2005. Some 67 clubs have closed
in the past 12 months. A large number of people have lost their jobs
and a large
number of people in our communities have lost a facility that was much
loved by many of them. Urgent action is desperately needed. That is why
I welcome the measure that the Minister has introduced, however
belatedly. As we heard from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East,
gambling problems are much more prevalent in other areas of gambling.
We are talking about the soft end and we should be doing rather more to
support that part of the
sector. Bingo
halls have faced difficulties for a variety of reasons, including the
current economic climate and the impact of the smoking ban. To be fair,
however, the Bingo Association supported the smoking ban and was aware
of its possible impact, but thought that it was the right thing to do
socially. I congratulate it on its stance, but the bingo industry has
been affected by the ban. It is also affected by double taxation. It is
the only part of the gambling industry that has to pay two lots of
taxes: it has to pay its gross profit tax of 15 per cent. and VAT at
17.5 per cent. That is unfair and ludicrous. The Minister could have
helped it far more by persuading the Treasury to deal with that issue
rather than proposing the measure before
us. The
smoking issue and the changing patterns of people who come to play
bingo have created a particular problem. Many people wanted to play the
machines during the interval, which simply was not possible because a
large number of machines have been taken out of the bingo halls
following the 2005 Act. Large numbers of people were queuing up to play
on just four machines during that short break in the game. Increasing
the number from four to eight will have a significant benefit. The
clubs will, of course, want more, but it will significantly help those
clubs to deal with that
problem. I
welcome the fact that the measure has been introduced, however
belatedly, but the Department must be quicker at dealing with such
problems. The Minister and I have a regular joke outside Committee
meetings, in which he says, “Soon”, “Very
soon”, “Almost immediately”, or “Perhaps a
little later.” We are constantly being told that something will
happen. I remind him that on 22 February he told me in a
similar Committee that he was fully aware of the urgency of the problem
faced by the Bingo Association’s members. It has taken nearly a
year to get to this stage of addressing only one small part of their
concerns.
As the hon.
Member for Bournemouth, East said, it is a pity to have missed the
opportunity to address the issues relating to adult gaming centres and
family entertainment centres while those were being dealt with, because
that could have been done. That said, this is a modest proposal that
will give some help to the bingo industry. Much more needs to be done,
and I hope in particular that the Minister will look at the issue of
double taxation and persuade the Treasury to do something about it.
Modest and belated though it is, the order has our
support. 5.11
pm Mr.
Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry, North-West) (Lab): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Caton. I am
generally very much in support of the proposal, and I know that various
bingo halls in Coventry have been affected by the present situation. If
I understood the hon. Member for Bath correctly, 67 bingo halls have
closed in the past year. I do not think that that number includes the 37
that closed in 2007-08. Have those closed since
then?
Mr.
Foster indicated
assent.
Mr.
Robinson: Clearly, there is an accelerating deterioration
in the condition of the industry and the viability of an increasing
number of establishments. We have finally got round to bringing in this
measure, and it was high time that we did. The proposal is modest.
Sixteen machines were asked for, and the number went down to 10. It is
now eight, which is a doubling. That is a minor number in the context
of what was there, and perhaps a case for a much higher number could be
made. However, we should not ignore the significance of
this.
Mr.
Foster: Let me help the hon. Gentleman. When the 2005 Act
came into force, 2,700 machines were removed from bingo halls, so the
numbers that are now being put back get us nowhere near where we were
before.
Mr.
Robinson: I had hoped that I had made that point, albeit
without having the numbers in my possession to quantify it in such a
way. The assistance should be
significant. We
should not underestimate the significance of gaming machines. I had
first-hand experience of that with the new stadium in Coventry, part of
which was in the running for being one of the major regional casinos. I
am sure that none of us regrets their premature demise, although it was
greatly regretted at the time in Coventry.
The
prospective owners of the casino were really interested in gaming
machines because that was where they made their money and where the
propensity for people to fork out £1 or 50p really began to
grip. They would even go to the length of installing and manning
roulette tables and other gaming tables to justify more slot machines,
so what they lost in installing those tables, which involved
significant capacity, and manning them with croupiers was more than
made up for by the machines. Clearly, we should be careful about such
prospective addiction or excessive use. However, with proper
regulation, such concerns need not apply significantly to the bingo
establishments, but the Government have been sensible in giving what
would appear to be over-elaborate thought to
that.
Mr.
Foster: Although what the hon. Gentleman has said in no
way undermines the Minister’s case, or his support for it, lest
anyone happen to read our deliberations in the future, it is important
to place on record the fact that the type of machines we are talking
about have low stakes and prizes, whereas the proposed super-casino in
Coventry would have been allowed up to 1,250 category A machines, which
have unlimited stakes and prizes. That would be a very different kettle
of fish from having eight B3 machines in a bingo
hall.
Mr.
Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
anticipating my point about what was at stake with the Coventry
regional casino or national super-casino. As he rightly said, the
rewards for grade A machines are
unlimited, and those for B1 and B2 machines can be up to £4,000.
Significantly, there are not yet any concrete Government proposals on
stakes and
rewards.
Mr.
Sutcliffe: Not as part of this order, but we will debate
an order on that matter following the consultation on category C and D
machines, which ends today. As I have said, we have referred concerns
over FOBTs to the Gambling Commission and we are waiting for it to
report
back.
Mr.
Robinson: So, that is something for consideration. That is
fine; we will look at the matter when it comes up. It is urgent to
proceed on a popular part of the local establishment: the landscape of
family amusements. I am pleased that the proposal on children has not
been accepted because they are very much a part of the environment.
Such machines can be kept separate and be properly
regulated. We
should give the order a good measure of approval, and I am pleased that
it has been brought
forward. 5.16
pm
Mr.
Sutcliffe: There has been a broad welcome for the
Government proposal of increasing the number of machines from four to
eight. For the reasons I have outlined, our response was measured, and
I am grateful for the Committee’s
support. I
do not recognise the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bournemouth,
East that the Government are all at sea on their gambling policy. This
Government introduced the Gambling Act 2005 on the back of the Budd
report in 2000. The hon. Member for Bath was a member of the Committee
that considered that measure and knows that there was detailed
consideration of many of the issues that face this complex
industry. I
think that the Gaming Act was passed in 1968 and the industry was then
controlled by the Gaming Board. The industry has moved on dramatically
from the early days of gambling to be a complex industry involving
complex issues. This Government cannot be attacked for not wanting to
debate or discuss gambling, which we have done so on many
occasions. Parliamentary
procedure is such that orders come before the House that relate to each
part of an Act. We will return to category C and D machines, however
belatedly that might be. However, we have brought forward the
consultation on those machines. It was supposed to be three years
before they were looked at again, but we understood the complexity of
the issues. The industry gave a view and we put the issue out for a
consultation that ends today. We will look at the outcome of that
consultation. However, even on category C and D machines, there are
people who do not want us to
move.
Mr.
Ellwood: As I mentioned, there have been more than 20
statutory instruments under the 2005 Act, so we have had to tweak it
often. The Minister says that he will come back on the consultation on
category C and D machines. That is like a supermarket coming back on a
consultation on its fruit department alone without considering the
other things it sells. It is completely
daft. Establishments have an array of machines. There should be full
consultation on stakes and prizes for all slot machines, rather than an
attempt to chop them up into
groups.
Mr.
Sutcliffe: The debate on different categories of machine
and types of premises took place during the passage of the 2005 Act.
There was a great deal of deliberation over what different sectors
could offer. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Members for Bournemouth,
East and for Bath have been approached by a number of organisations,
such as the British Amusement Catering Trade Association, the Bingo
Association and casino bodies. Those organisations have different
aspirations, and each wants to develop its share of the marketplace for
particular
machines. As
has been said, the whole purpose of the 2005 Act was to protect
vulnerable people, and that is why the Gambling Commission has its
powers.
Mr.
Foster: I think that the Minister agrees with this point,
but I wish it to be placed firmly on record. It is important that we
get the stakes and prizes and the numbers of machines right to ensure
that people have opportunities to engage happily in soft forms of
gambling. A piece of evidence that concerned me greatly was that
following the closure of the bingo clubs, about which the hon. Member
for Coventry, North-West spoke passionately, people who wanted to have
a flutter moved to the much more addictive FOBTs in high street
bookies. That is why the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East is right
that action on such things must be taken much more
swiftly.
Mr.
Sutcliffe: Obviously, we must operate and work with the
sectors involved. The hon. Gentleman asked what a Conservative
Government would do about betting shops and FOBTs if, heaven forbid,
they ever came back. Clearly, the original arrangement was—the
hon. Member for Bournemouth, East can correct me if he
wants—voluntary between the bookies and the then Minister
regarding a fixed number of machines. The Minister said at the time
that that would be kept under review. It was kept under review, and I
have referred it to the Gambling Commission, which will look at stakes
and prizes. Hopefully, we will know its view in June.
It is wrong to
say that we are looking at things in isolation, but each of the sectors
has a particular view on how it wants to move forward. Representatives
of the Bingo Association were lucky enough to have a meeting with the
Prime Minister, at which they raised not only the issue of double
taxation, but the increased number of
machines—[Interruption.] No. They were
looking for as much assistance as possible because of the nature of the
problems that the industry
faces.
Mr.
Ellwood: The Minister is avoiding two fundamental
questions. First, would he like VAT to be removed from bingo? Secondly,
why are we not debating adult gaming centres
today?
Mr.
Sutcliffe: We are not doing so for the reasons that I have
outlined. The matter is out for consultation, which is right and proper
because some in the sector do not want increases in stakes and prizes.
The consultation
was brought forward—there would normally have been a triennial
review—and it ends today, so we are now in a position to look at
what has been said and to make recommendations. That is how the process
works and the industry is fully aware of
that. We
are acting responsibly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry,
North-West said, such issues must be looked at in great detail, for the
reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North
outlined. Reference was made to the problem gambling prevalence study.
I am happy to report that when we talk about problem gambling, we are
talking about a small percentage of people—0.6 per cent. of the
gambling population. We instigated the voluntary levy to ensure that
Gamcare and the variety of bodies that look after problem gamblers
would have sufficient funds. The prevalence study takes place every
three years, and if another problem area is identified, we will look at
it. We believe that we are taking all the action necessary to ensure
that the softer form of gambling is safe, with all adequate measures in
place to look after under-18s. We are also taking the necessary action
to ensure that people are not encouraged to have problems with
gambling, and that there is funding to deal with problem
gambling. However,
there are different contexts, and there are different views on seaside
arcades, adult gaming centres, bingo halls and casinos—that is
the nature of the debate. The order is an attempt to ensure that we
look after bingo. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East could organise
time for the Opposition to talk about gambling whenever he wanted, for
example in an Adjournment debate. I would be happy to debate gambling
issues. The Gambling Act was the first piece of legislation to put the
consumer at the heart of gambling issues, and we believe that the
Gambling Commission’s powers will help us to deal with the
problems that we face. The industry will always want more, but the
process in Parliament is that we deal with orders as they appear. Given
what we are trying to achieve, we must consult different
bodies.
| 
