Mr.
Ellwood: It is a pleasure to work under your tutelage
today, Mr. Pope. I take on board the messages that have come
from the Minister. Although the Opposition do not have a problem with
the recommendations, we
are very critical about the manner in which the Government approach
gambling. It seems bizarre that we are looking at one small slither of
gambling. The Minister says, “Yes, we want to support the
industry and to make sure that the arcades are still there,” but
he spends no time looking at migratory patterns and where people are
choosing to gamble. The Opposition worry that we are not taking a step
back, looking at the trends and finding what it is about the gambling
industry that allows some parts to flourish responsibly and other parts
to suffer even though they are complying with
regulations.
The Gambling
Act 2005 was crucial in redefining gambling in the UK, but it has
created some huge divisions between certain forms of gambling. It has
encouraged the migration of gambling from what the Minister described
as soft gambling to harder forms of gambling. That is why I repeat the
concerns that I expressed in my intervention. We are looking only at
category C and D, not at category B3 or fixed odds betting terminals.
We are not looking at where people are going when they see that their
arcade has shut simply because of Government legislation. Where do they
go to meet their gambling
needs?
Mr.
Sutcliffe: I do not want to detain the Committee for too
long, but this is an important point. The hon. Gentleman’s
comments on FOBTs relate to the migration issue that was raised by
trade associations, such as BACTA. Part of the problem involved people
moving from amusement arcades and family entertainment centres to
betting shops and going to FOBTs. I asked what the evidence for that
was. I also asked the Gambling Commission to consider whether FOBTs are
an issue for problem gambling. I do not think that the Government could
have taken a more responsible position in relation to that, and I hope
that the hon. Gentleman will accept that positive work is being done in
relation to FOBTs, but where is the evidence for the other
concern?
Mr.
Ellwood: I am grateful to the Minister for that
intervention, which clarifies that the Government have not done
anything. Appendix 3 to the prevalence study lists on page 95 the
amount of problem gambling in every form of gambling. FOBTs rate highly
at 11.2 per cent. I appreciate that, narrowed down, that is quite a
small percentage of the people who were interviewed, but that should
set off alarm bells to say that we need a more detailed study into
exactly what is happening with FOBTs. We need a better understanding of
why the arcades are closing. They are losing money, but where are the
people going? That is why I do not believe it when the Minister says
that he is supporting the arcade industry. He is not; he is just
tweaking around the
edges.
Mr.
Foster: Should not the hon. Gentleman be asking the
Minister what answer he received when he asked the Gambling Commission
what the evidence was in respect of FOBTs? The commission has been in
operation for some time and presumably has some answers. We would like
to hear what they
are.
The
Chairman: Order. Although that is an interesting point,
before the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East replies, I advise the
Committee that we ought to be discussing the prize limits for category
C machines and some category D machines. That is what is before the
Committee, and I advise Members to stick to
it.
Mr.
Sutcliffe: Good advice, Mr.
Pope.
Mr.
Ellwood: I think that the Minister is grateful to you for
your guidance, Mr.
Pope. On
arcades, we are not doing enough to understand whether the tweaking of
category C and D machines answers the wider problems, regardless of the
issues with category B3 machines. I am not sure whether the Government
are satisfying their obligation to understand the developments in
gambling. Opposition
Members have huge concerns about whether enough is being done. I know
that the Responsibility in Gambling Trust is going through a
transformation and that more work will be done on education and
research into responsible gambling. However, I do not believe that we
have our finger on the pulse of what is happening. I am not convinced
by what the Minister has said. He has done his best to come to terms
with these issues, but I am not convinced that the Government are on
top of
them. The
suggestion that the stakes for category C machines should change from
50p to 60p is madness. Of course, people can put in a 50p coin and a
10p coin, but none of the manufacturers will produce new machines. By
the time that the machines are reconfigured and made, more money will
have been spent than if we just kept the 50p machines as they were. The
Government’s thinking is therefore out of kilter with industry
needs and
pressures. Speaking
as the MP for a seaside town, I worry that seaside arcades are
changing. Tourism is the fifth biggest industry in the UK, and this is
an easy way for us to get the gambling criteria correct, so that we can
show a sense of responsibility. We are missing a trick by coming up
with another SI every two or three months, each of which deals with a
different corner of the industry, without understanding what has been
done before. If the Minister wants to help arcades, why did he not
agree to the increase in B3s that was offered to the bingo industry? It
is madness that he could not address that. It was not the bingo
industry that asked for the increase in the number of B3s, but the
arcade industry. That was missed
completely. We
support these moves, but we must have a more detailed debate on the
wider implications of the 2005 Act that leads to more responsible
Government thinking on
gambling. 4.53
pm Mr.
John Grogan (Selby) (Lab): This is probably the first time
in 11 years as an MP that the Whips have been kind enough to put me on
an Statutory Instrument Committee that I know anything about. I
therefore thought that I would make a brief contribution before giving
the Whip another small list of the subjects on which I could
contribute. The
Minister is to be congratulated. Gambling is not an easy subject to
legislate on. If we are honest, there are differences within all three
major parties about this subject. We are all seared by the experience
of the Gambling Act 2005. It caused many divisions not only within our
parties, but within the country. It is not easy to advance solutions
that rebalance that, and the Minister is to be commended for doing
so. The
regulations are needed in the pub and amusement arcade sectors.
Employment has fallen by 50 per cent. over the past few years
in amusement machine
manufacturing. Pubs are closing at a rate of 35 a week. In 2002, the
average managed pub received an income of about £320 per
machine. That is now down by about £100. There is a smaller
decline in the tenanted sector. The pub and amusement arcade sectors
have been crying out for this measure for some
time. In
defence of the regulations, it is worth putting on the record that the
overwhelming part of both those sectors is very socially responsible.
BACTA was the first organisation to sign up to the GamCare code of
practice some years ago. Many pubs take their stewardship of machines
very seriously in terms of the age that people should have access to
them and ensure that they are within the barman’s line of
vision, so we are dealing with two responsible
sectors. Christian
Action Research and Education sent us a briefing stating that the
measures should not be introduced, but it is worth looking at what the
hon. Member for Bournemouth, East referred to in passing: problem
gambling as shown by gambling activity prevalence figures. As he
stated, according to those figures, 10 or 11 per cent. of users have a
problem with fixed odds betting terminals and over 14 per cent. have a
problem with spread betting, but just over 2 per cent. have a problem
with the machines under discussion—a slightly smaller percentage
than for bingo and the
pools.
Mr.
Ellwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is now time
to have a full debate on all these issues, so that we can properly
understand those figures? He mentioned spread betting, where the figure
for those with a problem is 14.7 per cent, which is the highest figure
on the prevalence study chart. We need to understand why the figures
are so high, as well as what the trends are, because they have an
impact on the softer end of
gambling.
Mr.
Grogan: I agree entirely. It is a question of knowing the
responsibilities of the Government on the one hand and those of the
Gambling Commission on the other. The commission’s review of its
first few years of activity is about to be published, and I think that
some Back Benchers will be disappointed that the commission has not
been a little bolder in some of those activities over the past three
years, but there is clearly a role for the Government,
too. On
the prevalence figures, the machines under discussion do not cause
problem gambling in the way that some other forms of activity do. The
machines are an important part of the economy in terms of pubs across
the country, as well as our seasides. Although I do not think that we
should ever accept what Ministers say in relation to gambling
uncritically—I for one was very sceptical of the super-casino
proposals a few years ago—those who have concerns can be
reassured that this is a proportionate measure, and the Minister can be
proud to have helped to negotiate
it. 4.57
pm
Mr.
Foster: May I say how delighted I am to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr. Pope? I feel blessed today, not because it
is my birthday, but because the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr.
Vaizey), who speaks on various DCMS issues for the Conservative party,
recently described me as his mentor, because I helped him through
his early days on those issues. And today, the Minister himself has
thanked me for helping him through his early days in his important role
as the Gambling Minister; I am grateful to him for his comments. I
repay the compliment by saying that for somebody who, not long ago, did
not understand why the Committee that considered the Gambling Bill
spent hours on end debating whether or not a teddy bear should be
valued at £5 or £8, the Minister now clearly knows his
stuff. I
very much welcome the Minister’s introductory marks, during
which he pointed out that he truly understands the difficulty that the
machine sector of the gambling industry has faced. It does not matter
whether we disagree on the number of seaside arcades that have
closed—whether it is 130 or 170, it is a very large
number—but many of our seaside towns are despoiled by boarded-up
arcades disfiguring the seafront. Furthermore, as the Minister has
said, jobs have been lost not only in the arcades, but in the machine
manufacturing industry, which has faced a significant
downturn. I
therefore welcome the statutory instrument, but I hope that the
Minister accepts that this is not the first time that I have publicly
said that I regret very much how long it has taken for it to come
before the House. During the long period that it took to make that
decision, there has been a migration, as the hon. Member for
Bournemouth, East described it, from the softer to the harder end of
gambling, despite the Minister’s view that there is no concrete
evidence to show that. We can all debate the implications of the
prevalence study and how seriously damaging FOBTs might be. I entirely
accept the urgent need for the Gambling Commission to do research in
that area to inform our debate, because there is uncertainty about the
figures. Such migration has also helped to damage the industry, and the
regulations will assist in rectifying that
problem. I
am particularly grateful to the Minister for going out of his way on
five occasions to say that he had seriously considered the concerns
expressed, by Christian groups among others, about the impact that the
increase might have on problem gambling. He rightly referred to the
views of the Gambling Commission, which has studied the matter in
detail and has concluded that such an increase in stakes and prizes
will have no impact on the number of problem gamblers. It is important
to recognise that we have to date been blessed with a relatively small
proportion of those who engage in any form of gambling becoming problem
gamblers, and the Minister will return in the very near future to
research, education and treatment
issues. I
am genuinely delighted that the regulations are before us, even if
belatedly. The research makes it clear that the regulations will lead
to around a 20 per cent. increase in turnover and that in turn will
lead to the potential for those involved in machine manufacture to feel
that there is a real opportunity to get involved. They will also lead
to the introduction of new games into our adult gaming centres and
seaside resorts, and also into our pubs—as pointed out by the
hon. Member for Selby—and that will be a welcome boost to
another part of the
economy. I
welcome all that, but I have one additional concern.
[Interruption.] The Minister says that he thought
there might be. One issue has not been touched upon. The
Minister knows that, even if the regulations were implemented today, the
impact that we foresee and hope for will be delayed. Machines have to
be made and there need to be changes to machines. In addition, will he
confirm that, before the regulations can be implemented, there are
problems regarding approval from Europe? He knows that that approval
procedure requires not only proposing the regulations to the European
Commission under its notification procedure, but a three-month
standstill period once the Commission has sent the draft technical
regulations to all the member states. If I am right
that there will perhaps be a six-month delay before the effects are
seen—even if the new stakes and prizes are implemented
today—there will be a delay of well in excess of three-months
before we can even get started on that six-month period. Will the
Minister approach the European Union for a waiver from that period?
This is a relatively modest and small matter, and it strikes me that a
waiver would particularly help the
industry. The
Minister said in his speech that he would find other ways of helping
the industry, and I hope that in summing up he elucidates, in at least
a little detail, what those extra measures will be. The time has come
for him to look at the Gambling Commission’s fees, which have a
huge impact on the profitability of this part of the sector. There is
the issue of premises licence fees for local authorities, and the
problems that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and I have referred
to regarding the other types of gambling that are drawing people away
because of their easy access, not least FOBTs in betting shops and
internet gambling. I know that you said, Mr. Pope, that that
was not relevant, but I believe that we have to address those things
that draw people away from the sector.
The Minister
has said that he is not only raising the stakes and prizes for those
who wanted the rise to be much greater and those who wanted no
rise—I welcome the fact that this is a compromise—but
intending to give additional assistance to that part of the industry. I
would also welcome his reaction to my various proposals.
5.5
pm
Mr.
Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. Members who have contributed
to the debate. We have been principally talking about raising the
stakes and prizes for category C and D machines. I wish the hon. Member
for Bath many happy returns, but I do not recognise the picture of the
Government’s gambling policy painted by him or by the hon.
Members for Bournemouth, East. I am grateful to the hon. Member for
Bath for his expertise in the debates on the Gambling Act 2005, which
were substantial in scope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby has
said. We all know that gambling has changed dramatically, and it was
the first look at the issue since the 1960s. It was done on the back of
the Budd report 2001, which might make good reading for the hon. Member
for Bournemouth, East and show him how we came to many of these issues.
I am sure that he has read it, but it may be worth revisiting given the
issues that we face.
The
Government introduced the 2005 Act and have had good discussions with
the industry about the issues that affect it. The Gambling Commission
has increased powers to deal with issues affecting gambling. As
several
hon. Members have said, the complex nature of gambling and the abuse
issues are important. Gambling and its abuse have changed dramatically
over the past few years. Our responsibility in government is to listen
to views, which is how we are where we are. To get to today’s
decision, I listened to representations from the industry, and BACTA
and similar organisations have put a good case
forward. | 
