House of Commons
Monday 24 January 2005
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
Mr Speaker in the Chair
Oral Answers to Questions
Work and Pensions
The Secretary of State was asked—
Employment
Since 1997, employment is up by more than 2 million to a record level of 28.5 million, with more than 250,000 more people in work in the last year alone. Those extra 2 million people in jobs are not just about the strength of the economy, but about the Government's active labour market measures to help people off benefit and into work and to help them with training, child care and all the things that often stand between them and a decent job. That is why is it is important that the successful new deal programme be maintained and developed.
May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply? I am sure that he is aware of the report that came out last week that identified the fact that more women than ever before are now starting their own businesses. What is in the programmes that his Department runs that encourages people, particularly women who have spent time at home looking after children, to start their own businesses?
My hon. Friend is right; the report last week was very encouraging. My Department works very closely with the Department of Trade and Industry and others to ensure that we get as many people as possible starting their own businesses while recognising that the success of the economy very much depends on what is charmingly called the business birth rate. We will continue to encourage that and women, in particular, to start their own businesses.
Although I acknowledge that a lot has been done in employment zones to contribute to the active labour market policies that have been successful to date, does the Secretary of State accept that it is harder to do that because the client groups with whom the trainers work are further from the labour market? Will he look carefully at how that problem can be addressed in future and, in particular, at the flexibility that is available in the employment zones? Although there is funding, much of it is in silos and it is sometimes difficult to access it.
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and we will look at it. It is absolutely true, as he says, that the success of our efforts to get people back into work will inevitably hit up against those who are the most difficult to place into work. We need the flexibility that there is in the employment zones.
In this situation, with the problem of the individuals mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the last thing to do is to pretend that some kind of laissez-faire policy would work and to withdraw the programmes and assistance that we provide and which the Conservative party plans to privatise or scrap.
We welcome it when people get into work, but will the Secretary of State not acknowledge that the number of people of working age who are still economically inactive is stuck at almost 7.9 million and the number of unemployed young people—the subject of Labour's flagship new deal programme—has risen from just under 30 per cent. to 42 per cent. as a proportion of the total unemployed? Is it really any longer plausible, as the Secretary of State has argued today after £5 billion worth of investment on the new deal, to say that just because the new deal and falls in unemployment are consecutive, one caused the other—any more than night causes day?
Let me address a couple of those points. First, the point about young people is a consistent theme from the Opposition, and they are wrong because they do not take into account the growth in population. Unemployment among those not in education, employment or training as a proportion of the population has fallen by 1.5 per cent. Those figures apply only to those in full-time education or training, and if we look at those in part-time education and training, we see an even more dramatic fall. Only 6,000 young people are now long-term unemployed; the figure was 300,000 in the mid-1980s.
May I say to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that today is supposed to be the most miserable day of the year? I understand that has nothing to do with the fact that Department for Work and Pensions questions fall on this day, but we all in the House have a duty to try to cheer the nation up. Let us be absolutely clear. Unemployment is at its lowest level for 30 years; employment is at its highest level ever; and the number of lone parents and disabled people in work has crossed 50 per cent. for the first time. This is good news for the economy and good news for Britain.
I join my right hon. Friend in warming up the spirit of the House. From the perspective of Scarborough and Whitby, never before have we had so many people in work. However, he will know that the east coast, like his constituency, faces problems in terms of access and transportation. We are on the periphery. Will he explain to the House and my constituents how Jobcentre Plus, other similar schemes and the new deal can help the people who have access problems to get to where the jobs are?
My hon. Friend hits upon an important reason why we need to speak to the individuals concerned, particularly those who have a history of being out of work, to find out what the problems are and seek ways of overcoming them. Jobcentre Plus personal advisers have at their discretion funding to help in such situations, as well as to provide transport in rural areas. It is important for us to recognise that it is no good simply hoping that some process of serendipity will get people into work. Of course, the vast majority of people do not need assistance, but many have problems that can only be tackled by a concerted approach, using Jobcentre Plus and the programmes that we have developed with such success since 1997.
Private Pensions
We are keen to increase private pension provision. That is why we introduced stakeholder pensions and are taking forward our radical programme of pension reform.
Measures in the Pensions Act 2004 will increase confidence in pensions, will make it easier for employers to run pension schemes and, along with our programme of informed choice, will help people to plan and save for their retirement.
Adair Turner and the Pensions Commission will also advise us on the future of private pension provision when they report later this year.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for what he is doing on pensions, but it is still far too little. Does he recall the words of the former Minister for Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who said that the big issue worrying voters
"is that when Labour came to power we had one of the strongest pension provisions in Europe and now probably we have some of the weakest"?
When will the Government start to reverse the trend towards more means-testing, and when will they scrap the £5 billion pensions tax which is doing so much damage?
That was a broad question. I shall give the hon. Gentleman two reasons to be cheerful. One is that pension credit income testing is helping the poorest elderly people, two thirds of them women who often do not have occupational pensions or the full national insurance pension. The second is that the pension protection fund is not just about rhetoric; it is about making sure that all those hardworking Britons, decent people, who are in final salary company pension schemes will have their pension protected should— we hope that this will not happen too often—their company go bust and the scheme not have enough money to pay out. That is action, not talk.
Many savers are reluctant to be involved in private pension schemes now, because so many of them have lost out so badly when their schemes have wound up. The Conservative Government will utilise balances in dormant accounts to give real compensation to those people. Is not that another good policy that the Labour Government would like to plagiarise?
I normally save my fiction input until the summer holidays, so I will not dwell on the conjecture about a future Conservative Government. The fact is that 10 million active employees—a very considerable number—are members of occupational pension schemes. We are taking action with the new regulator, the pension protection fund, to give those people added security. Surely the hon. Lady would agree that that is a step in the right direction.
Given the flight from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes by a number of employers, will the Government encourage employers to look at schemes such as the one introduced by Sainsbury's, in which the pension is based on average earnings over a lifetime? In that vein, does the Minister consider the recent articulation of longevity bonds by the Governor of the Bank of England something worth considering?
I am sure that the Treasury will look at that and other suggestions. The crucial thing is the percentage of contribution going into a scheme— the combined percentage from the employer and the employee—rather than the particular mechanism, whether it is final salary, defined benefit, defined contribution or a hybrid. The final salary scheme has not always been the best friend of many women and others with caring responsibilities. However, it is the level of contribution that we should be focusing on, and we look forward to the report of the Turner Commission.
Evidence from my hon. Friend's Department shows that tax relief on pension contributions has almost no effect on pension saving yet it costs £14 billion a year in forgone tax revenue. It is intensely regressive because 50 per cent. of that £14 billion is claimed by the top 10 per cent. of earners. Will my hon. Friend agree to consider abolishing tax relief on pension contributions, which could lead to each pensioner household having a £35 per week non-means-tested increase in their pensions? Will he consider also introducing compulsion along the Australian lines?
The Adair Turner commission will of course advise us on the merits of compulsion vis-à-vis an energised voluntary approach. Tax relief is one method by which we help pension schemes. Its future is a matter for the Treasury and not for my Department.
The Minister is aware of the APW case, where the company is still solvent but the scheme is being wound up. Members on both sides of the House have recently come from a meeting with APW workers. I have two questions for the Minister. First, when will the workers be put out of their misery and know whether or not they will come within the scope of the financial assistance scheme? Secondly, is the Minister confident that there are not other APWs—companies that will go to the trustees and say, "You can have a very small amount of money or nothing at all."? Firms will allow their pension funds to wind up, grossly underfunded. Is the hon. Gentleman confident that that is not happening more widely?
I have met APW workers and the Members who are concerned. It is a serious situation that we are considering extremely carefully. We must be very careful before we can embrace schemes where the employer is solvent, as opposed to insolvent. The pension protection fund is about insolvency. We have said that we are still considering issues involving the solvent employer. Surely the obligation to fund a pension scheme should rest primarily on the company? We shall be careful to ensure that it does not, through the financial assistance scheme, rest on the taxpayer; otherwise there will be a slippery slope leading to where Government and Parliament are expected to nationalise all financial risk. Of course it is not the fault of, and I am concerned about and sympathetic to, the group concerned. We are considering the matter.
Will my hon. Friend recognise that the trustees of APW were in a position of accepting a compromise on their scheme because they did not know of the Government's change of policy on the financial assistance scheme? There cannot be many schemes in that position. Will my hon. Friend look again at whether the APW scheme can be brought within the financial assistance scheme? I understand his general concerns about the taxpayer underwriting failing companies, but the APW case is specific.
Indeed, but not unique. There are several similar schemes and we are considering the matter carefully. I give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I met him and his colleagues to discuss the matter only a few weeks ago.
I too met APW workers today. They were far from cheerful about the fact that many of them will be facing an 80 per cent. pension loss and be excluded from both the financial assistance scheme and the pension protection fund. Does the Minister accept that the continuing uncertainty over the scope of the FAS and the PPF does little to encourage private pension provision? Is not the National Association of Pension Funds right when it says:
"We have had enough experience of policies which appear to promise something but do not deliver and which have served to undermine confidence in retirement saving"?
The NAPF is wrong about that. We are on course to establish the pension protection fund in April despite the Conservative party's declining to give the Pensions Bill a Second Reading. We take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman. The financial assistance scheme will be established in the spring and the first payments to those coming up for retirement, or who are already retired, will be made as soon as possible thereafter.
Payment Mechanisms
Direct payment into an account is now the normal way that we pay benefits and pensions, and over four out of five people are paid by this method. Indeed it is proving to be popular with customers, with nine out of 10 saying that they like being paid this way.
We have exceeded our target of 85 per cent. of benefit and pensions customers having an account by 2005. We have already hit that target ahead of 2005. I add—this is of concern to us all—that the small number of customers who cannot have their pensions or benefit paid into an account will be paid via a cheque, which can be cashed at the Post Office. I think that these customers will be a small minority.
The Government rejected Conservative demands that pensioners be allowed to keep their order books if they chose. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry has criticised the Government's plans for the exception service. Given the widespread postal delays that affect many of our constituents, will the Government consider sending out batches of four girocheques at a time as part of the exception service routine, so that if there are postal delays pensioners will not go without their weekly pension?
We will obviously monitor what happens to the cheque-based system, but the hon. Gentleman should not be in any doubt that the most effective means of payment is transferring money electronically into a bank or post office card account. We should not look back to the days of the pension book as a golden age, as that was not the case. There was £80 million of fraud, and it was an expensive system for the taxpayer. We are being sensitive, and listening to the needs of pensioners, particularly the frail elderly, people with disabilities and their carers, and we are doing our best to make sure that the system meets their needs. We are very concerned that that should happen.
Perhaps the Minister would listen to my constituent, Miss Amanda James, from Trimpley in Ellesmere, who did not receive any money at all from April until December? We eventually sorted that out, so that she would be paid that sum before Christmas. However, she was on the phone again to my office this morning, saying that she has not received any money. We received a letter from the Inland Revenue, in which they said:
"Our aim is a speedy, accurate and professional service to all our customers".
When?
As soon as we have clarified whether this is a question for the Inland Revenue. Is it about pension credit or about child tax credit? I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman wrote to me, but I also advise him to write to the relevant Department, not the irrelevant one.
Does the Minister recognise that a great number of people, perhaps of a particular generation, still wish to go to a post office to receive their pension or benefit? Will he put pressure on his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to stop the closure of many post offices up and down the country?
Government are providing some £2 billion, including £450 million for the rural post office network, to try to safeguard the local post office system. That is a considerable amount of money. Meanwhile, in response to people who say that it is difficult to open a post office card account, about half of all pensioners will receive their money in future through such an account. In total, 4 million people will have their money paid in that way, so the post office is alive and well, and many people will still draw their pension or benefit in that way.
Public Inquiry Services
Jobcentre Plus aims to answer telephone calls within 30 seconds. A recent market research survey showed that about 80 per cent. of calls were answered in that time frame.
Does the Minister recall that I wrote to her in November about the fact that 1 million people in south London have to telephone for an appointment for a national insurance number, but the telephone number they are given is uncontactable? I heard yesterday from the citizens advice bureau not only that that number is uncontactable but that alternative numbers given to those people are uncontactable too. Since thousands of people have been prevented from working legally by inefficiency in the Department, can the Minister explain precisely what they are supposed to do?
I am not aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I will look into his allegations, but the aim of Jobcentre Plus contact centres, as opposed to Jobcentre Plus, is to answer 80 per cent. of calls within 20 seconds. For one typical week in November 2004—the precise month in which the hon. Gentleman says that he wrote to me—contact centres handling new and repeat claims answered on average 80 per cent. of calls within 20 seconds, which is inside the target time frame.
I will look into the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman says some his constituents have experienced, but without his drawing it specifically to my attention—[Interruption.] Well, I will look into what he said, but unless he is specific about the problem it is hard to respond.
For all I know, the position in London may be exactly as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) makes out, but may some of the rest of us say that never in our parliamentary lifetime have the responses been so quick and so helpful as they are at present? Anecdote suggests that huge improvements seem to have been made.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely the experience that my constituents have had, and from around the country those are the reports that I get. Jobcentre Plus is not just about new offices. It is about changing the service that we provide day in, day out to thousands of people. I will look into the specific complaint that has been made today, but by and large the service is superb and most constituents throughout the country acknowledge that fact.
While we are on the subject of telephone helplines, did the Minister see the sad little article in her departmental newsletter, "Touch Base", last month, which stated:
"In October, following a review of the service, the Welfare Reform Order Line was closed. The line was set up in the late 1990s to make available green papers and other welfare reform documents. In recent times, the number of calls had fallen to around 25 per week, making it no longer cost effective to operate"?
As we are about to get the Department's five-year plan, is not the sad decline of its welfare reform helpline a warning of how one can go from grand aspirations to complete failure to deliver? Is it not typical of the Government that instead of ordering welfare reform, they give people the opportunity of phoning a number where they can order a consultation document on the possibility of welfare reform? When are we to have real welfare reform?
There is a clear stretch of blue water between the Front Benches on this subject. We are committed to active labour market intervention with the unemployed. We are committed to reforming the service that is delivered to people who are in need of welfare support, and to enabling people who are looking for work to find the work that is out there. That is quite different from the hon. Gentleman's party, with its tired old ideology of privatisation and on-yer-bike advice to the workless.
When my right hon. Friend examines the system, will she look carefully at the training of the people in the telephone centres, who are not benefits advisers and frequently ask a series of questions that have no relevance to any of the people involved? That is not a way to engender support for a very good system, and I am sure she will be able to remedy the problem speedily.
I keep the quality and level of training and support being delivered to the staff of Jobcentre Plus under close and constant review. By and large it is of excellent quality and the service that the staff deliver is excellent. Jobcentre Plus will be changing the way it communicates with customers and delivers its services over the coming years, but the closure of 600 Jobcentre Plus offices, which would happen if the Conservative party ever came to power, would not improve the service to my hon. Friend's constituents or mine.
Employment Advisers
The Government's vision of supporting more people in the move from incapacity benefit back to work can be delivered only in close collaboration with general practitioners. We believe that giving GPs access to employment support in their surgeries will help them to deliver this role more effectively. As announced in the pre-Budget report, the Department will be piloting the placement of employment adviser support in GPs' surgeries, building upon a number of initiatives currently in operation.
Did my right hon. Friend see an article in Friday, 21 January, which gives the impression—wrongly, I believe—that the Government have been moving people off the unemployment register on to the incapacity register to massage the unemployment figures? The article is written with a particular skew. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to rebut the allegations in the article, and tell the House how the Government are developing policies that will get people who are on incapacity benefit back into work, including the innovative approach of putting employment advisers into GPs' surgeries?The Scotsman last
I did not see the article in The Scotsman, but that part of it is patently ridiculous. The simple facts are that in Scotland the claimant count has fallen by 71,000 and over the same period the number on incapacity benefit has fallen by 1,000, so it cannot be the case that people are being moved from one to the other. That is why in 1979 there were 700,000 people on incapacity benefit and by the time we came to government there were 2.6 million. If I may just add to the gaiety of the nation, the inactivity figures in last week's labour market statistics also showed a reduction, so we have not only cut the number of people coming on to incapacity benefit by a third; we have also, virtually for the first time, reduced the number of people who have been on incapacity benefit for many years: a small amount—9,000—but we are heading in the right direction. That is mainly as a result of the pathways to work project that is operating in one part of Scotland and will soon be extended to a third of the country.
I recently had a complaint from one of my constituents who had found a copy of the Government's pre-Budget report in the doctor's surgery. No doubt if she had been pestered by one of these employment advisers she would also have complained about that. My constituents go to their GP because they are sick, not to be pestered with a plethora of Government propaganda and advice. Will the Secretary of State please put a stop to that?
I did not know that the pre-Budget report had replaced Punch in surgery waiting rooms all over the country. I advise the hon. Gentleman to lie down in a darkened room and take a tablet with a glass of water. His constituents will not walk into a surgery to find an employment adviser lurking behind the curtains when they are asked to take their clothes off, or sitting on the desk swinging a stethoscope. They will be placed outside the surgery. The hon. Gentleman may have seen the article in last Thursday's Financial Times on an important project called the James Wigg practice in north-west London, where this has been happening for quite a while, and it is very successful. We should do whatever we can to try to help people on incapacity benefit back into work. This is one part of it and, linked with the Department of Health's White Paper, it has the opportunity to be very successful. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that the evidence shows that over 90 per cent. of people who are in receipt of incapacity benefit want and expect to go back to work? They state clearly in the evidence that getting appropriate advice is not easy. Placing an employment adviser in a GP's surgery to give that advice would be innovatory, and I would support that. What else is the Department considering doing?
First, on that important point, chapter 7 of the Department of Health White Paper is devoted to how the NHS can work much more closely with the employment services to get away from the concept that work is bad for one. The advice from the medical profession has changed. Four years ago, if one had a bad back, the advice was to lie down in a darkened room. Now that is considered to be the worst thing one could do. As a form of tackling depression, to tell people to disconnect from society and sit down in a room on their own is just about the worst advice that anyone could possibly give. The medical profession and the Department of Health recognise that.
This is one of a number of initiatives being taken to stem the flow of people on to incapacity benefit. These are people who want to work. The statistic that says that if one is on incapacity benefit for a year, one will be on it for six years, and if one is on it for two years, one will be on it for the rest of one's life, requires politicians to tackle one of the most serious political issues that we face in this country.
Talking of what the Department may be planning, the Institute for Public Policy Research, in a recent pamphlet that the Secretary of State will have read, suggested that incapacity benefit should be paid at a single fixed rate to new claimants. Has the Secretary of State ruled that out?
No, and when the hon. Gentleman sees our five-year plan he will see what kind of ideas we are developing to progress the issue. The fact that the longer one is on incapacity benefit, the more one gets, and that there are all kinds of complications to it, is one reason why the whole matter needs a radical overhaul.
As my right hon. Friend points out, the longer people are in receipt of incapacity benefit, the more difficult it is to regain entry to the labour market, particularly as attitudes towards work harden over time. When he is monitoring this particularly innovative and useful way of introducing people back to the labour market, will he also monitor its effects in rural constituencies such as my own, which have particular problems when they are so isolated from all the resources that people in urban areas enjoy?
I will give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We are covering only 10 per cent. of the country at the moment with the pathways to work pilots, which are producing some extraordinary results. I do not think that we have really tackled rural areas yet, but we will do so in the expansion to a third of the country. I give her the reassurance that she is seeking: we will look at the specific issues that she mentions, especially for those in rural parts of the country.
Carers
Depending on their personal circumstances, carers have access to the full range of social security benefits. Those who provide regular and substantial care of at least 35 hours a week for a severely disabled person receiving attendance allowance or the equivalent rates of the disability living allowance care component can be entitled to a carer's allowance and, if they are on a low income, to the carer premium in the income-related benefits or the carer's additional amount in pension credit. Support for carers is also available through the carer's grant arrangements, which enable them to take a break from caring.
I thank my hon. Friend for reiterating the benefits that are available to carers, but I point out that the problem that we face is that millions of pounds each week go unclaimed, because the money and entitlements are unfortunately not getting to the carers. Does she agree that carers are the unsung heroes and that we should try to explain how and when they can claim any moneys that are due to them, and get that money to them? Without them, the pressure will come back to the health service and social services. I wonder whether we can ensure that the money is there and that we get it to those people, and ensure that respite is made available to them to give that much needed break to their families.
I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in this matter as president of Chorley Mencap. I agree that carers do a fantastic job, and they do not do it for money; they do it out of love for the person whom they are caring for. The number of recipients of the carer's allowance has increased by 14 per cent. in the past five years. We are now encouraging those who may be eligible to apply to do so and are succeeding in ensuring that more people get the money to which they are entitled. He may be referring to a Carers UK report setting a figure on unclaimed carer's allowance. For reasons that I shall not go into now, but which I can explain—they are rather lengthy—we do not agree with the figures because of the methodology and assumptions that are used, but the essential point is correct: we need to ensure that those who are entitled to benefits get them, and this Government do just that.
The Minister has given a good reply so far to this very important question, but as patron of the Macclesfield and district Crossroads association, I am particularly interested in how we look after carers. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned respite. Does the Minister agree that carers, many of whom are not given anything for the care that they give to the relation or friend whom they are looking after, require more attention than they have been getting? These people save the taxpayer of this country hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Will the Government look more closely at the availability of respite care for carers and also at the funding of the Crossroads organisation?
On the latter point, one suspects that this would be a matter for the Department of Health through the section 64 grant funding system; we do not have money that we give out in that way at the Department for Work and Pensions. The hon. Gentleman clearly has a lot of experience in his constituency of the issues involved. Carers need respite and they need to take breaks from caring in order to keep them going. In that regard, the carer's grant has amounted to some £325 million over the past five years, and it will be about £125 million this year, going up to £185 million next year. So we are providing more money to give respite and breaks to carers—something that they and their organisations have emphasised that they need.
My hon. Friend gave us an excellent and very full reply, but will she comment on a case that was brought to my attention on Saturday involving a family in my constituency? The mother has had a stroke and she requires full-time care. Her daughter has given up her job in order to give that full-time care and a nurse calls in twice a day, but as yet the family has not been able to replace the wages that the daughter has lost through giving up her job. However, tomorrow, the mother could be put into a nursing home, which would cost the state a great deal more money than the daughter needs. This is an unfortunate turn of events, and I shall write to my hon. Friend about it.
I cannot cope with the praise that I am receiving—things are bound to go wrong later in the afternoon. I will be happy to look into any particular case raised by my hon. Friend. Even on the basis of those facts, it is difficult to know what might be available to assist that family. It may be difficult for carers who are faced with a burden of caring, which they perhaps did not expect, to get everything sorted out. We must ensure that we do the most that we possibly can to ease them through that process.
National Insurance Rebates
Given that the national savings ratio has halved under this Government, is it not sad that the sum that the Minister mentioned, which is still very large, has declined from its peak? Does he recognise that national insurance rebates still make a major contribution to the nation's savings and are a vital element of individuals' savings for retirement? Will he resist the temptation to steal that money to improve benefits for current pensioners at the expense of future pensioners? Stealing that money would turn savings into spending; instead, he should encourage more people to save.
The question was addressed to the Government Front Bench, but I am not sure what official Conservative party policy is on that matter—it might be to use the money in some other way. National insurance rebates are an important way in which private and occupational pension schemes are funded. As the former Secretary of State knows only too well, legislation requires that rebate rates be reviewed at least once every five years. Later this year, we will start the review process with the Government Actuary's Department to set the new rebate levels from 2007.
Does my hon. Friend agree that we will make more progress in tackling fraud within the benefit system and ensuring that people can get the benefits to which they are entitled when all computers within the system can speak to each other?
Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked a supplementary question to Question 8, which has been withdrawn, and we are on Question 9.
May I follow up the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who did not get a clear answer? Does the Minister agree that it would be wrong to raid contracted-out rebates in order to finance the citizen's pension—we know from a previous exchange in this House that the Secretary of State is interested in that policy? We seek such an assurance from the Minister, and it is a pity that we did not hear it in answer to the previous question. Will he now give such an assurance?
Our position remains that we regard the contracted-out rebate as a valuable way in which to fund those who choose a private occupational pension scheme. The debate about the future of state pensions is altogether different.
Older Workers
Since 1997, over 1.1 million more people from that age group are in work, which accounts for more than half of the growth in employment over that period. Without question, that is because of a combination of the back-to-work help provided by Jobcentre Plus, new deal 50-plus and strong labour market conditions, all of which could so easily be placed in jeopardy.
My right hon. Friend knows that many elderly workers are currently on incapacity benefit through no fault of their own because of injuries or illnesses that they have picked up during the course of their working lives. Will she offer an incentive to those with skills and experience to return to industries such as construction to help to train young people in the skills that we need in this country?
That is an interesting suggestion. My hon. Friend is right. Of the 950,000 people who claim incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance, around a quarter would like to work—that is, those who are in the age group of over-50 to state pension age. Our pathways to work pilots are testing and developing the best ways in which to help those people to achieve their goals, and the initial results are very encouraging. However, my hon. Friend is right—this group of people has a wealth of experience and knowledge that could be harnessed in the labour market in the interesting way that he suggests.
The Minister may be aware that in September the fashion retailer, New Look, will close its distribution centre in my constituency, with the loss of 580 jobs to the Weymouth area. Many of those workers are older or of low skill. What help can the Department offer them to give them the belief that they have a future in work? Would a member of the ministerial team, ideally the Minister herself, be willing to visit New Look in the next couple of months to see the situation on the ground?
I am pleased to receive that invitation from my hon. Friend. I was not aware that the announcement about New Look had been made, but I know that Jobcentre Plus is standing by with a rapid response service to offer precisely the training for reskilling that my hon. Friend is calling for. The full Jobcentre Plus package of support is ready to help that company and those of its employees who face the uncertain future that he describes. I would be more than happy to visit his constituency to meet the workers affected.
Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest political bulletin from Age Concern, which congratulates the Government with the words, "Queen's Speech Brings Good News for Older People"? That document refers to the mandatory retirement age. Will my right hon. Friend carefully consider the loss of skills and experience that results from the mandatory retirement age and think about creating some flexibility to allow older people to remain in the work force?
I have not seen the article, but I should obviously read it, because it would cheer me up. We know that 1 million people have already chosen to carry on working past state pension age, many of them in part-time work, and our research shows that people do want the choice and flexibility that my hon. Friend is calling for. Our Age Positive programme encourages employers to work towards that in the spirit, not just the letter of the law. To help them to do that, our campaign and its associated website strongly promotes the business benefits of employing older people as part of a mixed-age work force. The promotion of the benefits of employing people in this older age group is clearly beginning to be heard by businesses.
Pension Credit
We do not have the data on pension credit eligibility at constituency level, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that at 31 October 2004, 5,368 pensioner households, including 6,720 individuals, in Leicester, South were receiving pension credit. The average award was around more than £58 a week.
I thank the Minister for his response. However, is he aware that one assessment found that more than 1,000 pensioner households in Leicester, South are eligible to claim pension credit but are not doing so although they are clearly in need of the money? What steps will the Minister take to help to bridge that gap?
We do not have the data on eligibility, so I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman does. Undoubtedly, there will be people in Leicester, South and in all our constituencies who are eligible for pension credit and should be claiming it. Members of Parliament have a role to play in working with the local Pension Service in that regard. It is interesting that among those with the most to gain from pension credit—those eligible for guarantee level—take-up is extremely high. I think, from memory, that at least 250,000 more people now get the guarantee than under the old days of income support. We would not have achieved that success had we listened to the Liberal Democrats on pension credit.
The pension credit scheme will certainly have done a great deal to tackle pensioner poverty in the constituency of Leicester, South, which I know very well and is quite close to mine. However, does the Minister accept that in Leicester, South and similar constituencies substantial numbers of older pensioners, often women over 80, still endure poverty? Would not it be a good idea, for their benefit, at least to revisit the possibility of making the boost to pensions at the age of 80 more significant than 25p and of re-linking some pensioners' levels of income to the level of income in the economy?
We need to bear it in mind that pensioner households where one or more people are over 80 receive £400 as part of the winter fuel payment package. We are successfully targeting a group of people—elderly women over 80—through pension credit. Pension credit means that state pension money is more or less equal now for men and women in old age, I am pleased to say.
Unemployment
In 1997–98, around £2.4 billion was spent on programmes to help the unemployed move back into work. Now, as a result of a strong economy and our active labour market policies, there are more people in work than ever. However, we are not complacent and we are now focusing on people who experience the greatest barriers to work. That is why, last year, expenditure on unemployment programmes was £2.8 billion.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on their work in getting people back to work. What will she do about inner-city constituencies such as Glasgow, Anniesland, where unemployment remains well above the national average and people want to get into work?
Clearly, as we focus on those who face the greatest difficulty in returning to the labour market, we are increasing the amount of help and support that is available to them. Towards the end of the year, we will roll out more pathways to work pilot areas, which will help precisely the people to whom my hon. Friend refers. However, it is not all doom and gloom. In his constituency, long-term youth unemployment has decreased by 69 per cent. since 1997 and the number of long-term unemployed of all ages has gone down by 52 per cent. When we came to office in 1997, we faced an enduring legacy of long-term unemployment. It is a measure of the success of our policies over that period that we have been able to reduce the number of long-term unemployed to such a great extent.
Financial Assistance Scheme
We are keen that the pensions industry should support the financial assistance scheme, either by voluntary financial contributions or assistance in kind.
We are most grateful for the expert help offered by the industry to date, of which we are making full use, and hope that it will further support the Government's leadership in assisting those who face the most serious losses. We believe that it has a strong interest in doing so.
Does not the Minister realise that the funds available from the financial assistance scheme are woefully inadequate for those who have lost their pensions through wind-up? Should not something be done about it? The best thing to do is to claim banks' unclaimed assets. That would be an ideal way in which to assist.
I repeat the sad fact that the long-term answer—the pension protection fund—would not have been put in place if we had listened to the shadow Secretary of State and declined to give the Pensions Bill a Second Reading. The financial assistance scheme is an emergency package of £400 million of public money. We would like more money from the private sector and we are working hard to get a scheme up and running in April. [Interruption.] I hope that, instead of heckling from a sedentary position, Conservative Front Benchers will talk to the pensions industry about the size of its contribution.
In setting out the criteria for the FAS, will my hon. Friend consider whether to ban compromises whereby scheme members lose more than 30 per cent. of their pension benefits? Will he consider setting the eligibility criteria for the FAS so that trustees who have compromised the debt and members who have lost more than 50 per cent. of their promised benefits become eligible? Does he accept that, if he did those two things, there would not be a flood of new schemes into the FAS? Indeed, the problems of APW pensioners, about which we have heard this afternoon, could thereby be substantially assisted.
There are few things sadder than listening to a person who worked hard for their company, made their contributions and thought that they were in a decent pension scheme, only to find that the scheme and their dreams were shattered. I have every sympathy with that group of people, and I have met many such workers. This is why we have set up the pension protection fund. We keep these matters seriously under review, as will the new regulator, but I would be loth to say to trustees that they may no longer make compromise agreements. The trustees will be in the driving seat in future, and the right kind of compromise agreement can often strike a balance between keeping people in work in a company and the pension liability involved. That is a difficult balance to strike. My instinct is that neither the Government nor the regulator should make such decisions; they should be left to the trustees.
May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his response to my representations on behalf of the workers at H. H. Robertson? I ask him not to forget, however, that the directors of some companies that have now gone out of business still have substantial assets and need to be chased. We are dealing not only with the directors of good schemes in good companies, and we must not forget that some people have got away with extraordinary scams that have left our constituents high and dry.
I understand that. The Pensions Act 2004 and the powers being given to the new regulator mean that we shall now be better equipped to be aware of that kind of corruption in the system. While it is right that we have legislated for a pension protection fund, we now need to be on our guard to ensure that no unscrupulous company, accountant or anyone else in the pensions industry world wide takes the opportunity to dump a pension liability on the PPF, which we shall have in April. We must be very vigilant about that.
Carers
Benefit advice is available through a wide variety of outlets, including the voluntary sector. In addition, the disability and carers service, Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service are proactive in ensuring that carers get the money to which they are entitled. Local authority social services departments can, and do, advise on services and other support available to carers.
I thank the Minister for that reply. In my constituency, at least 11,000 people are looking after frail relatives, friends or partners. That number could be higher because seaside towns have a large number of such people. Historically, the people who have lost out the most on their pension entitlements have been women, through caring for others over a long period of time. Will my hon. Friend tell me what measures the Department is focusing on to ensure that people in those circumstances can get support; and, in particular, what progress has been made following the Prime Minister's assurance, given to a group of carers last year, that the Government would consider more flexible arrangements for working carers' rights?
On my hon. Friend's last point, the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry are taking forward work in that regard. I compliment my hon. Friend on his work to support carers in his constituency, and his question illustrates the extent to which he is aware of what is going on there. He is right to say that many older carers who have cared for relatives for many years during what would otherwise have been their working lives have lost out in terms of their pension entitlement. The state second pension recognised the value of carers by crediting them into entitlement in a way that the state earnings-related pension scheme did not. Almost all the 2 million carers being helped are women, and about 70 per cent. of the 5 million low earners who will benefit from the state second pension are women. Needless to say, the Conservatives have promised to abolish it.
Payment Mechanisms
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard the useful exchange on this matter earlier in the proceedings. Direct payments mean that people's pensions and benefits can now be paid into a bank account, a building society account, a new basic account or the new post office card account. Post Office card accounts are proving very successful; there will be 4 million by the changeover date, which will involve about half of all pensioners receiving their pension in this way.
Will the Minister comment on the recent series of bureaucratic hiccups that have occurred in Newark and Retford, particularly in regard to people receiving pensions for the first time and those who have been unable to find sustained employment under the new deal and who are coming back on to benefit? Clearly, both categories involve desperately vulnerable people.
We are committed to giving the so-called older worker employment opportunities, and the trends are moving in the right direction. More people in their 50s and early 60s, and beyond state pension age, are now in work, and we should welcome that opportunity to give the so-called older worker more choice. If the hon. Gentleman has come across any particular problems, I would be grateful if he wrote to me. Direct payment is proving a success—90 per cent. plus of people are satisfied with it—but we want to make sure that it works for 100 per cent.
Homes for All: Five-year Plan
With permission; Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's five-year strategy, "Homes for All".
May I begin by offering my apologies to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and to the Liberal spokesman for the delay in providing copies of my statement? The computer failed, and my words of persuasion failed totally to convince it to speed up the process. Nevertheless, it is a complicated statement, and I want to offer my apologies to both of them.
As the House is aware, the Government have been drawing up a series of five-year plans as we continue to modernise our country. Today, I am presenting the Government's new five-year strategy, "Sustainable Communities—Homes for All." We will: provide more homes to buy or rent through responsible growth; continue to improve the social housing stock; promote greater home ownership; and give more people a share in their home. "Homes for All" offers choice, opportunity and fairness. It is a comprehensive strategy to deal with the housing challenges that face this country.
For decades, Britain has faced major long-term problems in housing. We inherited: a boom and bust economy, with 15 per cent. interest rates and hundreds of thousands of people suffering the misery of negative equity; a £19 billion backlog of repairs to social housing; a record number of rough sleepers and families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. For decades, the number of households has increased while the supply of new housing has fallen. This has widened the wealth gap and priced millions of people out of home ownership. Successive Governments have failed to deal with these long-term challenges.
Our priorities in the first five years were to deliver economic stability, tackle the backlog in housing repairs, and remove the obstacles to increasing housing supply. That is what was intended in our policy. I am proud of what we have achieved: there are more than 1 million fewer non-decent homes than in 1997; rough sleeping is down by two thirds; and we have virtually ended the use of bed-and-breakfast hotels for homeless families and children. In the private rented sector, we have improved investment and quality and tackled the problem of bad landlords. Labour economic stability has replaced Tory boom and bust, with low interest rates, low unemployment and low inflation. Only by making progress on these issues have we been able in our second term to take action to increase housing supply and to give more people choice and opportunity in housing.
The number of households has been increasing faster than the growth in population, while the supply of new housing has been falling. The number of single person households has more than doubled from more than 3 million in 1971 to about 6.5 million today. Ten years ago, house prices were three and a half times people's annual salary; they are now six times the annual salary. Sons and daughters cannot afford to live where they were brought up. Nurses and teachers cannot afford to buy homes near where they work. As house prices rise, more people are priced out of the market. This is not just a housing problem; it is a matter of fairness, opportunity and social justice.
That is why I announced the £38 billion sustainable communities plan to the House two years ago. The plan provided for 200,000 extra homes in London and the wider south-east, increasing the total to 1.1 million new homes by 2016. Kate Barker's review of housing supply supported that decision. It said that the undersupply of housing was threatening economic stability and people's quality of life. The review also said that we needed a step change in housing supply, meaning an extra 70,000 to 120,000 new homes a year. The Barker review concluded that many people on moderate incomes in high-demand areas were unable to buy a home.
The case for sustainable growth is clear and unambiguous. The sustainable communities plan and this five-year strategy will achieve growth in a fair and responsible way. Responsible growth means concentrating more housing in our four growth areas in the wider south-east; modernising the planning system to make more land available for housing; encouraging environmentally sustainable homes; using brownfield land; and protecting the green belt. Responsible growth also means providing an infrastructure, because we are creating communities, not just housing estates. We are investing extra resources in schools and hospitals, and making more than £3 billion of new transport investment in the growth areas—the Thames gateway, Milton Keynes and the south midlands, Ashford and the Stansted-Cambridge corridor. It is all about creating sustainable communities with more affordable housing. Today I am announcing the provision of £40 million for sustainable communities in other areas, to support extra housing growth and promote regeneration.
I am also announcing important changes to our planning policies. We are extending our stricter controls on density to cover more areas of high demand, in the east of England and the south-west. Development on brownfield land has already increased from 56 per cent. in 1997 to 67 per cent. in 2003, and today we are further encouraging the use of such land. Our new planning guidance will help local authorities to release unwanted industrial land to be used for housing and other purposes.
We are using less land to provide the homes that people need. We are already doing that in London and the south-east, where we are providing for 1.1 million new homes on less land than the last Government set aside for 900,000 homes in 1997. We have added 19,000 hectares to the green belt, an area the size of Liverpool. Now I am proposing a new green belt direction that will further strengthen protection of the green belt. Local authorities will have to seek my endorsement for its development.
We also want more affordable homes in rural areas. For the first time we will allow local authorities to ring-fence land so that it can be used for rural affordable housing to meet local needs. Today I am announcing a review of the way in which existing home owners apply for planning permission for home improvements. The number of such applications has doubled in 10 years to more than 300,000, which has put additional strain on the planning system. I believe that we can reduce the amount of red tape and make the planning system more effective, while still safeguarding the rights of neighbours and protecting the environment.
In parts of the north and the midlands, long-term industrial decline and people's changing aspirations have led to low demand for housing. Some 850,000 properties are affected, the value of people's homes has been devastated, and communities have been undermined. We are investing £1.2 billion in nine market renewal pathfinders to help lift housing markets in many of the worst affected areas. That investment could also attract billions of pounds of private investment.
I am making £65 million available to new areas such as Tees Valley, West Cumbria and West Yorkshire to tackle their problems of low demand. The plan offers more fairness, opportunity and choice to our 4 million social housing tenants. We are providing more affordable homes, more decent homes, more choice in regard to where people want to live, more help with jobs and housing and more opportunities of home ownership.
Following the recent spending review, we will provide 75,000 new social rented homes over the next three years. By 2008, we will have doubled our annual investment in new affordable housing to £2 billion since 1997. That is in addition to the £18 billion that we have invested in the improvement of our existing social homes since then, to correct the disinvestment incurred by the last Administration. Over 1 million people have benefited: many have new kitchens, bathrooms and central heating. I realise that the houses are not new, but they are certainly new homes to the people who live in them.
We aim to halve the number of households in temporary accommodation within five years, and we are on track to meet our commitment to bring every social home up to a decent standard by 2010. We are making available £500 million in new private finance initiative credits to allow local authorities to work with housing associations and the private sector to build new affordable homes. We are offering social tenants more choice to rent or buy, and we have already improved tenant participation considerably. We are offering tenants more information and more involvement in the decisions that affect their homes.
Local authorities such as Newham and Sheffield have been running choice-based lettings schemes, which have been very popular with tenants. Now I want to work with all local authorities to expand choice-based lettings, so that we can create a national system by 2010. I want the system to include housing associations and private rented homes. It would give information not just about renting, but about the cost of buying a share in a home, and it would give more people a chance of finding a decent home with employment. So we are establishing a new scheme called MoveUK, which will help tenants to find a new job as well as a home. MoveUK will extend our existing location schemes to help tenants find a new home and a better quality of life in another area. We are offering social tenants more choice and more opportunity. Our plan means that local authorities will continue their excellent work in delivering the decent homes programme and continue to invest in new social housing, while offering more choice, managing housing better and using their land for low-cost homes.
We know that many social tenants want to own a share in their own home. Since 1970, home ownership has increased from 50 to 70 per cent. and has continued to grow in every region. Average interest rates are half what they were under the previous Government. Cheaper and more stable mortgages have enabled over 1 million more people to buy their home under this Government, but there are still many more who want the opportunity to own a home. By offering more people the chance to own, or to buy a share in, their home, we will widen opportunity and narrow the wealth gap between those with housing assets and those without.
The House will be aware that 80 per cent. of social tenants already have the right to buy their home. The right to buy and the right to acquire will continue to be available. They have helped to boost home ownership, but have led to the loss of 1.8 million homes from the public sector, at a cost of £40 billion in discounts. I have capped the level of discount in 41 areas of housing crisis, but elsewhere, the right to buy still gives a discount of up to £38,000 for each home and the right to acquire a discount of up to £16,000. On average, it costs us £75,000 in grant to replace each home sold. I asked Baroness Dean to chair a taskforce, which made recommendations on how to promote sustainable home ownership while protecting the social housing stock. I am grateful for its valuable work and for her recommendations.
Today's new five-year plan offers a comprehensive package of schemes to help social tenants and first-time buyers to become home owners. We have two different approaches: HomeBuy, which will offer up to 300,000 council and housing association tenants the opportunity to buy an equity share in their home at a discount; and the first-time buyer initiative, which, together with our key worker and other low-cost home ownership schemes, will help 80,000 families into a home of their own by 2010.
HomeBuy is significantly different for several reasons. It will protect the social housing stock—we consider that essential—because social landlords will have first refusal to buy the home back if the owner moves on to the private sector. It will help more people—up to 300,000 tenants—and it will be more cost effective. We will consult on a range of options for discounts, up to the level of the right to acquire. Moreover, tenants will be able to buy as little as half their home, increasing their share over time if they want to. That will be particularly helpful to tenants who are unable to afford, or who do not have, the right to buy. Unlike the right to buy, HomeBuy will treat local authorities and housing associations equally, allowing both to retain full receipts from the sale of homes and thereby creating a level playing field.
Today's housing plan will widen the opportunity to own or to part-own. In addition to our HomeBuy scheme, I am announcing, as I mentioned, a radical new first-time buyer initiative. Our key worker programme has already helped more than 13,000 key workers such as nurses and teachers, who have been priced out of the housing market. The new first-time buyer initiative will help even more key workers and people on low incomes who cannot afford to buy a home. When they are ready to move on, the social landlord will have first refusal to buy the home back, so that it can be offered to another first-time buyer. The scheme will use surplus public land for new homes. The first-time buyer will pay a price that reflects the cost of construction, and the public sector landowner will keep a share that reflects the value of the land. In due course, the first-time buyer will be able to increase their share up to full ownership, if they want to.
To begin with, the first-time buyer initiative will use land owned by the Government and their agencies, but I want to encourage other public and private sector landowners—in urban and in rural areas—to use their land for new affordable housing. We have been encouraged by our talks with the Council of Mortgage Lenders about how the private sector can support and extend the initiative. Separating the cost of land and the cost of construction through the initiative will be a big help in driving down the purchase price for the home buyer, but we still need to reduce construction costs, which have gone up more than three times faster than retail price inflation in recent years. Such costs are certainly higher than in other European countries.
I have said that it is possible to build a home for £60,000. Apparently, that was a controversial statement, but now it is clear that it is possible. So I am asking English Partnerships to hold a competition, challenging the contractors and house builders to produce a well-designed, environmentally efficient home for £60,000 without sacrificing safety or quality. Next week at the sustainable communities summit in Manchester, English Partnerships will exhibit a house that shows that high standards can be delivered at low cost—[Interruption.] I invite the hon. Members mumbling below the Gangway to come and see it.
The five-year plan is the next step in creating sustainable communities—mixed use, mixed tenures, designed to the highest standards, using less land to build more homes and helping thousands of key workers and first-time buyers to get a home of their own. It means more homes and more home ownership, with extra help for first-time buyers. The five-year plan offers choice for all; fairness for all; opportunity for all; homes for all; and homes for all in sustainable communities. I commend this statement to the House.
I appreciate the apology that the Deputy Prime Minister gave, but I had only just about enough time to count the 20 pages of his statement.
We need to be clear that the statement is necessary because of the crisis in housing—a crisis that has spiralled out of control and is largely of the Government's own making. Under this Government, homelessness has increased by a third, and record numbers of people are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is disingenuous to single out families with children, because overall the number is a record. The amount of social housing being built has nearly halved and the resultant hike in house prices has taken home ownership beyond the reach of a whole generation of young people.
The stealth taxes introduced by this Government have had a disastrous effect for first-time buyers. The 70 per cent. increase in council tax, the extra £1,200 stamp duty facing the average first-time buyer and the abolition of mortgage tax relief all combine to make home ownership a near impossibility for hundreds of thousands of people each year. The Halifax review, published on Saturday, could not have been more damning, as it showed that nine out of 10 towns are now unaffordable for first-time house buyers.
Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could start his reply by offering an apology to all those people who took the Prime Minister at his word when he claimed to understand
"the very human aspiration to own your own home".
There are two key themes in this statement: the proposal for a pale imitation of right to buy for housing association tenants, and the Deputy Prime Minister's scheme to produce £60,000 houses on public land. That is ironic, given that in 1995 the Housing Corporation funded the provision of nearly 17,000 low-cost homes, whereas under Labour that has fallen to fewer than 3,500.
I have to admit some surprise at hearing what the Deputy Prime Minister had to say on the sale of equity in social housing. At the last Labour party conference, he declared that housing association homes were "not for sale". He said that
"it ain't going to happen".
Well, now it is being spun in the media that it is going to happen. His Minister of State said this morning that people could buy an equity share. Will the Deputy Prime Minister clarify whether that will be up to 100 per cent.?
This statement represents not so much a change of heart as a change in who has control over the Government's housing policy. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), is well known as an admirer of the long-established Conservative policy of allowing housing association tenants to buy their homes, and the Deputy Prime Minister has consistently been opposed to it.
Let us look at the implications for housing association tenants. Are not the Government guilty of treating housing association tenants as second-class citizens by limiting their right to buy equity? Did the Deputy Prime Minister really mean that they could buy as little as a 50 per cent. stake in the equity of their home—or will that be the minimum threshold? On a practical level, will he confirm that housing association tenants who have bought an equity share will have to secure permission from the charity or association before doing any work on their homes? Will that not effectively remove one of the main advantages of home ownership?
I must say that if I were a housing association tenant, I would be pretty confused about these proposals. Will such tenants have the right to buy on the same terms as council tenants? If they will, why do the Government not just adopt Conservative proposals for a full right to buy and the right to shared equity all the way up to 100 per cent.?
As for the associations themselves, the proposal denies them the significant capital receipts from outright sales that are crucial if they are to invest in new stock. What measures will the Deputy Prime Minister implement to deregulate housing associations, because without more freedom and flexibility, they will simply find themselves with a declining asset base without the flexibility to respond that our policy would give them? Conservative Members have pledged to reduce the eight regulatory regimes that oversee housing associations and reduce the costs imposed on them by the Government so that they can invest and innovate to generate new housing stock.
Let us turn to the other principal aspect of today's announcement: the provision of cheap houses for key workers. How does the Deputy Prime Minister define "key worker"? Just recently, I received a letter from a nurse who works in a GP practice, yet does not qualify for the Government's much-vaunted key worker scheme. Surely that is absurd.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister explain the inconsistency between the Chancellor's plans to sell off land in public ownership and his plans to build cheap homes on that land? By the Government's own arithmetic, the market value of the land will be about £71,000 per plot, so building 60,000 key worker homes—the figure touted in the press—under the scheme on publicly owned land will mean that the Treasury will forgo £4.2 billion of asset sales that were already pencilled in over the next few years. That represents a sizeable chunk of the total asset sales identified by the Lyons report, and it will create an even deeper black hole in the Government's finances, which could only be bridged with more third-term tax rises. Why are the Government obsessed with building key worker ghettos on public land when good shared equity schemes can make good-quality homes affordable for all?
Up to now, the Government's sole answer to the housing crisis has been to concrete over more and more green fields in the vain hope that supply will eventually match demand and bring house prices down. Today's announcement is essentially an admission that that approach, on its own, is doomed to fail. How can the Deputy Prime Minister expect to be taken seriously on the green belt? He has expanded it in areas where, in the words of the House of Commons Library,
"development pressure is not greatest,"
while allowing more than 170 permissions to concrete over the green belt. How can he possibly portray himself as the "guardian" of the green belt?
Yet still, the Deputy Prime Minister is determined to steamroller ahead with plans to impose massive housing targets on the countryside. The statement advocates again sustainable communities. What does he understand by the word, "sustainable"—surely not slapping down hundreds of thousands of new homes in a region of the United Kingdom that has 30 per cent. less water resources than 10 years ago?
There are many ways in which the Government can help people to get on to the housing ladder, but the statement misses nearly all of them. A five-year-plan, published probably just months before a general election, will fool no one. It is merely another example of the Government talking the talk to hide eight years of complacency and failure to act. Today's announcement is a fudge and a hastily assembled compromise that will do little to help the increasing number of people who are priced out of the housing market. If ever there was a case of too little, too late, this is it.
It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) does not do the research to substantiate her allegations. As for a housing crisis, I do not think that anyone doubted that there was one in 1997 when we came to office. There was negative equity, the public sector had been robbed of 1.8 million houses—[Interruption.] Can you shut up for a second while I explain the position? [Interruption.] I am talking to the hon. Member for Meriden.
When we fought the election in 1997, one of the major concerns was the crisis in housing caused largely by boom and bust in the economy. Housing paid the price. Housing investment in the last five years of the previous Administration was slashed by half; it has doubled under ours. The lowest amount of house building for decades occurred at that time. Please do not tell me that there was not a housing crisis and a problem of credibility.
The hon. Lady talks about the council tax and says that we increased it by 30 per cent. in real terms and that, in the four years before we came in, they had cut it by 7 per cent. That is just untrue. Those are some of the facts that she must consider before making accusations in the way that she has.
The hon. Lady talked about building on brownfield land. We have increased that from 57 to 67 per cent., whereas the previous Administration argued whether they could go to 60 per cent., as anybody who remembers the debates in 1997 will know. We have done very well.
On housing density, if the hon. Lady is concerned about the south-east, surely the Conservatives should have raised the density levels required in the south-east in the way that I did—from 25 to 30 per hectare, and it is has now gone up to 35. Therefore, the extra 200,000 houses in our programme can be built on the same amount of land as she planned for 900,000. Using land more efficiently and using brownfield is the way to proceed, and that is exactly what the previous Administration did not do.
On the housing association capital receipts that the hon. Lady mentioned, the housing associations will receive, as they did before, the full receipts. In fact, I have gone a little further. It has always been a common complaint that local authorities are not treated the same as housing associations in regard to capital receipts returns from the sale of homes. On this occasion, we are now giving the returns to the local authorities so that they, like housing associations, can have the full receipts from the sale of homes. That creates the level playing field that I have constantly been asked for.
The hon. Lady will know that council receipts are something like £2 billion this year. According to the Conservative party's policy document, that will be used in all other housing investment areas. She should talk to the shadow Chancellor, because he presumes that the £2 billion that is used at present will be available to him when he calculates the costs. Again, the figures do not add up.
The hon. Lady has a cheek to talk about capital receipts, because the previous Government held back capital receipts. They did not even allow local authorities to replace the housing that was being taken out of the public stock. Indeed, one of the first things that I did when I came to office was to get hold of those capital receipts and begin to improve the stock of all the 2 million houses that were not of a decent standard. In those circumstances, she should look at the consequences of her policies, least of all now that the James report seems to suggest that the Conservatives will slash another £500 million out of the housing programme. When they launched their programme in November, they probably did not tell her that the James report was coming out in January and would effectively slash her proposals in the new housing document.
I thought it was quite offensive when the hon. Lady talked about key worker ghettos. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Lady say that? Did she say that? We introduced a key worker policy when there was not one under the previous Administration, and I have seen an example of it today in Ealing. It is a tremendous development built by both the public and private sectors, and I talked to one of the ladies there. She was absolutely delighted, because she could not have paid the full price. Some 40 per cent. of tenants and key workers in that area are in that position and no one would describe it as a ghetto. I suggest that the hon. Lady go out and have a look at it. The record of the previous Administration was deplorable. They created the crisis and now she is saying that, although everybody agrees that we need more houses, we do not want them in the "nimby" south-east. People in that area do want houses and we will provide precisely what is wanted.
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the statement. Although it was inconvenient not to have a copy much beforehand, there have been so many leaks in the press that much of what he said was hardly news.
May I, unusually, congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on one thing: his victory over the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? I welcome the fact that, with his proposed HomeBuy policy, the Deputy Prime Minister has effectively adopted the Liberal Democrat right to invest policy for housing association tenants. Is he aware that the Minister for Housing and Planning wrote to the Liberal Democrats last April expressing interest in our proposed right to invest, which is strikingly similar to HomeBuy? Does he recognise that such schemes can both help people on to the ladder of home ownership and protect the future of social housing? Will he give an assurance that, under HomeBuy, housing associations will be able to reinvest all capital receipts in new social housing?
Given Britain's affordable housing crisis, is not the real challenge to build more homes, not to cut funds going into housing, as the Conservatives propose? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there are serious doubts about the legality of extending the right to buy to housing associations, as many are charities and few are owned by the Government? Does he agree with the National Housing Federation that it would cost the taxpayer about £1 billion a year to subsidise the sell-off by housing associations and undermine their future ability to build the social housing that we so desperately need?
On the Deputy Prime Minister's proposal to use surplus public sector land for new home building, are not his plans rather timid and cautious? Why has he failed to secure more land from Departments such as Defence and Health? Why is Whitehall clinging on to so much unused land when people are crying out for affordable homes? Why has he limited his scheme to Government land ownership? Why is he not prepared to co-operate with the mutual sector and establish new community land trusts that could ensure that the land was properly used for new homes?
During the passage of the recent Housing Bill, ODPM Ministers eventually accepted our arguments for new powers to tackle the scandal of empty homes. When reusing empty properties offers a cheap, fast and sustainable way to provide affordable housing, why are the Government dragging their feet on the regulations needed to introduce those new powers?
On homelessness, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his new target to halve the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation by 2010 will simply take us back to the numbers inherited by Labour in 1997? Is he proud of that? Will he reassure the House that the target will not be met by changing the definition of "homeless", as some have proposed?
It has taken the Government far too long to wake up to Britain's affordable housing crisis. Although the Deputy Prime Minister has done well to resist the Minister for the manifesto, his strategy falls far short of the new approach that Britain's families need.
I repeat: do not believe everything you read in the press. I say that constantly. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I do not talk to the press. I can't stick 'em, frankly. Did they get that right? The hon. Gentleman should judge by the statement that I made today, not by the tittle-tattle he gets in the press. I have made a balanced judgment about what is the best policy.
As for adopting Liberal policy, why is it that whenever Liberal Democrats see something similar to their thinking they automatically call it Liberal policy? The hon. Gentleman referred to a proposal for dealing with empty homes. That came from the Empty Homes Agency. He is a jackdaw, pinching one of the agency's ideas and claiming it for the Liberals. It does not matter how many times he proposes different policies, because he is never going to be in power to implement them. He has the luxury of being able to say what is popular without doing it.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of serious points that I will address. Receipts will be kept by local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is a new departure. Housing associations will be able to do that for social housing. That is absolutely right. I do not think that my thinking should not stop there, but it is an interesting step towards levelling the ground.
I recognise the point made by the hon. Gentleman—I do not think that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) does—that there was tremendous controversy when the previous Conservative Administration tried to introduce the right to buy in housing associations. That is why we ended up with the right to acquire and the legislative problems that went with it—the proposals were thrown out by Conservative Members in the House of Lords, if I recall correctly. We will wait and see what happens. The Conservatives can forget about the past and propose something for the future. They can ignore the fact that they gave us the housing crisis that we are trying to deal with now.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said about land. I hope that he will understand that I had arrived at the idea before I heard what he had to say about what should be done with land. Land is an important factor—the more of it we own, the better. He will have noticed that I have bought 100 plots of land—or rather, the Government have—from hospitals. I had better get that right in case somebody goes to the Register of Members' Interests. I have bought more plots from the Ministry of Defence and I am in the market to buy many more through English Partnerships, which acts as the agency. The aim is to increase the amount of land that is available and to use it much more effectively.
I do not accept what the hon. Member for Meriden seems to want to do, which is to get a quick buck by selling off land. Perhaps we should own the land and use it much more effectively than at present, so that the price of land does not mean that the cost of the house increases. There is another factor. I have found myself constantly asking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for more subsidies for the housing programme. Prices were being forced up as a result of increases in land prices—land that was often sold at the market rate by Government Departments. We have shown that it is far better to change that policy. This does not include every piece of land that is owned by the Government, but certainly some of it. If we build houses on that land, we will separate the land from the construction price, with mortgages relating to the building. There is an equity share. I do not think that this approach has been proposed before. However, I have done it, and I think that it makes a lot of sense because prices have increased so much that it is beyond the ability of many to purchase, even if they want to. It is common sense for the community to use its land in the way that I have described to provide housing.
At the same time, the land and the house return to the public sector. They will not be lost to the public sector. People can use this as a first rung on the ladder and then move on to the private sector once the increase in the value of the land is available for a deposit. I am also giving that right to social tenants. There were tenants who could not afford the full market price or the right to buy. A greater opportunity will be presented for these people to get a house. We all know that having a house and owning an asset makes a difference to our quality of life. Many people borrow against it and the growing differential in wealth is between those who have houses and those who do not. What we are proposing will make a change.
My right hon. Friend knows that in the Yorkshire and Humber region 10 years ago, only about 7 per cent. of first-time buyers paid stamp duty. Now, more than 70 per cent. of first-time buyers pay stamp duty. It is rumoured in today's press that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider that before making his pre-Budget statement. Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to add his support to introducing a rebate on stamp duty for house buyers who invest in energy efficiency measures, as proposed in my private Member's Bill? That would not only help first-time buyers to get into the market but assist the Government in hitting their climate change programme targets.
I appreciate the point made by my right hon. Friend. I say to him, as anyone would on the Treasury Front Bench, that judgments about tax changes are best left to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
I understand the difficulties about stamp duty and I know how strongly people feel about it, but it still represents only about 1 per cent. of the total purchase price. My priority is to get construction prices down so that people can afford to buy a house. Taxation matters will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Has the Treasury changed its policy on the disposal of public assets? Until now, public bodies have been required to get best value from the sale of property. If that is no longer true, that could affect their ability to raise money for use in, for example, the health service. Will they be compensated for that? The Deputy Prime Minister said that as little as 50 per cent. could be bought. Is that intended to be the minimum purchase? If that is purchased at a discount, people will sell it, by definition, at market value, otherwise there is no point to the scheme. The housing association might well find itself constantly repurchasing at market value to own the same house. Given that only 30 per cent. of those who live in housing association properties are in work, is that a realistic proposition?
As usual, the right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. He is thinking about the transferability of value, which will obviously be part of the debate. We do not envisage that happening, but we are issuing a consultation document. We will pay serious attention to the point. In regard to best value land, the matter is agreed with the Treasury. That does not alter the fact that most of the land will still be operating under best value. It is interesting to consider whether it is best value for the community for people to get a home. At the end of the day, if we go for best value in everything, what happens is that the land is sold at a very high price and houses are built on it. The people who provide the social housing that is included in the mix through section 106 come to me and say, "Look, if you want this, given the cost of land and housing, you will have to pay a subsidy." In some cases, grants for key worker homes are up to £80,000. This is ever escalating. I think that there is a better way of doing it, instead of fuelling market prices by selling land at the top price.
I welcome the proposals in today's statement, especially as they give local authorities a level playing field. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the relinkage of jobs and housing which, just as the 1947 Labour Government did with the new town project, gives people opportunities through a job and a home. Does he agree that many people, particularly in the Conservative party in West Sussex, do not want to make sure that everyone still has a good chance of a home? They have turned their backs on many people who desperately need houses and embraced silly rhetoric about concreting over the south-east. They are not getting down to the real issue and good young families cannot secure housing in West Sussex, because those people are happy to treat the matter as an election issue.
Sustainable communities are not only about building housing but providing the supporting infrastructure in education, health and transport systems. The extra investment that we are putting into the new growth areas does precisely that and will also be critical in providing jobs. Our approach to new towns reflected that and our new community growth areas will certainly do so. I have mentioned the possibility of giving more information to people who are considering moving to a different area. They might want to move from my hon. Friend's constituency up to Hull, where houses and jobs are available. We will therefore provide more information, as it is important to connect jobs as well as housing to quality of life. Too often in the past, we have given people houses, but there were no jobs, so we had to pay housing benefit, and those people just existed. That was the policy, in particular, under the previous Administration.
As for the Conservatives' arguments about concreting over the south-east, the fact that density has increased and that I can build 200,000 more houses on the same land on which they envisaged 900,000 suggests much more effective land usage. We can build more houses without taking any more land. That is an intelligent approach to the housing problem. The previous Administration got into a mess because they did not have any commonsense policies.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it will cause misery for the whole population if extra houses are provided in already overcrowded areas without the provision of additional facilities such as roads and health services? Does he agree that, in Southend, where we have a serious housing problem and a large number of houses in multiple occupation, providing additional houses would simply make the already appalling traffic congestion worse unless the Government make provision for the ring road that we have needed for a desperately long time?
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In the growth areas, including the Thames gateway near his constituency, we are putting those things together. However, he raised the problem of growth in established towns, and the question of whether facilities will be available to make that growth sustainable. I announced today another £40 million for growth areas that require such investment if they are to be sustainable. The transport infrastructure fund that we announced was intended to ensure the proper investment necessary for sustainable communities, so that more and more people are not packed into an area where the services cannot carry them. It is a serious point, and we are addressing it.
The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the problem of sons and daughters who cannot afford to live where they were brought up. That is certainly the case in many rural communities in my constituency and elsewhere. Does he acknowledge that the issue is not just how many new homes are provided, but where they are provided? Does he accept that the sequential test has the unfortunate consequence of directing the provision of affordable housing to market towns and often away from the villages where it is desperately needed? Will he review his policies and draw up proposals to remove the barriers to the provision of affordable housing in rural communities, where there is support from the community? That is the only way to guarantee their sustainability.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the distribution of housing, particularly in rural areas, whether in market towns or villages. There is a responsibility on the Housing Corporation and now the regional housing boards to achieve a balance in the amount of housing and where it is situated. As regards rural areas, I proposed in my statement that local authorities that have land should start ring-fencing it to ensure that the homes are affordable to people who live in the area. We hear in the news that some planning bodies have decided to restrict houses being built in the area. That will not help the people who live there. All it will do is restrict the existing problem. The previous Administration introduced the right to buy in some rural areas, with the restriction that the homes should be sold only to people who live in the area. As I learned from visits to the Lake district and other areas, the house is indeed sold to someone who lives in the area, but usually a wealthy person who wants the property as a holiday let. It does not necessarily go to the young person with a job who wants to stay in the area. We have started introducing some restrictions, but the rural case is important. My proposal today to local authorities is that, if they have some land, why do they not consider providing houses at a price that people can afford, so that they can live in the area, help towards its prosperity and maintain the sustainability that comes from a family living together?
May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister for clarification? Page 7 of his statement, in subsection C, on HomeBuy, states:
"And tenants will be able to buy as little as half of their home, increasing their share over time if they want to."
Is that up to 100 per cent.?
Yes, it can be to 100 per cent. if tenants so wish, but eventually they may want to buy the house or move on and use the value from the house to buy one in the private market. There were similar schemes previously which allowed that. The difficulty is knowing whether the share should go below 50 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in these circumstances there are always difficulties with accepting responsibility for maintenance, particularly in the low income groups for which the policies are designed.
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on resisting the advocates of extending the right to buy to housing association tenants, with the damaging effects that that would have had in areas of high housing need? May I also congratulate him on reasserting the point that providing people with somewhere decent and permanent to live takes a higher priority than the right to buy?
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments. Having read the press reports, I do not confirm that there was a battle going on about that at all. It made for good, exciting press chat—[Interruption.] Well, nobody quoted anybody who said anything. It was always attributed to a high source, a low source or some other source, but never an actual quote of anybody saying it. It was one of those media battles. The priorities that my right hon. Friend mentioned and the importance of getting houses to people who need them are what concentrate my mind.
I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement with its support for Plaid Cymru's long-standing policies of extending shared equity, separating the costs of houses and land, and ring-fencing land in rural areas for low-cost housing for local people, but could he tell the House who described those policies last month as being spiteful, desperate, extreme and on the margins of politics? I see that the Deputy Prime Minister is puzzled, so perhaps I can extend to him a kindness and whisper the name of the rightly obscure deputy social justice Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government, Mr. Huw Lewis. What will the Deputy Prime Minister do to inform this personage of this latest policy flip-flop?
Who is he? As a Welshman, I find that I can get into enough trouble going into Wales and getting involved in Welsh politics, without getting involved in that here. Let me quote what Jim Coulter, chief excutive of the National Housing Federation, said today about the plan. He said:
"Right-To-Buy is unrealistic and extending it is an irrelevant policy. If the government comes forward with social home-buy, this will provide more choice for tenants and allow for investment in sustainable communities."
Shelter has equally come out in support of the measure. It makes the point that we need to build far more houses to deal with the real problem of supply and demand, but anyone who understands the problem will know that it will not be solved in two or three years. However, we are moving in the right direction. I will leave others to judge whether I have pinched one of the Welsh nationalist policies, but at least we appear to agree.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his visit to Ealing this morning and assure him that he has made many new friends in Northolt, including Sharon Williams, the young woman whom he referred to obliquely earlier. When the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman uses expressions such as "key worker ghetto", immense offence is caused to police officers, teachers and health workers, such as those whom my right hon. Friend met today. Will my right hon. Friend say from the Dispatch Box that those of us on the Labour Benches talk about key worker communities, and never ever ghettos?
I very much agree with my hon. Friend and I was pleased to make that visit with him this morning and to meet Sharon Williams, who was delighted to have an equity share in her home, and she expressed it forcefully. She will react strongly to being described as living in an area called a key worker ghetto. That language is offensive to people who desperately want a home in a decent area—something that was not provided by the previous Administration.
The hon. Gentleman asks why. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that they want to live in a proper community. If he does not think that the place that I visited this morning was a good community, and certainly not a ghetto, I invite him to go and look at that joint public-private project that is building a wonderful sustainable community, with all the facilities that are needed and the jobs, and the hon. Member for Meriden will have to withdraw her remark. It is not a key worker ghetto, by any stretch of the imagination.
May I take the Deputy Prime Minister further down the avenue opened by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) about the shortage of housing in rural areas, particularly in villages in the southern half of the country where the price has been driven up by demand from outsiders for attractive properties, perhaps for first homes but often for second homes? What he has announced today may well help in market towns, but I do not think that it will help in villages, which often need small schemes of five to 10 units, administered by a local housing trust and available only to people with a strong connection with the area. That often makes sense for a local landowner, who, even if he does not want to give the land, could sell it for more than its agricultural value, although obviously less than its full development value. It makes sense for everybody. It is permissible under planning guidance, but does the Deputy Prime Minister think that more could be done to promote and encourage such schemes?
I do think that more could be done, and I hope that we can begin to encourage such thoughts rather than people rejecting the use of land in such ways. I am not talking about large developments, or even medium-sized developments of 50 to 100 houses, but of plots that would take two or three houses. A youth hostel in the Lake district that I visited recently had a piece of land that it wanted to put three or four houses on, two for workers at the hostel and another two for people from the village. It was denied permission by the planning board, and I thought that that was particularly stupid. If we consider such land, we can provide more housing, albeit in small parcels. Asking local authorities to consider such land use along with my ideas about producing cheaper housing might help in the rural areas, and we will do what we can to achieve that.
I strongly welcome the allocation of a share of £65 million to Tees Valley for housing market renewal, which will help with regeneration that is sorely needed in wards such as Grangetown and South Bank in my constituency. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Tees Valley authorities have set up Tees Valley Living to plan some regional regeneration and we are, as it were, ready to go now the allocation has been made. When may we know what share of the £65 million will be ours? To enhance progress, can it be paid straight to Tees Valley Living, rather than through the regional housing board? Granted that the pathfinders originally got an average of about £60 million and our problems in Tees Valley are deep, I hope that, in the end, we will not be treated as Oliver Twist was if my colleagues and I are obliged later to come and ask for yet more.
I think that the announcement will be shortly, and that the money will go direct to the pathfinder, as it is the pathfinders that are playing that part. Without indicating the conclusions that we have come to, I hope that that may play a part in the development of my hon. and learned Friend's area.
The Deputy Prime Minister referred to the planning system as the mechanism for making more land available for new homes. How much land is that likely to realise and how does that arrangement compare with the idea of land value taxation as a way of releasing more land for development?
I do not know precisely how much land would be available. Certainly, there is more than enough for the resources that I have to be able to purchase to utilise in this way. I shall write and give the hon. Gentleman a more informed opinion, if I can, and tell him exactly where we are in purchasing in these matters. It is often difficult comment because we are the middle of commercial contracts, and I hope that he will understand that, but I will write to him.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, Barker made some interesting comments and I cannot help feeling sympathetic. Public investment often creates an awful lot of value for other people, but not the community. There is a good argument, but we said that we would report back on the Barker recommendations in the autumn.
My right hon. Friend was wise to ignore the siren voices calling for the right to buy for housing associations, because more than anything, it would have done enormous damage to the exceptions policy in rural Britain. Does he accept that there is a need to look for innovative schemes in rural Britain and particularly at the idea of the community land trust, which was mentioned from the Liberal Democrat Benches but has come from the co-operative movement? Will he look carefully at the sites that he has made available through his deal with the Department of Health, because many of them would be appropriate in looking to take forward that type of exciting scheme?
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I understand it, we are exploring the possibilities in his constituency. When I looked at the amount of land being sold by the Department of Health, I saw that it was in plots. There were large amounts and small amounts spread throughout the United Kingdom. We are looking at the possibilities in using that land and to see how we can put houses on it and meet the real need that exists, particularly in rural areas.
The Deputy Prime Minister said in his statement that we also want more affordable homes in rural areas, and he is absolutely right. Why then has he made it more difficult for local authorities in rural areas such as Test Valley to do exactly that, by unilaterally ending the programme funded under local authority social housing grant, funded out of their capital receipts, which has resulted in a decimated programme of affordable homes? Will he reconsider that decision and reintroduce that programme?
The view that we took in the Department was that the programme was an inefficient way of dealing with the matter, and we put more resources into doubling the investment. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, he was in a Government who halved that investment over a period, which was certainly not very helpful to his rural constituents.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the careful balance that he has struck between promoting home ownership, improving housing conditions and meeting housing need. Does he agree that London has 60,000 homeless households and 500,000 children in chronically overcrowded accommodation in large part because of the halving of the number of social homes during the past 20 years, which has led to the absurdity of councils re-renting ex-right-to-buy properties to house homeless families? Will he ensure that housing associations have not only an expectation, but a duty to repurchase the equity stake that they have sold, so that we retain social housing stock in all communities? We should not repeat the errors of the past, when the largest and most attractive homes in the best neighbourhoods were sold first, leaving the poorest concentrated in the worst housing.
My hon. Friend has consistently come to me to discuss the problems of housing, on which she is an acknowledged expert. She was one of the first to say to me that the right to buy was creating problems in her area. We made her area one of the emergency housing areas to deal with profiteering—people bought properties and made a profit by re-renting them out under different conditions. My hon. Friend knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has been examining in new housing legislation how to keep the flexibility to judge whether an area is in housing crisis and whether we should take action.
My hon. Friend put her finger on the main point—insufficient social housing. If we doubled our investment in social housing, it would still be nowhere near enough to solve the problem. The amount of money that I get buys fewer and fewer units because of escalating prices, which was the problem with the right to buy—the properties cost an awful lot to replace and a lot of subsidies were given out in grants to pay for the policy. We are rightly changing that situation and making it clear that houses should remain in the public sector in those circumstances.
Point of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the lengthy period in which the Gambling Bill was in Committee, the Government constantly made announcements and changed their policy. Only a few minutes ago, the Doorkeepers were trying to distribute a series of letters from the Government about further clarifications or changes of view to members of the Standing Committee, on which I served. It is ridiculous that on the very day the Bill is on Report, the Government have handed over not one or two letters, but in my case four separate letters announcing different views. I realise that the Government have a duty to inform hon. Members about matters raised in Standing Committee, but if the Government and those who support Ministers cannot get out a full set of papers to members of the Standing Committee any earlier, the business managers should not put the Bill on Report.
Hon. Members often complain that Ministers do not keep them informed. The hon. Gentleman has reported to me that they are keeping at least some hon. Members informed, which is not something that I want to pursue.
Gambling Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
I beg to move,
That the Order of 1st November 2004 be varied by the substitution for paragraphs 4 and 5 of the following:
1. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption.
2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following table, and each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the second column.
Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings Amendments relating to Clauses 7, 68, 85, 88, 161, 162 and 179; New Clauses NC7 and NC11; Amendments relating to Clauses 83, 89, 266 and 272. Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. Amendments relating to Clause 58; Remaining proceedings on consideration. One hour before the moment of interruption.
3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.
The motion will ensure that in the time available, hon. Members can concentrate on the key issues in the Bill—casinos, bingo, charity lotteries and amusement arcades. I am sure that the key issues and the drafting amendments, which are designed to improve the Bill, can be debated adequately in that time.
The Bill differs radically from its form on Second Reading. The Government radically changed its thrust in Committee, imposing limitations on the key provisions relating to casinos right at the last minute. Indeed, the biggest change was made on the final day in Committee, which allowed little opportunity to explore why the Government had made that sudden U-turn.
We are now faced with a Report stage that is programmed and limited to just one day. It is profoundly unsatisfactory that a Bill that has undergone years of consultation and scrutiny should suddenly be changed so dramatically at the very last minute, and then that the House of Commons should have so little opportunity to examine the changes that the Government have proposed.
The official Opposition will not vote against the programme motion, because to do so would limit even further the time that we have, but I want to place on the record the fact that we regard this situation as completely unsatisfactory. I have no doubt that when those in another place come to consider the Bill, they will take account of the fact that large chunks of it were not properly scrutinised by the House of Commons.
I would like to add to my hon. Friend's remarks. This Bill has been around, in various shapes and forms, for some four or five years. We had the Budd report, the White Paper, the pre-legislative scrutiny and then the Bill, which has been heavily amended throughout. The major concerns expressed by the Joint Committee regarding the planning advice were swept to one side with the claim that that was all firmly in place, but now, at the 11th hour, those changes are being proposed.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State did a somersault, or U-turn—call it what one will—that substantially changed the character and nature of the Bill. Then in Committee, after 300 clauses, with only 60 or so to go, and after numerous Government amendments and new clauses, the Minister produced the 888 policy. In my 28 or 29 years in this House, I had never seen a Standing Committee adjourn to debate a ministerial statement at the tail end of its proceedings. This has been a catalogue of mismanagement, order, counter-order and disorder. If I were a Minister or an official I would be extremely embarrassed that things should be in this state today.
I shall follow my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) in not taking too much time, because we want to get on to the amendments. However, I felt it right to register, for the first time, my views about a programme motion. Most programme motions are spurious, but this one represents an abuse of the House. It is an abuse of parliamentary procedure to bring forward on Report more than 90 Government amendments and some six new clauses, and allow us only until 10 o'clock to get through it all. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that through your office you can express that concern in the appropriate quarters.
Although the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and I may have our differences later, I entirely agree with his remarks. I wish to place it clearly on the record that we formally requested that the Government allocate two days to the Report stage of this very important Bill, not least in the light of the large number of amendments that were tabled in Committee at the last moment, and that have been brought before us today.
As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford rightly says, we do not wish to waste time debating the lack of time, so we will not oppose the programme motion, but we wish clearly to register our belief that the time allowed for the debate is completely inadequate.
I will be brief, for the reasons already given by my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I entirely agree that the whole passage of the Bill has been a mess.
I want to make a specific point on the programme motion. If the Government had had the sense to listen in much greater detail to all, not merely some, of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and including my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire, they could have avoided a lot of the mess into which they have got themselves. One of the reasons why they had to make two such humiliating U-turns in Committee was that they were under pressure, which they completely failed to anticipate, from a media campaign and from some of their own Back Benchers.
However, that huge media campaign would not have occurred if the Government had simply stuck to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee's recommendations. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire would not then have faced the position that he described as unique in his parliamentary experience, which is much longer than mine.
It is inadequate that we have such limited time today. I do not want to take up more time, but I hope that those in another place will listen carefully to all that my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford and for South-West Hertfordshire, the hon. Member for Bath and I have said today. I hope that they will insist—as they have the right to do in another place, where the Government cannot so easily programme, guillotine and bulldoze things through—on proper scrutiny.
I predict that the Government will regret not acceding to the request of the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for two full days of debate. I suspect that there will be substantial rebellions in another place by Labour peers, especially those who have detailed knowledge of the industry. They will say, as I am saying, that the recommendations of the Joint Committee should have been followed and that, having performed all those humiliating U-turns and changes of policy, the Government are wrong subsequently to guillotine and programme the debate. By doing that, they are preventing the House from doing the job for which we were all elected.
The Government are introducing much new material, which will not be debated by the House. I therefore suspect that they will have genuine problems in another place. Once the other place has finished with it, we may end up with a Bill that is much closer to the Joint Committee's sensible recommendations.
It is not my habit to speak about such motions, because I know that, no matter who is in power, they must have some such procedure. However, I ask the Minister whether he genuinely believes that it is in any way reasonable to discuss 127 amendments, new clauses and Government amendments in one hour. That simply means that we will not have the slightest chance of discussing them all.
Some Members of Parliament represent seaside towns. For example, my constituency has many amusement arcades. The residents and the owners of the arcades had meetings with me and said that there were some questions that I simply had to ask the Government about amendments Nos. 106 and 109. They want to know, for example, whether and in what circumstances the Government would use the powers for which they are providing. Yet there is not the slightest chance of my being able to ask those questions. The second part of the selection list includes a long list of headings, including "Age limit", "Miscellaneous", "Lotteries", "Restrictions on gambling and gaming", "Gaming machines" and "Children". How on earth can we hold a reasonable discussion on 127 different amendments in one hour? It is not possible, and the proposition constitutes treating the House of Commons with contempt.
It is not as though we are dealing with a silly industry that does not count. The betting and gaming industry employs 82,000 people, and the income that it generated last year was £1.76 billion. The industry is huge, and important to seaside towns. Although I appreciate that there will be no vote, which I greatly regret, will the Minister say whether the Government would be willing to re-examine the matter and ensure that we have at least a quarter of an hour, or even 20 minutes, on some of the big issues? They are desperately important matters, which could have a serious effect on employment in seaside towns. I wonder whether the Minister, even at this stage, would allow half an hour or 20 minutes on some issues.
I hope that the Government appreciate that when many jobs are at risk—and the people who run the industries do believe that jobs will be at risk—the least we should do in the House of Commons is hold some sort of discussion and provide some opportunity for hon. Members to ask questions and find out why the Minister intends to proceed with some of the proposals. The time allowed for discussion makes the House of Commons nonsensical, and I hope that the Government will think again.
The Executive are accused of not listening to the House of Commons, and then we get accused of reacting to it. I have been a Member of Parliament for some 20 years, and I believe that if Governments of both sides had taken heed of the House, that would probably have made for better legislation. Therefore, that is exactly what we have done. On Second Reading there was clearly much concern in the House, and we responded to it. Yet when the Executive respond to that, we are accused of U-turns and back-downs; many such descriptive nouns are used.
If the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) examines the programme motion, he will see that there are two hours, followed by the time until 9 o'clock, and then an hour for Third Reading. I believe that there will be adequate time.
We have indeed responded to all the issues of concern raised on Second Reading, and there has been some radical change. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) argued that we used the facilities of the House to allow an Adjournment of the Standing Committee. Well, what is wrong with that? The House was flexible enough to be able to take into account the concerns that hon. Members had clearly expressed on Second Reading, and the Executive have responded to them. A statement was made to clarify the position, which I believe is now more in concert with the views of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee—and, indeed, with what we brought to the House on Second Reading. I am proud that we have listened to the House of Commons and responded positively to hon. Members' concerns. I believe that we are now presenting a Bill that is in concert with what the British people are thinking.
Question put and agreed to.
Orders of the Day
Gambling Bill
As amended in Committee, considered
Clause 7 — Casino
I beg to move amendment No. 102, in clause 7, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
'(2A) In this Act "casino premises" means premises in respect of which a casino premises licence has been granted under section 146(1)(a).'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 101, in page 4, line 8, after 'of', insert 'casino'.
Amendment No. 96, in page 4, line 14, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment No. 100, in page 4, line 17, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
'(d) sub-small casinos previously licensed under the Gaming Act 1968.'.
Government amendments Nos. 2 and 8.
Amendment No. 93, in page 37, line 23, leave out Clause 85.
Amendment No. 97, in page 38, line 43, clause 88, at end add—
'(3) A casino operating licence may be subject to a condition imposed by virtue of section 73 or 75 specifying rules relating to—
(a) opening hours,
(b) smoke-free areas, and
(c) alcohol-free areas.'.
Amendment No. 103, in page 72, line 35, clause 161, at end insert
'or not to issue more than a specified number of such licences.'.
Amendment No. 104, in page 72, line 37, at end insert
'and in particular may take account of the likely social impact of permitting casinos or more than a specified number of casinos to operate in its area.'.
Amendment No. 105, in page 72, line 38, at end insert—
'(za) must specify the maximum number (if any) of casino premises licences that the authority is willing to issue.'.
Amendment No. 116, in page 73, line 29, clause 162, at end insert—
'(4) Each casino premises licence shall by virtue of this subsection be subject to the mandatory conditions that the licensee—
(a) shall not operate gaming tables or gaming machines of Categories A or B outside a designated gaming area prescribed in relation to the relevant casino premises under section 147.
(b) shall not permit any person other than the licensee or a person employed by the licensee to perform any function within the casino to enter a designated gaming area whilst the same is being used in reliance of the casino premises licence without the production at the entrance thereto of satisfactory evidence of identity; and
(c) shall maintain a condition of door supervision in respect of the designated gaming area at all times whilst the same is being used in reliance of the casino premises licence; and
(5) Regulations under this section may, in particular, add or exclude gaming machines of a particular category or categories from gaming machines which are the subject of subsection (4) of this section provided that such regulations shall not permit gaming machines of Category A to be so excluded.
(6) In subsection (4) "satisfactory evidence of identity" means evidence which is reasonably capable of establishing (and does in fact establish to the satisfaction of the person who obtains it) (a) the name, address and a photographic likeness of the person producing the evidence, (b) establishing that such person is over the age of 18 years on each occasion that satisfactory evidence of identity is required to be produced under this Act (including the proffering on a second or subsequent occasion of entry of a card or token issued to them by the licensee of the casino premises) for the purpose of verifying the identity of such person by reference to a photographic image.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) a photographic image may be an image stored (a) visually or electronically upon the card or (b) upon a system maintained by the licensee of the premises for such a purpose.'.
Government amendment No. 13.
New clause 7—Membership role—
'(1) No premises licence shall be granted if conditions are not in place for the effect that no person shall participate in gaming or gambling in casinos unless either—
(a) he is a member of the casino specified in the licence who, at the time when he begins to take part in the gaming, or gambling, is eligible to take part in it, or
(b) he is a bona fide guest of a person who is a member of that casino and who, at the time when the guest begins to take part in the gaming, or gambling, is eligible to take part in it.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a member of the casino specified in the licence is eligible to take part in gaming or gambling at any particular time if he was admitted to membership of the casino in pursuance of an application in writing—
(a) made by him in person or on the premises, or
(b) sent by him to those premises and at that time at least 24 hours have elapsed since his application was made or received there.'.
New clause 11—Going equipped to cheat—
'(1) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse (the burden of proof of which shall lie upon him), he has with him in a casino any article that is capable of or is intended for recording, analysing or predicting—
(a) the outcome of a game;
(b) any cards played or to be played in a game;
(c) the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to a game; or
(d) the strategy for playing a game.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply to any article which is used for making a handwritten record in respect of a game.'.
New clause 13—Gaming machines in established casinos—
'(1) A casino premises licence for an established casino shall, by virtue of this section, authorise the holder to make gaming machines available for use on the premises provided that—
(a) each gaming machine is of Category A, B, C or D; and
(b) the number of Category A gaming machines is not more than one-fifth of the total number of gaming machines of any Category made available for use on the premises.
(2) In subsection (1) references to a casino premises licence include any licence for an established casino which, by virtue of Schedule 18 or anything done under it, is treated as if it was a casino premises licence issued under section 169.
(3) In this section "established casino" means any casino premises which are in use or could lawfully be used for the operation of a casino under section 1 of the Gaming Act 1968.'.
Amendment No. 117, in page 65, line 36, clause 147, at end insert
'and
(i) specify an area (being all or part of the casino premises) for the purposes of section 162(4) in relation to those casino premises ("a designated gaming area") and identify the same upon or by reference to the plan to be included under paragraph (g) above.'.
Amendment No. 143, in page 77, line 2, clause 170, leave out 'eight' and insert 'four'.
Amendment No. 141, in page 77, line 3, after 'casinos', insert 'subject to subsection (3A)'.
Amendment No. 142, in page 77, line 7, at end insert—
'"(3A) In calculating for the purpose of subsection (1) the number of casino premises licences which have effect at any time, no account shall be taken of any established casino but—
(a) an established casino which meets the requirements of regulations made under section 7(5) as to the classification of large casinos shall for the purposes of section 167 be treated as if it is a large casino;
(b) an established casino which meets the requirements of regulations made under section 7(5) as to the classification of small casinos shall for the purposes of section 167 be treated as if it is a small casino; and
(c) an established casino which is below the minimum size for a licensed casino shall for the purposes of section 167 be treated as if it is a small casino.
(3B) In this section 'established casino' means any casino premises which are in use for the operation of a casino under the Gaming Act 1968 when this part of this Act comes into force.".'.
Amendment No. 119, in page 77, line 30, at end insert
'provided that no order under this section shall be made until the expiration of a period of five years after the granting of the eighth casino premises licence under subsection (1).'.
Government amendment No. 29.
The time it has just taken you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to read out the amendments in this first group reinforces the manner in which our proceedings will be dealt with.
Amendment No. 102 has been tabled in my name and that of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and others. The genesis of the Bill goes back to the Budd report of 2001, and it is worth reflecting that, in the early stages of his work, Sir Alan Budd sent a note to members of his committee that included a paragraph entitled "The Chairman's Dream", which optimistically stated:
"I hope we shall be able to establish principles which are acceptable to all sensible people and shall make proposals consistent with those principles. The (unanimous) report will then be published (to schedule) to widespread acclaim and all its recommendations will be accepted."
I suspect that Sir Alan and members of his committee will be bitterly disappointed that, following his report, as well as two detailed reports from the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament and endless discussions in Standing Committee, we are still a long way from achieving "widespread acclaim" for the Government's Gambling Bill. As you have just demonstrated, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Bill is characterised by innumerable amendments, many of which have been tabled by the Government. As we can see from the amendment paper, many more have still to be debated.
This first group of amendments deals with the important issue of casinos, and it is worth reflecting on the fact that there has been much support from all sides for the Bill's provisions, including the establishment of a new tough, independent regulator through the creation of the gambling commission, which will replace the Gaming Board. We understand from a press notice today that the new body is likely to be located in Birmingham. The measures to increase requirements in respect of social responsibility for all involved in the gambling industry, and to bring remote gambling—interactive television and internet gambling, for example—under regulation for the first time have also received support. Many hon. Members were delighted when the Secretary of State announced on Second Reading that casinos would be designated as a single-use category under planning regulations, although I hope that the Minister for Sport and Tourism will tell us when we can expect to hear more about that.
The Minister has often claimed, perhaps rightly, that as much as 90 per cent. of the Bill has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it is the issue of casinos that causes the greatest controversy. The Government's proposals on casinos came as a huge shock to many members of the public and many Members of the House. They simply could not understand why a Labour Government wanted to increase greatly the opportunities for gambling, and, in particular, launch a massive growth in the number of casinos, when, bizarrely, no member of the Government could even tell us with certainty how many casinos currently exist.
In particular, many of us simply could not reconcile the Government's initial plans to allow the unlimited introduction of new super-casinos, each of them having up to 1,250 new so-called category A machines—which are untried in this country—with unlimited stakes and prizes, with the statement made by the Secretary of State to the Joint Committee that,
"If this legislation gave rise to an increase in problem gambling then it would have failed and it would be bad legislation".
Stung by the criticism, the Government backed down and made a welcome U-turn—not all U-turns are bad—for which there was a great deal of support. The Government then told us, despite having told us previously that they thought that it was a bad idea, that they intended to cap the number of new regional super-casinos at eight. The Committee was much amused by the musings of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) on why the figure of eight had been chosen. He wondered, for instance, whether it was related to the atomic number of oxygen being eight, or whether it had some connection with the Buddhist eightfold path to enlightenment. Whatever the reason, however, the cap was a good idea. I note that there is an amendment in this group to reduce that number from eight to four. I want to make it clear that we will not support that amendment if a vote is called on it.
Perhaps more surprising, however, was the Government's announcement that it would also cap the number of new large and small casinos at eight. That now means caps of eight, eight and eight, which is remarkably reminiscent of the internet gambling site www.888.com. There are arguments for a cap on the number of large and small casinos if, crucially, that does not unduly prejudice the existing British casino industry. That is why amendments Nos. 141 and 142 are crucial, and why, if there is a vote on them, we will support them. After all, the British casino industry has an enviable record of being responsible and free of crime. It would be a huge mistake were we to allow the Bill to pass without ensuring that our industry is given a fair chance against the foreign competitors who are already at our door, seeking to pick up the spoils that the Bill creates. As the Bill stands, the indigenous industry could lose out significantly. If the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will explain in detail the nature of that threat and the solution to it.
I want to give one example of why, unless we guarantee both grandfather rights and the right to allow some trading up as proposed in those amendments, we could see many existing casinos lose some of their machines, while new casinos will be allowed a far greater number. At present, existing casinos are allowed 10 machines. They also have a number of electronic roulette or auto-roulette devices. A Bournemouth casino, for example, has 26 such devices, one in Birmingham has 38, and many others have 10 or more. In part 10 of the Bill, however, those devices are redefined as machines. Therefore, since casinos will only be allowed a total of 10 machines, unless we provide grandfather rights and the right to trade up, as proposed in amendments Nos. 141 and 142, every existing casino would see a reduction in the number of their current machines.
On amendments Nos. 102, 100, 101, 116 and 117, removing restrictions on casinos has been a key focus of this Bill since its inception. It proposes the removal of the 24-hour rule and membership of casinos. Following those relaxations, identification is no longer necessary for someone to enter a casino.
While liberalising the gaming industry has its benefits, we must be diligent about the possible dangers. Casinos without some form of identification requirement could easily attract criminals. As can be seen in the Treasury's anti-money laundering strategy document, the National Criminal Intelligence Service said as recently as 26 October last year:
"Money launderers can take advantage of the facilities offered by casinos to disguise the origins of their funds. Launderers can take 'dirty' cash into a casino, exchange it for chips, spend a few hours gambling, and then exchange the chips (with a gain or loss according to their play) for a casino cheque which can subsequently be presented as an apparently legitimate source of funds."
We tabled the amendments with the aim of preventing crime and money laundering from infiltrating our casinos. They clearly set out a system under which well-monitored areas in casinos will be designated for gaming. To enter such areas, gamblers will have to provide identification for the casino operators, who will then use the information from identification to keep track of those who frequent their casinos. Those measures will not only curb money laundering and crime, but help with problem gambling. We are well aware that many casinos currently operate self-barring schemes, enabling problem gamblers to request that their casino membership be suspended and entry denied to deal with their addiction. If there were no requirement for ID on entry to a casino, it would be very difficult for such schemes to operate. I consider that unacceptable, as many operators find the schemes particularly beneficial in combating customer addiction to the new high-price slot machines.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about problem gamblers, but how would he get around the problem of those who are refused entry at casinos but then use the internet to continue their gambling? That still worries me.
The hon. Gentleman is right to express concern about internet gambling. Recent evidence suggested that young children currently had no difficulty in gambling on the internet. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there is a great deal of support—in, I think, all parts of the House—for the clauses that will bring internet gambling under regulation, and that proposals in a later group of amendments will toughen the arrangements still further. There remains the problem of internet gambling operations that are based in the UK, but have a server based somewhere else. I know that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford has tabled an amendment to deal with that.
The issue of children is clearly important. The amendments propose the establishment of a clearly identified area for high-stakes machines, which will be heavily supervised. Children will not be allowed into such areas, as long as we know who is defined as a child in the legislation. If we do not have a system of identification, it will be difficult for those doing the supervising to know who is under 18, for example. We have discussed that in other contexts, such as the licensing legislation: landlords will have a problem if there is no identification system. A number of benefits would accrue from the amendments, which would not only deal with money laundering but protect young children and help with problem gambling.
In Committee, the Minister said that although ID was currently required for entry to all casinos,
"we are not persuaded that it would be right in future to require identification on entry in all cases . . . The casinos of the future will not be the same as casinos now."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 December 2004; c. 351.]
But despite the complications and difficulties that I accept may well arise for the big regional casinos dealing with large numbers of punters streaming in on Saturday nights, I think it imperative for a mechanism to be established to protect the British gaming industry from crime, as well as protecting young people and problem gamblers.
The Minister may well tell us that the Government are awaiting the outcome of European Union deliberations on the third directive on money laundering, but one thing is clear: the Government themselves have accepted that the gambling commission must establish a clear set of guidelines. Indeed, clause 24 states that arrangements must be made for the purposes of
"ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way",
for
"protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling",
and for
"making assistance available to persons who are or may be affected by problems related to gambling."
I genuinely believe that the provision of identification would help in all those cases, and that it would be consistent with the terms of the third directive and with what the Government claim that they wish to achieve.
I turn to amendments Nos. 103 to 105. Although regulating access to a gaming area is an important issue, so are the powers that we give to local authorities over the introduction of casinos in their area. Local authorities should be given as much freedom as possible, within the proposed caps, to take advantage—or not—of the increased gambling opportunities afforded by the Bill. As currently drafted, clause 161 empowers local authorities to say no only to any casino whatsoever; it does not enable them to say that they want, for example, only one casino, or only two or three casinos. Amendments Nos. 103 to 105 would enable local licensing authorities to place their own cap on the number of casinos in their area, and at a figure other than zero. When such authorities review premises' licences, they should have as much freedom as possible to determine what kind of premises they want in their area and how many there should be.
Finally, the purpose of new clause 11, which deals with cheating, is to make it illegal to carry articles into a casino that could help in analysing or predicting the odds or outcome of the game. It tackles the problem of so-called "advantage players", who use such articles to help them during the game, but who argue that they are not cheating because they are not interfering with the game. We tabled a similar amendment in Committee, but we withdrew it after the Minister assured us on 30 November last year that a gambler who does anything that unfairly increases his chances of winning is cheating and is therefore covered.
Despite that assurance and others given by the Minister in subsequent conversations, we are not convinced that the Bill as drafted would result in "advantage playing" being considered an offence. Current legislation certainly does not consider it so. On 6 December—only a few days after the Minister gave us that assurance in Committee—The Times reported an incident at the Ritz casino in which the use of a device in a mobile phone enabled the players in question to predict the outcome of every spin of a roulette wheel. As a result, they scooped £1.3 million. However, according to legal advice, because the device had not interfered with the game the gamblers were not in breach of current law, and were therefore able to hold on to their winnings. The purpose of new clause 11 is to change the system, so that we can be absolutely sure that so-called "advantage" cheaters will be unable to get away with such things.
Many jurisdictions—in Nevada, in South Africa and in a number of Australian states, for example—already explicitly legislate against practices such as that employed during the Ritz episode. They have laws that prevent not only the sort of cheating described by the Minister in Committee, but offences relating to the possession or use of the devices mentioned in our new clause. Our suggestion is therefore already in operation elsewhere, and its use would not be unprecedented.
There are a number of other amendments to which many Members will wish to speak, but I should make it clear before I finish that the part of the Bill dealing with casinos is still a long way from being likely to achieve the widespread acclaim that Sir Alan Budd referred to. I hope that our amendments are accepted, so that they can at least move the Bill in the right direction.
I must admit that I am not an expert in all the complexities of the Bill. I was happy to see the extension of regulation of new forms of gambling, but—as I said on Second Reading when I voted against the Bill—I am very disturbed by the opening of the gates to super-casinos and the way in which the Bill will allow people to gamble much more easily than they can at present.
I appreciate that in Committee the Government have adjusted the likely number of super-casinos and have proved willing to experiment first, but I have still tabled amendment No. 96, which would delete regional casinos from the Bill. Other amendments to which I have put my name would provide for smoke-free areas, a ban on alcohol at the tables and limits on opening hours. The gambling commission will have control over those issues, but they should be covered by the Bill. There are some 13,000 casino workers in the UK at present, but the Bill would lead to a huge increase in that number. It is only right that they should not have to work in the smoke-filled rooms that seem to exist in many casinos. It is also right that no alcohol should be allowed at the tables. I understand that some casinos have been operating that policy for about 18 months. It gives people the opportunity to have a break from the tables and perhaps think about what they are doing. I believe that there should be a ban on consuming alcohol in the gaming areas. If alcohol is sold on the premises, it should be kept away from those areas. As I read the Bill, it would allow casinos to be open for 24 hours. The gambling commission should have the right to set opening hours, and I am willing to leave that to custom and practice. By and large, casinos are open from 2 pm to 4 am. That is way beyond any time that I personally would like to see them open, but if that is the rule of thumb that operates at present, I am content to allow that to continue. However, I do not favour 24-hour opening.
I wish to support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) to maintain the 24-hour membership rule—the cooling-off period. It protects the person who goes out on a Saturday night and has a few drinks, and then their friend says, "Come on, let's go to the local casino." Before they know it, they are inside. They may have already drunk too much, but still have money in their pockets—of course, under the Bill, they could even use their credit cards to get money to gamble. I have tabled some amendments on that point later in the Bill.
I do not know whether there are any plans to build a super-casino in Bridgend. The nearest super-casino, if one is built, will probably be in Cardiff. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Liberal leader of Cardiff council has accepted a £6,000, all-expenses-paid trip to Las Vegas to inquire about casinos? Was it proper of him to accept that trip?
I can only thank my hon. Friend for providing me with that information. Given the context of the Bill, that decision is highly dubious, and I certainly hope that there will not be a super-casino in Cardiff.
There is much evidence about the impact of super-casinos. The famous Atlantic City survey showed that unemployment there fell by very little and that the nature of its businesses changed. By 1996, some 1,000 businesses had gone, and there are now only 60 independent hotels there.
I know that the hon. Gentleman holds his views on the matter extremely sincerely. Will he accept that the Atlantic City survey to which he refers is extremely contentious? Those of us who compare the terrible state that Atlantic City was in during the 1970s—it was a run-down place of the past—with how it is after the huge amounts of regeneration that have resulted from the creation of resort casinos would certainly say that it is a more attractive, vibrant and successful place now. Many of us who believe that a good outcome of the Bill would be regeneration want to ensure that the one-sided picture of Atlantic City, as presented in the survey to which the hon. Gentleman refers, is not the only information before the House.
I thank my honourable colleague for that description of Atlantic City.
He is not your colleague.
The hon. Gentleman is a colleague in the House—a Member.
Although I accept that the physical changes to which the hon. Gentleman refers have occurred, despite the creation of the super-casinos, the unemployment rate in Atlantic City has hardly changed—it has gone down by only 2 per cent. However, there are now 71 per cent. more bankruptcies recorded in Atlantic City than in the rest of New Jersey. Of course, we do not know the huge problems that super-casinos leave in their wake for gamblers whose lives have been destroyed, and so on.
If the Government see fit not to accept the minimal protection that my hon. Friend wishes to build into the legislation, and given that it is not at all clear where this tacky Bill has come from, would it not be a good idea to vote against it?
I voted against the Bill on Second Reading. One important consideration is whether the Bill will be amended in the other place to address my concerns. If that were to happen and the House agreed to such Lords amendments, I could support the Bill. However, I could not support it in its present form and without my amendments.
I am interested in the points that the hon. Gentleman is making about Atlantic City. Will he make an additional point? Should we not bear it in mind that in the first few years after the super-casino went to Atlantic City, crime rose by 107 per cent.—that is a fact, not just an opinion? At the same time, crime in America overall increased only moderately.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I would have made that point myself, but he has saved me the trouble.
Although the Government have moved their position somewhat, if they do not remove super-casinos from the Bill this evening, I hope that they will allow the other place to do so. I also support amendment No. 119, which would ensure that the pilot scheme to examine the effect of super-casinos—if they are created—would last for at least five years from the time at which the eighth such super-casino started to operate so that there could be a proper in-depth study of the situation.
I hope that the Government will react positively to this group of amendments, say that they have had second thoughts and will now abandon the idea of regional casinos altogether. That would lift my spirits. As I said on Second Reading, I blame myself in part for what has happened. I did not take a close interest in the proposals. I simply thought on reading them that no Labour Government would ever want to accept the opening up of the gambling business in the United Kingdom.
I certainly know that there is no public demand for such casinos. As far as I am aware, no one has commissioned a single opinion poll to suggest that any more of these casinos are wanted. In fact, the only poll that has been commissioned indicated that more than 80 per cent. of people thought that there were sufficient opportunities to gamble in the United Kingdom. I agree overwhelmingly with that response, and look forward to a positive reaction from the Government.
Although we have to cover 12 groups of amendments before 9 o'clock, the group relating to casinos deals with perhaps the most contentious part of the Bill. In some ways, it is a shame that the Bill has come to be seen in the public mind as the casino Bill. It contains many other important measures about which there is little dispute in the House as to their necessity, but casinos have caused most of the argument.
Unlike the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), we are not completely opposed to the idea of regional casinos. We have always recognised that regional casinos could bring huge regeneration benefits to areas that are in desperate need of that investment. We supported the original concept when they were to be termed "destination casinos" simply on the basis that we could see that potential for regeneration. However, we have always been very much aware that they are a type of gambling institution that is entirely new and untested in this country. They represent gambling on a scale that we have never seen before. Therefore, we have always felt that it was sensible to proceed cautiously.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State argued that the controls in the Bill at that time would be sufficient and that, as a result, the market would limit the number of regional casinos to perhaps 20 to 40, each of which would represent an investment of £150 million or more. The business model on which they are based requires 20,000 people or more each week to gamble in those casinos. That represents an increase in gambling on a scale not seen in this country before.
We felt strongly that the Bill contained no provision that would have necessarily limited the number to 20 to 40 and that in any case that was too high a number, particularly as each of the new regional casinos could have up to 1,250 category A gaming machines that have never been seen before in this country. There is a widely felt concern that that could lead to an explosion of problem gambling. That is why we have always argued for a cautious approach. Rather than rely on the Secretary of State's expression of hope that the proposal might lead to no more than 20 to 40 regional casinos, we believed that there was a strong case for the Government to introduce a pilot scheme to test the impact of a small number of regional casinos to see whether problem gambling increased as a result. That is why we proposed in Committee that there should be a pilot scheme with just four regional casinos.
Having argued on Second Reading that a pilot scheme would be a bad idea and was not necessary, the Government then did their first major U-turn of the Committee stage and announced a cap of eight on the number of regional casinos. At the time of that announcement, we made it clear that we welcomed the Government's surrender, but found it difficult to see where the number of eight had come from. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to some of the speculation that took place in Committee about why eight had been chosen. It certainly does not represent one per region, which would have been one way to proceed; instead, it appeared to be an entirely arbitrary figure. Certainly, the Government have never offered a real justification for choosing that number. The purpose of our amendment No. 143 is therefore, first, to press the Government to explain why eight is the right number.
I welcome the fact that the Government are considering having just eight regional casinos instead of what they were proposing on Second Reading. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why he thinks that the number should be four and explain the logic behind the Opposition's thinking?
I can, and was just about to. First, as I said, we want the Government to tell us why eight is the right number. They are, after all, the Government, and they must justify their proposals. We proposed four because we feel that it is much more sensible to start off with a small number, test the impact and, if it appears that there are no problems, increase. Although we recognise the possibility of the regeneration benefits which the Government hope for, and which we would certainly like to see, it is not right to risk a dramatic rise in problem gambling. We have to be satisfied that there has not been a massive rise in problem gambling before we go on to seek those potential regeneration benefits.
The Secretary of State said right at the beginning that if the consequence of the Bill were a rise in problem gambling, the Bill would have failed. Our concern is that eight regional casinos could lead to a significant increase in problem gambling, particularly because there could be up to 10,000 category A machines. At present, there are no category A machines in this country, yet as a result of one pilot scheme we could have up to 10,000 of them.
Also central to the purpose of our amendment is the fact that it is possible to start with four and increase, whereas it is not realistic to start with eight and go downwards. It is unthinkable that investors would commit the sums that we are talking about—£150 million per casino—if there were any risk that after a few years their licence would be taken away.
The hon. Gentleman described category A machines as a potential problem that needs to be monitored. Does he believe that the scrutiny Committee was right to say that category A machines should go into large and small casinos? Does he believe that that is still the case today?
We have tabled another amendment, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) will speak, if he has the opportunity, which would allow a limited number of category A machines in large and small casinos. That would allow a proper test of their impact in each type of casino.
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that category A machines should be allowed in the 136 casinos that currently operate under the Gaming Act 1968?
As I said, we believe that a limited number of those machines should be allowed in large and small casinos in order for there to be a proper test. However, I point out to the Minister that amendment No. 143, by reducing the number of regional casinos from eight to four, would halve the number of category A machines to 5,000, as opposed to the 10,000 that the Government currently propose.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now answer the question. Does he suggest that category A machines should be not only in regional casinos but in large casinos, in small casinos and in the 136 casinos that operate under the 1968 Act? Does he agree that category A machines should also be in those places?
Existing casinos are those that have never given rise to a significant gambling problem. We believe that if there is to be a proper impact test, it makes sense that there should be a limited number of machines tested in each type of casino. That is the purpose of new clause 13. I hope that we will have the opportunity to address that in more detail. However, the answer to the Minister's question is yes.
On category A machines, there is an important difference between what the Government are saying and the Opposition's suggestion. The pilot or experiment is limited to category A machines at eight sites throughout Great Britain. The Opposition are now suggesting that we have category A machines in 150 sites. That is my understanding. If that is not proliferation of category A machines, I do not know what is.
If the Government adopt our amendment, it would mean considerably fewer category A machines than if they were to proceed with the eight regional casinos. There are other safeguards that we strongly believe are necessary—I am about to refer to them—which would provide additional protection to that which is available under the Bill. Our concern is to take account of the warnings that have been given, especially about destination casinos—regional casinos, as the Government term them. That new type of casino has given rise to the concerns that have been expressed by many bodies, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society, the Methodist Church and the Salvation Army.
Existing casinos have not produced a major increase in problem gambling and have a good record of responsible behaviour. However, a cautious approach needs to be taken to the new regional casinos, which are entirely untried and untested. That is why we have suggested that the pilot scheme should involve only four casinos, perhaps two in major cities and two at destination locations. That would enable a proper trial to take place. If it is shown that there is no significant problem attached to those four sites, we could proceed to increase that number. To start with eight means a huge increase in the number of machines and it would be almost impossible to move down from that number.
Amendment No. 116 relates to an ID requirement. It provides for an important additional safeguard that we would like to see in place alongside the proposals to bring in regional casinos and introduce category A machines.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that he wished to retain the 24-hour rule. We see no great purpose in retaining that rule, which is now largely anomalous. Adults who decide that they wish to visit a casino should be able to do so without having to wait 24 hours in case they change their mind.
The arguments for retaining an ID requirement are much stronger. Such a requirement would provide an additional protection for those known to be suffering from gambling addiction. Existing casinos maintain a register of people who suffer from gambling addiction and who therefore cannot use their premises. It would also provide an additional means of ensuring that age restrictions are enforced. An identity requirement would mean that people under the age of 18 could not obtain access and use category A machines or the regional casinos.
Perhaps most importantly, it would help to prevent money laundering. The second money laundering directive requires ID for anyone using a casino in this country:
"A person who operates a casino by way of business in the UK must obtain satisfactory evidence of identify of any person before allowing that person to use the casino's gaming facilities".
The proposed draft of the third money laundering directive will change that identification requirement, so that it applies only to people who purchase or exchange gambling chips with a value of €1,000 or more. However, emails between officials in the Department and the American casino operators revealed that the Government were asking what figure they would regard as acceptable. It seems that the Government propose actively to lobby to try to increase that threshold to a much higher level, as the American operators believe that that is necessary for their business model to work. The domestic industry has no difficulty with an ID requirement. Rank is happy to retain such a requirement; indeed, it accepts that it could have positive advantages, as does the Casino Operators Association. Some operators of regional casinos are happy to accept an ID requirement. Sun International told us that its South African casinos that are equivalent in size to regional ones in the UK require someone to use a smart card, for which ID is necessary, before they can use category A machines.
Operators of regional casinos say that it is perfectly possible to have an ID requirement, and they accept that it would provide additional protection, both for people suffering from gambling addiction and as a measure to prevent money laundering. The amendment to reduce the number of regional casinos from eight to four and the amendment introducing a requirement for ID represent the cautious approach that, we believe, is necessary. We accept that there could be great benefits, but the last thing that we want is something that the Secretary of State spoke about when the Bill was introduced. If the Bill leads to an increase in problem gambling it will have failed. The amendments are designed to ensure that that is not the case.
My hon. Friends will be aware that from the brewing industry, which began in my constituency more than 1,000 years ago, grew the gaming machine industry, which originated in pubs. Leisure Link and other companies in my constituency service machines throughout the country, so I am keen to protect our home-grown casino industry, which has proved to be responsible over the years. I spoke to that effect on Second Reading.
I welcome the Government's decision to limit the number of regional casinos, but my hon. Friends will be aware of concern about the unlevel playing field that disadvantages the existing UK casino industry. There are anxieties that the introduction of category A machines in regional casinos—such machines are not produced by the home-grown industry and would have to be imported—would have an impact on other casinos, whether in their existing form or in the proposed arrangement of eight large and eight small casinos. I hope that when the Bill goes to the Lords there will be more discussion with the industry about how we can make sure that there is not an adverse effect on existing casinos.
I have the greatest admiration for my hon. Friend, but is she suggesting that the House of Commons should pass sub-acceptable legislation on the assumption that another place will throw it out? That is a rather sad doctrine.
I accept that we should not have to rely on the other place to amend our legislation, but while the House of Lords exists and the business that proceeds through this House carries on there, I hope that gives the Government more time to talk to the industry. The Government have spent much time discussing all these matters with the industry over a long period. Hon. Members have commented that the Bill underwent pre-legislative scrutiny and that we have had Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall and elsewhere on the Budd report. There have been lengthy discussions, but more are still needed to ensure that we protect our home-grown industry.
It is ironic that people and organisations that oppose the development of casinos agree with those in the home-grown industry who want fewer regional casinos and more safety introduced into the development of those regional casinos. Both ends of the spectrum—those in the industry and those who oppose it—want us to proceed carefully. I hope the Government will make sure that we do that.
There are concerns about the development of regional casinos and the introduction of category A machines. The question was asked whether the Opposition support category A machines in all casinos. It might be better to go the other way, continue to have category B machines in all casinos, and support our home-grown industry. I hope Ministers will be able to provide the reassurance that I seek.
With the reform of gambling, and the broad agreement in most quarters, the House can welcome many aspects of the Bill—the establishment of a gambling commission, further help for problem gamblers and new forms of control of new gambling, such as the internet and betting exchanges. However, the Minister seems to have adopted the line—I have seen it manifest itself twice, first in response to me and then in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale)—that attack is the best form of defence. After his Committee performance, this is the only home he has to go to. He said that the Government had listened and that the statement that he made was a result of the Government listening. I have already expressed my sympathy to the Minister for being lumbered with the Bill. He is a nice chap and it was not his fault. I do not know who gave it to him and ordered him to take it through the House, but they are the smart ones. They got out of doing it and lumbered the Minister with it. Now he must live with it.
The Minister said that he had listened to concerns and produced what I call the 888 statement, but the existing casino operators said they had not been consulted. The statement came as a bolt from the blue. The point has been made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I keep calling him my hon. Friend, because we had a relationship in Committee that grew warm and friendly as the days went by. No doubt an election will soon cause it to come asunder. He said, and I repeat, that the existing casino operators were not consulted prior to the 888 statement. Nothing that I have heard so far contradicts that. Perhaps the Minister will say that he consulted deeply with the casino operators before making the statement.
I support the hon. Member for Bath on the damage that will be caused to the existing industry. It is an industry that has a good reputation. To the best of my knowledge, it has caused no more than small problems in one or two areas. Compared with the industry in the rest of the world, we can feel pride in and respect for ours, so why are the Government trying to damage it? Normally, with any Government, I would think that there was a deliberate plan to knock the existing casino industry. But with the chaos and confusion that has surrounded the Bill's passage, I can only assume that this is a mistake—one of the many blunders that have been made along the road. I sincerely hope that, in the fullness of time, possibly when the Bill is in the other place, the Minister will table some amendments that will restore the balance for the existing casino system and its operators that they justifiably deserve. I hope that he will take that point on board and look after the industry that has served us well without letting us down and which has a good reputation.
I support amendment No. 143 and the move from eight to four casinos. I shall not reiterate all the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, but simply say that destination resort casinos are a new phenomenon. We have licensing authorities with no experience and regeneration benefits that are as yet unknown.
The scrutiny Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who is sitting next to me poised to intervene later, to which I look forward, said:
"Whilst we acknowledge the Government's reluctance to publish national guidance relating specifically to regional/leisure destination casinos, we believe that it could help to ensure a consistent approach between regional authorities and avoid the need for applications to be called in for determination by the First Secretary of State."
The Committee was remarkably tactful in making that point, because it was saying that the Government have got it wrong and have no idea of the chaos and confusion that will be visited upon them if they do not have proper national planning guidance.
As we know, chaos and confusion did descend upon the Government, which is why I welcome the Minister's statement and the news that we will have an advisory panel to look at these matters. That is a substitute for planning guidance and procedures—the new way out of the bind that they have got themselves into. I support all that, but not the 888 proposal, because I think that that is too large a figure for the quicker process of evaluation and assessment that I want to see. In Committee, there was doubt about the timetable to be followed: whether it would be a drip, drip, drip affair, where assessments would take place as each casino ran up a number of years, or whether they would wait to the end. That is one reason why I support having four regional and leisure casinos. The assessment process would be quicker, we would get the results quicker and we could decide how to proceed on the basis of those results.
If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the numbers, why did he not go for a further reduction to two of the large casinos, one in a town, and one a destination casino?
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any statistical background, but the larger the sample, the better the result that one will get. However, at the same time, the larger the sample, the longer it will take, so we come to a trade-off. I could take his argument and say, "Why not have just one?" He might say that we need one in a town and one in a resort, such as Blackpool, which the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) would be only too glad to see. But what would happen if one of those samples was incomplete and inaccurate, not a fair one? By having two in each area, we can make a proper comparison. If they are vastly different, we might have to extend the cycle. I want to see the results as soon as possible, so that we can go forward as soon as possible. At the moment, we are in limbo and the quicker that it is resolved, and the quicker that we know where we are, the better.
I wish to speak in support of amendment No. 96 and new clause 7.
My right hon. Friends have already responded constructively to anxieties expressed by the public about their proposals to open the way for regional or mega-casinos. Instead of market forces determining how many such casinos there should be, there will now be eight in a first wave to be tested during a trial period, albeit a short one. Can we hope that my right hon. Friends might go further and withdraw their proposals for regional casinos all together? I am not very optimistic about that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was reported on 17 November as saying:
"I don't describe this as a cap . . . A cap is a once-and-for-all limit—what we are doing is introducing regional casinos more slowly than was the original intention."
I have had the opportunity to have some conversation with my right hon. Friend, for which I thank her, and she told me that the Government's view on the matter was neutral and that it remained to be seen how, under the dispensation that they are creating, regional casinos would eventually develop.
The question that I would like to put to Ministers is, who wants any regional or mega-casinos? The public do not. I understand that a national opinion poll survey found that 93 per cent. of respondents opposed the extension of casinos. Doubtless, the industry wants them, although it is interesting to note that it is not the United Kingdom industry. Some local authorities have expressed an intrigued interest and no doubt the Exchequer is attracted to the proposal. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor received £1.35 billion in gambling duties in 2003–04, and I fear that the Treasury's addiction to gambling revenues may grow. The Treasury should be encouraging saving, not gambling.
Why should the character and quality of life of our communities be at the mercy of the executives of Caesars International—it is a very long time since we were last invaded by Caesar, and we have taken some national pride in the fact that it is many hundreds of years since we have been successfully invaded—Las Vegas Sands or MGM Mirage? I hope that the latter name is apt. It certainly is as far as gamblers' dreams go: this is an industry that profits only as its customers lose. I hope that, similarly, the £1.1 billion and more that MGM Mirage promised, or threatened, to invest in Britain will prove to be a mirage.
I am not so puritanical or impractical as to seek to ban all gambling, but I believe that a responsible Government should tightly restrict it. Of course, that is what most of the Bill does, which is why I was content to vote for it on Second Reading. My right hon. Friends are right to take account of technical change, including the development of remote gambling and the arrival of video roulette games. I support their proposals on licensing, the establishment of the gambling commission, codes of practice and consultation of local authorities, the police and the public, but their proposals for mega-casinos—that we should have these casinos with up to 1,250 slot machines and £1 million jackpots—run entirely counter to the thrust of the rest of the Bill. I have noticed that the British Amusement Catering Trades Association, at some risk of self-contradiction, has described the machines as
"untried, untested and highly addictive".
My right hon. Friends say that their intention is to promote socially responsible gambling, but I find myself at a loss to understand the conception of socially responsible gambling. I have heard Ministers declare, perhaps somewhat romantically, that the poor should be enabled to enjoy the same pleasures as the rich, but I think we should ask the poor what they want. I noticed that women who were surveyed were particularly strongly opposed to the extension of gambling. So many women have seen the male so-called breadwinner taking a disproportionate share of the household income to the betting shop or dog track, and they know the consequences. According to the National Audit Office, gambling has a £53 billion turnover in Britain through betting shops, casinos and, of course, the national lottery. In passing, I wonder whether the proposals will not prove deeply damaging to the national lottery. That would mean a serious blow to culture, which it is my right hon. Friends' responsibility to defend.
The Methodist Church and the Salvation Army have urged the Government to exercise greater restraint and more care. They have been at pains to be reasonable and I go further than them. I joined the Labour party because I thought that it took the view that it is the Government's responsibility to protect vulnerable people. That is what this Government want to do and that is what they do so very well in so many fields of policy, but I cannot see how the creation of mega-casinos will protect vulnerable people. I understand that we have in this country some 300,000 problem gamblers, and members of their families, their employers and their fellow employees are, of course, affected.
Last November, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:
"Economist Earl Grinols has studied the rates of crime, lost productivity, domestic abuse and other social ills in counties with and without casinos. He found that the 3 to 5 per cent. of players who become problem gamblers each end up costing society about $11,000. States would need to seize half a casino's profits, calculates Grinols, to cover the 'social wreckage' it generates. In Missouri, for instance, gambling tax revenue brought in a 'seeming windfall' of $242 million in 2002, yet the state lost an estimated $572 million in related business failures, crime, unemployment and other social costs."
In contrast, in South Carolina,
"six months after it banned slot machines in 2002, two-thirds of the state's Gamblers Anonymous groups had disbanded and calls to help lines had plummeted."
Citizens advice bureaux have a great deal of experience of helping individuals who have got into severe multiple debt as a result of their gambling addiction. A citizens advice bureau in south Wales has reported a case that may be characteristic:
"A 62 year old pensioner approached a CAB in South Wales for advice about her debts. She had a problem with gambling and had built up £80,000 debt on various credit cards. When she got into difficulties she approached her bank who lent her a further £25,000, although her only income was £600 per month."
Mega-casinos have historically been associated with people's propensity to self-destruction, vice and crime. We are introducing 24-hour drinking at the same time as we are discussing the abolition of the 24-hour rule that requires people to have been members of a club for not less than 24 hours if they want to go into casinos and gamble. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) spoke eloquently about that point in his advocacy of new clause 7, and he is right. One can imagine someone who has had too much to drink and who is armed with cash and a credit card going into a casino and ruining him or herself and their family. We should keep that sobering-up period. I am pleased to see that the British Casino Association itself wants the 24-hour membership requirement kept at all casinos.
In focusing all his fire and attention on mega-casinos, my right hon. Friend opens up the possibility of no mega-casinos, but a proliferation of casinos that are merely described as "large". On 16 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly stated that a cap will be imposed on not only mega-casinos, but large casinos, which was a significant step forward.
I agree with my hon. Friend that that was a constructive step. I also appreciate his point that a good deal of the argument that I am developing in relation to mega-casinos is applicable to large casinos, and we must be equally wary of the dangers posed by a proliferation of large casinos.
On 31 October last year, The Observer reported on the situation in Australia, which is instructive. Gamblers in the mega-casino in Melbourne have incurred vast losses of more than £3.2 billion over the past 10 years. The article stated that that mega-casino is used for the laundering of drugs money, and I thought that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) made some good points about the danger of crime associated with mega-casinos and the desirability of retaining an ID requirement, which, as he noted, would also help problem gamblers who are making efforts to exclude themselves from casinos and the policing of the age limit.
I wonder whether my right hon. Friends the Ministers noticed that when Judge Derek Inman sentenced a violent serial mugger who robbed to fund his betting shop addiction last November, he proposed that Parliament might wish to take that particular case into account in its consideration of the Gambling Bill. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) discussed the rise of crime in Atlantic City when a mega-casino was established. In Sydney, it is reported that a Russian mafia has been running prostitution rackets, which is exactly what one sees if one visits Las Vegas. The report in The Observer quoted an Australian academic:
"'It is a crime inflicted on the community by the government. It has been an absolute curse on the state of Victoria. It is a money-making venture that maximises returns by ensuring that people lose a lot of money'".
I have seen mega-casinos in Las Vegas, in Genting in the Malaysian highlands and in Australia, and they seem to offer death to the soul.
The only other country I am aware of that is energetically promoting large-scale gambling is North Korea—curious company for us to keep. There must be better ways in which to regenerate our cities. On 30 October, The Times reported the opinion of the respected venture capitalist Wilbur Ross, who said that the casino and gaming sector is the next to go belly up and that
"'That whole industry is based on junk bonds'".
Do we really want such developments in our great cities?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said to me that it is better for people to gamble in mega-casinos than online, but I do not believe that the reality will be like that. If it is easy to gamble on the internet, why will people make a journey across the country to a regional casino or even across the city to a big casino?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that planning authorities will provide a safeguard, but I fear that local authorities will all too readily be seduced by the prospects of planning gain and the anticipated extra revenue as a result of the presence of casinos. The Local Government Association's so-called safer communities board, which seems a somewhat Orwellian title given the context, expressed disappointment at the limit of eight casinos. I impugn the integrity of no individual, but it is dangerous to put such temptation in the way of planning officers and members of planning committees. We are dealing with an industry that disposes of very large sums of money and that is prepared to be entirely ruthless.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also said to me that the gambling commission will be the judge of whether operators are fit and proper, which is true, but the difficulty is that the unfit will gamble and the improper will batten on them.
If this is the first wave, I do not want the tsunami. If the Bill is carried, I hope that my more apocalyptic fears will not prove justified, but I cannot see how any good can come out of the policy.
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken for about 14 minutes and has not yet said a word in favour of the Bill. Will he sum up in one sentence why he thinks that his Government are introducing it?
I respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying that my right hon. Friends are good people and good Ministers who are animated by concern for public well-being, and I am completely baffled as to why they are putting forward this policy. I do not want it and I will not vote for it.
I propose to speak to amendments Nos. 142 and 116 and new clauses 13 and 11. We shall vote on amendment No. 116, and hope to press amendments Nos. 142 and 143 to a vote. I shall be relatively brief because I know that several Members wish to take part. That underlines the fact that the two hours that we have been given for this important debate on casinos is inadequate, as is the time allowed for the whole debate.
I begin by considering the issue of casinos in the round. The Government have changed tack dramatically—I will not call it a U-turn. Their proposals are predicated on trialling, or piloting, regional casinos. The Bill retains the proposal for having 1,250 category A machines in the selected eight regional casinos. The existing industry, which consists of about 136 casinos—the number is sometimes cited as 131 or a few more, but let us take 136 as a ballpark figure—and which has had an unblemished record for 40 years and done extremely well in terms of its social responsibility, has been completely and utterly ignored. The Bill makes no mention of it; it seems not to exist as far as the Government are concerned.
Through the 888 pilots, the Government propose a completely new situation with regard to category A machines, but the same numbers of category B machines in the eight new large and eight new small casinos as are allowed in the existing casino estate, where the maximum is only 10 machines per casino, irrespective of its size. That does not make any sense—it is illogical. The Government's idea of a trial does not stack up. If they want a real trial, they should put machines into the existing estate, not leave it without any extra machines and virtually no changes other than to membership requirements and the demand test. We should have a proper trial, but let us not ignore the existing industry, because the impact on it will be immense.
Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals, would existing casinos be allowed category A machines?
I shall come to that in a moment, because it relates to new clause 13.
The Government's proposals on casinos are analogous to saying that if an American supermarket interest—I will not refer to any particular supermarket—wanted to come into this country in a huge way, and was allowed to do so on the basis of regeneration, it would be allowed to sell anything and everything it wanted, while the existing supermarkets were told that they were limited to selling, perhaps, tinned food. That is the kind of situation that we face. Existing casinos can have a maximum of 10 category B machines, while the new casinos that the Government propose under the 888 proposals will have 150 category Bs per large casino and 80 per small casino. That completely eclipses the existing casino estate. If the Government want to test these proposals, they should do it across the board and limit the number of regional casinos from eight to four. That would, at a stroke, reduce the number of category A machines available from 10,000 to 5,000.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 131 existing casinos in Great Britain, and 24 across London alone? By suggesting that we should suck it and see, as it were, is not he promoting a proliferation of those machines all over the country?
I hope to show that I am not proposing any more machines than the Government are. I propose that the existing casino industry should be part of the trial. Why should it be dismissed? On the day the Government announced the 888 configuration, £0.5 billion was wiped off the share value of the four major casino businesses in this country—not £500,000 or £5 million, but £500 million. The Minister scoffed when that was raised in Committee, but it is a huge amount of money to be wiped off, and it happened because of the complete imbalance in the Government's approach to the future of the casino industry.
I do not want to argue about whether there are 131 or 136 casinos, but would the hon. Gentleman limit the number of category A machines that they have? If he is saying that there would be no more category A machines than the Government propose, and possibly fewer, what number does he envisage?
I shall come to that when I have finished developing my argument. It is an important point, of course, and I will not leave the hon. Gentleman in suspense for long.
We propose that an existing casino that qualifies as a large casino in terms of floor area should be allowed to have, instead of just 10 category B machines, the number allowed to the new large casinos on a machine-to-table ratio of 5:1. With an extra, say, 20 large casinos, that would provide an extra 3,000 category B machines—or rather 2,800, as there are already 200. Under amendment No. 142, existing casinos with a 2:1 machine-to-table ratio would be categorised as small casinos. Those that do not qualify as large or small but are sub-small, and come under the 5,000 sq ft threshold, would have the same machine-to-table ratio. Many of them are very small and cannot get many gaming tables in, so, as the Joint Committee proposed, the limitation on machines would be a qualifying measure.
New clause 13 would extend the trial. It poses this question: why should the punters in existing casinos such as those in London—where we have, in the form of the membership clubs, some of the top casinos in the world—be restricted to playing category B machines, while a new regional casino somewhere else in London will enable people to play category A machines? New clause 13 would allow a fifth of all the machines in a casino to be category A. That would mean, for example, that the large casinos in the existing estate would have a total of 600 category A machines, or 30 per casino. For the small casinos, there would be 480, or 16 per casino, and for the sub-small, there would be around six per casino. The idea that such machines, with unlimited stakes and prizes, will pay out millions of pounds is nonsense, because they cannot be linked from casino to casino. If there are just six in one small casino, the stakes and prizes will be similar to those for the category B machines that already exist.
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have great reservations about his proposals for category A machines, and several hon. Members may be concerned about his earlier proposal for trading up. He mentioned the additional machines that would be introduced as a result. Will he confirm that the number will be about 6,000 or 7,000 additional machines, compared with the 10,000 category A machines that the Government propose and the approximately 33,000 fixed-odds betting terminals that currently exist?
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which I was about to cover. He has stolen some of my thunder, but he is right. We contend that the 10,000 category A machines in the regional casinos should be reduced to 5,000, and that more category B machines—and some category A machines—should be put into the established casinos. The total under Government proposals—I am now answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), so perhaps he will concentrate—is 10,000 category A machines and 3,240 category B machines. That encompasses the machines in the new casinos—the eight and eight—and those in the existing estate. Our proposals are for 5,000 category A machines in the new regional casinos and 8,540 category B machines throughout the estate, including the new eight large and eight small casinos. The total is 13,540. That should be compared with the figure of 13,240 under the Government's proposals, but with half the number of category A machines.
New clause 13 provides an alternative proposal and would introduce category A machines instead of category B machines in some casinos. That would mean 6,985 category A machines and 6,555 category B machines, and therefore a total of 13,540. We do not propose to increase the number of machines throughout the country; we are keeping to the Government's figures but contend that our approach, involving a trial of all casinos, is a better way of going about it, and a better test than the Government's proposal.
I promised to be brief. I have made my points and I simply reiterate that we shall divide on the three amendments to which I referred at the beginning of my speech.
I apologise for not being here at half-past 4 when proceedings started. I had to go to North Yorkshire today to attend the funeral of a close friend.
Ideally, we would have longer to discuss the Bill. However, I want to reflect on some of the issues that the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee considered and its general conclusions. I hope that that will be helpful. First, the Committee recognised that the decision to introduce category A machines into United Kingdom casinos for the first time was bound to be controversial, but we did not challenge the principle of that, as some now try to do. The policy decision seemed clear to us. From the Budd report, through the White Paper, the draft Bill and the Government's proposals that they presented to our second inquiry last July, there was a seamless robe of agreement that the proposal was a good idea and that it was time to relax some of the restrictions on our UK industry. The availability of category A machines was an example of that relaxation.
However, we also believed that key issues about numbers and accessibility to the machines needed to be considered. We established an important principle, which forms the basis of our debate tonight, that the original Budd and White Paper proposals for unlimited category A machines throughout the estate was neither necessary nor desirable. We also acknowledged that operators needed flexibility. I therefore believe that in the fullness of time, the Government have to resolve category B limits if there are not to be category A machines in the existing estate.
We also believed that the largest casinos, which the Government have chosen to call "regional", posed several challenges to policy across Departments. There is undoubtedly capacity for regeneration. The right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) asked who wanted the proposals. He should go to Blackpool, for which there is no plan B. Even the Churches, representatives of which met my Committee, said that they supported the proposals, because Blackpool needs jobs and regeneration. We believed that the number of large casinos would ultimately be limited by the market but that programmes of social responsibility, especially for operators from outside the UK, who have no experience of the UK market, are crucial. We are considering big leisure destination casinos and major leisure complexes, which would support and offer many other facilities. They would not need unlimited numbers of machines, but their location would be important, for the avoidance of easy access.
However, when the June proposals were published and the Government introduced the subject of size for the first time and the decision on category A limits, the Committee believed that the ideas had not been properly thought through and that the result was that too many casinos, which the Government initially envisaged as large, would be encouraged into the big regional category as a means of getting hold of the category A machines. We were also doubtful about the mechanisms for selection of sites through regional spatial strategies. The structure to do that simply does not exist.
The key question that hon. Members should ask me tonight is whether we would have perceived pilots as a good idea, had we been asked to make that judgment. Given the general tenor of the scrutiny Committee's comments, we probably would have found the idea of pilots attractive on balance, but we would have been worried about the competitiveness of the existing industry, especially with regard to machine entitlements. We did not consider keeping category A machines from the existing estate, but we said that the Government needed to be cautious. If there are to be pilots for the largest casinos, especially because of their size and the number of category A machines, is there also a case for trials for large and small casinos?
I have given much thought to that question, and the only basis on which one can justify trials is that the large casinos will have 150 machines and the smaller casinos will have 80. That is significantly fewer than was first envisaged, but many more machines than exist in the current casino estate, although we are considering category B machines. Professor Peter Collins told the Committee that there was no evidence that category A machines were more harmful than any other sort of gaming machine, including a category C machine with a £25 jackpot in your local pub, Madam Deputy Speaker—although I do not suggest that you would go there to play one.
The need for research, and to test the market and public reaction, was brought home strongly to us. Trials can therefore be said to be sensible. We are left to argue about two matters. First, what are sensible numbers for the trials? Secondly, what do we do about the existing estate? We felt all along that there was a need to be cautious. Once the genie is let out of the bottle, it cannot be put back in. I differ with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench about the figure of four; eight is a sensible number. On Second Reading, I urged on the Government a policy that would have limited the number to 20.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I have not got time—I shall wrap up my speech shortly.
We need a trial in seaside resorts, in urban areas and in city centres. Scotland and Wales will want to be part of the programme. However, we also need to ensure flexibility over time. Hon. Members must realise that we have the opportunity to make primary legislation only every 40 years or so, and the Bill must therefore create the blueprint for the gambling industry for the next 20 to 30 years, or longer. We must also trust the new gambling commission to do its job, and we need fairness for the existing industry. The Minister can use statutory instrument powers under the Gaming Act 1968 to increase the number of category B machines allowed in the existing estate. I know that he is considering that, and I urge him to do it.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke about amendment No. 116. It does not constitute a membership requirement, but supports the principle that the casinos should know their customers. I should have thought that gambling commission codes of practice were likely to incorporate similar provisions on age, money laundering and the supervision of areas where category A and category B machines are to be located. That principle applies now to arcades, to limit access to category C machines by children.
The Government now have difficulty with these provisions in only one respect: fairness to the existing industry. I hope that the Minister will give that question further consideration, and that even in the other place, there will be an opportunity to do more about it. The industry has a world-wide reputation for probity, and is respected across the entire casino world. We should therefore trust it to do a little more than the Government are currently allowing it to do.
I was on the Joint Committee and the reconvened Joint Committee, and I enjoyed a brief half-life on the Standing Committee until the Railways Bill was introduced. I know more about gambling now than I have ever done. The conclusion that the Joint Committee reached was that there should have been two Bills: a gambling Bill and a casino Bill. On the issue of a casino Bill, the Government disagreed with the Joint Committee, specifically in regard to the size, number and categories of machines. "Casino" was perhaps a misnomer all along; what we are talking about are sheds full of machines.
The Government took our advice and then kept changing that advice. It is really difficult to understand the twists and turns that they have made. Those moves are profoundly puzzling unless we decide that the script has been written around a particular outcome, and that the bottom line is that certain key players—Americans or whoever—must have their way. If we assume that to be the case, all else falls into place and things start to make sense.
My objection to the proposal for super-casinos is that there is simply no demand for them. That is an industry-led proposal. There is no necessity to use them as a regeneration tool. My constituency is regenerating itself without any proposal for a casino. The requirement in the Bill for regeneration is more notional than real. It is dependent on very weak planning controls and falls far short of what happens on the continent, where major revenue benefits are secured as part of the package. The assessment of the benefits has been extraordinarily partial. Neither the losses to small businesses nor the threat of ambient gambling to resort communities has been fairly considered.
I have concluded that casino developments are a licence to print money, a cash cow for the Chancellor. They represent a doubtful prospect for any community, and will aggravate problem gambling and lead to a further redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. Blue-collar workers from all over Lancashire are going to find recreation a lot more expensive. Despite such a dim prospect, I am fairly confident that there will be some tiny victories tonight. However, the thread running through the legislation tells me that the greatest satisfaction will be experienced by those in the corporate headquarters for whom the Bill seems to have been written. No amendment before us will change that.
I would like to say to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that, if one could respond in a fair way to the existing industry, one would do so. The last thing that we want to do is to put our own industry at a disadvantage. Equally, however, we must assure the House that what we are doing reflects what hon. Members want, not just in relation to certain proposals but the entire Bill.
The Government have tried to set out a cautious course of reform. When we debated the Bill on Second Reading, hon. Members gave us the clear message that they wanted us to be more cautious and to put in place a structure that would give people more certainty about the shape and size of the new industry. We listened to the House. It is patently obvious that we all agree with 90 per cent. of the Bill's provisions. The part that is under debate this evening relates to casinos and associated matters.
Our new proposals gave hon. Members what they asked for: controls on the number of new casinos and on the number of new gaming machines. Perhaps it would help if I started by giving the House a very brief explanation of the Government amendments in this group. Government amendment No. 2 is purely a drafting amendment. Government amendment No. 8 ensures that the gambling commission will focus on an applicant's commitment to social responsibility when considering applications for casino operating licences.
Government amendment No. 13 answers one point that worried the Standing Committee: what would happen to regeneration benefits if the casino owner were to sell on the casino and the premises' licence? Where the previous licence holder has entered into an agreement about local benefits, the substance of that agreement will continue to be a condition of the new licence. This means that any commitments will have to be fulfilled by the new operator. Government amendment No. 29 requires licensing authorities that are permitted to issue casino premises licences to publish a statement setting out the principles that they intend to apply when judging the licensing competition under schedule 9.
Amendment No. 96 is tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I understand that they have a great problem with the whole notion of unlimited prize gaming machines in new-style regional casinos. They have explained that clearly, and they have every right to do so. However, unlimited stakes and prizes are by no means new to Britain. They are available every day in betting offices, at roulette tables and online. Gambling for unlimited prizes is open to the British public now.
I acknowledge, however, that new casinos will bring risks that are untested in Great Britain. That is why we took the decision to limit the numbers of these casinos to eight. It does need to be restated that these casinos will be subject to the most intense regulation. Every aspect of their conduct will be carefully controlled. Casino gaming in regional casinos is a legitimate leisure activity for adults, and at the end of the day, I believe that adults need to be treated like adults.
Will the Minister give way?
No, I do not have time.
Amendment No. 119, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), goes a little too far. I made it clear in Standing Committee that the Government would take a commonsense approach to reviewing the impact of the regional casinos. We have also said that the review will take place no less than three years after the beginning of the new regime. However, we will not begin the review until we are confident that a good number of casinos are established and operating in a reasonable spread of locations. It would be foolish to speculate now on what the right number or spread would be, when we do not know where the casinos will be. But the Government will not rush into the review if we cannot be confident about the quality of data that we might get out of it. My hon. Friend's amendment is therefore over-restrictive. It might be possible to draw reasonable conclusions about the impact of regional casinos when, say, five or six are established and in operation.
Amendment No. 143 was tabled by members of the official Opposition, and returns us to a subject that we debated at length in Committee. The official Opposition want four regional casinos; we recommend eight. At the end of the day, this is a judgment call. It is not an exact science; far from it. What is important—and, indeed, what lies behind our decision—is the need to strike the appropriate balance between providing for a number that will enable a proper assessment of social impact to be made, while minimising the risk of social harm. We think that eight casinos will give a sound basis for a reasonable test. Four would be too few.
Amendments Nos. 103, 104 and 105, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), would give local authorities a power to determine in advance the exact number of casinos in their area. We think that that goes too far. We accept—indeed, it was we who proposed it—that some authorities should have the power to reflect strong local opinion and not allow any new casinos in their area if they are not wanted. The decision of local authorities can also reflect the view that there is a sufficient number in their area. We do not accept, however, that local authorities should be able to specify a number in advance. Amendment No. 104 would give licensing authorities a power that they already have, because clause 161 already gives them the power to have regard to "any principle or matter". That is intentionally very broad, and would clearly allow an authority to take account of the likely social impact of new casinos.
Amendment No. 100 was also tabled by the hon. Member for Bath, and I do not think that it is needed. Casinos that are licensed now under the Gaming Act 1968 will continue to be licensed after that Act is repealed through transitional provisions in an order made under schedule 18 to the Bill. The order will deem those casinos, under powers in paragraph 9 of schedule 18, to have premises licences under the Bill, but they will be limited to 10 gaming machines of up to category B1. Under the powers in paragraph 10 of the same schedule they will not be allowed to provide betting or bingo. Those provisions will provide a mix of casinos, on the basis of which the House, in future years, can make a sound decision on how it wants to move forward.
Clause 7(5)(d) makes it clear that a separate category of casinos, which are below the minimum size for a small casino, will exist under the Bill. Paragraph 3(a) of schedule 18 makes it clear that a casino premises licence may be issued for such a casino, despite the fact that it does not meet the size requirement. Clause 7(5)(d) is needed purely to exempt the casinos from the minimum size requirement that applies to new casinos. Nor does amendment No. 101 have any effect on the meaning of clause 7, as casino games provided on premises can only be provided on casino premises. Therefore, no harm arises from the single reference to "premises" in clause 7(4).
Amendment No. 102 is also unnecessary. The Standing Committee had concerns about multiple licences on a single premises, but as I have stated previously, such an arrangement is not possible under the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 lead us on to the linked topics of identity and membership. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bath make two new proposals: first, that everyone entering the gaming area of casinos should show photographic ID to door supervisors; and secondly, that gaming machines should be allowed in what we have called the non-gambling area. The Government agree entirely with him that casinos have a responsibility to confirm the age of customers. That is why a person who fails to do that is guilty of a criminal offence under clause 46. I do not agree, however, that we must impose the requirement that he seeks.
The hon. Member for Bath is also concerned about money laundering and I agree that strong controls are necessary. I do not agree, however, that those controls should take the form of identification on entry. He misled the House, probably unwittingly, when he misquoted the second money laundering directive, which does not require ID on entry. Instead, it requires that ID must be given when buying and selling more than €1,000 of chips. As we discussed in Standing Committee, that is how money laundering controls are enforced now, but it is possible to maintain the same level of vigilance without checks on entry, and we should not impose excessive burdens on the industry without good reason.
On the other aspects of the amendment, I must disagree with the hon. Member for Bath. The non-gambling area of a casino should be exactly that—free from gambling of any type. The purpose of such an area is to give gamblers a readily available break from gambling, which is hardly possible if it is full of pub-style gaming machines.
I recognise that my hon. Friends have the best intentions in proposing new clause 7 and amendment No. 93, but I cannot agree with them. The current membership rule and 24-hour delay before play provide no significant protection to consumers, and nor are they practical to operate for any large casino when large numbers of people are likely to arrive at peak periods. I remind my hon. Friends that casinos provide adult entertainment, and if an adult wishes to enter a casino, it is not reasonable to ask that person to become a member, any more than it would be reasonable to ask someone to be a member of their local pub or betting office.
Amendment negatived.
It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
Clause 162 — Conditions
Amendment proposed: No. 116, in page 73, line 29, at end insert—
'(4) Each casino premises licence shall by virtue of this subsection be subject to the mandatory conditions that the licensee—
(a) shall not operate gaming tables or gaming machines of Categories A or B outside a designated gaming area prescribed in relation to the relevant casino premises under section 147.
(b) shall not permit any person other than the licensee or a person employed by the licensee to perform any function within the casino to enter a designated gaming area whilst the same is being used in reliance of the casino premises licence without the production at the entrance thereto of satisfactory evidence of identity; and
(c) shall maintain a condition of door supervision in respect of the designated gaming area at all times whilst the same is being used in reliance of the casino premises licence; and
(5) Regulations under this section may, in particular, add or exclude gaming machines of a particular category or categories from gaming machines which are the subject of subsection (4) of this section provided that such regulations shall not permit gaming machines of Category A to be so excluded.
(6) In subsection (4) "satisfactory evidence of identity" means evidence which is reasonably capable of establishing (and does in fact establish to the satisfaction of the person who obtains it) (a) the name, address and a photographic likeness of the person producing the evidence, (b) establishing that such person is over the age of 18 years on each occasion that satisfactory evidence of identity is required to be produced under this Act (including the proffering on a second or subsequent occasion of entry of a card or token issued to them by the licensee of the casino premises) for the purpose of verifying the identity of such person by reference to a photographic image.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) a photographic image may be an image stored (a) visually or electronically upon the card or (b) upon a system maintained by the licensee of the premises for such a purpose.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
Clause 7 — Casino
Amendment made: No. 2, in page 4, line 25, leave out paragraphs (d) to (f) and insert—
'(d) the floor area used or designated for a specified purpose,'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 68 — Consideration of application: general principles
Amendment made: No. 8, in page 29, line 6, at end insert—
'(2A) In considering an application for a non-remote casino operating licence the Commission shall have regard, in addition to the matters specified in subsection (1), to the applicant's commitment to—
(a) protecting vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling, and
(b) making assistance available to persons who are or may be affected by problems related to gambling.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 179 — Transfer
Amendment made: No. 13, in page 82, line 17, at end insert—
'(6) A licence to which a condition is attached under section 164 for the purpose of giving effect to an agreement entered into under paragraph 5(3)(b) of Schedule 9 ("the original agreement") shall not be transferred unless—
(a) the transferee enters into an agreement ("the new agreement") which appears to the licensing authority to have substantially the same effect as the original agreement, and
(b) the condition is altered so as to give effect to the new agreement.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 83 — Equipment
Amendment made: No. 9, in page 37, line 6, after 'equipment' insert
', other than equipment for playing bingo,'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 89 — Bingo operating licence
Amendments made: No. 10, in page 39, line 17, after 'nature' insert ', amount or value'.
No. 11, in page 39, line 19, at end insert—
'(ea) preventing or limiting an arrangement whereby the fact that a prize is not won or claimed in one game of bingo increases the value of the prizes available in another game of bingo,'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 266 — Bingo
Amendments made: No. 21, in page 119, line 23, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.
No. 22, in page 119, line 27, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.
No. 23, in page 119, line 29, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'. —[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 272 — Bingo
Amendments made: No. 24, in page 121, line 19, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.
No. 25, in page 121, line 21, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.
No. 26, in page 121, line 24, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.
No. 27, in page 121, line 26, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.
No. 40, in page 121, line 32, after 'licence' insert 'or relevant Scottish licence'.—[Mr. Caborn]
Clause 58 — Age limit for Category D gaming machines
I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 24, line 34, leave out clause 58.
The last group of amendments concerned casinos. Casinos are an important issue, but the number of people in the country who use them is, in fact, relatively limited. We considered the potential impact if the new casinos were allowed, and there were a significant—
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but will hon. Members who are not staying for the debate please conduct their conversations outside the Chamber?
As I was saying, we considered what impact the new casinos would have in the event of a significant increase in the number using them.
Amendment No. 110 is of vital importance to the existing 960 family entertainment centres, many of which can be found in our seaside resorts. They are long established and play a vital part in the local economy of many such resorts. In total, they employ some 8,600 people and spend about £100 million in doing so. More importantly, perhaps, they are a central part of the traditional British seaside holiday. They have undoubtedly brought pleasure to the millions of families who spend their summer holidays at the seaside, and there is no evidence that they have ever led to any harm. It seems extraordinary that, at the same time as introducing a Bill that will allow new and untried casinos—potentially leading to a considerable increase in gambling addiction—the Government seem intent on striking a series of hammer blows to existing seaside arcades. Such blows will do enormous damage and perhaps jeopardise their survival, even though there is no evidence that they do any harm.
Several later amendments deal with specific matters relating to seaside arcades, particularly machine stakes and prizes and the question of trading up. Amendment No. 110, however, deals with a power in the Bill that many regard as a sword of Damocles hanging over the industry: the Secretary of State's having a reserve power to ban children from using category D machines. Let us be clear what such machines are. One example is the "crane grab", whereby the player manoeuvres a crane in an attempt to grab a cuddly toy from the collection within the machine. A further example is the "penny falls", which involves rolling a coin down a slide, in the hope that it will push a number of coins over the edge and one will get one's money back, plus a little more. Such machines are not exactly examples of the hard gambling that leads to the worst examples of problem gambling or addiction.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend can think of a worse example of the nanny state than the Secretary of State's taking the power to prevent a small child from grabbing a cuddly toy.
This Government have come up with many different ways of imposing the nanny state, but I agree that this is one of the worst examples, particularly given that this provision appears to have been introduced without any supporting evidence whatever.
The whole point of such attractions is that they are part of what are called family entertainment centres. The latest published survey shows that some 47 per cent. of the population visited such a centre at least once in the past year. Like many people, I remember visiting seaside arcades during my childhood—in Weymouth and in Lyme Regis—and playing on the machines. Indeed, one of the strongest advocates of such machines, and opponents of this clause, is my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who represents Lyme Regis.
In her letter to Labour Members, the Secretary of State made it clear that the Government are
"committed to taking an evidence-based approach to all gambling issues."
She continued by pointing out that
"low-value gaming machines have been available in amusement arcades for many years, and there has never been compelling evidence that it is harmful . . . for children to be able to play low-value gaming machines."
So the Government accept that we need to proceed on the basis of evidence, and that there is no evidence that such machines have ever caused harm to anyone.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that, according to a survey carried out by the British Amusement Catering Trades Association, 90 per cent. of those of its members who run arcades in seaside towns will restrict their investment if clause 58 goes ahead unamended.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall come to the devastating effect that the clause will have on the industry if it remains in the Bill.
The only justification that the Secretary of State has been able to give for having this reserve power is the possibility that evidence supporting the need for it might emerge in future, or that some technological change might cause the Government to reconsider. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said, this power will threaten investment throughout the industry and 90 per cent. of such businesses will restrict their investment.
I received a letter from Mrs. Fletcher, of the Fletcher Group, who has been involved in the seaside entertainment industry for almost her whole life. She said that
"such a damaging clause hanging over the industry will cause a level of uncertainty that will restrict the level of long term investment. How can we be expected to plan and invest in the future expansion of our businesses if with one stroke the government can eradicate around 75 per cent. of our customer base? The potential loss of customer levels will eradicate the majority of seaside establishments as we know them today, the traditional seaside will no longer exist."
The British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions, which represents amusements and other such attractions, says:
"We cannot accept it is necessary or desirable to grant the Secretary of State a reserve power to prohibit children playing Category D games . . . There is no academic evidence to substantiate such a draconian measure. Such a power will blight the industry and mean that our members will be unlikely to invest in new equipment."
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many find it rather strange that while the Government are saying that people can play category A machines in mega-casinos, they are also giving the Secretary of State a reserve power to ban children from playing category D machines and winning cuddly toys? The clause is crazy and should be removed, and it is indeed an example of the nanny state gone mad.
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks and I am delighted to learn that she supports our amendment. She is right: the clause is entirely crazy.
The clause is particularly crazy because although the Government have said that they need this reserve power in case of future technological developments, or in case evidence emerges supporting the need for such a power, there are other provisions in the Bill giving the Secretary of State powers that she could use in such circumstances. For example, clause 226(6) gives her the power to act if there are changes in technology, and clause 230(1) gives her other wide-ranging powers. So clause 58 is not only immensely damaging; it is also completely unnecessary.
Does my hon. Friend recall that when he and I considered the Bill in Committee, the Minister himself said:
"We do not plan to use the power now or in the foreseeable future"? [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 November 2004; c. 267.]
In the light of what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) have said, what on earth is the reason for the Government's including this provision in the Bill?
My hon. Friend is of course right: there is no reason for this reserve power. Including such a power in the Bill sends the clear signal that there could be circumstances in which the Government ban children from using category D machines. Sending that signal will blight the prospects of many small businesses in seaside resorts throughout the country—businesses that are already struggling to survive—and as long as the clause remains in the Bill, it will cause real damage to them and will potentially deny enjoyment to many families. I therefore ask the Minister to think again and remove it.
I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), because I agree with much of what he said.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my constituents' concerns about the implications of clause 58 for family entertainment centres. My constituency contains Portobello, a seaside suburb complete with beach and promenade. Part of the fun of a day at the seaside there is a visit to one of our family entertainment centres. I was asked recently to meet the operators of Portobello's two family entertainment centres—Nobles and Lothian Amusements' fun park. The Noble family has been in seaside amusements for three generations, and the Portobello centre has been in existence for some 100 years. The fun park has been running since 1908, and my constituent Melvin Strand has been in charge of it for more than 20 years. A significant part of the operation of both of those centres is the category D machines. As the House knows, those machines currently have a maximum stake of just 30p and a maximum prize value of £5 in cash or £8 non-cash. Such low-value gaming machines have been part of seaside life for decades, and many people will have fond memories of them. My right hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee that
"arcades with category D machines are an important part of the economy, particularly in seaside resorts. Indeed, they are a part of our history and culture at the seaside. We want to maintain them as part of that structure."[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 November 2004; c. 269.]
As the House knows, clause 58 enables the Secretary of State to bring forward an order that would ban children and young people below a specified age from using category D machines. Clause 342 tells us that such an order would be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that a draft would have to be laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses. Not surprisingly, my constituents are profoundly alarmed at the implications of such an order for their family entertainment centres. Category D machines account for well over a quarter of their business, and Nobles estimated that in summertime such machines might account for three quarters or more of their trade.
I am aware, of course, that my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers insist that they have no intention of banning children from category D machines on current evidence. However, the very fact that the Secretary of State will have the power to do so is a matter of great concern to my constituents. I have seen the clause referred to as a sword of Damocles—indeed, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford used the phrase. As any order would be subject to the approval of both Houses, this particular sword does have a safety net under it, but nevertheless my constituents are worried, and worry in an industry can translate into economic loss.
At present, the manufacturers of category D machines monitor children's interests and develop products that reflect current trends. The operators of family entertainment centres then invest in new machines to keep their facilities up to date, and that investment is serious money. A coin-pusher costs in the order of £10,000 to £15,000. Both family entertainment centres in Portobello renew a number of their machines every season, and expect a new machine to stay in place for around five or six seasons.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that investment decisions are already being delayed because of the uncertainty that the continued inclusion of clause 58 is having? It is not only future investment decisions that are being affected, but today's investment decisions, which will affect tourists in UK seaside resorts in the immediate future.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.
My constituents tell me that the effect of clause 58 will be that investment in the development of new category D machines will cease, and that investment by operators will dry up, to the obvious detriment of jobs in the industry.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is slightly perverse that the Minister with responsibility for tourism should also be responsible for a Bill that would decimate whole swathes of the seaside resort industry?
The hon. Gentleman overstates his case. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister wants to decimate the industry, but I do think that the Government need to think again.
The British Amusement Catering Trades Association's survey of its members indicated that 90 per cent. of owners are less likely to invest in their businesses in the light of clause 58. That would be the direct effect, but there could be more general effects. For example, if a family entertainment centre owner needed to invest to refurbish the centre, he might find that his chances of getting a bank loan could be damaged by the threat posed by clause 58. And what about an owner seeking to sell his business? Could the price of that business be reduced by the threat of a clause 58 ban? The owners of both seaside amusement centres in my constituency are firmly of the view that the clause would have such an impact on their sector. If one adds to that the proposed reduction in stakes and prizes for category D machines in clause 226, the Bill has given my constituents great cause for concern.
Neither of my constituents is given to overstatement or melodrama. Both are knowledgeable businessmen with a wealth of experience in their field, and both are firmly of the view that clause 58 as it stands will be damaging to their industry. Ministers insist that they have no intention of using their reserve powers to ban children from using category D machines, and perhaps the impact of the reserve powers on the industry was not foreseen. However, the industry is very worried that just by taking those reserve powers the Bill will have a harmful effect on their sector. I hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise that Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about this measure, and I urge him to listen to those concerns.
The House will be well aware that earlier we debated the issue of casinos, when many hon. Members expressed considerable concern that a Labour Government had sought to introduce an unlimited number of new untried super-casinos with up to 1,250 untried category A machines. Fortunately, as a result of pressure, the Government were prepared to change their mind on that issue. Many Members who were surprised by those proposals were puzzled that, at the same time, the Government were making huge attacks on traditional seaside resort entertainment facilities.
As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) pointed out, this issue is not the only problem. Those hon. Members who have not studied the deliberations of the Committee in great detail may be surprised to learn that the Bill still contains a proposal that the cuddly teddy bear that can be won from a grabber machine should have its possible value reduced from £8 to £5. That is from a Government who happily proposed to introduce 10,000 new category A machines with unlimited stakes and prizes. The Government's thinking on the matter is bizarre.
Several hon. Members have already made the point eloquently that the reserve power in clause 58 simply is not necessary. Other parts of the legislation give the Secretary of State the power to make changes in the light of advice from the new gambling commission. No doubt whoever is Secretary of State at the time will do that in regard to many different aspects of gambling, so why is it necessary to single out, in this bizarre way, that one aspect of the industry, especially as not a shred of evidence exists to show that it contributes to problem gambling?
Is not the simplest explanation that the proposal is part of the murky agreement between the Government and the large casino operators? If those casinos do not produce the revenue that the Treasury wants, the Government want to retain reserve powers to extinguish what remains of the competition.
If the right hon. Gentleman is right, he is failing to acknowledge that by leaving these measures in the Bill—this sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of such establishments—the chances of family entertainment centres making any money for regeneration in the future are very slim. It is worth reflecting that in a recent survey, 47 per cent. of families reported visiting such establishments at least once in the past 12 months. Some 90 per cent. of those who run such establishments believe that if the powers remain in the Bill, they are likely to affect their investment potential for the future. As other hon. Members have said, that is already beginning to have a huge impact.
If the Secretary of State were to invoke the powers, meaning that only over-18s could use category D machines, there is little chance that families would bother to visit places with such machines. As a result, such centres would no longer be viable and no investment would come in from them. There is no evidence to suggest that such reserve powers are necessary in addition to the existing powers that the Secretary of State will be given by the Bill. I hope that in the same way as the Government have been prepared to listen to the concerns expressed by many people about super-casinos, they will be prepared to consider the concerns expressed on this issue. Let us hope for another welcome U-turn.
It is obvious that many hon. Members are worried about the future of category D machines. One might ask why people in Chorley have an interest in the matter because it is not by the seaside, but my constituency contains Camelot, which is a theme park with category D machines. Another group that is concerned is travelling showmen—the funfairs. Travelling funfairs such as Greens and Silcock based in Chorley have category D machines, and many showmen go around the country with those machines. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that people who follow the great tradition of travelling around the country and those in seaside resorts do not have to worry about their future and livelihoods, because they are being put at stake?
We know about the proposal to reduce prize money, but there is a problem with that because there is no way of allowing it to increase with inflation over the next 15 to 20 years. A mechanism should be built into the Bill to allow category D machine prizes to increase over the long term. I hope that my right hon. Friend will think about what hon. Members have been talking about: the future viability of category D arcades, whether they are owned by travelling showmen or sited in seaside resorts and theme parks. Why does he want such special powers and does he really need them? Will he think long and hard about the travelling showmen, the seaside and theme parks?
I rise at this point to try to be helpful because I know that hon. Members wish to speak to other amendments.
Amendment No. 110 would remove the Secretary of State's power to restrict children's access to category D gaming machines. I want to clarify a few points on the Government's attitude to low-prize gaming machines, because the debate has reflected the fact that there has been much frenetic lobbying on the matter, which has resulted in misunderstandings.
Many people have said that the Government are unfairly singling out category D machines with the reserve power in clause 58, but that is simply not true. Under the Bill, as, indeed, under the present law, every type of gaming machine except category D machines has a statutory age requirement for play, which is 18 years. Category D gaming machines thus single themselves out as a matter of fact.
The Government's policy over all the years covering the gambling review, the White Paper and the draft Bill has been that children should continue to be allowed to play those machines. We have taken that view because the amounts of money involved are modest and there is not yet a substantial body of compelling evidence to make us think that children's access to category D machines is truly a problem. However, contrary to what one might have thought after hearing the debate, there is a body of opinion that disagrees with the Government. There are serious academics who doubt our conclusions. There is also a strong body of public opinion that children should not be allowed to play gaming machines at all. Indeed, by far the largest number of responses to the public consultation on the draft Bill were from people who did not want children to be allowed to play the machines at all. The Government needed to make a choice between the options, so we have chosen to continue with the status quo, with children being allowed to play the machines.
We believe that the amendment goes a little far. I have to ask the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) whether he thinks it right for the Government to ignore those who hold strong views or offer different evidence. Is it not better to hold powers in reserve that will be subject to the approval of the House, using the affirmative procedure, so that we could act to protect children better? The Bill already provides for that, so it will give the Government and the gambling commission the powers needed to protect the public now and in years to come.
Does my right hon. Friend accept the problem of blight on the industry? Many small amusement arcade owners are worried about reinvesting in category D machines because they would become obsolete if children were prevented from using them.
I hope that what I will say will reassure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members. I am trying to balance the debate because alternative arguments have been advanced, which the Government have weighed up before reaching a view.
It has been alleged that the Government are plotting to take the industry by surprise and use the power suddenly to strip away the right of children to use the machines, but that is not the case. With respect, it is a fanciful idea. I remind the House that the Government, in response to the Budd report, reaffirmed the view that children should continue to play these machines, even though chapter 23 of Sir Alan Budd's report showed that he was highly sceptical about whether children should be allowed to continue playing. The Government made their position crystal clear in chapter 7 of the 2002 White Paper, and that position has not changed.
Would the Minister like to run a business, which is quite a difficult thing to do, if the Government could use reserve powers to put him out of business by simply laying an order before the House of Commons? Surely that is a real problem.
I said in Committee that uncertainty is one of the worst things for a business. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall try to clear up that uncertainty.
I am happy to give a pledge today, on behalf of the Government, that we will, of course, never use the power in clause 58 without a strong new body of evidence to support that. We would always consult both the gambling commission and representatives of the industry before coming to the House, as I said clearly in Committee.
We have listened carefully to the debate and strong representations on the matter that my hon. Friends have made over the past few weeks. I appreciate that there are strong views and many legitimate interests, especially among my hon. Friends who represent seaside constituencies. Although I cannot accept the amendment at this stage, I am happy to make a commitment that the Government will review carefully the need for the reserve powers included in clause 58, and that they will report their conclusions and any alternative proposals to the House of Lords if the Bill receives its Third Reading tonight. We need to consult several constituencies with legitimate views on the matter. The Government want to work with the British amusement industry to ensure that it remains an important part of our leisure and tourism industry—yes, the tourism industry, to respond to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)—and that the leisure and tourism economy have a bright future.
My right hon. Friend mentioned seaside towns, but does he accept that we also represent theme parks and travelling funfairs?
I do, but I was referring to the strong representations that have been made by Labour Members with constituencies containing seaside resorts. I hear what my hon. Friend says and confirm that we will examine the situation not only in respect of seaside resorts, but of category D machines. Given my reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford will withdraw the amendment so that we may report back to another place.
Although the Minister's words were helpful, he is somewhat friendless on the Government Benches because all three Labour Back Benchers who have spoken were critical of the reserve power. If I may add to the speeches and interventions that have been made, independent research by the Henley Centre concluded that up to a third of family entertainment centres throughout the country could well close as a result of the Bill, if it were not amended. I hope that the Government will decide, on reflection, to remove the clause in another place, and that hon. Members of all parties will send a firm signal to another place and the Government by voting for the amendment this evening.
It is not only clause 58 and the singling out of category D machines, which have been enjoyed by many children for generations, that could damage family entertainment centres, because a raft of measures in the Bill will affect those centres and members of the British Amusement Catering Trades Association and the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions, with which I have worked for many years.
One must consider the cumulative effect of everything that the Government have done. They have reneged on promises that arcades' existing entitlements would all be grandfathered under the Bill. We may come back to that matter later, but the Government's ridiculous guillotining and programming of the Bill may not enable us to debate that, so I mention it now.
Despite previous assurances that they would not, the Government have limited the ability of families to exchange two smaller prizes for one larger one—a long-standing practice in the business known as trading up. The Government set out their intention in the regulatory impact assessment to reduce, in the absence of any evidence to justify it, by 66 per cent. the level of stakes and by 40 per cent. the prize levels available on the lowest stake and prize category D machines, threatening the profitability and viability of many arcades The Government have also refused to implement the normal triennial increase in the levels of stakes and prizes as recommended by the Gaming Board to reflect increases in running costs over the period.
My hon. Friend is making a series of excellent points. Is he aware that, in seaside resorts such as Skegness in my constituency, the category D machines account for a substantial proportion of turnover and profit in many of the family entertainment centres? The Government seem to think that the machines are a tangential or marginal part of many of these businesses when they are critical to the future dynamism and success of tourist resorts such as Skegness.
I agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, in my first five years in the House, I represented Blackpool, where exactly the same concerns exist. It is not surprising that Labour Back Benchers are responding to those concerns. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) pointed out, it is simply not possible to run one of these small businesses—most are small family concerns—if they have such a threat hanging over them. Once again, it is a reflection of the fact that far too few Ministers in the Government have ever had a single day's experience of running a business. They do not understand the effect of what they have done.
It is exactly the same as the point that was made in the previous debate when we heard the revelation that £500 million was knocked off the stock market valuation of the British casino industry in the 24 hours following the Government's change of policy. It is another example of how they do not care about businesses, large or small, because they have no comprehension of the worries that people running businesses have.
We have seen a chink of light, no doubt influenced by the fact that the Government are aware that many of their Back Benchers are prepared to contemplate rebellion on this issue and that the only Labour Members to speak in this debate have spoken against the clause. The Government may decide in the end that they have this wrong. I certainly hope so. There is every reason to think that family entertainment centres—they are a crucial part of our tourism both inland, as the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) said, and at the seaside—desperately need the clause to be taken out. I hope that it will be in another place. The Government would be wise to do that.
I hope that the Minister will clarify whether it is his intention to withdraw the clause and remove its effect in the House of Lords or whether he is saying that he will just have another look at it.
I want to make three points. First, I represent Southend-on-Sea where we have a large amusement industry, which is rather different from the casino industry. I had the pleasure of speaking to two Americans who were making applications for one of the gigantic casinos and they seemed to know everything about everything. They belong to massive companies and, to my surprise, they told me that we would have to change the way in which regional casinos were being allocated, because of the decision to give Sheffield one. I pointed out how the organisation had not even been established and how the factors in the Bill had to be taken into account, but they seemed to know everything about everything. I genuinely say to the Minister that if Sheffield, which is the most outrageous place even to be considered for a casino, gets one, my faith in democracy will be undermined. If it does not get one, my faith in the American gambling industry will be undermined.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to set up a small committee to look at the location of the 24 casinos. Will he put his name forward to be a member of that Committee?
The Minister is aware that I am always interested in taking a look at anything.
I want to make two further brief points. The people who run amusement arcades are nice family people and have massive numbers of visitors at weekends. Southend is not a tourist resort, but people go there for a day out and families go there and enjoy themselves immensely. The Minister's proposal will affect machines such as the cranes that grab toys, the coin-pusher games involving 10p and 2p coins and redemption machines that issue tickets as prizes. I do not think that there is any way at all that the Minister can say that there is evidence that such machines cause damage. We should encourage families to go together in visits to the seaside.
Finally, I hope that if the Minister is thinking of going ahead with the proposal, he will wonder how on earth he will apply it. Regulations are very difficult for businesses to operate, particularly since we joined the European Economic Community, and I hope that he will bear in mind how he would operate the scheme. Is a father allowed to play a machine with his son standing beside him or is the father not allowed to do that? Must there be a separate place in amusement arcades for such machines? I hope that the Minister will realise that the proposal is a mistake, but I greatly appreciate the kind response that he has given.
Does the hon. Gentleman want an addition to the Bill that says that no machines can be converted to take the euro?
Our machines cannot be converted, and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the massive costs the industry is facing because of the EU. If the euro is introduced, it will impose massive costs on the industry.
I hope that the Minister can make it clear that his intention is to remove the powers of the clause when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. If he said that, we would all be grateful and say that he had done a good job. If that is not done and we lose the opportunity, we will have no further chance. Once the Bill leaves the House of Commons, we will not have another chance to look at it unless there is an astonishing amendment in the House of Lords.
In view of the fact that the Minister has said that he is prepared to reconsider the issue, if he is willing to visit Southend-on-Sea to visit our arcades, he would be very welcome and I would give him a splendid lunch on the seafront. It takes only an hour to get to Southend and an hour to get back, so I hope that he will come there and realise that the clause was a great error.
I would like to press the Minister. I represent the seaside town of Felixstowe, which is a place for day trips and weekend, weekly and fortnightly stays. Indeed, I am told that it is safer to rely on having two full days of sun in Felixstowe in the first two weeks of September than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I am proud to represent it, not least because Charlie Manning and his friends produce some of the best seaside entertainments available. Not only are they family entertainments, they are run by families.
I am not always flabbergasted by the Government, but I find it difficult to understand why they have introduced the clause. One usually understands the nefarious reasons why they have decided to do something that is manifestly unpopular and extremely unproductive. Why they have done it on this occasion defies all reason. That is why I became even more worried when the Minister did not actually say that he would introduce an amendment to delete the clause in the House of Lords. I would be very unhappy to go without voting on this amendment unless we had an absolute undertaking that the clause will be removed. It is not good enough for the Minister to cite a series of mythical people who are opposed to cranes that catch woolly animals.
Before the right hon. Gentleman describes the cranes, will he tell me whether he has consulted other constituents, such as the faith groups, that he also represents? I do not know whether he has spoken to the Methodist Church or to the Salvation Army in his constituency. Discussions are going on between BACTA and the faith groups about the effect of gambling on young people. I have known the right hon. Gentleman for some time, and I do not think that he would dismiss organisations such as the faith groups. They have a point of view and that must be factored into the decisions that the Government take.
As the proud relation of a sister-in-law who is a Methodist minister, I would find it difficult not to consult the Methodist Church in my constituency. I merely say to the right hon. Gentleman that, although I am a Catholic and therefore take a rather different view of these matters from Methodists, I have taken other views into account. I would be sad if our whole public life were organised in such a way that it was not possible to say a very simple thing: for many years the majority of people in this country have managed to grow up in peace and tranquillity while using penny-in-the-slot machines or their modern equivalent.
I am not sure that I would put the cranes that catch woolly animals high up on the list of all the things that have done me harm in life. Indeed, a number of things that have done me harm are not banned. The Minister is not taking reserve powers to protect me and my children against a whole range of other things, which he could do were he concerned about the matter. He should consider that, in a society in which he seeks to extend choice and allow people to do what they want to do—in some areas rather dangerously, in my view—it seems very odd that he should stop children playing these machines. Worse still, he is not actually going to stop them. He will have a reserve power to do so, thereby blighting the industry without having the courage of his convictions.
I simply say to the Minister that, if he agrees with the small number of people who think that the machines should be banned, he should come out and tell us. If he does not agree, he should say, "Right, the machines will go on." I will tell him what I will do: if it emerges, amazingly, that the possession of a woolly bear taken from one of these machines by crane damages the psyche of individuals, I will ask my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) to agree to rush emergency legislation through the Commons to ensure that, forthwith, woolly bears may not be put in such machines. If the Minister agrees now to withdraw the measures in the upper House, we will agree to facilitate emergency legislation should some miraculous new information be brought forward by Methodists, the Salvation Army, Jehovah's Witnesses or any group he likes. In the meantime, can we please have our cranes?
Has the right hon. Gentleman ever won a furry bear playing a crane machine?
I was not going to enter into that, but it is hard to find someone clutching such a bear, because the bears seem to remain, week after week, inside the machines. All I know is that, for a very small amount of money, the machines give a great deal of pleasure to people hoping for a teddy bear. Why does the Minister want to take away from small children the chance to hope? Is he not the kind of nanny who would be had up under today's laws for cruelty to children?
My right hon. Friend talks about whether new evidence will emerge in a blinding light and persuade him to change his mind. A number of organisations told the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee that such machines were damaging to children, but in my judgment and that of the Committee, that was pure assertion. There was not a shred of evidence that it was true. If it were true, we would have more problem gamblers than other countries, which we do not.
My hon. Friend is perfectly right. I say to the Minister that I have seen no evidence—I have seen opinion, but no evidence—that these machines do any harm. All our experience, of our own childhood and that of our children, and, in my case, that of my constituents' children, is that they do no harm at all. I know of no body of academic research to the contrary that stands up.
The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of being laughed out of court on this proposal. If the blight cast over businesses by the proposals were not so serious for my constituents, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) and others, we would laugh, rightly, at a Government who hold reserve powers to protect children from the dangers of machines that have been part of their inheritance for this and most of the last century. What is the House of Commons doing debating woolly bears in crane machines on the front in Felixstowe? Surely we have many more important things to discuss, and the Minister should say now that he will withdraw the proposal.
Many of the points have already been made, but I must say a few words, as I represent the seaside resort of Morecambe. Many of my constituents who own amusement arcades have lobbied me about the issue. The possible blight on their business is of great concern to them and they are worried about investing in new category D machines. I can assure the Minister that those do absolutely no harm to children. I have played on them many times, and I have to declare an interest and say that I have won, so it is possible to win on such a machine. The House may be interested to hear that I won a cuddly bulldog with a Union Jack, which I passed on to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) as a Christmas present.
The machines provide a great deal of fun for children. They make a rainy day in Morecambe. [Interruption.] Of course, it rarely rains in Morecambe, but when it does people can escape into the amusement arcades and have some harmless fun. I hope that common sense will prevail.
As somebody who has owned up to winning a prize, will my hon. Friend share her knowledge with the House so that we can all win?
I will be happy to give Members lessons if they see me afterwards.
We have had a laugh and a joke, but this is a serious issue for seaside arcade owners and the people who work for them. I am glad that the Minister appears to have taken the concerns on board. I hope that we can make progress and that clause 58 can be deleted from the Bill.
I declare an interest in that two towns in my constituency, Hunstanton and Heacham, have a large number of amusement arcades, which are, in the main, family owned. Many have been in those families for generations, and they employ, directly and indirectly, up to 250 people, which in small seaside towns is a significant number.
I have been lobbied by a number of arcade owners. I had the opportunity of going around an arcade only recently, as a guest of Mr. Michael Thomas and Michelle, his daughter. I, too, have a confession to make: I won a cuddly bear—but I was given an unlimited number of goes on the crane. Had I been a young child, persevering so long would probably have cost me four years' pocket money.
The Minister has given us an assurance that he will review the powers, but I do not feel that that is enough. He said that he would revisit the matter, but why can he not say that he will withdraw the clause? He has no friends whatever in this place, and the explanation that he gave was pretty unconvincing to me. Is it not ironic that the Government are giving substantial extra gambling opportunities in the small number of mega-casinos and in the machines that will offer unlimited prizes, yet doing significant harm to small family-owned arcades?
A constituent told me the other day:
"My 9 year old daughter will win a smaller teddy bear than she can at present, which will apparently stop her becoming a gambling addict. It's ludicrous."
As Michelle Thomas said, "Costs are going up at a time when seaside economies are struggling. Why give them a kick for no reason? We feel very strongly indeed that this is wrong."
The Minister is friendless. Some powerful arguments have been advanced—I refer to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) about the other clauses that affect family-owned amusement arcades. I hope that the Minister will listen to what has been said and have the good sense to withdraw the clause or accept the amendment.
I represent a constituency that has probably the longest continuous fair in Europe. It goes back 800 years. Clearly, when it started grab machines were not part of the entertainments. However, for as long as I have known it, they have been. One of my earliest memories is of walking through the amusement arcade in Dundee, which was in the basement of the town chamber—an odd place for it to be. The machines always fascinated me. Unlike other Members, I have not won anything on them. However, I have tried them for years. My misspent youth was completely unrewarded, and my misspent middle age likewise.
Rather than to descend into burlesque, I shall make some brief points. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to think carefully about the implications of the clause, and related clauses, for small businesses. I know owners in my constituency. The fair comes once a year, in April, and it always rains. The wind cuts through us like a knife. I can tell the House that when the wind does that in Kirkcaldy, we really feel it. Despite the fact that we are on the east of the country, it rains much more in Kirkcaldy than it does in Morecambe—or at least, it seems to. That being so, amusement arcades serve a useful function. In the small town of Burntisland in my constituency, and at other places along the coast, the machines provide a worthwhile service for families, given the state of the weather in Scotland. Roll on global warming. Many of us say that there is no sign of it where we come from.
It has been asserted that the machines are harmful. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who spoke about pre-legislative scrutiny. It is easy for those with strong views to make assertions about the effects of this and that, and how terrible they are. When we seek to examine objective evidence, we find that none is forthcoming.
The machines provide relatively simple amusement. As I, as a psychiatrist, would know, they provide nothing of the reinforcement so essential to problem gambling—quite the reverse. Two Members have claimed that they have won something from the machines but I have met far more people who have not. If we are to rely on anecdotal evidence and opinion, the fact that so few people seem to win, and thus receive the reinforcement that they would need to continue playing, would seem to suggest that the machines perform a public service at remarkably little cost.
To reduce the price of playing the machines is a serious issue. To reduce the price of such an entertainment from 30p to 10p is ludicrous. I know many of the proprietors, and they do not strike me as numbering among what I would charitably describe as the filthy rich. They run family businesses. They usually live in the towns where they run their businesses and they have a responsible attitude to the gambling that takes place in their establishments. To reduce their charges to those that prevailed 20 years ago would be unfair, especially in comparison with the rides at the fair that I mentioned. The whole point of the Links market in Kirkcaldy is that every new ride for the fairs in Europe comes up to the mile-and-a-half-long display. It now costs £2 to go on one of those things.
Having too great a concern for my own well-being, I am unlikely ever to be persuaded to take a ride. Given the speed at which they fly and the number of dimensions in which they seem to operate, it is probably worth while to take that approach, especially for someone of my size. When we are reflecting on the price of the entertainment provided by the machines, we should compare it with the price of the other entertainments available, and get a sense of proportion.
What are reserve powers for? They have to be provided. They are not just a cover-your-arse method—if that is parliamentary language; if it is not, I will withdraw it. Somebody in the Department has put in the provision because they think that it might be a good idea for the future. There must be reasonable grounds for supposing that reserve powers might be needed at some time. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has said that he wishes to be reasonable and to think again, and we are grateful for that. We certainly should think again. In the absence of anything other than prejudice and anecdotal opinion, let us leave these harmless pleasures alone and continue to gratify the tens of thousands of people who use the machines every year.
When the Minister made his short statement earlier, I hoped that he would say unequivocally that he would withdraw the clause. I understand, however, that that is not what he actually said. He said that he would review the position and consult further, which will not put at rest the minds of the family amusement centre owners in Skegness or any other successful UK seaside resort.
It is not only those who own the family amusement centres who are concerned. Their concern is shared by many of the people who work in the amusement centres, and by those who visit successful seaside resorts such as Skegness. They are deeply concerned that their exciting and vibrant holidays may be destroyed by the sword of Damocles—to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale)—hanging over many successful businesses and successful seaside resorts. I hope that when the Minister replies he will go even further than he did earlier by stating clearly that when the Bill goes to the other place the clause will be removed in totality.
Category D machines are the fundamental lifeblood of tourist resorts such as Skegness. Members of all political parties are in their places tonight because they are concerned on behalf of their constituents that the clause could have a devastating impact on the tourist industry. Generations of families have enjoyed the facilities that we are discussing, which are at the centre of successful family resorts. Families return year after year to Skegness, not only to play on the same machines, but to use the new machines that have been put in place to create entertainment and vibrancy for the UK tourist. That activity could be decimated by the clause.
The clause is already stopping investment. I held a meeting in my constituency with between 25 and 40 amusement arcade owners. They told me that they had already stopped orders for new machines while the clause remains in the Bill, so this is not something that will have an impact only in the future. It is already starting to have a serious negative impact on resorts such as Skegness.
Despite the Minister's assurances about a review and deeper and wider consultation, I do not understand why the clause is in the Bill. If the evidence does not exist, and almost every body that has considered the issue has come to the same conclusion, why should we have the clause? The Budd report, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the excellent Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), BACTA and the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions have all concluded that there is an absence of evidence to show that playing category D machines under the age of 18 has any knock-on impact on future gambling problems. Indeed, I would argue that the evidence is to the contrary. Category D machines allow families to participate together in harmless fun and enjoyable entertainment.
Why does my hon. Friend think that the Minister was entirely willing to listen to those who wanted him to hit at category D machines, but until the furore, was entirely unwilling to listen to those same people when they told him, with much greater evidence and much firmer statements, about casinos?
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, as there is a contradiction in the Bill. The Minister or a future Secretary of State can invoke clause 58 to ensure that children are not allowed to play on category D machines, but no such clause exists for category A machines, which may create far more serious gambling problems for the adult population.
If the Minister or his successor invokes the clause, what is a family supposed to do on a day out in Skegness? It rarely rains in Skegness, but when it does, are mother and father supposed to go into the family amusement centre and leave the children outside, because they are not allowed to play on category D machines? In fact, families will no longer come to UK tourist resorts such as Skegness. With the clause hanging over amusement centre owners, there will be a spiral of decline. There will be a lack of investment, and tourists will go elsewhere—probably abroad, where they can take advantage of such facilities. I very much hope that the Minister will reconsider his position and remove the clause from the Bill.
The Government do not pretend that there are any arguments or evidence to support the inclusion of the clause in the Bill. In correspondence on this issue, the Minister for Media and Heritage said:
"Currently, there is no clear evidence that low stake and prize machines played by children lead to problem gambling."
If that is the Government's view, what on earth is the clause doing in the Bill? It should not be there at all but, as it is, it should be deleted.
In conclusion, family amusement centre owners in Skegness, as elsewhere, are extremely concerned about the future of their businesses. They will not commit to investing money in those businesses until they are sure that the clause has been deleted. Like many other Members, I would like the UK tourist industry to maintain its vibrant family atmosphere, and in particular, I would like Skegness to retain its vitality as a successful family resort. Clause 58 will do nothing but harm to its reputation, so I hope that the Minister will agree to delete it.
I would like to add my concerns to those expressed by other hon. Members. I speak as someone who represents three seaside towns on the south-west coast of Scotland, and who hopes to represent even more seaside towns there in future. If the Minister has not visited Ayrshire, I can certainly recommend it to him. It certainly does not rain there has much as it does in Kirkcaldy. When it does rain, however, family amusement centres are an important mechanism for supporting tourism and small businesses in those towns.
I recently visited Girvan, which is currently part of the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), to remind myself of what family amusement centres are like. It is some years since I frequented them, but in common with other hon. Members, I enjoyed the experience and it did not do me any lasting damage. As other hon. Members have said, the fact that there is not any evidence that category D machines are harmful is significant. When I went to Girvan I could not think of a logical reason for the Government's proposal to ban children from traditional games such as "grab a toy", penny falls, ticket redemption games and Derby races, all of which seemed to be quite harmless.
However, I draw Members' attention to the briefing from the Methodist Church, in which it draws a distinction between different category D games:
"Category D machines, which can be played by children, include the harmless teddy-bear grabber machines and "penny falls", but also include certain fruit-machines."
That sheds light on the reasons for the Government's proposals. We have all had a great laugh this evening about "grab a teddy", but that does not necessarily reflect the views of the Government or the Churches. We all accept that some games are harmless, but the Churches are concerned about children playing fruit machines, and we should not ignore or discount those concerns. We all want to do everything that we can to protect children.
The hon. Lady is making an important point, and has drawn our attention to the distinction made by the Churches. However, does she not accept that any changes in the categorisation of category D machines could be covered by changes made by the Secretary of State on advice from the gambling commission, which is already covered by other parts of the legislation? The sword of Damocles approach goes much too far.
I agree, and I hope that the Government will take that into account when the Bill goes to the Lords. I hope that the Minister will give us such an assurance tonight. I am merely trying to shed light on people's concerns, and on why the Government have introduced the measure.
Finally, I think that I am right in saying that everyone who has spoken on the amendment tonight is concerned about clause 58. I do not think that anyone was in favour of it. I am reassured by what the Minister has said, and I wait to see what happens when the Bill goes to the Lords.
With the leave of the House, I will say a few words of, I hope, reassurance.
I have said that the Government will review carefully the need for reserve powers, including clause 58. The length of the consultation was conditional on that review, and we will report our conclusion and any alternative proposals in the House of Lords, if the Bill completes Third Reading this evening. I went on to say that the Government wanted to work with the British amusement industry to make sure that this important part of the leisure and tourism economy has a bright future. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) has lobbied very hard indeed, and as I said earlier, we have taken on board the comments that she and other hon. Members have made. They would like the Government to consult people who have concerns and to give them reassurance about clause 58. We will review the reserve powers in clause 58 very carefully indeed. When we have completed our consultation, we will report to the House of Lords, so there is a time limit on our review. I hope that I have been as helpful as possible. The last thing that the Government want to do is harm that part of the tourism and leisure sector. I have gone as far as possible in my reassurances, and have taken into account the fact that other people need to be consulted. However, we will report forthwith in another place.
I welcome the Minister's remarks, as far as they went. However, we have been expressing these concerns since the Bill was published. There has been ample opportunity to review the position. The Minister and the Secretary of State have consistently argued that the reserve power is necessary, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Even tonight, when the Minister sought to make a statement, he prefaced it by explaining why the Government had included a reserve power in the Bill. In his intervention, he again defended the inclusion of that power. If he wishes to accept that it is not necessary, he should do so tonight. While I welcome the fact that he has agreed to review the power and consult on it, the Opposition do not believe that a further review is necessary. The evidence all points one way: there is no need for the clause whatever, and its retention will do serious damage to seaside resorts throughout the country. I welcome the Minister's comments, as far as he was prepared to go, but they are not sufficient, and we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
New Clause 1 — Prize gaming permit
'(1) A constable, enforcement officer or authorised local authority officer may enter premises in respect of which an application has been made for a prize gaming permit for a purpose connected with the consideration of the application.
(2) A constable, enforcement officer or authorised local authority officer may enter premises in respect of which a prize gaming permit has effect for the purposes of determining whether prize gaming on the premises complies with the requirements of this Act and regulations under it.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2 — Delegation of functions under Part 8: Scotland
'(1) Subject to subsection (2), a licensing authority in Scotland may arrange for the discharge of any of their functions under this Part by a committee of the authority, a member or members of the authority, the clerk of the authority or any person appointed to assist the clerk.
(2) A licensing authority are not to make any arrangements under subsection (1)—
(a) in relation to their power under section 161 or their function under section 337, or
(b) for the discharge by the clerk of the authority or any person appointed to assist the clerk of any of the authority's functions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 150(4).
(3) The procedures applicable to the proceedings of licensing boards in the exercise or their functions under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 apply to the proceedings of those boards in the exercise of their functions under this Part: and for that purpose regulations made by the Scottish Ministers may, in particular, make provision which applies—
(a) only in relation to functions under that Act,
(b) only in relation to functions under this Part, or
(c) differently in relation to functions under that Act and functions under this Part.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Brought up, read the first and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3 — Delegation of functions under Part 9: Scotland
'(1) Subject to subsection (2), a licensing authority in Scotland may arrange for the discharge of any of their functions under this Part by a committee of the authority, a member or members of the authority, the clerk of the authority or any person appointed to assist the clerk.
(2) A licensing authority are not to make any arrangements under subsection (1) for the discharge by the clerk of the authority or any person appointed to assist the clerk of any of the authority's functions under section 215.
(3) The procedures applicable to the proceedings of licensing boards in the exercise of their functions under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 apply to the proceedings of those boards in the exercise of their functions under this Part; and for that purpose regulations made by the Scottish Ministers may, in particular, make provision which applies—
(a) only in relation to functions under that Act,
(b) only in relation to functions under this Part,
(c) differently in relation to functions under that Act and functions under this Part.'.—[Mr.Caborn.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4 — Permits: special provision for Scotland
'(1) The Scottish Ministers may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, by regulations provide that such provisions as are set out in the regulations are to apply in relation to—
(a) a club gaming permit or club machine permit, in place of Schedule 12 if the applicant for or holder of the permit is the holder of a certificate of registration under section 105 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (certificate of registration in respect of a club) or a relevant Scottish licence, or
(b) a licensed premises gaming machine permit, in place of Schedule 13, if the applicant for or holder of the permit is the holder of a relevant Scottish licence,
or if the applicant for or holder of the permit falls within such other description as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend, revoke or otherwise modify any enactment in so far as it appears to the Scottish Ministers necessary or expedient to do so for the purposes of that subsection.
(3) In subsection (2), "enactment" includes an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5 — Operating and personal licences: appeals: enforcement
'(1) Where the Tribunal has ordered the payment of the costs of one party to an appeal ("the judgment creditor") by another party ("the judgment debtor"), payment of those costs may be enforced by the judgment creditor in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) The judgment creditor may, on application to the county court for the district in which the judgment debtor is resident (or, if the judgment debtor is a company, where it has its registered office), enforce payment in accordance with Part V of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) as if the costs were a sum payable under an order of that court.'.—[Mr. Caborn]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6 — Operating licences: rules for particular kinds of licence:betting on the National Lottery
'(1) This section applies to—
(a) a general betting operating licence,
(b) a pool betting operating licence, and
(c) a betting intermediary operating licence.
(2) A licence to which this section applies shall, by virtue of this subsection, be subject to the condition that nothing may be done in reliance on the licence in relation to a bet on the outcome of a lottery which forms part of the National Lottery.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.—(Mr. Caborn).
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 9—Meaning of ticket—
'In Part 5 "ticket" means a ticket or chance'.
Amendment No. 148, in clause 14, page 6, line 38, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
'(d) of the processes referred to in paragraph (c) the process involving the majority of persons participating in the arrangement relies wholly on chance.'.
Amendment No. 149, in page 7, line 7, leave out 'significant', and insert 'substantial'.
Amendmdent No. 150, in page 7, line 10, leave out 'significant' and insert 'substantial'.
Government amendments Nos. 3 to 7 and 51.
Amendment No. 152, in clause 96, page 44, line 45 at end insert—
'(11) The Commission shall review the monetary limits laid out in subsection (3) on a triennial basis.'.
Amendment No. 153, in page 113, line 28, leave out clause 254.
Amendment No. 151, in schedule 2, page 159, line 8, at end insert—
'(e) the numbers of those who participate by sending a communication represent a substantial proportion of the total of those participating.'.
Government amendments Nos. 56, 58 and 59.
I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 and 153.
Amendment No. 148 relates to clause 14, which defines a lottery. Subsection (3) defines a complex lottery as one which relies on a series of processes rather than just one. The amendment to subsection (3)(d) is designed to close a loophole. In most cases where prize competitions are effectively lotteries it is not the first stage that relies wholly on chance—this stage is often a simple multiple choice question—but the decisive stage is the one where a computer selects one of several hundred or more correct answers to win. This relies on chance alone and is usually the final stage. As this subsection stands at present, it would seem possible for a prize competition to evade the regulatory requirements applying to lotteries by contriving a first stage that relied on some notional element of skill, which in reality eliminated very few participants, if any. This would take them out of the definition of lotteries altogether, provided that they complied with subsection (6). They would then proceed to the later stages relying on random computer selection from among the remainder, which would form the vast majority of the original participants. Our view is that the Bill should provide explicitly that the elements of the process relying wholly on chance should involve the majority of the participants.
Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 should be taken together. They seek to strengthen the definitions provided by the Bill. In the view of the Lotteries Council, the use of the word "significant" in subsection (5) is just as ambiguous as the Government allege the present law to be and sends a weaker signal. The intention of the law should be that prize competitions that seek to evade being called lotteries, and thus evade the regulatory regime, should be required to embody an element of skill that is very much more than merely derisory. It is hoped that the Government will endorse that statement of the Bill's intentions. The word "significant" does not at present carry that connotation. The amendment suggest the substitution of the word "significant" by "substantial", which is the word used in the present law.
Amendment No. 151 relates to schedule 2, which deals with the definition of "payment to enter". Paragraph 8 deals with the arrangements that offer a choice of free entry. The amendment is designed to close a loophole. As it stands, the paragraph would seem to enable the organisers to limit the free entries to a very small proportion of those wishing to take part, leaving the rest to pay in the usual way. If this is the case, the effect would be that they could run what are in practice ordinary pay-to-enter lotteries, but in the guise of free-entry lotteries, thereby escaping the regulatory requirements that apply to lotteries as a whole. The amendment seeks to clarify the issue by in effect providing that a substantial proportion of participants in this type of arrangement should be non-payers. Indeed, since the 1976 Act, case law has established that the number of free entrants should not be de minimis—insignificant—in relation to the number of paid entries. The Bill as drafted reflects no such provision.
Amendment No. 152 relates to clause 96. The Lotteries Council has urged Parliament to allow society lotteries to establish their own proceeds and prize limits for some time—that is, with no specific limits in the Bill, subject to the licence requirements regarding the minimum proportion of proceeds from ticket sales that go to good causes. The Budd report recommended that they should be able to do that. The Government have decided, apparently in order to protect the national lottery against a totally notional threat from charities, to ignore this recommendation. If these limits are to continue to be applied, it is important that they should be capable of amendment by subordinate legislation and that they should be regularly updated. The first of the requirements we believe has been conceded following representations, but we believe that there has been no assurance forthcoming on the second, and we hope that the Government will consider the amendment seriously.
Amendment No. 153 leaves out clause 254. The Lotteries Council is fully supportive of measures aimed at countering the threat of problem gambling. However, no link has ever been established between society lotteries and problem gambling. There is no academic research to support the proposition and the view of experts is that lotteries are way down the list of potential causes of this phenomenon. Why lotteries should be the only form of gambling singled out for this treatment in the Bill is open to question.
Clause 254 could impact on the future ability of society lotteries to raise money for good causes. If the Government are concerned about particular types of lottery played on particular types of premises, they should bring forward proposals to address these issues specifically, either directly in the Bill or by restricting the scope of regulation-making power. The regulation-making power provided for in this clause goes far too wide and is open to abuse.
I wish to speak briefly to new clause 9, but I begin by saying that I entirely support the comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and his amendments. The House will be aware that my name and that of my hon. Friends is linked to those amendments.
In Committee, it became clear to a number of us that ticketless lotteries that are run by charities, in many cases hospices, would be required by the Bill to increase significantly bureaucracy and administrative costs. That is the case because ticketless lotteries are run in such a way as to ensure that those who participate in them agree to do so week in, week out, paying up front a lump sum for every week's amounts, and get a single document informing them that their name will be included in the draw every week. It became apparent, however, that the wording of the Bill would have ensured that the organisers of such lotteries were unable to continue to do that and made it necessary for them to send out a document to every participant each and every week.
Hence the increase in bureaucracy and administrative costs. Many of us on the Committee were extremely grateful to a number of the people who run such lotteries, in particular the Ty Hafan children's hospice in Wales, which worked very hard to raise its concerns with members of the Committee. It is worth bearing in mind that, over the past 10 years, some £100 million has been raised by hospices using this fundraising approach. The Minister acknowledged that there was a problem. In Committee, he said:
"naturally, we do not want to subject any hospice lottery to the cost and inconvenience of unnecessarily printing many thousands of tickets on a weekly basis. That would be stupid . . . The object of the exercise is to make it as simple as possible for charities to run such lotteries, but equally, to provide the protection covered in clause 92(5)."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 December 2004; c. 309–310.]
I was grateful to him for that, and I note that he has tabled some alternative amendments covering the issue, for which I am also grateful.
Although I shall continue to press new clause 9— I shall probably not press it to a vote, however—may I ask the Minister to give me some assurance that, after his consultations with the relevant lottery organisers, he believes that they are now satisfied with the amendments that he has tabled? In particular, I draw his attention to the reference to electronic storage of information. Has he consulted on whether such provision is future-proofed? With the development of mobile phone technology, it is likely that, within a few years, some of those organising such lotteries might wish to use mobile phones. Would that be acceptable? The development of interactive television is a further example that we have already seen. Again, it may be possible to use such technology as a means of providing the necessary information. Will he assure me that those issues are covered by the terminology used in his amendments?
This is a vital part of the Bill, which I think many colleagues will overlook at their peril. I endorse what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has just been saying about the importance of hospice lotteries to the hospice movement. The Government are to be congratulated on their intentions in the clauses relating to society lotteries. This is a highly desirable piece of work, because the present law on scam lotteries, which masquerade as prize competitions, is not being properly enforced, and society lotteries are hugely frustrated that they are required to be regulated as lotteries and that this Bill requires them to submit themselves to all the new proposals in respect of operating licences and personal licences, to face the wrath of the gambling commission and perhaps to be fined if they get things wrong, while lotteries masquerading as prize competitions are not to face any requirement at all. It is therefore crucial that the wording of the various clauses meets what the Government are trying to do.
We must understand the mischief that is involved. A number of the prize competitions are decided—let us make no bones about this—by chance. The real question is how we can include in the legislation a wording that requires a skill test that is easily understood by the courts and is meaningful. Skill is not skill if the test is derisory and just a handful of people would fail. I suppose that one could never anticipate that absolutely everybody would get things right. The example that was constantly put to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee was that, on asking whether the capital of France was Paris or Berlin, one would assume that 100 per cent. of the population would answer correctly. There may be the odd person who, for whatever reason, might say Berlin, but that is not a skill test, and the Government are clear about that.
What we are faced with—this is the crucial aspect— is the wording in clause 14(5). I shall not read it out, as I have done so several times in several forums where I have been asked to speak about the issue, and people have smiled. I think that the wording is a genuine attempt to resolve the issue, but my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has done the House a service in tabling his amendments, which I am sure that he does not intend to press to a Division. In suggesting that we change the words "significant proportion" to "substantial proportion", he is trying to raise the bar to ensure that a lot of people would fail and that the skills test is not derisory.
The various legal luminaries to whom I have spoken about the matter all rightly say that, in the end, the courts will decide. The value of this debate is in ensuring that the courts understand what Parliament was trying to say. That is the value of this short debate: what Parliament is trying to say is that the skill must be substantial or significant, not derisory. I hope that the Minister will agree with those remarks.
I wish to make one other little point. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested that, as there appears to be no evidence of problems with rapid draws, clause 254 might be deleted. I am not sure about that. The clause is permissive, and uses the word "may" in relation to making regulations or the gambling commission making recommendations. I know that the Government have a worry about some rapid draw schemes, but as was pointed out earlier in relation to category D machines and children, there is no evidence of a problem. None the less, from the point of view of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, the clause is a clear improvement on what went before, which included a 24-hour rule that was clearly a mistake. I suspect that the Minister will have to concede that this will be one of those issues at which the other place will have to take a look. I guess that the other place will also make other suggestions about the skill test and the wording that is used.
I hope that, if a change is made in the other place to improve the wording of those parts of the Bill, it will be made with the agreement of those on both Front Benches, so we will not get into difficulty towards the end of the Session.
While we are discussing lotteries, and in particular charity lotteries, I want to put on the record that we will protect the national lottery.
Government new clause 6 delivers our commitment to retain provisions that make side bets on the national lottery illegal by including conditions in general betting, pool betting and betting intermediary operating licences, which is consistent with the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.
As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has said, Government amendments Nos. 3 to 7 are technical drafting amendments to ensure that clear and consistent language is used in those clauses that refer to participation in all lotteries, which follows up the commitment that I made after the Standing Committee on 9 November.
The Government agreed to revisit the provisions relating to lottery tickets after the Committee raised concerns that it would be difficult for societies that run membership lotteries to comply with the Bill. In a membership lottery, a letter is issued to a member when they first sign up, and it acts as a ticket for the purpose of each lottery that the member enters. Government amendments Nos. 51, 58 and 59 will allow that practice to continue, and they will also permit lottery tickets to exist in paper or electronic form. An electronic ticket must be capable of being printed out or stored electronically to ensure that entrants can retain proof of their entry in the lottery.
Will the Minister give way?
If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I may be able to clear up the matter.
Amendment No. 56 delivers on our commitment to include national lottery licensees within the proposals for a statutory problem-gambling levy. It provides that the Secretary of State may introduce a levy on holders of national lottery licences only if she has already introduced a levy on holders of gambling operating licences and after consulting the national lottery commission.
Turning to amendments tabled by other hon. Members, the Government believe that amendment No. 148 would add an extra layer of complexity to a necessarily complicated clause.
On clause 14, I think that there is general agreement that arrangements in which the first process relies on skill or knowledge are competitions and not lotteries, and we do not want to prevent or regulate such arrangements.
I have some sympathy with amendments Nos. 149 and 150. However, clause 14(5) has been considered carefully, and it now strikes the right balance. We accept that the words "significant proportion" are likely to be subject to interpretation, but we anticipate that they will be subject to commission guidance, which is important. We do not think that a change to "substantial proportion" would add clarity to the clause. Indeed, there is a danger that such a change would permit competitions that are in fact commercial lotteries to continue to operate.
Amendment No. 151 would require companies offering prize competitions to ensure that a substantial proportion of those entering do so through a free entry route, rather than by paying via a premium rate telephone line. Although I understand the good intentions behind that amendment, it is misguided. Companies would be put in a position in which they might find they were inadvertently in breach of the law if, despite their best efforts to encourage free entries, not many people chose to participate in that way.
Amendment No. 152 would enshrine in the Bill the need for the gambling commission to carry out a triennial review of the limits on proceeds placed on large society and local authority lotteries. However, I firmly believe that there is no need to make the triennial review a binding, statutory obligation. Until now, the review has been a matter of custom and practice: it has worked satisfactorily on that basis in the past; we propose that it should continue to operate in that way in the future.
We cannot agree to amendment No. 153. Regulations under clause 254 can be made only with the intention of reducing repetitive-play lotteries. Such lotteries can be run swiftly, and are therefore very similar to gaming. They are often run in non-gambling establishments such as pubs, and could create great opportunities for chasing losses. We consider that they are a danger to the public and that it is imperative that the Secretary of State has the power to control them.
Lastly, new clause 9 would insert the concept of the sale of a "ticket or chance" into the Bill. That language is used in the current law and we have already ruled it out. We agree, however, that one document should be capable of permitting entry to a number of lotteries. I have explained how we propose to amend the Bill to achieve these outcomes. We also agree that electronic tickets should be permitted, and I have moved amendments to achieve that.
I receive receipts for paying my congestion charge on my mobile phone. I am not required to retain those receipts for a particularly lengthy period—in a sense, it is my choice if and when I want to have a battle about my congestion charge. The Minister has indicated that it is necessary to store electronic information. How long would somebody have to store such information if they were to use, for instance, a mobile phone or interactive TV?
I should make it absolutely clear that the Government amendment will allow lotteries to operate by mobile phone and other remote media. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the storing of information and the time for which it will run, and place that correspondence in the Library. I have no doubt that that issue will be taken up by the gambling commission.
We need to close the loophole in relation to non-school competitions that lead to a draw. Clause 14(5) provides that where the first stage in a competition is multiple choice or involves a derisory level of skill or knowledge, it is classed as a lottery.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 8 — Days on which gaming and gambling shall not take place
'An operating licence must include a condition proscribing the carrying out of gaming or gambling on
(a) Christmas Day and
(b) Any other day prescribed by the Gambling Commission.'.—[Mr. Win Griffiths]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 99, in page 34, clause 79, leave out line 41 and insert 'shall prevent—'.
I shall be brief. New clause 8 would bring casinos within the laws that apply to shops under the Christmas day trading legislation. I hope that that will not cause a problem. I thought that while I was doing that, I would propose that the gambling commission be given the power to decide whether it would be right for casinos to close on any other day of the year, especially if there was a big groundswell of opinion regarding a particular day.
Amendment No. 99 underscores the issue of problem gambling. As it stands, the Bill allows people to use credit cards to raise money in order to gamble in casinos. I am completely opposed to that. According to Gamblers Anonymous, someone who is involved in problem gambling often has six or seven credit cards with which they can play about and run up debts that we can hardly bear to think about. My amendment would ensure that someone who is gambling could not raise money with their credit card. It is okay if they use their debit card to get money from their bank account, although I would not like to do it myself, but if they use a credit card they can build up huge debts.
I hope that the Government will accede to those modest proposals.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for tabling new clause 8. As he knows, I have met faith groups several times during the passage of the Bill, and I have sympathy with their concerns about gambling on Christmas day. At present, betting offices and betting tracks are prohibited from offering bets on Good Friday and Christmas day. There is no equivalent prohibition in relation to gaming or lotteries.
Times have moved on since that restriction was put in place in the 1960s, so the Government did not propose that it be replicated in the Bill. However, I recognise the strength of feeling about Christmas day in particular, and I am happy to agree that it might be appropriate to enable the commission to prescribe certain days on which operators should be prevented from providing facilities for gambling. I am therefore happy to give the issue further consideration, but in the meantime I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.
On amendment No. 99, I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, but we see no reason for imposing a blanket ban on all operators to prevent them from offering credit to their players. We agree that such matters must be regulated; that is what clause 79 is intended to do. It gives the commission the powers to attach appropriate conditions to licensing; to control when and, indeed, how credit is offered, and where inducements to gambling are perhaps provided. The clause expressly prevents casinos and bingo operators from offering credit to players. That is currently the law and will remain the law.
The Gaming Board has a successful track record of controlling improper inducements and I am sure that the new gambling commission will continue that. If problems emerge in future, the gambling commission will not hesitate to impose licence conditions that better protect consumers. I hope that, with those reassurances, my hon. Friend is content to withdraw the motion.
I ask the Minister to think again about his refusal to prescribe in the Bill days on which gambling may not take place. It is odd that we protect people from having to open shops on specific days, yet we are not prepared to do the same for gambling establishments. Times may have moved on since 1960, but I am not sure whether they have always moved in the right direction. However, decisions about shop opening times were made much later than the 1960s and the Minister was one of those who took a strong view about protection for specific days. Is it reasonable to ask the gambling commission to do that? If that is all that we can get, I suppose that it is okay, but I should like the Minister to reconsider and ascertain whether the same restrictions that pertain elsewhere can be introduced in another place for gambling. Perhaps the gambling commission can also be given the ability, as the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) suggests, to extend that further. It would be odd not to do that, and the Minister goes in not for the odd but for the sensible and moderate answer.
In this case, I believe that I can rely on the direction that the Government are taking and, although it is not especially pleasant to look to the other place to put things rights, at least we will get the provision, and I am therefore happy for us to proceed to the next group of amendments.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10 — Gaming machine permit held by on-premises alcohol licence holders
'(1) A person does not commit an offence under section 36 or section 232 if he makes a gaming machine of Category C or D available in accordance with a gaming machine permit.
(2) A gaming machine permit is a permit issued by a licensing authority authorising a person to make gaming machines of Category C or D (or both) available for use on premises to which this section applies.
(3) In this section, "gaming machine permit" means a gaming machine permit held by on-premises alcohol licence holders.'.—[Mr. Foster]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this, we may discuss the following: amendment No. 120, in page 23, line 21, clause 53, leave out 'A,'.
Government amendment No. 87.
Amendment No. 121, in page 26, line 21, clause 63, leave out 'A' and insert 'B'.
Amendment No. 122, in page 27, line 32, clause 66, leave out 'A' and insert 'B'.
Government amendment No. 88.
Amendment No. 123, in page 75, line 4, clause 167, leave out 'A,'.
Amendment No. 98, in page 75, line 43, clause 167, leave out 'B,'.
Government amendment No. 89.
Amendment No. 118, in page 105, line 4, clause 226, leave out from 'defining' to 'B' in line 5 and insert
'three classes of gaming machine, all of which shall be subject to a maximum stake and prize level, for the purposes of this Act (to be known as Categories'.
Amendment No. 106, in page 105, line 11, at end insert—
'(c) provide that the practice of allowing prizes to be exchanged known as "trading up" shall continue to be permitted without restriction.'.
Amendment No. 144, in page 105, line 11, at end insert—
'(c) not unfairly discriminate between equivalent adult only gaming environments, and
(d) provide that adult gaming centres and betting premises shall be entitled to the same categories of machine.'.
Amendment No. 130, in page 105, line 19, at end insert—
'(e) the price level for a category C machine which shall be not less than £35.'.
Amendment No. 109, in page 105, line 19, at end insert
'provided that regulations shall not reduce the level of stakes and prizes from those already in existence at the date of Royal Assent to this Act.'.
Amendment No. 1, in page 105, line 19, at end insert—
'(4A) Subject to subsection (4B)—
(a) the maximum amount paid in respect of the use of a machine shall be £1; and
(b) the maximum value of a prize for any machine shall be £2,000.
(4B) The amounts specified in subsection (4A) shall be varied by the same percentage increase between the retail prices index for January 2005 and the retail prices index for the base month in relation to the revision date in question.'.
Government amendments Nos. 90 and 91.
Amendment No. 124, in page 149, line 3, clause 340, leave out 'A' and insert 'B'.
Amendment No. 125, in page 149, line 3, leave out 'B,'.
Amendment No. 126, in page 149, line 4, leave out 'A (or B,' and insert 'B (or'.
The long string of amendments may appear to deal with rather technical issues, but many are important. The shortage of time means that I shall not do justice to them all, but I want to give other hon. Members an opportunity to raise issues about which they are specifically concerned.
Amendment No. 106 covers an issue that has been mentioned many times: the level of stakes and prizes in family entertainment centres. It deals with the value of a cuddly teddy bear in the grab machines that have been discussed. I therefore hope that we will have an opportunity to express a view on at least that amendment.
New clause 10 tackles an issue that we picked up in Committee. "Pub gaming machine permit" is the term in the Bill that covers a machine permit that is held by on-premises alcohol licence holders. The name is somewhat misleading since the permit does not apply only to pubs. It could apply to a range of other facilities, including bowling alleys, sports centres and so on. When I raised the matter in Committee, the Minister agreed with me. He said:
"we are aware that the name 'pub gaming machine permit' . . . appears to limit the premises that may apply for it. That is not the intention, and we shall table further amendments to rectify that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 December 2004; c. 559.]
Unfortunately, the Government have tabled no such amendments, so I have done it for them in an effort to be helpful.
Amendment No. 106 deals with another issue of great importance to the family entertainment centres, namely "trading up", in which a number of prizes in the form of a token or voucher can be collected and swapped for a larger prize. The Bill discontinues that practice, despite the fact that there is no evidence that it causes any harm. This is a similar issue to others that have already been raised, and the amendment seeks to enable the continuation of the practice. All the evidence suggests that discontinuing it would lead to problems.
Amendment No. 109, on which I hope hon. Members will have the opportunity to express their view, relates to the present level of prize values. The Government's argument is that those levels should be reduced. They have not provided for that in the Bill, but such a provision has been mentioned in the background papers and it is clearly their intention to introduce such a reduction. All the evidence suggests that reducing the value of prizes would be likely to affect business, which would reduce the profitability and viability of the organisations concerned.
I note that several amendments in this group seek to withdraw any mention of category A machines from the Bill altogether. I was initially sympathetic to such proposals and, indeed, I tabled a number of amendments in a similar vein in Committee. However, the Government have subsequently introduced the concept of a pilot scheme or trial, and said that category A machines will be used only in the casinos in the pilot areas. In the light of that, we have agreed that it would be sensible at least to try these machines in the limited number of casinos that the Government are proposing. I am therefore unlikely to be sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
The basis of many of the amendments in this group relates to what are known in the trade as grandfather rights. These rights are covered in schedule 18 of the Bill, and we hoped to have heard much more from the Minister on this subject. We have teased out some of the issues in earlier debates and the grandfather rights of some casinos are clearly fairly well covered. I hope, however, that the Minister will use his response to these amendments, which are in part about continuing existing practice, to say more about this.
I have been very brief, and I would have liked to raise a number of other issues. However, I know that other hon. Members want to raise other important matters and I want to give them the chance to speak.
I want briefly to refer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), namely on the issue of prize values. In my constituency, there is a long-standing family business called Codona's seaside resort, which has been there for more than 30 years—long enough, perhaps, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have paid a visit to it when she was a young girl growing up in Aberdeen. I am sure that she will be familiar with it. It is a traditional business with a seasonal fairground alongside an all-year-round covered area that supplements and pays for the improvements to the traditional fairground. As with many such enterprises, the business is fairly fragile.
A key part of that business depends on the category D machines, which are mainly an attraction for children. As the hon. Member for Bath said, it is quite clear that the Secretary of State intends to reduce the maximum value of the prizes in such machines from £8 to £5, although there is nothing about it in the Bill. This would create a major problem. The main difficulty that my constituents would face is that the vast majority of the prizes are things that today's children want, which tend to be branded goods. It is no good just throwing in cuddly toys, teddy bears and so on. People now expect prizes that are linked to things that they want, which tend to be commercial goods linked to television programmes but, mainly, to films. They want models of Shrek, Spider-Man and so on. Because of the licensing costs, and the fact that those goods are now a major part of the marketing of any film, they are very expensive. Some costings have been done, and with a maximum value of £5, it will be impossible for the business to provide the sorts of toys that customers demand. As I said earlier, this business, like most such businesses, is fragile, and it is deeply concerned about the future.
I have considered carefully the various statements made by the Secretary of State, and I understand and support totally the precautionary principle. It strikes me, however, that the precautionary principle has gone a little too far here. I voted with the Opposition, if one likes, on amendment No. 100, as it is important to have such a reserve power if there is any evidence that this sort of gaming has an effect on children. The Secretary of State has sufficient powers, in terms of her ability to regulate prize levels, possibly when the Bill is enacted to bar children up to a certain age from using such machines. To strike now, at a time when the industry is learning to adjust to new legislation, and to threaten a significant reduction in prize money of more than 30 per cent., would be destabilising.
What the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely right, and rings true with the experiences conveyed to me by my constituents who run Harbour Park in Littlehampton. It also rings true with the British Amusement Catering Trades Association survey, which showed that 88 per cent. of such businesses believe that if stakes and prizes are reduced, the impact on them will be hugely negative.
Obviously, I agree, at least on this one occasion, with the hon. Gentleman.
The Minister has been conciliatory tonight, and all that I can ask is that he take away this issue and consider it. If there is evidence that the proposal is necessary in the interests of protection of children, let us see it, because I am not aware that we have been shown any.
I wish to speak in support of my amendment No. 1, and with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope to put it to a vote. It gives the House an opportunity to place an upper limit on the level of prizes that can be awarded under the Bill as part of the gaming machine process. It seeks to challenge the presumption, which the House is being asked to contemplate, that there is pressure from the public for unrestricted prizes in the gaming industry. Ninety per cent. of the public believe that there are perfectly adequate gambling choices at present. There is no demand outside the House for the introduction of super-casinos. Under my amendment, category A gaming machines would be allowed, but the upper prize limit would be the same as for category B—£2,000.
We are set to face a dramatic increase in gaming machines. At the moment, we have about 800 category B machines in the country, but a single super-casino could have more than that on its premises alone. Does that bring any economic benefit to our society? The Henley Centre suggests not. There will be gainers and losers, however. The gainers will certainly be the casino owners, and probably the Chancellor, with extra income for the Treasury of perhaps £400 million a year by 2010. What the gaming industry would make is its own calculation. Who would contribute to that? The level of Exchequer revenue is dependent on the punters being losers: people must lose that amount and more for the Chancellor to be able to take the Government's scoop. All the evidence from Australia suggests that the deregulation of the gaming industry caused a massive increase in gambling debt and that the biggest single contributory factor was the introduction of category A gaming machines with unlimited prizes.
According to the Budd report,
"A central question for us has been whether increasing the availability of gambling will lead to an increase in the prevalence of problem gambling. The weight of evidence suggests that it will do so."
The report also said:
"The possibility of winning a sufficiently large sum for it to effect a life changing experience seems to encourage a suspension of judgement in terms of making a balanced evaluation of the expenditure."
We now know that in Australia people spend more on gaming machines than they spend on food. That is the distorting impact that gambling has on the way in which Australia's economy works. We are told that the cost to Australian society is some 5.6 billion Australian dollars a year, with a further 1 billion Australian dollars of losses. In terms of scale, the cost to the UK economy would be comparable or larger. Do we need that in our society? We need it like a hole in the head.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will allow a soupc"on of time.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland fears that deregulation will lead to a surge in organised crime? It is not just an issue of personal debt.
That is a real fear, although I do not know how much weight should be given to it. According to a fair amount of evidence that we have seen in the House, we have proceeded with legislation against the advice of chief constables, and society has had to pay a heavy price.
Debt in our country is increasing by £1 million every four minutes. Today a statement from the Government considered ways of making it possible for low-income families to gain access to social housing by offering them discounts, but how can people pay for the mortgages that they have managed to acquire when they are running up debts? And the debts will be accumulated by the poorest: all the statistical evidence shows that three times as much gambling money comes from members of households earning less than £15,000 a year as comes from those earning over £32,000 a year.
The Chancellor's scoop, and the industry's scoop, of society's wealth will come disproportionately from the poorest. This is not a measure that will benefit the poor, redress inequalities in society and lift people out of poverty. It dangles before those people an inducement to gamble away the meagre incomes that their families have to survive on. We should be ashamed of feeling that we are under any pressure to introduce it in the interests of society. The only lobby in its favour that I have received has come from the gaming industry, and I am told that £100 million has been spent on its lobbying.
Not one person from the poor areas in my constituency has said, "Give us a break, guv, and bring this one in." In fact, we have been asked to put the brake on—and if 90 per cent. of people in the country are asking us to do that, that is what the House should do.
Amendment No. 106 is fairly straightforward. Its purpose is to ensure the continuation of the current practice known as trading up, which allows prizes, tokens and vouchers won on category D machines to be collected and swapped for larger prizes. Amendment No. 144 attempts to establish a level playing field between betting shops and adult gaming centres, especially in the context of fixed-odds betting terminals.
We tabled an amendment in Committee and there was a good discussion on it, but the Minister could offer no explanation in relation to adult gaming centres. He restricted his explanation of why a distinction was being made to bingo halls only. He said:
"Betting shops are adult-only and do not have a licence to sell alcohol." [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 December 2004; c. 379.]
We already knew about that point, which was made in the context of bingo halls, but he gave no justification as to why fixed-odds betting terminals were banned from adult gaming centres.
We are not saying now that we want the current number of FOBTs in betting shops—
It being one hour before the moment of interruption, Madam Deputy Speaker, put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 170 — Casino premises licence: overall limits
Amendment proposed: No. 143, in page 77, line 2, leave out "eight" and insert "four".— [Mr. Whittingdale.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. An amendment has been moved to limit the number of category A gambling machines. Will you be putting that to a vote?
Amendment No. 1 has not been selected for vote. I will not be putting it to a vote.
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. But it has been moved. I thought that, if it had been moved, we would have a chance to vote on it.
It was taken with a new clause and discussed, but it was not moved formally. It was grouped with other amendments and new clauses.
Amendment proposed: No. 142, in clause 170, page 77, line 7, at end insert—
'"(3A) In calculating for the purpose of subsection (1) the number of casino premises licences which have effect at any time, no account shall be taken of any established casino but—
(a) an established casino which meets the requirements of regulations made under section 7(5) as to the classification of large casinos shall for the purposes of section 167 be treated as if it is a large casino;
(b) an established casino which meets the requirements of regulations made under section 7(5) as to the classification of small casinos shall for the purposes of section 167 be treated as if it is a small casino; and
(c) an established casino which is below the minimum size for a licensed casino shall for the purposes of section 167 be treated as if it is a small casino.
(3B) In this section 'established casino' means any casino premises which are in use for the operation of a casino under the Gaming Act 1968 when this part of this Act comes into force.".'.—[Mr. Moss.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was my impression that, previous to the votes on this group of amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) discussed amendment No. 1 and began and ended by expressing his wish to move it. In that circumstance, should we not be able to have a vote on amendment No. 1?
I advise the hon. Gentleman—I do not think that he was in the Chamber at the time—that I have already dealt with this point of order and explained why no vote was called on amendment No. 1.
Clause 226 — Gaming machines: Categories A to D
Amendment proposed: No. 109, in page 105, line 19, at end insert
'provided that regulations shall not reduce the level of stakes and prizes from those already in existence at the date of Royal Assent to this Act.'.
—[Mr. Don Foster]
Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have brought the legislation to this stage, and in doing so I should like to recognise that this is an issue that for many presents fundamental difficulties and conflicts of moral principle, but I am grateful to the House for the spirit of tolerance in which all stages of the Bill so far have been conducted.
It is important to recall the principles that underpin the legislation—that children and vulnerable adults should be protected, and that gambling in Britain should be kept crime-free, and conducted according to the principles of fair play. Everything in the Bill will be judged against those principles. If we secure the legislation, we shall have the toughest, most comprehensive regulatory framework in the world to protect the public interest and to prevent the exploitation of children.
This is legislation that has been shaped over the past five years. A major contribution has been made by the Joint Committee, to whose members I pay tribute, particularly to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that the Government have listened to the concerns raised, as we undertook to do on Second Reading.
It is a curious thing in modern British politics that in one breath Ministers are accused of being arrogant, out of touch and refusing to listen, and in the next breath, when they have listened and responded positively, they are accused by the same people of a humiliating climbdown or a screeching U-turn. Ministers are damned if they do listen and damned if they do not, so they may as well listen—otherwise, what is the point of Parliament? We have listened to the concerns raised about the Bill, and it is a better Bill as a result, in relation to casinos, bingo, charity lotteries and the important issues raised by colleagues in connection with seaside arcades.
I rise briefly to express the sincere thanks of the parliamentary group for non-profit-making members clubs to the Minister, and to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), for accepting in Committee the amendment increasing the clubs' weekly bingo jackpot from £1,000 to £2,000. That will be welcomed by the whole clubs movement. May I say that I never cease to be amazed at the fairness and reasonableness of this Government and this Secretary of State?
I thank my hon. Friend; I am tempted to stop now, while I am on top.
I believe that we now have a Bill that will give greater protection to the public, a vital role for local authorities, a fair deal for the industry and the prospect of more and better jobs for industry employees. Indeed, right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches will know about the strong support given to the Bill by the GMB and the Transport and General Workers Union, and also by the Labour group of the Local Government Association, all of which I warmly welcome.
In conclusion, the Bill is essential because without such legislation, gambling technology is leaving the law in its wake. If we do not modernise, people will not be protected. Without the Bill, there would be no gambling commission with the objective of social responsibility in gambling at its heart, internet gaming would continue to go unregulated, and there would be no powers to deal with roulette machines in bookmakers' shops, or the chain gifting schemes about which I know hon. Members will have received representation from constituents, and which continue to exploit women.
For all those reasons and many others, I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be read the Third time.
We have always made it clear right from the start that there is much in the Bill that we agree with. It contains a number of important measures that will help to introduce controls over remote gambling, for instance, and give new powers to the gambling commission. Since Second Reading there has, however, been the most extraordinary saga.
The Government rightly began their preparation of the Bill by consulting widely and then subjecting the draft Bill to scrutiny. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and his Committee for their work. There is no doubt that the scrutiny Committee improved the Bill. Indeed, the Government's troubles started when they departed from its recommendations on regional casinos. Having done that, they appeared surprised at the chorus of opposition that they encountered. That led to not just one but two U-turns, reverses or whatever the Secretary of State chooses to call them, during the Committee stage.
The Government certainly appeared for a long time to be in a state of blind panic. What they have done has completely changed the whole thrust of the Bill, and at the very last stage of its passage. They have done so without any consultation with the industry and without any proper scrutiny. In some areas, they have turned a Bill that began life as a liberalising measure into one that will put in place a more restrictive regime than exists at present. By doing so, they have ended up satisfying almost no one. The overseas investors who were led to believe that there would be an opportunity for them in this country now feel betrayed because they will be restricted to a small number of locations. The domestic industry saw £0.5 billion wiped off its share values as a result of the Minister's statement in the Committee. The local authorities, many of which looked on the Bill as offering potential regeneration benefits, also feel let down. Those who are concerned about the dangers of gambling addiction still feel that the Bill may allow too many regional casinos and too many category A machines.
The Government should listen. As there was so much criticism from both sides of the House—indeed, more criticism probably came from the Labour side—about the unlimited number of casinos, what is wrong with the Government responding to the views of Members of the House of Commons? They have taken the right turn, and I therefore support the Bill.
In some areas, we welcome the fact that the Government have listened—indeed, we would have preferred them to listen rather earlier. As I said earlier, many of the problems would have been avoided if the Government had listened to the Joint Committee's original recommendations. Obviously, we welcome the fact that on some matters, the Government have moved in the direction in which we have urged them.
The Government have now agreed to introduce a pilot scheme for regional casinos, but the proposed number of casinos is still too large. We also regret the fact that they are unwilling to introduce or maintain an identity requirement for those using casinos.
On seaside arcades—a matter of great concern to many hon. Members—I welcome the commitment from the Minister for Sport and Tourism this evening to conduct a review. However, we would have liked him to make it clear at this stage that the Government will remove the clause giving the Secretary of State reserve powers to ban children from using those machines. Because of the movement by the Government, and because we support the measures to give powers to the gambling commission and to tackle remote gambling, we do not intend to vote against Third Reading.
Despite the enormous amount of preparation time, the Bill has not received proper scrutiny. It was changed dramatically on the last day in Committee, when we did not have a proper opportunity to examine those changes. Even tonight, there were five whole groups of amendments that the programme motion did not allow to be debated. I hope that those in another place will now subject the Bill to the scrutiny that it still badly needs. I accept the Secretary of State's point that the Bill is better than when it started, but it is still flawed, and the fact that we do not propose to divide the House tonight does not mean that we do not believe that the Bill is capable of significant improvement in another place.
My remarks this evening are tinged with sadness. Although I recognise that the Government have moved significantly on a number of important issues, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said in support of the number of experiments, once the genie is out of the bottle, it is difficult to put back.
The concept of responsible gambling is a contradiction in terms. All Governments have a pathetic history of dealing with addiction problems—for example, alcohol. We are not coping with the problems. I tabled amendments, which we unfortunately failed to reach, to introduce specific references to finance and expertise, both to try to prevent gambling problems from developing and to treat people with gambling problems.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) spoke to amendment No. 1, which unfortunately, we did not have an opportunity to vote on, he mentioned that there are three times as many problem gamblers in households earning less than £15,600 a year as in households earning more than £32,000 a year. A wide body of opinion suggests that the Bill will at least double the number of problem gamblers to about 750,000; some estimates are even higher. For each problem gambler, the lives of half a dozen people in their immediate vicinity are seriously damaged, so the Bill will affect millions of people. As the Opposition do not intend to vote against it, it will go to the other place, where I sincerely hope that it will be substantially amended.
I remain unable to support the Bill. In many ways, it does a lot to control gambling, but it throws open the barn doors for casinos, and I find that totally unacceptable.
The Secretary of State began by saying that the Bill had been a long time coming, and she was right. I, too, pay tribute to the many people who have been involved in the deliberations that have gone on during those years. In particular, I praise the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and members of his Committee for their work. It is interesting to note that we have needed all that time just to work out the precise number of casinos in this country—only tonight did we finally get the definitive answer of 136.
As the Secretary of State observed, many parts of the Bill have a great deal of support on both sides of the House, and outside the House—for example, the provisions concerning internet gambling, tougher social responsibility requirements, and a tougher regulator in the shape of the gambling commission, which will replace the Gaming Board—but many people have deep concerns about other aspects. That is particularly true in relation to casinos. The Secretary of State said that the Government should listen. Of course they should, but the real question is this: to whom were they listening when they first came up with those proposals? I know of very few people who have expressed any real desire for the massive increase in gambling opportunities proposed by the Bill in its initial form.
I am delighted that the Government have belatedly listened and made a welcome U-turn. It is right to have a pilot period, and a cap on the number of casinos during that time. However, much remains to be done in another place. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) raised several issues, not least trying to ensure that casinos do not open on Christmas day. Because of the shortage of time, or the Government's unwillingness, we have been unable even to determine the value of a teddy bear in a family entertainment arcade.
Although a great deal of work remains to be done, I have no doubt that the Bill is far better than it was on Second Reading. I pay tribute to all those who have worked to make it a better Bill during its passage in Committee and tonight.
The House has had an opportunity for full discussion. Clearly, there are issues to be raised in another place, but I echo the sentiments of several hon. Members of all parties who have said that scrutiny has made the Bill a better measure. The people of this country need the protection that the Bill offers, and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Delegated Legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Representation of the People
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (City of London) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Value Added Tax
That the Value Added Tax (Food) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 3343), dated 16th December 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
Question agreed to.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Ordered,
That the Southern Regional Flood Defence Committee Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 3165), dated 30th November 2004, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Joan Ryan.]
Business of the House
Ordered,
That at the sitting on Wednesday 26th January, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Peter Hain relating to sitting hours, connecting Parliament with the public, and car mileage allowance not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved, except that the Speaker shall put a single Question on any Amendments which are consequential on an Amendment to which the House has already agreed; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—[Joan Ryan.]
Committees
With permission, I shall put together motions 7 and 8.
Ordered,
Education and Skills
That Mr Robert Jackson be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Mr John Greenway be added.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions
That Mrs Eleanor Laing be discharged from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee and Mr Richard Page be added.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Bristol-Portishead Rail Link
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity to raise an issue that is of immense importance to many of my constituents in Portishead. Over the past decade, and even longer, we have been subjected to a rollercoaster ride, where expectations for a passenger rail link have been raised only to be dashed soon after.
The consequence of the growth in housing and population in Portishead, combined with inadequate transport infrastructure, has resulted in what is now probably the most overcrowded cul-de-sac in Britain. If I may, I will outline the history of the railway line in question, the rate of population growth in Portishead, the current transport problems, the transport studies already undertaken, and a proposed solution. Much of what I intend to say is contained in the eloquent and succinct document produced by the Portishead railway action group, entitled "Reopening the Portishead line—an outline proposal", which I will give to the Minister at the end of this debate. I recommend that she adds it to her list of essential reading.
The original railway line came into being to meet one of Brunel's schemes to operate a steamship service to America. It was opened in 1870, was converted to standard gauge in 1880, and passenger services continued until 1964. In 2000, a freight facilities grant enabled a new spur to be constructed to serve royal Portbury dock, and the line to Bristol to be relaid for freight traffic. To put it in perspective, the basic length of track needing to be relaid from this spur to a platform at the allocated station site within the development area at Portishead is a mere 3.3 miles.
In the mid-1950s, Portishead had a population of about 8,000. By 1995, this had risen to some 15,000, and the current figure is around 18,000. Perhaps more importantly, however, recent redevelopment of the area around the dock has created the largest marina and housing development in the country, and the population is now predicted to rise to around 28,000—a startling increase.
The biggest problem is that Portishead has only one primary road route out of the town, the A369. Traffic heading for Bristol must cross the M5 at junction 19 at Portbury. The Greater Bristol strategic transport study described it as a "heavily trafficked junction", which many will consider to be an understatement. The study also explained that development growth in Portishead and on the royal Portbury dock site continues to place pressures on the performance of the partially signalled roundabout that forms the junction. Not only does the roundabout accommodate eight entrances and exits; there is high traffic use of the local access roads to the village of Portbury, which joins the A369 close to the motorway junction. Severe congestion is a regular occurrence, especially during the evening peak period.
Public transport in the area is limited, and bus services to Bristol are not well supported for a number of reasons—not least the journey time, which is heavily influenced by road congestion at key times. Employment opportunities in Portishead are limited as well. While provision for employment development has been made in east Portishead, the town as a whole is constrained by green belt requirements, so further expansion is restricted. The 2001 census showed that 63 per cent. of the town's adults in employment travelled out of Portishead to work. Many of those people will work in Bristol, but it is interesting to note that the percentage of Portishead residents travelling to work by car is higher than those in any of the other three north Somerset towns.
Into this complex environment have come a number of initiatives, studies and strategies. The introduction of local transport plans in 2000 was intended to reduce reliance on the private car, particularly for commuting purposes, and to make alternative forms of transport attractive and safe. Studies for both North Somerset council and the Government office for the south-west have recommended the introduction of passenger rail services to Portishead as a partial solution of the transport problem.
North Somerset council and Wessex Trains were having discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority about a bid for rail passenger partnership funding to reopen the Portishead line when the funding scheme was terminated early in 2003. Continued upheaval in the rail industry and the general funding shortfall seem to have put line reopenings out of the frame in the short term. Despite uncertainty over who will operate franchises after April 2006, however, there has been renewed activity in the promotion of community rail partnerships on several routes, including the local Severn Beach line.
The Portishead railway action group has carried out an extensive analysis of the possibility of extending the current service to Severn Beach and on to Portishead. It has shown that with a running time of 24 minutes to Portishead, trains arriving at Bristol Temple Meads on the Severn Beach line could continue to Portishead and return to Temple Meads without disrupting current schedules. The proposed service could be operated without conflicting with other passenger services at key junctions, and safety margins could be maintained.
The scheme delivers on all four regional transport strategy objectives. It would reduce the impact of transport on the environment, securing better access to work and creating a modern, efficient and integrated transport system. It would also support the regional planning guidance note 10 spatial strategy. What all of us find so difficult to understand is that a scheme which is so clearly needed, and which would meet so many of the Government's declared objectives, never seems to get off the ground. Despite the involvement of so many agencies, bodies and interested parties, there never seems to be the cohesion and momentum that are needed to make the change happen.
My aim in bringing this matter to the attention of the House and the Minister is to help create that momentum. Unless the situation is dealt with comprehensively, the quality of life for many residents of an expanding Portishead will diminish unnecessarily. If that happened, the real tragedy would be that it could have been prevented.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on securing this debate and on providing an opportunity for the House to discuss the potential for reinstating passenger services on the line between Bristol and Portishead. The Government are aware that support exists for introducing passenger services on this line, which was re-opened in 2002 as far as Royal Portbury docks for freight traffic. The re-opening was secured with funding from the Strategic Rail Authority's freight facilities grant scheme. However, in order to serve Portishead with passenger services, the remaining three and a quarter miles of track would need to be reinstated and new stations at Portishead and elsewhere on the line would need to be built, along with car parking facilities and, preferably, interchanges with other transport modes. Even if the funding existed to achieve this necessary work, further obstacles exist that would need to be overcome.
The freight trains currently using the line operate at irregular intervals, depending on the particular assignment in hand. Introducing regular passenger services that are compatible with these irregular freight movements would be problematic. Infrastructure enhancements would be required, including, most notably, a large amount of additional signalling.
The cost of all of this work would be significant, and to date, no source of funding has been identified. The potential for rail passenger partnership funding was considered in 2001, following completion of a study by consultants Scott Wilson for North Somerset council. However, the SRA, which administered the fund, was concerned about several areas of weakness in the study—notably, that no account had been taken of the integration of passenger and freight services on the line, or of the need to accommodate new passenger services on the main line between Parsons Street Junction and Bristol Temple Meads. Furthermore, the SRA believed that more evidence of third-party support would be needed than the £1 million secured by the council. The SRA could not foresee a successful application being made under the rail passenger partnership scheme unless these issues were addressed. In the event, no official bid was submitted for funding.
Since that time, the SRA has remained in dialogue with North Somerset council and the Portishead rail action group, and it has undertaken a site visit and met those bodies to discuss the issues further. However, the overriding barrier remains the capital costs of the project, which Scott Wilson estimated as being between £5 million and £7.5 million, depending on the number of trains operating per hour. Although the SRA has not carried out its own assessment, it believes that those figures could constitute a huge underestimate. On top of those capital costs, an additional subsidy for the train operator would be needed to cover the ongoing operational costs. Such costs would not be covered by the income generated from fares, which would only recoup between 50 and 60 per cent. of the annual operating expense. If the Scott Wilson report's recommendation for two trains an hour were pursued, the operational costs could amount to some £2.5 million per annum. So the overall cost is likely to be more than £15 million—well above the report's estimate.
Any call on the SRA for support has to be backed up by a positive, value-for-money business case and linked with what can be afforded nationally. The rail industry's current priorities are focusing on maintaining the existing network and improving the performance and quality of existing services. So the reinstatement of the Portishead line to passenger traffic would rely on other avenues of funding being found. This could form the focus for stakeholders wishing to promote the project.
In the longer term, the reopening of lines may well have to be considered in various areas of the country where the current transport infrastructure's capacity is likely to be insufficient for the forecasted increase in demand. The SRA has a number of initiatives in hand in order to consider the future development required in each region. These could be taken forward in due course by Network Rail and the Department for Transport through implementation of the proposals in the White Paper "The Future of Rail".
Initially, the SRA is looking at how we can get the most out of the current network through application of its "Capacity Utilisation Policy", which was published in 2003. A series of individual route utilisation strategies are being taken forward, including one for the Great Western main line, the consultation draft for which was published earlier this month.
Those of us who are aware of the history of the line certainly welcome the possibility of passenger usage. We also recognise the cost that my hon. Friend has outlined and would like her assurance that the rail and road networks in the area will be considered together—as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) suggested, they could be in need of enhancement in the future—when looking at the demand for passenger rail in the area.
I am grateful for that intervention because it raises the important point about the role of the local authority and the region in identifying the priorities for transport in the area. That is why we have local transport plans and are considering regional prioritisation of particular projects. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned for better transport in the area for many years, both as a Member of Parliament and as a former councillor.
Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that Conservative-controlled North Somerset local authority has never committed any funds to the project, although it has commissioned studies? Does she think that it would be a good idea if the local authority were to commit some funds to it and would that assist the project in making progress?
Local stakeholders, including the council, have to show a commitment to such projects. When Conservative councils—and, indeed, shadow Ministers—call for massive cuts in public expenditure, it is not surprising that money cannot be found for such projects.
The hijacking of this debate to make party political points is not something that I expect in an Adjournment debate and is in poor taste. However, my more general point is that the problems are indicative of a lack of forethought in the planning process. The Government insisted on more housing and there has been a big increase—in fact, the biggest housing development in the country is in the area—but no prior thought was given to the transport infrastructure. How bad does it have to get before it becomes a priority?
As I indicated to the hon. Gentleman earlier, we look to the region and the local council to come up with their plan for local transport. That is why we have moved to local transport plans instead of a wish list of projects that local councils and regions want. We are working in partnership with local councils and the regions and we expect them to work with their local stakeholders to ensure that they produce priorities that have the support of local stakeholders. The hon. Gentleman suggested earlier that the council had not fully engaged in taking forward the project. My point was that we have to find the funding for such projects in the context of local, regional and national priorities.
In conjunction with their capacity utilisation policy work the Strategic Rail Authority is also carrying out a series of regional planning assessments, which will consider the need for developing rail services over a five to 20-year horizon. Those assessments will cover each English planning region and will consider the function of the railway within current and future land use transport systems, and its role in supporting the economic and wider development objectives of local, regional, devolved and central Government.
The RPA for south-west England is due to commence this spring, with publication expected at the end of this year. Local stakeholders, including local transport and planning authorities, will be consulted throughout its development. The final outputs will include the identification of the key markets to be served by rail; a prioritised set of interventions for further examination that the SRA considers to be deliverable and realistic; and regional plans for the delivery of wider national SRA policies. The outputs are intended to provide a strategic framework for more detailed planning work and to answer the question of whether a proposed scheme has a strategic fit with the SRA's plans for a particular part of the network. The regional planning assessment will highlight where follow-up work needs to be commissioned by the SRA and rail industry partners and, where appropriate, in conjunction with stakeholders.
In the Bristol area, such work will be complemented by the greater Bristol strategic transport study. That has been commissioned by the Department for Transport and is being taken forward by the Government office for the south-west to address current and future strategic transport needs specifically in the greater Bristol area up to 2031. It will build on the south-west area multi-modal study, which reported in May 2002, and will contribute to the formulation of regional spatial strategies, the identification of priorities for investment in the regional transport strategy, and the next round of local transport plans. In addition to forecasting the growth in general travel demand, the study will also examine specifically the future demand for heavy rail services, as well as establishing the preliminary business case for any rail schemes.
Funding for the study is shared among seven organisations, including the four local councils and the South West of England Regional Development Agency. Atkins was appointed as the study consultants in 2003 and will produce a report in June 2005, which will make recommendations for a range of strategies to be taken forward.
In summary, I can offer no assurance that a passenger service will be reinstated on the Bristol-Portishead line in the foreseeable future. The first step towards that would be for the significant funding required for such a scheme to be identified and secured. However, initiatives are being taken, or are planned to begin shortly, to consider in detail what is required in the Bristol region for future transport development, including heavy rail. Those areas of work are being conducted with the active involvement of local stakeholders and will allow solutions to be developed cohesively and coherently. When the conclusions from those aspects of work are known, the potential for new passenger services on the Portishead line will be better understood, and the issue of funding can be considered by the project sponsors on a more informed basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.