Clause 48 - Employment to provide facilities for gambling
Gambling Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 148, in clause 48, page 22, line 11, at end add
'or
(f) category D machines only.'.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
With this we may consider the following: Amendment No. 8, in clause 56, page 24, line 4, at end insert
''with intent to deprave or corrupt that child or young person.''.
Amendment No. 9, in clause 56, page 24, line 4, at end insert
'', provided that no offence of this kind may in any event be committed by a parent of the child or young person or by anyone in the role in loco parentis to any child or young person.''.
Clause 56 stand part.
New clause 10—Use of Category D gaming machines by children and young persons—
''(1) A person commits an offence if he invites, causes or allows a child or young person to use a Category D gaming machine. (2) A young person commits an offence if he gambles on a Category D gaming machine. (3) An exception is made to subsections (1) and (2) where— (a) the value of the prize falls within the limits for Category D gaming machines as defined by regulations under section 220, and (b) the nature of the prize is non-monetary or non-redeemable for prizes.''.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Amendment No. 148 simply adds an extra paragraph to subsection (2). Clause 45 deals with offences of young people gambling, and it disapplies the use of category D gaming machines. Clause 48 deals with offences of the employment of young people to provide facilities for gambling, and a reference to ''category D machines only'' in subsection (2) would make it clear that there is no offence in the provision of facilities in connection with category D machines. That would make it consistent with the earlier clause, which allows children to gamble on category D machines. Our amendment would make it clear that there is not an offence where a child or young person is employed and there are category D machines.
We have the opportunity to discuss whether clause 56 should stand part of the Bill. I tabled an amendment to delete the entire clause, but it was not accepted.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
Order. Amendments that delete clauses are never accepted because that question is always put in the stand part debate. We are debating whether clause 56 should stand part of the Bill.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Pike.
The issue on category D machines is very simple. The Government propose to remove them from a whole swathe of premises. I am told that there are currently permits for 6,000 premises such as cafes and fish and chip shops. Although the Government will remove category D machines from them, it will still allow them in motorway service stations. It is difficult to understand why that is the case.
The argument is about supervision, but there is as little supervision in motorway service stations as in the local cafe or fish and chip shop. The Government should explain why they have seen fit to go down that road, given that there does not seem to be much evidence to support the idea that category D machines are in any way damaging to young people. Recently, the Secretary of State wrote a letter to the hon. Member for somewhere.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Thank you. The letter was to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). That letter stated:
''The Government is committed to taking an evidence-based approach to all gambling issues. As you know, low-value gaming machines have been available in amusement arcades for many years, and there has never been any compelling evidence that it is harmful (either immediately or in later life) for children to be able to play low-value gaming machines''.
We understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will publish a review by independent academics that supports the view that there is no evidence of harm. If there is no such evidence, why is a ban warranted in the locations that I have mentioned?
After a thorough analysis of 170 submissions and 17 oral evidence sessions, the Joint Committee found that there was no evidence of a causal link between category D machines and problem gambling. There is a lack of clarity and consistency on the Government's part. They are allowing the machines to continue in family entertainment centres, but they are proposing some changes in the value of both the cash and non-cash prizes.
One key area relates to difference. At the moment, a non-cash prize can be up to the value of £8 and a person can use a crane machine to pick up a cuddly toy that is worth about that sum. In future, though, that will be banned; the maximum value of such a cuddly toy will be reduced to £5. I ask a simple question: do children know the value of the toy that they are trying to grab with the crane? I suspect not. They are drawn to the toy and its attractiveness—be it a teddy bear or something else.
The reasoning behind dropping the figure from £8 to £5 is lost on the industry and, I suspect, most of the Committee. Again, the Minister must explain to the Committee why the difference of £3 in the value of an article—be it a cuddly toy or something else—will make all the difference between producing a whole generation of problem gamblers who are hooked on this sort of thing at an early age and the status quo. Both the Secretary of State and the Department seem to indicate that they do not have an issue with that in terms of problem gambling.
Clause 56 allows the Secretary of State, at some future date, to re-examine the issue and, potentially, introduce a ban on category D machines in family entertainment centres. That is the sword that is hanging over the industry, and a clause that gives the Secretary of State immense powers to make future changes that will decimate its businesses is no comfort to it.
Family entertainment centres spend about £100 million a year employing some 8,600 people and they support many more people indirectly in their local economies. They are critical to many of our seaside towns, particularly the smaller ones. They operate on tight margins; the operating profit is about 6.4 per cent. on average. More than 70 per cent. of the 104,000 machines in family entertainment centres are category D. The combination of the reserve power hanging over family entertainment centres and the proposed
reduction in stakes and prizes will have a serious impact on the viability of many of them. The Henley Centre's economic and social impact study of the Gambling Bill, published in February, found that a third of the centres were likely to close.
The adverse impacts would be two-fold. A blight would be put on any significant new long-term investment in family entertainment centres and the proposed reduction in non-cash prizes would degrade their marketability and customer value. The industry believes that there is a double pincer movement to attack their viability and their future. No one will invest and businesses will decrease in value. No one will be able to sell a business at what was the going rate a little while ago because of the uncertainty of clause 56 and the potential for the Secretary of State to make sweeping changes to the availability of category D machines in such centres.
It is important that the Minister explains to the Committee where the consistency lies in the Government's thinking. We know that they are spinning the Bill as a protection Bill: it is to protect children and the vulnerable. As I have pointed out in earlier debates, that is at variance with their opening up the top end of the pyramid, through regional casinos, and allowing something like 20 to 40 mega-casinos each with 1,250 category A machines, exclusive to them. There is potential for more than 50,000 of those new machines, which, in places such as Australia, have been proven to lead to problem gambling. At that end of the scale there will be problems, but to date there is no evidence of problems with category D machines, which are at the children's end of the scale.
It is illogical for the Government to argue that the main thrust of the Bill is about protection when on the one hand those new machines are coming in—and there is no evidence from this country on what will result from that introduction—and on the other the Government are bearing down on businesses that have been around for many years and are an integral part of the entertainment and leisure facilities in our seaside towns. Perversely, there is no evidence of any damage to our young people as a result of their playing machines in family entertainment centres.
Common sense ought to prevail on this issue. The Government have to accept—as they have, at the top end of the pyramid, with regional casinos—that common sense indicates that if there is no problem there is no need to legislate to change things. It would be helpful to the industry, which employs an awful lot of people throughout the country, to have a clear steer from the Government at this point. Let us not wait until the Bill goes to the other place for consideration, or even later, for such things to be sorted out. Let us make it clear to the industry now that the Government recognise their problems; that the uncertainty derives from the wording in the Bill, particularly in clause 56; that that is damaging to the industry; and that today the Minister will make a clear statement that he recognises those concerns and is prepared to do something about them.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I have a little difficulty with the lead amendment; it seems somewhat superfluous. Clause 51 already prevents under-18s from performing any functions on premises with category D machines. One has to assume that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is using the amendment to probe the Minister and to lead to other discussions as he did, quite correctly, in relation to category D machines.
I put on record my apology to the hon. Gentleman for misleading him because I am reliably informed that I gave him the wrong name of the Member who received the letter from the Secretary of State. It was the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), rather than the hon. Member for Cannock Chase.
We are aware that clause 48 creates an offence of employing children and young persons, with some exceptions, to provide facilities for gambling. Clause 56 gives the Secretary of State powers by order to
''create an offence of inviting, causing or permitting a child or young person below a specified age to use a Category D gaming machine.''
Category D machines will continue to haunt us during the passage of the Bill.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire drew our attention to his concerns, which my colleagues and I share, about the Government's proposals to remove category D machines from various premises, including fish and chip shops and taxi cab offices. We know, even from the Government's own regulatory impact assessment, that if that action is taken, it could lead to the loss of some 600 of those premises. All hon. Members may wish to think about how happy they would be to see some of those important facilities lost to their local communities as a result of this measure. If there were clear, convincing evidence that that would protect young people, that might be another matter. I shall return to the issue of evidence in a minute.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire rightly mentioned his astonishment—which, again, I share—that the Government are saying that category D machines will be removed from premises such as fish and chip shops and taxi cab offices, but will continue to be used in motorway service stations and bowling alleys. That is slightly odd, bearing it in mind that there would, one suspects, be greater supervision in the first category of premises than in the second. Nevertheless, we will have an opportunity to return to that matter and discuss it in more detail during debates on later clauses to which I have tabled amendments.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
At the rate we are going, I doubt it very much.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire also mentioned the Government's plans to change the prizes and stake money for category D machines. That is surprising and I find little evidence to back up the measures that the Government intend to introduce. It is particularly surprising when we hear that the triennial review, which would have been a more appropriate time to consider the evidence and make
decisions on this matter, is to be postponed for at least several years. Again, we have an opportunity to return to those issues a little later.
I have two concerns about this group of amendments. First, clause 56 is a huge sword of Damocles hanging over many machine operators, family entertainment centres, seaside resorts and the type of facilities provided by organisations such as Butlins. Secondly, I am concerned about the categorisation of category D machines. We need to consider whether there ought to be a sub-category.
Clause 56—the sword of Damocles—is important for many organisations in this country. The Government are right to say that it is vital to protect young children. That is clearly enshrined in the licensing objectives in clause 1. However, where we reserve powers like those in clause 56, we must be certain of the likely impact of exercising them. The sector that I am describing is important: it employs 82,000 people, generates £1.76 billion in tax revenues and owns approximately 1,000 family entertainment centres, 850 adult gaming centres and many businesses that supply, operate, manufacture and distribute gaming machines, and it has already been hard hit by foreign competition. We know, for example, that some of the British gaming machine manufacturers have lost their business to America. There are real concerns in that sector.
The Secretary of State must have powerful arguments to justify why she should hold on to the reserve powers described in clause 56. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire rightly said, it is odd that the Secretary of State is retaining powers in respect of category D machines, but does not have similar reserve powers for category A machines. Category D machines are well tried and tested in this country. There is a fairly wide body of research evidence on those machines—although it has produced rather mixed results—whereas category A machines are totally untried and untested in this country, and many Committee members have serious concerns about the impact that they will have on the increased number of people affected by problem gambling.
The Secretary of State's reserve powers would have made much more sense to me if they applied to category A, rather than category D, machines. We already know from that letter to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth that the Secretary of State is clear that the Government are committed to taking an evidence-based approach to all gambling issues. She went on to say that low-value gaming machines have been available in amusement arcades for many years, and there has never been any compelling evidence that it is harmful, either immediately or in later life, for children to play them.
That said, I accept that we must look carefully at the evidence as to whether there could be any harm from category D machines. Unless that is convincingly demonstrated, I see no reason for the Secretary of State to hold on to the reserve powers. If she does, she will place in serious jeopardy many of the businesses
that I referred to earlier. If they are not certain that they will be allowed to carry on, because the Secretary of State might use the reserve powers at some point, they will have difficulty in asking their banks for money for the additional investment that they wish to make. That will make it extremely difficult for them to continue.
The evidence is mixed. I am sure that all Committee members have looked with considerable interest at the wide range of evidence that was made available to the Joint Committee and at that in the Budd report, and at research including that by Sue Fisher in 1998 and Professor Jim Orford in 2003. Some will even have done as I have, and gone back to the 1987 Home Office research, which suggested that there was ambivalence about the amount of harm that category D machines would do.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said that he was waiting with anticipation for the Government to publish their detailed review of all the research. I am pleased to tell him that they have already done so, and it makes fascinating reading. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who accuses me of spending my time sitting up reading Coin Slot International night after night, will be delighted to know that last night I found even that not quite as riveting as ''Young People and Gambling in Britain: A systematic and critical review of the research literature relating to gaming machine, lottery and pools coupons practice by children and young people under 18''. I know that he will have read it as well—it is fascinating.
That document tells us that there is a lack of substantial data on the prevalence of gambling and problem gambling among the under-18s in the United Kingdom. It goes on to say that it is not possible to give reliable prevalence figures on problem gambling in childhood, but that studies with the most rigorous design, using large national random samples and recent coverage, find the lowest rates. Some, it says, believe that the younger the onset of play, the more serious gambling problems are likely to become, although there is insufficient evidence to make definitive judgments about that hypothesis. It suggests that a detailed longitudinal study is required.
The evidence is mixed, but it is increasingly clear that there are differences between the category D machines from which people get money and those from which they win prizes. The evidence, limited though it is, seems to suggest that those on which people gamble for pocket money are more addictive than the grabbers and the amusements with prizes. If that is the case, and if the Government are most concerned about those that give money, it might be sensible for any sword of Damocles that there is likely to be to hang over the category D machines about which there is the greater concern—those that give cash prizes. In that category, I refer particularly to the machines that emulate the fruit machines that are played by adults—''fruities'', as they are sometimes called. It is on those that there is the greatest evidence. Our amendment in this string gives the Government an opportunity to consider whether they will retain some
form of sword of Damocles, as covered by clause 56. That should relate only to category D machines, about which there is greater concern than the others.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)
In his extensive research—he has obviously done much night-time reading, to the displeasure of Mrs. Foster—has the hon. Gentleman come across anyone who has actually won a prize on a grabber machine?
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
Forgive me if I stray briefly, Mr. Pike, but the hon. Gentleman was clearly not present a few days ago at the annual general meeting of the British Amusement Catering Trades Association, whe, he will he delighted to know, the Minister, Lord McIntosh, was awarded not one but two such prizes. He received two cuddly teddy bears, one allegedly valued at £5 and a larger one valued at £8.
Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely certain that they were standard machines that are available at other arcades around the country?
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman tempts me. I merely refer to the fact that the Minister in another place was the recipient of two cuddly teddy bears. I assure hon. Members that in the photographs that appeared in the press he looked delighted to receive them.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
This is a fascinating subject. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps Mrs. Foster could use a grabber machine? She might get his attention, and he obviously knows a lot about them. Is there a particular number of toys that such machines have to pay out?
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, and you, Mr. Pike, would have been tempted by a sedentary intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who wanted to know which clause—spelled ''claws''—related to the teddy bears. I wanted to get that on the record. He tempts me to move away from the detail, but one of the differences between the machines—or at least some of them; not all of them, I entirely accept—is that the grabbers require an element of skill, whereas the ''fruities'' certainly do not. One could argue that there is a difference, but rather than separating category D machines into two types and having a sword of Damocles hanging over at least one type—if that is the only way we can win, that should be the route that we follow—I should prefer it by far if the Committee voted against clause 56 to take away that sword of Damocles, which is hanging over a very large number of businesses in the country. There is little or no evidence to justify the clause.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
Just before we move on, and so that everyone is absolutely clear, what Mr. Foster said at the end was very helpful. I shall put the question on clause 56 when we reach it, but there will be no debate then; the debate will take place now.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
That is a particularly helpful introduction, Mr. Pike, because I was among those who put their signature to the amendment seeking to delete clause 56 altogether. I also tabled a group of amendments that were not selected for debate, so it would be wrong of me to talk about them. However, the Committee must consider carefully whether it is appropriate that clause 56 should stay in the Bill. I considered whether we could amend clause 56 to make it more acceptable. In the end—despite the fact that I tabled a couple of amendments to it, which were not selected—I concluded that the best way of dealing with the issues would be to delete clause 56. However, I agree with some of the serious points made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
I should draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member for West Ham has just made his first contribution to the debate since we heard the sad news—I mean that genuinely—that he will not be in the House after the next election. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has always been a good cross-party Friend: he may be retiring, but he has never been shy. His intervention on the hon. Member for Bath is typical of the wit that he has shown throughout his parliamentary career.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
I, too, ask the Government to reconsider clause 56 because of the damage that it will do many legitimate businesses that operate in areas of the country in which it is difficult to do so, such as the holiday industry in many of our coastal resorts. Gaming arcades, which attract children, are often the lifeblood of such resorts, and they feel threatened by this legislation.
It is hard to understand why the Government want to be so draconian. I have asked on several occasions—once of the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House—what evidence the Government have to suggest that category D machines have had a deleterious effect on young people, or that people have been encouraged to pursue a life of gambling after being seduced by such machines in their youth. The Government have offered no evidence whatever that such light gaming is dangerous to the nation's youth. I used to enjoy playing seaside machines and was utterly fascinated by drop the tuppenny. Since then, apart from the occasional flutter at the races—even then, the minimum amount that the Tote will allow—I have had no desire to gamble, yet I found playing those machines an enjoyable pastime, especially when it was raining outside.
The Government have given no justification for the measure, nor have they shown a cause and effect between category D gaming machines and any impact on young people. In the absence of clear evidence of such damage, it is hard for the Government to justify this outrageous attack on legitimate businesses that operate across the nation, particularly in seaside resorts.
Does the Minister realise the great distress that his provision—
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
Oh, come on.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
The Minister says, ''Oh, come on''—[Interruption.] Forgive me, I must not have a conversation with the Minister because we must address the Chair.
I, certainly, have been written to by people from several gaming arcades across the country and been asked to plead with the Government to reconsider this matter. Those operating arcades, particularly seaside arcades, are worried that because of a Government whim, or because of a story that has nothing to do with gambling by children, but which may be a result of the Government's legislation in a wider context, problem gaming will become the big issue about which the nation's newspapers, and therefore the Government, are truly exercised and that a whipping boy will then be found to try to allay public concern. The most obvious use of this clause is to provide a whipping boy.
The Minister is more than happy to have casinos proliferate across the country, although we have made some progress on that, but they will undoubtedly cause problem gambling. We are likely to end up in a situation—like that in Australia—in which the cry goes up, ''Britain faces a problem gambling issue; what are we going to do about it?'' I know what we will do about it: the Government will say, ''Ah, well, there is this little provision somewhere in the Gambling Act that we enacted some time ago, which says that we will stop children doing category D gaming altogether. That is what we will do to solve the nation's gambling crisis.'' We can see that happening, because it is symptomatic of the sort of thing that has happened all along, given the Government's desire to show that they are listening and their tendency to do something completely counter-productive and unfair to other people's interests but which gives them a headline in the newspapers of the day to say that they are tackling a problem.
The industry fears that the clause will be used in that way as and when we have a bigger problem with gaming across the nation. That is extremely unfair on legitimate businesses, which currently operate with no problems and have done so over the 25 years or so since I was last in one of their establishments. There is no reason why this Damocletian sword should hang over the heads of those operating them. It will be a disincentive to investment in providing new facilities in seaside areas and is a great worry—whatever the Minister says and however much he likes to mock—for businesses that are working hard in difficult circumstances in seaside resorts across the nation. Creating successful businesses that keep those resorts afloat is difficult anyway, without the Government presenting an additional hazard. I very much hope that, despite the mockery, the Minister will think again.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
Order. For clarification, let me say to Mr. Hawkins that alongside clause 56 stand part, we are debating amendments Nos. 8 and 9; those amendments have been selected. If he indicates that he wants to vote on them, we can have a vote at the
appropriate stage. All I am saying is that when we reach clause 56, there will not be a further debate. I want to be certain that that is clear.
Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
I want to speak briefly on clause 56, which states:
''The Secretary of State may by order create an offence of inviting''
and so on. It would be most helpful if there were some guidance on the triggers that might cause the Secretary of State to say that he or she wanted to create an offence of permitting a child to operate a gaming machine. When we took evidence in the scrutiny Committee, Lord McIntosh of Haringey was asked whether he felt that more steps should be taken to educate children about the dangers of gambling. He replied with an unequivocal yes. He felt that there should be guidance in schools and waxed lyrical about the gambler's fallacy. He said that we would be astonished by how many people think that the outcome of the last event has an influence on the outcome of the current or next event and do not understand the independence of events. That is absolutely true. I know that the Minister knows all about it, being intimately connected and knowledgeable on these matters.
I would like to quote the words of one or two witnesses whom we examined on this matter. These are people who have spent time looking into the problems of gambling and how they might be negated. Professor Orford makes a point about the rate for adolescents and cites various surveys that have taken place here and in the United States showing that
''there is a negative correlation between age and problem or pathological gambling. The 16-24 year olds had the highest rate in our group, and if you take that down to the group we did not look at (because they were under 16s), adolescents, all the evidence is that the prevalence rate there is the highest.''
Professor Orford then refers to other evidence, produced by a lady called Susan Fisher, which shows that among 10,000 pupils aged between 12 and 15 in 100 schools across England and Wales, there is a prevalence rate of more than 5 per cent. A number of factors lie behind clause 56.
We all want to protect the children of this nation, but we want to see that the Minister has a clearly defined pathway whereby, should any offence be created of permitting a child or young person below a specified age to operate a category D machine, we should know what it is. It should not happen to be a knee-jerk action by a Secretary of State who wishes to grab a few headlines because the Government may be unpopular in the polls, or something like that. We are now seeing a powerful law and order campaign, for example, and one wonders why we are suddenly having that? We have to be careful that we do not start to introduce measures without a proper route to understanding why and how a measure might be introduced.
Professor Griffiths said that he did
''a study way back in 1990 showing that those kids who started playing slot-machines at the age of nine years of age or below were significantly more likely to have problems than those who started at the age of 12 or above.''
He went on to say:
''The interesting thing and, I suppose, the good news for adolescents is we know that with all, what I would call, risky but rewarding behaviours, the peak use, whether for drugs, alcohol or gambling, does peak in adolescence and young adulthood. You will find a lot of adolescents will mature out and spontaneously remit, and when they take on other things in their life, job, first baby, marriage . . . problem gambling will often disappear.''
We have to be clear that we are not going to introduce any offence that is of a transitory nature and that we will cause no long-term damage.
Mr Bob Russell (Shadow Minister (Culture, Media & Sport), Culture, Media & Sport; Colchester, Liberal Democrat)
We have heard a fair amount about seaside family amusement arcades and so on. However, small cafes, taxi booking offices and so on in inland areas are also affected. If the legislation were to pass, I suggest to the Minister, some companies would go out of business in the fine city of Sheffield because they rely on the amusement machines to make the difference between loss and profit.
I hope that support and protection can be found in the other place for the indigenous low-key family entertainment gambling areas, which are predominately at the seaside. I am sorry that the Minister is yawning, but it has been suggested that for each major casino, the equivalent number of machines—1,250—will wipe out 600 small local businesses, with everything that goes with that. I wonder whether the Minister is complacent about businesses in Sheffield and elsewhere going under because of an ill-thought-out, ill-judged measure.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government, who pride themselves on consultation, have not consulted with the overarching organisation that represents all those bodies, the British Amusement Catering Trades Association, and have, so far as I am aware, refused to meet its representatives? They have not even met representatives of fish and chip shops.
Mr Bob Russell (Shadow Minister (Culture, Media & Sport), Culture, Media & Sport; Colchester, Liberal Democrat)
I was not aware of that, but I am not really surprised. I think that provisions have been made up as the Bill has gone along. This one is a tiny aspect of a major Bill, but it is of vital importance to small firms and seaside arcades. Small neighbourhood businesses will be affected: fish and chip shops and so on—although I have heard it said that in Sheffield the pie is more of a gamble than the slot machine in the corner of the shop. If the clause goes through, many companies will go out of business. That is a serious matter. I regret the Minister's complacency and the fact that he finds the issue amusing. I suspect that many businesses will not share that view, and I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail in the other place.
Mrs Joan Humble (Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Labour)
A week ago, I had an interesting meeting with amusement arcade operators in Fleetwood, who had understandable concerns about the clause. However, they did not share the
apocalyptic vision of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). In fact, their concern was less about the clause than about the proliferation of small and large casinos. They thought that their amusement arcades really would close down if there were casinos on every street corner.
The concerns of those operators seemed to predate Second Reading and to arise from the publicity that preceded it. However, operators were reassured by the Secretary of State's statement on Second Reading that the Government were committed to the future of family amusement arcades. I was pleased about that, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to reconfirm that that is the Government's position.
The representations that we have received contain clear advice from people who have real concerns about the impact of gambling on children. On the other hand, we are all aware that gambling provides jobs and adult entertainment. In my opinion, it can also provide fairly harmless pastimes for children. Like everyone else who has taken part in the debate, I have tried to win a teddy bear, but I have never won one. Perhaps I should challenge all the amusement arcades along the Fylde coast, because I feel sorely tempted to try every single one of them to win a teddy.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
Was the hon. Lady lucky enough to attend Blackpool pleasure beach when she was the distinguished Chairman of the social services committee of Lancashire county council? At the time, I had the honour of representing the constituency that contained the pleasure beach and its amusement arcades. On one occasion, all the machines were rearranged for charity, and that was the only time I succeeded in working one of the grabber machines and winning a soft toy.
Mrs Joan Humble (Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Labour)
I am not sure how I can follow that. If I go round saying I will play the machines, but only if they are rearranged so I can win, operators will not be very pleased with me. Nevertheless, there is a serious point, because we need to achieve a balance in the Bill. On the one hand, we have to reassure people with genuine concerns about the impact of the measures on gambling and especially on children. On the other hand, we have to recognise the role that category D machines and amusement arcades play, especially in a seaside economy. The Government probably have the balance right, but I hope that the Minister will reassure my constituents again.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The hon. Lady thinks that the Government have got it right. Perhaps she can explain the difference between an £8 cuddly toy and a £5 cuddly toy.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
It's £3!
Mrs Joan Humble (Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Labour)
I think that my right hon. Friend has answered the hon. Gentleman, although the Government should perhaps look at the matter. If I were ever to win one of these things, would I really notice the difference between a £5 one and an £8 one? Would I want the £8 one more? Actually, I probably
would want the £8 one or one worth even more than that, but that is a dangerous route to go down so I will not.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for agreeing with our proposition that all is not well with family entertainment centres or with the Government's proposals to attack the value of the prize rather than the cash payout. BACTA agrees that a 10p stake with a £5 payout is acceptable, but it takes issue with the Government over the value of the prize being reduced from £8 to £5. When she was talking to her constituents in Fleetwood, did they make that point to her?
Mrs Joan Humble (Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Labour)
They did not labour that point. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, when Sir Alan Budd produced his report, we had a long debate on the appropriate value of prizes and stakes for amusement arcades that admit children. The key issue with this clause is not that but the residual power that the Secretary of State has taken on this matter. I seek reassurance that it is residual and that the Secretary of State is including it in the Bill because there may be a moment in the future when she or her successor will want to readdress the issue. I want an assurance that the Government are fully committed to the continuance of family amusement arcades, which have a vital role in our seaside economy.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I am delighted that the hon. Lady, like many Opposition Members, is expressing genuine concern for family entertainment centres and similar organisations. Given that she is merely seeking assurances from the Minister that the powers are reserved and will be used only in extreme circumstances—those were not her words but she implied them—does she not accept that even if she got that assurance, the clause would still put a huge blight on family entertainment centres and the firms that operate them? Therefore, there is a continuing danger that closures are likely. Would it not be better to persuade the Minister to delete the entire clause?
Mrs Joan Humble (Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Labour)
I am certainly looking forward to hearing the Minister's response, but I repeat that the concern of those who contacted me directly was much more to do with the general proliferation of gaming machines if there was an unlimited number of small and large casinos on every high street. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Minister, during his announcement on regional casinos, said that the Government were examining ways of restricting small and large casinos. That was a key point raised with me.
When people are concerned about their livelihood, it is difficult to offer them reassurance. That is why I am asking the Minister to do exactly that, and I look forward to his response.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I shall answer one or two of the questions asked before I give the reasoning for the amendments and for clause 56.
We met representatives of BACTA on a number of occasions before and after the policy was announced, and that consultation continues. We have never been approached by representatives of fish and chip shops, but if they want to come along, I am more than willing to meet them—perhaps not all of them.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
As the Minister is offering the open door of consultation to fish and chip shop operators, will he offer to meet representatives of BACTA?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
BACTA representatives know that we have an open door because they have been coming in and out of it for the past two years; there is no problem with BACTA. More importantly, as fish and chip shops were raised and as the open door of consultation is the hallmark of this Government, I invite their representatives to come and see us.
I am sure that Mrs. Foster will be pleased to know that grabber machines are random. That is why they are gaming machines. As for the doomsday scenario painted by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, I think that her previous profession took over there. I was probably more factual than she was in some of her descriptions of what might happen if the Bill is implemented in full. As Minister for Sport and Tourism, I can assure the Committee that seaside resorts commend the Government for the increase in tourism that is taking place. It is important to encourage more tourism with the greater disposable income that it brings. I was in Whitby a couple of weekends ago and I went into one of these arcades with my grandchildren. A ride on a Bambi machine cost 50p. I put in a few 2p coins which I found quite entertaining.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
To save me wasting my pension in these arcades when I have time to spare, will my hon. Friend clarify whether grabber machines are random? If so, how is the grabber randomised? That is the important point. We need to know that. If the machines are random they should pay out a certain percentage of soft cuddly toys. I need to know that for my future.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
My hon. Friend's future hangs on a grabber. I will try to elicit that information from those who do all the research into grabber machines. I am told that they are programmed to drop.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
That may have to be left off the record.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
On the question of £5 or £8 prizes, we are also reducing the maximum prizes for redemption machines. We are bringing the whole lot into line.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) referred to the skill involved in playing a grabber machine. In fact there is no skill in it at all; it is a completely random process. Should not she stop trying to perfect her technique of grabbing a teddy?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
My hon. Friend might have a point. If my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood wants a teddy, the best thing to do is probably to go to a shop and buy one. I am sure that she will take that sound advice.
I appreciate the sentiment behind amendment No. 148. We agree that children should be able to get jobs in family entertainment centres, race courses and motorway service stations where there will be gaming machines—no doubt lots of children have weekend or summer jobs in such places—and we make that possible in clause 51. However, I do not think it right that children should be involved in the supply, maintenance or operation of any kind of gaming machine. Although they have low prizes, category D machines still offer gambling to children and adults. Employment that is connected to a gaming machine is an adult responsibility, not one for children.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
If I heard correctly, the Minister just said that the Government make the employment of young people for holiday or other jobs possible in clause 51. That clause simply says that it creates two offences. It does not create any exception to those offences by allowing children to be employed on holiday jobs. One of my sons had a holiday job working for Blackpool Pleasure Beach in my old constituency and I cannot see how the clause, by creating two new offences, would allow that.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
Under clause 51 children can be employed in premises with gaming machines as long as they do not interfere with the machines, which is the point that I am explaining. That should clarify the provisions in clauses 50 and 51.
Although low prize category D machines offer gambling to children and adults, employment connected to gaming machines is an adult responsibility, not one for children. Children should be able to man a change desk, for example, in an arcade or family entertainment centre, but if there is a need to interfere with a machine, the under-18 employee should call an adult supervisor.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
What the Minister is saying is helpful. Reading clause 51(1), I believe that the connecting word ''and'' is so important. There is an offence if the child is employed where there are category A, B, C or D machines and he is required
''in the course of his employment to perform a function in connection with the gaming machine''.
Will the Minister be a little clearer about what performing a function in connection with the machine actually means? Does it mean that the child is not allowed to clean it or take it apart to mend it? Does he have to stay completely clear of it?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I reiterate what I said earlier: I do not think it right that a child should be involved in the supply, maintenance or operation of any kind of gaming machine. I am sure that that is the situation in
all well run arcades now, and the Bill allows that to continue. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 148.
Amendment No. 8 misunderstands what the Government are seeking to achieve with the reserve powers in clause 56. That clause exists to give the Government the power to act if there is compelling evidence of harm from children's use of category D machines. Some academics, such as Professor Mark Griffiths of Nottingham Trent university, believe that children are harmed by using these low prize machines. We do not think that there is good enough evidence to suggest that we should stop children using them, but we remain cautious, and that is why we have clause 56.
If there is evidence of harm, we can introduce an age limit. We do not plan to use the power now or in the foreseeable future, but we think it right to keep it in reserve for the protection of our children. If the power were used, the amendment would not make sense. Our judgment will be based on evidence of harm from using the machines, not on the intentions of persons making the machines available—of course machine providers do not try to deprave or corrupt children.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
I am sorry that the Minister does not recognise the damage that will be done to gaming centres if the Government insist on keeping the clause in the Bill. Will he promise to offer compensation if irrefutable evidence arises and the Government ban arcades from allowing children to use category D machines?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
The answer is no, at this stage. If the case is proven, the conditions of how it is proven and how the change is implemented would be open for discussion. I would be foolish to make a statement on that at this stage.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
As the provision is provisional, would it not be more appropriate to have fresh legislation in light of compelling evidence in future? We could then assess the situation and treat fairly those businesses who had operated in good faith, investing only to find that the Government were pulling the rug from under their feet.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
That is one part of the argument, but there is another part. As I said, some academics and others have concerns. We are the only country in the world that allows its young people to play gaming machines. To date, the evidence, although it is thin and anecdotal in places, shows that it does not harm our young people in the long term. However, some believe that it does, so we believe in acting prudently and being able to use those powers. Let me make it absolutely clear, however, that to trigger the use of the powers, we would need evidence of harm from prevalence studies and other research. We would also take advice from the gambling commission before any change was made, so there would be a wide-ranging debate.
The views of those with genuine concerns are not being taken on board, and we want to make sure that there is further research into the subject. The hon. Member for Bath acknowledges that the research available to date is pretty sketchy. We have come out firmly on the side of the arcade. We believe that the evidence is not there, but it is prudent to put the power to act in the Bill in case the issue comes up.
Amendment No. 9 is about the role of parents. The Government cannot accept it, and I shall give an example of why we believe that it is wrong. For the sake of argument, let us say that an age limit of 12 was in place for the use of category D machines. Before the hon. Member for Bath runs off to Coin Slot International magazine, let me emphasise that this is merely an example, an hypothesis for the sake of argument. If a nine-year-old then played a machine in an arcade with a parent or responsible adult at their side, and the adult did not stop the child from playing the machine, despite seeing the information in the arcade about the age limit, it should be the parent who commits the offence. I do not see how we can let parents off their responsibility in the way that the amendment would.
If I take my teenage son into a betting office, I am straight away committing an offence. Why should the same rule not apply to gaming machines? Of course, there are defences in the Bill for those who might not be expected to know that a child was of a certain age. Clause 60 provides a defence of reasonable belief about a person's age, but that defence is obviously for the operator, not parents. We want parents to play their role in protecting children from harmful gambling, particularly in relation to children's use of the internet, but also in relation to gaming machines. There are responsibilities on parents under the Bill, and we think that that is right. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) not to press his amendment.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath for tabling new clause 10 because it allows me the opportunity to explain why the Government think it right for children to continue to be allowed to play on all category D machines. We considered carefully the many representations received from groups of people concerned about children using gaming machines at all. We are unique in the world in allowing young people to play gaming machines of the type of category D. For many years, children have been using low-price gaming machines, which, under the present law, are described as amusement with prizes.
I acknowledge, of course, that children using slot machines at all is unusual in comparison with most other regimes, but to date we have not received a sufficiently compelling body of evidence suggesting that the use of those machines by under-18-year-olds causes significant persistent harm or has any effect on the overall level of problem gambling. The Joint Committee considered the matter very carefully, and it reached exactly the same conclusion. However, we remain vigilant, and we are reflecting that in the Bill. We have looked at the industry and we trust it to
sponsor more research. We will look carefully at the results of the prevalence studies that we intend to sponsor every three years. We need to be careful, but the new clause is an overreaction, and I ask the hon. Member for Bath not to press it.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
The Minister said that the Government intend to continue with prevalence studies. I have already referred to the document, produced by the Government earlier this month, that summarises all the research evidence. The Minister will be well aware that it makes a series of recommendations about studies that are needed in addition to the existing prevalence study arrangements. Do the Government intend to adopt the variety of recommendations in the document?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
Yes, and the role of the gambling commission will be important in that respect, as will the ongoing regulation and government of the industry. There has been an element of scaremongering in the debate this afternoon. However—I underline this, particularly for my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood—we are saying clearly that we believe 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.
It is important that we respond to those who have concerns by conducting objective, transparent studies that will contribute to public debate. We are putting in place a regulator—the gambling commission. There will be ongoing regulation of the industry; there will be no sharp shocks in the system. Decisions will be taken after consultation; they will evolve.
I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. I will not deal with clause 56 until we come to it.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
Order. There will not be any further debate on clause 56 stand part.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
No one is disagreeing with some of the fundamentals of the Minister's case. We accept that the Government have to be vigilant, and we have no problem with tri-annual reviews and research; that is in everyone's interests.
However, how can the Secretary of State justify clause 56 on the basis of regulatory completeness? That clause focuses on category D and age limits. There are just under 1,000 family entertainment centres, and 70 per cent. of the machines in them are category D machines. If at some future date a Secretary of State were to alter the age limits of people who could play those machines, that would at a stroke attack the heart of those businesses. I heard what the Minister said; he is very keen that they should be retained in our seaside resorts, such as Blackpool. We all want that. However, he is missing the point. Because the clause deals explicitly with age limits for category D machines, there can be no ambiguity; this is a direct attack on the raison d'etre of a huge number of businesses.
We could go along with the Government. If the case were made that we need an enabling clause to revisit much of this subject at a future date, we would happily agree. There would need to be a review of such matters as the impact of category A machines in casinos and the impact of the fixed-odds betting terminals. Taking a holistic view, we have no argument against periodic reviews and careful research into such areas.
There might be less impact on the businesses we are talking about if there were a clause that covered all the machines—all category A, B, C and D machines—and all the institutions, and which enabled the Secretary of State to revisit the matter in the future. It would also be helpful if a clause set out the compelling evidence and the true independence of the research to be done so that there was no question about the Government's intention.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
I agree with my hon. Friend's point about applying all that to all the provisions of the Bill. However, we know how this place works. Is it not likely that, with the Government encouraging problem gambling with its wider casino provisions, they will find a scapegoat by attacking those businesses that allow gambling among young people, saying, ''Well, we are dealing with problem gambling among adults by stopping them doing it as children?'' That is where this Bill is heading, and it will get there in the not-too-distant future.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
My hon. Friend makes a telling point. She made it in her opening speech, too. The problem is that people can interpret the clause in exactly that way.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
The reason for the clause is that category D machines are the only machines to which no age limit applies. All the other categories are covered by an age limit. I am not saying that there is a valid argument for an age limit, but there might be one in future because of people's concerns, so we want to take reserve powers to introduce an age limit. Category D is the only category that does not have an age limit. Those powers do not apply to all machines, because the other categories of machine already have an age limit of 18. Category D machines do not have an age limit and therefore there is a concern. We can examine the evidence.
I want to ensure that the following is on the record. The trigger for using the power in clause 56 is better evidence of harm, available prevalence studies and other research, and advice from the gambling commission. There will be a lot of opportunity for people to put forward their evidence. This afternoon, we have heard a great defence of the archaic owners and not a balanced argument about harm to children. We are trying to put forward a balanced argument that involves transparency, consultation and the evidence base. That is why we have put these measures in the Bill. I am sure that nobody in the Committee would deny that where there is evidence to show that harm is being done, Governments should act.
Bob Russell (LD) rose-
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
That was a fairly long intervention from him.
We have not said that we are not concerned about harm to children; we have said that there is no evidence about that. The Minister quoted only one individual as producing evidence that there was any harm. Let us get this straight: we are not against measures to prevent harm to children, whether category D machines or any other machines are involved.
Mr Bob Russell (Shadow Minister (Culture, Media & Sport), Culture, Media & Sport; Colchester, Liberal Democrat)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rare that young children are seen in taxi booking offices late at night and that an age restriction on the use of machines in fish and chip shops would answer the concerns that the Minister has just expressed?
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The key is supervision. I am not going down that road because I can see that there is an argument in terms of protecting children from harm; in places where there is some supervision we at least have some control over what is going on. That is not a problem. I was trying to suggest to the Minister that we are not arguing against the Government's motives, but we are saying clearly that the clause, because it is specific to age limits and category D machines, strikes at the heart of 960 business in this country, which employ 8,500 people. If the age limit on category Ds is changed, they are wiped out at a stroke, and there should not be that focus in a clause. Anyone buying or selling a business might see that, and it would raise massive uncertainty. For a considerable time, nobody will buy one of those businesses while the clause is still in place.
The Minister and the Government have, at a stroke, devalued the balance sheets of 960 businesses. That is the point that we are trying to get across. There is no problem about having reviews or about research. However, the matter should be couched in a different way—one that does not focus everyone's attention on something simmering under the surface in terms of harm and category D machines. The evidence is not there. By all means reserve the power, but do not focus it in the way that is currently being done.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman is right to chide the Minister for seeking to suggest that Opposition Committee members are not interested in protection—of course, all Opposition Committee members are, just as Government Committee members are.
The Minister is keen on evidence. Can the hon. Gentleman help me and tell me where there are comparable powers for the Secretary of State to intervene and prevent any further category A machines or to remove category A machines from regional casinos where the evidence demonstrates that they are causing harm? Surely, there ought to be a comparable power.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
That is the point that I was making. We ought to take a holistic view, and there should be a clause that says that the Government will revisit the issues about all of these machines and their operation in all circumstances.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
Is it not a simple fact that the Government will not re-examine the number of category A machines in the big regional casinos because they are the Government's great white hope for all this investment? They have been bedazzled by the idea of all these new casinos. What they seek would not be forthcoming because they would create among the regional casinos the same uncertainty that they are creating for the smaller arcade by this provision.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
That is a valid point. However, uncertainty has certainly been created in those markets that deal with regional casinos. People thought that they would have two, three, four, 10—somebody told me yesterday that they were in the market for 12 casinos. However, now there will be only eight in total. A massive amount of uncertainty has been created. So be it; the Government have decided to go down that road. We were arguing for a trial—a pilot scheme—to test out the impact of category A machines.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
For the sake of completeness and to allow the debate to go ahead with the facts, I should say that the power to change category, in terms of restrictions on machines, comes under clauses 163 and 220.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
In that case, why do we need clause 56 as well? I rest my case. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
Order. I want to give a little guidance to the Committee. I recognise that an important issue of principle has been debated, but I have to focus Committee members' minds on the fact that we need to reach clause 218 by 5.30 pm on Thursday this week. The Chair does not have the power to determine on relative merits or importance what issues should be before the Committee. That is for the Committee and Members taking part in the debate. However, I have to have mind to the stage of the proceedings agreed to in the programme order.
As I do not know what time the Committee is to finish this evening, I should say that if we go beyond 5.30 pm I shall take a comfort break at some stage. I give that guidance in the hope that we will not need to take such a break. However, the power of deciding when we have a break is in my hands if I do not know when we are going to finish. I hope that that is helpful to the Committee, and focuses minds.