Clause 248 - Preventing repetitive play
Gambling Bill
11:00 am
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The clause refers to the repetitive playing of lotteries and the effect that conditions attached to lottery operating licences may have on it. The Government were, of course, sensible to withdraw their original plan to prohibit lotteries from taking place within 24 hours. The scrutiny Committee considered the issue and made recommendations, which the Government accepted. They took the relevant clause out of the draft Bill, so we do not have that problem, which would have caused difficulties for lotteries such as those held at half-time at football matches.
Members of the Lotteries Council are, however, still a little concerned about this clause, which gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations on repetitive play. Obviously, regulations could be introduced at a later date that would have a serious impact on lotteries, dramatically affecting their profitability and their raison d'être. We have been asked to put it to the Government that the Secretary of State is again being given a potentially very severe power, which could have important ramifications for operators. They want an assurance from the Government that full consultation will take place before any regulations are laid. They want to know whether there will be consultation with the gambling commission—I suspect that the Minister will confirm that—before the Secretary of State brings any secondary legislation before the House.
It is important for operators to be clear about such issues, because they do not know what will happen in the future. The clause could have a serious effect, and they want a steer from the Minister—an assurance that consultation will take place and that any measures that are taken will not be so draconian as to render their operations ineffective and unprofitable.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I share the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed on behalf of the Lotteries Council, but I would go a little further. I am not convinced of the necessity for such regulations. Why should a Government want the power to limit people's ability to enter a number of lotteries? Subsection (2) is one of the most extraordinary examples of the nanny state approach that the Government are adopting in so many aspects of our national life, such as smoking and drinking. It is bizarre that the Government are saying that the Secretary of State will bring in regulations at some point in the future to reduce temptation for a person to enter a number of lotteries in succession, and that the regulations can be introduced only if they reduce temptation and limit opportunity.
If one wants a paradigm of everything wrong with this Labour Government and every reason why the Conservatives oppose them, it is because the Government think it their job to limit opportunity. They also seem to think that on the matter of reducing temptation they should take over the position traditionally held in society by religion. It is absolutely wrong for them to do that.
The Minister will probably say that they are trying to stop problem gambling, but I do not accept that people entering lotteries is problem gambling. One of the great success stories of the previous Conservative Government was the introduction of the national lottery. This provision does not affect that, but the success of the national lottery depends on players playing repetitively week by week, as I do myself—I buy an eight-week collective ticket for the national lottery and renew it when the eight weeks are up. I have won the odd £10 here and £20 there and am probably making a loss, but the attraction for all players of the lottery is the hope of a big win one day. It will probably never happen to me, but I support the concept. It is bizarre that the Government are seeking to reduce temptation and limit opportunity.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
I would be more convinced by the hon. Gentleman's argument if I had not heard him argue earlier for limiting the number of casinos, which is a manoeuvre similar to this provision. I object to the way that the lottery has developed. With people using the same set of numbers every week, the more games are introduced using numbers, the more people will be sucked in, because the worst thing that could happen to the hon. Gentleman and me would be for our numbers to come up in a draw that we had not entered. That would deprive us of the chance to take off to that Caribbean island, which is what we would do—not together, I hasten to add—if we won money.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I would be happy if the hon. Gentleman wanted to fund a joint trip to a Caribbean island out of his lottery winnings. I have always enjoyed his company on a purely fraternal, cross-party basis, as he knows.
The hon. Gentleman is mistaken or may have misremembered. When we debated casinos, I was probably the person on these Benches whose opinion was closest to his view of a total free-for-all, free market opportunity. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, I was concerned to ensure that however many casinos we had, we should not lose the regenerative effect. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and I argued that we wanted to ensure that run-down resorts got regeneration. I think that the hon. Gentleman was alone in arguing for a complete free-for-all. I was in favour of changing Government policy to avoid run-down, seaside resorts, such as Blackpool, not getting casinos because of an area such as the north-west being swamped with casinos set up elsewhere. I was not arguing the point that he suggests, so I cannot be accused of inconsistency. However, I take his point and hope that I never forget to renew my eight-week ticket and suffer the dreadful embarrassment of seeing my numbers come up when I have not entered a draw.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I will try to help my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) never argued against a cap. He certainly had many arguments against the number eight, which were illuminating and hilarious, but my understanding of his position is that he does not care how many casinos there are, as long as West Ham gets one.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I am grateful, as always, to my hon. Friend for his help. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Ham will remind us, but I understood him to be the most free-market of all on the Labour Benches. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) saying how amazed he was, just before his retirement, to be overtaken on the right by the ultra free-market views of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
I was probably more libertarian than anyone on the Conservative Benches in this Committee, because I was not expecting there somehow to be an enormous proliferation of casinos. I wanted matters taken care of through the planning process, but we will return to this debate. I do not mind being accused of being a neo-fascist.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I must apologise, because I was tempted away from the subject, as has often been the experience of many hon. Members down the years, by the wit and humour of the hon. Gentleman. I have made my point. It is philosophical, but valid in light of the way in which the clause and, in particular, subsection (2) are drafted.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman has accused me of massacring the English language. May I gently remind him that ''forgetting'' is probably a better way of expressing himself than ''misremembering''? I also give him the reassurance that consultation will take place; there is no doubt about that.
May I put on record in this stand part debate the fact that the clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to reduce or limit the repetitive play of lotteries? That applies where people have the opportunity to enter a number of lotteries in succession. The Government consider there to be a need for this provision, as we have real concerns about fast-draw lotteries, whether carried out by those running society or charitable lotteries, or as part of the national lottery.
The Budd report looked at the issue of fast-draw lotteries and concluded that they should be strictly controlled. It saw a particular problem with the possibility of more frequent lotteries in social environments, such as pubs, bars or cafes, which are not of course premises to which people go primarily to gamble. The Government share that concern. We recognise that the sale of lottery tickets through fast-draw lotteries may well increase lottery revenues. However, such games offer the opportunity to play repeatedly and rapidly and to chase losses, particularly when the minimum age for lottery play will be 16, as an exception to the general age limit of 18. Therefore, in line with the prudent approach adopted for gaming machines, the Government are minded that regulations under this clause should introduce a limit of one lottery an hour for lotteries promoted in circumstances that appear to encourage or facilitate repetitive play.
The Committee may also find it helpful to know that the Government propose to introduce similar restrictions on lotteries promoted under the national lottery.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
No, there is a lack of time.
Under the clause, the Secretary of State may attach a condition to lottery operating licences, make the gambling commission attach a specified condition to a lottery operating licence and add additional specified conditions to the conditions applicable to exempt lotteries. The Secretary of State's powers must be directed at reducing the temptation or limiting the opportunity for a person to enter lotteries repetitively, and that is what we are minded to do.
By way of explanation, the speed at which those lotteries can run is, in a pub, every 30 seconds. That is a repetitive lottery, and we believe that it would lead to real problem gambling.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I now understand why the Minister would not give way earlier. Would it not be easier just to take the powers to ban fast-draw lotteries, rather than take the wide powers over all lotteries as drafted in subsections (1) and (2)?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
No, because we have tried to future-proof the provisions, and we are not quite sure how they will be adopted in the future. We therefore believe that the wording protects against problem gambling. I do not think that there should be any disagreement about that.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The Minister referred to an interval of one hour between successive plays. Is that in the Bill?
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.