My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the changes. I am also extremely grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has taken such an interest in these proposals and raised many of the questions that I might otherwise have asked.
First, I make clear that I welcome the decision to have a triennial review. It is obviously useful to keep stakes and prizes under review in a structured and timely manner, so that is a useful development.
Secondly, however, I share the concern of many who responded to the consultation, as well as the Scrutiny Committee, that the research evidence on the effects of those forms of gambling on poverty and addiction is so sparse. Given that we are dealing with important aspects of social policy, it is not good enough to argue that because something is unproven, we should carry on as before. Surely, the onus should be on the industry to prove that there is no causal link between the use of gambling machines and addiction before asking us to increase the stakes, and therefore their profits. Is the Minister happy that sufficient research is taking place? If not, what further steps do the Government have in mind to deliver substantive and compelling evidence on these issues? Thirdly, I believe that it is important to have a wider cost-benefit analysis on the impact of those changes than simply measuring the economic advantages of jobs in the sector.
In answer to a question by the Scrutiny Committee on the potential public sector impact on young and vulnerable people who are harmed by gambling, the Government replied that public protection will be secured if the industry delivers on its social responsibility and player protection commitments. However, it is not clear what mechanisms the Government have in place to secure those commitments from the sector. Surely, the evidence so far is of an industry reluctant to act against its own interests in maximising player participation and therefore potential profits. What levers do the Government intend to use to hold the industry to account on social responsibility and player protection?
Turning to the specific proposals in the regulations, I first ask the Minister about the increased stakes proposed for category D coin-pusher or penny-fall machines. I accept that the increase is small and that the impact may be minimal, but what justification is there for encouraging children and young people to gamble at an early age, given the acknowledged link between early gambling and problem gambling later? In reply to the Scrutiny Committee, the Government say that coin-pushers are generally played for amusement and are provided in a family environment. Although that may be true, is it not also true that those machines
are usually sited next to other gambling machines that children might then also be tempted to play? A renewed attraction to those relatively small-scale machines cannot be seen in isolation if it is encouraging a more general gambling habit. Why is it necessary to take an added risk when there is a known connection between early gambling and problem gambling?
Finally, I would like to discuss the major concerns over B2 fixed-odds betting terminals. The Minister will know that there is increasing evidence of the harm that those machines are having on individuals and local communities through the proliferation of high-street betting shops, which are increasingly reliant on the profit from those machines. These machines are the source of some of the worst examples of gambling addiction. It is possible to lose up to £100 every 20 seconds, which is £18,000 an hour. The speed of play is faster than a roulette table, and it can happen without any staff contact or intervention. Meanwhile bookmakers containing these machines are being clustered in some of the poorest high streets in Britain, and local authorities have limited control over their expansion as in planning law they are classified in the same class as banks and building societies.
1.30 pm
Is the Minister aware that last month the Prime Minister pledged to investigate whether these high-stakes machines should be banned from betting shops? Does he accept that a triennial review is exactly the right time to review this policy, or will we have to wait another three years for action to be taken? Is it the case that the triennial review can put stakes and prizes down as well as up and therefore this should be the opportunity to get a grip on this addictive gambling by reducing the sums of money involved, or even banning them? Why are we not using this regulation to make changes to B2 use? Does he accept that as well as reducing the stakes and prizes, gaming machines could be required to include a pop-up warning of the length of time played and the amount spent as well as to lengthen the time between plays to allow players time to reflect on the amounts they are staking? Does the Minister accept the argument that continuous play could be broken up by requiring players to load money on to the machines via interactions with staff, which would allow staff members to monitor and potentially counsel against any perceived addictive behaviour? Is he prepared to consult his colleagues in DCLG to see whether planning law could be changed to place betting shops in their own class of use, thereby giving local communities more control over their proliferation?
These are really important issues, and it feels that this review is a missed opportunity to get a grip on machines that are highly addictive and lead to an increase in crime and poverty. I do not feel that it is sufficient to sit back and wait for the industry to act, and I hope the Minister is able to persuade me this afternoon that the Government are on the case and prepared to change the rules, if not in these regulations, then before the next review.