Proceeding contribution from Baroness Golding (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 21 April 2009. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Categories of Gaming Machine (Amendment) Regulations 2009.
Categories of Gaming Machine (Amendment) Regulations 2009
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Betting and Gaming Group, which has spent a lot of time looking at betting and gaming. The Minister asked us to look at the impact of the Gambling Act on gaming machines, and we did so. Perhaps I should also declare an interest and say that I like gambling. I gamble within my means; I enjoy it and I talk to lots of people who like it and who are not problem gamblers. It is time that we spoke up for people who cause us no trouble whatever as well as for people who cause us trouble. In response to our request for evidence, the group received almost 150 submissions, the overwhelming majority of which said that many problems were created by the 2005 Act which only the Government could put right. Many people reminded us that hard cases make bad law and suggested that we should try to legislate so that we cover only problem gamblers, rather than preventing people enjoying something that they enjoy. They can afford to enjoy it, and they have worked hard to be able to spend the money that they earn in the way that they wish. Although a number of respondents blamed the category B2/B3 machines—so-called FOBTs—for enticing away their trade, we were not provided with any evidence of this. Neither, despite repeated suggestions that category B2/B3 machines are an increased source of problem gambling, were we provided with any hard evidence to support these suggestions. Until we see evidence to the contrary, any changes to the present regulations governing category B2/B3 machines are unwarranted. I am certain that the Gambling Commission will be keeping a close eye on this and that the moment that it sees something going wrong with such machines it will immediately jump up with some proposals. We do, however, agree that bookmakers have a significant advantage over the operators of, for example, seaside arcades, who depend on machines for their livelihood. Much more needs to be done as a matter of urgency to help these operators who do not operate betting shops, or many will not survive much longer. The latest figures given by the Minister prove that arcades, especially in seaside areas, are going out of business. More than one respondent drew our attention to the perceived high cost of the Gambling Commission’s offices in Birmingham and the increased staff. They felt that, despite all the money spent, there was a poor level of service. We do not agree with that, but it was their point of view. This was causing them extreme difficulties, and resentment was building up in the industry. We received lots of evidence of job losses in the gaming machine industry. The blame for this was being laid at the door of the Government, for not understanding the gaming industry in the way that they should have before the legislation went through. However, we welcome this small step, which we hope will help the gaming industry. We think that it has come a little too late, but nevertheless it has come.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 709 c1438-9
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Betting Coastal areas Bingo Casinos Gambling Gaming machines Prize money Location
- Legislation
- Categories of Gaming Machine (Amendment) Regulations 2009
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:43:44 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548133
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548133
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548133