Lord Clement-Jones
Main Page: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill
Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, such was the clamour to sign this amendment that I was unable to put my name on it, but if I had been able to I would have done. As was intended by my noble friend Lord Falkland, an interesting debate has been raised today, and I hope the second intention—to produce a positive response from the Minister—will also be achieved as part of that.
I was extremely interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, had to say. I do not think I have heard him speak quite as passionately on any subject since he defended his minority report on the long-term care of the elderly. He was no less cogent today than he was on that subject. However, I disagree with him on this matter as much as I disagreed with him about that report. He seems to believe that those involved in horseracing should do it for love not money, which seems an extraordinary position for an economist, because I cannot see, if there were no levy, where the industry would have the leverage to ensure that bookmakers made a contribution towards the welfare of the industry.
The welfare of the industry is an important part of our national life, considering not only how many people attend horseracing, but also the 85,000 people who work in the industry. I am not a socialist myself, but if I were my first consideration might be about the number of people employed in an industry. There is no doubt that the rise in betting operators licensed offshore over the years has contributed to a fall in revenue from the levy of about half between 2003 and today—a drastic reduction in support for the industry. There is only one major operator in the British market—Bet365—which is fully licensed for remote sports book operations by the UK Gambling Commission, and is therefore obliged to pay levy.
During the debate we have heard that a five-year deal was agreed with Betfair last year. There is also a four-year arrangement with William Hill, Ladbrokes, Coral and Betfred to make an additional voluntary contribution to the industry’s funding as part of the recent levy agreement. However, these are all voluntary arrangements, and legislative action is still required to provide a level playing field for all operators in the betting market in respect of their payments to British racing. Successive Governments—including the Labour Government—and Ministers have said that their preferred policy outcome is that all betting operators taking bets in Britain pay levy wherever they are located.
All amendments in Grand Committee are probing amendments. I hope that the amendment will elicit from the Government their views about the future of the horserace betting levy. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to introduce a power. As was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Cavendish earlier, in discussions with the Minister that seemed to be an eminently sensible way forward: a power that would allow the Government to extend the levy to overseas bookmakers through a point-of-consumption licensing regime.
We have heard a considerable amount this afternoon about the ruling from the European Commission and the French power of fiscal levy; if I knew what a power of fiscal levy was, I would be far wiser than I am. Clearly, that set a precedent as far as the Commission was concerned. The noble Lord may be correct in saying that this is a permissible element of state aid rather than not constituting state aid; I am sure that he has a point there. Nevertheless, if we can get through the eye of a needle with the betting levy in this country on the precedent of the French power of fiscal levy, then surely we should be pursuing that.
What is the preliminary conclusion of the DCMS lawyers on that? Does the collection of levy from remote operators under a point-of-consumption licensing regime in their view constitute state aid or not? Is this a platform on which we can build a future levy? I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us more information.
The reserve power is surely a way forward of which we could take advantage. It would allow us, as a number of noble Lords have said, to have proper consultation with the European Commission and other affected parties on the measure, and would allow the full implications of the ruling on the French power of fiscal levy to be assessed. Measures could therefore be enacted afterwards once the Government were satisfied of their legal position. What is not to like about that solution? I look forward very much to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say.
Baroness Golding (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I share an office with my noble friend Lord Lipsey. We go to gambling meets together—horseracing and dog meetings—and share a great interest in it. I have never heard him say what he said today. I agree with every word that he said, and I wish to support him.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Facilities for remote gambling
(1) Section 235 of the Gambling Act 2005 (gaming machine) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (i) insert “, and
(j) a machine is not a gaming machine by reason only of the fact that it is remote gambling equipment (within the meaning of section 36) which is made available for use in a casino.”(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the maximum number of machines to which subsection (2)(j) applies that may be made available for use in a casino.””
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, under existing regulations, onshore casino operators can and do hold remote licences, which permit them to advertise their online products in their casinos. However, those licences do not allow operators to indicate that the product is available from any internet-linked computer within their casino or advertise their online site on or around a computer with internet access supplied by the operator. In other words, it is currently illegal for a casino to offer a customer access to its own legitimate online business if the customer is inside its bricks-and-mortar business.
Therefore, there is the anomalous situation that a customer is currently able to bring their own internet access device—iPad or smartphone—into a casino and play online, perhaps even on the casino’s own online site, but the operator is not able to offer that facility. It is totally illogical that the most rigorously controlled premises, intended by statute to be at the top of the regulatory pyramid, are not permitted the most up-to-date technological products.
The industry asserts that the opportunity to undertake research and player protection would be lost if the product were not to be available in terrestrial casinos, which are required by law to have the most rigorous control measures. It points out that all casino gaming staff are licensed by the Gambling Commission; that all staff, including all food and beverage and administration personnel, are trained annually in responsible gambling practices; and that effective policies are in place to protect the young and the vulnerable.
A UK terrestrial casino provides the only environment where online play could be monitored, observed and researched. During pre-legislative scrutiny, the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee made a cross-party recommendation to the Government to amend the Bill to allow British bricks-and-mortar casinos to offer their online gaming products within their own premises. The committee said, at paragraph 68:
“We see no reason why online gambling should be illegal in highly-regulated and inspected casinos. We recommend that a clause be added to the Bill to remove this anomaly”.
From the proceedings in the Commons and the responses of the Minister, Helen Grant, it appears that the Government have it in mind to allow this but only by means of secondary legislation. This route seeks to categorise an internet access device as a gaming machine, perhaps a category A machine, if it is offered for use in a casino. That would mean that someone playing in the bar on their own iPad was not playing a gaming machine but someone playing a device offered by the casino was.
If an internet access device is categorised as a gaming machine in these circumstances, it would become subject to machine technical standards regulations. These detailed regulations would overlay conditions as to how the device could be played in the casino that might be entirely different from those applied elsewhere. The outcome could be that a player accessing his or her online account from different devices with different IP addresses—one provided by the operator on the gaming floor in the casino, and their own device—might face different conditions of play. Customers would be able to use their own devices without restriction. This would be confusing for the consumer and unnecessarily bureaucratic, and does not meet either the industry’s aspirations or any measure of common sense.
The Minister in the Commons told both the CMS Committee and the House that she was confident that secondary legislation would give the industry what it wanted. But as can be seen, that is far from the case. By contrast, Amendment 2 clarifies that a remote gambling terminal provided in a casino is not a gaming machine, and provides for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations setting the maximum number of such terminals which may be made available in a casino. This would allow the UK onshore casino sector to provide its customers with the same online gambling experience as the online sector. The devices would not be one-armed bandits; there would be no means of putting money into them; and a player would simply log on to an existing account or create a new one. That is a simple and transparent solution. The products that the casinos seek to offer through this amendment are not slot machines; the look or feel of British casinos would not fundamentally change.
Before the proposed new clause came into effect, the Government could consult on the desired maximum number of devices and appropriate measures to protect the public. These could include ensuring that players were over 18 years of age and ensuring that players were not “vulnerable” within the meaning of Section 1 of the 2005 Act. Players would benefit from the industry’s commitment to player protection, outlined in the playing safe statement of principles. The area concerned would be supervised by trained and licensed casino staff and be subject to casino surveillance measures. Social responsibility information would be available in accordance with guidelines. The terminals would be under the supervision of trained and licensed staff and covered by casino surveillance. A whole series of conditions could be applied for the operation of these terminals. A full audit trail for all transactions would apply in accordance with AML requirements.
This amendment received considerable support from MPs across party during the passage of the Bill through the Commons. It is clear that these proposals can be realistically achieved only through primary legislation. Seeking to introduce them via secondary legislation would add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the Bill. The amendment would give a clear definition to the changes. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position during the passage of the Bill through this House and introduce or support an amendment in support of this principle. I beg to move.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment. I have not added my name to it, but it seems to me straightforward common sense. It is nonsense for it to be legal to play on one’s own personal device in the middle of a casino building but not to play on a device provided by that casino. I know that it is a somewhat shallow example, but you can imagine people coming in, one of whom has got their machine and the other who has not; the two want to play and one cannot. I just do not see the logic of that.
The amendment is before us largely because, when the Bill was passing through the Commons, there was the expectation that government was going to sort out the issue—indeed, that was what the Minister there implied—and to do it via secondary legislation rather than by primary legislation. However, it seems to me that the primary route is much simpler. The problem really arises because the Government still categorise internet terminals as gaming machines. The amendment clarifies that a remote gambling terminal provided in a casino is not a gaming machine, and provides for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations setting the maximum number of such terminals which may be made available. The industry has added a whole list of what I will call morally correct undertakings in relation to this.
This is a silly anomaly which it is time to sort out. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us either that the Government are willing to sort it out this way or that they have some better route.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for his amendment. The argument has been made that if remote gambling can be played on portable devices in bedrooms and on trains, why can it not in the well regulated environment of casinos? Such devices can already be played in casinos and can indeed be, and already are, offered by casinos to customers, but within the limits of machine stakes and prize regulations. The debate is therefore about the ability of casinos to promote and encourage the use of their own devices outside of those controls.
Where casinos are promoting and encouraging gambling services to be undertaken on their own premises, the Government remain of the opinion that it is right to consider potential flexibility within the structure of existing machine stakes and prize regulations. The amendment would remove those controls, leaving those devices outside the existing stake and prize framework. That would be a potentially considerable relaxation of machine gaming policy if it were not addressed most carefully.
Parliament only last month approved an increase to the existing stake and prize limits for casino gaming machines. Parliament has approved regulations which will more than double the maximum stake for category B1 gaming machines, which are only available in casinos, from £2 to £5, and the maximum prize from £4,000 to £10,000 on a single machine. Casinos will also be able to offer a linked progressive jackpot of up to £20,000. These changes were predicated on commitments the casino industry has made in relation to player protections. The Government would like to assess the effectiveness of these player protection measures, and consider the issues of gaming machines and remote gambling provisions in casinos more generally, before considering any further changes. I can confirm that any legislative changes could be via secondary legislation.
In addition, if the principle is accepted through the amendment that remote devices should be outside of gaming machine regulations when offered in a licensed premises, it could—and, we predict, would—be argued by each and every sector, including betting shops, bingo halls and arcades, that they should offer similar unlimited stake and prize facilities in their own locations.
The second part of the amendment provides controls on the number of such devices, but there are no proposed controls on how they might develop. There is nothing to prevent casinos developing devices that are defined in law as remote, but could begin to look and feel like more regular gaming machines.
That said, the department is currently undergoing a programme of engagement with the casino industry and considering the sector’s flexibility and modernisation proposals. Such discussions will include an examination of the remote gambling flexibility measures that the industry is requesting. The department is part-way through these discussions, having held three meetings already, and intends to conclude these initial discussions by the end of March. The Government are therefore not rejecting the industry’s remote gambling proposals, but we want to complete these initial discussions with the industry. The issue of gaming machines and remote gambling provision in casinos should be reviewed, but must be progressed in a considered and balanced way, and it is for those reasons—that work is already in hand—that I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response, and the noble Lord, Lord Flight, for his valuable support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comments, although I think he has a slightly romantic view of casinos—perhaps we should go off together and I will introduce him to a casino or two.
The Minister took away with one hand and started giving back with the other, which I found interesting; his response seemed more negative at the beginning than at the end. The discussions which I hope are taking place are demonstrating that it is not sensible simply to address these issues within the framework of the current machines, stakes and prices structure. Therefore I take some comfort from what he said about the current discussions. The big issue is that they will not conclude until the end of March, and I suspect that this Bill will be well gone from this House by the end of March. Therefore, I urge the Minister to take reserve powers in this Bill to do what he expects to agree to, probably by the end of March—that would be a very satisfactory conclusion—otherwise I will be extremely worried that the opportunity for primary legislation will not return to this House for some years. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the case that has been made is very powerful. We need consumer measures to make a reality of some of the aspirations in this Bill, and it is wrong for government to will the ends of policy without also willing the means.
If the Government’s intention is to rely on a prosecutorial approach to this, they are bound to be frustrated. We are talking about a black market emerging which will be located offshore—very much offshore in some cases—in territories that will not recognise British prosecutorial intentions and in which the possibility of bringing people to justice will be very remote indeed. What will provide the stick to ensure that these measures are effective and to root out those who would operate in a way that is counterproductive to UK interests?
The two suggestions in our amendments, which shadow closely those put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, reflect the two possibilities that are realistic. They are to try to find a financial way of squeezing out those who are operating out there—if they cannot make money out of it, they certainly will not continue; it is also possible to think in terms of IP.
There is a sense in which the fact that these powers exist will probably be more effective than the use of them. I say this in full understanding of the wider context—that shutting down people’s access to operating in an open economy is generally a bad thing—but there will be cases where it is necessary to do that, and we would support that if it were required.
These proposals have wide agreement. There is obviously going to be a considerable issue here, which needs to be addressed by the Government. It is up to the Government, via the Minister, to respond to the powerful case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, a strong case has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. It is rather nice to see the rebirth of Section 17 of the Digital Economy Act, which I had the honour of being instrumental in inserting into that Act during its passage through this House. As a result, I was nominated as the “internet villain of the year”.
As it happens, I need to correct the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey: it is not that particular section that is used in order to block ISPs where copyright infringement is being demonstrated; it is actually Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which has proved extremely effective. In a way, it demonstrates that you do not need such a complicated clause. That is neither here nor there, but it does show that site-blocking is perfectly effective. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, demonstrated, the BPI has been very successful in defending copyright owners in that respect, contrary to the views of Ofcom, which were expressed in 2010 and are the reason why Section 17 of the Digital Economy Act has not been brought into effect.
When I read the evidence of the Gambling Commission to the DCMS Select Committee, I really do not know what kind of universe it is living in. Its conclusions seem rather extraordinary. It is worth reading out the paragraph that deals with its rationale for why it did not recommend to the Government the introduction of site-blocking or financial measures of the kind the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, deal with. It says:
“We have also followed carefully the experience of gambling regulators in other parts of the world with site and payment blocking, which suggests in the gambling market such measures have achieved only limited disruption and deterrent effects”.
Actually, a lot of jurisdictions have adopted those, as we have heard today. The commission goes on to say:
“However this may be because they were tried primarily in markets where the legal offering was severely constrained and the tax rates high”.
I am not sure about that. It continues:
“In the case of UK gambling there is no equivalent to the copyright owners to seek injunctions nor any statutory power for the Commission at the moment to seek such injunctions. We came to the conclusion that, given all the other measures at our disposal and the very open and attractive legal opportunities for those licensed by the Commission, seeking additional powers in the Bill to enable the Commission to seek injunctions blocking illegal operators’ sites or use of payment processors would not be proportionate to the likely risks and would, if obtained, risk consuming disproportionate Commission resources to achieve limited disruption and deterrent effect”.
That argument seems to me to be saying, “The carrots are absolutely fantastic and that will mean that there will not be too much of an illegal market”. There are going to be illegal markets; there are going to be unlicensed operators; and the commission is more or less saying that the only stick of some kind at its disposal, and we have heard about the flaws in that, are on the advertising front.
The commission did say, however, that,
“we did not rule out the option of seeking such powers at a later date if our assessment of the small size of the illegal market proved wrong and of course there are continuing discussions on the wider government front and in the European Commission in relation to combating misuse of the internet and illegal remote gambling provision”.
It is very odd for a regulator of this kind not to be looking at the precautionary aspects of all this. At the very least, taking reserve powers for site blocking in these circumstances would make great sense. I hope that, even if the Government cannot bring themselves to say that they will introduce and implement this kind of measure, they will at least take a reasonably pessimistic view that a number of unlicensed operators will still be knocking around who need a considerable amount of stick to make them comply with the new regime after the passing of this Act.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising through her amendments the subject of enforcement and for initiating this interesting debate. Enforcement is central to the achievement of the consumer protection purposes of the Bill.
The Bill will mean that overseas operators which are required, but fail, to obtain a required Gambling Commission licence will be committing an offence. The full set of regulatory powers available to the Gambling Commission under the 2005 Act will be at its disposal to take appropriate action against illegal overseas operators. The commission also has powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The amendments assume that the existing powers will be insufficient to enforce the Bill. This is not a view shared by the Government: we and the Gambling Commission are confident that the Bill can credibly be enforced. We are therefore not convinced that there is evidence of a problem which requires a legislative solution.
Amendment 5 would make an offence of accepting payments to or from unlicensed operators. If adopted, the amendment would have far-reaching and uncertain implications for banks and across the financial sector. Therefore, very careful consideration and consultation should occur.
Amendments 6, 7, 13 and 15 relate to financial transaction and ISP blocking. The evidence of the effectiveness and proportionality in respect of both ISP blocking and financial transaction blocking is mixed—I of course take the point made on this by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. A European Commission report in 2012 stated:
“The implementation of payment blocking systems entails substantial costs for the payment service provider and other financial institutions”.
The Norwegian Gaming Authority’s evaluation report found that,
“the prohibition against processing payments to foreign gaming companies was less effective than intended”.
On ISP blocking, a comprehensive 2010 Ofcom report found that:
“All techniques can be circumvented to some degree”.
I raise these comments to mark the card that there are a number of issues that we need to consider and resolve. Further, however, there are wider factors which would need proper consideration and assessment, such as the impact on financial institutions and internet service providers.
I assure your Lordships that we are not, and will not be, complacent about the issue of enforcement. We will keep this under continuing review. The Gambling Commission is working with a range of organisations that have a shared interest in not knowingly facilitating illegal activity.
Amendment 14 would require a consultation on the existing use of IP and financial transaction blocking. Should Ministers consider a consultation necessary, they already have the powers to undertake that. The Gambling Commission continues to build links and share information with regulatory bodies across the world. The Gambling Commission and the FCA are working together to tackle the issue of British financial transactions with illegal operators.
The Government do not want to rule out the use of blocking tools in future; should they become appropriate, necessary and demonstrably effective, that may well be a route. Until such a time, we do not consider that it would be appropriate to seek those powers. I can assure your Lordships that we are keeping these important matters under review. However, the Government remain rightly cautious when it comes to taking reserved powers. Should we consider such powers to be appropriate, necessary and demonstrably effective, it is right, as I said, that Parliament has time to scrutinise those fully as part of the primary legislation process. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Lipsey
As I was saying when I was rudely interrupted, I am quite pro-gambling and quite anti-FOBTs, but I would not ban them.
The third thing I wanted to say was that—and I have had good friends in and good relations with the bookmaking industry for many years—I am frankly disappointed with its reaction to the increasing social concern at the rise of FOBTs. I make no secret of the fact that I have had a number of meetings with bookmakers at which I have pressed on them the desirability of making a concession voluntarily—my preference would be to reduce the £100 limit on bets—as a sign that they are genuinely concerned about this. I know there has been a bit of flapping about with measures to deal with self-exclusion.
Overall, and it pains me to say this, I have been reminded rather of the tobacco industry in its dying days, except now we are all alert to the tactics that it used. I do not think that the bookmaking industry is helping itself, and I very much hope that even at this late stage it will come forward, more positively recognising the scale of the problem that it faces, recognising the political consensus that now stretches from David Cameron to Ed Miliband that something has to be done about it, and working positively in a way that enables a solution to be found without more conflict.
The amendment is designed—I hope—to be probing. It is a long way from clear yet that a local authority-based scheme for licensing is the only way of tackling this problem. I have a considerable concern about what happens when you have one local authority that allows, let us say, eight FOBTs per betting shop while the authority next door allows none. That will lead to a huge proliferation, beyond anything that we have seen so far, in the “Come here and fill our slots” borough and none at all in the one run by the Liberal Democrats.
This needs further looking at. Local authorities’ planning powers, which are not covered by this amendment, also need looking at in order to find a robust policy. A measure of localism has a great deal to be said for it. It is also necessary that any scheme that we eventually come up with also embodies a strong measure of statutory guidance that sets the basis of the argument.
Most of all, I hope to see the consensus that exists now in the political class and among politicians spread more widely to the bookmakers, to the betting industry and among the public. I hope to see even more concentration on methods to exclude those who abuse this form of gambling. I also hope to see a frank recognition of the reality and not just a single-minded focus on short-run profits, because if the bookmakers focus entirely on short-run profits they will find in the long run that they make much less money.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I am glad we are having this short debate today. It is quite interesting that this has become a topic of current debate. I followed closely the debate that took place last week in the Commons on the subject.
I notice, and indeed I regret, that the noble Baroness herself does not express any regret for the legislation that was passed in 2005. After all, it was the Labour Government who introduced these FOBTs, and now we have had the proliferation of what appear to be highly damaging and addictive gambling machines in our high streets. Prefacing remarks along those lines would have been quite useful, because they were clearly introduced by that legislation.
However, I share her concerns about these machines. Indeed, it is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to say what he said, but we have been warning of the dangers of these machines ever since the passing of the 2005 Act because we thought that it would lead to the proliferation of these high-stakes machines. I will come on to the level of stakes in a minute because that is one of the key issues surrounding them.
Even though there is, in a sense, a cross-party view about the impact and danger of FOBTs, there is a level of disagreement because some of us feel that the evidence is already there that they are addictive, and that something should be done in the very short term. I am not going to adumbrate all the research that is out there but it includes that from GamCare, the Salvation Army, the National Problem Gambling Clinic, the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, Professor Gerda Reith at the University of Glasgow and even the European Journal of Public Health—a series of different reports can be prayed in aid to show that these machines really are a source of problem gambling, and that the problem is rising over time.
Clearly, the evidence is disputed by the Association of British Bookmakers; I am sure that we have all had its briefing, which heavily disputes some of the points that are being made about FOBTs. The association questions the validity of the evidence put forward by the British Gambling Prevalence Survey, for instance, and so on. The Government did not have much of a choice other than to say, “Right, let’s remit this to the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board and see what comes out of that”. I very much hope that that will be conclusive on the matter and lead to further action, although probably not through this Bill because I do not believe that any of this needs primary legislation. I do not believe that it is the planning system that is essentially at fault here. We heard during the Commons debate last week that Southwark Council is employing perfectly proper legal means to restrict the further spread of FOBTs and betting shops in its borough, and that sort of remedy is open to other councils to adopt.
I do not think that it is about that side of things; a lot of this problem boils down to stakes and prizes—something that can be remedied very straightforwardly by political will through secondary legislation, through regulations and through altering the stakes. At the moment you can put in £100, which is a huge amount of money for these machines in the high street. Some of the campaigns are saying that this should be reduced to £2—I think that that is somewhat drastic—but I certainly hope that when the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board reports it will make a recommendation about the appropriate level of stake that should be the limit for these machines. That will go a long way towards making sure that they are no longer as addictive as they currently are, and will also mean that bookmakers have to think very carefully about the profitability of their premises and we do not have the kind of proliferation that we appear to be having as a result of the ability to install these FOBTs. I appreciate the subject having been raised and I share the noble Baroness’s concerns but, ultimately, I hope that quite soon we can adopt a remedy by secondary legislation that could be relatively straightforward.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, which gives us a timely opportunity to set out what the Government are doing. The Government acknowledge the harm that gaming machines cause for some people and have set out clearly what we are doing to address this. As part of our review of gaming machines last year, the Government looked very closely at the available evidence about category B2 gaming machines—FOBTs. The review found that there are real concerns about these machines and that some players have experienced considerable harm from using them. However, it is currently not clear that a reduction in stake or prize would be effective in reducing gambling-related harm.
The Government therefore concluded that the future of these machines was unresolved. We are undertaking urgent work to establish how these machines can be made safer, especially to those individuals who may be at the greatest risk of harm. Enhanced player protection measures will be introduced from 1 March, and research is under way by the Responsible Gambling Trust to identify where there is robust evidence that consumers may be experiencing harm. The Prime Minister confirmed last week that the Government will report on this issue in the spring. The Government will take whatever action is necessary to make these machines safer, and have very clearly set out our evidence-based approach to determining their future.
Amendment 8 raises a number of important points about the controls on gaming machines. I assure the Committee that the existing legislation already provides licensing controls on the provision of gaming machines as well as technical requirements about their operation. The amendment calls for new powers under which the Secretary of State may make regulations about the speed of play on a gaming machine, the messages that must be displayed and breaks in play.
Technical matters in relation to gaming machine operations are rightly a matter for the Gambling Commission and are controlled by the commission’s technical standards. These standards specify the minimum speed of play, which is twenty seconds for a FOBT, and also make clear what information must be displayed on the machine itself, or on screen, to enable players to keep track of their gambling.