|
Clause 83
Membership
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 329, in clause 83, page 36, line 20, at beginning insert ''Subject to section 85(4),''.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 301, in clause 85, page 37, line 30, at end add—
'(4) A casino operating licence shall be subject to a condition that a person may not participate in any casino game or other game of chance or gaming machine made available at any casino operated by the licence holder unless that person is a member of that casino.
(5) A person may only be admitted to membership of a casino by a licence holder if he—
(a) has applied in writing to join the casino; and
(b) has provided satisfactory evidence of his identity and age.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), satisfactory evidence of identity is evidence which is reasonably capable of establishing (and does establish to the satisfaction of the licence holder) that the applicant is the person he claims to be and is aged 18 or over.'.
Amendment No. 137, in clause 161, page 72, line 12, at beginning insert 'Subject to section 165(6),'.
Column Number: 292
Amendment No. 138, in clause 165, page 74, line 37, at end insert—
'(6) A casino premises licence shall be subject to a condition that a person may not participate in any casino game or other game of chance made available at the casino unless that person is a member of that casino.
(7) A person may only be admitted to membership of a casino by a licence holder if he—
(a) has applied in writing to join the casino, and
(b) has provided satisfactory evidence of his identity and age.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) satisfactory evidence of identity is evidence which is reasonably capable of establishing (and does establish to the satisfaction of the licence holder) that the applicant is the person he claims to be and is aged 18 or over.'.
New clause 12—Proof of identity—
'Proof of identity will be required before any person can gain access to areas where casino games or Category A gaming machines are played by—
(a) a photographic ID in the form of a passport or driving licence;
(b) a form of ID showing proof of home address;
(c) any other requirement as set out by the Commission.'.
Mr. Moss: The amendments deal with membership—perhaps identity is a better term—for people who will be using casino facilities in the future. The present law states that anyone entering a casino to participate must be a member. We also have the 24-hour rule that people cannot join and immediately start playing the tables.
It is considered that membership or identity needs to be retained in future for all casinos, especially the new regional casinos. We know from discussions with those who wish to invest in the new regional casinos that, without branding them, American investors, in particular, are wholly against any form of membership. They argue that they need so many people to come through the doors of the regional casinos—20,000 over a weekend is the target. They said that they could not possibly cope with dealing with membership applications for such a large number.
Regulation 8(1) of the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 from the second EU directive on money laundering states:
''A person who operates a casino by way of a business in the United Kingdom must obtain satisfactory evidence of identity of any person before allowing that person to use the casino's gaming facilities.''
At other times, è1,000 has been mentioned in respect of money laundering, which is about £700, and it has been said that the matter of identity would kick in when someone had gambled or perhaps won that sum—I am not sure which way round it is. In any event, a threshold figure was mentioned. If my sources are correct, the regulation that I quoted means that all people playing in a casino must supply ID.
It is important that anyone utilising a casino in future should provide ID. It will help the operators to know their clients. The existing operators to whom we have been talking and those who intend to come into the industry if they are lucky enough to win one of the franchises insist that the last thing they want are problem gamblers coming through their doors. It is important therefore that they know the individuals
Column Number: 293
who play their machines, rather than the gaming tables, so they can do something about those who are causing problems not only for the casino, but who have difficulties in their private lives.
Counselling in casinos is a positive course of action for problem gamblers in America, and American investors want to replicate that in regional casinos here. They want the gambling commission to ensure that proper accreditation and counselling schemes are part of the whole scenario of regional casinos. We are certainly much in favour of that. However, how could we offer a counselling service when the identity of the individuals is not known?
We learned from further discussions with an operator of casinos in South Africa that to play category A machines a person uses a magnetic card, which is given to him as he enters the casino. The person cashes in money and receives the card to play the machines. The card has the person's ID on it, comprising name, address and, I suppose, a photograph. It is a form of ID, so that the casino operators know who is playing which machines, who is gambling heavily and who is potentially going into loss.
We were told that there has never been a problem in administering that system and that operators would be happy to implement it in the United Kingdom if they were lucky enough to be successful in gaining a regional casino franchise. That is not a problem. It would be helpful to the Committee if the Government said the amendments were perfectly acceptable. We were close to that position with a previous amendment, so perhaps we can edge a little nearer, score a bulls-eye and hit the jackpot.
Mr. Hawkins: The Moss amendment
Mr. Moss: I cannot claim that I wrote the amendment, but never mind. It would be helpful to know the Government's views on membership, and whether they see that as an integral part of the operation of regional casinos. Membership is already present in the UK industry. I am sure that additional large and small casinos will develop.
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): There are two, clearly distinct, ideas: membership and identity. Does the hon. Gentleman draw any distinction between the two? Are there arguments for one that do not apply to the other?
Mr. Moss: I am not sure that I make any massive distinction. If a person provides ID to a casino operator on their first visit, that could be encrypted on their membership card. Once that has been done, it has been done. Every time that person went to the casino, they would show their card on entry. I do not see a problem with that.
No one has suggested to me that there should be vetting to ascertain whether people are appropriate to gamble in the casino, nor would I go along with
Column Number: 294
such a suggestion at this time. Some private clubs in London might have a vetting procedure—a blackball procedure—for people who were not welcome at the club, but such a club would be private. We are talking about public amenities; the general public will utilise the regional casinos and visit them to gamble. We make no distinction about the individual, but the individual's identity is important. Membership cards are largely irrelevant; identity is the critical factor.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): When I tabled new clause 12, no other amendments on membership had been tabled; I thought that that was extraordinary. There is no avoiding some form of membership scheme. Whatever way one looks at it, the EU directive requires that people playing at gaming tables should give some form of ID. The Government said on Second Reading that they would require people who gambled sums in excess of £750 to provide ID. If we are to record how much somebody has spent, that person should make their identity known at an early stage—otherwise, there would be no way to record how much they had spent.
We need some form of regulation, and not just about money laundering. We are getting rid of the 24-hour cooling-off period, and I can accept that. However, we have to consider why it was there. People could be out for a celebration and have drunk some alcohol. They could slip into a gambling establishment and make mistakes by gambling too much or indulging too much in gaming machines or tables. Some form of membership system would require them to make a conscious decision about going into an establishment, being a member and engaging in those games. We have overlooked that important aspect, on which the Bill is silent.
In spite of the Minister's generous mood this afternoon—he has indicated that he will accept one amendment—I do not expect him to accept my new clause as it is worded, although I may say that I worded it expertly. However, I should like him to give the matter further consideration, particularly in light of the fact that the industry itself seems to be suggesting, to some degree, that it would like some form of membership.
Mr. Foster: I am sure that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has expertly drafted his new clause, although I point out to him that I think that it contains the error of describing the new body as the gaming, rather than the gambling, commission.
Notwithstanding that, I entirely agreed with him when he said that identity is the critical factor. The discussion about membership is probably taking us in the wrong direction. For the purposes of preventing money laundering and tracking problem gamblers to ensure that they are given the help, support and advice that they need, the crucial issue is that a system of identification is required.
Hon. Members have referred to the second European directive on money laundering. I am sure that those who have are well aware that consultations are already taking place on the third directive. It is my understanding that, so far, those discussions do
Column Number: 295
nothing to suggest that the requirement on identity will be removed. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. The Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the amendments.
5.15 pm
|
