| Gambling Bill
|
|
Mr. Caborn: I recognise that the amendments are well intentioned, but the Government will not be able to agree to them. A key aim of the Bill is to modernise the laws on casinos by removing unnecessary restrictions, such as the membership rule. While nothing in the Bill stops casinos from having membership if they want it, we do not consider it necessary to impose that obligation upon them. I agree that we should protect the industry's integrity and also tackle problem gambling. The Bill contains many protections to secure the world-class reputation of casinos and to prevent problem gambling in Great Britain. In the context of the improved protections, we do not think that the compulsory imposition of membership requirements on casinos serves any real regulatory purpose. To achieve the aims to which I referred, we do not need the amendments and the detailed requirements that they propose about the identification of customers by photographic ID, name and address. Dr. Pugh: The Minister makes a point about the regulatory need, but he also made a point about the need to monitor gambling behaviour. There will be an assessment of whether the Bill alters people's gambling behaviour and if we simply do not know who is gambling at casinos, how can we conceivably do that? Mr. Caborn: As I said, there are other checks and balances that go way beyond the clause in relation to problem gamblers and the concerns that hon. Members have raised. Casinos will be only too keen to ensure that their arrangements are effective. It will be open to the commission to include advice about supervising access to gaming areas in the guidance that it gives to licensing authorities under clause 24. That means that, if necessary, the method of checking age and the standard of supervision required can be included in the premises' licence conditions. That includes door supervision conditions. There is no need to short-circuit those procedures by writing detailed requirements into the Bill. It contains a suitable, flexible framework of regulation. The amendments would make it much more rigid without adding any powers that the Bill lacks. A number of casinos have made clear their view that, in the context of the system of gambling regulation proposed by the Bill, in particular the removal of compulsory casino membership schemes, it would be more appropriate to check the identity of customers at the financial threshold and not at the physical threshold of the premises or at some specific area of the premises. The amendments would shut off that option by requiring identification on entry to the Column Number: 296 area of the casino that includes gaming tables and higher value gaming machines. Anyone who went into such an area would have to go through an ID check, whether or not they were going to gamble.Clive Efford: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will be a requirement of the operators that people must give their identification on every occasion in the circumstances to which he referred? Mr. Caborn: I am not saying that; I am merely saying that the flexibility is there: if the operator wants to do that, it is open to them. I am not saying that that identification check should take place as a matter of course. The amendments would shut off the option by requiring ID checks on entry to the areas of the casino that include gaming tables and higher-value gaming machines. Therefore, anybody going into such an area would have to go through identification, whether or not they were going to gamble. In the Government's view that is unnecessary for a number of reasons. The first is that the requirement as to identification and verification of identity for the purpose of controlling money laundering can, and indeed, should be set in specific money laundering regulations made by the Treasury that implement the requirements set out in the EU directive. Already, the second directive and regulations require ID checks and we are going on to consider the third directive as well. We cannot yet be sure what it will require. It would not be sensible to try to anticipate it by including detailed provisions in the Bill. Secondly, we are not persuaded that in future it will be right to require identification on entry in all cases, even though we do so now. As I have explained, the casinos of the future will not be the same as casinos are now. Furthermore, the identification requirements in the new directive are likely to be more challenging than those in the present one. I need to emphasise in the strongest terms that there is no question whatever of the Government's being soft on money laundering or wanting to weaken controls as a concession to foreign companies with a view to persuading them to invest here. There might be different means by which casinos can ensure that they comply with identification requirements, taking account of the fact that risks can vary from one situation to another. The amendments would create unnecessary inflexibility and would require casinos to do things in one way only. They would, for example, insist on one specific method of identification, using photographs, when it might be entirely satisfactory to verify identity in other ways. Above all, they would create inflexibility by writing into British law a requirement of identification at one specific time, whereas the directive allows greater flexibility on timing. If the amendments were accepted, future money-laundering regulations could not vary them. Mr. Moss: The Minister talked about a photograph. I do not see in the amendments that I have tabled any reference to a photograph; nor do I see anything in Column Number: 297 amendment No. 301 saying that membership should be organised on entry. It simply says that ID is required before somebody can
Mr. Caborn: The amendments would restrict movement and remove the flexibility that is in the Bill. If amendments are required because of something that is in the third directive on money laundering, we shall come back to the matter. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Committee that the amendments should not be agreed, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them. Mr. Moss: The Minister did not answer my question. He made some statements, but when I asked about photographs and entry he did not reply. I do not know why he does not want to give ground on the issue, although I can think of all sorts of reasons, principally that the Americans have made it clear that they do not want him to. They have made it so clear that it has been widely trailed in the press that they want some fudging on the new directives if they can get it. No doubt the Minister will say that there is not an ounce of truth in that, but who knows? Most of the operators to whom we have spoken do not have a problem. The South Africans who have applied for two of the sites that I know of, and Lord Steinberg of Stanley Leisure plc, the largest British casino operator, which has a big casino in Birmingham and has made an application for Leeds, are not too fussed about identity. I do not know where the problem arises. We are talking about eight regional casinos, which will be phased in over a period. I do not see any difficulty about requiring ID. We would not ask for it on the first weekend, when 20,000 people turned up—we might not get through it all—but the South African operators have indicated that it is easily done and does not take much time. We are saying not that people will have to be members to go into casinos, but that some proof of ID should be required before they start playing the machines and the games. That is all. Whether we call it membership or ID does not matter. However, if the Government are serious about protecting the vulnerable, they have to accept that one has to know one's client. If operators do not know which individuals are spending—and losing—thousands of pounds, how on earth can anybody introduce a counselling scheme to help them? The casinos do not want problem gamblers; that is the worst thing that they can have. Not only do they cause difficulties inside casinos, but if news of that gets out, the casinos get a bad name and their reputations are at stake. They want to track the vulnerable and problem gamblers. The only way that I know of to do that—perhaps the Minister knows a different way—is to have some form of identification involved. Once someone has given their ID, the same piece could be used on repeat visits to the same regional casino. I do not see a problem with that system.
Column Number: 298 I understand partly the argument that says we do not want to be too rigid, but it is not good enough to say that the commission will perhaps deal with the issue at some future date. If the Government are serious about protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that there is proper counselling, there must be something in the Bill to indicate that they are taking that road. To leave it to the chance element—that the gambling commission will deal with the issue—is not acceptable.There is no point in pushing the issue to a vote, given the few Members who are left, but we will certainly revisit it as it is important. It may be something that the Government have to give ground on before they get the Bill through the other place—that is how important it is. Mr. Caborn: I agree about its importance, and I do not underestimate the force of the argument from the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. However, I refer them to clause 75, which deals with the scope of powers to attach conditions. Subsection (9) provides:
''restricting facilities to persons registered in respect of the facilities in advance.''
The EU second directive on money laundering carries 10 conditions, so people betting thousands of pounds could well be caught by it. We are not entirely clear about the interpretation of the third directive vis-a-vis the casinos, and we will have to come back to that later. However, we believe that the Bill is strong enough to deal with the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman raised. Verified entry in the gaming area is not the same as a membership or identity check. Verification of age is important, but that can be done by the casino operators. Again, I say that I believe we have enough checks and balances without the imposition of membership.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 30 November 2004 |
