|
Mr. Hawkins: I understand what the Minister said about Customs and Excise. Does that mean that where the clause reads ''or on another person'' it means Customs and Excise? If so, saying that would be much clearer. Are the Government prepared to consider tabling an amendment that makes the clause say ''on the Secretary of State, on the Gambling Commission or on Customs and Excise''? They could even include the Inland Revenue too. I think that ''or on another person'' is far too open.
Mr. Caborn: One should take it that the Government will be reasonable. It will be those authorities that are used in such circumstances. It is difficult to include them all in the Bill, but, as I said, one hopes that the gambling commission will use authorities such as the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. However, it is inevitable that we do not include in the Bill all those authorities that the commission would want to use. That is the reason for the wording.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 322 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 323
Participation fees
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 376, in clause 323, page 141, line 40, leave out paragraph (b).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 342, in clause 323, page 141, line 40, leave out
'shall be treated as a participation fee'
and insert
'is not a participation fee and shall not be treated as such'.
Government amendment No. 361.
No. 377, in clause 323, page 142, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
Government amendment No. 362.
Mr. Moss: The amendment would redefine a participation fee by carrying forward the current definition of a participation fee as it applies in bingo
Column Number: 679
clubs. As worded, the clause includes admission charges in the definition of participation fees, although the two are distinct. A member could enter a bingo club and not play bingo, but still pay an entrance fee. The charge to enter is separate from the charge to play a game of bingo. It is important that those two are not confused. Indeed, the distinction is also reflected in the system of taxation applied to bingo, under which admission charges are outside any calculation of gross profits tax. Participation fees are directly connected to the playing of a game, not to entering a premises, and that distinction needs to be maintained. It would make no sense to connect the two, and the wording of clause 323 appears to offer no rationale for doing so.
Mr. Caborn: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to do in the amendments, but I must warn the Committee that we have to tread very carefully.
The effect of amendments Nos. 376 and 342 would be the same. They would remove admission fees from the definition of a participation fee. The phrase ''participation fee'' is used in the Bill to cover the charges, apart from the stakes, that someone can make for gambling. The hon. Gentleman says that an admission fee for entry into a premises is not the same as a participation fee in gaming. It has been suggested that admission fees do not need regulating, and the question of bingo, in particular, has arisen.
Let me give the Committee some history to demonstrate the potential danger of the amendments. A broadly similar change was made to the Betting and Gaming Act 1960, and it seemed pretty innocuous at the time. After all, admission fees are clearly not stakes for gambling, so why should we limit them? When that change was made, however, those who keep an eye out for loopholes spotted a profitable way round the regulation of the 1960 Act. So long as they piled their profits on to the admission fee, and used lots of little wheezes to earn money inside their clubs, they could comply with the stake and prize limit and still make a handy profit. By taking that course of action, gaming clubs proliferated to the point where there were more than 1,000 of them. Section 3 of the Gaming Act 1968 shut down that loophole and the option of providing free gaming, which we discussed earlier in our proceedings.
If hon. Members look carefully at the controls on participation fees in the Bill, they will see that those controls allow us to set different amounts for different types of participation fee. For example, clause 255(3)(d) provides for us to allow clubs to charge legitimate admission fees in specific circumstances, and we can distinguish between different types of admission fees if we need to. So, we are not banning admission fees; we are trying to control all charges for gaming properly, as we do now, to prevent people from producing gaming profits through the back door.
I have explained all that because it is important for the Committee to understand why I cannot accept the amendments. I can, however, ask my officials to discuss the matter further with the Bingo Association,
Column Number: 680
which clearly has concerns about the wording of clause 323. There seems to be an issue about payment to enter premises where bingo is going on, even if the person entering is not going to gamble. We think that we have allowed for that under subsection (3), but this is a complicated issue, and we should like the opportunity to take the views of the Gaming Board into account. If the hon. Gentleman agrees not to press amendments Nos. 376 and 342, I shall take the issues that he has raised away for further consideration.
Amendment No. 377, on membership subscriptions, also appears well intentioned. However, the powers in the Bill are needed as a safeguard for the future. As hon. Members will have seen in subsection (1)(c), a membership subscription is not generally to be treated as a participation fee. That ensures that a club can continue to charge subscriptions and not have them controlled as payments for gambling. That is the law now, and we are keeping it. However, we must retain the power to treat subscription fees as participation fees to prevent future abuses. None of us expects such abuses to happen, but if a club, in whatever circumstances, decides that using subscription fees is a device to raise money from gambling, instead of the genuine membership fee it should be charging, we will need the regulations in the Bill to stop that. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.
I turn now to Government amendments No. 361 and 362. At various places in the Bill, powers are taken to limit the participation fees that can be charged to take part in gaming or to prevent them from being charged altogether. A typical example is club gaming under part 12. Although we want to control such charges for gaming, we do not, as a general rule, wish to control genuine club membership fees, which someone may be charged to belong to a club.
Clause 323 states that a participation fee does not generally include a membership subscription, but there will be cases in which we do not want people setting up temporary clubs and charging subscriptions as a way of avoiding the rules on participation fees. Gaming on alcohol-licensed premises and in pubs, in particular, is one such example. In order to offer the limited exempt gaming available under clause 264, no participation fees can be charged to the players.
The purpose of the amendments is to make it clear that a participation fee includes any membership subscriptions that might be charged. That ensures that no one can evade the participation fee ban by forming a club, within a pub, and making money from subscriptions. Organisations that are genuine clubs can take advantage of the rights offered to them in part 12 and may also serve alcohol.
The amendments are intended to deal with the particular circumstances of gaming in pubs and to prevent the proliferation and exploitation of low-level gaming.
5.45 pm
Mr. Moss: I am most grateful to the Minister for affording the Committee that explanation, and particularly for his assurances with regard to bingo clubs and the distinction between admission charges
Column Number: 681
and participation fees. Given those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 361, in clause 323, page 141, line 43, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (2A)'.
No. 362, in clause 323, page 142, line 2, at end insert—
(2A) For the purposes of section 264, a membership subscription is a participation fee.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 323, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 324 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 325
Prosecution by licensing authority
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 378, in clause 325, page 142, leave out line 44.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 379, in clause 325, page 143, leave out line 1.
No. 380, in clause 325, page 143, leave out line 2.
No. 381, in clause 325, page 143, line 11, leave out paragraph (m).
No. 382, in clause 325, page 143, line 16, at end add—
'(4) The Commission in exercising its powers under section 24 shall include guidance to local authorities regarding the manner and the circumstances in which a licensing authority may institute criminal proceedings under this section.'.
Mr. Moss: Amendments Nos. 378 to 381 are probing amendments to elicit from the Government the reason that they feel it necessary to include in the Bill the fact that licensing authorities can institute criminal proceedings in respect of specific offences. The amendments would delete paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), which relate to certain offences.
The purpose of amendment No. 382 is to ensure that when licensing authorities institute criminal proceedings regarding the offences as listed, including the use of premises without the appropriate premises licence and not notifying the authority of a change of address, there should be clear guidance for the licensing authority setting out the manner in which such power can be exercised to prevent uncertainty, inconsistent application and the abuse of power.
| 
