Examination of Witnesses (Questions 580
- 599)
THURSDAY 15 JANUARY 2004
SIR PETER
FRY, MR
PAUL TALBOYS,
MR ALAN
NICHOLS, MR
KEVIN SMYTH,
MR NORMAN
PRITCHARD-WOOLLETT
AND MR
GRAHAM CATT
Q580 Baroness Golding: Guidelines?
Sir Peter Fry: Yes, strong guidelines.
As I understand it, the guidelines do not need to be followed
by local authorities at the moment, as the legislation is framed.
Q581 Chairman: That is correct. What
is your view about that? By implication, do you think they should
be?
Sir Peter Fry: Having been on
a local authority as well as in this place, my personal feeling
is that there is a danger that the Commission might find itself
with some local authorities a minority who are not keeping to
the guidelines, maybe for very good reasons. I do not think you
can expect people to run businesses in any industry where they
do not really know what the guidelines are. If you are going to
a new town, you do not really want to discover that you might
have conditions that you do not have in the town you are in already,
because that is going to affect your business judgment.
Q582 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:
I apologise for asking Sir Peter a question born of ignorance.
You said a moment ago that the local authority would be allowed
to set all sorts of conditions, but on the analogy of a Licensing
Bill the opportunity of establishing conditions has effectively
been swept away. I am talking about liquor licences. Not merely
that, but all the agreements which have been reached between licensees
and subsequently applicants and the magistrates have been swept
away as well, the ones which were set up as a result of the licence
application. Is what you are saying a statement of legal fact
or is it your expectation?
Sir Peter Fry: We have taken the
legal advice of Susannah Fitzgerald QC and she confirms that it
is vague. It is not decisive enough and what we are saying is
we want it to be absolutely clear. What is obvious is that conditions
can be applied in various aspects of the whole process of licensing
and planning permission. At the Liaison Committee on the Bill,
of which I happen to be a member, this issue was raised and the
example of the kind of condition that could be put on was, "We
will limit the bingo club to 500 places."
Q583 Chairman: Does Mr Catt want
to clarify this for us?
Mr Catt: It is true that the draft
Bill does say that the magistrates should have regard to the codes
of practice.
Q584 Chairman: His point is that
the local authority can apply conditions which will vary from
one place to another. Is that correct?
Mr Catt: Yes.
Q585 Viscount Falkland: You say in
your written submission that clubs operate benign social and recreational
gambling and yet your members will be allowed category B machines,
Mr Smyth. As all other venues that have these machines will be
required to operate under a strict regulatory regime, is there
any reason why clubs should be exempt from the kind of powers
which the Commission will have for routine inspection?
Mr Smyth: We believe that over
the years self-regulation has worked perfectly well. We also believe
that there is no history of any problem gaming in clubs because
machines are not operated for commercial gain. The money that
is made from the machines is put back in terms of the club for
the benefit of the members as a whole. CORCA clubs are run on
the mutuality principle. It is just an aspect of the club; it
is not the aspect of the club. There are many other features of
a club: sports activities and so on, raising funds for pensioners
and charities and all sorts of things. We believe that there has
not been a problem so why now introduce something additional?
It is just not required.
Q586 Viscount Falkland: In addition
to that, as all other machines and bingo operators will be required
to apply a formal code of social responsibility, do you expect
the licence of your members to include such a condition? What
kind of code do you think would be appropriate for your members?
Mr Smyth: We are certainly prepared
to consider any form of code of practice. We do not think there
has ever been any difficulty so we cannot quite see why there
is a need to bring in any extra legislation, but if there are
any other proposals we will give them due consideration. We certainly
have not come up with any ideas of our own at present.
Q587 Viscount Falkland: How do you
interpret the term "social responsibility" in this regard?
Mr Smyth: As far as clubs go,
they do have a social responsibility because the clubs are run
by the members. If someone is doing something that is either incorrect
or possibly leading them on to problem gaming, the Committee usually
has a responsibility. Clubs are very often a mixture of families
and people care for each other. They know each other and consequently
we know that over the years they have traditionally stopped any
problems in the club before they have ever started.
Q588 Viscount Falkland: You are really
saying that yours is a particular case and you already institute,
through the club membership, a kind of control. In future, any
relationship with an inspector coming in from the Gambling Commission
would be more of a personal nature. He or she would know the way
your clubs operated and the inspection would be a relatively informal
exercise.
Mr Smyth: I would certainly hope
so because I think most inspectors know about the fairly informal
way that clubs are run, but they do have this self-regulation
and disciplinary code which, if necessary, can come into play.
Our type of social clubs are much more community clubs. They are
individual members who are there because they want to go for a
chat and a drink. The playing of bingo or machines is limited
to a relatively small number of people and it has been proven
over many years that we have not required any inspection.
Mr Pritchard-Woollett: If the
Gambling Commission or other authorities were interested and were
pressing for a code of practice in clubs which might lighten the
official touch that might be applied to inspections, I am sure
CORCA would be glad to enter into negotiations on that.
Q589 Chairman: You mentioned that
some of the clubs are family clubs, Mr Smyth. How many of the
clubs in your membership allow children on the premises? What
arrangements do they make to avoid children coming into contact
with these category B machines?
Mr Smyth: Almost every club I
know of—and that encompasses Conservative, Labour and Liberal
clubs, British Legion clubs, working men's clubs—invariably
has specific regulations above the machine and it is known to
all the members that children do not play the machines. Technically
at the moment, they could do so legally but they do not because
the clubs have already taken that self-regulation to say that
children cannot play. Under 18s just do not play on machines.
They are always within sight of committee officials or the steward
of the club, so if a child ever did attempt to they would be quickly
warned off and the parents told accordingly.
Q590 Jeff Ennis: Before I ask my
question I ought to declare my interest as a member of working
men's clubs and miners' welfare clubs in my own constituency as
well as a public institute union. Under the proposals in the draft
Bill, your members, Mr Smyth, will have to apply for the additional
bingo operating licence if in any period of seven days their stake
or prizes have totalled £1,000 or more. Is the £1,000
limit pitched right or do we need to look at changing it?
Mr Smyth: I believe it is pitched
too low. We have looked at our figures and there are probably
about 20 per cent of clubs that do play for more than £1,000
a week. £1,000 a week is a very small sum when, if they are
playing five times a week, you are talking about £200 a day.
The present law is a bit more generous because it has no specific
financial limits. We believe a more realistic figure would be
a minimum of £2,000. I would remind you that clubs are run
by volunteers. They are individuals who perhaps are employees
themselves during the day. They suddenly become employers and
they now have a raft of legislation. This would be yet another
one which we think would be unnecessary.
Mr Pritchard-Woollett: One of
my concerns is that, in the policy document issued with the Draft
Gambling Bill, we have not seen the club clauses yet and it certainly
indicates that the government's intention is that, if a club has
to take out an additional bingo operating licence, its officers
will have to take out personal licences. I think that is a burden
we would oppose to the letter. Its officers hold elected office.
There is probably a steady turnover of personnel and it seems
to me that could develop into a paper chase and the compliance
aspects could be absolutely horrendous to contemplate, especially
as we represent 5,000 clubs. There are probably 20,000-odd clubs
of one sort of another up and down the country, so when one thinks
of the compliance implications of operating a £1,000 limit
with personal licensing, it beggars belief.
Q591 Mr Wright: Would it be true
to say that if the £1,000 limit came in the majority of those
clubs would cease playing bingo rather than go to the expense
of licensing?
Mr Smyth: Obviously it would depend
on the cost of the licence, but certainly a good number would
reduce if not cease playing altogether and that could have implications
for the clubs' very survival.
Q592 Chairman: Do the Bingo Association
and your members have a view on registered clubs playing bingo
and whether or not they should be licensed, because your members
are not.
Sir Peter Fry: Yes, we do think
they should be licensed. We have no objections to smaller prizes
at bingo played in any kind of club, but I get complaints from
people in the north east particularly and other parts of the country,
where they say, "I am trying to run a business and down the
road the working men's club is offering a prize five times the
size of mine." Obviously we have members who are concerned.
What we are mainly worried about is that, whatever the limit is,
it must be enforced. Up until now, if the law had been broken,
you could not get any action because the only people allowed to
act were the police and they could not care less. They are too
busy with other things. I am sure that, knowing the club movement
as I do, they want to be seen to be absolutely within the law
and behaving properly. Therefore, the whole question comes in
of how to fix the level if you are going to have investigation
and if you are going to have to keep books, for example, which
could be a problem for some of the smaller clubs. As an organisation,
we do feel very strongly about this but we do think there should
be a level at which you apply a bingo licence and it should be
enforced.
Q593 Mr Wright: You think £1,000
is okay?
Sir Peter Fry: On the basis that
when you put any submission in you always put in a different figure,
knowing you could get one worse, we originally put it in at £500,
but I think we have accepted it would be at least £1,000.
We have no desire to undermine or do undue damage to the club
movement at all.
Q594 Jeff Ennis: You would accept
the £2,000?
Sir Peter Fry: I would have to
ask my members.
Q595 Chairman: Is there a possibility
that £2,000 would be acceptable if there was proper enforcement?
Sir Peter Fry: I am in the odd
position that I am chairman of an association in which I do not
have a vote, a bit like Mr Speaker, so therefore I would have
to go back to my executive, which is meeting next week, and I
promise I will take it up and write to you.
Chairman: There is plenty of time for
you to do that and write to me.
Q596 Jeff Ennis: Is there a danger
that clubs in the UK will increasingly become like clubs in Australia,
especially New South Wales, where the dominant activity is some
form of gambling whose profits only benefit the members and managers
of the club?
Mr Smyth: I think I can say categorically
no to that. The maximum number of machines that are allowed at
the moment is three. Our statistics show that on average they
have 1.6 machines, so they do not take up their maximum limit
now. Yes, clubs in Australia are a different kettle of fish, I
believe they were founded by former clubmen from this country
who went across, although whether they were of the convict mentality
or otherwise I am not too certain. Now clubs in Australia have
huge walls full of machines, so I am told. I have not been there
to see them but I have seen some photographs. No, our clubs are
not gaming clubs like that. As I said, the average is 1.6 and
when they have an opportunity to average three they do not do
so and I cannot see that they will do so in the future.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Can we
move on to contributions to the Gambling Industry Charitable Trust.
Q597 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: In
your initial answer to the Chairman and in your written submission
I detected a certain amount of grievance on the part of the Bingo
Association at contributing to GICT.
Sir Peter Fry: No.
Q598 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: No?
Sir Peter Fry: I am one of the
original trustees of the trust and my members contributed £200,000
to it last year. We even brought in a rule that the amount of
money to be paid was compulsory on our members. We have enforced
it and six of our members are no longer our members. I think we
are the only trade association that has taken that line. Where
I do think we have reservations, to go back to this issue of hard
and soft gaming, is if one believes in the principle that the
polluter pays, is it right for a working man's club, for a bingo
hall, to pay the same as a casino with 1,000 slot machines? I
think it is a very difficult point. I know the problem in applying
a rule but I think one of the difficulties in getting some people
to contribute to the trust has been just this point: "Why
should I pay, I am not much of a polluter?"
Q599 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: There
are three possibilities which might come up with an answer to
this. One possibility presumably is just to have a straightforward
levy based on the turnover of the business, that is one way of
doing it. The second could be for the Gambling Commission to determine
the level of hardness of the gambling operation and put gradations
on the levels of contribution on those which are the hardest,
ie those who pollute most will pay most and those who pollute
least will pay least, which clearly will be in the interests of
bingo I can readily see. The third point presumably is that if
it were a compulsory levy which was imposed by statute then you
would not have difficulty with payers and non-payers.
Sir Peter Fry: No. If it was done
purely on turnover you would have the same kinds of problems we
have got now in talking about machine taxation. We find that the
actual weight of the taxation varies from club to club, from business
to business. I would suggest if you did it purely on turnover
the same would apply there. In relation to the second proposal,
yes, we would. I do not underestimate the difficulties of that,
it is going to be very difficult, but it would appear to be equitable.
If the trust is going to develop to raise more and more money
and without a compulsory levy then we have got to make it appear
to be more equitable. There are people we could bring in on a
different basis than the one we have today who at the moment just
are not putting any money in at all. What is happening in many
areas—I do not know whether you are familiar with this,
my Lords—is in some of the trade associations only the big
companies are paying, a lot of bookmakers are not paying anything.
It is good that the large companies are doing that, but we are
lucky we have got nearly everybody paying. My members have a gripe
in that respect and we are delighted you asked us the question
about the way in which the amount should be decided.
| 
