| Gambling Bill
|
|
Mr. Page: I will be commendably brief. I support what my hon. Friend said. I think that the area is a valuable one on which to get clarification. I, too, have Column Number: 059 received various representations from those connected with the bingo industry. The clause is of great concern and, unless it is satisfactorily cleared up, it will be much more difficult for bingo clubs to compete with casinos with prizes of any value. I would be grateful if, when the Minister answers, he told me whether the clause also covers the linking of casinos for prizes. As he probably knows, if one goes into a casino, one can place a bet on poker and, by placing an extra sum of money, link into a central scheme that includes more than one casino, so that there may be quite a large jackpot at the end of the day. I am curious to know whether this part of the clause covers that.Mr. Caborn: Amendment No. 75 would exclude linked or multiple bingo from clause 4, which covers remote gambling. The Government are resisting that. The Bill contains a clause setting out the concept of remote gambling to cover gambling where the participants are not face to face on the same premises. Players who participate in linked or multiple bingo in different bingo halls are clearly neither face to face nor on the same premises. Linked or multiple bingo takes place in many separate bingo halls throughout the country. The Bill does much to remove the burdens on bingo operators, particularly those relating to linked or multiple bingo. Such bingo is currently subject to a host of detailed regulation, such as rules about conduct and financial limits. The Bill does away with that, but it would not be appropriate to exclude such bingo from clause 4. Any gambling that is operated with remote communication equipment must be regulated through the appropriate licence by the gambling commission. Companies wishing to offer linked or multiple bingo will require a remote bingo operating licence with appropriate licence conditions to ensure fairness and protection for players. Bingo halls with a general bingo operating and premises licence will be able to offer linked or multiple bingo if they hold a remote bingo operating licence, or they can use the services of someone else who holds a licence. The Bill must maintain coherent regulation of remote gambling and the amendment would damage that, so I ask the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire to withdraw his amendment. In reply to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, the answer is yes. Bob Russell: So that there can be no doubt, will the Minister confirm that he said that the linked bingo games that currently take place will continue to take place and that nothing in the Bill will prevent that? Mr. Caborn: That is correct. Mr. Moss: I was a bit saddened to hear the Minister's comments. We had a discussion earlier today about level playing fields, competition, fairness and so on, but one part of our entertainment and gambling industry must apparently pay two licence fees. If I heard the Minister correctly, there will be one licence fee under the bingo operator regulations and another for remote gambling under clause 4. I Column Number: 060 understood him to say that there would have to be such regulation. Bingo institutions are regulated under the gambling commission anyway, so I do not see a problem—they will come within the wider remit of the commission. They are extremely worried that if they are caught by clause 4 on remote gambling they will have to pay an extra licence fee.Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt share my concern about the future viability of the 519 remaining stand-alone bingo halls in the face of the threat from casinos. The issue that he is properly addressing is that we must ensure that they can continue without added cost or regulatory burden. However, did he hear the Minister say—perhaps he will ask him to clarify this—that, under the Bill, overall, the pressures on bingo halls, particularly stand-alone ones that want to link together, will be eased? Perhaps he will ask the Minister to give a clear assurance that the net effect will be a reduction in the financial and regulatory burden on such premises. Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an excellent question. I am not sure that the Minister heard it because he is involved in trying to find a way forward. Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman wants answers, does he not? Mr. Moss: Yes, of course. Mr. Caborn: He should not be critical then. Mr. Moss: I was not being critical. I was just wondering whether the Minister heard the question that was asked. The issue is whether bingo organisations will face an extra licence fee and extra regulation. The Minister promised that there would be relaxations in all sorts of areas. To summarise the question of the hon. Member for Bath, is the net effect going to be on the right side of the balance sheet? I suspect, as with all regulatory things, that the answer is no. Mr. Caborn: I did listen to the hon. Member for Bath, and I will try to answer his question. The Bill says that an operator needs an operating licence and a remote gambling licence, but a separate licence is already needed for multiple bingo. As I said when I explained why I want the amendment to be withdrawn—I suggest that the hon. Gentleman discusses this with the people who drafted the amendment—bingo is subject to a host of detailed regulation, such as rules about conduct and fines, which the Bill will do away with. It will simplify the operation of those licences. There will be two licences, but their operation will be simplified with the removal of detailed regulation. Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but, for the avoidance of doubt, and because the issue of bingo halls is going to come up on several occasions, will he write urgently to members of the Committee to set out that balance sheet in terms of added and reduced regulation and cost, so that we have the net pros and cons of the legislation as it will affect bingo halls? Mr. Caborn: I will do that. In the meantime, I will give the Committee details of the controls that will be Column Number: 061 removed. Times of games, number of games and maximum stakes will all be in the single licence. That type of detailed regulation will be taken from the operators and streamlined, so that they will, I hope, be able to operate their businesses more cost-effectively.Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hear what the Minister says, and I am sure that the reduction in bureaucracy attached to the licences will be welcome news to bingo halls, but, as they will be licensed by the gambling commission anyway, why cannot the Government scrap one of the licences, so that bingo halls will need only one licence? Surely that would be a much more sensible way to proceed, and would make it much easier for those fairly benign forms of entertainment to continue in business and to compete with the new super-casinos. Mr. Caborn: It is a different clientele. We believe that remote gambling should be regulated and licensed appropriately. I do not believe that the way in which we will operate the licences will bring a heavier burden. In fact, it will be much more holistic, and will no longer be about times of games, number of games and maximum stakes. The Bill streamlines that regulation and protects the customer. One reason that we are discussing this Bill is remote gambling, not just here but across the piece. That is why the Budd report was initiated—we cannot control remote gambling under current legislation. The proposed licensing regime is reasonable and proportionate. Mr. Moss: I am still not entirely clear as to what bingo clubs will end up paying. I see the purity of the Minister's argument. It is remote gambling. It is carried out using a communication wire, airwaves, or whatever, so it comes under the basics on remote gambling in the clause. We are not arguing about that. It may well be that that has to be the regulatory place for that particular type of game, but bingo clubs fear that it will translate into an extra licence. There have been no problems with running those two types of bingo game. Bingo clubs have been doing so for some years. They are important to the clubs, which are saying, ''Can they not just be taken under our normal licensing and regulatory framework? Why do we have to go under this legislation as a completely new organisation if it means a new licence fee?'' We accept, and I am sure they do, that the Bill relaxes some of the bureaucracy that they have hitherto had to deal with, and that is a bonus for which I am sure they are very grateful. However, the Bill does not pay money out. They must pay out an extra licence fee from the bottom-line profit of their business. At the same time, as we deregulate to provide more competition for our punters, bingo operators are saying that a new wave of gambling and casinos is coming, so they are under pressure as their cost base rises. If the Minister can assure us that their current fee to run linked and multiple bingo will be no different from the one that they will pay under remote gambling, they would like to see that on the record. Column Number: 062
4.15 pmMr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is being remarkably optimistic. If we wait as long for the fee structure under this legislation as we have for that under the Licensing Act, we will be in for a very long wait. Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but if the Minister could put on record that there will be no increased regulatory burden with extra licence fees placed on bingo clubs, some assurance and crumbs of comfort from him would not go amiss, because, according to the bingo clubs' reading of being caught by clause 4, that is exactly what will happen. Mr. Page: Although I have immense sympathy with the point being argued by my hon. Friend, I ask him to think of the problem that the Government have with slot machines in casinos that are not granted category A machines. What would happen if they wanted to link up their slot machines for remote gambling as well? They would have to be subject to a licence, so as much as I would like it I cannot see the bingo organisers being able to establish the link-up unless their top prize is limited to the same sort of payouts.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 9 November 2004 |
