|
Mr. Caborn: The amendment seeks to allow operators to demand the repayment of prizes that they have paid out to children and young people. In my view that would have the unfortunate effect of rewarding operators who do not show due diligence in
Column Number: 288
checking the age of their customers. The Government have stated time and again that operators are responsible for preventing children and young people from using their facilities. If they fail to live up to that responsibility, it is unacceptable that they should be able to recoup their losses.
The protection of children is a key objective of the Bill. Any instance of an operator allowing children or young people to gamble could bring into question the fitness of that operator to hold an operating licence. To ensure that operators have proper systems in place, we regard it as essential that operators be restricted from reclaiming prizes from people under 18 where those prizes are won prior to the operator realising that the person was under 18. That may seem harsh to the hon. Gentleman, but we think it is the best means of requiring operators to take proof-of-age issues seriously. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister. I anticipated his reply; I have even written a series of notes saying exactly what he would say, and he more or less read them out precisely. The Minister and I agree that children and gambling do not mix, and every effort must be made to prevent that. He has said that only one set of people will have to take responsibility for that: the operators. If the operators are going to do that, we must bear it in mind that there will be different circumstances. The Minister will be well aware of the difficulty of judging ages, and on occasion genuine mistakes will be made before, at a later stage, the operator is able to assess that the person is in fact under age. That would not necessarily have been a fault of the operator, and the amendment would have added an additional disincentive for an under-age person to go and do something that they should not be doing anyway, which is to gamble. I would have thought that the Minister would be more sympathetic; nevertheless I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 284, in page 35, line 29, leave out 'gaming' and insert 'gambling'. —[Mr. Caborn.]
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Moss: I listened to the exchange between the hon. Member for Bath and the Minister, and sympathised with both sides of the argument. On one hand, the Minister is right to say that proprietors who do not check their premises properly for the entry of young persons should not benefit from the return of prizes won by children, but I also have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's amendment. Is not there a possible compromise, whereby such prizes are confiscated? If children walk away with prizes, what signal are we sending—that they should try to do so again? There is merit on both sides of the argument, but I suggest that if an under-age person plays a machine and wins, their prize should be confiscated, not given to them or returned to the proprietor.
Column Number: 289
Mr. Caborn: The clause requires all those with operating licences to take certain steps if they become aware that a child or young person has used their facilities to gamble. Should the licensee become aware that a child or young person is using the general facilities, they should return any money used as a stake or fee, and should not pay out any winnings or prizes. Exceptions to that rule include category D gaming machines and equal-chance prize games in family entertainment centres, which children are permitted to play. The clause also ensures that young people can continue to play lotteries and football pools. Failure of operators in that respect will lead to action for the breach of licence conditions, which is separate from any offence that may have been committed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Premises
Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 285, in page 35, line 33, after '74)', insert—
'(i) requiring that the licensed activities be carried on at a specified place or class of place, (ii) preventing the licensed activities from being carried on at a specified place or class of place, or (iii)'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 286 to 288.
Mr. Caborn: Clause 80 specifies the circumstances in which the commission may or may not make conditions relating to premises. Clause 87(2) provides that general betting licences may not include conditions requiring that facilities be provided at a certain place or class of place, or preventing them from being so provided. There is, therefore, a potentially unhelpful overlap between the clauses, which these amendments are designed to resolve.
Amendment No. 285 makes further provision as to when the commission can and cannot make conditions relating to premises. Amendment No. 288 deletes subsection (2) of clause 87.
We are concerned that clause 61 on operating licences might be interpreted narrowly to mean that one operating licence authorises only one casino or arcade, so amendments Nos. 286 and 287 are designed to prevent that from happening, and are, I hope, a sensible improvement to the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 286, in page 35, line 39, at end insert—
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 299, in page 36, line 3, at end insert
'save that no such provision may limit the numbers of machines or the player positions on machines— (i)designed or adapted for the playing of bingo, and (ii)used in accordance with a condition attached to a bingo operating licence under section 73 by virtue of section 81(2)(b)'.
The amendment is designed to prevent mechanised cash bingo units and other equipment used to play bingo from having restrictions placed on them as part of the operating licence. The decision to install such equipment should be based on the space available and player demand, and should not be the subject of licence conditions. Any issues relating to the operation of a particular game within bingo clubs is a matter with which the board should deal at industry level, not individual licence level.
Mechanised cash bingo, commonly known as MCB, is an interval game that is played in most bingo clubs. As its name suggests, it is played using electronic equipment rather than the traditional paper bingo ticket, and it is very popular with players.
The player uses a board set out on the table and a fixed set of numbers. The playing positions are linked to a central computer that randomly generates the numbers to be called, but the game is called in a normal way by a bingo caller. From a regulatory point of view, it is treated in the same way as main stage bingo. Most bingo clubs have MCB playing positions at all seats, so that those who wish to play in the interval may do so without having to sit in a particular chair or area of the club.
5 pm
MCB has been around for 20 years. When it was first introduced, the Gaming Board wanted to monitor its influence to make sure that it did not take over from traditional main stage games. To address concerns, the industry agreed with the board to have a voluntary code of conduct to limit the number of playing positions. Over time, it became clear that it was popular with bingo players, and the limit on seating was irritating because people had to make sure that they sat in the position next to one of the terminals in order to play in the interval. The Gaming Board looked into that and acknowledged that that form of bingo created no harm. The number of playing positions available was increased, until December 2002 when the limits were removed completely.
The industry fears that the clause, particularly subsection (2), could give the commission powers to set limits in the operating licences on MCB terminals. There has never been any discussion with the industry about the Bill's implications, so this matter has come to it as a bit of a surprise. If the Minister can accept the amendment just to clarify the situation, that will be brilliant. If he cannot, perhaps he can give the industry an assurance that the clause is not designed in any way to catch MCB.
Column Number: 291
Mr. Caborn: The Government agree with the hon. Gentleman; it says at the top of my brief that we ''agree to consider'' the amendment.
Mr. Moss: But not agree to put it in the Bill.
Mr. Caborn: No, we have not gone that far.
We have no desire to limit the number of player positions used for MCB. We have already ensured that MCB has been taken out of the scope of the controls on gaming machines. We have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's arguments, which no doubt reflect the views of the Bingo Association.
The amendment is not drafted in quite the way we would like, however. In particular, the references to machines could cause confusion between this clause and the controls in part 10. We also need to take care in defining the sort of equipment involved. The current wording might be a little too broad. If the hon. Gentleman is content to withdraw the amendment, I will consider the matter further, and see what can be done to give some reassurance about equipment used in bingo halls to play interval bingo games such as MCB.
Mr. Moss: That was the most helpful reply that the Minister has given in all our sittings. I feel that victory is on the horizon, and I look forward to his coming back with some better-worded amendments so that the legislation may include the assurance that the Bingo Association seeks.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
