Clause 44 - Invitation to enter premises
Gambling Bill
10:45 am
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 297, in clause 44, page 20, line 27, leave out subsection (2).
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendment No. 228.
Amendment No. 298, in clause 44, page 20, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
Government amendments Nos. 235 and 236.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Clause 44 centres quite rightly on the importance of protecting children from invitations to enter premises. Under the Bill, most premises are prohibited from giving access to children, and the only exception is in clause 44(2). Amendments Nos. 297 and 298 are probing amendments, which deal with regional casinos and suggest removing subsections (2) and (3).
In light of the Bill or of guidance to the gambling commission, a proportion of the floor area in large regional casinos will be set aside for non-gaming activities. In fact, as things stand, the largest proportion will be devoted to such activities, and we are very much in favour of that. However, casinos, of themselves, are not family entertainment centres, and even those areas in which gambling does not take place
might, depending on the design of a particular regional casino, retain a gambling focus. Do we want to create the impression that the sort of hard gambling that can be found in certain casinos is an everyday social activity?
Why will the Government protect children from the gambling environment in a large casino, which will also have non-gambling areas, but apparently allow them to witness gambling on an even grander scale elsewhere? That includes category A machines, which will not be in large and small casinos but only in regional casinos. Why will we allow children to see such activity there from the sidelines? Do we want children to associate casinos and gambling with glamour?
These probing amendments are designed to elicit an assurance that the Government are clear in their own mind about how they will erect Chinese walls between the casino activity in big regional casinos and the other leisure activities that are part of the operation, whether those activities involve theatres, bar areas, swimming pools, ice rinks or whatever. You name it—all sorts of combinations have been proposed. If the Government are serious about protecting children, it is important that, either in the Bill or in an assurance from the Government in the guidance, proper barriers should be in place between the gaming area and the other leisure activities. We would like the Minister to clarify what those barriers will be, but certainly we would not be in favour of children being able to see through in any way to a gaming area or to be in cool-out areas, where people go to rest and think about their losses before going back in.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I thought that ''cool'' was the word, but ''chill-out'' is fine. Presumably people sit in such areas feeling depressed about their losses before deciding to go back in and lose even more money. We want the Government to inform the Committee of how importantly they view the protection of children, particularly in respect of regional casinos.
Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
I support my hon. Friend. He is obviously suffering as a result of some sort of age gap at the moment, but I agree with everything that he said. The clause is well drafted as far as it goes. It is right that families should be encouraged to take part in certain activities. I think of race courses, where families can go to watch horses racing and to experience all the excitement of that, and the situation is the same with greyhounds. However, although youngsters will be able to go to a resort casino and take part in activities in non-gaming areas, it would be completely wrong for them to be able to see into gaming areas. All of us can remember going to a casino. People see the machines and the flashing lights. I think that that would have an enormous attraction for youngsters, who would want to wander among them or to be gaming. We should not encourage them in that in any way.
I endorse what my hon. Friend said. There should not just be a barrier that youngsters cannot cross; it must prevent them from seeing what is going on in gaming areas. I hope that that will be reflected in the appropriate drafting of the licences, when they are granted, for casinos to be constructed.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
Amendments Nos. 297 and 298 would prevent children from entering non-gaming areas of regional casinos. The Government and the Joint Committee considered that carefully, and the Committee recommended that children should not be allowed into non-gambling areas of small and large casinos. It thought that such areas would be too small to offer a suitable range of non-gambling facilities and ensure that a suitable distance was maintained from the gambling area. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire raised that question.
Mr Bob Russell (Shadow Minister (Culture, Media & Sport), Culture, Media & Sport; Colchester, Liberal Democrat)
I do not mean to be awkward, but will the Minister explain his references to the ban on children applying in small casinos operating as casinos and the 24 hours when they are not operating as casinos?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
As I understand it, the ban on children will apply. The licence will be granted with the condition to exclude children from the areas in question in large and small casinos per se. That is my understanding, although I will seek guidance and let the hon. Gentleman know if the situation is different.
Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
I endorse what the Minister said. The Joint Committee made the powerful point that it did not believe that children should be permitted into the non-gambling areas of small and large casinos because they would be too small. All Committee members agreed on that. The Committee also mentioned appropriate barriers and there being a suitable distance between the gambling and non-gambling areas of a regional and leisure destination casino. It is the definitions of what we all understand by barriers that we interested in finding out about.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
If the hon. Gentleman had let me complete my explanation, I would, I hope, have covered that adequately.
As I was saying, the Committee recommended that children should not be allowed in non-gambling areas of small and large casinos, as such areas would be too small to offer a suitable range of non-gambling facilities and to ensure that a suitable distance was maintained from the gambling area. The Government accepted that recommendation. However, the Joint Committee endorsed our view that children should be permitted into non-gambling areas of regional casinos, as it agreed that it would be possible to ensure a suitable distance from the gambling area and to put effective barriers in place. We believe that the gambling commission will want to give guidance to licensing authorities on that important point and about best practice in separating gambling from non-gambling areas.
Mr Bob Russell (Shadow Minister (Culture, Media & Sport), Culture, Media & Sport; Colchester, Liberal Democrat)
Is there currently a restriction on children using the non-casino part of smaller casinos?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
The answer, I think, is yes—there are nods all round, so the answer is yes.
The Government will also want to ensure careful control over the placing and nature of advertisements in non-gambling areas. We will do that using conditions on premises licences and will consider international examples. The non-gambling areas of regional casinos are likely to be large—perhaps even larger than the gaming area—including restaurants, theatres and other leisure activities.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
May I be clear about what the Minister is saying? Is he saying that if a regional casino had a bank of category D machines in its overall complex, they would have to be within the defined area, meaning that a child or young person could not gamble at all in such a casino?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
It hangs on the definition of gambling. The definition does not cover category D machines—they are defined differently. [Interruption.] In fact, category D machines must be in the gambling area as well, so I must admit that what I said was wrong. I will have to have a word with my officials later.
The point about effective barriers is the concern. As long as they are effective and in place, we see no reason why children should not be allowed in the non-gambling areas with their parents. I therefore ask the Committee to reject those amendments.
Government amendments Nos. 228 and 235 are designed to make clear when the offence in clauses 44 and 52 does not apply in regional casinos. Amendment No. 236 to clause 79 ensures consistency of language with clauses 44 and 52.
The offences in clauses 44 and 52 do not apply where children or young persons enter the non-gambling area of regional casinos. That is clearly the intent of the existing wording, but that current wording could be misconstrued if the facilities provided in the non-gambling area of a regional casino were specified in the regional casino premises licence. In those circumstances the part of the casino where there were non-gambling facilities could also be said to be
''being used in reliance of the casino premises licence''.
The revised wording is designed to ensure that there is no doubt that the offences do not apply where children or young persons enter the non-gambling area of regional casinos or are employed in the non-gambling area of a regional casino.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying certain issues. I am not quite sure about category D machines. A casino might be separate from a leisure activity but there could be a family entertainment centre in the leisure part. If there were, it presumably could contain category D machines.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
Between us, the hon. Gentleman and I are pushing the Minister for greater clarity. I suspect that a large number of organisations that are contemplating whether to come to this country to open regional casinos will be fascinated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press the Minister to find out whether it would be possible to have a regional casino next to a family entertainment centre, which would be allowed
to have category D machines. Would that be part of the same complex? Many people would be interested to hear the Minister's answer.
Mr. Caborn rose—
The Chairman: Order.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
That was an intervention, but the hon. Gentleman put the question so well that I will let the words carry over to the Minister and ask him to reply.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I am grateful as that gave me time to get the brief.
I am sure that inward investors in America are not waiting to see whether they will have to invest in category D machines. It will not hang on that. The answer to the question is no. A different premises licence would be required for category D machines.
Mr. Moss rose—
Mr. Caborn: I know what the next question will be.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I think he can work it out.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
We have all got there. If a premises licence was applied for and granted there would be no reason why a family entertainment centre should not be part of a regional casino development. That would mean that the children could play their category Ds in the family entertainment centre while the parents went to the casino to play the category As. Why does the Minister not simply admit that that is feasible?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
They are separate areas, and all casinos are covered by one licence.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
That is an interesting point. That is a delaying tactic if ever I saw one. A regional casino licence covers not just the casino part but the whole of the enterprise.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
To give my hon. Friend time to think, let me say that it occurs to me that a family entertainment centre that was under completely different ownership could apply under normal planning law for the site next door to a regional casino. I see that there is some agreement to that from the people we are not allowed to mention who are following our proceedings. If that is the case, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, supported by the hon. Member for Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire, is quite correct. If there were two completely different ownerships, and two completely different planning applications, the parents could leave the children in the family entertainment centre next door while they went to the casino to play the category A machines. If that is the case, there seems to be no logic in what the Minister says the law will be on casinos.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be brief.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his long and helpful intervention.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
Does the hon. Gentleman see that if two institutions under separate ownership were established adjacent to each other, it would be perfectly possible for the owners of the regional casino to purchase the family entertainment centre? Will he ask the Minister whether it would then be possible to demolish the wall between the two enterprises? Would that constitute a difficulty for the Minister?
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I am sure that it would constitute such a difficulty.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I shall in a moment. I want to get my mind around what was just said. The Government have not thought this through. They do not have a clue what they are on about. They suddenly decide that with a regional casino licence, ipso facto, only category A machines will be involved. No one would invest in the 7,500 sq m of space of a regional casino unless they had 1,250 category A machines. They would not put category D machines in the casino—who is the Minister kidding? The Government have not thought the issue through. As part of the overall leisure complex, there could be a family entertainment centre with category D machines that the children could play. I do not see how the Government can say that they are protecting children from one part of the edifice but not from the other. If there is a regional casino licence for category A machines, why would that not also cover category D machines in another part of the building? I hope that we can get clarification at a later stage.
Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
I am not here to help the Minister, but I believe that to get the regional licence the operator would have to provide a minimum balance of non-gambling areas large enough to accommodate suitable leisure, sport, arts and cultural facilities. Unless those were provided, the operators would not get the overall licence and would not be able to operate the category A machines that they would regard as necessary to make their enterprise pay. A nice edifice has been created, but I do not think that it has firm foundations. I hope that the Minister will give a reassurance that we are not going to give temptation to youngsters and lead them into gambling at a young age.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I was not unaware of the points that he has made. We understand that the leisure complexes will have a casino as part of their structure—something like 1,500 sq m would be put to casino use—and that the balance of the 7,500 sq m would be taken up by hotels, restaurants, ice rinks, facilities for sport and other leisure activities, theatres and so on. We have all seen the models used abroad, particularly in the USA. That is not the problem.
We have stumbled across the question whether it is possible to have a family entertainment centre with category D machines for the children to play within the overall complex. To date, the message from the Minister is that that is probably not possible because a
regional casino licence would allow gaming activity only within the casino part of the complex. I am not sure that the Government really understand the situation. Perhaps we can revisit the issue at a later date for further clarification.
We have had a reasonable debate on this issue—
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I sense that the hon. Gentleman is about to say that he will, with some assurances, beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I hope that he will not, at least until we have given the Minister an opportunity to faff around and answer the issues. The Minister obviously has a briefing that he is keen to share with us.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
It is not my prerogative to allow the Minister to continue to faff around. We are pressed for time and we have faffed around enough. However, if the Minister has something to say, I will happily give way.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Even the Minister has had enough faffing around.
We have had a good debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 228, in clause 44, page 20, line 30, leave out
''in reliance on the casino premises licence''
and insert
''for the provision of facilities for gambling''.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 209, in clause 44, page 21, line 5, at end insert
''the premises are a licensed family entertainment centre and''.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 210, in clause 44, page 21, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
These are probing amendments. I am told by those involved in pub and club businesses that subsection (7) might include them. I do not think that that is the intention, and we suggest that in order to clarify matters paragraph (a)—
''the premises are a licensed family entertainment centre''—
should be moved up into the first part of the subsection so that it relates specifically to licensed family entertainment centres and not to pubs and clubs that have category C gaming machines.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I am not absolutely clear about the hon. Gentleman's intention. The amendment does not change the effect of the clause. Perhaps that reassures him. The three paragraphs in subsection (7) explain the circumstances of the offence. All must apply for the offence to be committed. The position will be the same if the amendment is agreed to, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
The amendment relates to family entertainment centres, which brings us back to an issue we were debating a few minutes ago.
I want the Minister to explain some things in a little more detail. I can envisage there being a regional casino that has a range of offerings other than the main gaming part. That part is where the category A machines will be—probably along with category B machines and other things such as the gaming tables—but elsewhere there will be many other offerings. The casino might decide that it wants to put in a family entertainment centre. It would be able to do that in normal circumstances; it would be able to apply for a separate licence as a family entertainment centre within the overall complex. Similarly, I assume that it could apply to put in a pub—Ye Olde Worlde Pub or an Irish pub—as part of the attraction. I think that in the past it would have been able to apply for a separate licence for that facility, which could include category C machines in it.
I am unclear whether the Minister is giving us a categorical answer that it is not possible under the overarching umbrella of the regional casino to apply separately for a pub licence which might have category C machines, or for a family entertainment centre, which could have category D machines. I think the Minister has told us that that is not possible, but it would be helpful if he were to say that very clearly before we move on.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I hope that this will answer the question that has been raised, which was also raised in another debate. The licensee cannot apply for a second licence for the non-gaming area, and the whole area is covered by the regional casino licence. If we then consider children, clause 44(2) states:
''But subsection (1) does not apply where . . . a child or young person is permitted to enter a part of a premises which are being used for a regional casino''
on one licence has been applied for—
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.