Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 329, in clause 83, page 36, line 20, at beginning insert ''Subject to section 85(4),''.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 301, in clause 85, page 37, line 30, at end add—

'(4) A casino operating licence shall be subject to a condition that a person may not participate in any casino game or other game of chance or gaming machine made available at any casino operated by the licence holder unless that person is a member of that casino.

(5) A person may only be admitted to membership of a casino by a licence holder if he—

(a) has applied in writing to join the casino; and

(b) has provided satisfactory evidence of his identity and age.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), satisfactory evidence of identity is evidence which is reasonably capable of establishing (and does establish to the satisfaction of the licence holder) that the applicant is the person he claims to be and is aged 18 or over.'.

Amendment No. 137, in clause 161, page 72, line 12, at beginning insert 'Subject to section 165(6),'.

Amendment No. 138, in clause 165, page 74, line 37, at end insert—

'(6) A casino premises licence shall be subject to a condition that a person may not participate in any casino game or other game of chance made available at the casino unless that person is a member of that casino.

(7) A person may only be admitted to membership of a casino by a licence holder if he—

(a) has applied in writing to join the casino, and

(b) has provided satisfactory evidence of his identity and age.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) satisfactory evidence of identity is evidence which is reasonably capable of establishing (and does establish to the satisfaction of the licence holder) that the applicant is the person he claims to be and is aged 18 or over.'.

New clause 12—Proof of identity—

'Proof of identity will be required before any person can gain access to areas where casino games or Category A gaming machines are played by—

(a) a photographic ID in the form of a passport or driving licence;

(b) a form of ID showing proof of home address;

(c) any other requirement as set out by the Commission.'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The amendments deal with membership—perhaps identity is a better term—for people who will be using casino facilities in the future. The present law states that anyone entering a casino to participate must be a member. We also have the 24-hour rule that people cannot join and immediately start playing the tables.

It is considered that membership or identity needs to be retained in future for all casinos, especially the new regional casinos. We know from discussions with those who wish to invest in the new regional casinos that, without branding them, American investors, in particular, are wholly against any form of membership. They argue that they need so many people to come through the doors of the regional casinos—20,000 over a weekend is the target. They said that they could not possibly cope with dealing with membership applications for such a large number.

Regulation 8(1) of the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 from the second EU directive on money laundering states:

''A person who operates a casino by way of a business in the United Kingdom must obtain satisfactory evidence of identity of any person before allowing that person to use the casino's gaming facilities.''

At other times, è1,000 has been mentioned in respect of money laundering, which is about £700, and it has been said that the matter of identity would kick in when someone had gambled or perhaps won that sum—I am not sure which way round it is. In any event, a threshold figure was mentioned. If my sources are correct, the regulation that I quoted means that all people playing in a casino must supply ID.

It is important that anyone utilising a casino in future should provide ID. It will help the operators to know their clients. The existing operators to whom we have been talking and those who intend to come into the industry if they are lucky enough to win one of the franchises insist that the last thing they want are problem gamblers coming through their doors. It is important therefore that they know the individuals

who play their machines, rather than the gaming tables, so they can do something about those who are causing problems not only for the casino, but who have difficulties in their private lives.

Counselling in casinos is a positive course of action for problem gamblers in America, and American investors want to replicate that in regional casinos here. They want the gambling commission to ensure that proper accreditation and counselling schemes are part of the whole scenario of regional casinos. We are certainly much in favour of that. However, how could we offer a counselling service when the identity of the individuals is not known?

We learned from further discussions with an operator of casinos in South Africa that to play category A machines a person uses a magnetic card, which is given to him as he enters the casino. The person cashes in money and receives the card to play the machines. The card has the person's ID on it, comprising name, address and, I suppose, a photograph. It is a form of ID, so that the casino operators know who is playing which machines, who is gambling heavily and who is potentially going into loss.

We were told that there has never been a problem in administering that system and that operators would be happy to implement it in the United Kingdom if they were lucky enough to be successful in gaining a regional casino franchise. That is not a problem. It would be helpful to the Committee if the Government said the amendments were perfectly acceptable. We were close to that position with a previous amendment, so perhaps we can edge a little nearer, score a bulls-eye and hit the jackpot.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The Moss amendment

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I cannot claim that I wrote the amendment, but never mind. It would be helpful to know the Government's views on membership, and whether they see that as an integral part of the operation of regional casinos. Membership is already present in the UK industry. I am sure that additional large and small casinos will develop.

Mr John Pugh (Education Spokesperson, Education & Skills; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

There are two, clearly distinct, ideas: membership and identity. Does the hon. Gentleman draw any distinction between the two? Are there arguments for one that do not apply to the other?

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am not sure that I make any massive distinction. If a person provides ID to a casino operator on their first visit, that could be encrypted on their membership card. Once that has been done, it has been done. Every time that person went to the casino, they would show their card on entry. I do not see a problem with that.

No one has suggested to me that there should be vetting to ascertain whether people are appropriate to gamble in the casino, nor would I go along with

such a suggestion at this time. Some private clubs in London might have a vetting procedure—a blackball procedure—for people who were not welcome at the club, but such a club would be private. We are talking about public amenities; the general public will utilise the regional casinos and visit them to gamble. We make no distinction about the individual, but the individual's identity is important. Membership cards are largely irrelevant; identity is the critical factor.

Mr Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

When I tabled new clause 12, no other amendments on membership had been tabled; I thought that that was extraordinary. There is no avoiding some form of membership scheme. Whatever way one looks at it, the EU directive requires that people playing at gaming tables should give some form of ID. The Government said on Second Reading that they would require people who gambled sums in excess of £750 to provide ID. If we are to record how much somebody has spent, that person should make their identity known at an early stage—otherwise, there would be no way to record how much they had spent.

We need some form of regulation, and not just about money laundering. We are getting rid of the 24-hour cooling-off period, and I can accept that. However, we have to consider why it was there. People could be out for a celebration and have drunk some alcohol. They could slip into a gambling establishment and make mistakes by gambling too much or indulging too much in gaming machines or tables. Some form of membership system would require them to make a conscious decision about going into an establishment, being a member and engaging in those games. We have overlooked that important aspect, on which the Bill is silent.

In spite of the Minister's generous mood this afternoon—he has indicated that he will accept one amendment—I do not expect him to accept my new clause as it is worded, although I may say that I worded it expertly. However, I should like him to give the matter further consideration, particularly in light of the fact that the industry itself seems to be suggesting, to some degree, that it would like some form of membership.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has expertly drafted his new clause, although I point out to him that I think that it contains the error of describing the new body as the gaming, rather than the gambling, commission.

Notwithstanding that, I entirely agreed with him when he said that identity is the critical factor. The discussion about membership is probably taking us in the wrong direction. For the purposes of preventing money laundering and tracking problem gamblers to ensure that they are given the help, support and advice that they need, the crucial issue is that a system of identification is required.

Hon. Members have referred to the second European directive on money laundering. I am sure that those who have are well aware that consultations are already taking place on the third directive. It is my understanding that, so far, those discussions do

nothing to suggest that the requirement on identity will be removed. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. The Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the amendments.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I recognise that the amendments are well intentioned, but the Government will not be able to agree to them. A key aim of the Bill is to modernise the laws on casinos by removing unnecessary restrictions, such as the membership rule. While nothing in the Bill stops casinos from having membership if they want it, we do not consider it necessary to impose that obligation upon them.

I agree that we should protect the industry's integrity and also tackle problem gambling. The Bill contains many protections to secure the world-class reputation of casinos and to prevent problem gambling in Great Britain. In the context of the improved protections, we do not think that the compulsory imposition of membership requirements on casinos serves any real regulatory purpose. To achieve the aims to which I referred, we do not need the amendments and the detailed requirements that they propose about the identification of customers by photographic ID, name and address.

Mr John Pugh (Education Spokesperson, Education & Skills; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister makes a point about the regulatory need, but he also made a point about the need to monitor gambling behaviour. There will be an assessment of whether the Bill alters people's gambling behaviour and if we simply do not know who is gambling at casinos, how can we conceivably do that?

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

As I said, there are other checks and balances that go way beyond the clause in relation to problem gamblers and the concerns that hon. Members have raised.

Casinos will be only too keen to ensure that their arrangements are effective. It will be open to the commission to include advice about supervising access to gaming areas in the guidance that it gives to licensing authorities under clause 24. That means that, if necessary, the method of checking age and the standard of supervision required can be included in the premises' licence conditions. That includes door supervision conditions.

There is no need to short-circuit those procedures by writing detailed requirements into the Bill. It contains a suitable, flexible framework of regulation. The amendments would make it much more rigid without adding any powers that the Bill lacks.

A number of casinos have made clear their view that, in the context of the system of gambling regulation proposed by the Bill, in particular the removal of compulsory casino membership schemes, it would be more appropriate to check the identity of customers at the financial threshold and not at the physical threshold of the premises or at some specific area of the premises. The amendments would shut off that option by requiring identification on entry to the

area of the casino that includes gaming tables and higher value gaming machines. Anyone who went into such an area would have to go through an ID check, whether or not they were going to gamble.

Mr Clive Efford (Eltham, Labour)

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will be a requirement of the operators that people must give their identification on every occasion in the circumstances to which he referred?

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I am not saying that; I am merely saying that the flexibility is there: if the operator wants to do that, it is open to them. I am not saying that that identification check should take place as a matter of course.

The amendments would shut off the option by requiring ID checks on entry to the areas of the casino that include gaming tables and higher-value gaming machines. Therefore, anybody going into such an area would have to go through identification, whether or not they were going to gamble.

In the Government's view that is unnecessary for a number of reasons. The first is that the requirement as to identification and verification of identity for the purpose of controlling money laundering can, and indeed, should be set in specific money laundering regulations made by the Treasury that implement the requirements set out in the EU directive. Already, the second directive and regulations require ID checks and we are going on to consider the third directive as well. We cannot yet be sure what it will require. It would not be sensible to try to anticipate it by including detailed provisions in the Bill.

Secondly, we are not persuaded that in future it will be right to require identification on entry in all cases, even though we do so now. As I have explained, the casinos of the future will not be the same as casinos are now. Furthermore, the identification requirements in the new directive are likely to be more challenging than those in the present one. I need to emphasise in the strongest terms that there is no question whatever of the Government's being soft on money laundering or wanting to weaken controls as a concession to foreign companies with a view to persuading them to invest here. There might be different means by which casinos can ensure that they comply with identification requirements, taking account of the fact that risks can vary from one situation to another.

The amendments would create unnecessary inflexibility and would require casinos to do things in one way only. They would, for example, insist on one specific method of identification, using photographs, when it might be entirely satisfactory to verify identity in other ways. Above all, they would create inflexibility by writing into British law a requirement of identification at one specific time, whereas the directive allows greater flexibility on timing. If the amendments were accepted, future money-laundering regulations could not vary them.

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister talked about a photograph. I do not see in the amendments that I have tabled any reference to a photograph; nor do I see anything in

amendment No. 301 saying that membership should be organised on entry. It simply says that ID is required before somebody can

''participate in any casino game or other game of chance or gaming machine''.

It does not say that one has to have ID in order to walk through the door into the casino.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

The amendments would restrict movement and remove the flexibility that is in the Bill. If amendments are required because of something that is in the third directive on money laundering, we shall come back to the matter. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Committee that the amendments should not be agreed, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them.

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister did not answer my question. He made some statements, but when I asked about photographs and entry he did not reply. I do not know why he does not want to give ground on the issue, although I can think of all sorts of reasons, principally that the Americans have made it clear that they do not want him to. They have made it so clear that it has been widely trailed in the press that they want some fudging on the new directives if they can get it. No doubt the Minister will say that there is not an ounce of truth in that, but who knows?

Most of the operators to whom we have spoken do not have a problem. The South Africans who have applied for two of the sites that I know of, and Lord Steinberg of Stanley Leisure plc, the largest British casino operator, which has a big casino in Birmingham and has made an application for Leeds, are not too fussed about identity. I do not know where the problem arises. We are talking about eight regional casinos, which will be phased in over a period. I do not see any difficulty about requiring ID. We would not ask for it on the first weekend, when 20,000 people turned up—we might not get through it all—but the South African operators have indicated that it is easily done and does not take much time.

We are saying not that people will have to be members to go into casinos, but that some proof of ID should be required before they start playing the machines and the games. That is all. Whether we call it membership or ID does not matter. However, if the Government are serious about protecting the vulnerable, they have to accept that one has to know one's client. If operators do not know which individuals are spending—and losing—thousands of pounds, how on earth can anybody introduce a counselling scheme to help them? The casinos do not want problem gamblers; that is the worst thing that they can have. Not only do they cause difficulties inside casinos, but if news of that gets out, the casinos get a bad name and their reputations are at stake. They want to track the vulnerable and problem gamblers. The only way that I know of to do that—perhaps the Minister knows a different way—is to have some form of identification involved. Once someone has given their ID, the same piece could be used on repeat visits to the same regional casino. I do not see a problem with that system.

I understand partly the argument that says we do not want to be too rigid, but it is not good enough to say that the commission will perhaps deal with the issue at some future date. If the Government are serious about protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that there is proper counselling, there must be something in the Bill to indicate that they are taking that road. To leave it to the chance element—that the gambling commission will deal with the issue—is not acceptable.

There is no point in pushing the issue to a vote, given the few Members who are left, but we will certainly revisit it as it is important. It may be something that the Government have to give ground on before they get the Bill through the other place—that is how important it is.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I agree about its importance, and I do not underestimate the force of the argument from the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. However, I refer them to clause 75, which deals with the scope of powers to attach conditions. Subsection (9) provides:

''A condition may make provision about . . . establishing the identity of users of facilities . . . recording the identity of users of facilities''

''restricting facilities to persons registered in respect of the facilities in advance.''

What I am saying is that a series of checks and balances is already in the Bill.

The EU second directive on money laundering carries 10 conditions, so people betting thousands of pounds could well be caught by it. We are not entirely clear about the interpretation of the third directive vis-a-vis the casinos, and we will have to come back to that later. However, we believe that the Bill is strong enough to deal with the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman raised. Verified entry in the gaming area is not the same as a membership or identity check. Verification of age is important, but that can be done by the casino operators. Again, I say that I believe we have enough checks and balances without the imposition of membership.

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister was a little more helpful that time, but it is no good his referring to the fact that the word ''may'' is in the Bill because we know what it means—may or may not. The word ''shall'' would give us some comfort, and the Government should consider the point again. We are not going to get anywhere this evening, but we shall revisit the issue on Report and in the other place. The critical question of identification cannot be left to the whim of a gambling commission—it is too important.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Watson.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Five o'clock until Thursday 2 December at half-past Nine o'clock.