Clause 143 - Form of licence
Gambling Bill
3:00 pm
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
My lengthy brief has been condensed to three paragraphs, which will accord with the Committee's wish that we focus on the issues this afternoon. I shall give a full explanation of the position on money laundering, and it would be helpful if I did so without being asked to give way because the position is somewhat complex.
Casinos throughout Europe are subject to a money laundering directive, which, as well as imposing requirements on a wide range of financial institutions, requires casino customers to be identified if they buy or sell chips above a value of è1,000. However, two things are set to change. First, the Bill will remove the requirement in the Gaming Act 1968 for casinos to operate as members' clubs. It will, of course, be open to casinos to continue to operate as members' clubs if they wish, and we made that clear during an earlier debate. Some may choose to do so, but others may not, and we should not frame the Bill in the expectation that all casinos will be for members only, which is an unnecessary regulatory requirement provided that other safeguards are in place.
The second change in prospect is that the EU is currently considering a new draft money laundering directive, which will reinforce and extend the controls in the present directive. The Treasury remains in the lead on that and has been consulting interested bodies, including law enforcement agencies, regulators and, of course, the businesses that will be affected by the new directive, including casinos. People going into such areas will have to go through identity checks, whether or not they gamble. In the Government's view, that is unnecessary for a number of reasons. First, requirements as to identification and verification of identity for the purposes of controlling money laundering can and, indeed, should be set in specific money laundering regulations made by the Treasury, which implement the requirements set out in the EU directive. We cannot yet be sure what the new directive will require, and it would not be sensible to try to anticipate it by including detailed and specific provisions in the Bill.
Secondly, we are not persuaded that it would be right in future 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 now. Furthermore, the identification requirements in the new directive are likely to be more challenging than the requirements in the present directive. It would not be appropriate to go into the details of the consultations that have been taking place with industry bodies, or the discussions with other member states.
We expect that, fairly soon, a proposal will be agreed by member states and go to the European Parliament for consideration. What I can say is that it is likely that the new directive, like the present directive, will provide a choice between mandatory identification at the point of crossing a financial threshold or identification on entry. I can also say that a number of casinos have made clear their view that, in the context of the system of gambling regulation proposed in the Bill and, 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 some specific area of the premises. The amendment would shut off that option by requiring identification on entry to that area of a casino that includes gaming tables and higher-value gaming machines. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.