8 April 2005
Gambling Bill Receives Royal Assent
The Gambling Bill received Royal Assent yesterday and became
an Act of Parliament.
The Bill creates a new regulator, the Gambling Commission,
which will come out of the existing Gaming Board. It modernises
gambling laws that have not been substantially updated since
1968, bringing many new forms of gambling under proper regulation
for the first time.
Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell
said:
"I am delighted we can now set up the Gambling Commission
and ensure that Britain has the most robust framework of
gambling regulation in the world."
Press Enquiries: 020 7211 6931
Out of hours telephone pager no: 07699 751153
Public Enquiries: 020 7211 6200
Gambling Bill Archive:
4 April 2005
Ministerial Written Statement - Gambling
Bill: Amendments
Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): This
statement provides information about a number of amendments
tabled on the Gambling Bill, which is presently being considered
in Committee in the House of Lords. The Government believes
it may be of assistance to members of both Houses if it were
to provide its view on amendments to the Bill that have not
yet been considered formally, but which have been the subject
of extensive discussions between Ministers and members in
both Houses, as well as a range of interested parties. The
Government has also placed a copy of associated letters to
Opposition Spokespersons, setting out its position on all
amendments tabled to the Bill, in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Government hopes that this statement reflects the level
of consensus that these constructive discussions have brought
about, which has been reflected in a considerable number
of improving amendments being tabled by the Government. References
to clauses and schedules in this statement are to those in
the Gambling Bill, in the draft brought from the House of
Commons on 25th January.
Schedule 1 and 2: Payment to enter lotteries and betting
prize competitions
This section deals with amendments tabled to the Gambling
Bill that seek to clarify the meaning of payment to enter
which concern entry into betting prize competitions and lotteries.
The Government acknowledges that effective definitions in
this area are of great importance, and sympathise with the
intention of the amendments. However, we do not believe that
the amendments would add clarity to the schedules or improve
their effect.
We consider that the addition of the words "has been
calculated so as to reflect", in relation to the cost
of goods that may constitute payment to enter the competition
or lottery, would not make a practical difference. Where
the cost of an item "reflects" the opportunity
to enter an arrangement, the price of that item must include
a calculated increase that is attributable to the opportunity
to enter the arrangement. We also believe that amendments
relating to the "normal rate" are unnecessary as
this will necessarily exclude any supplement or premium that
reflects the opportunity to enter the lottery or competition.
The Government agrees with amendments requiring free communications
- offered as an alternative to a payment to enter the competition
or lottery - to be genuine, realistic and not unduly inconvenient
nor more expensive than payment to enter. We believe, however,
that this is the effect of Schedules 1 and 2. Paragraph 8
of both Schedules requires a choice between paying to enter
and entering through a form of communication. If the communication
is not a genuine or realistic option, the requirement for
a choice cannot be said to have been fulfilled.
This paragraph also requires that the free communication
route must be no less convenient than entry by paying. This
is designed precisely to rule out schemes that are not genuine
or realistic, if, for example, an individual has a choice
between paying to enter, and travelling to an inconveniently
located office. It will not prevent companies using what
might be legitimate free entry routes such as email.
Amendments have been tabled that seek to clarify that a
requirement to pay in order to collect a prize will only
be deemed to be payment to enter where the payment is to
the arrangement promoter or his associate. The Government
does not believe these amendments are necessary: payment
for anything other than possession of the prize itself cannot
be payment to enter for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 14: Definition of lottery
This section concerns the definition of 'lottery' included
in clause 14 of the Gambling Bill and, specifically, amendments
tabled about the level of skill needed to fall outside lottery
regulation.
A number of amendments have been tabled that represent contrasting
views in the debate over the level of skill required in a
prize competition for it to fall outside lottery regulation
under the Bill.
The Government does not agree with the amendments which
would weaken the protection of charity lotteries, offering
commercial prize competitions a wide discretion to encroach
on the area of activity that the Government believes should
remain the preserve of charity lotteries. Conversely, the
Government believes that the amendments that introduce the
notion of 'substantial skill' into the definition of a lottery
bring an unreasonably stiff test.
The Government prefers its own amendments to clause 14,
which seek to make the definition of lottery more user-friendly,
without diluting the level of the test or the principle underpinning
it.
The Government amendments introduce the notion of "reasonable
expectation" into the test. This changes the nature
of the test from a strictly empirical one to a normative
one, and thereby improves its practical application. It is
also important to note too that the Bill provides for a Gambling
Commission with the powers it needs to investigate and tackle
any abuses.
top
Clause 24 Sports betting codes of practice
This section concerns proposals relating to sports betting
codes of practice, and their inclusion in the Gambling Bill.
Amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill would require the
proposed Gambling Commission to issue, to betting licensees,
codes of practice on betting on sports. Clause 24 of the
Bill already provides the Commission with powers to issue
such codes.
The Government agrees that protecting the integrity of sport
from potential threats posed by betting will be a priority
for the Commission. Indeed, one of the Commission's licensing
objectives is to ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair
and open way. The Government also published, last month,
its code of practice for betting on sports. In future, this
code will complement codes of practice issued by the Gambling
Commission. The Government believes, therefore, that further
requirements to issue codes of practice are unnecessary,
as both the powers and objectives of the Commission are already
in place to tackle this issue.
Clause 25: Guidance to local authorities
This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling
Bill that would involve the Government, rather than the proposed
Gambling Commission, offering guidance to local licensing
authorities about the exercise of their functions under the
proposed legislation.
Amendments tabled require the Secretary of State to issue
guidance to licensing authorities under clause 25, in place
of the Gambling Commission. The Government disagrees with
these proposed amendments. The Commission, not the Government,
will be the primary regulator of gambling in Great Britain
and, with its experience of regulating and communicating
with the industry, will be the main source of knowledge on
gambling issues.
The Commission, along with licensing authorities will also
be responsible for monitoring and inspecting gambling activities,
ensuring those activities take place in accordance with licence
conditions.
In the light of this, the Government holds to the view that
the Gambling Commission is best placed to guide licensing
authorities in the pursuit of their functions.
Clause 26: Duty to advise Secretary of State
This statement concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling
Bill that relate to the release of advice offered by the
proposed Gambling Commission to the Government.
Amendments tabled require the Gambling Commission to make
any advice given to the Secretary of State available to the
general public. The Government agrees with the objectives
of this amendment, but does not think it necessary to add
this amendment to the Bill.
The Gambling Commission will be bound, like other bodies,
by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Requiring the Commission
to publish all the advice given to the Secretary of State
will, however, put an unnecessary burden on the Gambling
Commission. However, where it is appropriate to do so (having
regard to the 2000 Act), the Government agrees that the Gambling
Commission should make public the advice it gives to the
Secretary of State.
After Clause 26: Test purchasing
This section concerns Government amendments that have been
tabled to the Gambling Bill to allow the Gambling Commission
to assess whether the offences under the Bill are being complied
with.
The main purpose of the amendments is to enable test purchasing
to be carried out to assess compliance with under-age gambling.
The Commission will be able to use children and young persons
in test purchasing activities to assess whether the offences
of under-age gambling are being complied with. The amendments
follow the model suggested by the Trading Standards Institute,
which is involved in the protection of children from harm
and the prevention of children from access to restricted
goods, such as alcohol, cigarettes and lottery tickets.
Clause 35: Territorial Application
This statement addresses concerns raised by remote gambling
operators about licensing of remote gambling under the Gambling
Bill. The Government has held detailed discussions with the
operators on these issues, and has accordingly tabled Government
amendments 79, 82, 84, 89, 142, 143 and158.
Clause 35(4)(a) of the Bill defines remote gambling equipment
as that which registers a person's participation in the gambling.
Operators believed this an unduly onerous approach. Amendment
80, therefore, would require gambling operators to only verify
the identity of customers. The Government does not think
this sufficient, so Government amendment 79 requires this
and requires operators to keep records of customers' gaming
and transaction history.
Amendment 81 deals with operator concerns that clause 35(4)(c)
would capture all poker-room equipment used by British operators,
which is often based overseas and whose location in Great
Britain need not be necessary for the effective regulation
of such remote gambling. The Government acknowledges that
this is a legitimate concern and accordingly tabled Government
amendments 142, 143 and 158 which allow the Gambling Commission
to take a case by case approach to deciding which items of
gambling equipment can be located outside Great Britain.
Amendment 83 and Government amendment 82 address the same
issue - the records which remote gambling licensees must
keep. We believe that amendment 83 would retain a requirement
on the operators to maintain financial records, whereas Government
amendment 82 has withdrawn this requirement and replaced
it with a requirement to record game result history.
Amendment 84 is a minor drafting amendment, which recognises
that equipment other than computers may be used for remote
gambling e.g. mobile phones.
Amendment 88 seeks to exclude remote communications software
from the offence of installing or supplying gambling software.
The Government agrees with this objective, but believes that
Government amendment 89 achieves it more effectively by clarifying
that a person does not supply or install gambling software
if they provide solely communications equipment, e.g. a mobile
telephone network, even if it is subsequently used to download
gambling software.
Amendment 141 would require the Gambling Commission to regulate
equipment outside its jurisdiction. The Government believes
this impractical, but has instead tabled amendments 142,
143 and 158, which allow the Gambling Commission flexibility
to judge which equipment can be located off-shore.
The Government is confident that its amendments, which were
shown in draft to the Association of Remote Gambling Operators,
deal effectively with the remaining issues of concern to
the remote gambling industry.
top
Clause 41: Cheating
This section concerns amendments that have been tabled to
the Gambling Bill that seek to alter or supplement the definition
of cheating in the Bill.
Amendment 90 seeks to replace clause 41(1), which makes
it an offence to cheat at gambling (without defining cheating)
with a new subsection which includes a definition of cheating.
The Government appreciates that the intention of the amendment
is to make the scope of the offence more specific; but we
believe that, while it may achieve this objective, it involves
undesirable consequences.
First, and most importantly, it narrows the scope of the
offence, by excluding forms of cheating which do not alter
the element of chance in a game of chance or its outcome.
Second, by tying the definition of cheating specifically
to games of chance it raises a question mark about cheating
in the context of other forms of gambling than gaming, such
as betting and lotteries.
The Government does believe that it is an important strength
of clause 41 that the expression "cheating" is
not defined. This will enable the Commission and the courts,
in prosecuting and punishing cheats, to deal with the full
range of culpable conduct. The Government does believe that
the practical effect of a specific definition (however desirable
from a drafting perspective) will make things easier, not
harder, for cheats.
Amendment 91 appears to be intended to broaden the definition
of the offence. It would bring within the definition of the
offence any act which allows an advantage not intended by
the manufacturer or operator of a game. The Government fears,
however, that the effect of the amendment will be uncertain,
because the operator's intention can only be a wholly subjective
concept.
Amendment 92 seems intended to ensure that the offence of
cheating catches the type of scam that involves using electronic
equipment to reduce the odds on games like roulette, of which
there was a high profile alleged incident last year at a
London casino. The amendment makes specific provision concerning
use of equipment in a casino that could be used to record,
analyse or predict the outcome of, or the manner in which
a game is played. The amendment would make the possession
of any electronic equipment capable of recording games in
a casino an offence. The Government is unclear about whether
such activity will always constitute cheating, and accordingly
thinks it unsafe to accept the amendment.
Following the incident last year, the Government did consider
carefully the use of electronic equipment to narrow the odds
of casino games, and whether we needed to strengthen the
offence of cheating in the Bill. We concluded that the Bill
already covers everything that it should. A person who does
anything unfairly to increase the chance of winning is cheating
at gambling, and already falls within the offence. We are
afraid that being more specific than this would risk making
the clause too complicated, and vulnerable to evasion.
Clause 50: Employment to provide facilities for gambling
This section concerns amendments to the Gambling Bill, which
relate to the employment of children, particularly those
intended to allow gambling operators to employ children to
work on 'category D' machines and otherwise than in the provision
of gambling in betting offices, adult gaming centres and
casinos..
The Government believes that children should not be employed
in a way that involves interfering with any category of gaming
machine, even 'category D' machines.
The control of machines is an adult responsibility and it
would be we think it would be irresponsible to allow children
to be involved. Of course, children can be employed in family
entertainment centres and in other places, to man the change
counter or to serve food. There is no harm in that and the
Bill allows it to continue.
The Bill prevents children from entering betting offices
and adult gaming centres when they are being used in reliance
on the premises licence, and the Government thinks this is
an important principle. The Bill does not prevent persons
aged under 18 from entering these premises at other times,
however, so that 16 and 17 year old apprentice joiners could
work on the refurbishment of the premises.
Clause 58: Age limit for Category D gaming machine
This section concerns Government amendment to the Gambling
Bill which requires that the Secretary of State, before setting
any age limit for playing 'category D' gaming machines, consults
the Gambling Commission, the industry and those with knowledge
of the social problems relating to gambling. Government amendments
also allow age limits to be set for only certain types of
gaming machine e.g. we could exclude cranes and grabbers
from any age limit.
These Government amendment follows up the commitment made
by the Government during the second reading of the Bill in
the House of Lords, to give Ministers power to limit the
effect of any new age requirements for category D machines,
to particular types of gaming machines.
Government amendments insert new subsection (3) into clause
58. This subsection means that, before using this power,
the Secretary of State must consult the Gambling Commission,
relevant parts of the gambling industry and people involved
with problem gambling. Government amendments also insert
new subsection (4) into clause 58. This subsection allows
the Government to distinguish different types of category
D machines. This means that the Government can exclude machines
such as penny pushers and crane machines from any future
age restriction, if necessary.
top
Clause 79: Credit and inducements
This section concerns Government amendments proposed to
the Gambling Bill which prevent the use of credit cards for
gambling payments in casinos. This delivers on a commitment
the Government offered at second reading.
The Bill as drafted already prohibits the use of credit
cards in gaming machines, and these amendments extend the
effect of that prohibition to all gambling in a casino. The
amendments tabled do allow cash machines to remain in casinos,
as long as there is no commercial relationship between the
casino and the machine provider. The casino must also ensure
that conditions about the location of such machines are observed
properly.
Clause 91: Pool betting operating licence
This section concerns amendments to the Gambling Bill relating
to greyhound pool betting.
The Government understands the concerns of the greyhound
racing industry. At present, occupiers of greyhound tracks
have an exclusive right to offer pool bets on the races taking
place at their tracks. Betting offices cannot offer pool
bets on greyhound tracks. The Government proposed to lift
this restriction; to widen consumer choice and allow the
more substantial off-course pools to flow into on-course
pools, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of greyhound
pools.
The Government acknowledges, however, that there have been
concerns expressed in the greyhound industry about the potentially
disruptive effects of a rapid move to an open market.
Following detailed discussions with representatives of the
greyhound industry, the Government has therefore decided
to table its own amendment on this issue. This will require
pool bets on greyhound racing to be offered in betting premises
only where they are offered in accordance with an arrangement
with the greyhound track occupier. This restriction will
apply until 31st December 2012, after which it will cease
to have effect. The Government hope this transitional measure
will provide reassurance to the greyhound industry, but note
that it will also allow a wider range of betting choices
for the betting consumer than exist at present.
Clause 97: Mandatory conditions of lottery operating licence
This section concerns amendments that have been tabled to
the Gambling Bill that seek to alter or supplement the limits
on the proceeds of society and local authority lotteries
licensed under Part 5.
Amendment 147 seeks to remove the limits altogether; amendment
148 would increase the maximum permitted proceeds of any
one lottery GBP10million; amendment 149 would remove any
limit on the annual proceeds of a lottery (currently GBP10m);
amendment 150 doubles the maximum prize that can be won in
a lottery to GBP50,000 (if 10% of the proceeds is less thanGBPGBP50,000);
and amendment 152 would make it a statutory obligation for
the Gambling Commission to review proceeds and prize limits
every three years.
The Government acknowledges that society lotteries raise
a great deal of money for good causes, in part as a result
of the recent increases in maximum permitted prizes and proceeds.
In most cases, it seems unlikely that the limits in the Bill
will act as a restraint for most lotteries - as few approach
the limits on proceeds set out in the Bill.
The Government does think it important to retain some control
over the size of large society lotteries. In particular,
prizes for these types of lottery are limited to a maximum
10% of the proceeds of the lottery. If the limits on the
proceeds were removed it could lead to a situation where
people were tempted to gamble more to chase higher prizes.
We think the existing limits, which were doubled in 2002,
are fair, but we agree that there should be flexibility to
alter them.
The Secretary of State has the power to vary any monetary
amount or percentage in clause 97. She will, of course, keep
these limits under review and increase them as necessary.
With respect to the proposals in amendment 152 for a triennial
review, it will be well known that the arrangements for a
review have arisen as a matter of custom and practice on
the part of the Gaming Board. We expect those arrangements
to continue, and the Bill already makes provision, in clause
26, for the Gambling Commission to offer advice to the Secretary
of State.
Amendment 151 is intended to remove the requirement that
electronic tickets must be sent in a way that enables them
to be retained, replacing it with a requirement only that
the information contained on it should be accessible. The
Government does not think it prudent to accept this amendment.
We do think it important that a person should be sent his
ticket in a way that enables him to retain it, whether electronically
or otherwise. This is both so that he can prove his entry,
and so that the information is there to be checked if necessary
by those responsible for monitoring gambling activity. We
believe these are reasonable requirements.
top
Clause 121: Levy
This section concerns amendments which have been tabled
to the Gambling Bill which seek to ensure that any levy raised
under clause 121 is not raised in such a way that society
lotteries pay more than reflects their impact on problem
gambling or their relative size in terms of gambling revenue.
The Government hopes that it will not be necessary to commence
the levy provisions of clause 121. If, however, that proves
necessary, there are a number of options for determining
the levy allowed under the current Clause 121 - including
provision to determine it by reference to receipts. In raising
any levy, the Government will of course discuss with the
Gambling Commission how best to ensure that contributions,
including any from the society lottery sector, are fair and
reasonable. We do not consider that we should limit our options
in the way that these amendments imply.
In addition, we do think that to tie the levy applicable
solely to the incidence of problem gambling - whether or
not linked also to revenue, and for society lotteries only,
would be unfair. We, therefore, believe that the possible
operation of a levy should be dealt with in the round, in
the manner facilitated by clause 121.
Clause 157 etc: Fees
This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling
Bill that would remove the Secretary of State's power to
set annual premises licence fees. Licensing authorities would
be able to set their own fees for premises licences in accordance
with guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
The Gambling Bill gives to the Secretary of State a power
(in respect of England and Wales) to set bands of fees for
premises licences, with a prescribed maximum. This maximum
is proposed because the Government believes it important
that fees are fair and consistent. Within these bands, authorities
will be able to set the precise fee in order for them to
be able to recover their costs. We recognise that, in some
circumstances, it would be appropriate to devolve fee-setting
to licensing authorities, so long as the principle of cost-recovery
is maintained.
Therefore, the Secretary of State has a power under clause
206 to devolve fee-setting to some, or all, licensing authorities.
The Government has been, and will continue to liaise with
the Local Government Association and LACORS regarding the
setting of all fees charged by licensing authorities under
the Gambling Bill. The Government considers that this approach
balances a desire for a degree of local autonomy with a reasonable
desire on the part of gambling operators for a level of consistency.
Clause 166: Default conditions
This section concerns amendments to the Gambling Bill that
seek to restrict the opening times of betting offices during
winter months.
The Government intends to use powers under clause 166 (default
conditions), to set opening hours for gambling premises.
The Government has no detailed proposals to make about the
future opening hours of betting offices, other than to confirm
that it believes they should be standard over the year. The
Government will continue to consider this matter in consultation
with all interested parties.
Clause 174: Bingo door supervision
This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling
Bill that address requirements for door supervision of gambling
premises. Amendment 250 would exclude bingo hall door supervisors
from needing to be licensed, as security operatives, under
the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The Government has
now tabled Government amendments 247, 248, 249 and 381. These
ensure that where bingo (and casino) operators use their
own staff for door supervision purposes, they continue to
be exempt from being licensed under the Private Security
Industry Act 2001. We believe that the controls in the Bill
are sufficient to regulate these matters. As a result, there
is no longer a need for amendment 250. We understand that
the Bingo Association is also satisfied that the matter has
been dealt with satisfactorily.
After Clause 177: Christmas Day
This section concerns Government amendments tabled to the
Gambling Bill. The Government noted concerns in the House
of Commons and Lords about the availability of commercial
gambling services on Christmas Day. Accordingly, the Government
has tabled amendment 251, which will have the effect of preventing
licensed premises from being used to offer facilities for
gambling on Christmas day.
Clause 230: Gaming machines: categories A to D
This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling
Bill that seek to allow the practice of trading up of two
smaller prizes from a gaming machine, for a larger one to
continue. The Government agrees with this aspiration and
believes that this is achieved in clause 337(3), which permits
trading up so long as the value of the prize received is
not greater than the total value of the prizes that could
have been lawfully won by the player.
However, the proposal to introduce the phrase "be permitted
without restriction", which is included in amendments,
is of concern to the Government because it could be interpreted
to mean that trading up to any value of prize could occur.
If the amendment were interpreted in this way, two GBP5 prizes
could be traded up to a prize of the value of GBP100, which
would clearly be undesirable.
top
Clause 230: Gaming machines: categories A to D
This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling
Bill that would have the effect of making a triennial review
of gaming machine stakes and prizes a statutory obligation.
It also concerns amendments that would increase the maximum
prize payable by a 'category C' machine from GBP25, as proposed
by the Government, to GBP35.
A triennial review of stakes and prizes has been carried
out by the Gaming Board for Great Britain, as a matter of
custom and practice. However, the Government does not think
it desirable to make the process binding. The proposed Gambling
Commission (which will take on the responsibilities of the
Gaming Board in this area) might have reason to undertake
a review more frequently than every three years. Conversely,
there may be circumstances that lead the Commission to conclude
that a review of stakes and prizes is certainly not appropriate.
Nor would the Government wish to encourage an assumption
that it had ruled out adjustments to stakes and prizes that
were thought necessary in response to advice and research
from sources other than the Gambling Commission, even if
the Government would always consult the Commission about
the use of its powers in Part 10 to adjust stakes and prizes.
As will be known, the Gaming Board for Great Britain recommended,
in their triennial review last year, an increase in Category
C machine prizes to GBP35.
The Government gave careful consideration to the Board's advice, but
came to the conclusion that stakes and prizes for these gaming machines,
which are available in pubs and other premises not dedicated to gambling,
should stay where they are, pending the passage of this Bill. That
means retaining the GBP25 maximum prize for category C machines for
now, while keeping this under review in the future. The Government
is not minded to change its view on this point.
Clause 230: Gaming machines: categories A to D
This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling
Bill that seek to ensure that the stakes and prizes for 'category
D machines' under the Bill will be, respectively, 30p and
GBP8.
During the second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords,
on 22nd February, the Government announced that the existing
maximum prize of GBP8 for gaming machines that offer non-monetary
and non-exchangeable prizes (i.e. goods, like teddy bears)
will remain. The Government has previously announced that
maximum stake for these machines will remain at 30p.
For other types of category gaming machine, like those that
pay out in either cash or in tokens that can be accumulated
and traded for significant prizes (known generally as 'redemption'
machines, the Government continues to take the view that
the appropriate stake and prize limits for these machines
are 10p and GBP5.
Machines with cash or exchangeable prizes involve incentives
for repeat play that the Government believes justifies a
more cautious approach than for non-monetary and non-exchangeable
prizes, particularly where these machines can be played by
children. Clause 230 gives Ministers power to adjust stakes
and prize limits for all categories of machine. The Government
believes that this flexible approach is the correct one in
relation to machine stakes and prizes.
Clause 258: Preventing Repetitive play
This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling
Bill that seek to ensure that the Gambling Commission cannot
arbitrarily attach conditions to licences for rapid draw
lotteries, without first having evidence that these lotteries
are harmful.
The Government agrees with the intention of this amendment,
and can confirm that it has no desire to place restrictive
conditions on lotteries in the absence of compelling evidence
of harm.
Following discussions with representatives of lottery providers,
the Government has decided to take a slightly different approach
to this issue, but with the same objective of protecting
consumers.
The Government has therefore tabled amendments to delete
clause 258. The Government intends, instead, to rely upon
the powers in clauses 73, 75, and 76 to facilitate such conditions,
as are necessary, on the offering of lotteries. Under clauses
73 and 75, the Gambling Commission may attach conditions
to lottery operating licences. Under clause 76 the Secretary
of State may make regulations which require specified conditions
to be added to operating licences. The Government will consider,
with the Gambling Commission and lottery providers whether
it is necessary to use these powers in relation to lotteries.
It will do so through the processes for consultation provided
for in Parts 2 and 5 of the Bill.
Schedule 13: Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permits and
Clause 279: Removal of Exemption
This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling
Bill that address the provision of gaming machines in pubs
and other alcohol licensed premises.
Amendment 316 seeks to prevent a licensing authority from
taking away the entitlements of alcohol licensed premises
to provide gaming and up to 2 gaming machines until representations
relating to the licensing objectives have been received and
upheld. Amendment 310 imposes the same requirements on a
licensing authority before it can cancel a licensed premises
gaming machine permit.
Amendment 317 removes the condition under which a hearing
is only required to be held if the licence holder requests
one. It provides for a hearing to be held specifically to
consider the relevant representations; and for that hearing
to take place unless the authority, the licensee and each
person who made representations agreed that a hearing is
unnecessary. Amendment 311 makes the same provisions with
regard to the cancellation of a licensed premises gaming
machine permit.
The Government take the view that these amendments are unnecessary.
Clause 279 and paragraph 16 of Schedule 13 already restrict
the circumstances in which an authority can take away an
alcohol licensed premises' entitlements to offer gaming and
gaming machines. We are confident that licensing authorities
will act reasonably in the exercise of their functions in
this regard. If the licence holder believes the authority's
actions are unjustified, there is a right of appeal to the
magistrates' court (or, in Scotland, to the Sheriff). We
believe this provides an adequate protection for licence
holders.
There are also dangers in preventing a licensing authority
from being able to act unless it has considered representations
from a responsible authority. There may be cases where the
authority has received information from other sources, or
has gathered on its own initiative, that would justify it
in taking action urgently to remove gaming or gaming machine
entitlements. In these circumstances, the amendments would
potentially put consumers and children at risk, if the licensing
authority could only act in response to representations.
The Bill also already provides for a licensee to request
a hearing if he or she wants one. The Government believes
that this provides sufficient opportunity for the licensee
to make representations to a licensing authority before any
entitlements can be taken away.
Clause 325: Foreign gambling
This section concerns amendments to the Gambling Bill proposed
by the Government. These amendments provide further clarification
in respect of foreign gambling. Government amendment 345
is a technical amendment designed to rectify an overlap between
Parts 11 and 16 of the Bill. As a result of this amendment,
lotteries will be regulated, largely, under Part 11. This
will mean that advertising foreign lotteries will not be
prohibited. However, there will be little point in doing
so because no ticket for such a lottery will be permitted
to be sold to a person in Great Britain.
Government amendment 346 fulfils a commitment that the Government
gave to clarify the position that gambling operators based
in Gibraltar will be permitted to advertise in the United
Kingdom. Government amendment 347 widens the Secretary of
State's powers to specify "places" as well as "countries" that
can be 'white listed' under clause 325(3).
top
22 February 2005
UK Gambling
Bill Reaches House of Lords
The Gambling Bill received its second reading in the Lords today as
it continued its progress through Parliament. In his opening speech
Lord McIntosh, the Minister responsible for gambling regulation, announced
some further improvements to the Bill.
These include:
- A ban on the use of credit cards to buy chips or use
in gaming machines in casinos.
- A ban on gambling premises offering opportunities
to gamble on Christmas Day.
- A change to the reserve power allowing the Government
to impose a minimum age requirement on Category
D gaming machines if there is evidence they are
causing significant harm. This includes powers
to exclude traditional seaside amusements such
as ‘penny push’ and ‘crane’ type machines from
the scope of the reserve power.
- A requirement on the Secretary of State to consult
widely before using the reserve power on Category
D machines.
- Retaining the maximum value of non-monetary prizes
for Category D machines at GBP8.
Andrew McIntosh said:
“Technology is racing ahead of the law and the need for new
protections grows ever more urgent. If it's not gambling
on Internet casinos, it’s on roulette machines in bookmakers,
through interactive TV, on betting exchanges or on mobile
phones. We are unable to meet this challenge without modernising
the out of date laws that govern gambling today. That’s
why the Gambling Bill is so important.”
top
Demolishing the Top Ten Myths About
the Government's Gambling Bill
1)
MYTH: Casinos will pop up everywhere, even when they are
unwanted.
FACT: There will, at least in the first place, be no more
than 8 regional - that is, very large - casinos. A careful
independent assessment of their impact will be made before
any consideration is given to allowing more.
Casinos of any size category - including regional casinos - will only
be allowed where local authorities want them – if a local authority
doesn't want them, they don't have to have them. The Bill explicitly
includes the power to say no – this is something the Government introduced
on top of accepting most of the
recommendations from Pre-Legislative Scrutiny.
Local authorities, to quote the Bill, " may have regard
to any principle or matter" in choosing not to have any new
casinos.
2)
MYTH: 96 (The Times) or 125 (The Daily Mail) new super-casinos
are already planned and the locations are a 'done deal'.
FACT: These figures were always spurious, and based on
no evidence. As noted above, there will be an initial strict
limit of 8; and they will have to go through the "triple
lock" of operating licence approval, premises licence approval
and planning approval. There will be no short-cuts.
3)
MYTH: Government has been unduly influenced by foreign
lobbying and Government has betrayed the UK industry.
FACT: This claim is nonsense, as the Prime Minister has
made clear. Government has been completely even-handed in
meeting with and listening to all those who have taken an
interest in the Bill, whether UK or overseas, commercial
or non-commercial.
Faith groups, children's charities and groups that help
problem gamblers have had numerous meetings with Tessa Jowell,
Andrew McIntosh and senior DCMS officials. The Bill creates
a level playing field within a tight regulatory framework
aimed at protecting children and the vulnerable, keeping
crime out of gambling and ensuring a fair deal for consumers.
Category A machines are being confined to regional casinos
in order that their impact can be properly monitored and
assessed – these are new to the UK market and Government is right to
take a precautionary approach and limit them to a defined small number
of casinos for the first few years. Michael Riddy, Managing Director
of British firm Stanley Leisure's gaming division, told the Daily Telegraph
on October 18, 2004: "If you choose to build regional casinos, you're
on equal terms to everyone else."
4)
MYTH: The Gambling Bill is being driven by HMT's desire
to raise more tax revenue.
FACT: DCMS is responsible for gambling regulation. Gambling
taxation, as with all tax matters, is purely a matter for
the Chancellor, who will indicate the Government's thinking
in due course. There have been no deals with, or offers
to, the American gaming industry or anybody else. The three
statutory objectives of the Bill are:
- To keep gambling crime free
- To protect children and vulnerable adults
- To ensure fair play for consumers
5)
MYTH: New style casinos and Category A machines will inevitably
create more problem gamblers in Britain.
FACT: This claim is not true. Britain has a low level
of problem gambling compared to other jurisdictions (less
than 1% of the population) and the Government is committed
to keeping it that way. Most people in this country like
an occasional flutter and the vast majority of those who
do gamble do so responsibly. Reports by the Henley Centre
and NERA which predict rises in problem gambling contained
no original and also fell into the trap of ignoring all the
safeguards in the Bill. DCMS will shortly be publishing
a review of the flawed Henley forecast by an independent
academic. The Bill is essential to ensure that all forms
of gambling are
properly regulated, including new gambling opportunities that have
sprung up (video roulette; online casinos; mobile phone gambling) since
the last legislation in 1968.
6)
MYTH: We're opening the door to criminal elements and
money laundering by expanding the casino industry.
FACT: The UK gambling industry has been kept crime free
since the 1960s and Government intends to make doubly sure
this remains the case – that is why we are creating a powerful
new UK-wide regulator in the form of the Gambling Commission.
The Budd committee included the ex-chief constable who was
chairman of ACPO's Crime Committee. The current Gaming Board
– and therefore the prospective Gambling Commission – includes
the ex-head of the National Crime Squad (Roy Penrose) and
the ex-Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire (Ben Gunn). They
are hardly likely to be soft on crime.Casinos are already
tightly regulated and have strict controls in place. There
is no evidence that British casinos have been targeted by
organised crime. The existing safeguards will be toughened
up by the Gambling Bill. The Bill will give the new Gambling
Commission far stronger powers, including:
· The power to spot check potential operators and their
associates to make sure they are crime free;
· It will have access to information held by
other watchdogs, and will co-operate with gambling
regulators in other countries;
· It will be able to enter and search premises, and seize
evidence of offences;
· It will have specific powers to prosecute offenders;
· It will be able to impose unlimited fines on operators
who break their licence conditions (as does the
Financial Services Authority).
7)
MYTH: We will become like Australia – a nightmare scenario.
FACT: Australia is a nightmare scenario and the Bill is
needed precisely to prevent the UK from becoming like Australia.
Australia has a total of just 10 casinos – the explosion
in gambling and gambling addiction that has happened there
is the result of the widespread availability of high value
gaming machines (known as 'pokies' there) in high street
locations such as pubs, bars and hotels. We do not want that
to happen here, but we need the Bill to prevent it. The
UK is currently at risk from a proliferation of gaming machines
(know as video roulette machines or Fixed Odds Betting Terminals
here) because the industry has been using new technology
to exploit loopholes in the 1968 legislation. Two years
ago, the 8,800 high street betting shops started installing
these machines , despite the view of the Gaming Board that
they were illegal. The Government supported the Gaming Board's
attempt to test the legality of machines in the High Court.
But the case could have dragged on for some time, and the
outcome was far from certain – had we lost the case, the
machines would have proliferated rapidly without any controls.
So Government backed the voluntary agreement between the
Board and the Gaming Board to limit the numbers, speed-of-play,
stakes and prizes of these machines, as a temporary measure,
pending legislation. This voluntary code of conduct was the
only control method available at the time. Tessa Jowell
has always made it clear these machines are "on probation" and
will be more tightly regulated or completely removed from
betting shops if evidence of harm emerges. The Bill gives
the Secretary of State the power to determine the locations,
speed-of-play, stakes and prizes of these and all other types
of gaming machines, in line with the three statutory aims
of the Bill. The Bill also prevents gaming machines being
sited in 6,000 unlicensed high street locations such as minicab
offices and takeaways, where children in particular have
been able to play them totally unsupervised. And it is important
to note that Australia then lacked, and still does lack,
a national gambling regulator with tough powers of exactly
the kind that we will have through the UK-wide Gambling Commission.
8)
MYTH: These proposals have come out of the blue and are
being rushed through Parliament.
FACT: This claim is nonsense – the Bill should not surprise
anybody. Sir Alan Budd was asked by Government to write
a detailed report on gambling regulation in 1999, and the
Budd Report was published in July 2001. Government published
a White Paper in March 2002, specifically to allow for wide
consultation with the public, faith groups, children's charities
and the industry. Government could have introduced a Bill
to Parliament in November 2003. Instead, Tessa Jowell chose
to offer the Bill for Pre-Legislative Scrutiny, to ensure
the proposals were as strong as possible and to build a cross-party
consensus in both Houses that reform is urgently needed. The
Joint Scrutiny Committee subjected the Bill to clause by
clause examination.
Government responded formally to the Joint Scrutiny
Committee's two reports in June and September this year. Respectively,
accepting the vast majority of their
recommendations and adding some further protections of our own. As
a result, the Bill now reflects all the important new safeguards we
have introduced. The Bill is needed urgently to bring the whole gambling
industry within a watertight regulatory framework – now
that Pre-Legislative Scrutiny is complete, any further delay will leave
the public unprotected and will allow irresponsible elements of the
industry to exploit loopholes in the current, outdated laws.
9)
MYTH: The Government is not listening.
FACT: The Government has listened carefully and even-handedly
to all sides of this debate, and will continue to do so.
This is a debate which Government has itself prompted through
commissioning Budd, publishing a White Paper and inviting
detailed parliamentary scrutiny on the Draft Bill. Tessa
Jowell has a well-deserved reputation as a 'listening Minister',
having accepted 121 of the 139 recommendations made by the
Joint Scrutiny Committee. She also made new proposals that
were tougher than those proposed by the Joint Committee,
and these are reflected in the Bill. She will continue to
listen respectfully to concerns that people have and will
consider carefully any suggestions that are raised as the
Bill proceeds through Parliament. This is why she is now
proposing to limit regional casinos to 8.
10)
MYTH: Faith groups, children's charities and other groups
with concerns about problem gambling are against the Bill
– nobody wants it except the gambling industry.
FACT: Some Faith groups and children's charities still
have concerns about the Bill, which Government will continue
to listen to respectfully. However, we have an excellent
relationship with these groups and they recognise that Government
has already listened and responded to many of their concerns
during Pre-Legislative Scrutiny. These groups recognise that
a Bill is urgently needed and they recognise that most of
the Bill is about protection – they fully support measures
to introduce or extend regulation in areas such as online
gambling, in removing unsupervised gaming machines from 6,000
high street locations such as minicab offices and takeaways
and in giving local authorities
the power to say no to any new casinos in their area.
Examples of supportive quotes from non-commercial groups
include:
"Regional casinos will help bring the millions of extra
visitors we need to make Blackpool successful again." (Alan
Cavill, Head of Development, Blackpool Council – Independent,
20/10/04)
"It could be a leg to the rather broken stool of tourism
in seaside resorts like Felixstowe" (Andy Smith, Chair of
Felixstowe Council's Planning Committee– Independent, 20/10/04)
"GamCare welcomes this bill which for the first time will
give the Government and the Gambling Commission the power
to ensure that the laws prohibiting minors and others gambling
illegally will be properly enforced; that gambling via the
internet and other new technologies will be properly regulated;
that gambling companies will be required to exhibit a high
degree of social responsibility; that the public will be
properly educated about the dangers of gambling and that
expert professional help is freely available to problem gamblers
and their families." (Peter Cox, Director of GamCare, Britain's
biggest charity to deal with problem gamblers – BBC News
Online – 19/10/04)
"GamCare further believes that provided access to the
new big prize machines is appropriately limited and regulated,
the number of problem and pathological gamblers in the population
need not increase." (Peter Cox, Director of GamCare, Britain's
biggest charity to deal with problem gamblers – BBC News
Online – 19/10/04)
"It [the Gambling Bill] brings in a number of vitally
important and new protections for children, creating new
obligations on companies to do everything they can to stop
children gambling online." (John Carr, Director of the Children
and Technology unit at the National Children's Home – BBC
News Online – 19/10/04)
