§ Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East)Let me begin by declaring a non-interest. I have no interest in gambling. I have never bet or played bingo, and I am one of the 6 million people left in the country who have yet to play the national lottery. Only an occasional premium bond win keeps me going.
I do, however, declare a constituency interest. Although Bournemouth is one of our most successful tourist resorts, it needs to keep abreast of the competition and respond to the demands of visitors if it is to continue to succeed. That is also in the national interest, as it would enable the country to retain its place in the league table of countries visited by tourists. Sadly, however, it is not currently managing to do so: although the number of tourists continues to rise, our share in that hugely increasing world market is slipping as more and more countries open up to tourists at affordable prices.
Great Britain plc can no longer afford to operate restrictive practices and archaic laws in response to attitudes that are neither popular nor necessary. That applies no less to its leisure and entertainments industry than to any other. Three aspects to be found in my constituency supply the main argument in favour of deregulation: casinos, bingo clubs and public dancing.
I planned today's debate some weeks ago. I presume—as I am not a betting man, I did not even compute the odds—that it is pure chance that my striking lucky in the ballot coincided not only with the opening of Martin Scorsese's new film "Casino", but, more important, with the publication yesterday of the Department's consultation paper on casinos and bingo clubs. As that Green Paper correctly anticipated much of what I intended to say today, I have had to revise my speech somewhat.
Let me explain what led me to choose this topic. I had represented my constituency for more than 10 years before I ventured into one of its casinos—the Bournemouth casino club at the Royal Bath hotel. I note from the most recent edition of The Sunday Times that, until recently, my hon. Friend the Minister exhibited the same reticence.
Although, as I have stressed, this is not my scene, I was impressed by the quality of the establishment, the dining facilities for members, and the quiet professionalism that was evident in the conduct of the games. Today it is known as the Grosvenor; it is one of three casinos in Bournemouth. Last month, I visited the most recently established, the Stakis Regency casino, and was equally impressed—not least by the surveillance and security systems that had been introduced to detect cheating and fraud.
On both those occasions, I was appalled by the pettiness of the restrictions placed on casinos. Those restrictions clearly prevent them from realising their commercial potential. Not only are they unable to respond to the obvious change in public attitudes to such places of entertainment in recent years; they cannot make the contribution that they could otherwise make to the local economy and jobs, as well as to the Exchequer. We continue to deny ourselves that contribution as long as we turn away customers from both home and abroad by maintaining the current restrictions.
859 Any reasonably open-minded person would surely agree that some of those restrictions are now unnecessary. The most obvious is the 48-hour rule. Under the present law, no one can enter a casino for the first time—except as the guest of a member—without a "cooling-off' period of 48 hours. Any prospective customer must complete a membership form on the premises, and then wait two days before being admitted to game. In practical terms, that makes it impossible to play on a weekend away. It also means that the country is turning away foreign tourists and business men in droves.
Such restrictions apply in no other country where gaming is legal. They are unquestionably a drag on Britain's foreign earnings, and on employment in the casino industry. When a player has joined one casino, he cannot enter another without repeating the whole peculiar process, even if he is already eligible to play in another casino owned by the same company. Why should British casinos—while remaining clubs—not be allowed to judge for themselves whether a potential customer is acceptable for registration on completion of the required application forms, and admit that customer without delay?
There is also a ban on advertising of any kind, apart from limited information outside the casino itself. Even listings in trade and telephone directories are prohibited other than for recruitment purposes. Casinos cannot even advertise in British Airways' High Life magazine. The Stakis hotel in my constituency cannot even advertise in its brochure the fact that a casino is attached to it.
I accept that there is a case against wholesale deregulation—allowing, for instance, broadcast advertising. Surely, however, it is reasonable to publish information about casinos—perhaps in a prescribed form—in tourist magazines, classified advertisements in regional newspapers and directories such as Yellow Pages and notices at United Kingdom points of entry and in hotels. At present, many foreign visitors are unaware that casinos exist in Britain, while the short-stay business man who finds one for the first time is then confronted with the 48-hour rule.
Casinos are allowed just two jackpot gaming machines, as are local golf clubs. The stake permitted is 20p, and the maximum prize is £250. Given those controls, there is certainly no risk of Las Vegas-style gambling—slot machines are the biggest earner per square foot in America—coming to the United Kingdom.
Casino customers are not allowed to pay by credit card or a direct debit card such as Switch. That cannot be realistic today. Are we seriously encouraging people to carry around large amounts of cash? If modern payment methods such as charge and credit cards were an acceptable currency in casinos, not only would less cash be required, but the probability that cheques will be supplanted in the not too distant future would be pre-empted. Gaming would also be made easier for foreign tourists.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)Will my hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. AtkinsonI would rather not. My time is limited, and I want to give my hon. Friend the Minister enough time in which to reply.
860 Those are the principal reforms that have been suggested to the Minister by the British Casino Association. They would bring the British industry into line with other countries, and, I suspect, with British public opinion. I do not want to pre-empt my hon. Friend's response, in which he will doubtless refer to the proposals in yesterday's Green Paper. I give a warm welcome to those initiatives, especially the proposal to extend permitted drinking beyond midnight and the proposal to allow casinos in 13 new towns. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to more.
I express reservations on three of the proposals. First, I refer to the reduction in the waiting period for new members to play from 48 hours to 24 hours. The casino industry will be disappointed that a waiting period will still apply to people who want to go into a casino. Is there not a case for a hotel with a casino attached—particularly those as prestigious as the Royal Bath hotel and the Stakis hotel in Bournemouth—to offer immediate membership to its residents? Will my hon. Friend confirm whether, with postal applications now proposed, those residents who make their reservations in advance could be given automatic membership if they so wish, and therefore be able to play immediately?
Secondly, the Green Paper justifies the continued prohibition of live entertainment to prevent the stimulation of demand for casino gambling—this rule applies even to the extent of prohibiting a pianist. I find this argument unconvincing and rather pathetic, and I hope that my hon. Friend will think again.
Thirdly, I regret the negative thinking towards resort casinos that are regarded in the Green Paper as impractical for this country because it is geographically small and densely populated. This approach, if pursued by the Government, will undoubtedly lead to what I feared in my opening remarks: Britain will continue to miss valuable opportunities for inward investment in favour of other countries with which we are in stiff competition.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of current American-Arab interests in establishing a multi-billion dollar casino, leisure and entertainment complex in this country. This would provide a massive and permanent boost to the economy of the area in which it would be located. The name of the consortium concerned is E-GATE, which is distinct from any similar rumours linked with the New York property magnate, Donald Trump. It would be a tragedy if we were to scare off this kind of investment, just as we did when Disney originally showed an interest in establishing EuroDisney here, before it was bribed to Paris, to be followed by Universal Studios.
Britain cannot afford to lose that sort of business, which would create new jobs and enhance tourism. We should not let it go to Europe just because it involves casinos. Gone are the days of organised crime, which justified the Gaming Act 1968. Even Las Vegas is cleaning up its act in response to demands for family-related entertainment, which Disney so successfully pioneered.
I turn now from big spenders to bingo players. There is no doubt of the continuing pleasure that this softest form of gaming provides to a great many of my constituents and to visitors to Bournemouth, as it does within a lively sociable environment at modern venues all over the country. Long gone are the days of old ladies in hairnets, looking like Ena Sharpies and Minnie Caldwell, playing on seaside piers for tacky prizes.
861 In November 1994, the levels of bingo admission and spending were increasing, but today—with the introduction of the national lottery and the abundance of scratchcards—the industry is in decline, with 56 clubs having closed and with the loss of over 1,500 jobs. That is why the Bingo Association of Great Britain is disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not reduce bingo duty as he did with the general betting duty and the pools duty in his last Budget. Its members are now urging the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to come forward with reforms that will end the petty rules that restrict the activities of bingo and its customers.
For example, I refer to the 24-hour rule—the period between joining a club and being eligible to play; the restrictions that prevent clubs from advertising their social facilities and their prize money in the press, on radio or on television; and the regulations that determine the timing of games, the amount that operators can charge and the number of jackpot machines allowed—only two. The Bingo Association is seeking other changes, such as the end to the limit of added prize money, the extension of a bingo licence to three years, and the introduction of new games.
I am delighted that the Government have responded positively to these demands in their Green Paper—the industry has also responded positively. There are only three points that I want to pursue with my hon. Friend.
First, no reference is made in the Green Paper to enabling rollovers, to which—in view of the national lottery's experience—there can no longer be any objection. Secondly, while technically there appears to be no limit on the number of amusement-with-prizes machines—that is, fruit machines—the experience is that the licensing authorities behave otherwise. Will my hon. Friend clarify the rules on this point, and perhaps consider issuing clear guidelines for licensing authorities? Thirdly, surely the rule that fruit machines and jackpot machines cannot be mixed is unnecessarily restrictive.
I conclude with a plea on behalf of the nightclub industry to allow public dancing on Sundays. I corresponded with my hon. Friend in this regard last month in response to the representations I had received from the Zoo and Cage discotheque in my constituency. It expressed disappointment that the Deregulation Committee of the House of Lords recommended against allowing public dancing on a Sunday.
With respect, on which planet do their Lordships live? I can understand that some of them may not wish to go dancing in public on a Sunday, or at any other time, but surely they can accept that others do. There can no longer be any justification to maintain a law that is 200 years old and that has already been changed to allow drinking, gambling, sporting events and shopping on Sundays.
It seems extraordinary that pubs today can open their doors to trade on Sunday evenings, but nightclubs cannot. The Scots—who appear to me to be more Sunday-fearing than the English—have allowed public dancing on Sundays for almost 20 years. Why should the English be treated any differently? Of course, Sunday opening would remain subject to a local licence, and after consultation with the local neighbourhood to ensure its protection from nuisance and noise.
I hope that my hon. Friend will respond positively to all three of the appeals that I am making to him today, and will continue the excellent work of the Government 862 to eliminate all unnecessary restrictions, regulations and red tape in the way of people enjoying themselves according to their own judgment instead of that of others.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope)I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) in introducing this debate. I listened with great interest to what he had to say. We have had many discussions on this theme. The fact that this debate is taking place today is timely, and I congratulate him on the work that he has done on behalf of his constituents in this area. I am glad of the opportunity to inform hon. Members of the proposals we wish to bring forward to relax unnecessary restrictions on gaming establishments.
Yesterday, we published our long-awaited consultation paper on these matters. I regard this as an important initiative, so much so that I have sent a copy to every Member of Parliament. Not every hon. Member has a casino in his constituency, but many have bingo clubs. In any case, I suspect that there will be widespread interest in the proposals for additional casinos, with 13 new permitted areas around the country, including places such as Croydon and Peterborough.
I shall explain the background to the consultation paper. We have heard much about the national lottery—which has had an impact on other forms of gambling—but we are not introducing these measures as a knee-jerk reaction to it. This exercise has been developed as part of the Government's deregulation initiative, and each proposal has been considered carefully on its own merits. I acknowledge that it has been long in coming, but it was important to consider carefully a balanced package for reform that would remove unnecessary restrictions on the industry and on the consumer while ensuring that necessary protections remain in force.
Although I am the first to commend the casino and bingo industries for their high standards and professionalism, we should remember that they are not just like any other business, and that there is a need for certain restrictions in the public interest.
We must keep out any criminal involvement and money laundering. Even bingo, which I agree with my hon. Friend is very much at the softer end of the gambling spectrum and provides harmless pleasure to thousands of people, has to remain subject to some controls. Without those controls, players could be exploited and fraud become rife.
Within the framework of controls, however, I entirely agree that there is scope for removal of restrictions that no longer have a place in the 1990s. In my view, our proposals reflect a rather different view of gambling from that which existed in the 1960s, when the Gaming Act 1968 was passed. It is not altogether surprising that the 1968 Act represents a cautious approach to gaming. After all, the 1960s had seen an explosion of casinos in this country, with, unfortunately, the involvement of crime and other unacceptable developments. Something had to be done quickly, and that something was the 1968 Act. It produced an immediate cleaning-up of the gaming scene.
Given that background, it is not altogether surprising that the message that appears to emerge from the Act's many pages is that gaming is a rather undesirable pastime, which should be restricted as far as is reasonably possible.
863 Our approach in the consultation document has been rather different. It has been to start from the point of view that people should be free to game if that is what they wish to do, and that restrictions should be applied only if they serve one of three essential purposes: that they prevent the encouragement of crime, public disorder or nuisance; that they ensure that punters get a fair deal and are made fully aware of what they are letting themselves in for when they game; and that they discourage socially damaging excesses.
My hon. Friend referred to some of the proposals. For the sake of completeness, I should like briefly to outline them. Following the consultation period, which ends on 31 May, we hope to lay a series of deregulation orders, with careful scrutiny by the appropriate Committees.
We propose to introduce secondary legislation to allow casinos in 13 new locations. The additional areas proposed are Croydon, Dartford, Gloucester, Folkestone, Hastings, Ipswich, Morecambe, Oxford, Peterborough, Redbridge, Slough, Swindon and Weymouth. A reduction in the 48-hour waiting time for membership of a casino to 24 hours, together with provision for postal applications and group membership is also involved, as well as a new regime for gaming machines, with increased numbers and higher stakes and pay-outs; an extension to liquor licensing hours; and allowing the advertising of the location of casinos in directories and guides. Yes, that will be allowed, if required, appropriate and requested, even in High Life magazine, to which my hon. Friend referred. We also intend to permit payment by debit card.
The proposals on bingo are: an end to the requirement that bingo establishments operate as members' clubs with a 24-hour waiting period for membership; abolition of the demand criterion for the granting of licences; removal of restrictions on added prize money and on frequency and prizes in multiple bingo, the national game; payment by debit card; extension of bingo licences from one year to three years, to which my hon. Friend referred; and removal of the remaining restrictions on print advertising.
I must comment on some of the more important aspects. First, on advertising, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the restrictions on bingo advertising are unnecessary. From our standpoint now, it is clear that the Bingo Act 1992 did not go far enough. The approach taken then was, perhaps, understandable, in that we hesitated to go from a complete ban to complete freedom. But it is clear that we do not need the restrictions, and I hope that one of the first measures to be produced following the consultation will remove restrictions on the advertising of bingo.
I should point out that I am also contemplating lifting the ban on broadcast advertising of bingo. I accept that that may stimulate some debate, but the national lottery and the football pools are already advertised on television. How far should we extend that to other forms of commercial gambling? We have taken a cautious approach to that powerful medium. There are concerns about the messages that we are sending out, particularly in respect of the young. Our view is that the harder forms of gambling should not have access to the broadcast media, however. Indeed, I understand that neither the casino nor the betting industry is looking for such freedom.
864 On casino advertising, I entirely agree that reform is overdue. We cannot continue with a complete ban on advertising of any sort. We should allow casinos to give out information about location, and so on.
My hon. Friend questioned our plans for the 48-hour rule for casinos. It is easy to mock the 24-hour waiting period for bingo membership, or to challenge the 48-hour period for casinos. However, the matter is not as straightforward as it might first appear.
We certainly agree that there is no social policy need to retain a waiting period before someone can play bingo, which is why we are suggesting that it should be removed. But that could have consequences for the way in which bingo clubs are run in respect of such matters as club status, liquor licences and gaming machines. The industry will obviously have to consider the implications carefully when it responds to us and to our consultation document.
We think it right that casinos should continue as clubs, and not become gaming houses open to the public in the same way as nightclubs. I recognise that no other country has a waiting period, but it should be borne in mind that the framework for casino gaming is very different in this country. Most other jurisdictions have casinos only in resort areas. Here, there are casinos in every major city, providing a facility for local residents. If we were to remove restrictions on membership, allow unlimited advertising and slot machines with massive pay-outs, we could see a boom in hard gambling in this country and a commensurate increase in problem gambling. We are not in that game.
I do understand the concerns of casinos, however, especially those in London, which cater primarily for tourists. We have proposed sensible relaxations in the rule, which would make it easier for casinos to admit tourists, while maintaining their status as clubs. I am the first to recognise the importance of the tourist industry to this country, to my hon. Friend's constituency, to London and to other parts of the nation.
I am glad that my hon. Friend asked me about the proposal to allow postal applications for casino membership, because the importance of that proposal should not be overlooked. We envisage that the 24-hour waiting period will commence from receipt of a postal application, whether from abroad or within this country. Given that clubs will need a little time to make checks and process the applications, that will mean that the 24-hour waiting period will not be a hindrance when the postal application route is used.
My hon. Friend referred to resort casinos. Great Britain is unusual in having an extensive network of 119 casinos covering all the main population centres, which is many more than in most other countries. Resort casinos would be very different. They would need heavy advertising, free access by the public instead of club status, and much more intensive regulation. They are more suitable for countries that have only a small number of casinos each serving a large region.
We do not think that the two types of casino could easily co-exist within a geographically small and densely populated area such as Great Britain. We think it better to concentrate on updating and improving the existing regulatory approach, which has been so successful, and has resulted in a gaming industry that, we are proud to say, is crime-free.
865 My hon. Friend also referred to live entertainment in casinos. The objectives of the prohibition on live entertainment are to prevent casinos from stimulating demand for their facilities in that way and to prevent other premises, such as nightclubs, from offering gaming facilities as an incidental feature. We looked into that prohibition, but concluded that its objectives were still valuable in maintaining the effective regulation of the industry. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that I will certainly bear in mind his comments on that aspect when I consider the responses to the consultation paper.
We have allowed three months for consultation. After that, we hope to introduce a series of deregulation orders, as I said, for scrutiny by the Deregulation Committees. Although I cannot be specific on the timetable, I intend to ensure that that takes place as quickly as possible. Certainly the removal of bingo and betting advertising restrictions is high on the agenda.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the law on Sunday dancing. The existing law prevents operators from charging admission and from serving alcohol beyond the normal permitted hours on Sundays. In June 1995, a draft measure was put before the Deregulation Committees of both Houses. The Committees took the view that there had been insufficient time for consultation. They had other concerns about the extent to which the requirements 866 for retention of necessary protection had been met. The Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers, in another place, also concluded that Sunday dancing was not an appropriate subject for deregulation.
The Government have taken note of those views, and especially of the view that amending the law on Sunday dancing is not suitable for the deregulation order procedure. If that route is not available, the reform could be brought about only by means of primary legislation. In the Government's view, that change would be suitable for a private Member's Bill, but I am afraid to say that no hon. Member has so far elected to take up the subject.
The Government remain committed to the principle behind the reforms, which would achieve an important loosening of centrally prescribed controls over the way in which individuals choose to spend their leisure time. We shall continue to seek a suitable opportunity for legislation. We believe that the process that we have undertaken is important. We look forward to the responses to our document, and I look forward to the responses that I am sure my hon. Friend will be making. Once more, I congratulate him on raising this subject.
§ It being Two o 'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o 'clock.