Gambling Bill

Public Bill Committee, 9 December 2004.

Standing Committee B

Schedule 8 - Family Entertainment CentreGaming Machine Permits

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 311, in schedule 8, page 163, line 38, leave out 'may' and insert

'shall, after consultation with—

(a) one or more persons who appear to represent local authorities,

(b) one or more persons who appear to represent chief constables of police forces,

(c) one or more persons who appear to represent the interests of persons carrying on relevant gambling businesses which will be affected,

(d) one or more persons who have knowledge about social problems relating to gambling,

(e) to such extent and in such manner as appropriate, members of the public,'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 312, in schedule 8, page 163, line 39, leave out 'propose to' and insert 'shall'.

No. 313, in schedule 8, page 163, line 40, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 314, in schedule 8, page 164, line 2, leave out

'need not (but may) have regard to'

and insert 'shall follow'.

No. 315, in schedule 8, page 164, line 3, leave out 'have regard to' and insert 'follow'.

No. 320, in schedule 11, page 189, line 19, leave out

'need not (but may) have regard to'

and insert 'shall comply with'.

No. 321, in schedule 11, page 189, line 20, leave out 'shall have regard to' and insert 'shall comply with'.

No. 322, in schedule 11, page 189, line 21, at end insert—

'(4) The licensing authority shall ensure that the statement of principles does not in any way conflict with the licensing objectives or guidance issued by the Commission.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Pike. Amendment No. 311 lists the parties that we think ought to be involved in the consultation before the licensing authority prepares its statement of principles to apply when exercising its functions under the schedule. Those whom we think ought to be involved include

''one or more persons who appear to represent local authorities'',

which would probably include some local councillors. The best people would be members or representatives of the licensing committee. We also think that the following people should be involved:

''one or more persons who appear to represent chief constables of police forces''—

in other words, some of the local police;

''one or more persons who appear to represent the interests of persons carrying on relevant gambling businesses which will be affected'',

which is straightforward;

''one or more persons who have knowledge about social problems relating to gambling'';

and finally

''to such extent and in such manner as appropriate, members of the public''.

As I said, we have included, in sub-paragraph (1)(d), people who have knowledge about social problems relating to gambling. We have been approached by representatives of Churches and groups who think that they ought to have an input at some stage, particularly at a local level, on how the matters will impact on protection of young people and the vulnerable. Before the statement of principles is formulated, full consultation ought to take place with all those people referred to in the amendment.

Amendment No. 312 would replace the words ''propose to'' in line 39 with ''shall'', and amendment No. 313 would replace ''may'' in line 40 with ''shall''. It is critical that the basis on which decisions about applications are made is clearly set out and unambiguous. That will enable applicants to understand what is required of them in order to comply with their permits. Let us remind ourselves that any breach of that permit would make an individual liable to conviction of an offence under clause 30, without defence. It is essential that the requirements are set out clearly in the Bill not only for that reason, but to achieve compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. In addition, the Budd report specified that the principles under which local authorities should act should be set down unambiguously to ensure uniformity and consistency of regulation. Those safeguards should be enshrined in the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 314 and 315 would also firm up the words in the Bill. Sub-paragraph (3) states:

''In exercising their functions under this Schedule a licensing authority—

(a) need not (but may) have regard to the licensing objectives''.

That is far too sloppy and weak. By taking out the words

''need not (but may) have regard to''

and replacing them with ''shall follow'', amendment No. 314 would leave us with a clear statement of intent, which would strengthen the Bill. We feel that if the licensing objectives are important, the licensing authority ought to take them into account in issuing permits.

Amendments Nos. 320 and 321 are consequential amendments which would take the same wording and replace it with the words ''shall follow'' in schedule 11. I need not deal with that any further. Amendment No. 322, which again relates to schedule 11, would insert a new sub-paragraph (4), which reads:

''The licensing authority shall ensure that the statement of principles does not in any way conflict with the licensing objectives or guidance issued by the Commission.''

We would expect common sense to prevail in such matters, and licensing authorities should not do anything contrary to the gambling commission's views, but including the requirement in the Bill would make it clear and unambiguous that nothing that the licensing authority does in relation to the permits should run counter to the clear aims of the commission.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

You may recall, Mr. Pike, that during our last sitting I spent a little time going through all the ''mays'' that would allow the Secretary of State to introduce regulations. I said at the time:

''I do not know why we are even bothering to debate the Bill. Why does the Bill not simply say, 'The Secretary of State may, by regulation, determine what is going to happen'? Then we could all go home.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 7 December 2004; c. 448]

It appears that this malaise is catching because the Government now want to introduce ''may'' back into the provisions relating to the licensing authority—the licensing authority ''may'' prepare a statement of principles. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) that that uncertainty should be completely removed from this part of the Bill. Surely one of its most important aspects is to ensure correct and proper licensing. We need to see exactly how it will all operate, not whether the authority ''may'' draw up a statement of principles.

Earlier on in the Committee's deliberations, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) spent some time on the question of rowdy clubs in Guildford. He pressed the matter to a Division, in which the Government were not minded to vote with him. I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend because I know that particular stretch of high street, which has a string of clubs, and on Friday or Saturday nights it can be very ''exciting''—the police are frequently present. My hon. Friend asked what would happen if one of those clubs were to apply for a licence to run a casino.

The bodies that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has detailed in amendment No. 311 should be consulted so that it is clearly understood that the licensing of any casino has been checked and vetted by all the bodies with an interest in ensuring that it is a proper and fitting place in which to run such an operation. My hon. Friend was very good about not wanting to take up too much of the Committee's time, so he did not go through each of the individual bodies and their relevance.

However, we all know that if a local councillor is worth their salt, they will know what is going on in their area and will know the places that look likely to apply for licences. Surely to goodness they should be consulted. Surely the police, too, should be consulted. They are in the area, they know the type of people who go to the various places and, probably, whether those making the application are fit and proper people to hold a licence. It is only right, too, that those who understand the social problems relating to gambling should be involved in the licensing of any gambling establishment. Those of us on the scrutiny Committee visited GamCare and other organisations interested in and concerned with the social problems caused by gambling. Surely those people should be consulted on whether an establishment is the right and proper place to be given a licence.

Turning to the issue of fair play, those people who are interested in gambling should be consulted on whether the application that is being made is proper and whether it is being correctly treated.

When one considers the whole body of opinion that should be consulted, it is absolutely right that we should change the word in the clause from ''may'' to ''shall''. That way everyone would know where they stand. I do not say to the Minister that every one of the phraseologies and titles in my hon. Friend's amendment is perfect. The Minister may wish to shave them and produce a more polished wording; nevertheless, it is absolutely right that a licensing authority ''shall'' prepare a statement of principles. My hon. Friend has done an excellent job in preparing the basis of such a statement of principles. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the subject.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I join my hon. Friends in encouraging the Minister to take the amendment seriously.

In their defence of the Bill when introducing it, the Government made a great deal of the right of local communities to exercise influence, or even control, over the gambling that takes place in their area. Much has been said in earlier debates about the so-called triple lock mechanism. When the Bill in its original, wholly free market state was to allow gambling to take place anywhere there was demand for it, the only thing that the Government could say in defence of their plans was that, while there would a market-driven mechanism, local communities could say that they did not want gambling to take place in their area and the triple lock mechanism would ensure that those who did not want it had the right to say no.

That is important because I am sure that there will be many areas—I hope that mine will be one of them—that are not enthusiastic about the proposals. Even if there were areas that wanted some form of gambling, I think that local people would want to take control of what kind of gambling that would be. Therefore, the idea that there should be a statement of principles set out by the local authority which is binding rather than consultative—and does not adopt a ''take it if you like and don't if you don't'' approach—is entirely right. I am shocked that the Government have been so mealy-mouthed in schedule 8 about what local authorities must do when an application for permission for a gambling premises is made in their area.

For example, the idea that a

''licensing authority may prepare a statement of principles that they propose to apply'',

is clearly far too subjective and indecisive. That provision could be ignored, given that the law will not insist that it ''shall'', as set out in the amendment. Given that many local people will want to have a say, I hope that a statement of principles shall be exercised, so that when the go-ahead is given for gambling in a particular area, local people know what framework it will have, that it is sacrosanct and that it is not a question that the statement ''may'' fit in with local principles but that it will.

Equally, I hope that the Minister will take on board amendment No. 311, whereby instead of stating that those authorities that need to be consulted ''may'' be consulted, it is stated that they ''shall'' be consulted. If there is a statement of principles and the amendment is agreed to, the relevant authorities must be consulted to establish whether the statement has been adhered to.

Debating an amendment last week about whether local authorities should be allowed to take money from casinos to provide local services, the Minister was vigorous in his defence of the right of local councillors to make difficult decisions. I argued that such provision should be set out in law rather than left to local discretion. The Minister said, however, that councillors should decide such things, because they have the wherewithal to do so, and that he would therefore resist the amendment. If we are to give local councillors such power, they should be consulted about the licensing authority's statement of principles and about any potential modification of that statement, where an application seems to fly in the face of the original statement set out when permission to locate gambling premises in that area was first applied for.

Local councillors should, or, as in our amendment, shall be consulted. That is important, but equally important is the attitude of local police, because one concern that we have with this legislation is its potential to create more criminal activity in our communities. There is a big question mark over gaming activities elsewhere in the world. They pull in a criminal element, because such activities are a potential means of laundering money. The views of local police are important when it comes to the organisation of a statement of principles about the way in which the licensing of any one authority should be applied. Local chief constables should be consulted. If there is a worry that gambling is attracting criminal activity in a certain area, they will want to be consulted on any extension, because giving the go-ahead for more gambling premises will only inflame the situation. It is important to allow chief constables or a representative of the police force to take a view.

To be fair to those who already have a gambling business locally, the legislation should state that they ''should'' be consulted rather than that they ''may'' be consulted, because competition in the area will affect their business. They should not have a binding say, but they should be entitled to a say and it is only right that their views ''should'' be solicited rather than ''may'' be solicited. Gambling is controlled by legislation. It is not like a shop in the High street. It is a more restricted activity and the state seeks to interfere in the market. Gambling premises exist because statute rather than the market allows them to do so, so the operators should be consulted, although I would not give their interests the same weight as those of local councillors or chief constables.

Many people in the area will be affected by the consequences of the Government's proposal to extend gambling. My concern is that even the Government's more modest proposal for 12 regional casinos will unleash a gambling problem in those areas because they will be situated in large population centres. Those people who deal with the ensuing social problems should have a say on any application for additional gambling premises and how that affects the statement of principles that was set out by the licensing authority when the premises were first allowed in that locality. That is important if the Government are serious about keeping the lid on problem gambling. I hope that the Government will firm up schedule 8. That would not be a major concession, but it would be a reasonable one.

I particularly hope that the Minister will consider our amendment to paragraph 7(3), which states:

''In exercising their functions under this Schedule a licensing authority—

(a) need not (but may) have regard to the licensing objectives''.

That is an extraordinary statement to put in a schedule. It obviates the point of a schedule if people can do something if they want to, but do not have to if they do not want to. If people are to have confidence in the licensing authority's powers and relevance, due process needs to have taken place before applications are considered and given the go-ahead. To provide such an overwhelming catch-all that if people do not want to do something they need not bother to do it would weaken considerably the control of the community and those whose interests are affected over the roll-out of gambling in an area.

I hope that the Minister will listen to what I have said and that he will not take offence when I leave the Committee shortly to see my little man's nativity play. I may not hear the Minister's response and I hope that the Committee will forgive me for that unintended offence.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. During my brief contribution earlier, I referred to a licensing authority and that it ''shall'' prepare a statement of principle. I might have referred to the licensing of casinos when I meant the licensing of gaming machine permits. I did not mean casinos and I might have misled the Committee.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That is a point of correction and not a point of order, but the Committee has noted it.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

We have had an interesting debate this morning. Does schedule 8 comply with the Human Rights Act? The answer is yes. None of the amendments is needed to achieve human rights compatibility. The authority is always under an obligation to comply with human rights legislation.

I ask the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) in particular to reflect on discussions earlier this week about family entertainment centres and the great defence that was put up for them—and rightly so, as they are a very important part of our seaside resorts particularly. Schedule 8 expands on clause 231 on family entertainment centre gaming machine permits. This is about category D machines. Money laundering has been mentioned, but I cannot imagine the Kray twins putting 10p pieces into category D machines for such purposes. In response to all the speeches about licensing we have said that we want a light touch for family entertainment centres. The very clear message from the Opposition was that they wanted to allow these family entertainment centres to continue in the way that they have done.

All we are doing is enshrining the provisions of the Gaming Act 1968 in the Bill. I have not seen money laundering through category D machines or in family entertainment centres in the recent past. I have not seen the disruption of family entertainment centres that has been described in support of the amendment. Schedule 8 is about family entertainment centre machine permits. It is specifically about category D machines—10p stakes, £5 payout. We want to bring them under the licensing regime by providing for permits. Why permits? That is because we want a light touch for family entertainment centres. We do not believe that they have been centres of unrest or of money laundering, although from the contributions this morning anyone would think so.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of what we are dealing with. There was nothing in what I said to suggest that I did not understand what I was proposing—for the record. Any criticism that fired across the Committee should not have been aimed in my direction.

Yes we are dealing with unlicensed premises. The Bill states categorically that if one has a premises licence one does not need to go through the requirements of schedule 8. I understand that, but what is the difference between such an unlicensed place getting a permit for some machines and fish and chip shops—apart from the fact that they sell fish and chips as the primary source of income?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I will explain. The hon. Gentleman put forward logical and not emotive arguments, and it is true that the amendments are about the procedure for obtaining permits for family entertainment centre permits, but I am afraid that we cannot agree with them. They would place an additional and unnecessary strain on the licensing authority without adding any benefit to the way in which it carries out its function in respect of family entertainment centres.

Family entertainment centres with such permits are, of course, those that offer only category D machines—the type that children can play. Many of our seaside resorts offer such facilities. Schedule 8 is intended to give the licensing authority the discretion to take into account local circumstances when considering whether to issue a permit. In doing that, the authority needs to take account of the relevant guidance from the commission and it can consider the licensing objectives in its judgment. Licensing authorities should be given discretion over the granting of permits, and that is what happens under the current law. The 1968 Act enshrines that.

The authority understands the local environment in which the premises and machines will be operating. Therefore, it is in the best position to judge whether the application merits a permit. If the local authority acts irrationally, public law remedies will be available to stop it making a perverse decision. However, we must retain discretion for the local licensing authority.

The hon. Gentleman will note that there is an obligation on the authority to consult the local police before granting a permit under paragraph 9(b). We believe that that is the appropriate level of consultation for the permits. If we make the provision for a permit excessive, we might just as well require that FECs hold an operating licence from the commission and we do not want to do that. I am sure that we would all agree that that would be disproportionate to what we are trying to achieve in respect of category D machine family entertainment centres.

I turn to the amendments that have been tabled in respect of prize gaming permits under schedule 11. I understand the motives behind them, but I do not think that they would assist licensing authorities or applicants. As with FEC permits, the licensing authority should have discretion to grant permits, as it does now under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. An attempt to curtail that discretion would not add anything to the Bill. Amendment No. 322 covers an additional suggestion, which is that the statement of principles produced by the authority must not conflict with the licensing objectives or the commission's guidance. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be open to the authority to produce a statement that conflicts with the commission's guidance.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I wish to make sure for the record that the Minister should have said that the local authority will not be able to—

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I am sorry. For the record, then, it would not be open to the authority to produce a statement that conflicts with the commission's guidance.

It is open to authorities to take account of the objectives. However, as I have just explained, authorities should not be constrained about the matters that they take into account when making decisions about permits. By having the permit, FECs and fish and chip shops have arrangements for supervision of the machines. Given my explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and clarification of one or two key issues. We have no real problem with there being a light touch. The least regulation that we can get away with, the better for all concerned. However, I wonder why paragraph 7(1) gives the licensing authority the discretion to prepare a statement of principles. The Minister said that such a provision was lifted from the 1968 Act, or was it the 1976 Act?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It is the 1976 Act.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Fine.

If there is to be a light touch, why do we need the provision? Does the Minister have any idea how many licensing authorities have a statement of principles? Would the provision apply in areas with a large number of family entertainment centres, such as seaside towns and resorts where the local authority might like to make it clear that, to maintain its overall standards, it had laid down principles and expected those who applied for permits to meet the requirements in their operations? If we want deregulation, why do we need to bother even stating that a local authority may, if it so chooses, prepare a statement of principles? I should be grateful to the Minister if he could answer that point.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I shall try to do so. Under clause 327, a licensing authority has to make a general statement. Paragraph 7(1) is an additional tool to that end under schedule 8.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I follow the logic. Perhaps we should have tabled an amendment to clause 327. If the principle is right—that there needs to be such a provision—that is fine, but what if the principle, given the light touch, is that we do not need to be too fussed about the statement of principles? Behind my question was the issue of whether such statements are important. How many will be made? How many authorities will bother to make them? What is the purpose behind the provision? The Minister cannot just say, ''Well, it is in clause 327, therefore it follows that it must be in schedule 8.'' It may be wrong in principle wherever it occurs in the Bill. What is the experience? Why do the Government think that the provision ought to be included in this part of the Bill?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Clause 327 deals with three-year licensing policy. We are not saying that an authority has to make a statement of principles under schedule 8, but that it may. It is about getting the right balance. The provision gives the opportunity to extend the licensing requirements in clause 327, and such a statement may add strength. It is an opportunity for the authority.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am listening carefully to the Minister and I am with him as far as he goes. Let us take the example of a local authority such as Blackpool. An operator may have several family entertainment centres in Blackpool and a number of them in Southport, just down the road. The respective licensing authorities in Blackpool and Southport may take completely different approaches in this context. One might say, ''We have these principles, to which we must adhere'', and the other might not bother.

In the interests of consistency, so that small businesses know where they stand, why do we need to include the provision? If it is important, it should be included, but if it is not that important, I do not see the point of including it. I do not want to thrash this to death, but I do not think that the Minister has answered that. If he wants to reflect on it and return to it later, I would be more than happy for him to do so. Operators of more than one premises ought to know where they stand across the board, rather than their having to deal with different situations in different jurisdictions. That is my point.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Different conditions may prevail in different areas and an authority might want to take such actions. However, both authorities would need to issue a statement on licensing under clause 327 anyway. Different conditions may prevail and we want to give authorities flexibility to make a statement if they find it helpful. I do not believe that that is wrong. We are bringing licensing much more into local authorities' remit.

To digress for a moment, I met representatives of the Local Government Authority yesterday to discuss a number of issues, one of which was the question of licensing and how the regulations would be policed. We will have to revisit that; we need flexibility on one hand and consistency on the other—I accept that. We also need far better operation of the regulations at local authority level, and we will be discussing that with the LGA. We are consistent: we have provided for flexibility but the broad principles will be outlined under clause 327. If different conditions prevail in different areas, the authority has the flexibility to act accordingly.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am still not absolutely sold on the idea, but I am not going to divide the Committee on it. Nevertheless, we ought to reflect on it.

Given the financial pressures on local authorities, I envisage that most will not make such a statement if they do not have to do so. Therefore, the question remains hanging in the air as to why anyone would want to set down a set of principles about family entertainment centres—we are talking about the unlicensed ones, not the licensed ones with the premises licences. I do not think that local authorities will bother very much about doing that; very few will do it. I wonder why it would be done in the first instance. What would a local authority wish to establish in monitoring the operation of such establishments?

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 316, in schedule 8, page 164, line 26, after 'make', insert 'at the applicant's option'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 323, in schedule 11, page 189, line 41, after 'applicant', insert ',at the applicant's option,'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

This minor amendment relates to schedule 8, paragraph 10(2), which states that

''A licensing authority may satisfy sub-paragraph (1)(b)''—

that sub-paragraph is about the application for a permit for the machines—

''by giving the applicant an opportunity to make—

(a) oral representations

(b) written representations, or

(c) both.''

The words ''at the applicant's option'' should be inserted to make it absolutely clear that the applicant has a choice. He or she could then say, ''I choose to do A'' or, ''I choose to do B.'' Oral representations would be easier to make, could be made on the telephone or in a face-to-face interview, and would not require applicants to sit at their computers to type something out. The amendment is minor, and designed to reinforce what I think is behind the wording of the Government's sub-paragraph anyway: the notion of giving a certain amount of choice. The amendment would just firm that up.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I have some sympathy with the amendment. The hon. Gentleman wants to ensure that applicants are able to have their say, as is absolutely right, if an authority proposes to turn down an application. We want that too, and the paragraph already gives all applicants the right to be heard in those circumstances.

However, in our view the authorities need some discretion over what form representations should take. In exercising discretion, authorities will have to consider the rules of natural justice anyway. In some circumstances an applicant may well be able to make his case effectively in writing, without any damage being done to the fairness of the proceedings. Therefore, we want the assessment to be carried out by the authority, which will be in possession of all the facts relating to each application. The authority will be able best to determine whether an oral hearing or written submissions are appropriate. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the amendment.

The same has to be said about amendment No. 323. As it stands, the Bill would treat all applicants fairly and give them the necessary rights. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. An applicant may—dare I say it—not be terribly literate or capable of a making written submission, even though they are running an extremely profitable and sound business. As I understand the paragraph, the local authority has discretion, as the Minister rightly said, in determining what form of representation the applicant should make. In very rare circumstances, an applicant might be embarrassed at having to submit a written application. Getting that done by someone else might cost extra money, but the applicant would be more than able to give an oral representation in support of their application.

I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but there may well be circumstances in which, in the interests of natural justice, the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt and be able to choose. In the light of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 317, in schedule 8, page 166, line 32, at end insert

'and there has been a material change in circumstance since the original granting of the permit'.

The amendment relates to paragraph 18(4)(b) of schedule 8, which deals with the renewals of permits for gaming machines and contains the second ground for refusal—

''that renewal would not be reasonably consistent with pursuit of the licensing objectives.''

Our amendment would add to that the words

''and there has been a material change in circumstance since the original granting of the permit.''

It is felt that there should be a presumption that provided that an application has been granted initially, the circumstances when the initial grant was made should be deemed to be consistent with the licensing objectives. It could be inequitable if a licensing authority were entitled to re-interpret the same set of circumstances and judged them to be inconsistent with the licensing objectives. We are attempting with our amendment to clarify that situation should it arise.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to give some extra reassurance to the amusement machines industry. We have already agreed, in earlier proceedings, that family entertainment centres throughout the country are well run and offer real entertainment for families. No doubt the vast majority of family arcades will never cause concerns that might give the licensing authority reason to refuse the renewal of their permit. However, paragraph 18(4) allows for those unusual circumstances where the FEC was no longer run responsibly. In such circumstances it is right to refuse renewal.

The grounds for refusal are clear. The licensing authority has to provide evidence that allowing the FEC to continue operating will involve some threat to the licensing objectives. Not only are those grounds clear, they are constrained. The authority cannot refuse to renew a permit on a whim or fancy.

A case that might merit refusal could, for example, be based on evidence that the permit holder was encouraging children to play machines excessively, perhaps during school hours. Such evidence would have to involve a material change in the circumstances since the time of the application, otherwise the permit would not have been granted in the first place.

I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, on the basis of which I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Under paragraph 12—''Duration''—permits are effectively handed out for a 10-year period. I should like clarification that that is replicating the existing period under the Gaming Act 1968 and the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976.

Paragraph 15 deals with the lapsing of a permit. The words

''A permit held by an individual shall lapse if . . . he dies''

or she dies, are fine, but sub-paragraph (2) says:

''In any other case a permit shall lapse if the holder—ceases to exist''.

I am not sure what that means. Why not ''dies''? Of course, the holder might be a company. I should like clarification that that is what the Minister was alluding to.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Yes, 10 years, but it can be longer. The current minimum is three years, but it can also be longer. The phrase ''ceases to exist'' covers companies, not individuals.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 232 - No prize

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I have a quick comment. The clause deals with no prizes, and states that:

''A person does not commit an offence under section 34 or 226 if—

''(a) he makes a gaming machine available for use by an individual, and

(b) the individual does not, by using the machine, acquire an opportunity to win a prize.''

Clause 34 deals with providing facilities or premises for gambling of one kind or another, and clause 226 deals with making a machine available for use. I cannot think of a situation where clause 232 might pertain, and I would be interested to know what it deals with, and why a clause of this nature is necessary.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I think the relevant game would be pinball machines.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 232 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 233 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 234 - Single-machine supply and maintenance permits

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I have another couple of quick questions. Subsection (3)(e) states that an application for machine supply and maintenance permits must

''be accompanied by the prescribed fee'',

and a later subsection states that the Secretary of State will set those prescribed fees by regulations. Under existing legislation, are fees required, and if so what is the order of those fees, or are we introducing new fees here—is this a new concept, and a new charge on businesses? If these fees are new fees to be set down by the Secretary of State by regulations at some future date, do the Government have any idea of what the scale will be of these fees that will be required to accompany the application?

I am also a bit confused about subsection (6). We have just been talking about permits for up to 10 years, and possibly three years in the main, and yet subsection (6)(a) refers to

''a period, not exceeding one year, during which it has effect''.

Perhaps I have missed something, but I am puzzled about that reference to one year, when elsewhere we are talking about permits for three years and 10 years.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I shall give an explanation of the clause first, as that might give my officials time to find the answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions. I hope he will bear with me.

The clause provides a special permit procedure for people who want to supply, repair, install or maintain a single gaming machine, not as part of a commercial gaming machine business but, for example, because they collect antique machines. The clause sets out the details of how the application can be made to the gambling commission.

The commission may grant an application only if it is satisfied that the licensing objectives are irrelevant to the activity for which the permit is sought. That replicates permits that are currently issued by the Gaming Board to individuals outside the gambling industry who have single machines that they wish to dispose of or repair. That appears to work without any problems, so we have preserved it in the Bill. It would be an entirely unnecessary regulatory burden to force people with a single machine to apply for an operating licence.

I will now address the hon. Gentleman's questions. Yes, fees are required; this is not a new concept. However, collectors of antique machines will not be charged, but that exemption will not affect many people.

The hon. Gentleman's last point was about fees.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

It was on dealing with different permits.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

In light of what the hon. Gentleman said, I would prefer to reflect on the matter and give a precise answer in writing to the Committee.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about one-year permits. They are one-year permits because they are for just one machine.

I shall reflect on the point about fees and write to members of the Committee to let them know exactly what the interpretation is.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 234 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 235 - Territorial application

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I have another quick question. Clause 235(a) says that part 10 applies

''to anything done in relation to a gaming machine which (or any part of which) is situated in Great Britain''.

I am not quite sure how a gaming machine can be partly in this country and partly in another country, although I suppose a computer server might be. Can the Minister clarify whether the provisions refer to a dual server for remote gambling, where one facility is offered over the internet and another by a UK-based application?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The provisions apply to gaming software or a server. Part 10 applies to anything done to a gaming machine that is in Great Britain and anything done in Great Britain in relation to a gaming machine. That deliberate distinction means that people in Great Britain manufacturing and supplying gaming machines will need to comply with our best practice, even where those machines are supplied elsewhere in the world. With that explanation, I hope that the clause can stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 235 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 236 - Promoting a lottery

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We have turned to part 11, which deals with lotteries. I have expressed my concerns on behalf of hospice lotteries before and there have been quite a lot of debates about the issue. I want to ask the Minister, first, whether he is absolutely satisfied that there is nothing in the Bill that can damage the important contribution that hospice lotteries successfully make to fundraising.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The hon. Gentleman twice used the phrase ''hospice lotteries'', but would he confirm that we are talking about lotteries generally, not just those lotteries? Many other voluntary and charitable organisations have similar lotteries.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am happy to confirm that. I am simply referring to the fact that when I have spoken in the Committee I have been particularly concerned about the hospices that have written to me, not only in my area, but throughout the country. I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my concerns, which have been widely expressed by many members of the Committee. He is of course right that there are lotteries working for many worthwhile causes, not just hospices. However, I strongly support the hospice movement and have worked with it for many years, both before and since coming to the House. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an assurance that nothing in part 11 will in any way damage or add to the expenses of hospices and similar organisations conducting fundraising lotteries.

My second concern is that in the Queen's Speech the Government announced their plans to introduce proposals to change the national lottery. I wonder whether we are seeing once again a lack of joined-up thinking, which is all too typical of this Government. They are changing the law on lotteries through the Bill, but are at the same time introducing further changes to the national lottery in separate legislation. There was a lot of comment immediately after the Queen's Speech, but the Government's changes to the national lottery—expected in a Bill in the previous Session—have been delayed until now.

It was originally anticipated, from earlier statements by Ministers, that what turned out to be the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill—I dealt with that from the Front Bench for the official Opposition, with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)—would also incorporate changes to the national lottery. It was delayed, and the changes will be in the new Bill. Who knows whether that Bill will become law before the anticipated general election? Are the Government wise to be changing the general law on lotteries when they are making changes to the national lottery?

Labour Members said in opposition, when my party was introducing the national lottery, that money from it should not be used for anything that would otherwise be funded by the taxpayer, but as soon as the Labour Government came to power, they did precisely what they had been suggesting might happen. We have regularly expressed concern from these Benches—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I do not want us to start discussing the national lottery, which is not relevant to the clause or the Bill.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I abide by your ruling, Mr. Pike, but I wanted to express my concern that part of this legislation, which changes the law on lotteries, should not in any way be used for further depredations on the national lottery. However, I shall not pursue that line any further.

I hope that the Minister can deal with the important issues that I have raised and that this part of the Bill will fit in with whatever the Government introduce with their changes to the national lottery. I hope also that there will not be the same chaos, with the Government's frequent changes and U-turns, that has characterised this legislation.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Although the clause is relatively limited in scope, it is one of a number of clauses that we are going to go through fairly quickly. Rather than speak on each, I shall use this debate as a peg on which to hang for the Minister a reminder of his clear assurance to the Committee about the ticketless lotteries, which, as the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) said, particularly affect hospices and a number of other organisations. Perhaps this is the Minister's opportunity to say whether he has reflected on that assurance and to give any news of the Government's plans. No doubt some amendments will affect this part of the Bill.

I want to ask the Minister a question about definitions, although I am not sure whether it would be more appropriate under schedule 9. Can he explain to the Committee whether something that is often called a 100 club, a 200 club or a 500 club, which several organisations run, would constitute a lottery under the definitions in this part of the Bill? People are, in effect, buying a number, with a ticket that says what their number is, on a monthly basis. Very often, this takes the same form as a ticketless lottery, so perhaps it will come up in amendments tabled by the Minister. I raise the matter because I am conscious that such fundraising activities take place in the constituencies of a large number of hon. Members who are present. It is important for us to know whether we shall be affected and whether all those organisations, political or otherwise, that run such activities are covered by the legislation.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

On the question whether we are satisfied that nothing in the Bill can damage hospice lotteries, which was asked by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, the answer is yes. We are looking at the question of ticketless lotteries and will ensure that those are covered, as I previously assured the Committee.

I shall just dismiss the political rhetoric about the lottery and not go down the route of answering it, although there are good answers to be made. Coming off the back of Budd, there has been a good reception from lotteries for what we have done, because of the protection that charitable lotteries now have and because the relevant charities find it helpful. Our action has been welcomed.

Whether a 100 club is a lottery depends on circumstances. Those that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) described would be lotteries, and indeed always have been. They may be small, private society lotteries, depending on the circumstances. I think we will have to examine that point, because it might affect my constituency as well.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I did say that it might be more appropriate to raise the matter under schedule 9 and I assumed that the Minister might want to say that these matters fit into the category of a private society lottery. Perhaps he will give some thought to the schedule 9 provisions on how a private society lottery can operate, which make it clear that it can be promoted only on the premises of the private society. That means that it would not be possible to approach members of the organisation in their homes to involve them in the lottery. That might cause a problem in the future. The Minister has time to reflect on the issue, so he may not want to refer to it now.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I am sure that my officials have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks with great interest. We shall have an answer when we reach schedule 9.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 236 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 237 - Lottery ticket

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

My remarks follow on from something that the Minister said in giving an assurance to the hon. Member for Bath on ticketless lotteries. Clause 237(1) states:

''For the purposes of this Act a document or article is a lottery ticket if it confers, or can be used to prove, membership of a class for the purpose of the allocation of prizes in a lottery.''

The Minister gave an assurance that all would be well but did not say why, so all the people in the charities lottery sector who have been lobbying us still do not know exactly how they will avoid being caught due to their ticketless method. Perhaps a ''document'', in the definition under subsection (1), becomes a ticket in a way that gets round the problem—I do not know and just raise that as a possibility.

The charity lottery representatives say that people sign up with a direct debit or banker's order and the money goes in, very much as happens with our 200 clubs. Some strong Conservative associations have 500 clubs. The Liberal Democrats probably have a smaller number—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

50 clubs.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

But the same principle applies, in which membership of the club or lottery is the acceptance letter in which people are told, ''Yes, you have been signed up, here is your number, or whatever, and thanks for your donation.'' A different amendment or new clause may be needed on Report, but it would be interesting to have the Minister's response on clause stand part as to whether this is the context in which charity lotteries can obtain the comfort they seek.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

We will do that. We plan to make it clear through an amendment, if necessary.

On the specific point made about a letter being sent, the acceptance letter is deemed to be a ticket, but we will clarify that in the amendments that we introduce. I hear what has been said and will reflect on it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Just so that it is clear on the record, I think it is already accepted that the receipt of the letter is equivalent to the receipt of the ticket. However, the letter effectively provides for a series of tickets over a period of time and the issue is whether there is a need for a separate ticket for each draw that takes place, or whether the letter, in some clever linguistic way, can be deemed to be a multiple ticket issued simultaneously.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

We will reflect on that matter and provide for it in an amendment.

While I am on my feet, I shall answer the question about 100 clubs operating on more than one premises. A 100 club could be a small society lottery under schedule 9, and small society lotteries do not have to operate on one set of premises.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 237 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 238 and 239 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 240 - Rollover

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I refer to something that I came across in the Joint Committee's report, which refers to rollover:

''It is unclear whether subscription lotteries (e.g. clubs where the participants are the same week after week and there are draws each week), would be considered to be 'rollovers' and thus treated as a single lottery.''

I raise that point because it relates to the clause.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Clause 240 defines the meaning of a rollover. A rollover takes place when an unallocated prize from one lottery is carried forward to another. Even if a lottery has multiple draws where the class or persons eligible for the prizes remain the same—the arrangements for the lottery mean that they must remain the same—the draws are regarded as part of the same lottery. Where prizes from previous draws are carried forward for the next prize in the same lottery, a rollover will not occur. When the class of persons eligible for the prizes changes, a new lottery will begin. The answer to the question whether a subscription lottery would be considered a rollover is no.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 240 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 241 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 242 - Promotion of lottery

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I have a brief question for my right hon. Friend in relation to the offence of promotion of a lottery. Clause 236 states that

''a person promotes a lottery if he . . . sells or supplies a lottery ticket.''

I wonder whether a person commits an offence of promoting a lottery if he buys a lottery ticket and sells it on to someone else. Is he then guilty of promoting a lottery? Since the national lottery was established, I know that there have been cases of people claiming prizes under a ticket bought for them by someone else, when the ticket has been endorsed on the back. There appears to be no exemption in the clause covering the resale of one lottery ticket or even several tickets to further a lottery distribution. I will just keep talking until the answer arrives. While I am on my feet, I can stretch my legs a bit. It occurs to me that we are creating an offence without any qualification of what constitutes the sale or resale of a lottery ticket.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Is a person who buys a ticket and then sells it on guilty of the offence? Yes, but we have to be a little careful; it would depend on the surrounding circumstances. For the superficial cases presented by my hon. Friend, the answer would be yes, but I add a caveat that there could be circumstances in which that would not be the case.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

That is interesting, because I could have been guilty of that offence. Once, I was sitting in a restaurant at 8 o'clock on a Saturday evening, which is when the lottery results are announced, when my mobile phone rang. The person who I was with assumed that somebody was ringing to tell me that I had won on the national lottery, whereupon he offered to buy my ticket as a gamble, because we did not know if I had won £10, £50 or £1 million. He said, ''Right, I'll buy the ticket from you; I will offer you a figure, and you sell your proposed winnings.'' It was a gamble—a bet. It may sound slightly unusual, but there is betting on the results of a lottery or selling of tickets in that way, and the measure will create a conscionable number of offences.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is not my interpretation; in the situation that my hon. Friend describes, the draw had already taken place, so the gamble was on whether he believed that he had won £10 or £1 million. That was a decision that he took, and was nothing to do with the lottery. It was a secondary issue after the lottery had taken place.

What happened? My hon. Friend should not keep the Committee in suspense.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I won a million; that is why I am still here—[Laughter.]

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 242 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 - Exempt lotteries

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 319, in schedule 9, page 169, line 24, at end insert—

'(4A) The prescribed sum referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be determined only after consultation with parties representing those who will be affected by such determination and shall be the subject of periodic review.'.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 deal with deductions from lottery proceeds, particularly for the cost of prizes and for costs incurred in organising the lottery. They provide that a sum will be prescribed for both prize and organisation costs, irrespective of their actual cost. Such a determination could fundamentally affect the way in which incidental, non-commercial lotteries are run, and could endanger valuable revenue in that sector. We seek to ensure that there will be proper consultation so that a realistic limit is placed on deductions for prizes and incurred costs, and that the limit will be reviewed periodically.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I understand the reason behind the amendment. I fully expect the Government to consult interested parties such as the Lotteries Council before prescribing the amount referred to in paragraph 4. I am happy to give a pledge to that effect, but do not think it necessary to place a duty of consultation in the Bill. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

On the basis of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 172, in schedule 9, page 178, line 20, at end insert—

'( ) In relation to registration in Scotland—

(a) sub-paragraph (1)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to a magistrate's court were a reference to a sheriff whose sheriffdom is wholly or partly within the area of the local authority against whose decision the appeal is brought,

(b) sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b) shall not have effect, and

(c) sub-paragraph (3) shall have effect as if the reference to a magistrate's court were a reference to the sheriff.'.

'( ) In relation to registration in Scotland—

(a) sub-paragraph (1)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to a magistrate's court were a reference to a sheriff whose sheriffdom is wholly or partly within the area of the local authority against whose decision the appeal is brought,

(b) sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b) shall not have effect, and

(c) sub-paragraph (3) shall have effect as if the reference to a magistrate's court were a reference to the sheriff.'.

No. 173, in schedule 9, page 179, line 18, at end insert

'except that, in the following provisions, it means prescribed by the Scottish Ministers by regulations—

(a) in paragraph 43(2)(d), where the application is made to a local authority in Scotland,

(b) in paragraph 47(1), where the local authority giving notice is in Scotland, and

(c) in paragraph 55(2)(b), where the registering local authority is in Scotland.'.

'except that, in the following provisions, it means prescribed by the Scottish Ministers by regulations—

(a) in paragraph 43(2)(d), where the application is made to a local authority in Scotland,

(b) in paragraph 47(1), where the local authority giving notice is in Scotland, and

(c) in paragraph 55(2)(b), where the registering local authority is in Scotland.'.

—[Mr. Caborn]

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 371, in schedule 9, page 180, line 7, at end insert—

'3A An order under subsection (3) may, in particular, make provision—

(a) restricting the number of lotteries that may be promoted on behalf of a person wholly or partly within a specified period;

(b) prescribing a minimum interval between activity in connection with one lottery promoted on behalf of a person and activity in connection with another lottery promoted on behalf of that person.'.

The amendment will ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations to restrict the number of exempt lotteries that may be promoted in any period, or to prescribe a minimum interval between two exempt lotteries promoted on behalf of any person.

The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 contains similar powers to restrict the frequency of all society and local authority lotteries. For the most part, in the Bill, conditions attached to the lottery operating licence will control local authority lotteries and large society lotteries. The gambling commission will issue licences for those two types of lottery. It is important, however, that the Secretary of State retains the means to prevent the proliferation of exempt lotteries, should it be necessary. Exempt lotteries do not require a licence, so small society lotteries will have to be registered with the local authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I question the requirement for small society lotteries to register with local authorities. From my experience with hospice lotteries—one operates in my constituency—I am very aware that they can operate in a range of local authority areas. From the drafting of part 5 of schedule 9, which deals with local authority registration, it seems that as long as the lottery is registered with one local authority, it should not matter which one. Having registered with the local authority, however, the matter needs to be referred to the gambling commission. That seems to be a unnecessary further expansion of bureaucracy.

I put it to the Minister that the Government are constantly loading more burdens on to local authorities, particularly small borough councils. Every time I talk to the senior officers of Surrey Heath borough council—it is entirely within my constituency, which is also partly covered by Guildford borough council—it says that it is constantly having new administrative and bureaucratic burdens landed on it by the Government, but they never provide it with any extra money to enable it to discharge those new functions.

If a hospice lottery or any other small lottery has to register—it will obviously have to do so under the Bill—it will have to register with every borough council and district council, as well as with the bigger local authorities that might be able to absorb the costs more easily. Those councils will have to start employing new people just to deal with lottery registrations, or they may create a new department to deal with them. Where is the money to come from?

Would it not be much more sensible, given that the Government are to set up a new thing called the gambling commission, which is to be centrally funded, if those small lotteries went straight to the commission? The commission will have to be notified under part 5 of the schedule in any case. I do not see the need for what I think will be a costly and overly bureaucratic exercise. Why cannot the whole thing just go straight to the commission? It will have to create its own records, and the Government would then fund registration out of general taxpayer revenue. It is something for which the Government should take responsibility, as they are setting up the system.

I hope that the Minister will give a firm undertaking—he may already have received authority from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that, for every council in the land, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can hand over some of the money that it gets from the Treasury every year; or that an special extra bit of the annual local government settlement will provide funding for that new bureaucracy. If not, this will be yet another example of the Government's constant and wholly unnecessary additions to bureaucracy, to no good purpose. Why duplicate the work? The registrations will end up with the commission, so why not send them there from the word go?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I gave warning to the Minister that I wanted to talk about the 50 club—or the 100 club, the 200 club or the 500 club, depending on the political party or other organisation running it. The Minister implied earlier that in some, but not all, circumstances a local constituency association lottery might constitute a private society lottery. I hope that we shall now have some clear explanation as to whether a private society is defined by the number of members it has, by how secretive it is or whatever. It is important that we know; that will have a bearing on the future, not only for many of us but, more importantly, for the many charitable and other organisations that run such activities.

Can the Minister explain whether I have made a mistake in my understanding of paragraph 14(1) in respect of private lotteries? It reads:

''No advertisement for a private society lottery may be—(a) displayed or distributed except on the society premises, or (b) sent to any other premises.''

Am I right in interpreting that to mean that if Bath Liberal Democrat association runs a 200 club, it will not be allowed to send a flyer advertising the existence of its successful activity to its members, but that they will be able to find out about it only by means of an advertisement posted on premises owned by the association? That cannot be what is intended, but it is certainly the common-sense reading of the Bill.

While I am on the subject of common-sense readings, may I ask the Minister to reflect on paragraph 56(3) in part 5 of the schedule? Rightly, in my view, it says that if various organisations are to request documents from the local authority, that authority shall not make an unreasonable charge for them. However, it goes on to say that

''the authority may include a reasonable share of expenditure which is referable only indirectly to the provision of that service.''

That strikes me as a load of gobbledegook, but I assume that it refers to a share of the costs of the administration, such as the salary of the chief executive and the local solicitor. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.

Thirdly, I would say gently to the Minister that at the beginning of part 5 we come back to our old friends the definitions of different councils. Despite all his reassurances that he would send me a letter explaining whether Bath and North East Somerset unitary authority is covered by the definitions earlier in the Bill which are repeated in paragraph 42, no such letter has yet reached me. I do not know whether other Committee members have received such assurances.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will recall that a number of us joined him in seeking assurances about local authorities.

Will the hon. Gentleman also bear it in mind that the Minister told me as recently as Tuesday of this week, in response to a point that I made, that what the Government are introducing has been supported by the British Beer and Pub Association? Then, when I went to a reception held by the all-party group on beer last night and spoke to senior people from that association, I found that they completely disagree with that. I will come back to the point when we discuss licensing, but I am afraid that we are starting to reach the conclusion—I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree—that we simply cannot place much reliance on what the Minister has said.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. When I give information out in this Committee, it is given genuinely. If anybody wants to challenge what I have said, it should not be on the basis of what happened at a function on the Terrace of the House of Commons when people have had a drink. That is totally unacceptable, and I expect the comment to be withdrawn. If not, the hon. Gentleman should provide evidence to me that what I have said is wrong.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I followed up the conversation that I had last night with the people from the British Beer and Pub Association, and they gave me a briefing and confirmed that what the Minister said about the association working with the Government and agreeing with their proposals was wrong. We will come back to the point this afternoon and if the Minister wants me to, I can read out all the association's disagreements with the Government.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I give way to the Minister.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I am not going to have my integrity put on the line by Opposition Members. What I said was wholly true, and when Members bring the integrity of a Minister of the Crown into question, I expect them to tell me who said what and about what specifically. The remark was totally unacceptable.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I give way again to the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I suggest to the Minister that we return to the issue when we deal with licensing—we will thrash it out then. My position is absolutely clear. If I am briefed by members of a trade association, not only at a reception in the House but in a written briefing the following morning, I am entitled to put forward its concerns.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I give way.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I want a withdrawal of the comment that I gave wrong information in my position as a Minister in this Committee. If substantive evidence can be brought forward, that is fine—I will answer the allegations. The integrity of a Minister is being brought into disrepute by the hon. Gentleman's statements.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I call Mr. Hawkins.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am simply stating what I have been briefed about. The Minister and I clearly disagree. We will come back to it when we deal with the substance of the licensing issue.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is not what was said.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We may need to refer to Hansard to find out exactly what the Minister said. What I am saying is that the British Beer and Pub Association has briefed me that it does not agree with the Government in the way that the Minister claimed.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The words used were that we cannot believe what the Minister has said. That is unacceptable, and I want them withdrawn.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I think that the allegation in the final part of what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath initially said contained an improper implication.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I certainly withdraw the implication, but the issue remains.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I call Mr. Foster.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I gave way many times in that discussion. Before the Minister intervened, I was about to say that I did not agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in his assertions. I am happy to put it on record that whatever disagreements I have with the Government about certain aspects of the Bill, the Minister has sought to accommodate the concerns expressed in Committee. When he has seen it as possible, he has been prepared to make changes.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that concerns continue to be expressed about the Bill by a number of organisations, of which the British Beer and Pub Association is one. Those issues will be more appropriately raised at a later stage. However, from our side of the argument, we feel that we can rely on the Minister and that when he makes an assurance, he will deliver on it. The point that I was making is that although I am totally confident that he will deliver on his assurances, I have not yet seen that in respect of the definition and I want to see it. I hope that we will get some progress.

I was trying to make five brief points, which have been slightly hijacked. My last point will now seem so mundane and trivial that I am not sure that it is worth bothering with. Nevertheless, paragraph 55 of schedule 9 states that the annual fee

''shall be of the prescribed amount''.

Can I take it—I do not see where the legislation ties in with those things that the Secretary of State will make regulations for—that this will be included in the list of fees, which will be the basis of regulations by the Secretary of State, and that individual local authorities will not determine their own fate?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I want to help the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and the Minister. I, too, have had representations from the BBPA. What we have is simply a misinterpretation. There has been consultation between the Department and the association. We accept that and the Minister faithfully reported that the consultation had taken place, and the association expressed its concerns about certain aspects. But that was some time ago. We are told that the proposals that the Government have brought forward in the amendments were not in consulted upon in detail. That is what my hon. Friend reported faithfully from last night. It does not impugn the Minister's integrity; it is simply a misinterpretation of events.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Hawkins rose—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I have ruled that the phrase that Mr. Hawkins used right at the end of his remarks bordered on the unparliamentary. He has withdrawn it, so we should now make progress.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The charges that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said might be incurred are covered in paragraph 55 on the annual fees. The local authority must send a copy of the registration to the commission and a fee can then be charged. Paragraph 56 allows for a charge for overheads generally. The local authorities can allocate a proportion of the overheads to fees when providing the services described in paragraph 56. So it is not simply the cost of sending out particular letters: staff costs can be factored in too.

The hon. Member for Bath asked about advertising. A 100 club will not be a private society lottery if it is set up for the purpose of gambling. It will not therefore be able to send out advertisements. However, a 100 club might be a small society lottery so it could send out such promotions.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

It is a private society lottery, not a small society lottery, but I do not yet understand the definition of a private society. I gave the example of the Bath Liberal Democrat association which, I can assure the Minister, is not set up for the purposes of gambling although some might say that we border on it when we come to elections. As an incidental part of its fund-raising activities, it operates a 200 club. I am breaching all sorts of confidentialities. Would that fall under the definition of a private society lottery? If it does not, I need to know what does.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

If it is a small society lottery, which it seems to be, it can advertise. The question was whether it can advertise, and the answer is yes if it is a small society lottery.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The advertising for a private society lottery is covered in paragraph 14(1), which effectively states that it can advertise its activities only in the society premises. It makes it clear that it cannot send those advertisements to other premises. Therefore a private society—in this case, the Bath Liberal Democrats association—cannot send letters to its members to encourage them to join the 200 club. I simply need clarification of whether that is what the provision means, because, if it does, it is a load of nonsense. We can debate that in due course, but first I need to know whether I have understood the provision correctly.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

We are saying that the arrangement the hon. Gentleman describes is a private lottery run by a small society, not a private society lottery.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

So?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Therefore, the association is well within its rights to advertise and send letters to its members.

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 243 to 247 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 248 - Preventing repetitive play

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The clause refers to the repetitive playing of lotteries and the effect that conditions attached to lottery operating licences may have on it. The Government were, of course, sensible to withdraw their original plan to prohibit lotteries from taking place within 24 hours. The scrutiny Committee considered the issue and made recommendations, which the Government accepted. They took the relevant clause out of the draft Bill, so we do not have that problem, which would have caused difficulties for lotteries such as those held at half-time at football matches.

Members of the Lotteries Council are, however, still a little concerned about this clause, which gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations on repetitive play. Obviously, regulations could be introduced at a later date that would have a serious impact on lotteries, dramatically affecting their profitability and their raison d'être. We have been asked to put it to the Government that the Secretary of State is again being given a potentially very severe power, which could have important ramifications for operators. They want an assurance from the Government that full consultation will take place before any regulations are laid. They want to know whether there will be consultation with the gambling commission—I suspect that the Minister will confirm that—before the Secretary of State brings any secondary legislation before the House.

It is important for operators to be clear about such issues, because they do not know what will happen in the future. The clause could have a serious effect, and they want a steer from the Minister—an assurance that consultation will take place and that any measures that are taken will not be so draconian as to render their operations ineffective and unprofitable.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I share the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed on behalf of the Lotteries Council, but I would go a little further. I am not convinced of the necessity for such regulations. Why should a Government want the power to limit people's ability to enter a number of lotteries? Subsection (2) is one of the most extraordinary examples of the nanny state approach that the Government are adopting in so many aspects of our national life, such as smoking and drinking. It is bizarre that the Government are saying that the Secretary of State will bring in regulations at some point in the future to reduce temptation for a person to enter a number of lotteries in succession, and that the regulations can be introduced only if they reduce temptation and limit opportunity.

If one wants a paradigm of everything wrong with this Labour Government and every reason why the Conservatives oppose them, it is because the Government think it their job to limit opportunity. They also seem to think that on the matter of reducing temptation they should take over the position traditionally held in society by religion. It is absolutely wrong for them to do that.

The Minister will probably say that they are trying to stop problem gambling, but I do not accept that people entering lotteries is problem gambling. One of the great success stories of the previous Conservative Government was the introduction of the national lottery. This provision does not affect that, but the success of the national lottery depends on players playing repetitively week by week, as I do myself—I buy an eight-week collective ticket for the national lottery and renew it when the eight weeks are up. I have won the odd £10 here and £20 there and am probably making a loss, but the attraction for all players of the lottery is the hope of a big win one day. It will probably never happen to me, but I support the concept. It is bizarre that the Government are seeking to reduce temptation and limit opportunity.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I would be more convinced by the hon. Gentleman's argument if I had not heard him argue earlier for limiting the number of casinos, which is a manoeuvre similar to this provision. I object to the way that the lottery has developed. With people using the same set of numbers every week, the more games are introduced using numbers, the more people will be sucked in, because the worst thing that could happen to the hon. Gentleman and me would be for our numbers to come up in a draw that we had not entered. That would deprive us of the chance to take off to that Caribbean island, which is what we would do—not together, I hasten to add—if we won money.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I would be happy if the hon. Gentleman wanted to fund a joint trip to a Caribbean island out of his lottery winnings. I have always enjoyed his company on a purely fraternal, cross-party basis, as he knows.

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken or may have misremembered. When we debated casinos, I was probably the person on these Benches whose opinion was closest to his view of a total free-for-all, free market opportunity. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, I was concerned to ensure that however many casinos we had, we should not lose the regenerative effect. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and I argued that we wanted to ensure that run-down resorts got regeneration. I think that the hon. Gentleman was alone in arguing for a complete free-for-all. I was in favour of changing Government policy to avoid run-down, seaside resorts, such as Blackpool, not getting casinos because of an area such as the north-west being swamped with casinos set up elsewhere. I was not arguing the point that he suggests, so I cannot be accused of inconsistency. However, I take his point and hope that I never forget to renew my eight-week ticket and suffer the dreadful embarrassment of seeing my numbers come up when I have not entered a draw.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I will try to help my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) never argued against a cap. He certainly had many arguments against the number eight, which were illuminating and hilarious, but my understanding of his position is that he does not care how many casinos there are, as long as West Ham gets one.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful, as always, to my hon. Friend for his help. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Ham will remind us, but I understood him to be the most free-market of all on the Labour Benches. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) saying how amazed he was, just before his retirement, to be overtaken on the right by the ultra free-market views of the hon. Gentleman.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I was probably more libertarian than anyone on the Conservative Benches in this Committee, because I was not expecting there somehow to be an enormous proliferation of casinos. I wanted matters taken care of through the planning process, but we will return to this debate. I do not mind being accused of being a neo-fascist.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Let us return to the clause.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I must apologise, because I was tempted away from the subject, as has often been the experience of many hon. Members down the years, by the wit and humour of the hon. Gentleman. I have made my point. It is philosophical, but valid in light of the way in which the clause and, in particular, subsection (2) are drafted.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman has accused me of massacring the English language. May I gently remind him that ''forgetting'' is probably a better way of expressing himself than ''misremembering''? I also give him the reassurance that consultation will take place; there is no doubt about that.

May I put on record in this stand part debate the fact that the clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to reduce or limit the repetitive play of lotteries? That applies where people have the opportunity to enter a number of lotteries in succession. The Government consider there to be a need for this provision, as we have real concerns about fast-draw lotteries, whether carried out by those running society or charitable lotteries, or as part of the national lottery.

The Budd report looked at the issue of fast-draw lotteries and concluded that they should be strictly controlled. It saw a particular problem with the possibility of more frequent lotteries in social environments, such as pubs, bars or cafes, which are not of course premises to which people go primarily to gamble. The Government share that concern. We recognise that the sale of lottery tickets through fast-draw lotteries may well increase lottery revenues. However, such games offer the opportunity to play repeatedly and rapidly and to chase losses, particularly when the minimum age for lottery play will be 16, as an exception to the general age limit of 18. Therefore, in line with the prudent approach adopted for gaming machines, the Government are minded that regulations under this clause should introduce a limit of one lottery an hour for lotteries promoted in circumstances that appear to encourage or facilitate repetitive play.

The Committee may also find it helpful to know that the Government propose to introduce similar restrictions on lotteries promoted under the national lottery.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

No, there is a lack of time.

Under the clause, the Secretary of State may attach a condition to lottery operating licences, make the gambling commission attach a specified condition to a lottery operating licence and add additional specified conditions to the conditions applicable to exempt lotteries. The Secretary of State's powers must be directed at reducing the temptation or limiting the opportunity for a person to enter lotteries repetitively, and that is what we are minded to do.

By way of explanation, the speed at which those lotteries can run is, in a pub, every 30 seconds. That is a repetitive lottery, and we believe that it would lead to real problem gambling.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I now understand why the Minister would not give way earlier. Would it not be easier just to take the powers to ban fast-draw lotteries, rather than take the wide powers over all lotteries as drafted in subsections (1) and (2)?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

No, because we have tried to future-proof the provisions, and we are not quite sure how they will be adopted in the future. We therefore believe that the wording protects against problem gambling. I do not think that there should be any disagreement about that.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister referred to an interval of one hour between successive plays. Is that in the Bill?

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Clause 248 - Preventing repetitive play

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Gale, for what will, I hope, be a productive sitting, as it always is under your guidance.

I was answering a question from the hon. Member for—

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

North-East Cambridgeshire. I must have made quite an impact.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I will recite the hon. Gentleman's question to make sure that I have got it factually correct. He asked whether I can give further detail on how the Government intend to bring in the one-hour rule I mentioned this morning.

We intend to introduce regulations to ensure that no more than one lottery per hour may be promoted on a set of premises. At this stage, we do not intend the regulations to apply to all sets of premises or all types of lottery. We are simply trying to prevent a fast-draw lottery, the type that I referred to, being offered in unsuitable premises.

We are therefore considering the need to restrict the frequency of lotteries in pubs and clubs, although that may change if it appears during our consultation that other premises should also be covered. I hope that that explains the one-hour rule to the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 248 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 249 - Exclusion of the National Lottery

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I shall be brief. As the clause refers to the national lottery, it gives me an opportunity to ask the Minister whether he feels that, as the Bill stands, the consultation arrangements between the gambling commission and the national lottery are as good as they should be. There is a feeling, certainly on the part of the National Lottery Commission, that there should be a statutory definition of that consultation process. We made an attempt earlier to tighten the provisions, and the Government rejected it.

It is obviously important to have input from the National Lottery Commission, particularly if there is an expansion of gambling across the board. There is only a finite resource to go into gambling. It may well be that the number of players of the lottery diminishes, the amount going into the lottery diminishes and that has a knock-on effect on the money for good causes. So, the relationship between the gambling commission—what it stands for and what it does—and the running of the national lottery is important. The National Lottery Commission said that it would like the Bill to provide for a much stronger relationship.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 29, headed ''Consultation with National Lottery Commission'', which outlines how the consultation between the national lottery and the gambling commission should take place. I do not know what more the hon. Gentleman is asking for, but I think that he knows that there was discussion about whether the national lottery should have been part of the terms of reference.

I think that the hon. Gentleman also knows that there was much discussion about whether we need a national lottery. We took the political decision that we do: the national lottery is a great institution, so we have kept it in its current form. A new licence will come up and be consulted on. The Government believe that there are mechanisms for consultation with the national lottery. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tells us of other areas for concern that we have not addressed, we will consider them.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. We are aware of clause 29 and so is the National Lottery Commission, but its view is that the clause is too weak. I was simply expressing its opinion, as addressed to me, that the commission would like the provision strengthened in some way. The onus seems to be on the gambling commission to reach out and consult with the National Lottery Commission. We are not suggesting that the Government place a lottery commissioner on the gambling commission to make sure that there is always a voice at the table. The National Lottery Commission simply said, ''We're not happy. The provision is not as strong as we'd like.'' All I wanted from the Minister was confirmation that he felt that the consultation as set out in clause 29 was adequate to satisfy all requirements. I am simply acting on a request that was made to us to raise the issue.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I can only say that I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that clause 29, particularly subsection (1), deals with the matter, and there is a fall-back position in subsection (2) that the gambling commission has to comply with any direction of the Secretary of State, which may be of a general or specific nature, to consult the national lottery. If there were any problems and the national lottery believed that it was not being consulted in the proper way, the Secretary of State could therefore compel the gambling commission to carry out such That would act as a safety valve in the eventuality raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 249, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 250 - Territorial application

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I want to ask about one aspect of territorial application. I hope that the Minister and those who advise him will recognise that I am not being critical in raising the point; I am genuinely trying, I hope, to help the Government. When I read the clause, I noticed subsection (1), which says that the provisions apply

''to anything done in relation to a lottery—

(a) in Great Britain, or

(b) by the provision of, or by means of remote gambling equipment situated in Great Britain.''

Subsection (2) says that it is immaterial whether it is promoted wholly or partly in the UK or outside the UK. The Minister told me before lunch that the Government are genuinely concerned about the type of lotteries that might be very addictive. He gave a helpful answer explaining why they were worried.

In my experience, a number of the sort of lotteries that the Minister and the Government are worried about relate entirely to matters that take place abroad. If the Government foresee a real problem—taking the Minister's earlier point about using the Bill for future-proofing—and we are limiting the provisions to lotteries in Great Britain even if they might be promoted wholly or partly in other parts of the UK, I am worried about the many perfectly lawful lotteries already relating to overseas commissions for which tickets are sold in the UK.

It struck me that it might be wiser for the Government to think between now and Report, or before the Bill goes to another place, about widening the territorial application so that it is clear that when the lottery is promoted—even if that takes place abroad—and tickets are sold anywhere in the UK, it is the sale of the tickets in the UK that is the issue, rather than the lottery being promoted wholly or partly in the UK. I hope that, if there is some benefit in widening the drafting of the clause, the Minister will say that he will think about it.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, if lotteries are promoted here, they need a licence. Clause 236(2) makes that clear. If people sell tickets—we are talking about lotteries being promoted—they need a licence to do so. If they do not, they will be acting illegally. I do not know how people go about buying tickets for other lotteries. If the lottery is promoted here, a licence is required, which comes under those conditions. As with any other piece of gambling equipment, we hope that we do two things: first, protect the punter and, secondly, say to people outside this country that the products that they are betting on have integrity and transparency, and are registered accordingly. It is important to keep to what was done in the Gaming Act 1968.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 250 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 251 - Members' club

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I, too, welcome you to this afternoon's deliberations, Mr. Gale. This is not a lengthy point, but it is important. Earlier this week we discussed under clause 219 the fact that gaming machines and the activities related to them have changed significantly since the 1968 Act, and that real and virtual activities are included in the definition of the activities that the Government seek to regulate.

In considering this clause, which deals with members' clubs, I had assumed that there would be a clear indication that the definition referred to a physical club, as most Members of this institution would understand the term. Unless I have missed it—hopefully the Minister can guide me on this—I cannot see in either of the subsections anything that specifically suggests that the clause refers to a club as we might conventionally consider it.

On the face of it, that does not appear to be an earth-shattering worry, but on the other hand there could be an issue. There could be uncertainty about the nature of the clubs that the Government seek to regulate. Clearly, as the explanatory notes suggest, the kind of club that the Government have in mind is something along the lines of the Royal British Legion. I know that all Members will share our wish to ensure that those excellent clubs are able to continue successfully. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] However, there may be other forms of club that the Government may or may not intend to include. That is currently unclear from the clause.

My first thought is something along the lines of an investment club, where people come together and meet in one another's homes to discuss possible decisions of that nature. Some may suggest that investment in gambling has a certain similarity, but I would not dream of making that suggestion about our financial services industry. However, it is not that that club does not exist or does not meet; it is just that it does not meet in a specific location.

The second kind of club that crosses my mind is virtual. Increasingly, people communicate not by coming together physically, but by using the internet to get together as a club or society. The heart of my question is: can the Minister clarify whether there is a physical characteristic to the definition? Without wishing to take us too far away from the essence of the Bill, I ask whether there is—dare I say it—a spatial dimension to the definition, and if so, why has that not been included in the Bill.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

For the record, I shall explain the clause and what is meant by a ''members' club'' in the Bill. The Bill updates, but preserves, the essential elements of the current definition. A members' club must be established and conducted wholly or mainly for purposes others than gaming, unless the gaming is of a prescribed kind and facilities are provided for no other kind of gaming. Under the present law, bridge and whist clubs benefit from that allowance. We will continue that under the Bill by specifically allowing it under this clause.

A members' club must also be established and conducted for the benefit of members and not as a commercial enterprise. It should have at least 25 members and not be temporary in nature. That ensures that clubs are not set up for a short time to avoid gambling regulations.

In answer to the specific questions that I was asked, entitlements are for club premises in part 12. There has to be a bricks and mortar premises. An investment club would need specific premises. Clauses 256(2) and 258(2) make it clear that permits can be granted only for one premises.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

If 25 members of the Hertford Royal British Legion got together in their homes to engage in gaming, would that constitute a members' club?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

No.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 251 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 252 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 253 - Miners' welfare institute

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

This question is more appropriate to the Minister's part of the country than mine. I am not aware of any mines in Essex.

The serious point that I want to make is that, with changing circumstances in the coal mining industry in various parts of the country, the number of live coal mines has been dramatically reduced. I am trying to look to the future: has any thought been given to how the miners' welfare institutes provision in clause 253 may be accommodated because the clubs will still exist, albeit not with present miners, and the past miners will eventually become very past? Is there an arrangement by which the benefits of the miners' welfare institutes can be continued thereafter for the new non-mining generation?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

To follow the hon. Gentleman's points, I am not sure what very past miners would be like, but in my neck of the woods we would call them retired miners.

The point is well worth making that miners' welfare institutes continue in existence, but with a reduced rate of funding because the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, to which subsection (4) refers and which is now a charitable trust, has had reduced funding for considerable time. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to ask his colleagues in the Government for more attention to be given to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, particularly in respect of social workers who may be needed to look after those retired miners who develop problem gambling habits when the bigger, super-casinos arrive.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

My hon. Friend seems to think that there will be one in the middle of Barnsley. He will be able to use all the expertise from ex-miners there.

The answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is yes. In response to my hon. Friend, and to digress a little, the miners' welfare clubs play a fantastic role not just in the area that we are discussing but in the whole sporting arena. We are considering how we could help some of those ex-miners and their welfare clubs to do in the wider community what they now do and not to be driven just by the mining industry.

Clause 253 defines miners' welfare institute and miners' representatives for the purposes of the Bill. Those definitions have been updated since the previous legislation in consultation with the appropriate groups connected with mining and ex-mining areas. Such institutes and associations were established for social recreation purposes. An association may take one of two legal forms: either it must be managed by a group made up of at least two thirds of miners' representatives or it must operate from charity premises and have received money from the range of mining charity organisations listed in the clause.

A miner's representative is defined as a person who is nominated or appointed by a person who employs or has employed individuals in the course of a coal mining business, by the trust known as the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, by an organisation representing persons who are or were employed in connection with coal mining, or if the person concerned is or was employed in connection with coal mining.

That is the explanation for clause 253.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 253 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 254 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 255 - Section 254: supplementary

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I beg to move amendment No. 348, in clause 255, page 113, line 31, at end insert—

'(e) not unfairly discriminate between different classes of club or institute when making such regulations.'.

The amendment has been carefully worded so that I can ingratiate myself with Labour members of the Committee, Conservative members of the Committee and, hopefully, my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh).

The clause as drafted commits members' clubs, commercial clubs and miners' welfare institutes to providing certain facilities for gaming without the need for any express authorisation. In order to qualify for the exemption, the gaming must meet a number of conditions, which are similar to those set out in section 40 of the 1968 Act, with the exception of the restriction on linking games and of how to prescribe maximum stakes and prizes.

There is no justification for discriminating between types of club or institute. It should be made clear in the Bill that the purpose of making regulations on different provisions for different classes is not to allow such discrimination—hence my opening references to political clubs. There should not be discrimination because they are political clubs or, indeed, among political clubs of different colours.

Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations

''prescribing the maximum charge for the purposes of section 254(4).''

In other words, participation fees are not to exceed a maximum to be prescribed. Clause 255(3)(a) allows the making of

''different provision for different classes of club or institute.''

Paragraph (c) makes provision

''for different classes or descriptions of game''

and paragraph (d) provides

''for different classes or description of fee.''

Everyone has to be awake to follow that flow.

There is no indication of the basis on which different provisions will be made for different classes of club or institute. The amendment seeks to clarify that any policy setting a different maximum participation fee will not unfairly discriminate between classes of club or institute. It is suggested that the Secretary of State issue a statement under clause 220 regarding the basis on which such power will be exercised.

This is in many ways a probing amendment to ensure that the Government have taken such matters into consideration. While there can be different regulations for varying classes of clubs, the difference should not be discriminatory towards a particular club. In other words, regulations governing a miners' welfare institute should not be excessively strict in comparison with, say, regulations governing a snooker club or any other commercial club. I should point out that my interest in the miners' welfare institute movement is purely to ensure that the one in Eckington survives, because it is one I visit.

The Gaming Act 1968 granted the Secretary of State the right to specify differing sums for different clubs, so the power granted to the Secretary of State is at the heart of this clause and a carry-over from the 1968 Act. The amendment will ensure that the differences are within reason. The definitions of the three types of club are miners' welfare institutes, commercial clubs and members' clubs. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances and clarifications such that I may not wish to push the amendment to a Division.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

May I add a footnote? There is some possibility of unfair discrimination, because clubs are often judged by their titles and not always what they seem. Miners' clubs are not frequented only by miners. Wheel-tappers and shunters clubs are presumably not full of anybody at all anymore, as there are no wheel-tappers and shunters around.

Certain clubs such as social clubs in Blackpool, some of which the scrutiny Committee visited, were originally set up with the objective of providing cheap entertainment for people who could not attend first-class, commercial entertainment. Those clubs now provide first-class, commercial entertainment, and are effectively lucrative and thriving businesses.

We also have the phenomenon of political clubs. In my constituency, the Birkdale Conservative club is full not of Conservatives, surprisingly, but of snooker players. [Interruption.]

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

May I assure the hon. Gentleman that one condition of joining a Conservative club is being a Conservative? If he has the names of anybody who enters those clubs who is not a Conservative, I would like to have them, because I would make sure that they were immediately barred.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the net effect of that would be very empty clubs. Some people may be under a serious misapprehension—

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

This point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the radio a few weeks ago. He said that if every member of the Conservative clubs in his constituency had voted Conservative, he would not have won the seat.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

If I may add an anecdotal reference, there is a thriving Kirkby Liberal club, but the return from my constituency does not reflect the club membership. Similarly, Labour clubs are not universally full of socialists, although I suppose that the same could be said of the Labour party. There is a serious possibility that discrimination by category may not be that friendly to the interests of the clubs. [Interruption.]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. In the spirit of seasonal good will, I ask the hon. Gentleman to come back to the amendment.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I was just pointing out that there is a real possibility of unfair discrimination.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

This question depends on the type of discrimination that we are addressing, because the main purpose of the clause is to distinguish between different types of gambling, not political persuasion.

Amendment No. 348 addresses the maximum participation fees that clubs will be able to charge members to take part in certain forms of equal-chance gaming. The fees will be set by regulations. The amendment would ensure that such regulations do not discriminate unfairly among different classes of clubs or institutes. The regulations would never be used unfairly. The regulations should not discriminate between groups without proper justification. The purpose of the flexibility is to enable different participation fees for different types of clubs. For example, bridge and whist clubs enjoy higher allowances under current law. Without the flexibility, we would not be able to maintain that.

Why have the power at all? Section 40 of the 1968 Act, as amended in 1973, allows different sums for members' and commercial clubs and institutes. The power already exists, and that is why we are following it through. With that explanation about flexibility without discrimination, I hope that the hon. Member for Colchester will withdraw his amendment.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I thank the Minister for clarifying and explaining how the Bill interprets fairness and discrimination. With that on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 255 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 256 and 257 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 258 - Club machine permit

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I beg to move amendment

No. 350, in clause 258, page 115, line 44, at end add—

'(6) for the purposes of this section ''available for use'' shall mean a machine which is in fully functional order sited in accordance with its premises licence which is accessible at that time by at least one customer whether or not the machine is actually being played.'.

If we were just decent people dealing with common sense, there would be no problem. However, unfortunately, we must recognise that lawyers in time to come will pore over this legislation. Common sense and the law do not necessarily always go together. We therefore propose new subsection (6). Any normal person would know what was meant by a machine being available for use, but there will be some who wish to interpret what is available and what is available for a machine in working order. The main purpose of our amendment is to provide a clear definition of ''available for use'', which can be important in interpreting the clause. We feel that the phrase is subject to opinion without a clear definition. It mainly clarifies the terms of the clause. The phrase ''available for use'' is not defined, and it should be clear that when a machine is damaged or not sited in part of the premises available to customers, it should not be included as part of the limit in subsection (2).

Clause 226 provides that it is an offence to make a gaming machine available for use unless subject to an exception such as accordance with a club machine permit under clause 258. It should be noted that the offence is not simply making a gaming machine available, so the question arises why the words ''available for use'' have been included. Failure to define when a machine is available for use will lead to needless litigation; that definition should be in the Bill, but it is not, despite the phrase being used many times. Providing a definition in the clause is important because there is nowhere else to ascertain the meaning of the phrase.

The problem with not having a definition is that the regulator can suggest that the operator is breaking the law if it has broken machines on the premises or additional working machines in a storeroom which are not intended to be used at that moment. An operator may have three machines for use and one spare in the stockroom. The amendment would protect clubs from unforeseen circumstances, where they may have more machines than permitted but only three available for use in the permitted area at that time. We appreciate that such circumstances will be relatively rare, but the amendment would simply provide clarity in the clause.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the amendment. I do not think that it is necessary; indeed, in some respects it could do harm. It is self-evident that if a club or institute is offering a machine or machines for the use of their members, the machines must be regulated at all times and not just when someone is playing. That is why we deliberately chose the words ''available for use'', and we used them not only in this clause but wherever in the Bill we have referred to gaming machines being offered.

We do not want to include lots of detail on this point in the clause. If we did, there would be endless arguments with unscrupulous operators seeking to exceed their limit. We want to catch any gaming machine that someone makes available. Some of the examples suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not count as making a machine available. If a machine is damaged, or is not on the premises, it cannot be available for use, and would not come under the definition.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

If a club has three working machines, but a fourth one in reserve in the stockroom—in working order but not in use—in anticipation of one of the others breaking down, would it be illegal to keep that fourth machine on the premises in working order, albeit not in a licensed part of the building?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Yes, a premises could have a fourth machine in the stockroom. If it was not available for use by members, it would not fall under the definition. That would only happen when it became available for use. If a machine is damaged or locked away where it is not available, it is not available for use and is not covered by the clause. We want to catch any gaming machine that is made available. That clearly does not mean that someone has to be playing the machine before it counts. The question is whether someone could use it; if so, the operator is providing a gaming machine. If it were locked away in a stockroom, it would not be available.

I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. I appreciate that such machines offer an important source of revenue for clubs offering entertainment. The clause allows quite properly allows them to offer three machines. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, and given my explanation, I ask him to withdraw it.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I am grateful to the Minister because we now have that confirmation on the record, and I hope that no one will want to enforce a provision that they perceive to be in the Bill, but which was, in reality, never intended. The Minister has explained that, if anybody did try to pull that stroke, it would be disallowed. On the basis of those reassurances, for which I am grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 258 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 259 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 - Club Gaming Permits and Club Machine Permits

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Having looked through schedule 10, I have a simple question. Much of it replicates the wording of the Licensing Act 2003, and the procedure for applying for references, appeals and hearings follows that of the Licensing Act.

Paragraph 10 talks about the fast-track procedure, which is for holders of club premises certificates. Sub-paragraph (1)(a) defines what that means. It says that

''the applicant for a permit is the holder of a club premises certificate under section 72 of the Licensing Act 2003''.

I am trying to recollect what we discussed when considering the Act. I thought that most, if not all, clubs had to register under that Act if alcohol was being served in any shape or form.

My question is: unless there are different types of gaming clubs, which do not need an alcohol licence because they do not serve alcohol—which I cannot believe is possible—why do we need the rest of schedule 10? I am trying to clarify the matter in my own mind. I am sure that there is a simple answer and that the Minister will have it at the tip of his tongue.

I obviously welcome fast-tracking for those with a club premises certificate. They have been through the application to the local authority and all the procedures—being vetted and so on. All they want to do is add some gaming permits. I need to know which clubs might need to go through the long-winded procedure rather than taking the short circuit.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I shall give the full explanation of the schedule. It is a technical measure setting out, in considerable detail, how to get the club gaming or club machine permit. I will highlight a couple of important points.

Paragraphs 1 to 3 deal with submitting the application. Those eligible to submit an application for a club gaming permit are members' clubs and miners' welfare institutes. Those organisations and commercial clubs can also apply for a club machine permit.

Paragraph 10 provides an important fast-track procedure for clubs or institutes in England and Wales which have alcohol licences under section 72 of the Licensing Act 2003. That Act is due for implementation before the Gambling Bill can take effect. The fast-track procedure is available because a club or institute with an alcohol licence will, as the hon. Gentleman said, have been through a licensing process to obtain their club premises certificate. It would be not only onerous but unnecessarily costly to make such premises repeat the entire process. As a result, special truncated procedures are available to clubs and institutes with permission to serve alcohol on their premises.

Permits will last for 10 years unless they cease to have effect because of lapse, surrender, cancellation or forfeiture. There is one exception to that 10-year rule: if a club has been given a permit under the fast-track procedure, the gaming permit will not expire unless the club premises certificate also ceases to have effect.

Licensing authorities must have regard to any guidance issued by the gambling commission in making decisions about permits, and they must have regard to the licensing objectives in carrying out the functions that I outlined. The licensing authority can delegate functions in schedule 10 to a licensing committee, which can determine applications for permits, as well as cancelling them. Officers of the authority can also undertake certain functions on behalf of the committee. The schedule provides an appropriate and workable mechanism for the application and granting of permits. We are not forcing clubs to sell alcohol. I am talking about card clubs and—

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

What clubs?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Card clubs. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to the schedule.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am not sure that I got the answer that I was looking for. Schedule 10 is about club machine permits, and card clubs do not come under that. Presumably, they are covered under club gaming permits. There may well be gaming clubs that do not sell alcohol, do not have entertainment and therefore do not need the club premises certificate that they would have to seek as clubs under the 2003 Act. I do not know how many clubs of that ilk there would be. I cannot believe that there are many. Perhaps the Minister can give the Committee an assessment of how many would be caught by the first bit of the schedule.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The heading of the schedule is ''Club Gaming Permits and Club Machine Permits'', and that is what it addresses. The gaming part is as important as the machine permits. What I have said about cards comes into that. As I said, the schedule relates to gaming and machine permits.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am fully aware of that. I am just making the point that I would have thought that most clubs would be selling alcohol, would want some entertainment, and, if they had gaming machines, would have only a small number, all of which would be category C and no higher. I cannot believe that there are clubs that exist just for people to play a few machines. I do not know how many card clubs there are in the country; it cannot be that many. Yet in schedule 10, and in some clauses, there is a huge amount of regulation. What does it relate to? The Minister has not answered the question about the scale of the situation.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I shall try yet again to answer the question. We are talking about gaming. There may well be clubs that are set up for gaming—playing cards—which do not want to sell alcohol. All that we are doing is making provision for them in the Bill. It is as simple as that. I will read the schedule heading again: ''Club Gaming Permits and Club Machine Permits''. There may well be clubs whose members want to play cards or games of that nature, but who do not want the club to sell alcohol.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman has only just come in. He came in halfway through my explanation.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

The Minister is suggesting that we are flogging the issue, but it is important. We want to achieve clarity. What he is suggesting, given our earlier discussion about the need for members' clubs to be in a physical location, is that a group of people could have a game of cards at home and that would not be regulated, but if the same group met in what is defined as a members' club—a physical location—they would have to have a permit. That seems a peculiarity.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

To be honest, if the hon. Gentleman had been here for the whole debate and did not keep nipping in and out, it would not be a bad thing. He wants clarity, but attendance would not be a bad idea either. If we are going into such detail, we all ought to be present while we discuss the schedule. The club has to get a permit depending on the type of game. I hope that that puts that issue to bed.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Although it is important to listen to every scintilla of the Minister's contribution and although I apologise to you, Mr. Gale, for missing the wisdom of that contribution, sadly the call of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was not as important as the call of nature.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I seek your guidance. This morning, when Mr. Pike was in the Chair, we were discussing part 5 of schedule 9, which once again dealt with the definitions of local authorities for planning purposes. I made the point that I was still waiting for the reply to the questions that I asked when we discussed exactly the same issue on clause 2. I am happy to acknowledge to the Minister and to you, Mr. Gale, that I received the letter during the lunch period.

The reason for my point of order and my request for help is that, having read the detailed explanation provided by the Department, I am now even more firmly convinced that the unitary authority of Bath and North East Somerset council is not covered by the definition. Given that there will be no further opportunity during Committee to discuss it, I wonder if you can advise me, Mr. Gale, about how I might remedy what is clearly a problem.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Although that is not a point of order for the Chair, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that he has been in the House long enough to know that there are other opportunities for him to seek clarification: first, by letter; secondly, by catching the eye of the Chair and raising the issue on Report or even on Third Reading.

Clause 260 - Bingo

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 351, in clause 260, page 116, line 10, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 352, in clause 260, page 116, line 12, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.

No. 353, in clause 260, page 116, line 16, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.

No. 354, in clause 260, page 116, line 18, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.

No. 355, in clause 266, page 118, line 7, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.

No. 356, in clause 266, page 118, line 9, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.

No. 357, in clause 266, page 118, line 12, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.

No. 358, in clause 266, page 118, line 14, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£2,000'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

We now come to the most important part of the Bill so far. It is a pleasure to move the amendment on behalf of the clubs movement, and it is a pleasure also to speak in Committee, because one or two of us on the Government Back Benches have been slowly losing the will to live.

The amendments are straightforward—simply replacing the limit of £1,000 with £2,000. Although that is a doubling of the limit, it is still a very moderate figure, particularly when one takes into account some of the sums for casino and other forms of gambling that the Bill deals with. I will go into more detail as we go along, but the original declaration of the gambling review body left the figure at £1,000. When the Joint Committee scrutinised the draft Bill, it thought that the figure should have been £2,000, and recommended that. The Government did not accept that, because they felt that such a figure bordered on commercial bingo, and decided to stick with £1,000. The point that I wish to make between now and 5.30 pm next Tuesday is that perhaps £2,000 is more appropriate. It does not relate to commercial bingo; in fact, far from it.

In order to consider the matter in more detail, we must go back to the Budd report, which recommended the £1,000 limit. Chapter 8 of the report does not even mention bingo in clubs—not once. The only time that the report mentions bingo in relation to clubs is in the chapter about recommendations, and in particular from paragraph 25.15 onwards. In those paragraphs, the committee said that it understood that there were plans to introduce linked bingo to working men's clubs to be run by a commercial company, with prizes of up to £20,000. Obviously, that would be commercial bingo, but the report mentioned neither where that proposal came from nor how far advanced it was.

The report continued by stating that a figure of that magnitude would be commercial bingo and that there should be some control over commercial bingo. No one would disagree with that. It went on to say:

''We recommend that where the size of prizes for equal chance gaming (such as bingo) in pubs or clubs is beyond the limit of £1,000 per week, it should be regulated''.

Even the Budd committee itself started talking about a £20,000 commercial limit, but then put a limit on working men's clubs of £1,000. One must ask why the Budd committee did not recommend a limit of £10,000 or £5,000. Why did it propose a limit as low as £1,000? My view is that its comments on a linked game for a prize of £20,000 were a red herring to justify the limit of £1,000.

We have to remember that that £1,000 is averaged out over seven days. Let us consider some of the larger working men's clubs, which are mainly in the north of England. We have referred to Conservative clubs, which I am sure run bingo competitions as well. I should say that I am probably the only man in Barnsley who has not been in the Barnsley Conservative club, such is the quality of its snooker table. Some of the clubs have a huge membership and £1,000 is easily achievable over several days of bingo in the course of seven days. A limit of £1,000 would mean that many clubs would have to go through the bureaucratic procedure of obtaining the relevant permits. So, I question the Budd report and why the committee came up with the figure of £1,000. It has misled people into fearing linked commercial games in every working men's club for a prize of £20,000, which probably should require a permit.

The Budd report made other recommendations on commercial bingo. It said that there should be

''no statutory limits on the stakes and prizes in bingo games''

and that

''there should be no restrictions on the frequency of multiple bingo games''

It went on to say:

''We recommend that roll-overs should be permitted''

in commercial bingo. The Budd committee effectively said that the commercial sector could have a free-for-all—what prize money it wants, roll-overs and the rest of it—but that the naughty working men's clubs in the north of England should be allowed prize money totalling only £1,000 over seven days. To coin a phrase, there is a touch of snobbery about some of this. For some reason, there is a theme of limiting working men's clubs to £1,000, but letting commercial organisations have what they want. It is worth bearing in mind that the Club and Institute Union and the Committee of Registered Clubs Associations did not give evidence to Budd—oral evidence perhaps—whereas the Bingo Association did. There is a slant towards the commercial game.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

Does my hon. Friend not think that perhaps there is a class issue involved—that somehow working men cannot handle that sort of money and will spend it only on ale and whippet food? Does he not think that the recommendations betray a certain class prejudice?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I am not sure that I would like to follow my hon. Friend down that route, but there is an air of paternalism and a theme that the commercial sector can have exactly what it has asked for—unlimited restrictions. There probably is a class issue as well; because they are working men's clubs, they have to have a £1,000 limit.

We started with the Budd committee suggesting £1,000, but that was rejected by the Government. The Government then came forward with the view, which they have since re-emphasised in correspondence, that £1,000 over seven days is bingo on a commercial scale. In the letter from Lord McIntosh, the Government had no idea how much bingo took place in working men's clubs, but they said that it was on a commercial scale. They could not quantify it—they never even tried to do so—but they wanted to impose a limit to £1,000.

There is a very interesting section on bingo in the regulatory impact assessment, which says that there are 696 commercial bingo clubs in this country, which received a total stake of £1.381 million in the last year for which figures are available. That equates to a stake of about £16.90 per person. If one considers that a commercial bingo outlet has a membership of, say, 100 or 200, one can see how much is achievable on a single night—because that £16.90 will be staked in one evening. Let us compare that to £1,000 in seven days in a working men's club. The two figures are way apart. Even the regulatory impact assessment—the Government's own assessment—suggests that commercial bingo involves far larger figures than those covered by the £1,000 limit.

One of the two big commercial enterprises in bingo is the Gala Bingo chain. I remember reopening the Gala Bingo club in my constituency after it had been refurbished. It was quite amusing as, while I was on stage trying to reopen the club, I was heckled for interrupting the bingo game. The heckler was well known, but I cannot say who it was. I was interrupting the game, so people were heckling like anything. A group was playing on stage and the lead singer helpfully turned to me and said, ''Be careful, sir, there's a pyrotechnic in front of you.'' I said, ''Do you mean an indoor firework?'' He said, ''Yes''. It went off and for about 30 seconds I was staggering about the stage unable to see a thing because of smoke.

The club had 26,000 members at the time that I reopened it. With the best will in the world, a working men's club will not have anywhere near that number. There are some big clubs but they do not have 26,000 members. That bingo club was for one small town in the north of England. Obviously, the bigger cities will have commercial bingo clubs with larger memberships. So, there is a great difference between working men's clubs and proper commercial bingo.

The limit of £1,000 is obviously far too low. As I said, the Government's regulatory impact assessment tends to support that view, which brings us back to their subsequent rejection of it. The Club and Institute Union and the Committee of Registered Clubs Associations have said that they believe that a club playing bingo three or four times a week could easily exceed the £1,000 limit. The limit risks including far too many clubs in the requirement to obtain the requisite permits, which would put a financial and administrative burden on them. It also introduces an offence.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

Earlier, the Minister referred to light-touch regulation on category D machines. I wonder whether my hon. Friend wishes to argue that we need light-touch regulation in this case and that raising the limit to £2,000 could achieve that.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

My hon. Friend is right. The Bill implements light-touch regulation for commercial premises, but uses the heavy hand of bureaucracy for working men's clubs. It is interesting that my hon. Friend intervened. As she knows, a television programme on BBC 1 helps me to understand the Gambling Bill: the programme about the casino in Blackpool. It is a toss-up as to who will get the casino licence first—the real Blackpool council, or Ripley Holden from the programme. We will have to wait and see. Yes, regulation should have been light touch, but the measure uses the heavy hand.

As a consequence of the requirement, many clubs will have to obtain permits or licences for small-scale bingo, and we will be criminalising club members who inadvertently fail to renew or obtain that permit or allow their prize figure to exceed £1,000. They will be guilty of an offence under subsection (7). We should move those clubs out of that bracket. It is worth bearing in mind that there is no known history of abuse or irregularity in bingo; it is small-scale, equal-chance gaming.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

In light of that last observation, will the hon. Gentleman hazard a guess as to why the Budd committee and Lord McIntosh seemingly know more about how working class bingo halls operate than do the Committee of Registered Clubs Association and the Bingo Association? If there is elitism, as he suggests, and he may well be right, can he explain why the new Labour Government are siding with the toffs and not with the workers?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Well, they are siding with the Budd committee, I suppose. I cannot explain that, but the Government must be guided by the Budd report. My point is that perhaps that report, which has provided the basis for this figure, has taken far too much notice of what it has been told by the Bingo Association about the perceived threat from working men's clubs and small-scale bingo. If one is a representative of the Bingo Association or the bingo clubs, the commercial side of the industry, one will try to cut off every avenue of competition in every way possible in order to maximise one's club's membership. As I said earlier, it is heavy-handed, because with even a £2,000 limit, working men's clubs will not provide any real competition to the commercial enterprises, especially if the Budd recommendations for commercial bingo—roll-overs and bigger stakes—are introduced. Even with that limit, which the CIU and the Committee of Registered Clubs Association have suggested, the activity does not impinge on what commercial bingo clubs have to offer.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We are very sympathetic to much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but, if he is going to press the amendment to a vote, it would be helpful before we come to a final decision if he could take the Committee through the present regulations, if they exist, and the sorts of limits that such clubs reach within seven days. Where does the figure of £2,000 come from? Is it like the figure of eight regional casinos—plucked out of the air?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Come, come—it is scientific.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Or is it scientific, as the Minister says? It would help us come to the right conclusion if we knew the reasons for the £2,000 limit, the current limit for clubs and where the pressures come from. If no regulations pertain to them, they may be trading at £5,000, £6,000 a week—who knows? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could enlighten us.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman asked me, because the short answer is that, like Lord McIntosh, I have not got a clue. It is an important point, however. No one knows; there is not enough research into the matter to suggest a figure of £1,000 or £2,000. That is one point that I am making: the Budd committee made the recommendation for a limit of £1,000, but only it knows why. When it came to bingo in working men's clubs, Budd started referring to that fear of a £20,000 commercial gain and went on to recommend the limit of £1,000. For the life of me, I cannot understand why it went from a fear of a £20,000 gain to a £1,000 limit. If there had been any evidence that there would be a £20,000 prize for linked games in working men's clubs, it would suggest that the limit would have been nearer to that prize. That is one of the problems on which we are working.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I think that we are getting there. It would be logical to conclude that if the clubs associations are happy with a £2,000 limit, it would suggest that they are currently trading below that figure during a particular week, which would give them a comfort zone and ensure that they were not caught by the clause.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. It would be helpful if we could have some guidance. It has just occurred to me that some of us are members of CIU clubs, and I wonder whether we should declare an interest.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I imagine that hon. Members' interests are declared in the register, but it is always helpful to the Committee for any Member to declare an interest prior to speaking. If any hon. Member seeks to catch my eye and has an interest to declare, that would be the moment to declare it.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I would like to declare an interest, Mr. Gale.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

My hon. Friend was supposed to do that before he started.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. That does not mean that the hon. Gentleman has to go back to the beginning of his speech.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

It slipped my memory that I should have declared that I am a member of the Barnsley trades and Labour club.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I have to say that, as a woman, I am not a member of any working men's club. The explanatory notes refer to the fact that with parliamentary approval the Secretary of State could amend the £1,000 figure. If the Minister is unwilling to accept my hon. Friend's amendment, will he perhaps look to the future, when the gambling commission or some other body could consider the matter and report back to the Government? The Secretary of State could reconsider the figure to ensure that there is fair play for working men's clubs and other institutions covered by the clause.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I would not want to adopt such a negative view because I am optimistic that the Minister will have some positive news when he responds. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: if the Government do not want to increase the limit at this point, it would not be difficult to obtain research showing the level of activity in working men's clubs—the number of people playing bingo is easily recordable—and the type of prizes given.

I return to the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) that the CIU would accept a figure of £2,000 because it feels that that would exclude the majority of clubs from the requirement to have a permit. Some of the bigger clubs would still exceed the £2,000 figure, but they could carry on with the activity if they obtained the relevant permit.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

What this debate seems to lack is a clear, precise definition of commercial bingo. A contrast is being drawn between club bingo and commercial bingo, and it is alleged that bingo in which stakes go above £1,000 would be virtually the same as commercial bingo. In one sense, that is not true because the profits go to the club and not to a limited company. Commercial or virtual commercial bingo—and I have some sympathy with the industry in this respect—should be defined as such when it is judged by the commercial bingo sector to be in competition with it. The hon. Gentleman resented that approach, but I cannot see any other obvious approach, other than plucking a figure out of thin air.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

That is a reasonable assumption to make. I am not sure that I resent the comparison—it is probably right—but I wanted to show that when we talk of the commercial bingo sector, the figures are vastly higher than they are in working men's clubs.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a lack of available information on the issue to justify either party's standpoint. The Government have no information or research to justify the figure of £1,000, and little information is coming from the clubs to counter the point. The nearest definition of commercial bingo is in chapter 3.3 of the regulatory impact assessment, which states:

''There were 696 commercial bingo clubs operating in Great Britain, at 31 March 2004.''

There is no definition of commercial bingo other than that reference to clubs. It does not tell us how many members there are, what the stakes are, what is the value of the prizes or anything else. We have a ballpark figure of £1.3 billion for the amount of money staked with 81.5 million admissions, which gives an average stake per person of £16.90. Again, that is probably higher than in working men's clubs where bingo tickets probably cost 50p, or £1 at most. There are huge differences between the figures involved, but no definition of what constitutes commercial bingo.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point on what may appear to be a narrow issue, but it is an important one. Will he confirm a point that the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) rightly highlighted—that the amendment applies not only to working men's clubs but to other clubs of a similar character?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Yes, I can confirm that. Perhaps a better phrase would be ''social clubs'', which would include working men's clubs.

Ben Chapman (Labour, Wirral South)

Can my hon. Friend confirm that that would extend to, for example, Royal Air Force Association clubs, Victory clubs, ex-services clubs and so on?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Yes, I am sure that such clubs would fall within the definition, as well as Conservative clubs and all sorts of social clubs.

Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Southport, Budd did not take any substantial evidence on why a £1,000 limit should be introduced. Its report simply refers to the possibility of a £20,000 linked game. That is the only justification in the Budd report for a £1,000 cap. The review body did not visit, say, 10 working men's clubs, and take the average number of tickets sold to arrive at a figure. We are simply told that there is a possibility of a £20,000 linked-prize game of bingo, and a figure of £1,000 was chucked in to hold that figure down.

I said earlier that there is no known history of abuse or irregularity in bingo in social clubs, and there is unlikely to be because there is no facility to abuse club bingo. It is well monitored and well stewarded, and it takes place in private social clubs. All the activities in such clubs are for the benefit of the membership because they are not allowed to make a profit. Any money that they make over and above their expenditure is returned to the club for the benefit of the club alone. No one is profiteering or making money from it other than the club itself. There is no private gain. Yet, the regulatory and financial burden that could be imposed on the majority of clubs by the £1,000 limit could put some of those clubs in a difficult position and prevent them from continuing. We heard in the Committee this afternoon that almost all of us in the Room benefit from a social club, working men's club or political party club in our area.

I hope that I have made the point that commercial bingo and bingo in working men's clubs and social clubs are miles apart in terms of the figures involved, the stakes, the prize money and so on. I believe that a limit of £1,000 over seven days is far too low, and the figure should be doubled to relieve the burden on those clubs that face having to obtain a permit in future.

Another aspect is that, as I understand it, the same clause would cover bingo in pubs. Bingo in pubs might not be as common as bingo in social clubs—it is only on a limited scale at the moment—but the problems facing the pub industry are such that it is looking for other ways of maximising its income. It is now competing with, and losing money to, fixed-odds betting terminals in betting shops and it might be looking to use bingo as a way of increasing takings in pubs. The British Beer and Pub Association supports the amendment because it knows that it will benefit its pubs as well. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have some good news for me when he comes to respond.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

If I could slide in between the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on the left and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) on the right wing, we would have a political spectrum of unity on this matter. I declare at once the life membership that was given to me by Workington Conservative club—for a short time, Workington saw the light and had a Conservative Member of Parliament. When I was their Member of Parliament, I visited an enormous number of clubs: miners' clubs, an Orange club, the Royal British Legion—the list goes on. There was even a Labour club, if I remember rightly.

I would not want to underestimate the social importance of those clubs to the cohesiveness of the area and to character building in that regard. To see them damaged, to see them go, would be a disservice. They are part of the glue that holds a society together. All their activities are well known to us, but there is also the neighbourliness and social support that comes through. If a member is in a little trouble, the others rally round. I hardly think that we shall see such cohesiveness and support when people go to their mega-casino. I cannot see a mega-casino worrying about your personal circumstances if you run into some form of trouble—not that you would run into any trouble, Mr. Gale; I am talking about members of a mega-casino who may run into trouble.

It is warm and comforting to go to those clubs. Of course, as the Member of Parliament, I was made instantly welcome wherever I went in Workington. I felt welcome. I would not want those clubs to be put in peril, but that is happening. They are under pressure. There are so many different commercial attractions to take people away from them. The clubs want to keep going for all the reasons that I have described and they also need to keep their membership costs down. Doing that means that they must run a series of other activities. I will not go through all those activities, because Members know them. Suffice it to say they include Christmas savings clubs, darts matches and competitions with other clubs, and even, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central said, snooker, which is quite a common attraction for pulling in revenue among members. I am sure that nobody wants to see clubs reduced into thousands of mini bingo halls, but as the hon. Gentleman said, if we just consider £1,000 as a total stake, and subtract from that moneys that will be paid out in prize money, the amount left will hardly challenge the Rank empire in the bingo world. We are dealing with peanuts.

I was on the scrutiny Committee, along with the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), and I can say quite cheerfully that we carried out no analysis on the £1,000 figure, but we had a gut feeling that it was far too low and thought that it should be doubled. We did not receive an enormous number of representations on the figure, but we felt that doubling it to £2,000 would be a step in the right direction. It would help the clubs to continue, and aid social cohesiveness. It hurts me to say this, but I will support the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central if he presses his amendment to a Division. I will be with him in voting for clubs, as a good, working Conservative.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I support the attempt of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central to get the Government to move on this issue. People join clubs for a variety of reasons. When I stood as a councillor in 1986 I recall talking to number-takers outside the polling station. One chap said, ''I don't know what I'm doing here. I've just been in there and voted Labour, but I'm collecting numbers for the Tories because they won't let me play snooker in the club unless I collect some.'' That was a long time ago, and I am sure it has all changed now.

I declare an interest as a member of the Eltham Hill working men's club and an honorary lifelong member of the Woolwich Catholic club. The Budd report took a very curious view of working men's club in my opinion. I recall having to lobby to get the Budd report to delete its recommendation that higher value gaming machines should be removed from working men's clubs. That recommendation seemed to be based on anecdotal evidence that the clubs could not manage the machines properly, and that children would play on them and become encouraged to gamble. There was no solid evidence to back up the assumption that they were not capable of managing those machines, and there is an element of classism, because the Budd committee went nowhere near those establishments.

The clubs are extremely well run and cases of rules being broken are few and far between, and are often dealt with very swiftly. Clubs that I know in my area are extremely well run and make an enormous contribution to the local community by turning round the money that they make in bingo, and from gaming machines and the sale of alcohol. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central is very moderate, and I hope that the Government will listen on Report, if not today.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I also support the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central and I will support him if the matter is pressed to a Division. I declare an interest as a life member of both the Stanley and the Tyldesley Conservative clubs in Blackpool. I echo everything that has been said by hon. Members of all parties about the enormously important work that such clubs do for the community as a whole. One has to remember that as well as the kind of clubs that we have talked about so far, such as Eagle clubs, RAF clubs, British Legion clubs, working men's clubs, miners' clubs, Labour clubs, Conservative clubs—

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Liberal clubs.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Liberal clubs, too. One has to remember that many communities comprised of particular groups that have moved to the UK have fantastically successful clubs. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood may know, as I do, the Polish club in the centre of Blackpool that serves the whole area. I used to go there regularly because there were many invitations from the Polish community to all those involved in public life in Blackpool and Wyre and Fylde, regardless of party affiliation. It is important that communities that have moved to the UK have clubs to use as a centre.

One of the Polish airforce squadrons had been stationed during the war at what was then the RAF station at Squiresgate airfield, which is now Blackpool airport. As a result, there was a huge Polish community in and around Blackpool. I was used to working with a Polish community because I grew up in Bedford, which also had a big Polish community and successful Polish clubs. There are clubs of every conceivable nationality. I mentioned the one in Blackpool because I know that it had a successful bingo operation, but many such clubs depend for their fundraising on operating activities such as bingo. I would not want that to be damaged. In addition to the types of club that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central and other hon. Members talked about, the clubs representing minority communities are fantastically important for our society. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I declare my interest: I am a member of the Reform club. [Laughter.] I find it extraordinary that the Minister thinks that a matter of hilarity. On this occasion, the Reform club will stand shoulder to shoulder with the working men's club in Barnsley. I add my support to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central. There is something patronising in the measure that it opposes—that somehow working men and women cannot handle anything more than £1,000; that that should be enough to feed the whippets and buy a new black cat.

Under the circumstances, I think that the bourgeois Budd attitude is not one for the Minister, who is a flinty son of the soil. He will undoubtedly be sympathetic to my hon. Friend's amendment. I add my strong support and that of all the members of the Reform club to my hon. Friend's amendment.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I also support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central. I think that he seriously underestimates his argument. He has, in a sense, provided a criterion that would work in determining what the figure should be—£1,000, £2000, £3,000, £4,000 or whatever. What we have been searching for is a way to draw a legal difference that would work in practice and henceforward. One can do that in terms of volume, ratio of profits or, though it will not be too efficacious in this case, by what the money is used for at the end of the day—whether it is ploughed back into the club or into somebody's bank balance.

The clear fact is that, as it stands, there is a legal difference between the commercial and the voluntary club. That is defined by their objectives. There is no problem with that. We are trying to find a further criterion that enables us to set a figure. I suggest that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central gave us such a rationale in what he said. It seems to me that the commercial sector has no complaint if a voluntary club is not in a position to act as a serious commercial competitor. If it is the case that the normal commercial club requires a turnover of at least £20,000—that that is the norm—then a club that is working on stakes of £1,000, £2,000, or even slightly higher, is not a serious commercial competitor. The commercial sector could not in those circumstances complain about that threshold being higher.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I declare an interest. I am a member of the CIU and president of the Sheffield trades and labour club. So, I have an interest but I am putting that aside and will be absolutely objective in my reply, which will, I hope, be an acceptable conclusion to the matter.

The arguments have been put powerfully by Members of all parties. A number of hon. Members have referred to the debate and discussion we had on returning gaming machines in clubs to a jackpot of £250. The most powerful point in prosecuting that argument was the good that was done with the profits from those machines, which sent some kids off to the seaside for the summer and ensured that members of the old age pensioners club got their lunch and a couple of free pints at Christmas. I know that because I am a member of a club.

I remember when the discussion was taking place about the £250 jackpot—I think that Sir Alan Budd recommended the £25 machines. I go to Sheffield Trades and Labour club on a Sunday evening at about quarter past 9 most weeks when I am in Sheffield. I always have the same table and there are always roughly the same people there. We have long discussions. On this occasion, when the provisions were being discussed and I had responsibility for gambling, I walked into the club at 9.15 on a Sunday night and saw three secretaries from adjoining working men's clubs. I thought, ''Well, they haven't come here to buy me a drink this evening.'' When I sat down to talk to them, they strongly advised me that the £250 machines ought to be brought back and that Sir Alan Budd's recommendations ought to be rejected. They were powerful arguments and I brought them back to the House and deployed them along with many others. We came to the conclusion that Budd was wrong on that occasion.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the Minister say again what night he goes to his club, so that I can make an appointment?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman was not listening. It is the Sheffield trades and Labour club, not the Liberal club. If he wants to be a member, I will make sure that he gets a form, but he will have to pay the £5 entry fee.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Absolutely. That is no problem.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I will arrange that. At least it will mean more income for the club.

The arguments that have been made this afternoon are powerful. In terms of consistency, the issue is also about future-proofing. We want to ensure that all the elements of the Bill are future-proof. There is an element of future-proofing in considering moving from a £1,000 limit.

As a realistic politician, I also know that there are times during the discussions on a Bill when we have to concede, because if we do not, we are likely to get beaten anyway. It looks as though that might be the case this afternoon. One could call it a tactical retreat, future-proofing or acknowledging the power of the arguments. However, I genuinely believe that we ought to revisit the issue, particularly in light of what the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee said. Arguments have been deployed this afternoon by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. If my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central will withdraw his amendment, I will consider returning to the issue.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister clarify how much a club would have to pay out on any game of bingo? If it took £1,000 in a week, how much of that would be retained by the club? If it is a fixed proportion, we can work how much would be retained with a £2,000 limit. It will be peanuts. I do not see the problem with accepting the amendment.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The calculation, in broad terms and as far as I understand it, is that the club retains a maximum of about 10 or 20 per cent. Most working men's clubs pay out about 80 or 85 per cent. of the takings. I do not think that most of them would get anywhere near the £2,000 payout. My club probably has three or four games of bingo a night and the prize for each is probably about £20. Let us say that the total is £100 a night. I would guess that we are talking about a payout of £700 or £800 a week. That is a club with a membership of 600 or 650 people. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central is referring to the bigger clubs, of which there are some around. However, I do not think that that will threaten the commercial side at all.

We will reflect on the issue and, if my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment, I hope to return with an amendment on Report that will probably follow what the Committee is saying and make the limit nearer to £2,000 than the £1,000 in the Bill.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I am grateful to the Minister and also to hon. Members for their expressions of support. My right hon. Friend is right to say that there is considerable sympathy towards the amendments and towards the clubs' view that there should be a higher limit of £2,000. What worries me is when he says that he will return on Report with a figure nearer to £2,000. I ask him to return with a figure of £2,000.

Given the interest that the amendment has generated in the Committee, I am sure that it will generate the same sort of interest from hon. Members on both sides of the House on Report, mainly because of hon. Members' involvement in clubs in their constituencies. In the interests of pursuing the matter, I am happy to withdraw the amendment in the hope that my right hon. Friend will return with an amendment specifying £2,000 on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.