I am all for promotions and incentives that attract more customers to pubs, but the link-up between Punch and online casino gaming, reported in last week's MA, needs to be properly understood.
In particular, the suggestion that individual licensees would be involved in collecting a proportion of the "losses" incurred by gamblers needs to be clarified.
What seems to be the position is that licensees will benefit from the trading profit of the Cantor organisation, which runs the online gambling site.
It is not the case that pubs themselves will be involved in any way in the running of casino games, or offer casino gaming on their premises. That would be entirely illegal.
For example, if they had a dedicated terminal on which casino games could be played by customers for cash, or using some form of credit, this would not be exempt from the gambling laws and could lead to legal action.
Legal implications
I am sure that Punch and its advisers have looked at the legal implication of casino gambling in pubs and have produced a clear distinction between the actual gaming and the involvement of the licensees.
If what is on offer is merely an incentive for customers to try their luck on a website, this is perfectly in order, as the advertising or promotion of gambling in the UK is now legal, subject to restrictions and conditions imposed by the Gambling Commission.
As I have commented recently, equal-chance gaming for limited stakes is allowed on licensed premises, as is poker. But casino games are not, because in the main they are not equal-chance games - they're played against a bank held exclusively by the promoter or provider.
Gambling Act
The new Gambling Act provides for remote gambling sites to be licensed and also covers the proper management of such gambling, in order to protect the interests of participants and ensure that everything is done fairly.
Because the majority of such gambling takes place at home, usually by an individual alone, there is more temptation to invest too heavily and losses may mount up.
Although the recent gambling prevalence study showed that problem gambling has not materially increased in the past eight years or so, the opportunities for risking money are now more widespread and it may provide an additional temptation for vulnerable people.
The scheme as presented does not appear to involve licensees directly in gambling in the same way as I covered in last week's issue.
For example, it will not be necessary for a "gaming supervisor" to deal with the issuing of casino promotion cards: any member of staff following the instructions can do so.
Also, the gambling will not take place on the licensed premises. The individual customer will take the card home with him and access the site from there.
At this point the contractual relationship will be between him and the operator of the gambling site. The pub will have nothing to do with it.
Bookmakers
In the past, licensees have been approached by a number of other traders seeking to promote their services to customers. These have included local bookmakers, because of the long-standing link between the pub trade and the racing industry.
It is perfectly in order to telephone bets from a pub to a bookmaker, because the actual transaction takes place in the licensed office where the bet is accepted.
But pubs must not be used for betting transactions, and the same goes for casino gambling. There are severe penalties for allowing betting or unauthorised gaming on alcohol-licensed premises and these can include the loss of the premises licence itself.