Clause 41 - Provision of unlawful facilities abroad
Gambling Bill
10:30 am

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 151, in clause 41, page 19, line 3, leave out 'a' and insert

'— (a) the United States of America, and (b) any other'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 143,

in clause 41, page 19, line 6, at end add—

'(4) The Secretary of State shall publish and lay before Parliament a statement setting out the criteria by which a country or place will be designated a prohibited territory.'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The clause provides that a person commits an offence if he does anything in Great Britain, including using remote gambling equipment, to enable a person in a prohibited territory to participate in remote gambling. There is currently no restriction regarding the way in which the Secretary of State can use this power or how she can distinguish between different prohibited territories. Given that an order can also prescribe maximum penalties, including possible imprisonment, the means of making such an order should be as transparent as possible. It is important that concessions are not granted to territories that could have the potential to circumvent other aspects of UK policy, particularly in relation to casinos. Amendment Nos. 143 and 151 seek to ensure that a clear policy statement is laid before Parliament and that, at a minimum, a person in the USA is prohibited from participating in remote gambling at this time. Clearly other countries that could result in market distortion could be added in accordance with agreed policy.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I sympathise with the principle behind amendment No. 143. I agree that we must be transparent in our decision making, and that other states must be clear about the framework within which

the British gambling industry operates. However, the amendment risks restricting the Government's flexibility in meeting the demands of the rapidly evolving gambling environment. The criteria for prohibiting a particular territory must be able to evolve as quickly as that environment. The Secretary of State may need to consider matters as diverse as the global market, international agreements and religious and cultural issues. She must be able to move quickly to meet new concerns not set out in the existing criteria. It may not be possible to anticipate every circumstance in which a decision has to be made, so it may not be possible to give an exhaustive description of the criteria.

Amendment No. 151 is less easy to sympathise with. The Government believe in the principles of free trade, and those principles apply equally to a properly regulated gambling industry as to any other. The United States Government have sought to limit their citizens' access to non-US gambling sites. That is a matter for that Government. I see no reason for this Government to legislate on the issue. We have maintained that it is for gambling operators to decide whether they accept customers from countries where particular forms of gambling are prohibited. Some operators have decided not to accept customers from the United States; others continue to do so. This is a commercial decision for operators. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He rightly pointed out that remote gambling is an offence in the US. However, its jurisdiction would not apply to businesses located in our country which run remote gambling, so why cannot the Bill state that it is an offence to trade with punters from the US?

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

That has confused me a little, but I think I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is not an offence. We believe in the free market; it is not us but the US that is restricting it. It is up to operators here to decide whether to accept bets from the US; that is a commercial decision for them.

We have a free and well regulated environment, so we do not believe that we need to include that type of restriction in the Bill. We believe in a free market in this area, as we do in any other industry. The US has decided to impose restrictions, and operators here have to make a commercial decision whether to accept bets from US punters.

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

That underlines the difficulty of controlling internet gambling. There are different jurisdictions with different laws on it, and it will be hard to exercise the kinds of control that we would like.

We agree that the Government are going down the right road in encouraging businesses to operate here and be regulated, and that is the true test. In view of the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.