Clause 43 - Invitation to gamble
Gambling Bill
10:30 am
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the good sense of what he has just said: a lot of parents would be horrified if they had heard it. I hope that it will be widely reported because most parents buying 3G phones for their children may be completely unaware that they provide a way into online gambling. Parents should be aware of that. I was going to raise a
slightly different point, but having heard the hon. Gentleman, I wanted to refer with approval to what he said.
I very much agree with the amendment No. 144, to which I added my name. There should be some requirement of intention to ensure that those who legitimately operate businesses such as seaside arcades will not be unfairly persecuted by prosecuting authorities or police. Many members of the British Amusement and Catering Trades Association have operated their arcades responsibly for many years, with their tough codes of practice, but if the clause is not amended, they would be caught by the Bill without doing anything that we would consider wrong. There should be some sort of defence that means that an arcade proprietor will be guilty of an offence only if they have been intentional or reckless in encouraging children. I am always worried when legislation introduces or modifies offences in such a way that they are left sufficiently open-ended that those who operate businesses legitimately can inadvertently be caught.
The amendment is important because I do not want the Bill to lead to a raft of prosecutions of people who are legitimately operating businesses exactly as they have done for years, and who are doing nothing to encourage children to gamble. They are not being reckless about that at all. Unless we build in some protection, there is a great danger of such prosecutions.