Clause 35 - Power to amend section 34
Gambling Bill
9:55 am

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

I beg to move amendment No. 155, in clause 35, page 16, line 7, after 'may', insert

', only after consultation with those parties set out in section 22(5) and acting reasonably,'.

This is a simple amendment, designed to constrain the powers of the Secretary of State so that he must act reasonably in relation to consultation with the various parties involved. It is a probing amendment; if the Minister assures me on record that the Secretary of State will act reasonably in all situations, that will help.

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

I welcome the principle behind the amendment. I firmly agree that consultation is a fundamental part of the law-making process. Indeed, a requirement to consult features throughout the Bill.

As the Committee will know, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to add or remove particular forms of gambling from the offence of using premises for gambling. In doing so, the clause future-proofs the Bill. It allows the Secretary of State to bring new gambling technologies into the regulatory regime as they emerge, thus providing immediate protection to the public—something that hon. Members agree is not in the 1968 Act.

It is precisely because the purpose of the clause is to allow the Secretary of State to consider any future gambling technologies that a list of specified consultees is not appropriate. That is not to say that consultation is not appropriate—quite the reverse—but we are concerned that a specific list of consultees would not allow the flexibility that is required when dealing with an industry as imaginative and innovatory as gambling.

A list in the Bill will focus attention on particular consultees at the risk of detracting attention from others. For example, the Government are committed to consulting the Treasury, the Financial Services Authority and the spread-betting operators in the application of the clause to spread betting. None of those would appear on the list proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Flexibility is key to the proper application of the clause, and I for one would not like to guess who should appear on the list with regard to gambling technologies that do not yet exist.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State will act well within the context of that explanation, and will act reasonably. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the issue, and for his assurances that the Secretary of State will act reasonably and that consultation has a definite meaning in this context. It is important that all those involved are consulted, and the Minister makes a valid point that there may be entities and arrangements that do not exist at the moment but may in the future, and to prescribe a list at this juncture would be inflexible. I take that point, and bearing in mind his assurances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in clause 35, page 16, line 15, after '10(1)', insert

'subject to any specified exceptions.'.

This amendment seeks to allow for specified exceptions should the Secretary of State make an order extending the use of premises for gambling offences to include using premises to provide facilities for spread betting. As hon. Members will be aware, spread betting is excluded from regulation under the Bill. That is because spread betting is properly regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

However, we are concerned about the effect that future developments in spread betting products may have on the number and types of places where spread

betting is offered to members of the public. That is why a reserved power is written into the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to make it an offence to use premises to offer spread betting to members of the public, should it become necessary for public protection reasons.

The amendment to the reserve power permits the Secretary of State to make exceptions where the premises' offence is applied to spread betting. For example, a bank or other financial institution may, in the future, want to offer their customer a financial product that constitutes spread betting within the meaning of the Bill. There may be very good policy reasons why the bank should be allowed to do so, and therefore should be exempt from regulation under the Bill. The amendment would serve to future-proof the Bill and to ensure that legitimate commercial enterprises are not subject to undue regulation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 36 and 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.