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