Clause 307 - Regulations
Gambling Bill
5:15 pm
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 390, in clause 307, page 133, line 29, at beginning insert 'Subject to section 23'.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 400, in clause 308, page 134, line 19, after 'of', insert
'a code of practice issued under section 23(3) or'.
No. 402, in clause 311, page 135, line 34, at beginning insert
'A code issued under section 23(3) or'.
No. 403, in clause 312, page 136, line 5, at beginning insert
' A code issued under section 23(3) or'.
No. 404, in clause 312, page 136, line 46, after first 'of', insert
'any code issued under section 23(3) or'.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Amendments Nos. 400 and 402 to 404 are consequential to amendment No. 390 but relate to subsequent clauses.
Part 16 appears to take no account of clause 23, under which the gambling commission has code-making powers, including powers relating to a code on advertising. The intention behind the amendment is to reflect that fact and for the powers available to the Secretary of State under clause 307 to be regarded as reserve powers rather than powers of first resort.
The Government define reserve powers in the context of gambling in paragraph 32 of the Department's ''Memorandum on Delegated Powers'' of February 2004. Such powers are those where
''there is no present intention to exercise them, but they have been provided as contingency measures to deal with circumstances which may, but need not, arise.''
The amendment helps to codify the Government's intention for the powers available to the Secretary of State to be reserve powers, to which recourse would be made only as a last resort, in the event of consumers not being sufficiently protected by a code issued by the gambling commission under clause 23. The approach is similar to that which the scrutiny Committee on the draft Bill recommended.
Thus, clause 307 should not be regarded as the starting point for the regulation of advertising for gambling products on premises, but it should provide comfort that the Secretary of State could step in should circumstances arise that necessitate such action, if a code issued under clause 23 were failing or could not be remedied through revision. It is my understanding that the Government's policy has been travelling in that direction over recent years, and certainly since the Department published its supplementary policy memorandum in February 2004. That approach is generally welcome.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. The power to regulate the advertising of gambling set out in clause 307 is indeed a reserve power, as the hon. Gentleman said.
The code of practice is a useful tool in controlling some advertising. The purpose of a code of practice issued by the commission under clause 23 is to give practical guidance to a holder of a licence under the Bill or to other persons involved in providing facilities for gambling. Under part 5, the commission may attach a condition to an operating licence requiring compliance with such a code.
Rules on advertising cannot be solely contained in licence conditions, however, because breaches of such conditions will fall only to the holders of an operating licence. There needs to be some control of those involved in the advertising of gambling but not gambling activities themselves, such as advertising agencies or newspapers. It is also necessary for rules on advertising to apply to all forms of gambling, including gambling for which a licence is not required. It would therefore be inappropriate to include a reference to ''any code'' on advertising in part 16, as the purpose of such a code is not to give general guidance to the advertising industry.
Furthermore, non-compliance with the code will not render the offender liable to criminal or civil proceedings. However, a breach of the regulations will result in a criminal offence. The Secretary of State hopes that the actions of external bodies responsible for regulating the advertising industry will be sufficient for the protection of children and the vulnerable. If that is not the case, she will use her reserve powers to make regulations for that purpose. It is redundant, and arguably confusing, to include in these provisions relating to regulation, constant references to codes of practice, which are already provided for elsewhere in the Bill. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press these amendments.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
Is it the Committee's intention to try to finish this clause before the Divisions in the House? I understand that there will be a Division at 5.30 pm, but neither that nor the amount of time that you take on these items is under my control.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I am not sure that I am swayed by that argument, Mr. Pike, but I will be as quick as I can.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
All I am saying is that it is a consideration if the Committee does not want to come back after the Divisions in the House. Do you understand what I am saying?
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I do, and I shall be brief.
The Government have passed responsibility for advertising standards to the Advertising Standards Authority, and Ofcom on the other side, which have now come together so that we have a one-stop shop for all kinds of advertising, yet here the Government seem to be retaining quite a lot of influence over advertising for gambling. I am not persuaded that that is necessarily the right way to go about things.
Disquiet has been expressed that the Secretary of State is taking too much power centrally. Responsibility for many advertising standards has been given to the one body, which used to be two and, on my reading of clause 23, the gambling commission is given considerable powers in that area, which it should exercise. Bearing in mind what the Minister has said, I am happy to reflect on the matter, and may come back to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 391, in clause 307, page 133, line 31, leave out subsection (2).
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 392, in clause 307, page 133, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
No. 397, in clause 307, page 134, line 6, leave out subsection (8).
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The arguments for these amendments follow on fundamentally from those that I have just presented. Subsection (2) states:
''The regulations may, in particular, make provision about—
(a) the form of advertisements;
(b) the content of advertisements;
(c) timing;
(d) location.''
That is fairly prescriptive as to what the Secretary of State may address through the regulations. The advertising industry is concerned by that approach, suggests that such matters should be left to the gambling commission and that, rather than the Secretary of State being involved as a line of first resort, she should have reserve powers that can be picked up if the legislation is not working properly.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
The removal of subsections (2), (3) and (8) will not limit the Secretary of State's ability to make regulations to control advertising, but the amendments would remove any indication of how the regulations may be applied. The Government's intention in including these measures was to provide a helpful steer to operators and advertisers. They give interested parties an idea of the likely shape that the regulations will take, but they are not so inflexible as to limit the Secretary of State's powers. The removal of these subsections would not confer any benefit on the persons to whom the regulations will apply. With that explanation, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 393, in clause 307, page 133, line 38, leave out subsection (4).
I am doing a Minister now—I am desperately trying to find where I am. I have no help, though—there is no one handing me bits of paper.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
Has the hon. Gentleman not found this the most fascinating clause of our deliberations on the Bill? Would it not be helpful to the Committee if he were to get on and tell us what his amendment is about, since by now he will have had time to find his notes?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman should have moved it formally.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Yes, perhaps I should.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman. May I say that that was a brilliant and scintillating explanation of the amendment? However, the amendment has the undesirable effect of removing a specific duty on the Secretary of State to take into account the need to protect children and vulnerable people when making regulations to control advertising.
The subsection reflects the high level of importance that the Government place on this issue, which is one of the three core objectives of the Bill. It is therefore essential that any control over gambling advertising will have the desired effect of protecting children and the vulnerable against exploitation.
I cannot see any detrimental effect in maintaining the clause as drafted. In fact, a detrimental effect is more likely to occur if the subsection is removed and the opportunity is missed to affirm the duty to protect children and vulnerable people, not only in the regulation of gambling, but in the regulation of the advertising of gambling.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares the Government's aims of protecting the most vulnerable members of our society from exploitation by gambling. I therefore hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I share the Minister's views on protecting children and on the other points that he made in relation to the earlier amendments about addressing areas of advertising related to gambling. However, I am still not quite clear why that cannot be achieved by codes of practice devised by the gambling commission and why the Secretary of State needs to weigh in with the heavy-handed and rather draconian powers that the Bill provides. However, we will reflect on what the Minister has said, and may revisit the matter later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 307 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Watson.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 16 December at half-past Nine o'clock.