| Gambling Bill
|
|
Mr. Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab): I shall speak only briefly because my amendments Nos. 306 to 308 are simply probing amendments, and I am as anxious as everyone else to speed the Bill out of the Committee stage as it is well drafted and has been well scrutinised.
Column Number: 235 I hate to be the first to point out that there are now only 24 shopping days until Christmas. 3G phones may well be one of the most popular products put under the Christmas tree this year. Given the success with which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer auctioned off 3G licences a few years ago, it is not unreasonable to expect the mobile industry to seek to recover some of its costs, and to make a profit in the not-too-distant future. It is almost certain that online gambling will be one of the most important services that the industry will seek to offer.This summer, Ladbrokes and 3G offered the first gambling products over a mobile phone platform, offering 38 different ways to make or lose a bit of money. That concerns us because it is already clear how powerful online gambling has become: if one types the words ''online gambling'' into an internet search engine, one gets some 4.3 million pages, and clicking on a few of those links results in every possible enticement and very little support. The support seems to extend only to psychic casino gambling hotlines and online horoscopes. When we consider the child protection measures, the concerns really grow. The hon. Member for Bath pointed out on Second Reading a survey by NCH earlier this year which showed that only seven out of 37 online gambling systems stopped children under the age of 16 registering. Indeed, children as young as 11 were able to register with online gambling services. The advent of 3G phones puts those risks into every playground and every classroom. Mobile online gambling is itself going to be extremely powerful: analysts project that it will be worth some £4 billion by 2006. When we consider that one in 20 children aged 12 to 15 is already estimated to have a problem with gambling, we must ensure that there is adequate protection against such risks in the Bill. It is no surprise that 73 per cent. of parents are already concerned about 3G phones; they are right to be concerned about the services that their children will be able to access. These are simple probing amendments designed to check that the mobile phone industry will play its part in protecting children against the risks of online gambling. Amendment No. 303 suggests that the definition of the offence be extended so that those who enable children to gamble online or who collude with an online advertiser are committing an offence. Today, 3G phone operators operate their services in a walled garden; the amendments are designed to ensure that those walls are sufficiently strong to prevent the advent of a casino in every cloakroom. Mr. Hawkins: 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 Column Number: 236 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.
10.45 amMr. Caborn: I thank the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire for tabling the amendments; they allow me to put on the record what we are all trying to achieve in the Bill. The amendment would give more protection to operators. However difficult it is for operators to keep children away from their services, particularly on the internet, we should not lessen the burden on them. Amendments Nos. 144 and 146 would require a court to prove that the defendant intended to invite a child to gamble or enter their premises. That would be a difficult test, because operators might not have been sufficiently observant or careful in their age checks. If that were so, they would not have intended to let children gamble; they just would not have done anything to stop it. That is too risky. Let me give an example. Of a group of teenagers hanging around outside a betting office, some may be 18 years old and others may be 16 or 17. If they enter the premises and use a slot machine, the staff should feel that they have a duty to check their ages. We should not offer an operator a defence of unintentional invitation. Of course, the police will have discretion not to prosecute someone who has been caught out once, or on a few occasions. The provisions proposed by amendments Nos. 306 to 308 are already covered in the clause. Although there is no specific reference to collusion or enabling in the clause, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) that such activities would be caught by the words ''invites, Column Number: 237 causes or permits''. Liability as an accessory applies to all offences unless they are expressly excluded by statute, which is not the case here.Amendment No. 145 focuses on advertising and tries to strengthen the defences for operators, but it would not give any better protection. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire seeks to changes the wording in relation to adverts that find their way to children. However, if we made that change, it would not alter the fact that the operator has to be seen to be ''encouraging'' the child or young person to gamble. That is the test. The key point is whether a poster on the underground, for example, encourages children to gamble, with pictures of cartoon characters and the like. The test would operate no less stringently if the hon. Gentleman's amendment were accepted. A gambling operator commits the offence, but if the platform knows what is going on and colludes, it too is committing an offence. That crossed my mind when we were talking about youngsters with mobile phones. Therefore, if the operator and the platform knowingly put out such an advert, they would both be committing an offence. Mr. Hawkins: I am still not happy with the response that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and to me. He is saying that there will be an all-embracing, blanket offence, but that it will be left to the police to turn a blind eye if they think that the arcade operator is not actively encouraging children to enter the premises. I am concerned because subsection (1) says that the offence is committed if a person
Mr. Caborn: If one accepted the hon. Gentleman's argument, we would have a narrow offence, and then we would run the risk of not protecting some children. The balance that we have struck will catch the offences. Again, we will be working through the gambling commission. There will also be conditions of licensing and other measures. My explanation was about the actions of the police. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we should narrow down the offence, but if we do that, we could well allow some offences to get through. The Bill gives adequate protection to children and puts the onus on the operator, which is where it should lie. That is what the House asked for, and the type of protection that we said we would give; that is one of the main parts of the Bill. Column Number: 238 Mr. Moss: I am still a little puzzled. I am following the line of argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath. Subsection (3) says:
(a) sending to a child . . . any document . . . (b) bringing to the attention of a child or young person information''.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 30 November 2004 |
