|
Mr. Caborn: I can understand why it got into a muddle, because I have been got into a muddle as well.
I will try to deal with this. It is not possible to have a book on a betting exchange. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and what he is asking me to define. I have defined what a business is, according to the legislation. I have also tried to explain how that applies to the exchanges and the bookies. There are some grey areas, and I have said that, within the context of this legislation, the regulator, with a dose of common sense on one hand and realism on the other, should be able to make a judgment; that is what the regulator is there for.
Column Number: 593
I have tried to give a definition of business and of exchange—and of exchange with regard to the bookies as well. I believe that my explanations will hold up well when the legislation is enacted.
Mr. Moss: We have had a reasonably good debate. I am not a betting man but I suspect that if people were listening to the debate and offering odds on whether the industry is any wiser at the end of it than it was when we started, generous odds would be given.
There is no definition in the 1963 Act. The same words are used, but no definition is given. That is the point that I made. We are no further forward than we were then. There may be an accepted definition or appreciation of what the words mean. It would be helpful to hear that from the Minister—whether the definition has been tested in court, there is case law on it, or whatever we need. It is my understanding that no clear definition is given in the 1963 Act or in the Bill.
The Minister agreed that the issue was contentious and difficult, that there were grey areas and that there was a division of opinion in the industry. However, he was determined to leave the issue to the gambling commission. I think that doing that is a cop-out. The attitude is, ''There are problems, so we'll leave them to one side. Let's not get too fazed about it.'' These provision will affect some of the biggest businesses in the country and allow an unelected group—of which nobody knows who the members will be—to decide the fate of such businesses on the basis of the definition of the words in front of us.
The Minister also suggested that somebody operating on a betting exchange might be trading—if that is the word—by offering bets on a regular basis. That person might be turning over huge amounts. Is the Minister saying that that does not matter because it is a private transaction between individuals at either end of a terminal? It would be helpful to know whether that is the definition.
Is running a business to do with advertising? Is it to do with running accounts? Should people be registering as a limited company or as a trading partnership? Those who do not wish to be caught up in a net of taxation or a levy, or to pay for the privilege of having a licence, will obviously not be communicating those factors to anybody. The betting exchange might give them the opportunity to trade on a massive scale. They take their losses as well as their gains. If the Minister is happy for somebody to make huge amounts of money doing that, let us hear him say so. If advertising is a component of running a business, then people are also off the hook if they do not advertise. That area must be addressed at some point. It is not best left to the gambling commission a few years hence.
Mr. Caborn: To a large extent, the hon. Gentleman answers his own question. On one hand, he wants everything to be laid down in the Bill, including the definition of business. On the other hand, he asks how we will deal with circumstances that may arise. What we have said is that, to future-proof the Bill and make sure that we can respond to the new electronic age, where information is passed electronically at a speed
Column Number: 594
that would have been unimaginable 20 or 30 years ago, we must provide flexibility and powers so that a body that can respond to those circumstances as they arise.
The example that the hon. Gentleman gave was that, if the commission believed that someone was working outside the confines of the law and what is laid down in the Bill, it would have the power to intervene. I do not see anything wrong with that. The ultimate responsibility is with Parliament. As I have said, again and again, we are taking what was in the 1968 Act and enshrining it in a much more flexible way—taking the principles but making them more flexible and moving them into a modern setting. In doing that, we must invest some sovereignty in the regulator—the gambling commission—to allow it to deal with the fast-moving world in which we live. I see nothing wrong with that as long as the accountability lies with Parliament, which it does. We have therefore got the right to intervene.
4.45 pm
This is a classic example of where, if we were to try to tie the matter down in the Bill, we would be outmanoeuvred in the space of a few weeks by those people who are incredibly bright, incredibly flexible and who will take Parliament all over the place. That is why we want experts in a regulatory position with powers to act fairly quickly if the need arises. That is why we are doing what we are doing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 279 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 280 to 283 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 284
Misusing profits of non-commercial prize gaming
Amendment made: No. 166, in clause 284, page 125, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) In the application of subsection (4) to Scotland the reference to 51 weeks shall have effect as a reference to six months.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 284, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 285
Enforcement officers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Hawkins: I want to make a brief contribution, because I am always a bit worried whenever a Government—and, perhaps, particularly this Government—introduce new kinds of enforcement officers. This Government probably already hold the record, after seven and a bit years in office, for imposing more and more inspectors, officers and different kinds of people to operate their nanny state.
I have been quite involved in some of the discussions that we have had in Parliament on the security industry. I was the shadow spokesman on the Bill that
Column Number: 595
became the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), has the distinction of being the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and has a long-standing interest in the security industry, as have I. We were asked to form a new all-party group on that industry, and many hon. Members from all parties became members of it.
We need to press the Minister on whether there are safeguards to subsection (1)(b). Under subsection (1)(a), the new gambling commission will
''designate employees of the Commission as enforcement officers for the purposes of this Act''.
I can see the logic of that, but I am much more worried about the wider implications of subsection (1)(b), which states that the commission
''may appoint persons other than employees of the Commission as enforcement officers''.
There does not seem to be any limitation on that. The commission can apparently designate anybody as an enforcement officer. That seems an astonishingly wide power and it would be helpful if the Minister would put on the record today exactly the kind of people whom the Government envisage might become enforcement officers, other than employees of the commission.
I do not have any problem with the payment to enforcement officers, but we ought to get a little more on the record about what the Government have in mind about a whole new class of people called enforcement officers under this legislation.
Mr. Caborn: For clarification, let me say that the people referred to are the gambling commission inspectors, who will replace the current Gaming Board inspectors. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. The inspectors will move from being the Gaming Board inspectors to becoming the gambling commission inspectors. We envisage that the people mentioned in subsection (1)(b) are likely to be seconded from other regulatory agencies, such as Customs and Excise. We are moving from having Gaming Board inspectors to having the gambling commission inspectors and the other persons who have been referred to will be seconded from other regulatory agencies from time to time.
Mr. Hawkins: The Minister is clearly suggesting that the only class of people who will have to be appointed under subsection 1(b) are those who already carry out policing-type functions for other bodies. If that is so, I am somewhat reassured.
Mr. Caborn: They will be those with policing and regulatory functions. As we said, we are in the electronic age, so we may well have to bring in IT experts, too, for example. Such experts would not necessarily be enforcers or regulators, but might need to be brought in to investigate a particular piece of equipment. In the recent past, one or two people have tried to bring electronic equipment into casinos.
Column Number: 596
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for that. Will he give a further reassurance that the new gaming commission will provide a code of practice on the kind of people who can be seconded or authorised as enforcement officers, whether they be IT experts or whatever? I just want that reassurance because we are talking about a new body.
Mr. Caborn: I would expect that anyone with regulatory or policing duties would be covered and would need the type of clearance required by the Security Industry Authority and security industries. It is right that the Bill should make sure that they were fit and proper persons.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 285 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 286 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
