|
Mr. Hawkins: The Minister may not be familiar with this, but I should explain that Alderney is one of the Channel Islands. He just said that his Department has not received requests from the Channel Islands, but he should have said the other Channel Islands. I was delighted to hear the earlier part of what he said.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I stand corrected. As my officials nod, I shall continue.
I hope that I have clarified the position of those territories, and although I shall resist the hon. Gentleman's amendment, I shall undertake to re-examine the clause to ensure it properly reflects what I have described.
I have agreed with the Minister of State for Northern Ireland that the application of the clause should be extended to cover Northern Ireland in order to ensure equal protection for all citizens of the United Kingdom. We are in discussions with those in Northern Ireland about the appropriate way of implementing a white list consistent with the devolution arrangements set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to make that clarification and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Hawkins: That is enormously helpful and I am grateful to the Minister for his thorough reply. It will be enormously reassuring to the Government of Gibraltar, and no doubt to the Government of Alderney. The Minister has clearly left open the possibility that the other Channel Islands, particularly Jersey and Guernsey, will be able to contact his Department in due course.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will table Government amendments on Report to enable the specific position of Gibraltar and Alderney to be clarified. I am also grateful for what he said about Northern Ireland. I am pleased that my amendment has enabled this helpful debate, and in light of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 310 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 311
Territorial application: non-remote advertising
Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 405, in clause 311, page 135, line 36, at beginning insert 'wholly or partly'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 406, in clause 311, page 135, line 38, leave out
'prohibitions in sections 309(1) and 310(1) apply'
Column Number: 614
and insert
'prohibition in section 309(1) applies'.
No. 407, in clause 311, page 135, line 40, at beginning insert 'wholly or partly'.
No. 408, in clause 311, page 135, line 41, at end insert—
'( ) The prohibition in section 310(1) applies to anything in the way of advertising which is done—
(a) wholly or partly in the United Kingdom, and
(b) otherwise than by way of remote communication.'.
No. 409, in clause 312, page 136, line 20, at end insert
'; for which purpose a reference to Great Britain shall be taken as a reference to the United Kingdom.'.
No. 410, in clause 336, page 150, line 33, after '40,', insert—
Mr. Caborn: The clause clarifies the application of part 16, where advertising is by non-remote means, such as a poster on a hoarding. When advertising takes place in Great Britain by non-remote means, the following provisions will apply. There will be regulations controlling the form, content, timing and location of advertising of gambling, and offences will be created of advertising unlawful gambling and advertising foreign gambling.
Amendments Nos. 405 and 407 are drafting amendments to ensure that letters or other materials sent from abroad are also subject to those provisions. The inclusion of the words ''wholly or partly'' acknowledges that although letters may be targeted at people in Britain, at least part of the process takes place abroad in the location where the letter is posted.
For example, a letter sent to Britain advertising gambling in Australia—whether the gambling is remote or non-remote—will fall foul of the offence of foreign gambling under clause 310, as Australia is not in an European economic area state. Amendments Nos. 406, 408, 409 and 410 ensure that clause 310, which prohibits advertising of foreign gambling, applies to Northern Ireland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.
As Committee members will be aware, the majority of the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. One exception is the repeal by clauses 319 and 336 of sections 9 to 9B of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981, which extend to Northern Ireland. As clause 310 is in part intended to replace those sections, it is necessary to extend it to Northern Ireland as well. That is what the amendments achieve. We need to replace the protection provided to Northern Ireland by those sections of the 1981 Act, but it is important to note that extending clause 310 to Northern Ireland brings additional protections to that territory by allowing decisions on the advertising of foreign gambling to be made on regulatory grounds, as well as for revenue protection.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 406, in clause 311, page 135, line 38, leave out
'prohibitions in sections 309(1) and 310(1) apply'
Column Number: 615
and insert
'prohibition in section 309(1) applies'.
No. 407, in clause 311, page 135, line 40, at beginning insert 'wholly or partly'.
No. 408, in clause 311, page 135, line 41, at end insert—
'( ) The prohibition in section 310(1) applies to anything in the way of advertising which is done—
(a) wholly or partly in the United Kingdom, and
(b) otherwise than by way of remote communication.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 311, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 312
Territorial application: remote advertising
Amendment made: No. 409, in clause 312, page 136, line 20, at end insert
'; for which purpose a reference to Great Britain shall be taken as a reference to the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 312, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 313 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 314
Enforceability of gambling contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Moss: The clause makes gambling debts recoverable by law. The occasional incident when a bookmaker has not paid out winnings naturally tends to grab the headlines and Opposition Members certainly do not defend bookmakers who welch on their customers. However, the incidence of punters failing to honour their debts is more frequent and goes largely unnoticed outside bookmaking circles. In fact, even within the industry bad debt is recognised as a business cost that must be managed.
The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 did not admit the ability to recover gambling debts by law through an oversight, the thinking at that time being that if a gambler suffered a rush of blood to the head and got heavily into debt, the gambling operator should not be able to bankrupt the debtor or force them to sell their house and thereby penalise their family and so on. On the other side of the coin, the main reason for a gambling operator defaulting on a genuine winning bet is, usually, when his business has failed. From time to time, of course, cheats emerge, but generally a punter suing a failed operator would, even if successful, end up in a queue of creditors. It might be said that bookmakers would not be obliged to sue a non-payer but, given the opportunity, no doubt some would.
In short, the clause is unlikely to bring any great benefit to anyone other than the lawyers, and perhaps the Minister should explain what advantage he thinks it would have over the present situation.
Mr. Caborn: I am not in the business of giving lawyers even more money and profits than they receive
Column Number: 616
now—[Interruption.] Do hon. Members not realise that we are streamlining the bureaucracy and making it easier for people to operate businesses? As the hon. Gentleman said, gambling contracts are unenforceable under current law. The clause brings gambling contracts into line with other contracts by providing that a contract relating to gambling will not of itself render the contract unenforceable. The provision does not override any other rule of law that prevents enforcement on the grounds of unlawfulness.
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was trying to catch your eye, Mr. Pike, but failed to do so and perhaps I can raise my query by way of intervention.
While the Minister is dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), can he give us guidance, either now or in writing, about sleeper bets, which I raised on Second Reading on behalf of the British Horseracing Board? This seems to be the appropriate clause—while we are discussing the legality of gambling debts—on which to explore the Government's plans for sleeper bets and what will happen to the money involved. As I failed to catch your eye, Mr. Pike, perhaps the Minister would agree to write to me about that.
Mr. Caborn: I will try to answer the point about sleeper bets later.
I return first to the comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. Gamblers could be encouraged to pay too much, which might have been one reason for the old provision, but the Bill will protect consumers directly through the operating licence conditions and controls. That is a significant move forward from the previous Act and a clarification.
On sleeper bets, we are in discussion with the bookmaking industry about the possibility of a voluntary code of practice. With that, I hope that the clause can stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 314 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 315
Power of Gambling Commission to void bet
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
| 
