| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
My hon. Friend referred to the Responsibility in Gambling Trust and asked whether members of the industry should be a party to that. I think it is right that they should. Sir Alan Budd recommended that they should be on it. We need to expose the industry to the arguments of those who are from a different constituency but equally concerned about gambling
and vice versa. Members of the Methodist Church are also on the Gambling Commission. That is right. It does not tarnish the Methodist Church or the Salvation Army to be involved in regulation or to be on the commission or the trust. It is a two-way street, and we must bring together responsible people from all sectors, including the industry, those affected by it and those who have justifiable criticisms. If we can bring those parties together, the trust will operate better, and the Gambling Commission will regulate better.
On advertising, my hon. Friend’s position was clear. He outlined the role of Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority, as well as that of the Gambling Commission, and I assure him that the regulations will be applied very firmly. He referred to gambling operators’ sponsorship of sport, particularly football. He is right to do so, as there are concerns about advertising on football shirts and sponsorship of football clubs by gambling companies. The Gambling Commission will consult on the issue early in the new year, with my full support. As the Minister for Sport as well as the Minister with responsibility for gambling, I think that we need to take a responsible attitude to that.
We are developing a white list of those territories outside the European economic area and Gibraltar, which can advertise in the United Kingdom unless a specific exemption has been made. Countries will have to demonstrate that they have a strict regime before they can register on that white list and thereby have the opportunity to advertise in the UK.
Five years ago, we asked Sir Alan Budd to look at internet and remote gambling because Parliament and the Government did not have the powers to intervene to protect the vulnerable. It was right that we did that and we have had, effectively, a five-year debate to bring an Act to the statute book. The Act takes the basic principles of the 1968 Act and puts them into a modern setting. It mentions many of the issues that are of concern to the British public, including the protection of the vulnerable and of children, which is in legislation for the first time.
I give my clear assurance that the Government will carry out the Act’s proposals to the letter if we need to intervene to protect the vulnerable in our society. The way in which the industry developed and operated under the 1968 Act gave it international credibility and integrity and we want that to continue. It is an important part of our leisure industry. This country has probably the best regulatory regimes in finance, the law and in business, and companies that come to be registered and licensed in this country will do so under a very credible regime.
If we can marry those elements together we can have an industry that is socially responsible and which can play a legitimate part in our leisure industry, while accepting that we have to protect the vulnerable in society—
The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes to Seven o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |