Mr.
Foster: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Following on from the hon. Member for East Devon, is he aware of how
many prosecutions there have been in the UK, under our tough regulatory
regime, for attempting to bet when underage? Can he guess the answer
that I received to a parliamentary question on that
matter?
Mr.
Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman knows that the answer is the
same as that given before. Legislation is not working in the UK because
it can be bypassed by going elsewhere, which leaves us to ask why one
would bother applying to the UK and whether it is worth having UK
rules. I repeat the question that he put forward: who will police the
companies that choose to operate from
Antigua? I
spoke to the Gambling Commission yesterday to find out its role in
checking out such websites. Clearly it is under pressure to deal with
the thousands of websites that it needs to patrol. As we have heard, it
is unable to cope, yet there will be another flurry of websites from
another corner of the globe, and that will place more pressure on the
commission. I will be interested to hear from the Minister who will pay
for the extra policing. Will it be the companies themselves? The
Gambling Commission is failing to police the companies that it covers
now, without it having to police an increased number of companies that
can advertise in the UK.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
(Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): The hon. Gentleman says
that the Gambling Commission is failing. Can he give examples of where
it is failing? It is fine to raise the potential for a problem, but
where is the substantive evidence that there is a
problem?
Mr.
Ellwood: I do not know whether the Minister heard the
first contribution this afternoon. It was very clear that there was
failure in one third of the cases that were tested. Where were the
prosecutions from those cases? Where were the corrections to go back to
the companies and say, “Pull your socks up; your standards are
not high enough and you should not be allowed to advertise in the
UK.”? How
can a member of the public complain? Should they complain to the
Advertising Standards Authority, and what is the relationship between
the authority and the Gambling
Commission? All
this costs money, so who pays? Antigua is just one country that will be
added to the many to which companies wishing to throw their nets over
the UK may apply. They could be based in Gibraltar, the Isle of Man or
any country in the European economic area. Every place has different
standards, yet the problem that we face is that each one has lower
standards than the UK. It is not surprising that none of the companies
have decided to register in the
UK. Let
us look at the standards in Europe, as opposed to other jurisdictions
on the whitelist. This leads us into the hazy, murky world of double
standards, questionable objectives and the consequently incompetent
gambling legislation of the European Union. This is the one area in
which the EU, in its bid to enter every corner of our lives, could do
some good, but it fails catastrophically. The whole ethos of the EU is
to offer a common trading platform so that any bona fide company
trading in one state is free to trade in them all. That is stipulated
in articles 43 and 49 of the EC treaty, within the principles of the
EU’s free trade movement of goods, services, capital and
persons. That means that if one sets up in one corner of the EU, one
should be able to trade anywhere.
That is not
the case, however. Internet gambling is outlawed completely in
Germany—it is impossible legally to gamble online. France and
Sweden operate monopolies; it would be illegal for a British-based
company to set up there. In Italy, as the example cited earlier showed,
the internet is being controlling so that there is full control over
any company wishing to open its market to the Italians.
Britain is
the only country in the whole EU to have embraced these EU laws in the
true spirit that they were originally designed. The
dilemma that we face is that there are different standards within the
EEA. To circumnavigate such differing national views, the Government
have decided to approve other jurisdictions around the world, and we
are adding Antigua and Barbuda today.
The system is
becoming unmanageable and the entire structure of gambling legislation
is becoming unworkable. We have not had any prosecutions, yet as the
Gambling Commission illustrated in its 2007 prevalence study, the
number of problem gamblers is between 7 and 10 per cent. That figure is
far too high and needs to be addressed.
The other
issue that has been raised—perhaps the Minister will update the
Committee on this—is where we stand on the mandatory or
voluntary levy. If there is
a mandatory levy, I cannot see any way that a
company based in Antigua and Barbuda will contribute to it. It would be
difficult to police and difficult to get any funding from them at all.
That is why we will be opposing the regulations. We are building on a
system of regulation that is failing, and endorsing a structure with
fundamentally flawed foundations. The popularity and influence of the
internet has grown so quickly that no legislation can keep up with
it. We heard an
interesting statement just last week from the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport in which he made clear the importance of
developing a digital super-highway for the growth of our economy.
However, at the same time, that super-highway is becoming unpatrolled.
We talk about the 9 o’clock television watershed, but that is
almost superfluous now that one can watch anything on the internet. We
talk about the restrictions placed on books. If one went into a
bookshop such as Borders and asked for a book on how to make a dirty
bomb, one might even get arrested, yet one can go online and find the
ingredients almost immediately. The Government are not addressing such
double standards. The one organisation that could easily assist us with
that would be the European Union, but it does not because every member
of the EU will vote for the status quo. That is why it is so important
that we are debating this issue today. It is possibly the first time
that we have debated one slice of the impact of the internet on our
daily lives.
The
Opposition recognise the popularity of internet gambling, but we
deplore the poor standards of control that have been allowed to slip
through. We believe that the EU should review the mess of the policy
that now exists, but we have little faith in its ability to sort things
out. Nothing will happen soon, certainly, which is why, to protect
British citizens, the Conservatives propose a direct link between any
company’s ability to advertise and its competence to meet
British standards.
Mr.
Sutcliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he
supports the idea of whitelisting to protect UK gamblers? Will he also
take this opportunity to refute the allegation in this morning’s
edition of The Times about a donation of £200,000 being
made to the Conservative party by Mr. Trevor Hemmings, a
gaming machine
operator?
The
Chairman: Order. I ask members of the Committee to keep
their remarks to the regulations that are before us and not to go
outside their
remit.
Mr.
Ellwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Dr.
McCrea. We always know that the Government or, indeed, Ministers are on
a losing wicket when they have to resort to such tactics and bring a
completely irrelevant issue into the
debate. The
Minister referred to the whitelist. I want to see the high set of
British standards that his Government introduced under the Gambling Act
2005 repeated across the board, whether a country is on the whitelist,
part of the EEA, or anywhere else in the world. If a company wants to
advertise in the United Kingdom, it should meet British standards. If
we cannot lean on the EU to provide those standards, we need to
distance ourselves from it until the EU standards are raised. That is
why we want to introduce a direct link between the
ability to
advertise in the UK and the standards we expect of
any company, whether it is in Antigua and Barbuda, Alderney or
Britain. Mr.
Foster: The hon. Gentleman seeks my support in voting
against the statutory instrument, but he must try a little harder. My
concern is not that whitelisted countries do not have in place a
similar regulatory regime to ours. That is exactly what whitelisting is
about. He seems to be objecting to it, but I believe that it is a
sensible approach, given that websites will operate throughout the
world. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that unless there is an identical
scheme, he is against companies being able to advertise here, or does
he agree with me that the schemes are very similar—I have no
problem with that—but the issue is our ability to check whether
there is proper enforcement? I am
confused.
Mr.
Ellwood: I think that I agree with the latter. The trouble
with the whitelist is that there are problems with it, as has been
illustrated in our debate. We are not able to allow or encourage a
company that has based itself on distant shores to make a contribution
towards the levy to help with the social responsibility that comes with
the whole world of gambling. We are looking at one set of rules. We
seek an even playing field, yet we do not have that at the moment. The
more we make the playing field uneven, the more we are endorsing a
system that simply does not work. The system needs to be reviewed from
the very
bottom. Will
the Minister say how the instrument sits with the Prime
Minister’s views on creating British jobs for British people?
What changes will be made to the Gambling Commission to allow the
effective monitoring of gambling sites based in countries such as
Antigua and Barbuda? How will Antigua and Barbuda contribute to the
Responsibility in Gambling Trust and the voluntary levy that is used to
assist those affected by problem gambling? What efforts are being made
to reconcile the uneven playing field within the European Union itself?
What is the point of having British high standards for internet
companies, which we now readily accept, when we accept lower standards
in other parts of the
world? Would
the Minister support our having a proper debate on the growth, power
and influence of the internet as a whole, which, of course, is changing
our lives and growing at a pace well beyond our ability to legislate? I
do not think that both sides of the House appreciate that important
factor. The
Government started off by wanting to simplify gambling law; instead,
they have made it more complicated. They tried to attract gambling
companies to the UK shores; instead, they have scared them off. They
said that they wanted to protect British children and vulnerable
adults; instead, we are increasing their exposure. The House is well
overdue a sober, honest and frank debate on the impact of the internet
on our society, not least in the context of gambling. Until that
happens, the Conservative party cannot support the expansion of the
current convoluted, confusing, unmanageable and unenforceable
structure. 3.9
pm Tony
Baldry (Banbury) (Con): There is a very good play called
“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”. In the play,
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are minding
their own business when a man
comes knocking at the shutters. Being summoned to a Statutory
Instrument Committee is a bit like that. There I was, an elderly Back
Bencher, sitting quietly in the Library, minding my own business, doing
no one any harm when suddenly I got a card saying that I had to attend
a Statutory Instrument Committee and that if I had any problems with
that I should consult my Whips. That had the effect of obliging me to
put my mind to issues that I would not otherwise have put my mind to,
so I now have a number of thoughts that I wish to share with the
Committee. Coming
from a Quaker background—to explain my prejudices—I find
it astonishing that a Government, whom I thought rooted in Methodism,
have so rampantly promoted gambling in this country. The Minister is in
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Gambling clearly is not a
sport and it is clearly not media, so we now have a Government who see
gambling as culture. If we accept that £1.4 billion is spent on
internet gambling in this country, very little of that will come back
to the UK. I have to say to Labour Back Benchers that poor people in
this country are spending money to benefit increasingly wealthy people
overseas.
I must point
out again that I did not ask to be on this Committee, I was
summonsed. In a previous incarnation I was a junior Minister in
the Foreign Office, where part of my brief was the West Indies and
Atlantic Department. If I were asked to summarise the briefing that I
had from officials for Antigua, I could do so in six words: the Bird
family, drugs and corruption. Labour Members apparently want to allow
that kind of regime to have almost unrestricted access to people in the
UK through internet gambling, without any kind of check of the
regulatory regime in Antigua.
I should be
interested in knowing how many members of the Committee have visited
Antigua and seen the strength of its regulatory ability. I suspect,
judging from the looks on the faces of Labour Members, including the
Minister, very few have. If they are happy to allow their constituents
to be involved in internet gambling with a country which I suspect does
not command a huge amount of respect for its regulatory regimes around
the world, that is a matter for them. However, the Committee would do
well to reflect on whether it should not adjourn to see what the
strength of the regulatory regime in Antigua is.
As
parliamentarians, when our constituents get caught up in scams or
difficult situations down the line, we are quick to say that Ministers
or the Government or someone should have done more to protect them. In
this case, we have an opportunity to decide whether that should happen,
yet all that is happening is that Government Members seem willing just
to tick the box to allow whatever the Minister wants. I am willing to
predict that in a few months’ time or a few years’ time
there will be serious regrets about having allowed UK citizens to be
preyed upon by internet gambling companies registered in Antigua.
Because the burden of proof must be on Ministers to demonstrate that
the regulatory regime in Antigua will be sufficient for the purpose,
and as Antigua has never managed to do that for the benefit of Her
Majesty’s Government, we should vote against the statutory
instrument. Michael
Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): On a point of order, Dr.
McCrea. As the Opposition Whip, I have listened to my hon.
Friend’s powerful arguments. Would
it be in order, with the agreement of the Government
Whip who is now looking very enthusiastic about the proposal, to
suspend the Committee for perhaps 15 or 20 minutes, or even for a day,
to seek advice from the House of Commons Library on the state of play
in Antigua and its ability to maintain gambling to the standards that
we
require?
The
Chairman: Mr. Fabricant, I do not think that is
a matter for the Chair, so we will carry on with the
business. 3.15
pm
Mr.
Swire: Dr. McCrea, I am most grateful to you for calling
me to contribute in small part to the debate. If it is the
Committee’s will and yours that we adjourn and go on a 15-day
fact-finding trip to Antigua, I hope that you will consider me worthy
of coming
along. Alas,
much of what has been said this afternoon makes it appear as though we
are looking at a blank canvas—as though there were no such thing
as internet gambling and no legislation. There is legislation—we
have heard that there is—but the Government have never applied
it. It seems that in the months and years to come, when historians
decide to write about this Labour Government, one of the things they
will look at with a mixture of incomprehension and perplexity will be
the Government’s mixed messages on and mixed attitude towards
both fixed and online gambling, and their regrettably rather empty
words about the protection of the most
vulnerable. When
the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) was
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I was her opposite
number, she stated that she wanted the UK
to “become
a world leader in online gambling, in order to provide our citizens
with the opportunity to
gambling”— as
she
said— “in
a safe, well-regulated
environment.” I
suggest that little has happened since then. Under some pressure, as
the hon. Member for Bath will remember well, the Government set up an
international summit on remote gambling in the lofty environs of Ascot
race course, to discuss with overseas operators how best those
operators could be regulated. I said at the time that the summit should
not be a talking shop and that we wanted concrete results. I also said
that the Government had no way of incentivising offshore operators to
come onshore. I believe that I was right then and that I am right
now. Following
that international summit on remote gambling, I wrote to the
Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sheffield,
Central (Mr. Caborn), informing him that we wanted something
concrete to come out of the meeting, as well as a copy of the minimum
international standards for internet gambling, a document that was
given to the delegates at the meeting. At the time, no agreement on
minimum standards had been obtained from the countries represented. Has
the Minister ever seen those minimum international standards for
internet gambling, and if so will he share them with the
Committee? The
problem is that although the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West
Norwood stated in 2005 that there would be
a “crackdown
on advertisers and publishers who knowingly break the
law”,
the
Government had issued only guidelines to raise awareness of the law on
internet gambling advertisements. Again, nothing much has happened. I
agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East that we need
to pay much more attention to the regulation of the internet, but I do
not agree that there is little that we can do about
it. I
had a debate in February 2008 on internet gambling and the internet
itself. I quoted a Home Office Minister, who wrote that the
Government’s “aim
is to make the United Kingdom (UK) the best and safest place in the
world for children to use the internet”.—[Official
Report, 4 February 2002; Vol. 379, c.
671W.] We had
Dr. Byron’s excellent report as well. I said during that debate
that the problem is
that “eight
Government Departments have an interest in internet content: the
Department for Culture, Media and
Sport”— that
is one Department, not
three— “the
Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health, the
Foreign Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Children,
Schools and Families and the Department for Business, Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform. There is a real lack of ownership within Government
of internet content
regulation”. I
called for one lead Ministry to take overall responsibility for
internet content. That, of course, has not happened. Attracting the
opprobrium of some people on a website called
“ConservativeHome” or something, who thought that I was
calling for yet more regulation, I
suggested: “a
new co-regulatory structure, an internet standards authority, to fight
illegal and harmful content, promote a safer environment and raise
awareness. ”—[Official Report, 6 February
2008; Vol. 471, c.
1089-90.] I
believe that that is the way forward, to look at the internet as a
whole, of which gambling is a part. Clearly, allowing other countries
to come into the family of remote gambling is not the way forward until
the Government can satisfy people that they are doing more to regulate
online gambling, to protect the most vulnerable, which they have always
said that they want to do. Until they can do that, I for one shall not
vote in support of the statutory
instrument.
| 
