Gambling Bill

Public Bill Committee, 11 November 2004.

Standing Committee B

Clause 5 - Facilities for gambling

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 83, in

clause 5, page 2, line 29, leave out

'in the operation or administration'

and insert

'directly or indirectly in the operation'.

No. 40, in

clause 5, page 2, line 35, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 84, in

clause 5, page 2, line 35, leave out 'operating or administering' and insert 'or operating'.

No. 41, in

clause 5, page 2, line 43, leave out '(despite subsection (3)(d))'.

No. 85, in

clause 5, page 3, line 3, at end add—

'(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a specified activity or an activity carried on in specified circumstances is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this Act as providing facilities for gambling.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who is on his way, hotfoot, I would like to begin. I am sure from examining Hansard that I had finished speaking to my amendments Nos. 82, 83, 84 and 85. I shall now speak to amendment No. 41, which would remove from the clause the words ''despite subsection (3)(d)''. The only reference to subsection (3) in the clause is the one to which I am referring and there is no paragraph (d). I cannot see what that wording refers to in the Bill; I suspect that it is from the draft Bill and has not been cut out. It would be helpful if the Minister illuminated the Committee as to what it refers to. We have not got very far—we are only on clause 5—and we have already found some incredible errors.

My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath has now arrived so I shall leave him to move amendment. No 40.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I remind you, Mr. Hawkins, that you cannot move that amendment; only one

amendment can be moved at a time. You can speak to it.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I apologise for being a little delayed. I suggest that the Committee ought at least to consider removing subsection (2)(b), as the amendment would do. I am a little out of breath because I had to receive on the fax machine in my office a three-page fax about the Bill from Blackpool council. I thought that it would be silly to rush up to the Committee until I had all three pages because it was clearly relevant to this morning's proceedings.

When my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and I were considering subsection (2)(b), the phraseology seemed somewhat circular, as it refers to

''providing, otherwise than in the course of providing, operating or administering arrangements for gambling or participating in the operation or administration of gambling''.

My hon. Friend and I thought that there might be a more elegant way of expressing that, because anyone who reads the words

''providing, otherwise than in the course of providing''

would be bound to describe it as gobbledegook. The Plain English Campaign would not approve of that, and that lack of clarity is the reason for amendment No. 40.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I shall deal first with amendment No. 82, which was moved on Tuesday. The history of the gambling regulations teaches us that business has been very sharp at exploiting weaknesses in the law. I have experienced that during the last two or three years—since I have been responsible for gambling—and I can assure hon. Members that this industry is very innovative and has some bright people working for it. As soon as a potential loophole is identified, everyone tends to pile through it rather quickly.

In preparing the Bill, we have thus taken considerable care, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, to ensure that it adequately covers the ground and provides for effective regulation not just for current practice in commercial gambling, but for what might be done in the future. I remind the Committee that we have tried to give the gambling commission future-proofing powers as well. It would take a lot to persuade me that it is sensible or prudent to remove words from the definition in clause 5, since that clause is one of the cornerstones of the Bill. If a practice does not constitute the provision of facilities for gambling, people can do it without needing to be licensed and without committing an offence.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I want to make it clear that I do not disagree with the Minister. The legal definitions need to be precise. Of course I understand what he said about the amount of work that went into drafting the clause. However, I hope that he understands that, when an ordinary person, or even someone involved in the gaming industry, looks at a subsection that begins

''providing, otherwise than in the course of providing'',

their natural instinct will be to think that it is very confusing. All that amendment No. 40 asks the

Minister to do is consider with his officials, perhaps before consideration on Report, whether there is a way of drafting the clause that is not so confusing and circular and does not lose the legal significance.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I shall come to that point when I deal with amendment No. 40.

I return to the lead amendment, No. 82, which effectively offers a deal. In exchange for omitting the concept of administering the arrangements for gambling, the amendment would introduce the concept of providing arrangements in whole or in part. I do not think that it makes things any clearer, nor do I understand what is wrong with the reference to ''administering arrangements for gambling''. That covers people who control the way in which the gambling is offered, even though they may not control what is made available or be responsible for the operation of the gambling.

I make no apologies for the fact that there may be an element of belt and braces in the definition. I suggest to the Committee that the last thing that we want to do is open up a new loophole in the system of administrative control. I stress that the integrity and credibility of the industry flows, to a large extent, from the Gaming Act 1968. We have tried to maintain the integrity of gambling in this country by translating those provisions into the Bill. It is against that background that many of the explanations that I will give are deployed. Therefore, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 83 also seeks to remove from the definition of provision of gambling facilities any reference to those who administer gambling being done by other people; for example, staff employed to administer betting rings. Instead, the amendment would provide that anyone who participates indirectly, as well as anyone who participates directly, in the operation of gambling thereby provides facilities for gambling. I cannot see that the amendment is any improvement on the Bill. The concept of indirect participation is obscure; the concept of administration is clearer. In the interest of ensuring that the Bill is as clear as possible without narrowing its scope, I advise the Committee to vote against the amendment.

I turn now to amendment No. 40, which would remove subsection (2)(b). The purpose of that subsection is to clarify those activities that will not constitute providing facilities for gambling. Paragraph (b) is specifically concerned with those who supply articles that may be used in gambling. We do not want the clause to catch such suppliers; for example, if a pack of cards is supplied by a newsagent, the supplier is not involved in the provision of facilities for gambling. That may also be a belt-and-braces approach, but we think it important for the Bill to be clear on that.

Amendment No. 41 would remove the words that cunningly refer to a non-existent paragraph. I said I would come to this point. The reference was intended to be to subsection (2)(c) [Hon. Members: ''Ah!'']

That is exactly what Standing Committees are for—to scrutinise Bills line by line. I commend the official Opposition: they scrutinised the Bill and found a little mistake, which they became quite excited about. I will rectify that for them as we continue.

The cross-reference is necessary to make it clear that subsection (3) applies despite the exception on remote communication in that paragraph. We hope that that correction can be made without the need for an amendment when the Bill is reprinted. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments, but I commend the official Opposition for their forensic, line-by-line examination of the Bill.

Amendment No. 84 is also concerned with subsection (2)(b), but it would extend rather than narrow the scope of the exception. It is important that the exception applies only where the supplier of the article is themselves not doing anything covered by subsection (b) or (c). I assume that the amendment is consequential on amendment No. 82, and I have explained why we do not accept that, so I ask the Committee to reject this amendment as well.

Amendment No. 85 takes up the model of clauses 6, 7 and 14, which recognise that there is a balance to be struck between legal certainty and clarity on the one hand and flexibility on the other. In general, when Parliament makes law it is desirable for that law to include firm and settled definitions, so that all those affected, including businesses, know what they may and may not lawfully do, and can plan accordingly. It is sometimes necessary to build in some flexibility, and gambling is a case in point.

Gambling is a dynamic, fast-moving and increasingly global industry, where definitions in current law have broken down or been overtaken by developments in technology. We therefore thought it prudent to take some reserve powers to make sure that damaging loopholes do not emerge. For example, clause 6 provides for regulations to specify that something is or is not to be treated as a sport for the purposes of the Bill, the point being that playing a genuine sport for money should not constitute gaming.

The inclusion of such a power in clause 6 is prudent, because the concept of a sport is not precise. We want to guard against the possibility of an unscrupulous gambling operator dreaming up what is in reality a game of chance and claiming that it is a new and hitherto unknown sport. The game might involve racing beetles on a table top with stakes being placed on which beetle makes it across the table first. If we do not tighten the definition, that could, I suppose, be seen as a sport. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) would have something to say about the beetles, though.

The amendment would apply an equivalent regulation-making power to providing facilities for gambling. I am grateful for the suggestion, but we take the view that the definition is already clear enough. Such regulation-making powers should be used sparingly, because they potentially undermine the principles of making law and confer wide powers on the Government of the day. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

With reference to the Minister's explanation of the wording relating to administration, we did not seek to weaken the Bill. We tried to introduce an amendment that was more specific and accurate than the provision. Having listened to the Minister's arguments, I will be happy to withdraw amendment No. 82. In light of his comments on amendment No. 41, we are pleased also that the obvious error is to be rectified. We will bring other obvious errors to his attention as we go through the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I just want to put on the record what this part of the Bill stands for. One key concept in the Bill is the provision of facilities for gambling. That provision triggers the application of the regulatory requirement of the Bill. The requirement to hold an operating licence or a premises licence is generally triggered when the person is providing facilities for gambling. It is fundamentally important that the concept of providing facilities for gambling is correctly defined. Too narrow a definition will leave commercial gambling operations outside the scope of effective regulation; too wide a definition will unnecessarily draw in activities that pose no real risk to the licensing objectives set out in clause 1.

The clause strikes the right balance. In particular, it catches commercial gambling operators, and those who provide services to the operator and are themselves directly involved in the arrangements for gambling. It does not catch services that are provided equally and equivalently to companies irrespective of whether their business involves gambling or gardening.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I apologise to the Committee for hobbling around; I have a very painful knee.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, I am sorry to make the Minister return to the vexed subject of subsection (2)(b), but I want to read it out again:

''providing, otherwise than in the course of providing''.

Whether or not that follows the 1968 Act, surely we are in the business of trying to improve the wording? I suggest that it would be much better to leave the phrase out and simply say, ''or in the course of providing''. I seriously ask the Minister, with his officials, to consider that form of wording and to see whether an amendment that is more sensible can be tabled on Report.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about plain English, but bit by bit we are getting there. I want to make it clear that what we include in the Bill is there for a purpose. Sometime we could do a little better with the wording, and the use of the English language, than we do at the moment. All that I can say is that the wording does what we want it to do. Whether it could have been simplified a little more is open to question. I hear what

the hon. Gentleman says, but at this point in the proceedings I am afraid that I cannot accede to his request. If my officials have been listening, and we can achieve the same meaning with clearer or plainer English, we will endeavour to do that. I assure him that, from time to time, I send back some of the notes that my officials give me, because even I do not understand them, so I do not think that hon. Members will.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Gaming and Game of chance

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 86, in

clause 6, page 3, line 6, leave out 'a prize' and insert 'winnings'.

The clause deals with gaming and games of chance and gives us some definitions in that regard. Currently, the difference between the definition of ''winnings'' under section 51(1) of the 1968 Act and ''prizes'' relates to the accepted definition of a lottery. That was defined in a law case—Readers Digest Association Ltd v. Williams—in 1967. We therefore believe that the definition should refer to ''winnings'' rather than ''a prize''. Reference to gaming as meaning

''playing a game of chance for a prize'',

rather than winnings, will certainly cause some uncertainty about whether an activity is gaming or a lottery. That might lead to litigation.

This is a probing amendment. We want clarification and we want to know not only that the Bill takes on board previous litigation and law cases, but that its wording will not cause any uncertainty.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The amendment proposes a change to the definition of gaming in the clause. It tries to reintroduce a concept from the 1968 Act in a manner that undermines the regulation of gaming in the Bill. In section 52 of the 1968 Act, gaming is defined as playing a game of chance for winnings. That set up a scheme whereby gaming for prizes was regulated differently from gaming for winnings. In recent times, that has led to a thoroughly unintended consequence: the use of section 21 of the 1968 Act to provide machine gaming for prizes. This Bill regulates all gaming, whether for winnings or prizes, under a unified definition in clause 6. The industry asked us to do away with the antiquated distinction that controls the minutiae of the types of rewards offered, which we have done. Particular allowances are needed for prize gaming, and those are set out in part 13. The amendment would separate gaming for prizes so that it does not come under the regulation of gaming, which cannot be sensible. Gaming includes gaming for prizes and must be regulated through licensing and permits.

On the hon. Gentleman's point about lotteries, we have different definitions of prizes for lotteries and for gaming. Therefore, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The Minister's response included the words ''prizes'' and

''winnings''. In view of observations that there could be confusion about which is which, would the simple remedy not be to add the phrase ''a prize or winnings''? Then, there could be no doubt over what we are talking about.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

My notes tell me to look at subsection (5), which the hon. Gentleman should look at. We believe that—[Hon. Members: ''Roll over now.''] I will wait for my next piece of paper.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I am trying to bring a layman's common-sense approach to the law and be helpful. The words ''or winnings'' covers everything.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Subsection 6(5)(b) includes both ''prizes'' and ''winnings''. It states:

''including both a prize provided by a person organising gaming and winnings of money staked.''

That clearly defines the Bill's intention in terms of the law.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am happy with the Minister's explanation, as defined in subsection (5)(b). Perhaps we should concede that we did not read that as carefully as we might have. It is one-all so far this morning. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 87, in

clause 6, page 3, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (iii).

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 77, in

clause 6, page 3, line 13, after 'chance', insert

'except skill with price machines'.

Amendment No. 88, in

clause 6, page 3, line 14, after 'sport' insert 'or a lottery.'

Amendment No. 132, in

clause 6, page 3, line 29, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment No. 90, in

clause 6, page 3, line 29, after 'activity' insert

'other than a game of skill'.

Amendment No. 103, in

clause 6, page 3, line 30, after 'activity', insert

'other than a game of skill'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I shall not be speaking to amendment No. 77. I apologise for not asking that it be deleted from the amendment paper.

Amendment No. 87 would leave out sub-paragraph (iii). The sub-paragraph is superfluous because the involvement of an element of chance should be objective—it either is or is not a game of chance. We are not sure why the words

''is presented as involving an element''

are included. They dilute the clause; it would be stronger if they were left out, because we accept that gaming involves an element of chance.

At present, a bingo-type ticket on a video screen, where the card is automatically marked and the participant wins a prize, is considered to be a lottery and not gaming. Amendment No. 88 would clarify that that will continue to be the case, by providing that a game of chance does not include a lottery, and by ensuring that lottery provisions are addressed separately.

Amendment No. 90, would insert the phrase:

''other than a game of skill''.

Pure games of skill are not intended to come within the scope of the Bill and amendment No. 90 clarifies that. Amendment No. 103 inserts the same phrase—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

In a different place.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Thank you, Mr. Pike.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I rise not only to support my hon. Friend's amendments, but to speak to my amendment No. 132. I wanted to probe two matters. First, one concern, which is widely shared by many commentators, is that the Bill leaves far too much open to the Secretary of State to make subsequent secondary legislation. We do not know what those regulations will look like. That was touched on in some of our debates on Tuesday.

Several Opposition Members have said that we hope that the Government will at least agree to provide some drafts of what they have in mind. It is a great deal easier for any parliamentary Committee to consider the detail and for those who may be investing to make informed decisions if they know not only what the Bill will look like when it reaches the statute book, but what the secondary legislation might be. We all know that, in practice, not as much parliamentary scrutiny is given to subsequent regulations. There are short statutory instrument debates that often—far too often in my view—go through almost on the nod. With such a major reform of gaming legislation, where the Government are seeking to write a blank cheque and say that they will flesh out the bones and add the details later in regulations, we need to know, people in industry need to know and people in towns and cities across the land need to know, what those regulations will look like.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is that there is no chance to amend the regulations that we debate? It is a question either of accepting them or chucking them out. Given the Government majority, it is virtually impossible to chuck them out unless they are absolutely dire.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend is right. I was fortunate enough when a Front-Bench spokesman to serve on a couple of Statutory Instrument Committees where, because the Government had made mistakes, they had to withdraw the legislation—but that is very rare. These things effectively go through on the nod. In practice, given the size of the Government's majority, the legislation is unamendable. That is the difficulty.

I hope that the Minister will give us an undertaking. He said some helpful things on Tuesday about trying to provide us with some drafts. I hope that that will be before Third Reading. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), along with several other hon. Members,

pointed out that unless the Bill changes, he will not be happy to vote for it on Third Reading, although he voted for it with some reluctance on Second Reading. That makes it even more vital that we see the detail.

This is the first major clause in a Bill that is front-end loaded. Much of the meat comes at the beginning, which is why we are spending quite a bit of time going through these early clauses in such detail. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that and will be able to give us some draft regulations. That brings me to my second point.

There has been a lot of controversy about the definition of a sport, in which I, as deputy Chairman of the all-party group on sports and a former shadow spokesman on sport, have been involved. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) has expressed his concern about darts, for example, and chess has also been mentioned; I tabled the amendment to remove subsection (6) to enable us to discuss the matter. However, the statutory definition of a sport is also relevant to the entire clause. If there is such a definition, I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee. If he cannot do so today, he can consult his officials and write to members of the Committee. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman's contribution on regulation, and on the definition of sport, was interesting. I remind the Committee that his party is trying to reduce the regulatory burden, and so are we.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Of course, the Minister is right: as a party we are in favour of reducing the regulatory burden, but that is no answer when a Government with a huge majority propose a clause that will make regulations. We, as a party, will have no opportunity to remove those regulations, and the industry and people in the country who follow our proceedings want to know what those regulations will be.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, although I may disagree with him.

It is the job of the Bill not to give a statutory definition of sport, but to define ''gaming''. The hon. Gentleman knows that the definition of sport has been given many times from the Dispatch Box when we have been challenged in respect of chess and many others—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Darts.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Indeed.

The amendments propose a series of changes to the definition of gaming in clause 6. I can see the positive purpose of some of the amendments, but they would not improve the clause and in some cases they would harm it.

Amendment No. 87 would remove games that are presented as having an element of chance from the definition, but the Government believe that such games should be included. People should not be presenting games as having an element of chance unless they are prepared for them to be regulated as gaming. For example, the classic sting of the

three-card trick is fraud, presented as a game of chance.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I have been listening to the debate with growing fascination, and I will make a couple of points in the clause stand part debate. On the definitions that the Minister gave, and which he is defending, can he tell me whether, for example, a pub quiz would fall under the definition of gaming, since it would appear to cover all the points in the clause?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says; my advice is no, it would not.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am most grateful to the Minister. I assumed that he would give that answer. Will he therefore tell the Committee why, given the clause, the answer that he gave is ''no, it would not''?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is the interpretation—[Hon. Members: ''Ah!''] That is the interpretation in the Bill. I will answer the hon. Gentleman if he will listen. It is because skill is needed. I do not know who compiles the quiz questions in his pub, but those who do so believe that answering them requires an element of skill.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I entirely accept that pub quizzes require an element of skill. Indeed, the element of chance can be almost eliminated by superlative skill, but that does not alter the fact that a pub quiz includes an element of chance—for example, but not exclusively, in the questions that the individual competitor or teams are asked.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Quite honestly, the hon. Gentleman is dancing on a pinhead. Is he saying that the questions are fixed? That is tantamount to saying that if the authors are skilful, there is no element of chance any more than there is in football. The hon. Gentleman will be saying next that pub quizzes are fixed, which is a disgraceful thing to say to people throughout the country.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman is right and if the questions had been fixed, there would be no element of chance; but if the questions had not been fixed, surely there would be an element of chance in which questions are put to which competitor.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

No. I do not want to go too far down this road, but it depends on who knows that the questions have been fixed. Some people would be trying to use skill, but some questions would have been fixed and that would be unfair.

Mr. Kevan Jones rose—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Before I call Mr. Jones, I would like to give the Committee some guidance. I want the Committee to observe two minutes' silence at 11 o'clock, in accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling the other day. I know that the Government must do something with programming at some stage and I want to ensure that we do not get into difficulty with the two things clashing. I offer that guidance to the Minister and the Committee to be helpful.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the Labour party, pub quizzes are good fundraising activities that are run appropriately? Clearly, the hon.

Gentleman has experience of dodgy, rigged Liberal Democrat quizzes.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I shall not respond to that.

As I was saying, the classic three-card-trick sting is an example of fraud that is often presented as a game of chance. The 1968 Act regulated that as gaming and the Bill does the same.

Amendment No. 77 tries to remove prize machines requiring only skill from the definition of gaming. That is quite unnecessary, because a machine that requires only skill, such as an arcade video machine, is not caught by this clause. Gaming does not cover contests of skill. The machine must involve a degree of skill and chance to be a gaming machine, so the amendment would serve no purpose.

Amendment No. 88 is wholly unnecessary. Lotteries are defined in clause 14, and clause 16 deals with their overlap with gaming, so the amendment is redundant. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire not to press it.

Amendments No. 90 and 103 are, again, wholly redundant, although I understand their motivation. The clause does not and cannot, in the light of what we have been saying about the powers of the Secretary of State, allow her to designate something involving pure skill as a game of chance. She would be acting outside the scope of the clause if she tried to do so. If hon. Members are concerned, they can rest assured that the clause delivers what they seek. Therefore, the amendments would serve no useful purpose.

Amendment No. 132 refers to the new sports conceived to avoid controls on gaming. There is no intention of using that for the sake of safety. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am happy with the Minister's explanation and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 89, in

clause 6, page 3, line 19, at end insert—

'but the provisions of Part 13 of the Act shall apply in respect of prize gaming where such provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of this section.'.

The amendment is easily understandable. We assume that there is no intention in clause 6 to cover prize competitions as set out in part 13. The amendment is designed simply to clarify that the provisions on prize competitions are in no way affected by clause 6.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

As I mentioned, clause 6 provides a unified definition of gaming. Part 13 sets out entitlements to provide prize gaming. That is only a subset of gaming as defined in clause 6, so there cannot be a contradiction between clause 6 and part 13. I appreciate that the amendment is intended to be helpful, but it is not needed to make the meaning of the Bill clearer. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 78, in

clause 6, page 3, line 23, leave out paragraph (b).

The amendment would delete the phrase

''whether or not he risks losing anything at the game.''

That refers to a person playing a game of chance for a prize. It is a probing amendment: we should like the Minister to explain why that subsection is in the Bill and in which circumstances it will apply. We can think of some examples but not many. The amendment is designed to elicit some response from the Minister.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

You asked us to move along speedily, Mr. Pike, and we are doing so. I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling this probing amendment, as it gives me an opportunity to explain what this aspect of the Bill is about. The amendment would remove an element of the definition of gaming that has existed for some 40 years: the requirement that gaming does not need someone to be at risk of losing something in order to be gaming. That requirement is a necessary part of the definition to ensure player protection. In the case of gaming machines, it is lifted in part 10, in which clause 232 permits use of machines if no payment is made for them. However, when it comes to real games of chance, such as poker or blackjack, it is important that we capture gaming in all its forms, including those where there is no apparent outlay by the consumer.

When I read that, I thought that it was a little offbeat. After all, not losing anything is one of the protections. However, it is again important to underline what we are taking from the 1968 Act and putting into the Bill to protect people and to maintain the integrity of the industry. Experience has taught us that apparently minor changes to the gambling regime can have significant unforeseen consequences. We have been down this road before, with apparently modest concessions ushering in large abuses. The requirement has served us well over some 40 years, and we think it prudent not to remove it now. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Before I consider doing so, will the Minister answer a question about scratchcards? Often when people buy a newspaper, a scratchcard drops out. They then have a go in what is presumably a game of chance. They did not pay to enter the game; they paid for the newspaper. Some proprietors are concerned that the measure might catch them in that situation. Will the Minister clarify whether they are involved under the subsection?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The answer is that they are not, because what the hon. Gentleman describes is classed as a lottery, not a game of chance.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I thank the Minister for that answer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 79, in

clause 6, page 3, line 34, at end add—

'(7) For the purposes of subsection (6)(b) and (c) the Secretary of State shall consult with all recognised sporting bodies and organisations.'.

The amendment is fairly clear; it would provide a comfort zone for those involved in sport. Subsection (6) states that the Secretary of State may introduce regulations defining the activities that can be encompassed in the Bill as gaming or games of chance. We had a discussion about what is and is not sport. It seems only fair and reasonable that some comfort be given to sporting bodies that they will be consulted on the boundaries between the different activities if at some stage such regulations are introduced.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Amendment No. 79 would the Secretary of State to consult sporting bodies before she made regulations about the distinction between games and sports. I am fairly sure that she would want to consult sporting bodies if she were to use that power, but I do not believe that a duty to consult would be helpful, particularly if there were a need to act swiftly to deal with a specific uncertainty. If an activity were being abused for commercial gain, outside regulation, it would be important to get it under control as quickly as possible. The clause tries to protect against that situation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I heard what the Minister said, and the Hansard record will show that he gave an assurance that a Secretary of State would want to consult before introducing any regulations. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

During my remarks on amendment No. 132 in one of the earlier groups, I specifically asked the Minister to indicate whether he would be able to provide drafts of the regulations during the Committee stage—at any rate, before Third Reading—but he did not answer the question. Indeed, the answer that he gave at the end of his response to the whole group of amendments was read so quickly that I did not understand a word of it, apart from understanding that he did not respond to my specific point. Therefore, I raise it again on clause stand part.

As I said earlier, it is crucial that not only parliamentarians but all those who will be making commercial decisions and others carefully following the proceedings on the Bill know when they will see the regulations, as the devil is always in the detail in such matters. We want to hear from the Minister very clearly and firmly whether he will be able to provide Parliament, and this Committee in particular, with a draft of the regulations that he has it in mind to introduce under this important clause before the Committee finishes its consideration or, at the very least, before Third Reading.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I have been saying that the intention of the Bill and the powers that it gives to the Secretary of State and the gambling commission is to try to make

the system foolproof, wherever possible. The hon. Gentleman knows that there have been some difficulties. In fact, the whole reason for introducing the Bill was to bring the law up to date and to regulate to protect people, to a large extent because of the changes brought about by electronic and remote gambling, which we are aware is possible.

The powers in subsection (6) will be used only if a new problem arises. One cannot draft for something that may or may not arise. The clause is about future-proofing, where we can, within the constraints that I outlined earlier. It would therefore be impossible to provide draft regulations.

Clause 6 provides the definition of gaming for the purposes of the Bill. That definition is based on the definitions in the 1968 Act, but with improvements to take account of the fact that games can now be played against computers, and not just in person. The clause provides for greater clarity and certainty about the distinction between games of chance and sport by giving the Secretary of State the power to specify on which side of the borderline a particular activity should fall. We all know that there is an element of chance in all sports; for example, whether the golf ball hits the pin and drops into the hole, which does not often happen to me, or whether it is deflected into the bunker, as often happens to me, is often a matter of pure chance. However, golf is a sport, and we do not want the Bill to make golf, when played for money, subject to the same regulation as gambling. Gambling on the outcome of golf matches is, of course, another matter. In the case of traditional sport, it is clear what the activity is, but with other activities it may be less clear. We do not want to leave loopholes through which a commercial gambling operator can claim that something which is, in reality, gambling and has the characteristics of gambling, is exempt from the control because it is defined as a sport within the subsection.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I have been reflecting on what the Minister said in response to my point. I understand his valid point about future-proofing and the need to leave a future Secretary of State the discretion to take account of something new being invented. That is an adequate answer.

However, may I pose the question the other way round? This may give some security to people who are planning investments in this area or who may have to consider licensing or planning as a consequence of the Bill. Is the Minister able to state that, based on the current definitions of ''game of chance'' and ''sport'', he does not expect to have to produce regulations under subsection (6) immediately after the enactment of the Bill, but wants the power only for something that might be invented in future? If the Minister were able to make such a statement, that would give some certainty. I fear that if the Secretary of State and the Minister cannot give such an assurance, we might be faced with a situation in which something that everyone at present treats as a game, a sport or a game of chance suddenly changes immediately after the Bill has come into force. I hope that the Minister will understand why I put it in that way.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I do not accept it. In explaining why the

Committee should resist the amendment, I said that there were clearly defined areas in which the Secretary of State should act. Now, in the stand part debate on clause 6, I am again explaining the parameters within which the Secretary of State would act, and also the reason why she would act in that particular case. It is against that background that the hon. Gentleman must accept that we either tie everything down and partly future-proof the Bill or we leave some discretion, but within the confines that I explained when asking the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire to withdraw the amendment. I can go no further than that.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

The Minister used an illustration of his playing golf, in which a great deal of skill is involved—particularly, I am sure, in his case—but said that that was not regarded as gambling, whereas someone betting on the outcome of the Minister's match would be gambling. What is the difference between his playing golf and a person taking part in, for instance, a professional poker tournament? Card playing also requires considerable skill—it is not a game of chance. Would someone who was playing cards in that context also be regarded as not gambling, but as taking part in a skilful activity?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

All I can say is that, given my handicap of 22, I hope that the hon. Gentleman never bets on me to win anything at golf. Poker is a game of chance.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do not want to over-complicate the matter, although the Minister's reply has caused some consternation among the Opposition, because we are all aware that there are huge professional poker tournaments, which involve the development of great skill.

I wanted to put a slightly different question to the Minister. We know that people can play video golf games—virtual reality golf—on the internet. If the Minister rests his case for golf being a game on the skill involved in playing, I foresee a problem when the Bill and the debate on it come to be studied. What would happen if someone cleverly invented a betting game on the internet coupled with a virtual reality golf game? Would the Minister not then have a problem?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is exactly why there is a need for this type of clause in the Bill. The clause is intended to ensure that someone who distorts sport for gambling or gaming is caught, so it would be used not for sport, but for other purposes. That is why the Secretary of State will have this power. The hon. Gentleman answers his own question.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am conscious of your advice, Mr. Pike. I am beginning to think that the Minister would have done well to take note of it and to be briefer, because the more he speaks, the more confusion arises.

I have two questions for the Minister. He said that a game of poker was a game of chance, presumably because of the uncertainty of which cards will be distributed. If so, why did he tell me that a pub quiz

was not a game of chance, when the questions given are a matter of uncertainty? He also said that a game of golf included an element of chance—he gave the example of where the ball might go when it hits the pin—but he got out of it by saying that it does not matter because it is a sport. Therefore, how can he explain whether a darts competition is included, because a dart hitting the wire on the board is a matter of chance, yet by his own admission on the Floor of the House, darts is not a sport?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

There is a simple explanation. The hon. Gentleman is getting excited about pub quizzes, but a pub competition is not a game; it is a competition. As I said, poker is a game of chance. With that explanation the hon. Gentleman should throw the shovel away and stop digging that hole.

Subsection (6) provides a useful safeguard in the form of reserve powers.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend does not think that darts is a sport, because I think that it is. Could he help us by telling us the difference between luck and chance?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I shall reserve my judgment and give it to my hon. Friend in writing.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Do let us make progress.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I will, Mr. Pike. As I said, subsection (6) provides a useful safeguard in the form of reserve powers, which the present law lacks. Experience suggests that it would be wise not to leave loopholes in gaming.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sitting suspended for a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee.

On resuming—

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move,

That the Order of the Committee of 9th November be varied as follows:

The order for consideration of proceedings set out in the table shall be varied so as to provide for consideration of Clause 7 after Clause 132 (and within the group specified in the first row of that table).

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

We welcome the Government's amendment to the programme order, but it is a most extraordinary proposal. The Bill has been three years in preparation; it has had lengthy scrutiny, debate and consultation, yet now, at one minute to midnight, the Government say that they need more time to get it right. Nothing better illustrates the depth of the chaos of the Government's policy than that they cannot debate the crucial clause in the Bill without being given more time.

We said at the start of the Committee stage that we wanted the Secretary of State to fulfil her undertaking to listen; if this is a demonstration that the Government are listening, then we welcome it. I hope that it is an indicator that they are prepared to climb down on a number of concerns. The proposal

requires clause 7 to be taken after clause 132, but the timetable motion requires us to complete consideration of the Bill up to that point by 5.30 pm next Tuesday. You will not need reminding, Mr. Pike, that we have already had two sittings; we are half way through the third, and we have just finished considering clause 6. At that rate of progress, it seems unlikely that we will reach clause 132 by next Tuesday evening.

I should therefore be grateful if the Minister would confirm that on Tuesday there will be a further amendment to the sittings motion so that we can take clause 7, because it is fundamental to the Bill and will require a lengthy and detailed debate. I would like the Minister to give the Committee an absolute assurance on the record in that respect.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I join the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) in welcoming the proposal if it provides a breathing space so that the Government can finally decide how far they will back down on the Bill.

I have no doubt, Mr. Pike, that, like me, you are a keen viewer of ''Have I got News for You?'' You will know that that programme often has a guest publication; because I am a member of this Committee, I have looked at magazines I might not otherwise read. I draw the attention of the producers of ''Have I Got News For You?'' to the excellent magazine Coin Slot International. A recent editorial in that publication, under the heading ''Viewpoint'', stated:

''The government must be looking at the tsunami of unrest with outright despair.''

It continued:

''The ball is now in the government's court. Having been shown quite clearly that this Bill is not just unpopular, but largely derided by UK plc, some major amendments have to be a serious option.''

I entirely agree with that editorial; I made clear in Committee and on Second Reading which amendments my party wants; we hope that the additional time for the Government to consider where they are going will lead to their accepting the sort of proposals that we recommended.

Like the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, I seek the Minister's assurance that there will be a different programme order when we return in the next sitting but one. I would also like him to give us a clear undertaking that any announcement that he makes about major changes to clause 7, or any other part of the Bill, will be made first to the Committee and to no other organisation.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

In saying that the Bill is incredibly unpopular and that it should be ditched, Coin Slot International is naive, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bath would acknowledge. I remind the Committee that we came to the Bill by way of the Budd report. It is unfortunate that on Second Reading there was a difference between what was reported in the press and the reality in the world outside. Today, many people are vulnerable because the House of Commons has not introduced regulations and powers to deal with the new technologies of remote and internet gambling. Many young and vulnerable people have been exposed

because of the law's inability to act. Indeed, 90 per cent. of the Bill is about protecting those people. I had responsibility for gambling when I joined the Department two or three years ago, and I had a dialogue with the Churches, GamCare and many others. That dialogue is what the Bill was predicated on, and to a large extent it still is. Some newspapers ran headlines of ''Kill the Bill''. If the Bill is killed, many people will remain vulnerable to some of the biggest sharks. That is why we are doing what we are doing.

Let us keep the issue in proportion. There was discussion about one part of the Bill—casinos—and it was brought to our attention that it was creating concerns. That is absolutely right. We have responded in a way that, as the Secretary of State clearly said, shows that we take those concerns on board. Surely, that is what the democratic process and consultation are about. The Bill is about a change in the law from 1968. I agree that because it tried to take crime out of gambling, that area of the law was draconian, prescriptive and time-consuming for the House of Commons and the legislative process. We are trying to move it to a modern pattern for the 21st century, but with all the safeguards that we need.

We would have abrogated our responsibilities had we not brought a Bill of this nature to Parliament, so I make no excuses for doing so. We went out and consulted. I make no apologies for coming to the Committee and saying, ''Can we have a few more days?'' We want to return with a considered statement so that we can respond in full to concerns on that limited part of the Bill. I do not know what Coin Slot International and the others are lobbying for, but naive editorials, such as the one in the Daily Mail, saying that they want to kill the whole Bill do a disservice to millions of people in this country.

I give the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford an assurance that on Tuesday we will make sure, subject to your agreement, Mr. Pike, that there is plenty of debate on clause 7. We will be more than ready to accept such scrutiny. In reply to the hon. Member for Bath, there will be no public statements or announcements before I come to Committee.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I am not certain that I will be pleased by the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Minister on clause 7, but I support his approach. I remind the Opposition that if a Government are prepared to listen and reconsider they are acting responsibly. It is strange to hear Opposition parties couple pejorative terms such as ''climb down'' and ''retreat'' with the word ''welcome''. It adds to the fevered language of politics that we hear so much about when decisions and the reasons for them are discussed in the media.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

No, I will finish my point. One cannot have a change of mind, or even listen, without being accused of retreating, which is why people despise the language of politics and, in many cases, politicians.

I am trying to get out of my mind an image of the hon. Member for Bath sitting up in bed reading Coin

Slot International and I can only send my great sympathy to Mrs. Foster.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

The Opposition are prompted to respond, following the protestations from the Minister and the hon. Member for West Ham, who is my friend and who, I suspect, will be displeased by the Minister's remarks next Tuesday. The Minister has had a number of years to consider the legislation; the Government have not come up with it in the past six months. They established a scrutiny Committee, which spent many months doing a great deal of hard work on the issue. I disagreed with many of its proposals, but nevertheless its members treated the subject seriously. The Government were supposed to take the Committee's view into account, given that they initiated the scrutiny process. It is therefore disingenuous of the Minister to say that the Government are listening and that it is fine for them to backtrack on some of their proposals.

The Government had a long time to consider the issues, but they did not produce a solution acceptable to the House and have been forced to retreat. The Minister talked about the great things that the Bill will do and I accept that the provisions on internet regulation are right and proper. Indeed, they are welcome and needed. However, the legislation is limited because, as the Minister admitted just the other day in Committee, there will be no jurisdiction over sites not based in the United Kingdom. There is a limit to how much harm can be regulated by the Bill. However, the simple fact is that the most important part of the Bill, which deals with casinos, was to do a great deal—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I remind hon. Members that they must speak about the programme order. Although they can debate it for half an hour, I am mindful of the fact that hon. Members have already referred to which part of the Bill they need to reach by Tuesday night. We must ensure that we debate all the provisions that are moved.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

Finally, I am grateful that the Minister will table new amendments on the casino problem, which is at the heart of the Bill and is the most important part. The harm that the Government's original proposals would have done to the gambling scene in this country would far outweigh any good achieved by the other regulation in the Bill. I am therefore grateful for what the Minister said, but he and the hon. Member for West Ham protest too much.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I want to make two points about the programme order. First, I said on Tuesday that I thought it extraordinary but, sadly, all too typical of the Government that they had abandoned the convention adopted by Governments of both parties of allowing a clear week between the week in which Second Reading takes place and the week in which the Committee stage starts. The programme order makes it clear that the Government were unwise to ignore that convention—had they abided by it they would not have needed to introduce this panic measure. They

would have a clear week and could consult everyone who is influencing them to make the changes to clause 7 that we shall hear about. They would not need to go through what to the outside world will seem a strange procedure and introduce an emergency programme order today to delay consideration of clause 7 until we have considered clause 132. We understand that when we return next Tuesday there will be another programme order to move consideration of clause 7 to some as yet unspecified time. I hope that the Minister and the usual channels accept that the indecent haste with which the Bill was rushed into Committee was a mistake. They should learn that lesson for the future. As I said on Tuesday, there was no need to rush the Bill into Committee, given that the Government have introduced a carry-over motion. I hope that they will acknowledge their mistake.

Secondly, it was remarkable that the hon. Member for West Ham, of all Members of Parliament, should decry the use of fevered language. We all recognise his wit, which I have experienced since I was lucky enough to hear him respond to my maiden speech 12 and a half years ago. I was grateful to him then and I am grateful to him now, but I think that he would accept that he is the last hon. Member, of whatever party, whom one would expect to protest about the use of fevered language. He and I will have to wait and see what the Government come up with to discover whether his views, which are not dissimilar to mine on liberalisation, reflect what is needed. However, I suspect that he may want to reflect a little further before he, of all people, protests about fevered language undermining the status of politicians.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 - Equal chance gaming

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

By way of a short explanation, whether gaming is a matter of equal or unequal chance, its regulation is important. In principle, unequal chance gaming gives rise to greater opportunities for unfairness or indeed exploitation. The Bill accordingly lays down that low-level gaming must be equal chance gaming. For that procedure to work as intended a clear definition is needed. That is what the clause provides.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Betting: general

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 25, in

clause 9, page 5, line 3, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (1A),'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 26, in

clause 9, page 5, line 6, at end insert—

'(1A) But ''betting'' does not include making or accepting a bet on the outcome of a race which involves placing money on any horse or greyhound to lose the race.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

May I make it clear in the interests of making progress that these are probing amendments? In the light of the current inquiries into horse racing—the sport that I love—I felt that it would be unwise if the Committee did not have an opportunity to look into an issue that may well take up a lot of time when the Bill moves to another place.

As I said on Second Reading, a senior detective has been quoted as saying that more than 100 people are currently under investigation. The inquiries will last much longer than the police originally thought, so it is difficult to talk about the subject without infringing sub-judice rules. Obviously, as a lawyer who used both to prosecute and defend in the criminal courts, I am anxious not to infringe those rules. The whole issue of what is appropriate in the light of the way that betting on horse and greyhound racing has changed in recent years needs to be considered. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply, but amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are simply probing amendments to allow the issue to be raised in Committee.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that betting on a player being booked in football match would be covered by his amendments?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That certainly would not be covered by these amendments. It may be a related issue but I do not want to be distracted, Mr. Pike, as you would rule me out of order. We might end up debating the England captain deliberately getting a second booking, which would open up a new can of worms. That may interest the hon. Member for West Ham and many others, but it would be ruled out of order.

A number of people in the industry have argued that the kind of bets that my amendments deal with may provide a greater element of temptation. It has been pointed out that the same object might be achieved, even if a measure similar to the amendments came into the law, by putting larger bets on lots of horses or dogs. I do not pretend that the phraseology is perfect—the amendments are simply probing amendments to get the issue on the record. I suspect that when the Bill goes to another place the matter will be discussed in greater detail.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said that these are probing amendments. If they were accepted they would bring about the complete collapse of the betting industry throughout the whole country, and doubtless the Minister has brief a mile long on them.

Obviously, to strike a bet and make it stand up, someone has to accept it so that it can be laid. If someone at Brighton race course fancied Saucy Sue in the 3 o'clock and wanted to put £5 on at 3:1, they would have to find someone else who thought Saucy Sue was going to lose, and who would take that £5 and pay out £15 if their judgment was wrong. As my hon. Friend said, the problem could be overcome with a huge, complicated raft of alternative heavier bets, the only advantage being that that might give a slightly increased levy to the British Horseracing Board. I am sure that we can find an easier way to go about things.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Of course I give way to my right-wing friend.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

Thank you; very gracious. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath raises some reasonable concerns about the role of betting exchanges.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

If my new-found right-wing friend will just hold his horses, I will come on to betting exchanges in a minute. This amendment to a clause that attempts to define betting is very important. As we know, the question of betting exchanges occupied a considerable amount of time in the scrutiny Committee. We took evidence on several occasions from eminent people in the gaming and gambling industry, including people from the BHB and the Association of British Bookmakers, and those connected with betting exchanges. In fact, I opened an exchange account with Betfair—it is declared on the Register of Members' Interests—just to find out what it was all about and how easy it was to lay bets to lose. I am sorry to report that the horses do not win when I bet to win, but they do when I bet to lose. I have the coin the wrong way around and am working out how I can reverse the process. If I can, I shall make a small fortune and be able to retire even earlier than I anticipated.

I now understand the principal of exchanges. Their operation, which involves clicking on a screen, is rather soulless. There is nothing to compare with the thrill of going racing and losing one's money in person there and then, which is even better and even quicker. However, there is a serious and important point to be made. I mentioned on Second Reading the huge growth in international and internet gambling, and the moneys that can accrue. If we get our regulations right, more and more overseas money will be bet through our systems, as our people will be trusted.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the difference between exchange betting and race-course betting is that at a race course one bets on a horse to win, whereas in exchange betting one can bet on a range of things, including place betting and the possibility that a horse will not win?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman has grasped at a stroke the whole principle of betting exchanges. In effect, an individual can be a bookmaker and lay a bet against other people who bet on the horse to win.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does that not open the possibility that if one wanted to predict or bet that a horse would lose, people involved in racing could ensure that that was the outcome?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Sadly, any form of activity in which money is involved includes such an element.

Sitting suspended for two minutes' silence.

On resuming—

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

As I was saying, any activity involving money can be subject to corruption and people fiddling the results. I must say to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) that that is not new. It has not suddenly occurred with the advent of betting

exchanges. The temptation to fix results in any game or activity has always been there. That is why it is important to have a strong, well funded gambling commission to deal with such problems.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend is, rightly, looking forward to the day, which we hope will occur if we get this Bill right, on which there will be more and more opportunities for properly regulated gambling to take place through British companies. Does he share my concern and amazement at the Minister's response to me on Tuesday? When I asked whether British companies might be able to have their product on the internet kitemarked to show that they are British, he said that that is not allowed under EU competition law. If he is right, we might lose that opportunity. Does my hon. Friend agree that it has come to a pretty pass if British companies cannot even say that they are British to attract inward investment?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Although we have our problems and scandals, the gambling and bookmaking industry in this country is of an integrity, style and shape at which the rest of the world looks with envy. Sometimes, we do a little too much breast-beating and saying how terrible things are. If we look at other countries, we can see that we are a shining example of how things should be done. That is not to say that we cannot make them better, but bookmakers and exchanges could be advertised in a way that shows that they are British, as that gives tremendous confidence throughout the world.

However, I will say to my hon. Friend that international gamblers do not suddenly sign up to a bookmaker or an exchange just because they feel the whim to flip through the Hong Kong yellow pages and dial a number. They choose carefully where they are going to place their money.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is letting the hon. Member for Surrey Heath drag him a little astray from the amendment.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

You are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman, and he does it to me religiously every time—this is the third time. When he leads me to speak out of order, I would appreciate it if you slapped him down quicker. That would cut out a lot of work on my part and we would get on much better.

The problem is the relationship, on which the amendment touches, between the ways in which betting exchanges and existing bookmakers operate. There is a big argument about betting exchanges—are they bookmakers or not? As we know, bookmakers have to be licensed. They have to go through integrity tests and be seen to be able to take money, because they will hold stakes and, depending on results, pay out winnings. A betting exchange does not do that. It simply transfers money from one client account to another, taking a small levy on the way, on which it will pay both tax and supporting funds to British racing. It will not surprise me if the largest exchange in the country shortly announces a profit of some £11 million, on which it will pay £4 a million levy to British racing. That is very small beer compared with

the big three, one of which is about to announce a £220 million profit, not all from bookmaking activities. Of that, some £20 to £25 million will go to the levy. It is important to get the balance right.

The hon. Member for North Durham, who has now left, mentioned integrity. One of the purposes of my hon. Friend's amendment was to probe that issue. The betting exchanges can do one thing that has never been done before—they can have an intensive audit trail. In order to register for a betting exchange, one has to give details such as a credit card number and verification of one's name and address, whereas if one went to a bookmaker in Brighton and said ''I want £5 on Saucy Sue,'' the bookmaker would not look one up and down and say, ''Can I have your name and address? I'd like to see your passport and a current bill for identification.'' The integrity of the trail is greater.

For that reason, the Bill rightly sets up a strong, properly funded, gambling commission. The Jockey Club does not have the powers or the resources to follow through some of the concerns that have been expressed, whereas the gambling commission will do. The sooner we can get the Bill on to the statute book—with the appropriate amendments about destination casinos—the better. It is a matter of regret that those amendments are not before us.

My last point is that I believe that there will be legal difficulties in working out what is a bet. The betting exchanges have been likened to a dating agency. The sooner the legislation is enacted the better—then we can let the gambling commission examine such matters, with the flexibility to propose appropriate rules and regulations. It will also have to tackle some increasingly difficult situations. A number of the bookmakers who have been quite critical of betting exchanges are launching their own betting exchanges. It will be interesting to see where the mix will come, with bookmakers running a conventional book and the betting exchanges.

I am glad that my hon. Friend is not pressing the amendment to a vote, because I would not be able to support it, but he has given the Committee a valuable opportunity to consider betting exchanges. I look forward to listening to what the Minister has to say.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

This is an important part of the Bill, as the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said. I know that the threat that betting exchanges may pose to the integrity of the sport has been a cause of concern. I have some sympathy with those concerns, but I am convinced that the Government's policy on the future regulation of exchanges will protect the integrity of the sport while maintaining the increased consumer choice that those exchanges offer.

Under the Bill, there will be specific licensing for betting exchanges, with unique licence conditions. It is our policy that those conditions should include mandatory registration of all customers, information sharing agreements—the sporting regulator thinks that the question of integrity is at the centre of things, as I think has been amply demonstrated this morning—and ring-fencing of customer accounts. Anyone laying a horse or a dog on a betting exchange in the course of

business will require a betting operation license. That will ensure that people cannot use betting exchanges for commercial purposes, as a back-door way of avoiding the need for a licence.

In addition, protection measures appear throughout the Bill and will have the same effect for exchanges as they will for any other betting operator. The Bill already contains provisions to deal with bets that are made unfairly. If the gambling commission is satisfied that a bet is unfair, it can render that bet void and unenforceable. Requirements for a personal licence and the new offence of cheating will act as a further protection for individuals who participate in all forms of gambling activity.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but have I understood him as saying that anybody laying a horse or a greyhound on a betting exchange would have to be registered? If so, will the small gambler—someone who may bet 20, 30 or 40 times a year and thinks that the horse will lose—have to be registered, or are we talking about people running parallel activities with a bookmaker's licence or heavy users? I am continuing to talk, so that the Minister has a chance to respond.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The advice that I have been given is that all users are registered, by the fact that they lay, and that anyone active in business is licensed.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

That is immensely helpful, although I detect the hand of the Treasury in part of that answer. No doubt the Minister will tell us what ''in business'' means.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I will get the definition of ''in business'', although I think that the distinction is clear—one is registered and one is licensed. If somebody lays that bet, they are registered, and if someone runs a business, they are licensed. I will find what the definition of a business is in the Bill for the hon. Gentleman.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

This is a critical moment. Legitimate bookmakers, who have a tremendous record in this country, feel that it is possible for someone to run a business through the betting exchange; that is, to use it frequently to lay bets off with other people. We accept that people will have to be registered to participate in the exchange. However, they could run a successful ''bookmaker's business'' without necessarily being required to have a licence. The critical threshold should be turnover, or some other definition of business, so that such people are under the same regulation as the bookmakers. If the Minister cannot answer that critical point today, he should certainly clarify the position. Out there, no one understands the present position.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman knows that such arguments have been well rehearsed and forcefully put by the bookmaking fraternity; there is no doubt about that. We have put into the Bill how we believe such activity on the new exchanges should be regulated. In this context, business has its normal and natural meaning. New clause 6 gives more detail on what constitutes non-commercial betting. The hon.

Gentleman knows that the issue has been part of the discussion on exchanges, including during pre-legislative scrutiny, for some time.

The issue is about registering and licensing, and those are set out in the Bill. A decision had to be made at some stage, and it has been made. Betting exchanges will operate in that context, and in the wider context of the Bill. As the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire said, such exchanges are a big British success story. Their growing share of the market testifies to their popularity among consumers. Restricting their services would simply drive customers offshore, which would mean that British business would be lost and that British citizens would be compelled to use unregulated foreign exchanges, from which we could offer no protection.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked about the regulation of sites. We cannot regulate sites from overseas, nor have a kitemark, although people can advertise. That is important. All advertising in Great Britain of gambling from outwith the EU area will be illegal unless the Secretary of State decides that a specific state should be allowed to. That suggestion was made by hon. Members during pre-legislative scrutiny, and I think that it will give protection. We have taken that suggestion on board and incorporated it into the Bill.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

What the Minister has said has been helpful and reflected not only what I put to him, but what was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. However, it is not enough for the Minister to respond, as he has to my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Hertfordshire and for North-East Cambridgeshire, that business has its ordinary and natural meaning. On Tuesday, I said that there would be concern about the overlap between this legislation and the anti-money laundering legislation that I dealt with as a shadow Minister during discussion of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There will have to be an indication of turnover, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested, if there is not to be a danger that the new operation of betting exchanges might be used as a vehicle for money laundering.

We will have to know how much somebody would have to bet or lay through an exchange to turn them into a business. That is the crucial point. If the Minister cannot address that today in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, he will have to do so before the Bill becomes law.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I remind the hon. Gentleman that it has never been our intention to tie everything down into the Bill. As I have said repeatedly, we are putting into place a gambling commission that will have considerable powers and be able to impose licensing conditions or issue codes of practice advising exchanges on how they should interpret ''in business''. Part 1 of the Bill makes clear our intentions on what the gambling commission will do on exchanges, or any other part over which it will have regulatory control. We are moving away from the prescriptive 1968 Act to the new Gambling Bill, which

gives considerable powers to a gambling commission. In terms of the interpretation of the word ''business'', the conditions can be laid out in codes of practice.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am indebted to the hon. Member for Bath for drawing my attention to the fact that the Minister has now tabled new clause 6, which does not deal with the point. It basically says that anyone who self-declares themselves to be a business is a business. That will not be acceptable. I understand the Minister's point about the gambling commission, but he has to consider what is in the Bill and new clause 6 in particular. He is amending the Bill as he goes along. He has tabled new clause 6, which we have not yet come to but will debate, and it touches on the same point. We will have to see more certainty in the Bill.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman raises serious questions about how we will control the integrity, fairness and transparency of the commission. That is laid down clearly, not only when it comes to exchanges but when it comes to gambling, in part 1. We then give the gambling commission the powers to effect that. He cannot quite get into his mind that it has been difficult to move from the 1968 Act and how we have regulated and applied the law on gambling in this country, to where we want to be. I am trying to take him through that modernisation process, to put a Bill on the statute book and give the gambling commission the opportunity to intervene and to operate according to the principles of the Bill.

New clause 6 is one part of the question of business, but the more powerful part is what the gambling commission will do in its codes of practice to interpret the word ''business.'' That will be based on carrying out the mandate that it is given in part 1.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I want to pick up on a point that the Minister made earlier. I did not pose that question to imply that we want to be prescriptive about the Betfairs of this world. We recognise that time has moved on, and those are successful businesses. They could be a jewel in the crown of this country, as can other exchanges like them. It is not an attack on the exchange or the concept of it—not that we could turn the tide back in any event—but a question of a level playing field and fair competition.

I tabled an amendment to clause 1 so that the gambling commission, or whoever, would view the issue of fair competition not only in the casino environment but in this environment. We are changing the law. We have bookmakers at the moment. They are licensed and they pay a huge amount of money. In fact, when the Bill goes through, they will pay even greater amounts of money for licensing. That is a big burden on them, and they are not complaining, but they want to see a level playing field, so that other more modern and newer businesses that have evolved do not have an unfair advantage against their legitimate activities. That is the point that I was trying to get to. I think that the Minister is mindful of that.

New clause 6 helps a bit. I have no idea when we will discuss it, as it is not on our list at the moment. However, as the Minister in charge of the Bill and gambling, will he indicate where he thinks the fairness idea ought to play in this level competition?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I agree entirely. It is about fairness and a level playing field, but also about managing new technology. New technology has affected many industries, as we all know. Coming from Sheffield, I know how it has affected steel and mining. Many industries have been affected by the advance of new technology in many and varied ways. We will have to continue to manage the new electronic age that we are in.

That is now affecting the gambling industry. Up pop some bright young kids, who probably do not know a lot about betting and gambling, and they set up the exchanges. The exchanges were borne out of the City more than out of gambling. If some of the bookies realised what was happening, they would probably have got hold of it earlier, but they were not smart enough. We now have new innovation through technology that has to be managed. It has to be managed in terms of the industry.

It being twenty-five past minutes Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Gambling Bill

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I have not, of course, had an opportunity to read this morning's debate, but I have been briefed. The two amendments that we are discussing are relatively narrow. My understanding is that the Minister's response has been fairly wide-ranging and that some interesting arguments have been introduced.

It is fair to tell the Committee at this stage that I propose to broaden the debate to allow discussion of slightly wider issues relating to the clause on the understanding that I shall not then permit a clause stand part debate.

Clause 9 - Betting: general

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendment:

No. 26, in

clause 9, page 5, line 6, at end insert—

'(1A) But ''betting'' does not include making or accepting a bet on the outcome of a race which involves placing money on any horse or greyhound to lose the race.'.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I was about to conclude by saying that we cannot accept amendments Nos. 25 and 26, which would effectively remove certain events from the regulatory regime and are neither appropriate nor desirable. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

May I say, Mr. Gale, that I appreciate your ruling, which is immensely helpful to us when planning what to do with these amendments?

The Minister, in a cavalier fashion, threw in a few minor comments in his response to the amendment, such as a bit of registration, a bit of licensing and ''Let's move on quickly, lads.'' Unfortunately for him, one or two hon. Members picked up on his points. Can he be a little broader in what he says and throw a little more light on the scene? The debate has been quite heated and two or three throwaway comments must be fleshed out a little before we can go further.

In his evidence to the scrutiny Committee, the chief executive of the British Association of British Bookmakers, Mr. Kelly, was asked whether he had a view on what

'' 'in the course of a business' ought to mean and''

whether it should

''be made clear on the face of the Bill?''

Mr. Kelly replied:

''One of the deficiencies in the current legislation is that there is an ambiguity surrounding that particular phrase''—

I do not think that anyone has a problem with registration. When someone clocks in with an account, they fill in whether they are an owner, trainer or jockey and provide any other relevant information to enable a more effective audit trail. Is the Minister suggesting that ordinary bookmakers with bookmaker's accounts will require the same information from their customers when they register?

While the Minister is chewing on those points, I return to the question of having to obtain a licence to operate. If someone operates an exchange account without parallel access to a bookmaker's account or another account, there is a difficulty because they are running a straight book, which anyone could do, without the bookmaker's advantage of being able to judge the odds to their benefit. In a two-horse race, a bookmaker does not give even odds on both. One horse will be so many points on and the other will be a few points against. There is a margin for the bookmaker who is operating the book. The position for betting exchanges is entirely different. We are not dealing with apples and pears and I ask the Minister to consider the point.

Bookmakers need a permit because they deal with the public. I mentioned this before we adjourned for lunch. Betting exchanges, however, do not have exactly that responsibility, so I do not see how giving licences to exchange users will provide any more advantage than already exists, unless the hand of the Treasury and the Inland Revenue is involved and they are saying, ''Ah, if someone is using this system and making a profit, they should be paying a form of tax.'' That is why I ask the Minister to come clean and not just throw out a few casual words and try to move on as quickly as possible. I can see his mental feet working like mad under the desk to try to get away from the problem, but Opposition Members will return to the matter to ask why if there is not a revenue consequence he wants such a system.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman knows that taxation is a matter for the Treasury and not for this Standing Committee. Whatever taxation system we have, it will be the responsibility of the Treasury. Other than the collective responsibility of the Government, there has to the best of my knowledge been no undue influence by the Treasury.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I will in a moment; let me just deal with one or two points raised by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page).

On registration, we have been round the course before. To think that we are running away from the whole question of exchanges is a little ludicrous, to say the least. The subject has probably been debated both here and in other places ad nauseam. At some stage, one has to come to some decisions. As I said this

morning, one reason for the Bill is the need to deal with the ever-moving world that we live in, which has been affected by the movement of information electronically. This sector, this sport, this industry is no different from many others. We have to manage it, which is why the Bill is before Parliament. Exchanges are but one element of the massive changes that have taken place as a result of new technologies. That is why we are doing what we are in the clause.

Registration means proof of name and address and taking payment details. I cannot go beyond what I said on the question of the definition of ''business''. We have given that to the best of our ability. If people want to put their own interpretation on it, they will, but I have given what we believe to be the definitions of business and registration.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I understand exactly what the Minister is saying, but I am trying to make the point that, on a betting exchange, he could not lay a book as bookmakers can during their ordinary race course activities. That is a fundamental difference. I just wonder why the Minister is skirting around the issue. People cannot lay a book on a betting exchange, but one can if one has a bookmaker's licence and is operating, say, on a course, and as a result take a margin of profit. On a betting exchange, people can lay a 95 or 97 per cent. book, but not a 100 per cent. book. Therefore, if people do those things, they will eventually lose money.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I must admit that I do not follow all the hon. Gentleman's arguments. I return to the point about registration and taxation. The answer to the question that I think that I was asked is no. Registration is there to assist integrity and support the gambling commission in excluding unfair bets. There have been many discussions with the industry—including the Association of British Bookmakers—on that. I am led to believe that all the bodies are positive and think that the proposals will work. If there are things that do not work and if some of the issues that hon. Members have raised do arise—probably not the worst-case scenarios—the gambling commission has the powers to deal with that. We have come to a judgment and that is reflected in the Bill.

Exchanges have been debated ad nauseam; they were a major part of the pre-legislative Committee's scrutiny. It did not come to a decision in any definitive way; it wanted to revisit the matter, because it was not as black and white as some people would have us believe. That was the situation, and the substance of the explanation I gave this morning and this afternoon. The amendment would not take us any further forward, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am glad that I tabled such probing amendments, because they have produced an absolutely fascinating debate. We shall have at a later stage to return to the issues raised, particularly those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire. The House will have to return to them on Third Reading, and they will have to be dealt with in another place when the

Bill, whatever its final form, leaves the House of Commons.

I had hoped that tabling probing amendments would open up a discussion on betting exchanges, and I have clearly succeeded in doing so. There was a little difference between what the Minister said this morning in his throwaway remarks about licensing and what he has just said, and my hon. Friend has just confirmed that that was his reaction, too. There may have been some more mature considerations during the luncheon Adjournment.

My hon. Friend referred to some of the issues raised by the Minister during this widened debate, in particular the evidence given to the scrutiny Committee on which my hon. Friend sat. I am reminded by him to examine again what was said by the Association of British Bookmakers witness in evidence to the Joint Committee on 20 January:

''Our concern is that we have people acting as bookmakers who are not licensed, who have not passed the fit and proper test, who can be located anywhere in the country and could be anyone from the local vicar to the local Mafiosi. We do not know who they are. They are driving a coach and horses through the licensing system''.

That goes to the heart of the licensing issues, which all parliamentarians have to consider carefully when we examine the Government's proposals. The Government will have to put a lot more flesh on the bones. My probing amendments have produced a useful debate and, on the clear understanding that we shall return to the wider issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Betting: prize competitions

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in

clause 11, page 5, line 30, leave out 'he guesses' and insert

'participants are required to guess'.

This is merely a drafting amendment. Its purpose is to clarify that clause 11 does not apply to knowledge competitions. The amendment makes it clear that the clause applies only to such competitions where all participants are required to guess or predict the answer.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Betting: Prize Competitions: Definition of Payment to Enter

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in

schedule 1, page 151, line 10, leave out 'includes' and insert 'is'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 56, in

schedule 2, page 153, line 3, leave out 'includes' and insert 'is'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendments Nos. 63, 56 and the others in the group, if I might call it that—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. There are only two amendments in this group, which are amendments Nos. 63 and 56. There are others grouped further on under the schedule. As I usually say at this point, I am perfectly happy to have a wide-ranging debate on the amendments—if that suits hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—as long as it is clearly understood that there will not be a stand part debate afterwards.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for your directions, Mr. Gale. I simply wanted to alert the Committee to the fact that some of the amendments relate to schedule 1, but that quite a few of the amendments I tabled are to schedule 2. I will discuss them under schedule 1, however. My point is that schedules 1 and 2 are pretty much the same, except that the former refers to prize competitions and the latter to lotteries. The principles that I discuss relate to both but appear first in schedule 1.

Amendment No. 63 is a textual change. It takes out ''include'' and replaces it with ''is'' in order to firm up the three conditions that must be met to participate in the arrangement. The conditions are found in sub-paragraph (a), ''paying money'', sub-paragraph (b), ''transferring money's worth'' and sub-paragraph (c),

''paying for goods or services at a price or rate that reflects the opportunity to participate''.

It has been asked why ''include'' should relate to those conditions when there does not seem to be any other means of making a payment, donation or contribution to participate in the game or lottery. Rather than use ''include'', would it not be stronger to use ''is''? It clearly defines what is really meant.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I am afraid that I cannot see any merit in either amendment. They seek to tinker to no good effect with schedules 1 and 2. Although in reality people will be required to pay to enter a betting prize competition, amendment No. 63 would result in the competition falling outside the scope of the regulation if the payment took some form other than those set out in paragraph 2. I cannot forecast what form that would be, but it would be unwise to exclude the possibility of new payment media or mechanisms being developed by the gambling industry.

Although people in reality will have to pay to enter a lottery, amendment No. 56 would result in the lottery falling outside the scope of the regulation if the payment took some form other than those set out in paragraph 2. Again, I cannot forecast what form that might be, but it would be unwise to exclude the possibility of new payment media or mechanisms being developed by the gambling industry.

We are trying to future-proof the provisions as we go through them, and this is yet another example of that. With that, I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 64, in

schedule 1, page 151, line 13, leave out 'reflects' and insert

'is enhanced or increased in a manner directly attributable to'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 65, in

schedule 1, page 151, line 29, leave out 'does not reflect' and insert

'is not enhanced or increased in a manner directly attributable to'.

Amendment No. 57, in

schedule 2, page 153, line 6, leave out 'reflects' and insert

'is enhanced or increased in a manner directly attributable to.'.

Amendment No. 58, in

schedule 2, page 153, line 21, leave out from 'which' to 'and' in line 22 and insert

'is not enhanced or increased in a manner directly attributable to the opportunity to participate in an arrangement.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 refer to schedule 1 and amendment No. 57 refers to schedule 2. The reason that we have tabled them is consistency. Without them, the Government's intention to adopt the so-called New Zealand model could be frustrated or indeed negated. In that model, draws tied to a product promotion do not have to be free to enter as long as the cost of entering them is no more than the cost of the product. Amendment No. 58, relating to schedule 2, would remove the words

''does not reflect the opportunity to enter a lottery''

and replace them with

''is not enhanced or increased in a manner directly attributable to the opportunity to participate in an arrangement.''

The difficulties surrounding the use of the term ''normal rate'' were well aired in the scrutiny Committee, when Susanna Fitzgerald QC and Philip Circus, legal advisers to the Institute of Sales Promotion, gave oral evidence. The issue was covered in detail and their responses are set out in questions 1629, 1630 and 1631 to that Committee. I quote Mr. Circus at the scrutiny Committee:

''It is virtually impossible in the majority of cases to establish what the 'normal' price [for goods] is.''

We concur with that view.

We do not wish to take up the Committee's time by running through the difficulties in defining ''normal price'', but I provide one example to establish the existence of such difficulties. How does one define the normal rate in price of a product that has only just reached the market and, therefore, has no trading history to show that its price was not inflated to cover the cost of running a competition?

The Government's intention in the schedules is clearly to protect consumers from those promoters who openly flout the spirit of those rules that we referred to as the ''New Zealand rules''. It is right and proper that that is done. We think that our proposed revision would help to capture what the Government intend—namely, to ensure that the prices of products are not inflated by unscrupulous operators to cover the cost of running the competition. Therefore, the objective of the amendments is to remove the uncertainty about what constitutes the ''normal rate''

while ensuring that consumers are protected, by making certain that operators of prize competitions cannot artificially inflate the prices of the product to cover the cost of running the competition.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Again, I cannot see merit in any of the amendments in this group. I think that they seek to tinker, to no real effect, with schedules 1 and 2. Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 57 and 58 seek to lengthen that part of the definition that covers cases where people have to pay extra for a product to enter a prize competition. The words in the amendments do not make the schedule any clearer—they just make it longer—and, by introducing the concept of direct attributability, they introduce additional and unnecessary complexity and scope for legal argument. The word ''reflects'' in the draft clearly encompasses payments that are announced or increased. With that explanation, I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We hear what the Minister says. I do not think that he addressed all my points. Those points did not come off the top of my head, but were put to us by QCs who considered the law in this context. While I do not want to prolong the debate, the issue is something that the Minister and his team might reflect on to make sure that their legal advice is spot on.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I probably did not give a full enough answer about the expert legal advice that was given to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. I return to the point that it is possible for the gambling commission to establish the normal price. If expert evidence is needed, the commission can get that evidence and act on it. In my view, that would be a sensible approach. The fact that such a provision is not included in the Bill is not important because the gambling commission has powers to call for expert advice or evidence and to act on it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That was helpful. We now have it on the record that there is a backstop in the form of the gambling commission. I am grateful to the Minister for those words of clarification. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 66, in

schedule 1, page 152, line 6, after 'pay', insert

'the promoter or an associate of the promoter.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 59, in

schedule 2, page 153, line 30, after 'pay', insert

'the promoter or an associate of the promoter'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The amendments refer to similar situations and seek to protect respectable promoters of competitions for which there may be entirely legitimate costs associated with consumers collecting their prize, while ensuring that operators could not possibly benefit financially from such costs. Consumers would still be protected from the type of scam that was described in other places—certainly in

the scrutiny Committee—but also have the opportunity to win worthwhile prizes. Without the amendment, all sorts of meaningful prizes might be outlawed.

By way of illustration and to help the Committee, perhaps I could give some examples. Could a car be offered as a prize if the insurance and road fund licence had to be paid by the winner, or would that scheme be considered a lottery on the basis that payment of the insurance would be regarded as payment to participate? Suppose someone won a competition to go to a concert, perhaps in Sheffield. In order to take possession of their prize—to attend the concert—they must pay the associated costs of travelling to Sheffield, as if they wanted to go there. Would such a competition also fall foul of paragraph 7? Let us say that a person wins a prize by which they get a 50 per cent. discount on something, say a cruise. In order to take possession of their prize—to join the cruise—they would have to pay the other 50 per cent. The consumer may well consider the discount an extremely valuable prize, yet, as I interpret paragraph 7, it may be prohibited.

Those are the issues that have been raised with us. The question is whether the wording is accurate enough to allow for some leeway of interpretation for those prizes, games and competitions that are currently operated but which are not scams and which do not rip off the public in any way.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Amendments Nos. 66 and 59 seek to insert a requirement that payment must be made to the promoter or associate of the promoter. I can see no good reason for such a requirement. Paragraph 7 in both schedules covers people who have not yet paid anything, who are told that they have won a prize—typically left vague—and who are then asked to pay to collect it. There have been several schemes of that kind, at best dubious, in the past. People are told that they have won something, which sounds good, and then have to pay much more than the product is worth to collect it.

Against that background, we do not want to leave loopholes for the unscrupulous. I fear that the amendments would do exactly that. They would enable the promoter to set up an arrangement under which payment was not to him but to somebody else, and it would then be a job to prove that that somebody was indeed an associate of the promoter rather than in some other kind of business or relationship. Why make regulation harder than it needs to be? Therefore, the amendment adds nothing, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

On payment to take possession of a prize, someone who won a car could take possession of it even if they had to pay the car tax to drive it. That is an example of where that may have to be done.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister, but he did not deal with the other examples that I gave. Paragraph 7 simply refers to

''a requirement to pay in order to take possession of a prize''.

There could be a wide interpretation of ''pay''. Who is being paid? That is the reason for the amendment's being specific.

Obviously, if the promoter of the competition scam is the one to whom one must give the money, we are quite happy for that situation to be caught in the legislation. However, in the other examples of payments being made, the Bill does not say to whom, it just says ''to pay''. Our amendment is more focused on the recipient of the extra money, who is part of a scam that states, ''You have won a worthless prize but to get it you have to pay a lot more money.'' We are obviously on the side of the Government in wanting to outlaw that practice, but currently valid competitions are running in which there will be a payment of some kind before the prize comes into one's possession. I am not sure that the Minister has addressed that point.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

We will reflect on that point, but if one pays to collect a prize, what matters to the consumer is the payment, not who gets it. The provision in the Bill is adequate to cover such circumstances, as well as those of a scam. If there is any validity in the argument, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. As the provision stands, it covers the scam and the genuine payment, but I will revisit the provision with my officials and come back to the Committee if we believe that it is faulty.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Will the Bill outlaw the scam whereby to claim a prize people have to ring a premium rate phone number? Many of our constituents have complained about that, and it needs to be outlawed.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Very much so. As my hon. Friend knows, the subject has been raised on the Floor of the House by a number of colleagues. It is, to put it crudely, a rip-off, and that is why the provision is in the Bill. I want to make certain that the wording covers both eventualities—genuine payments and scams. If we believe that it can be worded differently and more strongly to reflect the sentiments expressed by hon. Members, I will consider it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The point is taken on board. We do not seek to allow such scams. We consider them to be covered under the heading of scam situations, and we want to see the Bill as tightly controlled as it needs to be. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will take another look at the amendment. It was the result of strong representation from the Advertising Association, representing a large number of members who want clarification. The words that we tabled on their behalf are a means of seeking clarification rather than changing the thrust of the schedule. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 67, in

schedule 1, page 152, line 18, leave out 'neither' and insert 'no'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 68, in

schedule 1, page 152, line 19, leave out 'nor less convenient'.

Amendment No. 69, in

schedule 1, page 152, line 19, after 'participating', insert 'in the arrangement'.

Amendment No. 60, in

schedule 2, page 154, line 1, leave out 'neither' and insert 'no'.

Amendment No. 61, in

schedule 2, page 154, line 2, leave out 'nor less convenient'.

Amendment No. 62, in

schedule 2, page 154, line 2, leave out 'entering the lottery' and insert 'participating in the arrangement'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Some of the amendments relate to schedule 2, but others refer to the wording of schedule 1. We feel the need to amend the first half of paragraph 8(1) in both schedules because we believe that it could fly in the face of the Government's intention to introduce the New Zealand model.

To reiterate, that model is one in which draws tied to a product promotion do not have to be free to enter so long as the cost of entering them is no more than the cost of the product. That is because nearly every existing free route could be regarded as less convenient than the purchase route. For example, returning home to register an entry by telephone, or going online to do so, will almost always be less convenient for the consumer than simply purchasing the product on the shelf in front of them. If judges took the same view, it could well frustrate, or even negate, the Government's intention to adopt the New Zealand model in the United Kingdom.

Removing the words ''nor less convenient'' would make the paragraph far more workable in practice, while still allowing the Government to achieve their objectives. An additional benefit of the amendment is that it is technology-neutral because it does not attempt to rank different forms of communication, such as e-mail or phone, by degrees of convenience, because those may well vary according to the individual concerned.

The second half of the paragraph should refer to participating in the arrangement, not entering the lottery, because, as we noted during the debate on an earlier amendment, the Bill will redefine the meaning of ''lottery''. It is therefore more appropriate to speak in terms of an arrangement, not least for reasons of consistency.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Again, I cannot see real merit in any of the amendments in this group, which are designed to amend, to no good effect, schedules 1 and 2. Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 60 and 61 would strike out the provision under which a method of entry constitutes a requirement to pay if it is less convenient than entry with payment.

We know that pre-entry routes to competitions are a potential source of abuse. The organisers want people to pay because that is how they make their money, so they offer free-entry routes that are designed in such a way that they attract no one to use them. That mischief is dealt with by the words that the amendments would remove. For example, there could be an opportunity to pay a specific amount to enter a competition, or to deliver the entry by hand between 3 am and 3.15 am on a given day. For some people that might involve no extra cost, but it would

certainly be less convenient than putting a letter in the post. The amendments would allow such scams to flourish.

Amendment No. 69 would add three words that make no substantive change to the clause and are completely unnecessary. Sub-paragraph (1) refers expressly to participation in an arrangement. It is therefore self-evident that subsections (1)(b) and (2) of clause 11 are concerned with the same issue. Amendment. No. 62 would change the word ''lottery'' to the words ''participate in the arrangement''—an unnecessary change. I therefore ask the Committee not to accept it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Betting intermediary

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 123, in

clause 13, page 6, line 16, at end insert—

'either electronically or by any other means.'.

I stress that this is a probing amendment. Adding to the clause the words that I have suggested might be useful clarification, as the clause does not make it clear that electronic betting is specifically covered. The question that I had in mind was whether the definition of ''betting intermediary'' will apply to internet service providers. No doubt the Minister can clarify the point. Once again, I am not suggesting that my own drafting is perfect; I tabled the amendment as a way of seeking clarification. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman gave an explanation, because it was unclear exactly what he intended by the amendment. He is concerned to ensure that, in the definition of ''betting intermediary'' as it appears in the clause, it is explicit that the intermediary may operate either remotely, by the internet, or non-remotely, over the counter. Based on that, the amendment is entirely unnecessary. A key feature of the Bill is that gambling may be conducted by remote or non-remote means. That is set out specifically with regard to betting intermediaries, and all other types of operators, under part 5, which covers operating licences.

Clause 61 states that there will be a specific operating licence for betting intermediaries, and clause 63 requires such a licence, in common with every other sort of operating licence, to state whether it is a remote operating licence or not. That provision makes sense only if it is possible for a betting intermediary licence to be either a remote or a non-remote operating licence. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his probing amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the Minister. That provides the helpful, on-the-record clarification that I was seeking, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Lottery

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 53, in

clause 14, page 6, line 24, leave out 'simple.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 54, in

clause 14, page 6, line 29, leave out subsection (3).

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendment No. 54 is consequential to amendment No. 53, and would remove the whole subsection relating to complex lotteries. These are probing amendments to ask the Minister why the Bill makes a distinction between a simple lottery and a complex lottery. Subsection (3)(c) makes an addition to the definition in the case of a complex lottery, stating that

''the prizes are allocated by a series of processes''.

I am not sure what that means, and it is the only reason given for the difference between the two lotteries. Why do we have to make a distinction between simple lotteries and complex lotteries? Surely a lottery is a lottery.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The amendments are intended to simplify the definition of ''lottery'' in the context of the arrangements that need to be included. They would remove the distinction between a simple and a complex lottery. The distinction is made in the clause for a particular reason. Lotteries may involve a group of persons paying to enter and a prize being allocated among all those persons. Those lotteries are covered by the simple lottery definition in subsection (2). Lotteries may, however, also involve a number of processes. For example, a group of people may pay to enter and after the first draw there may be a further competition, or some further competitions, to determine the ultimate winner. Those further competitions may not rely wholly on chance. They could, for example, be tie-breakers. Such lotteries are caught by the complex lottery definition in subsection (3).

Deleting subsection (3) would therefore exclude from the definition of ''lottery'' those arrangements in which there is a draw based on chance and a subsequent competition. We want to ensure that such arrangements are regulated as lotteries under the Bill; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that. If we do not do that, we risk commercial enterprises exploiting that loophole. With that explanation, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

There is a feeling that clause 14(3) was included because of a legal case in 1967—the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Bradfute and Associates. If so, chance formed the first stage of an arrangement

and skill the final stage. That is pretty much what the Minister said. Will he confirm to the Committee that it was that case that brought about the Government's thinking? Is a case from 1967 relevant today?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The answers are no and no.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am glad to have got that on the record. One of the difficulties in interpreting the clause is that few competitions these days follow the pattern established in clause 14(3). As there are virtually no competitions of that ilk, there is some doubt about why it was relevant. The Government and the Minister seem to think that it is, in which case it is probably better that it is in than not in. On that basis, unless information contrary to that comes to my notice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in

clause 14, page 6, line 27, leave out 'members of a class' and insert 'persons who participate'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 51, in

clause 14, page 6, line 32, leave out 'members of a class' and insert 'persons who participate.'.

No. 52, in

clause 14, page 7, line 2, leave out 'members of the class' and insert 'persons who participate.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The issue is what the Government mean by ''members of a class''. I think that the wording ''persons who participate'' is much clearer. The amendment is a probing one to establish the definition of the words in the Bill. What do they really mean?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The amendments seek to simplify the definition of ''lottery'', but they would exclude arrangements that need to be included. The amendments change the reference to the group among whom prizes can be allocated from ''members of a class'' to ''persons who participate''.

A lottery may involve the distribution of a prize among persons who enter the lottery, but it may also involve the distribution of prizes among a smaller group of persons. That would be the case where, for example, there are a number of ''rounds'' in a lottery, each round working on the basis of elimination. We do not want to exclude that type of lottery from the regulation. The current wording is wide enough to achieve that aim and the proposed change risks not doing so. So, to future-proof the issue, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 14, in

clause 14, page 6, line 35, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Caborn.]

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 55, in

clause 14, page 7, line 4, leave out subsection (6).

The amendment would remove subsection (6) in its entirety. It is a probing amendment. There are, obviously, reasons for the subsection to be in the

Bill. We understand where the Government are coming from. The Lotteries Council is concerned about the issue and has no doubt raised it with Members on both sides of the Committee. The interpretation of the subsection is important.

The Government are trying to make a clear distinction between certain games or competitions that require the exercise of skill or judgment and so on, and those in which, to put it nicely, there is an element of scam involved: people are drawn on and of course it costs them more and more money. If we are to pass the legislation, there must be a clear-cut interpretation in law so that the two parties—those who run the competitions and the charities' lotteries—would be happy with the interpretation that is given. We are simply saying that the wording in the clause is not as clear as it needs to be.

The subsection states that, in certain circumstances, skill and judgment would be disregarded and the scheme treated as if it relied wholly on chance. Such a situation would arise if the competition prevented a significant proportion of participants from receiving a prize or prevented a significant proportion of people who might want to participate from doing so. At the heart of the question is the term ''a significant proportion''. Quite what that means is unclear. Presumably, a significant proportion is somewhere between, say, 1 per cent. and 99 per cent., but where exactly does the boundary lie?

Equally, will not the concept of the application of skill vary from individual to individual, and how will it be possible to judge whether a significant proportion of persons had been prevented from participating in the competition? Indeed, those running the competition would presumably need to know before it commenced how many potential participants would be prevented from winning. How could they possibly know that? Proving a negative is a difficult affair at the best of times, but that requirement, if it is the intention behind the wording of the Bill, would be nigh on impossible to meet. Clause 14(6) would therefore place a significant and unnecessary administrative and legal burden on many businesses.

Another potential problem thrown up by subsection (6) relates to competitions that may inadvertently succeed in attracting the same number of entrants, or indeed fewer entrants, than there are prizes available, which we are reliably informed can occasionally happen. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether such a competition would have to be regarded as a game of chance and, therefore, a lottery on the basis that the skill element did not prevent a significant proportion of participants from receiving a prize.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

This is an interesting area, and it has been around the course many times. Amendment No. 55 would remove the test in subsection (6) for determining whether a process relied wholly on chance. Although necessarily complicated—we all acknowledge that—subsection (6) is vital to prevent lotteries from being dressed up as prize competitions and thus avoiding regulation under the Bill. That is important in terms of protection of lotteries, and we

have seen quite a lot of it recently. That is why we must get this right, and we believe that we have.

Examples of such so-called competitions are those in which participants are required to answer questions, the answers to which are so easy that they are almost universally known. We want such competitions to be regulated as lotteries. If we were to accept the proposed amendment, which would delete the whole of subsection (6), such competitions would continue to be run without regulation.

Several people have criticised the words in the Bill but no one, including the eminent QCs to whom the hon. Gentleman referred earlier, has been able to propose anything better. The matter has been much debated. Indeed, it was raised by the scrutiny Committee. It asked us to include the test and we did. The measure is the result of the response to the scrutiny Committee and we believe that it gets the balance about right.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We share the Government's intention to prevent certain competitions from masquerading as lotteries, and I made that clear. However, a large cohort of people interpret the matter differently and are worried that because the proposal goes almost too far, it will catch legitimate competitions in the net. The Minister has not offered to go back to the drawing board.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that. We have been back to the drawing board four or five times because we are mindful of getting the provision right. The hon. Gentleman referred to the QC who gave evidence to the scrutiny Committee and there was a long debate in the Committee. We took that on board and believe that with that process of consultation and advice we have the best provision. The deletion of subsection (6) would not enhance the position or move the matter forward. We believe that we have got the balance about right in what has been a difficult exercise. We have taken advice and held consultation and we believe that the provision is about right.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I accept the Minister's point. I said that the amendment was a probing one. We did not like the wording of the subsection and, in suggesting that it should be deleted, we more or less invited the Government to come forward with something that makes a lot more sense to more people. If the Minister is saying that the Government have been round the houses and taken all the legal advice they could possibly take, we must take that on board. However, we reserve judgment and may revisit the matter later. I am happy with many of the Minister's responses and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 129, in

clause 14, page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (8).

I can be brief. This is a probing amendment. I referred earlier to my unhappiness about the number of times in this primary legislation the Government are taking powers to enable the Secretary of State to do

things by regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) rightly pointed out in a helpful intervention before lunch that the real problem is that we do not have much opportunity to debate statutory instruments that introduce regulations. Such debates as we have are very short and are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We cannot try to amend statutory instruments. They must be voted through or not and, with the Government's huge majority, they tend to be voted through.

I am used to Ministers standing up and saying in answer to any point that Conservative Members make, ''You're just against modernisation.'' There is a new phrase in this Committee—future-proofing. I suspect that we shall hear it a lot, including in the Minister's response to this amendment. He wants the Secretary of State to be able to respond by regulation and to say whether something is a lottery. My concern, to which I shall return when we debate the next amendment, is that we do not lose the opportunity for clarity in deciding whether something is a lottery.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman as he was coming to the end of his comments, but I hope that he will address an additional concern. He is rightly concerned about the increased number of powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State, but I hope he agrees with me that in this proposal it is sensible to future-proof in respect of any new type of product that may come along when there is uncertainty as to whether it fits into the current definition. That being the case, does he not find it odd that under subsection (8)(a) the Secretary of State will be given the power to amend definitions in respect of existing products as covered by the earlier part of the clause?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That intervention is helpful because the hon. Gentleman helps me to make my point. The problem is not just about future-proofing. The Secretary of State's powers go further and, as will be made clear in my next amendment, which would protect the valuable work by existing lotteries that support hospices and hospitals, I am trying to ensure some clarity to protect the worthwhile work already being done. I do not want to anticipate the next debate, however. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Minister must go a bit further than saying, as he has done, that the provision is just about future-proofing; he must justify why the Secretary of State will be able to redefine matters in primary legislation.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Subsection (8) gives the Secretary of State the powers to provide that specific arrangements are or are not lotteries for the purposes of the Act. It also gives the Secretary of State the powers to amend subsection (2). The powers are necessary to deal with future arrangements that we may want to regulate as lotteries but which have been crafted to fall outside the definition. If there were any doubts about how the new arrangements should be treated, subsection (8) will put the matter beyond doubt. If that subsection were removed, we would lose the ability to cater for and determine how to regulate the new types of lottery that might be developed. It would put us in an unsatisfactory position, and it would not allow us to

act with certainty. Even at this stage, we are unable to say what the nature of developments might be or when they might take place, but we need to cater for them should they occur. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister gave me the answer that I was expecting, but with respect I do not think that he dealt with my broader point, which was amplified by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). We all saw that the Minister read out his pre-prepared brief and did not really deal with our wider point.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Before the hon. Gentleman generously begs leave to withdraw his amendment, I hope that he will push the Minister to get an answer to the question why subsection (8)(a) needs to be in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will note that the Minister clearly repeated in his own words what I said in an intervention on the hon. Gentleman earlier. The Minister said the provision was necessary for new products that try to get around the definition in the Bill. I still fail to understand why, in regard to existing products, the existing definition needs to be changed and powers given to the Secretary to State to undertake the change almost at will in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I agree. The hon. Gentleman anticipates me, because I was about to say before withdrawing the amendment that—if he will forgive the phrase—I would aim over the head of the Minister. I hoped that his officials had been listening carefully to this debate, and we might find the Minister ready later to go a little wider than his brief and write to the hon. Member for Bath, to me and to other members of the Committee, dealing with the point that we have made.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Any action by the Secretary of State will be in the form of a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure, which will be open to scrutiny as it normally is. The hon. Gentleman is jumping around and looking at things that are not there. They are a figment of his vast imagination and they will have to stop there. We believe in all the safeguards and we believe that the power is right. We must ensure that the powers take account of any new products or changes to existing products. I do not know how the hon. Member for Bath interprets the provision.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister may not fully understand that the hon. Member for Bath and I are talking about the unusual way in which the Secretary of State's powers are specifically not constrained by the provisions in the earlier clauses of the Bill. That is quite unusual. We recognise the purpose of subsection (8)(b), but subsection (8)(a) basically says that the Secretary of State can in the future do whatever she likes by way of a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure and ignore everything in subsections (1) to (7) in the primary legislation. That is a pretty wide power, and is rather unusual.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister has further muddied the waters by saying that resolution will be through the affirmative procedure, because it shows that he does not understand parliamentary procedure. There are three types of order: one below the line, against which there is no

prayer; affirmative resolution; and negative resolution. If it is to be an affirmative resolution, that needs to be specified in the Bill.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has once again shown his mastery of the procedure of this place, for putting that on record. Perhaps it will put more pressure on the Minister, but it was, of course, the Minister who volunteered the words ''affirmative procedure''. Perhaps he does not fully understand the procedure.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Again, these are figments of the imagination. Things must catch up with the hon. Gentleman at this hour of the afternoon. It will be an affirmative resolution .

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We hear what the Minister says. No doubt, there is something—

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman should refer to clause 332(4).

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That is very helpful. We are certainly clarifying the matter as we go along. Perhaps I was right to aim over the Minister's head, as it were.

Following that debate, which was slightly more interesting than I expected when I tabled this probing amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 130, in

clause 14, page 7, line 20, at end add—

'(9) Nothing in this section shall have effect to alter the arrangements for those lotteries which existed prior to the coming into force of this Act which exist solely for the purpose of raising funds for local hospices or hospitals.'.

I touched briefly on this matter in the last debate, because the two matters are linked to some extent. We are going to hear a lot in our debates about grandfather rights; for example, when we consider machines in pubs or when we debate gaming machines, which is one of the big issues in the Bill. With this amendment, I seek some protection for work that I think Members on both sides of the House would recognise has usefully been done over many years by lotteries that raise money specifically for local hospices and hospitals. There may well be other good causes, but I did not want to widen the debate too much by trying to think of every local lottery that does good.

I thought that the amendment might attract some support, or even some further thought. I do not expect the Minister to accept it immediately, but I hope that he will at least say that he and his officials will take the idea away and see if something can be introduced on Report or beforehand, on Third Reading or in another place.

I think that we all agree that there are few better causes than the enormously important work that hospices have done in recent years as the hospice movement has grown. I have had the privilege of visiting a number of hospices and I know the importance of the work that they do. Some of the people who organise that valuable fund-raising for hospices are concerned that the changes to the lottery laws may threaten their lotteries. Can we have a provision that says that any lottery that is perfectly

valid under current law, and exists when the Bill comes into force, will be protected if it is not changed?

If people are able to carry on running such lotteries under the new legislation, we will keep that valuable source of fund-raising. I am sure that the Minister will accept the spirit of what I am trying to do, although my drafting may not be perfect. I hope that he will, at least, take the idea away. He may be able to reassure the Committee and me that all such hospice and hospital lotteries are completely protected, but I raise the matter because I have heard this concern expressed by several people. If the law on lotteries is being changed, the Bill should include a provision to ensure that everything that has been working well remains valid when the Bill is enacted.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

As the hon. Gentleman said, he and others have been asking for that reassurance for some time. The Government fully recognise that lotteries are a popular and important means of raising money for charities and other good causes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are fully aware of the valid contribution made by lotteries to the successful running of hospices.

For society lotteries, the Bill in essence replicates the provisions of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. Lotteries run solely for charitable purposes will be permitted. They can be run by licensed or small society lotteries, or by any person who is incidental to a non-commercial event, and promoted wholly for purposes other than for private gain.

Clause 14 is designed simply to define lotteries and to make provisions about payment to enter them and win prizes. It does not impose any additional limits on lotteries run by societies for charitable purposes. The powers in subsection (8) deal with the new arrangement that might be developed to circumvent the ban on large-scale commercial lotteries. The Government do not intend to use those powers to prevent lotteries run solely for charitable purposes from being promoted. Thus the Bill will continue to protect lotteries that are genuinely run to collect money for good causes such as hospices. I trust that that gives hon. Members the assurance that they seek.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The Minister used the phrase ''charitable purposes'' more than once. How broad is that term? I can think immediately of two fund-raising activities that are not charitable: one is the Labour party tote in Essex; the other is Colchester United lottery.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Let me give the definition, because this was widely discussed in a document published this February, which said that small society lotteries registered with local authorities will have their registration automatically converted into registration under the schedule. I am happy to repeat that: the definition also covers non-commercial societies. That is key.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister is very helpfully placing on the record his understanding of what will happen to the lotteries mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. He will recall that there was much debate

during consideration of the Licensing Bill some time ago about whether or not golf clubs would lose out. At that time, because of the uncertainty, he kindly produced a helpful document for all Members of Parliament to send to such clubs. I have received numerous representations about hospital and hospice lotteries, as, I suspect, have many others members of the Committee. Will the Minister agree to provide such a briefing note for us to use as a standard response to people who write to us?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The answer is yes, although I do not want a repeat of the golf club briefing note. I had to write to every ruddy golf club in this country because the matter was being whipped up.

As I said, the document was published in February 2004, and I will ask my officials to pull out the relevant bit and stick it on the web. We will make sure that it is there, because we do not want to start a lot of hares running. We want to ensure that such lotteries understand that it is business as usual.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

This has been a very helpful, albeit short, debate. The Minister's response to my points and to the very helpful points made by the hon. Members for Colchester (Bob Russell) and for Bath has been useful.

I have noticed that this Minister's Department—like Departments in general—seems to have adopted the policy that it is enough to put something on its website. I am not criticising the idea of putting information on the website, but I return to the request made by the hon. Member for Bath: could all hon. Members have a hard copy of whatever the Minister's officials will produce, because that is much easier for us than saying to hospice organisers throughout the country, ''You have got to look at the Department's website?'' Not all small hospices will necessarily be run by someone with the same IT capability as the Minister and his officials. Sometimes it is too easily forgotten by Departments that not everyone uses the internet in the way that Government officials do.

What the Minister has said is enormously helpful; I look forward to receiving the document, and I hope that it is a hard copy sent in the post to all hon. Members. There are certainly quite a few Government Members who say that they want hard copies of documents rather than having everything on the internet. A lot of our constituents feel that way, too. I understand that the Minister is saying that all existing lotteries will be protected; that is enormously helpful and will provide a lot of reassurance.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I was just thinking that I might send copies out with my Christmas cards. I do not want to go over the hon. Gentleman's head, but a copy was put in the Library in February. I hope that, besides visiting our website—a very good website—he will visit the Library, and he will get a double whammy.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I understand entirely.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I was only joking.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I know. What was produced in February—the serious part of the Minister's

response—is not what the Minister is talking about now, which is a response to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Bath. I am talking about something new. It would be helpful to have the hard copy because it would enable us to reassure people—[Interruption.] I am grateful that the Minister is confirming that. Having received helpful answers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 15 - Betting and gaming

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 91, in

clause 15, page 7, line 30, at end insert

'which shall include forecast competitions and fantasy football competitions.'.

The amendment is designed to seek clarification that the definition includes forecast and fantasy football competitions.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The addition of forecast and fantasy football competitions by the amendment is unnecessary. Such competitions would ordinarily be treated as betting under the Bill because they fall under clause 11. Clause 15 deals with situations where a gambling transaction can be described as betting and gaming. It applies to all forms of betting. Where forecast or fantasy football competitions can be said to be gaming as well as betting, clause 15 will deal with the overlap without the need for the additional words in the amendment. As with any other overlap situation under clause 15, where there is an overlap, the transaction shall be treated as gaming. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.