Beta This is a new service and it is still being tested. Tell us about a problem.

Parliament's record since 1997: debates, questions, statements, votes, bills, committees and members' interests

Where MPs Stand

Sourced briefings on the record of Parliament

Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) bill

Public Bill Committee, 12 November 2013.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

Before we begin, I have a few announcements. Please will hon. Members ensure that electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent during Committee sittings? As a general rule, my fellow Chair and I do not intend to select starred amendments, which are those that were not tabled with adequate notice. The required notice period for a Public Bill Committee amendment is three working days, so amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on the following Tuesday. This Thursday is therefore the deadline for amendments for the first day of line-by-line consideration of the Bill on Tuesday next week. The Public Bill Office will accept amendments until 4.30 pm, notwithstanding the recess.

Not everyone is familiar with the process of taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees, so it may be of help if I briefly explain the procedure. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion, on which debate is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence and then a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of oral evidence, which I hope we can take formally. Assuming that the second of those motions has been agreed to, the Committee will then sit in private, at which point non-members of the Committee will be asked to leave the room for a short while. Once the Committee has deliberated in private, the witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and oral evidence will begin.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 12 November) meet—

(a) at 2.30 pm on Tuesday 12 November;

(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 November;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Tuesday 12 November in accordance with the following Table:

TABLE

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

While the Opposition support the programme motion, I want to put on the record our disappointment at the short time that we had to call witnesses to give evidence. When we discussed the motion last night, it was pointed out that the Government had made a drafting error. We accept that it was an error, but its unfortunate consequence was that we had only one week’s notice to call witnesses, because we were under the impression that there was to be no oral evidence, which has meant that some of our witnesses have not been able to make it here with such short notice.

Helen Grant (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Mr Williams, it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship today. I will briefly respond to the shadow Minister’s remarks. I do not accept what he says and I want to set out the chronology. I am surprised that he has indicated that he has not had enough time to prepare the list of witnesses and to get everyone he wanted here.

The Bill has existed in the form that the Committee will consider today since May 2013. It was also subject to extensive pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. Unofficial conversations then took place between the Government Whip and Opposition Whip on Wednesday 30 October when it was agreed that there would be two evidence sittings and two scrutiny sittings. That was nearly two weeks prior to today’s hearing, so I suggest that the shadow Minister was on notice then that oral evidence was to be heard.

At Second Reading, which was on 5 November, the official Opposition chose not to vote against the programme motion or the motion to extend the Committee when the error was discovered. That is nothing to do with the time element for getting witnesses to today’s sitting and the two should not be conflated. The Opposition have had plenty of time to voice concerns about the timings and it is a shame that the issue was raised with me for the first time last night.

Notwithstanding that, I note that we shall be hearing from a very, very impressive list of witnesses today. In the knowledge that those who were unable to attend will be able to submit written evidence, and considering the extensive pre-legislative scrutiny, I hope the hon. Gentleman does not intend to delay this short but important and much needed Bill any further.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

My only comment on the chronology that the Minister read out is about the omission of the fact that the error in the drafting was not corrected until 5 November. People were left with the impression that there was no evidence session, which is why some people found it difficult to be here at short notice. The Opposition were not slow in drawing up our list of witnesses—we responded almost immediately once we were aware that we needed to—but unfortunately, in the short time that was left because of the confusion, they were not able to re-arrange their diaries to be here. That is a shame. Given that it has taken four years since my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South initiated the consultation on this subject when he was sports Minister, it is disappointing that we now seem to be taking undue haste when we could have been taking evidence from experts who would have better informed the Committee about the Bill.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.

Written evidence to be reported to the House

GB 01 British Horseracing Authority

GB 02 Betfair

GB 03 English Cricket Board

GB 04 Remote Gambling Association

GB 05 Sports Betting Group

GB 06 The Rank Group

GB 07 National Casino Forum

GB 08 Sports Rights Owners Coalition (SROC)

Examination of Witnesses

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

Good morning and welcome to the Committee. We will now hear oral evidence from the Remote Gambling Association, the Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association and the Sports Rights Owners Coalition. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has just agreed. I will have to interrupt mid-sentence if a session is continuing at its scheduled finish time. Members should declare any interest before the start of each panel to which that interest is relevant. May I ask the first witnesses to introduce themselves?

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

Thank you, and welcome to the Committee.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

May I ask witnesses to speak up? I am afraid that the acoustics are not great at this end of the room, so I would appreciate it if you could speak up a little.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

We have to move on, so very briefly, Mr Efford.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

You said it was improbable that there were so few—

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

We have to move on.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

This will have to be the last question, as we finish at 10.15 am.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of this panel. I thank you on behalf of the Committee.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

For the record, please will the new panel introduce themselves?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I did not say “all”; I said “primarily”.

Helen Grant (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Thank you.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I was arguing that if you were to get your way and be allowed to provide online services, that would be justifiable only if the online tax rate was the same as the offline tax rate overall.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

If hon. Members have no further questions for the witnesses, I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee. The Committee will sit again to take further evidence on the Bill at 2.30 this afternoon, not 2 pm.

- Examination of Witnesses

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

We will now hear oral evidence from the Salvation Army, Quaker Action on Alcohol and Drugs, Professor Jim Orford and CARE.

Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I should like to remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For the record, would the new witnesses please introduce themselves to the Committee?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt. Let me make it clear that members of the public are not allowed to take photographs in here.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am sorry to interrupt, but we are very close to having to throw you out. The Minister wants to ask a question.

Helen Grant (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I have one quick question to all of you. It has been very interesting to hear what you all have had to say. I have been listening very carefully. Do you believe that consistency of regulation is important in strengthening player protection in this country?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

We might as well go down the panel.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of this panel. I thank you on behalf of the Committee. We now move on to hear oral evidence from the Financial Conduct Authority.

Examination of Witnesses

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Welcome. For the record, please could the new panel introduce themselves to the Committee and state their positions.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

So the answer is none.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Yes, it would be very helpful.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I encourage members of the Committee, with Mr Efford’s permission, to come in on a particular point if they want to do so. That would be good.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Why has the FCA not just adopted that condition, which would bring in uniformity across the whole of the sports gambling industry?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I think the Minister wants to come in on this.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

One?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of this panel, and I thank it on behalf of the Committee. We will now hear oral evidence from the Gambling Commission and the Minister.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Good afternoon. I do not know whether we have saved the best for last, but we will find out. For the record, will the new panel introduce themselves to the Committee?

Graeme Morrice (Labour, Livingston)

I want initially to ask the Minister about some of the responses we heard earlier this afternoon from our witnesses, particularly the first set. As you know, Mr Bone, I was not around for much of this morning’s sitting as I was in Westminster Hall with you, so I was not able to hear what the witnesses from the industry said, but I will obviously read the transcript in due course. It was certainly suggested by at least one of the earlier witnesses this afternoon that the Bill lacks teeth in its enforcement measures. It was also suggested that the gambling code was not strong enough and that proposals for improving that did not go far enough. It was also suggested that the advertising code could be improved to protect, in particular, vulnerable consumers, those with gambling problems, young people and children. How would you respond to those comments?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

In the Second Reading debate, we had the opportunity to make some comments. May I read into your responses what your line of thought is? I hope that I am doing it correctly. First, you said that you would not rule out ISP and financial transaction blocking. Secondly, you mentioned the fact that I had referred to the need for a one-stop shop approach. If it is appropriate to ask you at this time, as I hope it is, what are your thoughts on those two proposals for improving the legislation? I believe, from the presentations that we had from the group this afternoon and the industry this morning, that there is an understanding for change and an understanding of the need to have better teeth. Do not think of this as a criticism, because it is not. If the situation can be improved, that is good for everyone. What is your thinking?

Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Yes.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I will call Angie Bray next, but Mr Efford is being very patient and time is getting on.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Mr Morris has been very patient and wants to say something. I will come back to you, Mr Efford.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Mr Farrelly wants to come in on the levy.

Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

My question is not on the levy.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

There is no express intention for it to have bookmakers in the high street.

David Morris (Conservative, Morecambe and Lunesdale)

I stand corrected. It is a 50-year-old Act. My maths is not that good today.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I have absolutely no views on anything in this Chair.

Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

The level of tax and therefore the capture in the white market rather than the growing black market.

Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Have you made any representations over tax?

Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

What are the differences?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. I do not think that we are on the Bill at the moment, Mr Farrelly; I think we have moved away somewhat.

Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

We are on relevant ground.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I think Mr Efford should have the last say.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

It is entirely up to you, Mr Efford, but Mr Farrelly indicates that he wants to ask a very short question.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am afraid that brings us to the end of the extra time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of these witnesses. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses very much. The Committee will sit again for line-by-line consideration of the Bill next Tuesday.