| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I certainly agree that time is used as a weapon in the other place. In the proposals that we make, we wish in no way to reduce the time that it takes properly and reasonably to scrutinise a Bill. The proposal seeks to deal with the three areas that I have identified. It would make the Chamber more efficient, and in no way restricted, in dealing with those issues.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord concede that one of the problems of legislation these days is its sheer volume and complexity and that the proper scrutiny of voluminous and complex legislation necessarily takes more time? Would he also be so good as to give us another example of unreasonably long consideration here, besides that of the Animal Health Bill?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree entirely with the first proposition. As Bills become more complex, they need more time to be considered. The Company Law Reform Bill is a good example of a Bill that takes considerable time to scrutinise. That is why the proposal focuses on what is a reasonable time. The longer and more complex the Bill, the longer it will take to scrutinise.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord say one way or the other whether the
22 Jun 2006 : Column 884
Government want to legislate on the 60-day limit or whether it is an aspiration? It occurs to me that there could be priorities and emergencies, even under the most splendid and perfect business management, which mean that legislation has to be delayed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I could not agree more. Any scheme that involves setting a time limit must be flexible for precisely the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Shutt of Greetland and Lord Phillips. In our manifesto, we said that we wanted to legislate on this, but we said in our evidence to the Joint Committee what I say today: if there is a way of achieving this end by other means, we will certainly listen.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I think that we all agree that repetition is boring, and we are glad that the Government are now apparently postponing or shelving this proposal. However, I cannot understand from the noble and learned Lord why the proposition was ever made in the first place. The Opposition have no interest in pursuing Bills beyond a reasonable time. We are not interested in that procedure at all; indeed, it has never been our practice. As the noble and learned Lord and others have recognised, Bills are often delayed as a result of a vast range of government amendments and vast complexity, or are deliberately shelved by government business managers. What is the point of removing flexibility? Why not let the whole matter drop completely?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think that we want to remove flexibility, but, with great respect to the noble Lord, he did not deal remotely with the problem raised by his Leader, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He did not deal at all with the position on the Animal Health Bill. As part of his Front Bench, he supported a dilatory Motion in respect of a government Bill that could have been amended if this House had thought that there was something wrong with it. No consideration was given to it for 11 months, so the noble Lord does not deal with that point. Nor does he deal with the point about government Bills being delayed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor realise that his original Answer will give satisfaction in so far as he said that the Government did not intend to include any limitation? Does he not agree that, if the Government were to do that, it would introduce a guillotine in your Lordships' House? For all the reasons that have been given in the questions, that would be highly undesirable.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is not remotely sought to introduce a guillotine. The debate, I think, is one in which we could engage constructively. I have identified the three specific sorts of problem that we seek to deal with. Everyone in this place should think about how we deal with such problems. That is what we are trying to do on a cross-party basis.
22 Jun 2006 : Column 885
Internet Gambling
11.41 am
Viscount Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to combat any increase in gambling addictions caused by internet gambling.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government recognise that internet gambling carries potential risks, which existing legislation cannot adequately address. The Gambling Act 2005 makes provision to regulate British-based internet gambling operators. The new regime will include specific licence conditions on social responsibility, including measures to minimise addiction.
Regulating remote gambling is a global challenge, so the Government have also called the first ever international summit on it. We will use that forum to explore the development of minimum international standards for remote gambling regulation.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Are we not in somewhat uncharted territory on knowing exactly the social damage done by addiction to gambling when set against today's opportunities and changing public attitudes? As he has implied, it is difficult to deal with internet gambling satisfactorily. Does he agree that as a first step it may be useful to look at the advertising of internet gambling, which in some way may throw light on the problems that we will face?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and his constructive suggestion. We could limit advertising on the London Underground, for instance, by internet companies based in Britain. We have other means of regulating companies based in Europe. If they are not based in Europe, we want to operate advertising restrictions, and we are looking at ways to implement them.
Lord Maxton: My Lords, quite rightly, we are concerned about the possibility of people becoming addicted to internet gambling, but will the Government assure us that they believe that the benefits that the internet generally provide far outweigh any problems from gambling? Can the Minister further assure us that we will not seek to regulate the internet to the point where we begin to lose the benefits of it?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not think that it is practicable to regulate the internet, even if that were an aspiration. Of course, my noble friend is right: the internet provides the widest range of free information to which citizens have ever had access. But certain socially undesirable practices can be carried out on the internet, and certain forms of the promotion of gambling still require regulation where
22 Jun 2006 : Column 886
we are able to do so. That is why we are talking in international terms about limited, necessary regulation in a specific area.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, is not this largely the fault of the Government? In 2003, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that it wished to see Britain become a world leader in online gambling, and in August last year the Minister wrote to me saying that that remained the Government's view. Is that not a totally irresponsible attitude to take, particularly on the morning when the Consumer Credit Counselling Service has reported that extreme debt is getting worse by the day? We are fighting against poverty and social disadvantage and trying to protect the vulnerable. Is it not time that the Government began to discourage rather than encourage online and other gambling?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, debt is a wide-ranging matter to which gambling contributes a small amount. Only a limited number of addicted gamblers get into difficulty. However, on the more general point, the issue is straightforward: if we are not prominent in encouraging online gambling in this country, it will be located elsewhere, making it more difficult for us effectively to regulate socially responsible gambling. It is not a question of us standing by and doing nothing because doing nothing would produce the worst of all worlds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am president of GamCare, the charity that supports those who have problems with gambling. Does not the Minister agree that there has been a certain amount of misrepresentation of the alleged increase in problem gambling referred to in the Question? Some of that arises from an increase in the number of calls made to the GamCare helpline and demands for counselling. Is it not much more likely that the increase in the number of calls being received by GamCare arises from the fact that the charity is now much better known? It is advertised on every fruit machine in the country, and its services are more widely appreciated.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |