Gambling Bill

Public Bill Committee, 2 December 2004.

Standing Committee B

Gambling Bill

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we commence this morning's business, I apologise on behalf of the House authorities for the fact that we have been moved without consultation into a Room that I regard as wholly unsuitable for our purposes. I shall make appropriate representations to the authorities. If that decision has inconvenienced Members who have gone to the wrong Room—it looks as though it may have done so—I extend my apologies to them as well, but we are required to commence our business in a timely fashion at 9.30 am.

Clause 84 - Remote operating licence

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 36, line 29, leave out 'condition that' and insert 'conditions that—

(a)'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 44, in clause 84, page 36, line 31, at end insert

', and

(b) there must be no link between—

(i) any remote communication used for the provision of remote gambling, and

(ii) the remote provision of pornography or any other unsolicited services such as ''pop-ups''.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

These amendments are straightforward. We had an earlier discussion about access to internet sites containing pornography. The amendments seek to try to prevent as best we can—I accept that such things are extremely difficult to do—combined access to internet gambling and the provision of pornography or other unsolicited services such as pop-ups.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman seeks to impose the prohibition of links with pornography on pop-ups in licensing conditions for remote operators. The regulation of pornography is not in the remit in the Bill. Legislation is in place to address the issues arising from both remote and non-remote forms of communications. For example, the Obscene Publications Act 1959 applies equally to material published on the internet as to that published in a magazine. There are already many protections in place, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85 - Casino operating licence

Clause 86 - Bingo operating licence

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 236A, in page 38, line 4, at end insert 'or a roll over'.

I hope that I am being helpful to the Minister. It appears that the phrase ''or a rollover'' is used in various similar places in the Bill but it is not used in the clause. I assume that that is an oversight. If there is some other reason, I look forward to hearing it.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I fully understand the intention of amendment No. 236A concerning bingo roll-overs and I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling it. The Government have said for some time that we agree with the Budd recommendation that roll-overs should be permitted for bingo. That is what we want the clause to achieve.

I accept that the position is not self-evident from the clause, so I would like the opportunity to consider the matter further with my officials. If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to withdraw his amendment, I will undertake to consider the clause further and propose amendments that put the issue beyond doubt. I ask for more time because there is a definition of ''rollover'' in relation to lotteries in clause 240 and I would like to ensure that any changes proposed to this clause are not confused with that. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I note, Mr. Gale, that from a sedentary position, you showed some uncertainty as to whether that response entitled me to a postcard to Mrs. Foster. I am clear that it entitles me not just to a postcard but to a very large one or, as the Minister intimated, to two postcards. With the assurances that the Government will consider the issue and return to it later, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87 - General betting operating licence

Clause 88 - Pool betting operating licence

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Will the Minister expand on what this clause involves? Greyhound track operators have expressed their concern about how the pool betting operating licence will impact on what they already do. As the Minister knows, every greyhound track holds an exclusive right to offer pool betting on racing at the track. Pool bets on greyhound racing must be struck on course, although it is legal for two or more courses to co-mingle the pool. A punter is allowed to bet from a stadium into pools at another stadium—a form of betting known as inter-track.

For the past two to three years, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Customs and Excise have given greyhound racing permission to trial online, and therefore off course, betting into on-course pools, on the condition that the relevant rate of duty is paid on punters' stakes before that money is passed to the on-course pools. It has been indicated that as part of the changes to the gaming regulations during the reform of the gambling law, greyhound tracks will be officially able to accept bets into their pools from off-course punters. In doing so, however, do we not encounter the problem whereby the right to run off-course pools on greyhound races should therefore be available to anyone with the relevant operators licence?

That situation will expand the whole operation, and greyhound operators are worried because pool betting revenues are responsible for the major proportion of any stadium's income. Although the promoters welcome the opportunity to take bets from off-course, the benefits and much more will be lost if the change is accompanied by the opening up of the right to accept greyhound pool bets. The individual managers to whom I have spoken cannot see how the Tote can be protected with an exclusive seven-year licence following its sale to a horse racing trust, yet greyhound racing pools can be exposed to a market without any time to establish themselves in relation to any off-course to on-course operations.

The Committee can see that the threat from any future competition would be sufficient to encourage promoters, prior to any introduction of that competition, to re-evaluate their deductions from the pool in relation to a strong and loyal customer base. It is necessary for survival. The situation is quite clear: as I understand it, there is not enough time to allow the greyhound pools to establish themselves against any immediate competition that opens up this whole area and damages greyhound racing.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

As the hon. Gentleman said, we are allowing the Tote at greyhound races to accept off-course betting. We ought to reflect on what he has said, however, and even though I request that the clause stand part of the Bill, I can assure him that we will answer his questions fully and, if necessary, table amendments. He has made several points that are worthy of further evaluation, and I would like to reflect on them and come back to him at a later stage.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I thank the Minister for his immediate grasp of that potentially worrying situation, and I look forward to what will be an even longer Report stage than we thought originally.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89 - Horse-race pool betting operating licence

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 289, in page 40, line 2, at end insert—

'(4A) A condition of a pool betting operating licence to which this section applies (whether attached by virtue of section 71, 73 or 74) may make provision regulating or restricting the activities of persons authorised under subsection (2).'.

This is a technical amendment. The horse-race pool betting operating licence, like the football pools operating licence, allows the licence holder to authorise others to provide pool betting. However, conditions may be attached to the football pools operating licence that regulate or restrict the activities carried out by the authorised person. In its current form, the Bill does not permit such conditions to be attached to the horse-race pool betting licence—an anomaly that must be corrected in order to give the same safeguards to both licences.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 89, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90 - Gaming machine technical operating licence

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 237A, in page 40, line 12, at end insert

'provided that such standards shall be included in the statement set out in section 22(1) and shall be not more onerous than is reasonably required to achieve the licensing objectives and shall distinguish between categories of machines as described in Part 10.'.

The explanatory notes to the clause are particularly helpful. They state:

''Without prejudice to other condition-making powers, the Commission may establish, or authorise others to establish on its behalf, standards in respect of systems and processes used for the manufacture, supply, installation, adaptation, maintenance or repair of a gaming machine. These standards must be consistent with the rules concerning gaming machines contained in part 10.''

They continue:

''The Commission can enforce those standards through licence conditions including the testing of the operator's systems on application and from time to time.''

The amendment is clear in its wording. The Committee will be aware that section 22(1) states:

''The Commission shall prepare a statement setting out the principles to be applied by it in exercising its functions under this Act.''

Clearly, there will be wide testing arrangements and the industry is conscious that it has well tried testing regimes for machines other than those in category A and B2. The existing system has been developed over many years and is believed to operate very effectively. A new regime could seriously damage innovation and the ability of manufacturers to meet consumer demand for new games. Experience from other countries, such as the Netherlands, shows that an onerous and disproportionate regime can prevent markets developments, and clearly the Committee would wish to ensure that that was avoided.

The amendment is designed to seek assurance that the new testing regime will be built on the successful system already championed by the Gaming Board and the industry. Therefore, it will not be too onerous or involve disproportionate cost.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

My reply will require only a small card to Mrs. Foster. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to improve the clause. I agree that it is important for all standards set by the gambling commission to be objective and for them to be widely known. I hope that I can reassure him that the amendment will not be needed.

When the commission establishes standards under the clause, it is bound to publish them. If it does not, it will be impossible for the industry to comply. It is also likely that the commission will wish to consult on the matter and it may be that the publication will form part of a licensing policy issued under clause 22. However, we do not want to tie the commission to issuing standards under that clause because not all standards will require full consultation. Where they are technical in nature, it is likely that few sectors of the industry will be interested in their content.

The clause achieves what is needed to allow the commission to work effectively. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the commission cannot, and should not, set standards that did something other than pursue the licensing objectives, and it would be outside the scope of its powers to do so.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that the manufacturing standards might confuse, or indeed undermine, the categorisation of machines under part 10. However, those standards relate to the technical specifications of the machines, such as how the random number generator is sealed in the unit to prevent tampering and what stake-acceptance technology is used. Clearly, standards that related to a particular type of machine would say so, but in many cases, they will apply to all machines, no matter what the stake or prize limit.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am most grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply, and not least for his clear assurance that the testing regime will be no more onerous than is reasonably required to achieve the licensing objectives; otherwise, as he made clear, the commission would be going outside its remit. I entirely accept that it would be inappropriate to have full consultation on some small aspects and that it would therefore be difficult to include them all in the clause 22(1) statement. Given the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92 - Mandatory Conditions of lottery operating licence

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 302, in clause 92, page 42, line 11, after 'ticket', insert 'or chance'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 303, in clause 92, page 42, line 12, after 'ticket', insert 'or chance'.

No. 304, in clause 92, page 42, line 17, leave out subsections (5) and (6).

No. 305, in clause 92, page 42, line 32, leave out 'sixth' and insert 'fourth'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

This, for us, is an important group of amendments. It relates to problems that have been drawn to my attention, particularly by a number of hospices that run so-called ticketless lotteries as a fundraising activity. The hospices are deeply concerned that the Bill will undermine their ability to operate ticketless lotteries and will place significant additional administrative burdens on them, making it difficult to continue to raise the sums that they do.

The Committee will be aware that many hospices do incredible work with relatively little direct Government support. They therefore rely heavily on their own fundraising activities, and anything that undermines their ability to raise funds could undermine their work. There is genuine concern that the Bill may tie many ticketless lotteries run by hospices in a great deal of red tape, and the issue would affect at least 100 membership lotteries.

Section 11(2) in part 11 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 allows membership lotteries to sell a ''ticket or chance'', but clause 92(5) of the Bill refers only to ''a ticket'', which, as a mandatory requirement, ''must be a document''. The provision throws into doubt the system for many of the membership lotteries such as that run by Ty Hafan children's hospice in Wales, under which they supply a letter and a receipt confirming entry into the lottery, but do not supply a ticket each and every week for which individuals pledge to enter the lottery. Ty Hafan has said that if the Bill is passed in its current form

''the future viability of the hospice is threatened''.

That is how serious it thinks the Bill's implications might be. Many membership lotteries that have contacted me share that concern and believe that the Bill will force them to change their administrative arrangements significantly.

The Bill will therefore create a problem, because it will add to the administrative costs of society lotteries. It would lead to hospice managers and their staff being treated as if they were bureaucrats rather than carers for the terminally ill, and it suggests that society lotteries would be forced to act more as if they were commercial—it would remove the assumption of trust. The matter was raised in a recent industry liaison group by the National Lottery Commission, which reported that the DCMS acknowledged that it could be a problem, but so far the Government have failed to draft an amendment. Our amendments would reinstate the concept of buying a chance in a lottery. Amendments Nos. 302 and 303 are important in that regard, and, depending on the Minister's response, we might be inclined to vote on the issue.

Amendment No. 304 is merely a probing amendment, seeking clarification of what the Minister means by ''a document'', and of how the requirements in subsections (5) and (6) will affect society lotteries. It is important for the Minister to clarify whether a one-off letter will be sufficient documentation to prove entry into society lotteries, and to place on the record that the Bill will allow society lotteries to continue to do their excellent work without any extra burdens being placed on them.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter of ticketless lotteries; representatives of the Welsh hospice lottery have been in touch with my officials on that very subject. The question requires further thought because, naturally, we do not want to subject any hospice lottery to the cost and inconvenience of unnecessarily printing many thousands of tickets on a weekly basis. That would be stupid and we are considering ways to avoid it. In particular, we are exploring with parliamentary counsel the possibility that one letter or ticket may be used for multiple entry into a lottery.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the Minister confirm that what he is saying about hospice lotteries would apply to any lotteries run on the same basis by a whole variety of sporting organisations?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is right. I am referring to hospice lotteries because the Welsh hospice lottery raised the issue with us, but the general principle will apply.

We are fully aware of the important contributions that lotteries make to the successful running of hospices and the other charities that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned. We recognise that lotteries are a popular way of raising money for charities and good causes. We want to ensure that hospices can be certain that they will continue to benefit from lottery funding. The Bill will protect genuine charity lotteries and ensure that they can continue to collect money for good causes.

The word ''document'' means paper and electronic entries of whatever type or format. We will clear that up in time, and in light of what I have said and our consultation with the counsel, we will address the points raised by the hon. Member for Bath and clarify the situation.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The problem is not with the documentation—the Minister has explained how that may be covered—but with the fact that each time a lottery is run, a separate ticket must be issued. If counsel could find a way for one document to provide the number for a series of draws, the problem would be solved.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

We are looking at that issue. The object of the exercise is to make it as simple as possible for charities to run such lotteries, but equally, to provide the protection covered in clause 92(5). We will consult counsel. We have heard what has been said, and we will try to respond positively to allay the fears of the charities that have made representations to us.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Without seeming too boastful, I am grateful that after less than half an hour I have been promised three postcards in a row. I am extremely grateful to the Minister; it is clear that he has understood the problems. I am delighted that he is willing to find a way forward and that the Government want to ensure that an additional burden is not placed on the charity lotteries. Given his assurance that he will come back to us with amendments to solve the problem, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93 - Annual fee

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I beg to move amendment No. 238A, in clause 93, page 43, line 16, at end insert

'provided that such circumstances are relevant to the activity licensed'.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern; perhaps I can provide some reassurance. The requirement for fees to take account of different circumstances is necessary, as they should reflect the inspection and monitoring costs involved in different parts of the industry. That is central to the way in which such fees are calculated across the range of Government services in order to recover the costs involved. The clause is not an attempt to discriminate; rather, we wish to ensure that different sectors pay different and appropriate fees for the regulation of their parts of the gambling industry. I do not think that the amendment adds anything, so I would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I am grateful for the Minister's response. His interpretation will be on the record for all time. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Because of the fast-moving nature of our proceedings, my technique is to call the number of each clause as we work through them. If any Committee member wishes to speak to a particular clause, it would be helpful to the Chair if that could be indicated as we proceed. I shall then ensure that every clause that needs to be debated is debated.

Clauses 94 to 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. This is a small Room and voices carry. I would ask those on both sides of the Committee to restrain their conversations or to have them outside. Even if nobody else wishes to hear the debate, the Chairman most certainly does.

Clause 97 - Application to vary licence

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 240, in clause 97, page 45, line 20, at end insert

', unless the operating licence is transferred pursuant to subsection (7) below'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 239, in clause 97, page 45, line 43, at end add—

'(7) The Commission shall make a statement regarding the circumstances under which an operating licence may be transferred.'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful, Mr. Gale, and I am sure that you will find this debate particularly scintillating and fascinating, because it refers to changes in licence agreements. The explanatory notes are, as ever, inordinately helpful. They tell us:

''Holders of operating licences may, for their own commercial reasons, wish to vary the gambling facilities that they provide, whether that is to cease carrying out an activity, or to start a new activity. Equally, they may wish to vary an individual condition that has been attached to their licence. In such circumstances, the holder of an operating licence will need to apply to the Commission to vary the terms of the licence.''

That is what the clause is all about. However, interestingly, the explanatory notes go on to state:

''An application for variation cannot be used to transfer an operating licence to another person. Operating licences are non-transferable.''

That is where the amendments come in.

It is clear that an operating licence cannot currently be transferred and that provision should be made to effect such a transfer, if deemed necessary. A company that holds an operating licence could undergo corporate restructuring, which would require it to hold its assets with an operational function in one corporate identity. Equally, a company may wish to reorganise its structure for the purposes of consolidation or disposal, so that the entity holding an operating licence would wish to transfer the licence to another related or associated company within the corporate group.

Such flexibility is certainly not unusual, and it is usually contemplated in corporate contracts and corporate finance. It would be unreasonable not to permit such a transfer if the commission was satisfied that the transferee was an appropriate holder of the licence. Clauses 95 and 96 provide for a change of control of the holder of an operating licence, and the amendment is consistent with the approach set out in the provisions on change of control.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Clause 95 already deals with corporate control. Transfer is different from corporate control, so the amendment does not address the issue.

Operating licences are central to the new system of regulation and will involve stringent checks on the suitability of the operator to carry out the gambling activities for which they seek a licence. The commission will have to satisfy itself as to the integrity of the applicant or relevant persons, and their competence and financial circumstances. All that must take place before the licence is issued, which is vital if we are to provide a well-regulated industry that is free from crime. If the operator of a gambling business changes, stringent checks should clearly take place afresh on the new proposed operator. For those reasons, I cannot agree that we should provide for circumstances in which an operating licence can be transferred. It seems right that any operator should go through the same application procedure as any operator of a new gambling business. I reiterate that corporate control is dealt with in clause 95, and clause 97 is about licensing.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 98 to 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 - Power to limit duration

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 290, in clause 104, page 48, line 8, leave out 'and'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 291.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The clause does not provide any express powers to the commission to revoke a determination that an operating licence should be of limited duration. Amendments Nos. 290 and 291 simply make it clear that the commission has those powers. That was always the policy intention, but without the amendments, the clause does not make that clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 291, in clause 104, page 48, line 10, at end insert

', and

( ) may revoke a determination under subsection (1) (in which case the determination shall cease to have effect in relation to licences already issued).'. —[Mr. Caborn]

Clause 104, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105 - Renewal of licence

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 242, in clause 105, page 49, line 9, at end add—

'(9) The Commission shall make a statement regarding the circumstances under which failure to act within the time specified for renewal through inadvertence, impossibility, clerical error, or other relevant circumstance may be remedied by the extension of time.'.

There is no provision in the Bill covering failure to renew owing to clerical error. The commission may determine that an operating licence will be for a specified period, and such determination may give effect to the necessity for renewal of the licence. There are specific time limits for renewal, and the commission should surely have the ability to address the situation when an application for renewal is not received or processed because of administrative fault. Subsection (3) specifies the time within which an application for renewal may be made and subsection (8) states that

''The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (3)''

with a different time. The amendment would allow, in exceptional circumstances, an extension of the time during which the application for renewal must be made.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The amendment, which would allow the period during which renewal of an operating licence can take place to be extended if there were an oversight or clerical error, is well intentioned, but I am afraid that it would have consequences. Because of that, I regret that I cannot support it. The Government want a world-class system of regulation in the UK that is crime free and which protects the public, and I know that all parties support that. A valid operating licence is central to that system, and if operators do not have a valid operating licence, they should not be allowed to carry on a gambling business in the UK.

The clause already provides for an operator to apply for renewal up to three months before a licence expires, and he must do so at least one month before expiry to ensure that the commission has time to renew it. That provides more than an adequate safeguard for the type of inadvertent or clerical error that the amendment seeks to address. For that reason, I cannot accept it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I was listening carefully to the Minister, but I must have gone deaf for a moment, and I should be grateful if he would repeat the last part of his brief. He made no reference to clause 112(3), which allows for a time extension if there has been an administrative error. Similarly, clause 179(2) allows licensing authorities to decide not to revoke a premises licence if there has been a failure to pay the annual fee and

''they think that a failure to pay is attributable to administrative error.''

Given that that is already covered in relation to other aspects in clauses 112(3) and 179(2), neither of which were referred to by the Minister, I am surprised at his response.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman may be surprised, but there was a good reason for it, which I will now explain. Failure to pay a fee is not the same as a core renewal issue, which is referred to in later clauses. The safeguard—the hon. Gentleman must have missed this during his momentary deafness—is that the operator may apply for renewal up to three months before the licence expires and must have done so at least one month before expiry to ensure that the commission has time to renew it. That is to provide an adequate period for the gambling commission to look at the licence for renewal. It is not for failure to pay a fee.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I apologise, but I fail to understand the Minister's response. In relation to the revocation of an operating licence, the Bill clearly provides for a determination to be made if the failure is due to an administrative error. The decision can therefore be reconsidered in such a case. Similarly, a licensing authority has the opportunity to reconsider its decision not to revoke a premises licence in the light of its being clear that the operator's failure was the result of an administrative error. Those two cases are clearly covered in the Bill. That is acknowledged. I simply fail to understand why a three-month period does not alter a clerical error and why, on this occasion, it is not allowed.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It is much easier to prove failure to pay a fee for clerical error. For renewal, the operator must have put its affairs in order. Indeed, the fees are annual. The renewal to which we were referring may be once every 10 years, so there is a big time difference. [Interruption.] The significance is nine years—between 10 and one. The fees are annual. The renewal is once every 10 years.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I entirely accept the Minister's point that one happens every year and the other every 10 years, but there can be an administrative error at the end of the 10-year period and at the end of the one-year period. It is clear that the Minister has a better argument to deploy, and we look forward to hearing it.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I said what I said simply for the sake of a full explanation from the Government and for moving the Bill on. An operating licence will now have an indefinite duration. We believe that the existing structure is sound and can pick up clerical and other errors, so we do not believe that the amendment would add anything to the Bill.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I disagree, and I suspect from the look on the Minister's face that he is not totally convinced either. That may mean that he will discuss the matter quietly with his officials and others, which may give us another opportunity to discuss it. Given that possibility, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 107 - Lapse

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I beg to move amendment No. 243, in clause 107, page 49, line 20, at end insert

'provided that the provisions of section 181 shall apply where the licensee dies,'.

We all accept that mother nature will get us all eventually. Unfortunately under the Bill, if a licensee dies, business, as we understand, must cease until a new licensee can be appointed. That is recognised in clause 181, which provides for a period of a week after the death of a licensee, perhaps from a heart attack or a road crash, which could not be predetermined.

The amendment would ensure a grace period, because otherwise the business would cease as soon as the licensee died and an offence would be committed if the business continued to operate. We therefore suggest that provisions similar to those in clause 181 should apply. There are those who believe that one week, as set out in clause 181, is itself insufficient, but it is better than nothing.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I support the amendment, which in many ways interrelates with new clause 11, which we shall discuss in a moment. As the hon. Gentleman says, if mother nature or bad driving claim any of us who operate a gaming licence, the current licensing system seems to give the executors of one's estate a much more generous period to enable them to put affairs in order and enable the business to keep going. The Bill takes away the power to reinstate an operating licence but the premises licence continues. That is a little like saying that one can have a public house but one cannot sell beer, which rather negates the point of having a premises licence.

I draw to the Minister's attention to a fact that the Committee will have got to know during its consideration of the Bill: the gaming and gambling industry deals with vast sums of money. It is no exaggeration to say that billions of pounds are involved. Some American corporations have absolutely enormous resources. Therefore the pressure on small businesses will become heavier and heavier. It is the Committee's responsibility to try to give the small business man a fair break.

I shall not talk about the fact that small businesses are groaning under the weight of regulations and excessive taxation, or go through the list of impositions that the Government have placed on them, because you would rule me out of order, Mr. Gale. In resisting that, I will say that people may ask why small operators have not adjusted and changed their affairs to take account of that situation. The plain fact is that someone who wants to run a small business must have some form of independence of mind; they must be an individual. The ability and wish to conform may not necessarily be the strongest in such a person, but I will fight for that individualism and independence for as long as I can.

No doubt the trade associations, such as the Bingo Association, will be advising their members on how to put their various affairs in order so as to meet the requirements of the Bill as it stands. However, the Minister is a fair-minded and generous person; he has given way and listened to reason so often already this morning that I like to think that he will consider the issue again and say, ''We'll give the small business man a break. We'll allow the estate to have the operating licence for a little longer, so that the affairs can be put in order.'' That would enable businesses to keep going and keep employment in the area.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I seek your direction, Mr. Gale. I tabled new clause 11, which we shall discuss in a moment along with clause 107 stand part, but the debate going on now is in effect the same as the one that we will have on the new clause. That replicates clause 181, which relates to reinstatement of a premises licence. Amendment No. 243 simply replicates that clause too, although there is a small deviation in new clause 11, in that it would change the number of days from seven to 28. I feel as though I should be speaking to the new clause now, because the Minister could then wind up both debates in one speech.

The Chairman indicated dissent.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

We are discussing two different types of licence: a premises licence and an operating licence. Amendment No. 243 would provide that an operating licence did not lapse on the holder's death. It is well intentioned and the case for it has been put quite strongly. When the owner of a business dies, it is common for it to pass to the surviving partner, be that a husband or a wife. However, we are considering operating licences, and the amendment would give rise to consequences that mean that, regrettably, I cannot support it.

A valid operating licence is central to the world-class system of regulation that we want in the UK. The issuing of a licence will involve stringent checks on the suitability of the applicant operator to carry out the gambling activities for which they are seeking a licence. That is vital if we are to provide a well regulated industry that is free from crime. Clearly, if the operator of a gambling business dies, those stringent checks should take place afresh on the new proposed operator, even if they are the surviving partner.

We have said many times that we want to transfer all the good in the Gaming Act 1968 to a modern setting by establishing a commission that is much stronger than the existing Gaming Board. Hon. Members have said that there are problems, but that is not the case. To date, even under the 1968 Act, a gaming or betting licence cannot be transferred, and the hardship that hon. Members have said could arise if a partner dies has not, to our knowledge, arisen since 1968, because stringent checks are in place. We are transferring those checks from the 1968 Act to the gambling commission. We are talking about an operating licence, not a premises licence, which can be transferred. It is for those reasons and to preserve the integrity of the betting industry that I ask the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) to withdraw his amendment.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Is the Minister saying that, if the licensee is involved in a fatal crash while driving to his business at lunchtime, that business will not be permitted to open? In another scenario the licensee is seriously injured in the accident and is put on a life support machine. Will the operating licence continue if he is technically alive but in no fit state to run his business?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Again, we have to look at the definitions. Are we talking about the corporate operator or about an individual? More than one person can be on the operating licence, in which case it would be possible to deal with a death. We are transferring the arrangements that operate under the 1968 Act into this Bill. Those will be carried out to a large extent by the gambling commission. There has been some debate about the possible watering down of provisions and the explosion in gambling and gaming, but that will not happen except under extremely controlled conditions. These licences are central to the integrity of the operation. We are doing no more than already exists in the 1968 Act, and I do not believe that that has placed an undue burden on small businesses.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I appreciate everything that the Minister has said. We all want to see integrity in the whole gaming industry. He is looking a little higher up the chain, however; I have in mind a small business which is just an owner-operator, on his own with no partner. He might be reluctant to bring someone else in and to add their name and enable them to operate the business. He may wish to sell it and have another operator come in. This measure will take away the time scale in which he can make the necessary change.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Hon. Members are putting hypothetical situations to the Committee. We are not dealing with hypothetical situations; we are operating in real conditions. The licensing structure, which will largely be operated by the gambling commission, is absolutely central to the integrity of the industry. The Bill will maintain a system that has operated for some decades, and to the best of my knowledge none of the situations that hon. Members have described has arisen. I believe that the integrity of the industry is more important than hon. Members' hypothetical examples.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The Minister has already dismissed the amendment, despite the strong common-sense case that we put forward. Although there would probably be only a few instances during the lifetime of the legislation, without some provision and some period of grace in the unfortunate event of a sudden death a small family-owned business could cease trading. What happens to the licence if someone is seriously injured or otherwise mentally impaired but still living? The Minister did not respond to that realistic scenario. I invite him and his officials to take note of what has been said and to see whether some form of wording can be inserted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 11—Reinstatement of lapsed operating licences—

'(1) This section applies where an operating licence lapses under section 107(1).

(2) During the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the lapse of the operating licence a person may apply to the Commission for the licence to be reinstated with the applicant as the licensee.

(3) The provisions of this section shall apply in relation to an application for reinstatement as they apply in relation to an application for an operating licence—

(a) subject to provisions of this section,

(b) with any other necessary modifications.

(4) An application for reinstatement must (in addition to anything required by section 65 or 69) request that the reinstatement take effect upon the application being granted.

(5) The Commission shall grant an application for reinstatement unless it thinks it would be wrong to do so having regard to the matters in sections 66 and 67 (as applied by subsection 3 above).

(6) On the grant of an application for the reinstatement of an operating licence the Commission shall—

(a) alter the licence so that the applicant for reinstatement becomes the licensee,

(b) specify in the licence that the reinstatement takes effect at the time when the application is granted, and

(c) make such other alteration of the licence as appears to it to be required (which may, in particular, include an alteration to reflect a decision of the Commission under section 73 as applied by subsection (3) above to make new or varied provisions for the attachment or exclusion of conditions).

(7) An application under this section for the reinstatement of an operating licence must (in addition to anything required by section 65) be accompanied by—

(a) the licence, or

(b) both—

(i) a statement explaining why it is not reasonably practicable to produce the licence, and

(ii) an application under section 100 for the issue of a copy of the licence.

(8) In the case of an application under section 100 made in accordance with subsection 7(b)(ii)—

(a) the application shall be made by the applicant for reinstatement, and

(b) a reference to the licence being lost, stolen or damaged shall be treated as a reference to the licence being unavailable to the applicant for reinstatement.

(9) Regulations under section 65, as they have effect in relation to applications for reinstatement by virtue of subsection (3), may require notice to be given to specified persons.

(10) Where an application is made under this section for the reinstatement of an operating licence, the licence shall have effect as if the applicant for reinstatement were the licensee during the period—

(a) beginning with the receipt of the application for reinstatement by the Commission, and

(b) ending with the determination of the application by the Commission.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Without repeating the arguments, I can tell the Committee that the debate that we just had is the same as the debate that we will have on new clause 11, because we have simply taken the reinstatement of a premises licence in clause 181 and applied it to the reinstatement of an operator's licence in new clause 11. All we have done is change the seven-day period in clause 181(2) to 28 days, which appears in subsection (2) of the new clause.

We recognise the need for the gambling commission to do proper checks on a new operator and to allow 28 days for that to happen, whereas a premises licence can be done much more quickly. However, it comes back to the same point. The Minister says that under existing legislation, there are no provisions to allow a gaming licence to continue. He is saying, therefore, that in a family-owned business where a husband and wife are bingo operators, but only one has the licence, that business would have to close if one of them were to die. I am puzzled, then, as to why the Bingo Association has said to us that it sees that as a problem with the Bill. There is no provision for an operator's licence to continue in some form or other, so that the business does not close on the death of the licence holder. That means that jobs would be lost, and the value of that business to an estate would be undermined because it would not be an ongoing business.

We are not going to press the matter, because we recognise the Minister's argument about the integrity of operators' licences, but it would help small bingo operators if there were some practical guidance from the Minister about how, when the Bill is implemented, they could face up to that eventuality of one of the partners dying and the business closing. The business's value would be seriously undermined, whether or not it could be resold in that interim period: it probably could not be. The new clause is an attempt at least to give some continuity so that arrangements can be made to ensure the survival of the business.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before I call the Minister, I remind the hon. Gentleman that if at the end of the debate he wishes to submit new clause 11 to a vote, he will need to indicate that and it will be called at the appropriate point in the proceedings.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The new clause would overturn the provision in clause 97(2), which we have already debated, which provides that an operating licence

''may not be varied . . . so as to authorise anyone other than the person to whom it was issued''.

The reinstatement of a premises licence does not involve the same conditions as for the suitability of the operator running the premises, precisely because such checks have already been carried out in the granting of an operating licence. For that reason, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should provide for the reinstatement of an operating licence in these circumstances. It seems right to us that a new operator should go through the same application procedure as any operator of a new gambling business. Before licences are issued there will be stringent checks on the suitability of the applicant for the gambling activities for which they seek a licence. That is vital if we are to provide a well regulated industry that is free from crime.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Does the Minister accept that it is a little unfair of him to make out that we should have moved new clause 11 when the Committee was dealing with clause 97, because we are dictated to by the selection of amendments? I think that the Chairman would have objected if we had tried to move new clause 11 in the middle of our debates on clause 97.

I refer the Minister to clause 107(1), which clearly says:

''In the case of an operating licence issued to an individual, the licence shall lapse if—

(a) the licensee dies''.

It then goes on to deal with mental and physical incapacity. The plain fact is that as soon as the licensee dies, their business has to close its doors. Anybody knows that when one runs a business, continuity of supply to one's customers is vital. Restarting or relaunching at a later date makes life that much more difficult. This request for 28 days in which to get a new applicant in place, apply for a new licence, keep the business going and ensure that the estate is not unduly damaged is something that any Government should do to help small businesses.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I can only repeat that we are not doing anything different to that in the 1968 Act. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening, but I explained that if an individual wants reassurance that their business can pass to the wife or another family member, they can have two people on the operating licence. People do put two people on the operating licence. This debate is about semantics. We are discussing hypothetical cases, but nothing similar has happened in the past three decades. People have used common sense: if they want a further operator, they put someone else on the operating licence. That is not too difficult. If it does prove difficult, there should be good reason for that—that is what the Bill should protect against.

I reiterate that I will need a lot of persuading before I undermine the integrity and transparency of the industry, which has come about as a result of the 1968 Act. Broadly speaking, that is what we are trying to transfer into a modern setting through a strong gambling commission. Therefore, we will reproduce whatever we can from the 1968 Act in the Bill. The case for the new clause has not been made. All the evidence to date is that people are sensible and operate within the confines of the 1968 Act, and that that has operated satisfactorily.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for making every effort to justify his position. He has made some sensible arguments, which we accept. I must say that I am puzzled as to why the Bingo Association believes the arrangement to be a problem for its members; I shall certainly seek its clarification. If the Minister is right in saying that there has never been a problem under the 1968 Act, he has a powerful argument.

I am trying to recollect whether we had a similar problem during debates on the Licensing Bill with how businesses could continue to operate when pub licence holders die. I believe that a solution was arrived at that might help us in this situation. Perhaps the Minister should have his officials look at that and consider whether something in parallel could usefully be used, because the solution in the 2003 Act enabled businesses to continue in the event of such things. However, under the provisions in question, the business might have to close down for a period.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Representations have been made to my officials. We are probably talking about two things: the operating licence and the premises licence. To help the hon. Gentleman, I understand that a problem with the seven-day period in the premises licence has been raised in—[Interruption.] I think we need to go back to Room 10; things seem to be falling apart. The period is seven days. We have chosen six months, but that is to do with the premises licence. The issue has been raised and it may be that some of the big operators have been asking about the premises licence rather than the operating licence. I am just trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am pretty sure that the Bingo Association knows the difference between an operating licence and a premises licence. In fact, its counsel wrote new clause 11 for our benefit. Those concerned are quite clear why they have asked us to table that new clause, speak to it and see what the Government's response would be. The Minister has made his position clear, but I would again ask him to look at how things are done under the 2003 Act. There may be a possibility in it that could be used.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I had better clarify whether the hon. Gentleman intends to move new clause 11 later.

Mr. Moss indicated dissent.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

He does not. I would not have wanted him to miss the opportunity to do so, had he wanted it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 108 to 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 112 - Revocation

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 246, in clause 112, page 52, line 10, at end add—

'(5) A licence holder shall at its option be entitled to an oral hearing before the Commission should the provisions of this section apply.',

''failure to pay is attributable to administrative error.''

I remind the Minister that that was what I meant earlier and I was surprised that he did not refer to the matter himself.

The revocation of an operating licence is a very serious matter indeed and can significantly affect the livelihoods of the licence holder. From time to time, revocation may be necessary to protect various members of the public. At the same time, however, I am sure that we would agree that the revocation of a licence should take place only after the licence holder has had every opportunity to put his or her case.

On occasions, some holders of an operating licence might find it easier to present their case in oral form than to do so in written form. The amendment therefore merely seeks to ensure that an operator whose licence is being considered for revocation has the opportunity to put their case in an oral hearing before the commission. The matter is quite simple and the Minister might tell me that that will be allowed anyway under another clause, in which case I will happily withdraw the amendment. Otherwise, I hope that he will explain why what is allowed in all other forms of natural justice will not be allowed in this case, where the removal of an operating licence is a significant event in the life of an operator.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The need for a commission system of hearing for issues arising from operating licences is not in dispute. We expect the commission to build on the practices currently operated by the Gaming Board, which everyone accepts have served it well. The same applies to human rights considerations. We will expect the commission to consider them as one issue to be covered by the policy on licensing and regulation in clause 22.

To provide a right for every operating licence holder to have an oral hearing before the commission in cases in which the commission is considering revocation would go too far. Grounds for revocation might include areas where the need for revocation is clear-cut—for example if there is a conviction for a relevant offence or failure to pay the required fee. In such circumstances, it would be an onerous burden on the commission for the Bill to require that an operating licence holder has, of right, an oral hearing in every case. That could delay the revocation of licences through procrastination, with serious consequences ensuing. Written representation may suffice where there is no question in dispute, and in any event, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the commission in all its procedures will be subject to the Human Rights Act 1998. For that reason, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

As I understood him, the Minister has said that, broadly speaking, hearings are the right sort of thing if they are required but that there might be certain circumstances or clear-cut cases in which a request for a hearing would be unnecessary prevarication by the operating licence holder, which would mean that others might lose out while the person still holds the licence. I understand that argument, but the Minister also said that, even in those circumstances, someone could use human rights legislation to get a hearing. To help me out, will he tell me how they could exercise that right under human rights legislation within the time scale that he is talking about, which is for rapid revocation? I have some difficulty understanding the compatibility of those two points.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The answer is that the challenge would be by judicial review, which would be triggered straight away. In that sense, the timing is of no major consequence.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

But I am sure that the Minister will confirm that judicial review would take place after revocation and would not be part of the proceedings to consider whether it should take place. I hope that he will accept that there is a significant difference between someone having the opportunity to put their case—

Mr. Caborn indicated dissent.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister is shaking his head, but perhaps he could help me out. In the normal course of events, revocation would take place and then there would be a judicial review of that decision. I will waffle on while the Minister gets a clear note—now that he has one, I will give way.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That clear note says that someone can challenge when the commission says ''No hearing''. That is when a judicial review would be triggered. For the record, I should also say that relevant offences include murder, and the question is whether such a person should have the right to a hearing.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am most grateful to the ether for having provided the Minister with much greater clarity in his answer. I now have an assurance that there is a mechanism by which someone whose operating licence is due to be revoked and who is not given the opportunity of a hearing could make a legal challenge—through judicial review—before the licence is revoked.

I gently say to the Minister that his earlier argument about the need to do things speedily in certain circumstances has just been blown out of the water. It does not apply, for the reasons that he has now given. However, having had his assurance that people will have the opportunity to test such things appropriately before the operating licence is revoked, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114 - Financial penalty

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 247, in page 53, line 21, after 'statement', insert

', following consultation with those parties set out in section 23(10),'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 248, in clause 116, page 55, line 13, after 'consult', insert

'the parties referred to in section 23(10) (b) to (d)'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

These are simple amendments. I suspect that the Minister will agree with the theory, if not the precise wording, of both of them. He will assure me that all the people in the list in clause 23 to which I refer will be involved in the consultation. When he puts that on the record, I shall be extremely happy.

While the Minister takes the opportunity to check that out, may I remind the Committee that clause 114 deals with the giving of financial penalties if conditions in an operating licence have been breached? I note that the commission has to develop a statement to explain the procedure that it will use. I suspect that that statement will not include details of any tariff system that might apply. However, rather bizarrely, unlike anyone in any other part of our legal system, those imposing penalties will have to

''have regard . . . to . . . the nature of the licensee (including, in particular, his financial resources).''

It would be interesting if one could be taken to court under our normal legal system, and have one's parking fine varied depending on one's income—that is the new approach that is being adopted.

At any rate, there is to be a statement on which there is to be consultation by the commission, the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor. I share that with the Committee because it is clearly relevant; it is in subsection (8)(b). I note with considerable interest that we are about to debate in another place the future of the Lord Chancellor. The Liberal Democrats have a whipped vote on whether the Lord Chancellor should sit on the Woolsack, but no whipped vote on whether he should have appropriate qualifications. I leave the Committee to consider the wisdom of that.

There is a list of consultees, and the third in the list is

''such other persons as the Commission thinks appropriate.''

I have suggested in my amendment who those people should be, because they appear elsewhere in the Bill. If the list is considered appropriate elsewhere, it might be sensible to include it here as well. The Minister will no doubt assure me that all is well.

Clause 116 covers a totally different issue, the levy that will be imposed by the commission on all those to whom it grants licences, which will be used for a range of purposes. We all know that some money will go to organisations such as GamCare to help with problem gambling, but it will be possible to use the money to meet any of the Bill's licensing objectives, which we have debated, or to deal with any

''harm or exploitation associated with gambling''.

My point is that there will be a lot of debate about the size of the levy. The Minister may like to comment on the likelihood that the cause of the increase in problem gambling that many right hon. and hon. Members expect as a result of the legislation will be, primarily, the increase in the number of casinos, particularly regional casinos with category A machines, not anything that is taking place in family entertainment centres. I assume that there will be a need to discuss a differential levy, taking account of the increased likelihood of different types of organisation adding to the issue of problem gambling. If so, it is vital that all organisations are consulted about arrangements for the levy, which is what the second amendment in this group would ensure. The first amendment relates to the penalties charged for breaches in operating licences; the second relates to arrangements for the levy. In both cases, we are seeking to insert in the Bill a list of people who must be consulted.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I think that everybody acknowledges—indeed, the hon. Gentleman did so—that the financial penalties are a significant sanction available to the commission. The commission must have the option of imposing a financial penalty on operating licence holders who commit a serious breach of the licence conditions. The hon. Gentleman asked at what level that penalty would be set. That would be up to the commission, but a big company may merit a totally different fine to a smaller business, a point that relates to earlier amendments.

It is right that, in the case of such severe penalties, the commission should be required to prepare a statement setting out the principles that it will apply. Under subsection (8), the commission is required to consult the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor because of their respective roles. The commission also has the opportunity to consult such people that it considers appropriate, and we expect that it will take that opportunity given the relationship that it will have with the industry—we hope that there will be a proper working relationship between the commission and the industry. However, to prescribe the persons that the commission must consult is not the right way forward. The commission is bound to act sensibly and reasonably in preparing its statement on financial penalties.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister could save the Committee's time if he can say that he imagines that the list of bodies referred to in my amendment will, in all likelihood, be consulted by the commission and the Secretary of State respectively. I think that he can probably say yes to that and I will be a happy bunny.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman will be a happy bunny then because the answer is yes—there is another postcard to Mrs. Foster. We are doing extremely well this morning; the festive season must be upon us.

A similar point applies to amendment No. 248, which relates to the provision of a levy on holders of operating licences. The money raised by the levy will be used to alleviate problem gambling, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Clearly, the Secretary of State will want to consult the commission before providing for a levy, and the clause allows for that. The Secretary of State will consult a range of parties before taking any action. To prescribe the persons that she will consult in the way proposed is too rigid, but the scope that the hon. Gentleman indicates through his amendment will be appropriate, if not totally exclusive.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I call the hon. Member speaking on behalf of Mrs. Foster.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

If either you, Mr. Gale, or the Minister think that, despite its being the festive season, I will get away with just a few postcards at this time of year, you are sadly mistaken.

I particularly thank the Minister for his generosity in not drawing attention to the drafting error in my amendment, which I am sure he spotted—the judicious addition of the word ''and'' would have been helpful. That is by the by, and it is appropriate that the Secretary of State consults the commission in relation to clause 116. I am grateful to the Minister for his clear assurance that all the bodies to which I refer in my amendment are likely to be consulted in most circumstances either by the commission or by the Secretary of State.

It may be convenient to the Committee to inform you, Mr. Gale, that I have no further amendments to speak to for some time, and that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 115 to 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 - Relevant Offences

Clause 120 - Nature of personal licence

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 293, in page 56, line 9, leave out 'a specified function' and insert

'the functions of a specified management office, or to perform a specified operational function,'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 249, in page 56, line 9, after 'function', insert

'or a number of specified functions'.

Amendment No. 250, in page 56, line 11, at end insert

', or

'(c) a person who administers arrangements for gambling'.

Government amendment No. 294.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Amendments Nos. 293 and 294 will make it clear that the personal licence will relate to personal management offices or operators' functions as defined in clause 76. That was always the intention, but we became aware that some confusion arose from the present drafting of the clauses. Indeed, some have suggested that clause 61, which defines the operating licence, is what determines the type of personal licence. That is not the case. We are clear that the commission will have the freedom to define particular types of personal licence; for example, for croupiers or for the director of a betting organisation. The boundaries for the exercise are the definition of management offices and operating functions in clause 76. I appreciate that there is a level of complexity in reading between the two clauses but we believe that the amendments would pin down precisely what clause 120 refers to.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I congratulate the Minister on moving this amendment, which neatly comes in and nicks the place of the one that we tabled, amendment No. 249. The obvious doubts and confusion that were not dispelled by the explanatory memorandum have now been clarified, but could I ask the Minister for further explanatory comment?

One of the problems in holding the licences is, in the case of amendment No. 293, that it refers again to

''the functions of a specified management office''.

What happens if individuals run more than one gambling site? Will they need separate arrangements or can their management office be allowed to operate in two places? Is the bureaucracy and the additional paperwork necessary? If they are not suitable to run one site, they cannot be suitable to run another, and vice versa. Could the Minister flesh that out a little? I believe that amendment No. 249 is more applicable and could be more flexible but, nevertheless, the Government will prevail.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

A management office is defined in clause 76(5). The hon. Gentleman's point is valid. However, the measure is not place specific, but person specific. In that sense, people can operate two sites.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I want to speak to amendment No. 250. In a debate on an amendment to clause 5 we discussed whether administering arrangements should be included. The Minister said that the Government wanted arrangements for administering gambling to be included. Yet the personal licence relates only to the provision of facilities for gambling or a person who provides those facilities; it does not encompass anyone who administers arrangements for gambling. We believe, in the interests of consistency, that if administering gambling appears in the earlier clause, it should appear here.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I do not quite understand what the connection is and I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman. However, I will reflect on the point that he has made and see whether there is a need to make such a link. I am advised that clause 97(5) and (6) cover the point. An administrator is not included in this clause because he does not need a personal licence. There is more direct involvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 294, in clause 120, page 56, line 11, at end insert—

'(2) In this section ''management office'' and ''operational function'' have the same meaning as in section 76.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Clause 120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121 - Application of provisions of Part 5

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 295, in clause 121, page 56, line 13, after '5', insert—

'(other than section 61(2), (4) and (5))'.

This is purely a drafting amendment to clarify the effect of part 5 on part 6.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 7—Application of provisions of Part 5 (No. 2)—

'The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with those parties listed in section 22(5), make regulations regarding those matters referred to in Part 5 of this Act as such shall apply to personal licences under Part 6.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We recognise the Government's attempt with amendment No. 295 to clarify what the clause stands for. We would go further. New clause 7 attempts to give greater clarity to what the Government intend. Either clause 121 should set out in detail the way in which personal licences are to be regulated, as has been done for operating licences under part 5, or the Secretary of State should issue a statement on the regulation of personal licences, following consultation.

A variation of a personal licence could result in imprisonment for an operator who is in breach of his operating licence due to a change in the personal licence under clause 30(1), and the defence of holding a valid operating licence will not be available. It is therefore critical that the provisions regarding personal licences are fully set out in the Bill, in order to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights.

An individual can also be liable to imprisonment for a breach of his personal licence under clause 132(4). That emphasises the need to ensure clarity in the Bill. Clause 121 attempts to sidestep important issues of detail by simply providing that the provisions regarding operating licences will be repeated unless otherwise amended by the Secretary of State. We believe that such an approach will lead to uncertainty as it will be impossible for those operating under the provisions to understand which will be modified and which will apply to personal licences. We believe that new clause 7 gives that clarity.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving the new clause—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The new clause has not been moved. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to move it later, he will no doubt indicate that.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I therefore thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the new clause to the Committee. I think that he is trying to be helpful, but I am doubtful about how much the new clause would improve the provisions of clause 121, which allow us to prescribe in regulation how part 5 should apply to part 6. That is, I think, what the hon. Gentleman wants. I admit that the clause does not impose a duty to consult, but I am not sure what such a duty would add.

It is our stated intention that procedures in part 5 should generally apply to part 6 as well. In part 6, we set out the primary differences. We have taken the regulation-making power to deal with matters that might need modification, to make them sensibly apply to a personal licensing regime. The alternative to that approach is to repeat in part 6 everything that we set out in part 5. I do not think that anyone in Committee would think that that was sensible; it would clearly mean needless repetition. Clause 121 provides a sensible way to recognise the contents of part 6 and the need to make further changes by regulation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider those points and not press the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122 - Exemption for small-scale operators

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 252, in clause 122, page 56, line 30, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 35 and insert

'mean an operator not employing more than ten full time permanent employees on each premises operated by such operator'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 253, in clause 122, page 56, line 32, leave out subsection (3).

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendment No. 252 and consequential amendment No. 253 seek to define a small business or operator. The intention is to ensure that small operators are not burdened by disproportionate regulation. The definition of a small-scale operator will be critical as, for such operators, the operating licence will have the same purpose as a personal licence. The definition of small-scale operators should be in the Bill. The amendment seeks to provide an objective criterion to achieve certainty for those operating under the Act.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I support my hon. Friend's arguments. We have shades of clause 56 in this debate. I am not asking the Minister to look at it again, and officials need not worry either. The issue is simply that that clause said on the age limit for category D gaming machines:

''The Secretary of State may by order create an offence of inviting, causing or permitting a child'',

and so on. We managed to tease out of the Minister the fact that the Secretary of State may come forward only if there were compelling reasons. The Minister was short on telling us what a compelling reason was, but we got the idea that it would have to be of a dramatic nature.

In clause 122, tremendous powers are again given to the Secretary of State. It is a little bureaucratic and heavy-handed:

''In this section 'small-scale' operator shall have such meaning as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations.''

We are again putting immense power in the hands of the Secretary of State—or of the officials who will write the regulations that will duly appear for the House to agree. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, it is incumbent on him to give some idea of what the Government understand a small-scale operator to be. There must be some definition, and it would be helpful to hear it now rather than at a later date in a raft of regulations over which we have no control.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I understand the motivation of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) in trying to provide some certainty to gambling operators by offering a definition of a small-scale operator. That motivation is also clear from what the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has just said.

The definition provided by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, relying on a number of staff in each outlet, would make for some potentially perverse outcomes. It would seem to cover major betting companies, which could generally have fewer than 10 staff per office. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman intends that, but it could be interpreted from his amendment. More importantly, it is more sensible to deal with the matter in secondary legislation, where there is a better possibility of shaping solutions for different circumstances and of taking account of developments over time without having to come back to Parliament for new primary legislation. That is what we are trying to do.

Besides future-proofing the legislation, we are trying to take the best of the 1968 Act and include it in this Bill. We want flexibility. As we and the industry have acknowledged, developments in technology quickly bring new styles of operation, which require fewer staff needing personal licensing. It would therefore be foolish to get tied down with the definition that the hon. Gentleman asks for. The clause will focus on the operator with a small number of staff and a small number of premises, and license some racecourse bookmakers as well. It is far better to leave this matter open to interpretation rather than tie a definition to the Bill.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the reason behind the amendment, which was to seek some protection for small businesses from the regulatory burden. It was a probing amendment and the figure 10 was an attempt to gain some acceptance of the scale of the matter. I am encouraged to hear him say that matters may be more appropriately addressed in secondary legislation, and with the assurance that he will consider the issue at a future date, 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. 254, in clause 122, page 56, line 39, after 'produce', insert 'a copy of'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

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

No. 260, in clause 127, page 58, line 12, at end add—

'(4) Reference to production of a licence under this section shall include a copy of a licence.'.

No. 318, in schedule 8, page 166, line 41, at end insert—

'(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a copy of a permit may be kept on the premises and if required the original may be produced to an officer set out in paragraph 20(1) within a reasonable time.'.

No. 326, in schedule 11, page 192, line 2, after 'keep', insert 'a copy of'.

No. 327, in schedule 11, page 192, line 4, after 'produce', insert 'a copy of'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

These amendments relate to the operating licence issued to the licensee. As we are aware, the licence could apply to a number of different premises, and it would not therefore be possible for the original licence to be held at each location. In addition, an operating licence may limit the number of sets of premises on which licensed activities may be carried out. That comes under clause 80(b)(i). In such a case, an operator will be required to demonstrate that the particular premises fall under that operating licence.

The amendments, coupled with amendment No. 318, which is consequential and relates to schedule 8, would allow copies of licences on the various premises. We cannot see anything in the Bill that allows that. It is important that a licence is available for scrutiny. Given that there will be different premises, it seems to be a sensible way round the problem.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling amendments Nos. 254 and 260, but it would not be safe for the Committee to accept them. Small-scale operators or personal licensees should keep the original licence, or a certified copy of it, on their person or at their place of work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that if we accepted photocopies, for example, fraud and abuse would be a possibility. I therefore assure him that we do not believe the amendments to be necessary.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister said ''certified copy.'' Will he enlarge on that? We are more than happy for there to be a certified copy, but that would not of course be an original licence. There is no problem if it is acceptable for a certified copy to be held at other premises.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The answer that I was going to give the hon. Gentleman was not the answer that my officials gave to me to give to him. I would have thought that one could have two copies of a certified licence if one wanted two copies, so long as they were certified copies and not photostats. That was the answer that I was going to give, but it is not the answer that I should give, so I withdraw it. The Bill says that one does not have to have an operating licence on the premises but that one must produce it after a specific period if the licence is challenged. It is rather like a driving licence, which one must produce within 10 or 12 days. It is exactly the same with an operating licence. If the operator is not there but needs to produce it, he can do so within a given period as long as he has one on his person or on the premises. That is an even better answer than the one that I was going to give the hon. Gentleman.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The Minister's point is absolute common sense. What is the specified period, or will there be another regulation that the Secretary of State may be minded to change at will?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

A reasonable time will be interpreted by whoever interprets it. We are saying that a reasonable time is reasonable. For the record, the premises licence is on the premises and the personal licence is on the person. The operator has time to produce the operating licence. I presume that a reasonable time will be determined by the gambling commission. It would not be prudent to try to tie that down in the Bill.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Well, we were given several answers.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Take the last one.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

It seems acceptable that an operating licence is provided after a reasonable length of time. On the other hand, surely it would be better if the operating licence, or a certified copy of it, was on the wall of the premises where the gambling was taking place. All that the amendments seek to do is enable that to happen.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Having a certified copy on the wall is simply common sense and practical, but does not that go directly against what the Minister has just told us, which is that that would not be allowed? One must produce the original within a reasonable period—we have changed specified period to reasonable period. What is a reasonable period? Is it 19 days, or something like that?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I have no idea whether 19 days would be reasonable. I shall not make an issue of this. We have beaten the matter to death, and have more or less got what we wanted. A copy will be produced after a certain period, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 255, in clause 122, page 56, line 40, at end insert

'and where a condition attaches to such licence specifying the number of premises that can be operated under such licence, confirmation of the number of premises operated'.—[Mr. Moss]

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

As discussed on previous amendments, the definition offered by the hon. Gentleman would have perverse outcomes. This amendment is consequential on previous ones that offered a definition of small-scale operators. They were not accepted by the Committee, so I 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.

Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124 - Duration

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 256, in clause 124, page 57, line 20, at end add

'provided that there shall be no requirement that additional training or qualifications be undertaken or acquired in order to maintain such personal licence'.

We believe that unless it is clear that additional training is not required, it will be extremely difficult for someone operating under an operator's licence to confirm that any additional training is being undertaken. That could result in a breach of the operator's licence, resulting perhaps in a financial penalty pursuant to clause 114.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I disagree strongly with the amendment. It is important that employees in the gambling industry improve their skills and qualifications. The commission may well look to some staff, particularly supervisors and managers, to undertake training or obtain qualifications on social responsibility and, indeed, on combating money laundering. That training may be so important that it should be made compulsory. Our purpose in introducing the Bill is to improve public protection and social responsibility, a key part of which is better trained staff. With that explanation, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We accept that additional and ongoing training is vital in this industry just as it is in any other. However, the point behind the amendment is that it lets us ask whether it is necessary to have such a provision, because it will be a regulatory burden in certain circumstances. We do not disagree that training is important. I shall not press the amendment to a vote, although I think that we may revisit the issue at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 125 - Fees

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 257, in clause 125, page 57, line 28, after 'licence', insert

'(but may not be determined by local authorities or dependent upon the location of such licence holder)'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 258, in clause 125, page 57, line 28, leave out from 'licence' to end of line 33.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We believe that it should be clear that fees will be fixed centrally to avoid applications being made disproportionately to different authorities, and that fees should not vary between regions. Amendment No. 258 is pretty much consequential on amendment No. 257.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I agree that fees for personal licences should be consistent throughout Great Britain. However, the amendment is not necessary, because the clause makes it clear that the fee will be set by the Secretary of State and no one else. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman on the substance. We have no intention of involving local authorities in the process of setting fees for personal licences. Nor do we intend to set different fees for licences awarded to persons living or working in different areas. A personal licence will be a licence to work anywhere in Great Britain, and there will be a standard national fee for each type of licence.

If the hon. Gentleman is worried about subsection (3)(b), let me reassure him that it is not in the Bill to allow us to set different fees for different areas. This is purely belt-and-braces drafting to allow for a situation in which the holders of the same category of licence do different tasks that involve more regulatory costs. With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. On the basis of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being twenty-five minutes past 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

Clause 126 - Multiple licences

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 259, in clause 126, page 57, line 37, at end add—

'(3) The provisions of this section shall not prevent the reissuing of a personal licence which authorises the performance of more than one function, which function may include requirements for remote gambling and non-remote gambling'.

The amendment is designed to make it clear that a function can be added to a licence and the licence then reissued to reflect all the functions that have been approved. That would allow an individual to operate under an operating licence that requires a number of different functions. Under clause 64, which is headed ''Combined licence'', the commission may issue operating licences to cover more than one of the 10 types of licence, provided that they are remote or non-remote. The amendment would permit a personal licence, which would fall under the requirements of separate remote and non-remote operating licences.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The Bill clearly states that the commission cannot issue combined remote or non-remote licences. That was a deliberate policy decision designed to ensure appropriate regulation of different types of gambling. Remote and non-remote gambling require different regulation, which places different demands on the gambling commission. For example, the age-checking systems required by online bookies are very different from those that might be expected of a betting shop. The same applies to anti-money laundering procedures and the management of customer accounts. It is essential that those differences are reflected in tailored licensing conditions set out in separate licences.

There is nothing to prevent an operator from applying for a remote licence and a non-remote licence, but I maintain that qualification for one should not entitle someone to qualification for another and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

There will be, and already are, occasions when servers are used for remote gambling and onshore gambling. We have discussed equipment and no doubt that will be sorted out later. The amendment is an attempt simply to enable personal licences to reflect that mode of operation. If the Minister is adamant that there must be a separate remote, as opposed to non-remote, licence and that that is enshrined in the Bill, we shall not make much progress on that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 127 and 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 129 - Disqualification

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 261, in clause 129, page 58, line 26, at end add—

'(4) Disqualification may be in respect of the carrying out of a specified function under the personal licence but shall not operate as a disqualification for all functions unless otherwise stated in an order for forfeiture under section 108 as applied by section 121.'.

A personal licence may specify a number of functions, and disqualification may apply to a specified function that should perhaps not apply automatically to the personal licence in totality, unless otherwise specified by the disqualification order. The amendment would preserve the remainder of the licence not covered by the disqualification order.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's explanation of his amendment, but I must make it clear that, unfortunately, the Government cannot agree with it. It is important that disqualification should apply to all positions of trust in the gambling industry. A court will be able to make a disqualification order only if the licensee has been convicted of one of the relevant offences listed in schedule 6. In those circumstances, if the court thinks that a period of disqualification is merited, disqualification should apply to the entire licence. I do not understand why a croupier who has been convicted of theft should be able to carry on performing other functions that his licence might authorise, such as supervision of the cash cage in a casino.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to allow the courts some flexibility, but in this case it is important to protect the public by excluding people who could be a threat to the good name of the industry. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 130 - Notification of operating licensee

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 296, in clause 130, page 58, line 28, at end insert

'(za) suspends a personal licence under section 111 (as applied by section 121),'.

Clause 130 specifies that if the commission revokes a personal licence or is informed that the courts had made either a forfeiture order relating to a personal licence or a disqualification order, the commission is under a duty to notify relevant holders of the operating licence. The commission should also be required to inform relevant holders of operating licences if it suspends a personal licence. Government amendment No. 296 rectifies that omission.

Amendment agreed to.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 262, in clause 130, page 58, line 34, leave out from beginning to second 'the' in line 38.

The amendment seeks to delete from clause 130(2) the words from the beginning of the subsection to the end of the word ''activities''. It seems to us that unless there is definite proof, the commission ought not to be making any moves against a personal licence.

The wording as it stands starts ''If the Commission believes''. Our question is, ''Believes as a result of what?'' Is that belief based on anecdotal evidence, a tip-off or something else? We believe that there ought to be more concrete evidence before the commission starts taking action. The attempt of the amendment, which is a probing amendment to determine how much the Government think the commission needs to know before taking action, is to delete the first three lines of the subsection, so that it reads on automatically from subsection (1).

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the Committee can see the sense in what he said. I agree that the commission should always notify employers about staff whose personal licences have been revoked. I imagine that that is what the commission will do.

However, the words that the amendment would delete have a purpose. It is possible for someone to apply for and hold a personal licence without being employed by an operating licensee. That was made possible because we thought it a good idea for people to train and apply for a personal licence in the hope of getting a job.

So, the words that the amendment would delete are needed to lift the burden on the commission if the personal licensee has no employer. That is the responsibility of the commission. It is not about the merits of the disqualification order but is an administrative matter. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I think I got that. If the clause is not about the merits of the case but is a matter of administration and assistance, I am happy to accept it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 130, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 131 to 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Gambling appeals tribunal

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 332, in schedule 7, page 162, line 2, at end insert

', and in the event of a tie, the president shall have the casting vote'.

This is a simple amendment. We understand that under the current procedure tribunal decisions may be made by majority vote, but there does not seem to be any provision for procedure in the event of a tie. That is what the amendment seeks to address.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

For once, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's view that the tribunal should not find itself in the position where a tied outcome is possible, however the amendment is unnecessary. I draw his attention to paragraph 9, which allows the tribunal to consist of a member or the president sitting with two other members, so, in general, a tie will not be possible. Paragraph 9(3)(a) also provides for a three-member tribunal to continue with two members. That could result in a tie, but paragraph (9)(3)(b) provides that, in those circumstances, the president shall have a casting vote. It deals precisely with the situation that the hon. Gentleman seeks to address, and I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134 - Appeal to tribunal

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 263, in clause 134, page 60, line 6, after 'section', insert '71, 72 or'.

The clause allows for an appeal only to an imposition of an individual condition under clause 73. However, a right of appeal should apply to every condition that can be imposed, including general conditions under clause 71 and the decision to amend or revoke a decision under clause 72, and it should include the right of appeal against a condition imposed under clause 74 by the Secretary of State. Without the amendment, there will be no right of appeal against those other conditions, which would perhaps be inequitable.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The gambling commission may impose two types of conditions on an operating licence: general conditions, under clause 71, which will apply to all operating licence holders or all operating licence holders in a particular class; and individual conditions, under clause 73, which will apply to an individual operating licence. The right of appeal exists against only the decision of the commission to impose an individual condition on an operating licence, because that condition will be specific to that operating licence holder. There is no right of appeal against the imposition, amendment or revocation of a general condition by the commission, because those conditions will apply to all operating licence holders or all operators in a specific category. Those conditions must be general in nature in order for them to apply across the board.

It is difficult to see how an appeal process could be made to work in practice when so many different interests will be involved, but that does not mean that operators have no means of redress. If anyone believed that the gambling commission had acted unreasonably or unlawfully in imposing a condition, they could have a judicial review as their means of challenging it. There is a full consultation procedure for the commission's general conditions. In light of that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which is now on the record. That is very helpful, and on that basis, 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. 333, in clause 134, page 60, line 24, at end add—

'(9) Where the Commission directs that section 138(1) shall not apply, the applicant or the licensee may appeal to the Tribunal.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 264, in clause 136, page 60, line 40, at end add—

'(3) The Secretary of State shall issue a statement following consultation with the Lord Chancellor and parties listed in section 22(5) regarding the principles under which permission to appeal from the tribunal will be granted by the tribunal or the court referred to under subsection (1).'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendment No. 333 applies to clause 134, and amendment No. 264 is more or less consequential to that, although it does apply to clause 136. The clause deals with appeals to the tribunal, and rights of appeal against commission decisions.

The consequences of the immediate application of a commission decision without any right of appeal could have serious, long-term implications for an operator. Such an action by the commission should be subject to the scrutiny provided by an appeal. It makes no sense to set out a lengthy series of rights for appeal against commission decisions, while giving the commission an arbitrary and final right to overrule them without further recourse to appeal.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I do not believe it is necessary to provide for a right of appeal to the gambling appeals tribunal where the commission decides that a decision or action should take immediate effect.It is intended that the commission will use the power only in exceptional circumstances, such as a situation where it determines that the immediate suspension of a licence is necessary in order to protect children or vulnerable adults from exploitation. The licence holder will still be able to challenge the commission's decision by way of judicial review through the courts. In addition, the tribunal has discretion, under paragraph 13(f) of schedule 7, to suspend the commission's decision to disapply the stay provisions, but that should be on its own initiative and not in response to an appeal on this point.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the amendment. Its purpose was not immediately clear to us. Onward appeals to the High Court in England and Wales and the Court of Session in Scotland are only to be permitted on points of law. Therefore, I am not clear what the Secretary of State's statement regarding onward appeals would contain.

Where a person applies to the gambling appeals tribunal seeking leave to appeal to a higher court on a point of law, the tribunal will consider that application on its merits and will have to consider whether the grounds for the appeal indicate a real issue of law to be decided on the appeal. If the tribunal denies an onward appeal, an appellant can apply to the relevant higher court. Again, each application will be considered on its merits. Requiring the Secretary of State to issue a statement on onward appeals is unnecessary. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, and on the basis of what he has put on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 135 and 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 137 - Powers of Tribunal

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 265, in clause 137, page 61, line 17, at end insert

'including reference to what will constitute reasonable belief for the purposes of section 60 and other defences under the Act.'.

This is an attempt to tease out what would constitute reasonable belief about a person's age, which would hopefully provide a defence under clause 60, and other defences available under the Act, which could be usefully incorporated into a code of practice issued by the commission, possibly under clause 23.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the amendment, but it is unnecessary. The tribunal is charged with hearing appeals against certain decisions of the commission. The decisions over which it has jurisdiction to hear appeals are listed in clause 134. None of those decisions contains any defence of reasonable belief, and nor are they amenable to any such defence. In addition, clause 60 provides a defence of reasonable belief against criminal charge under part 4 of the Bill, which relates to children and young persons. Although I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, the commission will have no power to assist in the interpretation of reasonable belief under clause 60; it will be a matter for the ordinary criminal courts. The defence of reasonable belief does not appear in any other clause. It is not necessary for me to require the commission to make any statement in its code of practice about interpretation and the concept of reasonable belief; nor are there any circumstances in which the tribunal might apply that concept. Reasonable belief will have to be judged in each circumstance. For example, reasonableness will vary between the betting office and the children's arcade. With that explanation, 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.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 334, in clause 137, page 61, line 21, at end add—

'(6) The appeal is a rehearing de novo.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 268, in clause 139, page 61, line 39, at end insert—

'(2A) Rules under this section shall provide for all appeals to be a re-hearing de novo.'.

No. 338, in clause 193, page 88, line 40, at end add—

'(6) The appeal is a rehearing de novo.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendments Nos. 268 and 338 are consequential. If the tribunal is to exercise its powers fully under this clause, any hearing should consider all relevant facts or material, as originally considered by the commission when making its decision. The clause sets out the tribunal's powers, including the ability to uphold or overturn all or part of the commission's decision. If, as the clause states, the tribunal is able to consider material not previously available to the commission, it goes without saying that the tribunal's deliberations should be in the form of a re-hearing of the original application. For that to be possible, it must hold a full, de novo hearing. Although that may be the intention of the clause, it is not spelt out clearly enough. The amendment seeks to replicate the provisions in the Gaming Act 1968, whereby operators can appeal to the Crown court against refusal of a gaming licence by the licensing magistrates.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the amendment, as its effects were not immediately clear to us.

All appeals to the gambling appeals tribunal can be based on law and fact. When a person appeals to the tribunal against a decision taken by the gambling commission, the commission will have already heard the facts of the case. The tribunal will hear those facts again and will also be able to consider any additional evidence that may not have been available to the commission. That means that there are always two opportunities for the facts to be heard. Any onward appeal from the tribunal to the High Court or the Court of Session may be permitted on a point of law only. That is standard practice. Likewise, for appeals to the magistrates court or sheriff court under clause 192, the court will hear the facts again and will be able to consider any additional evidence that may not have been available to the licensing authority. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister did not allude to the current Gaming Act, the 1968 Act, in which I understand there are provisions similar to those in the amendments. It would be helpful if the Minister were to flesh out whether the current legislation—the 1968 Act, which we have tried to replicate—is working, and, if it is, whether this clause embraces those provisions and whether our amendment is necessary.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

As I understand it, the provisions that we are taking from the 1968 Act and incorporating in this Bill are operating satisfactorily. There are no lesser appeal rights in this Bill than there are in the 1968 Act, and we believe that the current provisions operate quite effectively and will cover all circumstances.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am most grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point, and on the basis of what is now on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138 - Stay pending appeal

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 266, in clause 138, page 61, line 29, leave out subsection (2).

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 335, in clause 138, page 61, line 30, after 'may', insert ', in exceptional circumstances'.

No. 339, in clause 194, page 89, line 4, after 'may', insert ', in exceptional circumstances,'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The amendment proposes to leave out subsection (2) of clause 138. The clause provides that the commission may direct that a stay pending appeal will not apply. However, there are no grounds for such a direction in the Bill. Damage could, obviously, result from a decision from which an appeal was lodged and, therefore, either specific grounds for refusal to apply the stay pending appeal should be set forth in the Bill or that power should be deleted.

Amendments Nos. 335 and 339, the latter of which is consequential in clause 194, insert the words ''in exceptional circumstances''. Any decision by the commission under clause 138 to override the right to a stay pending appeal would have serious and immediate consequences for the operator in question. If the power is not to be the subject of possible abuse, such a decision should be taken only in exceptional circumstances. The application of a stay is part of the normal remit process and should be reflected here. No action should be taken by the commission until an appeal has been heard, unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify overriding that principle.

There may well be circumstances that do justify overruling the stay, and we do not argue against that provision. We merely argue that the commission's right to exercise that power must be balanced by the need to demonstrate the compelling reasons for doing so.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. However, I do not think that the changes are necessary. Any decision taken by the gambling commission or a licensing authority to override the stay pending appeal provisions will be open to challenge through the courts by way of judicial review. Clear justification for overriding the provision will be required. In effect, that restricts both the gambling commission and the licensing authority to using that power in a reasonable manner. Owing to the potentially significant effects that such a decision might have on a licensee, we would consider it reasonable to use the power only in exceptional circumstances. We therefore do not consider the amendment necessary.

Both the gambling appeals tribunal and the magistrates courts or sheriff have the power to overrule any decision removing the stay pending appeal provisions if they believe that such a decision is not appropriate. The power is provided to the tribunal in paragraph 13 of schedule 7. For the magistrates courts and sheriffs, that ability is contained in clause 194(2). It enables any overrule to be made that is deemed appropriate.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled amendment No. 266. It seems odd for the commission to have the power to direct its decisions or actions to take effect before a person has had his or her appeal against that decision determined. However, there is an important reason for including that power in the Bill. There will be circumstances in which, as a matter of public interest, it will be important that the decision of the gambling commission takes immediate effect. For example, if a self-employed bookmaker is alleged to have been involved in large-scale fraud, subsection (2) will enable the gambling commission to suspend his operating licence with immediate effect. He will still be able to appeal to the gambling appeals tribunal against the decision to suspend his licence, but in the meantime, in the interests of the public, he will not be able to continue to work as a bookmaker.

The removal of subsection (2), which the amendment proposes, would prevent the commission from taking that action. Instead, while the appeal is being heard, the bookmaker's operating licence would be considered to be valid. That could mean that he could continue to defraud his punters until the decision of the gambling commission was upheld. I hope that I have provided the hon. Gentleman with the justification that he required for the inclusion of subsection (2). On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139 - Rules

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 267, in clause 139, page 61, line 40, leave out subsection (3).

Subsection (3) deals with rules providing for certain situations. It allows a summary conviction to be imposed if an individual fails to comply with a specified requirement imposed by the rules. Such a failure may not be material; there are no specified time limits. The provision appears draconian and should be deleted or replaced with a power for the tribunal to give direction or vary the provision of the rules. It is a probing amendment designed to seek justification from the Minister as to why subsection (3) is included.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Subsection (3) serves to enable actions to be taken against persons who do not comply with requirements imposed by, or in accordance with, rules relating to the tribunal. It is important that persons who, for example, fail to obey a witness summons, alter concerns or destroy evidence should be held accountable. If subsection (3) is removed, the tribunal will be powerless to act, even if the actions of one person adversely affect the outcome of an appeal of another. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I would like to ask the Minister a question. We have just debated the maximum fine, which should not exceed level 3 on the standard scale. Will the tribunal, in assessing the level of fine, take into account the nature of the licensee, including his financial resources?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The tribunal cannot fine—it does not have the power to do so—but the regulations may specify that a particular class of person shall or shall not be treated as a party to put proceedings before the tribunal in onward appeals. It will be an offence for a person to fail to comply with the requirements, but a person found guilty of this offence will be liable to a maximum fine of £1,000. I hope that that explanation satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

No, it does not. Notwithstanding the fact that I may have made an error about who would issue the fine, will the Minister make it clear whether the person issuing the fine will have regard to the nature of the licensee, including his financial resources? I ask because that refers to the very rules that will apply to the financial penalties imposed by the commission.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

We have to follow the same rules as the commission would if it imposed a financial penalty.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Thank you.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

We get there eventually.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 140 to 142 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 143 - Form of licence

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 226A, in clause 143, page 63, line 36, at end add

'and

(i) specify an area (being all or part of the casino premises) for the purposes of section 158(4) in relation to those casino premises (''a designated gaming area'') and identify the same upon or by reference to the plan to be included under paragraph (g) above.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 227A, in clause 158, page 71, line 29, at end add—

'(4) Each casino premises licence shall by virtue of this subsection be subject to the mandatory conditions that the licensee—

(a) shall not operate gaming tables or gaming machines of Categories A or B outside a designated gaming area prescribed in relation to the relevant casino premises under section 143(1)(i),

(b) shall not permit any person other than the licensee or a person employed by the licensee to perform any function within the casino to enter a designated gaming area whilst the same is being used in reliance of the casino premises licence without the production at the entrance thereto of satisfactory evidence of identity, and

(c) shall maintain a condition of door supervision in respect of the designated gaming area at all times whilst the same is being used in reliance of the casino premises licence.

(5) Regulations under this section may, in particular, add or exclude gaming machines of a particular category or categories from gaming machines which are the subject of subsection (4) provided always that such regulations shall not permit gaming machines of Category A to be so excluded.

(6) In subsection (4) ''satisfactory evidence of identity'' means evidence which is reasonably capable of establishing (and does in fact establish to the satisfaction of the person who obtains it) the name, address and a photographic likeness of the person producing the evidence, and that such person is over the age of 18 years on each occasion that satisfactory evidence of identity is required to be produced under this Act (including the proffering on a second or subsequent occasion of entry of a card or token issued to them by the licensee of the casino premises) for the purpose of verifying the identity of such person by reference to a photographic image stored visually or electronically upon the card or token, or upon a system maintained by the licensee of the casino premises for such purpose.'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

After a short pause, I rise with some trepidation and concern. Having had a phenomenally successful run this morning, I am confident that I shall not have any success whatever in relation to this issue. We return yet again to the debate we had on clause 83 concerning the requirements for identity. During those deliberations, the Minister made it clear that we were to wait for further information in relation to the third European directive on money laundering, among other matters. I am merely giving him the opportunity to say something that he might have omitted during our discussion of clause 83 or that has come to light since that discussion.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

My lengthy brief has been condensed to three paragraphs, which will accord with the Committee's wish that we focus on the issues this afternoon. I shall give a full explanation of the position on money laundering, and it would be helpful if I did so without being asked to give way because the position is somewhat complex.

Casinos throughout Europe are subject to a money laundering directive, which, as well as imposing requirements on a wide range of financial institutions, requires casino customers to be identified if they buy or sell chips above a value of è1,000. However, two things are set to change. First, the Bill will remove the requirement in the Gaming Act 1968 for casinos to operate as members' clubs. It will, of course, be open to casinos to continue to operate as members' clubs if they wish, and we made that clear during an earlier debate. Some may choose to do so, but others may not, and we should not frame the Bill in the expectation that all casinos will be for members only, which is an unnecessary regulatory requirement provided that other safeguards are in place.

The second change in prospect is that the EU is currently considering a new draft money laundering directive, which will reinforce and extend the controls in the present directive. The Treasury remains in the lead on that and has been consulting interested bodies, including law enforcement agencies, regulators and, of course, the businesses that will be affected by the new directive, including casinos. People going into such areas will have to go through identity checks, whether or not they gamble. In the Government's view, that is unnecessary for a number of reasons. First, requirements as to identification and verification of identity for the purposes of controlling money laundering can and, indeed, should be set in specific money laundering regulations made by the Treasury, which implement the requirements set out in the EU directive. We cannot yet be sure what the new directive will require, and it would not be sensible to try to anticipate it by including detailed and specific provisions in the Bill.

Secondly, we are not persuaded that it would be right in future to require identification on entry in all cases, even though we do so now. As I have explained, the casinos of the future will not be the same as casinos now. Furthermore, the identification requirements in the new directive are likely to be more challenging than the requirements in the present directive. It would not be appropriate to go into the details of the consultations that have been taking place with industry bodies, or the discussions with other member states.

We expect that, fairly soon, a proposal will be agreed by member states and go to the European Parliament for consideration. What I can say is that it is likely that the new directive, like the present directive, will provide a choice between mandatory identification at the point of crossing a financial threshold or identification on entry. I can also say that a number of casinos have made clear their view that, in the context of the system of gambling regulation proposed in the Bill and, in particular, the removal of compulsory casino membership schemes, it would be more appropriate to check the identity of customers at the financial threshold and not at the physical threshold of the premises or some specific area of the premises. The amendment would shut off that option by requiring identification on entry to that area of a casino that includes gaming tables and higher-value gaming machines. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the Minister for amplifying some of the points he raised during our consideration of clause 83. May I tell him gently that he has said in two different ways that he firmly believes that the third European directive will be more challenging than the second? He also said that the third directive will be likely to reinforce and extend the controls in the second. Regulation 8(1) of the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 and article 9 of the draft third EU directive make it clear that the issue of identity does not come in only when there is an exchange of funds in excess of è1,000. Regulation 8(1) says:

''A person who operates a casino by way of a business in the United Kingdom must obtain satisfactory evidence of identity of any person before allowing that person to use the casino's gaming facilities.''

That means before any use—regardless of whether there is an exchange in excess of è1,000.

Article 9 states:

''Member states shall require that all casino customers shall be identified''.

The identity must be verified later when there is a transfer of è1,000.

I suggest that the Minister's statement that the situation will occur only when money changes hands, is unlikely to be reflected in the third European directive. He nevertheless makes the fair point that it would be better to wait for that directive in order to ensure that it will apply to all casinos in the United Kingdom, and that it is not necessary to require such provision in the Bill. There will be a further opportunity when we have more information about the development of the third directive.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I have made two points. The money laundering directive is about much more than casinos, and the Treasury is discussing it with businesses, banks and regulators. The regulations under the second directive required identity checks on entry, but we are considering how to implement the third directive. It is under discussion with industry, but the lead Department is the Treasury, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the implementation of the third directive has much wider implications than just for casinos.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful for that further explanation. The Minister will be aware that there are concerns additional to those about money laundering. They lead some people, including myself, to believe that identity provision might be useful, particularly for tracking problem gamblers. For those reasons, I believe that this is an issue to which we will return, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 353

Principles to be applied

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 359, in clause 145, page 64, line 38, leave out 'not'.

Lest the Minister draws my attention to clause 68 and the fact that we have already agreed to it and its making clear that a demand test is not required, I point out that that clause relates to the granting of an operating licence by the commission, and that in this clause we are discussing the granting of a premises licence by a licensing authority, namely a local authority. I remind the Minister that I am still waiting to receive a letter from him explaining the absence of unitary authorities in the list of those councils that are meant to be licensing authorities. He will recall that we are still trying to find out whether Bath and North East Somerset is a unitary authority or whether it will have to call itself something like a county without districts, bearing in mind there is no such county. I hope that I get an assurance from him to return to that matter.

The amendment relates to the issuing of premises licence by a licensing authority. We will shortly debate clause 157, which gives local authorities clear powers to say no to any casinos whatsoever for three years. That is a welcome power for local authorities.

The Minister will be aware, however, that some local authorities will not want to have to invoke clause 157, or a complete ban on all casinos, but will want an opportunity to consider, case by case, individual proposals for planning and premises licences. In doing that, they need to maximise their power to refuse the application. Many councils are aware that when they have considered casino and other planning applications in the past they have had had good reasons, as representatives of the local people, to deny the application, only to find their decision overturned on appeal to the planning inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. They are therefore conscious that their powers are not as total as they would like.

Surely it is important to enable councils to have the maximum range of powers to assist them in deciding whether to reject an individual casino application for a premises licence. That is why it is important that we return to the demand test as one of the measures that authorities can reasonably expect to use during their deliberations on an application. The amendment, which would simply delete the word ''not'', would mean that local authorities could take into account evidence along the lines of a demand test.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I sent a letter to you, Mr. Gale, as the Chairman of the Committee, on the hon. Gentleman's point about the explanation on local authorities and their status. I do not know whether that has been passed on, but I wanted to clear that up. I have not written to the members of the Committee individually, but through your good office.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am ashamed to say that I have not seen a copy of any such letter. The Clerk tells me that neither has he. If the ministerial team would be kind enough to pass a copy to the Clerk, we will make sure that it is circulated.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Sir Alan Budd recommended, and the Government accepted, that the demand test be scrapped for casinos, bingo clubs and betting shops. Budd concluded that the demand test was outdated and reflected a time when legislation was guided by a wish to restrict opportunities.

The Joint Committee also considered the issue of demand. It did not recommend that the demand test be reintroduced but emphasised that licensing authorities should have the power to prevent the proliferation of gambling premises. The Government accepted that recommendation and drafted clause 157, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, to enable authorities to resolve not to have any or any more casinos in their area—you will know, Mr. Gale, that some such casinos already operate.

I do not believe that such a power is necessary for other gambling premises. Casino growth has been constrained far more rigidly than has any other sector of the gambling industry. Consequently, we originally anticipated greater expansion of casino premises than of other types of gambling premises. The Government have, however, further acted on concerns regarding proliferation. That is reflected in my announcement on 16 November regarding the cap on the number of regional casinos.

I am therefore content that the regulation-making power for new casinos, combined with an authority's ability to reject any premises licence application that is inconsistent with the licensing objectives, guidance issued by the gambling commission and the authority's own licensing statement, is sufficient to prevent proliferation. Individual applications can be refused but refusal must be on the grounds of the licensing objectives.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am not surprised by the Minister's response and will comment on it when I respond to the debate. I ask the Minister one question. Could a local authority, in its policy statement, make it clear that it would consider new casinos only if there was clear evidence of demand for them? Could that be incorporated in the statement?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Yes.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

In that case, I humbly suggest that the Minister's brief is slightly redundant. He is saying on one hand that Budd recommended that the demand test should go—the scrutiny Committee did not press for it to be reinstated—and the Minister is now making it clear that in fact the demand test can, in effect, remain as part of the local authority's policy statement. It seems that I have got exactly what I want, albeit by another method, unless the Minister wants to correct me.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is just for casinos.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

It is just for casinos. I am talking just about casinos; I wanted that just for casinos and it is just casinos that are referred to in the clause. I am delighted that I have achieved what I wanted by a different method. The Minister has now put it firmly on the record that the demand test can be used by local authorities if they put in their statement their intention to use the demand test as a criterion in their consideration of applications. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Before we proceed, I should correct an impression that I have given. When a Minister gives an undertaking to write directly to a Member, the Minister must write to the Member and not to the Chairman of the Committee. The Chairman is always pleased to receive courtesy copies of correspondence, as, I am sure, are Committee Members, but the undertaking remains between the Minister and the Member. The Chairman cannot possibly or properly become involved in that process.

Clause 146 - Delegation to licensing committee

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 65, line 4, leave out

'established under section 6 of the Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17)'

and insert

'as established by that authority'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 140, in page 65, line 12, leave out subsections (3) to (5).

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

These are by way of probing amendments to tease out the Government's thinking. Amendment No. 139 would simply delete the reference to the Licensing Act 2003 so that the provision would refer to

''the licensing committee of the authority as established by that authority'',

which is the one that forms the licensing committee.

In amendment No. 140 I am seeking an explanation from the Minister as to why the delegation is organised as proposed in the Bill rather than in some other way. Licensing committees have enough on their plates with the 2003 Act and are already complaining, as the Minister well knows, about the lack of resources for those various jobs. The provision will be an extra burden on them for which they may not receive adequate resources.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The clause sets out the responsibilities of licensing authorities and licensing committees. Licensing authorities are permitted to delegate their functions in relation to premises licenses to a committee established under section 6 of the 2003 Act. Subsections (3) to (5) empower a licensing committee to sub-delegate specific functions to individual officers of the licensing authority.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

There will be serious problems in authorities such as Westminster and Camden in terms of the sheer numbers of licence applications that will have to be considered and processed when the 2003 Act comes into force.

Westminster city council has already made many representations, saying that it does not know how it will cope with the flood of applications. We are now loading yet another burden on the same committee by making it responsible for considering gambling establishments—there will be a large number of those, particularly in inner-city areas, as I have described. We are trying to seek some flexibility so that local authorities can play things internally to the best of their ability without our prescribing in the Bill exactly how they are to do it.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I accept that, which is why there have been ongoing discussions about the implementation of the 2003 Act and the Bill. Concern has been expressed about the limit on the number of licensing committee members under section 6 of the 2003 Act and the reproduction of that limit in the Bill.

In some areas licensing committees will have a large volume of cases to hear during the transitional period of the 2003 Act. However, hon. Members should remember that authorities will receive far fewer applications for gambling premises licenses and those will not be received until after that busy transitional period. The appointed day has already been named. The limit on the number of committee members in the Bill will not assist authorities dealing with the volume of licence applications during that transitional period. There is management under both the 2003 Act and the Bill.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his explanation so far. It is interesting to note that he and his officials are taking into account the concern that has been raised already. The Minister is responsible for the 2003 Act in any event; however, there are differences.

To do their job properly in relation to premises licenses, councillors on committees will have to take on board a great deal of information relating to licensing pubs and clubs, and to make the right decisions they will, separately, have to take on board quite a lot of the Bill's contents. That is a considerable overload and, if we are not careful, the two periods may overlap in such a way that the service provided to businesses, which need quick, appropriate decisions, will prove logistically difficult to deliver.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Although I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says—he and I know that there have been concerns about the volume of cases to be considered under the 2003 Act—we must keep such things in proportion. That new regime will be considerable, there is no doubt about that, but we are talking about a much smaller number of licensing cases under the Bill. There is also a power to delegate certain functions to officers of a licensing authority to relieve the committee of the burden of sitting every time a premises licence application is received.

Against that background of considerable delegation to officers, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment, because we have adequately covered the needs of local authorities.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Yes, I am pleased that the Minister is aware of some of the problems and I agree with him entirely that those are not universal. As I said, the key areas of concern are inner-city areas, such as Westminster and Camden, with huge numbers of pubs and clubs that will have to go through the licensing process under the 2003 Act. Those places will also have the majority of betting, gambling and gaming centres. We are imposing a double load on a small number of key areas—I agree with the Minister on that—and that needs to be thought through carefully. I am grateful to him for his explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 148 - Responsible authorities

Clause 149 - Interested party

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 330, in page 67, line 19, at end add

', or

(d) has concern about or responsibility for addressing social wellbeing in the wider local or regional community from which the authorised activities may draw custom.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 331, in clause 327, page 144, line 3, at end insert

', and

(e) representatives of relevant social agencies with concern about or responsibility for social well-being in the wider local or regional community from which the authorised activities may draw custom, such as social services, probation service, addiction treatment bodies, primary care trusts, community workers and faith groups, regardless of whether the geographical area or remit of these agencies extends beyond that of the licensing authority.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Amendment No. 330 would add to clause 149. Amendment No. 331, which is consequential to amendment No. 330, is similar but refers to clause 327. We return to the discussion that we had at the very beginning of the Committee's deliberations on social responsibility and well-being, as well as the input of local communities, particularly those sections of it that have great concerns about problem gambling and the social impact of gambling, betting and gaming.

The amendments are partly an attempt to help the Government. It seems, although we have not yet had the debate, that if the Government are moving down the road of limitations—and they have talked about limitations on regional casinos—there has to be a good reason to justify that in our courts, in the European Court of Human Rights and in the European Court of Justice. The amendments are an attempt to focus on the social well-being and responsibility aspects of what we are doing, and to put them in the Bill. It might be helpful for the Government if they embraced the idea; it might help them in forthcoming discussions.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

As the hon. Gentleman says, there is an admirable intention behind the amendments. However, one of the three licensing objectives is to ensure that children and young people are protected from being harmed or exploited by gambling, and so I do not believe that the amendments are necessary.

To take amendment No. 331 first, clause 327 already requires a local authority to consult those who should be consulted about the licensing policy statement. Subsection 3(d) requires an authority to consult any persons

''who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the authority's functions''

or their representatives. I have every confidence that authorities will consult persons who have an interest in the social well-being of the wider community. It is left open in the Bill who the authorities will be required to consult, so that each authority can consult those persons most likely to be able to make a contribution to the licensing policy.Subsection (3)(d) is not limited to persons in the licensing authority area.

On amendment No. 330, the licensing policy would be applied every time that an authority considered an application. Therefore, where appropriate, persons with responsibility for addressing social well-being will already have been given a chance to express their views. Clause 149 also allows any person who is sufficiently close to the premises and who is likely to be affected by them to make representations. It will be down to local authorities to determine what ''sufficiently close'' means. We think that that will give adequate protection where it is needed.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of where he feels the sentiment behind the amendment can be properly deployed elsewhere in the Bill. I take on board his comments about clause 327, and the assurances he has given that consultation will be as wide as possible with the local communities and those who encouraged us to table the amendment, particularly the Churches. Those who have taken a position against gambling for obvious reasons will take some comfort from the Minister's words that according to the Bill as drafted they should be consulted on such matters. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.