|
Clause 66
Consideration of application: general principles
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 215, in page 27, line 35, leave out 'have regard to' and insert 'follow'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 216, in page 27, line 37, at end insert
'provided that such opinion shall be reasonable and formed after considering only information which is directly relevant to the granting of the application,'.
No. 217, in page 27, line 38, leave out from 'shall' to 'and' in line 4 and insert
'ensure that gaming machines granted in respect of the licensed activities are in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State,'.
No. 218, in page 28, line 9, at end insert
'provided that such other circumstances are relevant to the proposed licensed activity'.
No. 219, in page 28, line 26, leave out subsection (5).
No. 220, in page 28, line 35, leave out subsection (7).
No. 221, in clause 69, page 29, line 24, at end insert
'relevant to the licensed activity'.
Mr. Moss: The amendment is an attempt to strengthen the wording of the clause, and amendment No. 216 would ensure that the commission took into consideration only information that was relevant in the context of the application.
We tabled amendment No. 217 because the clause refers to the commission making a determination regarding the suitability of a gaming machine, but clause 220 provides that the Secretary of State should make regulations defining classes of machine and the premises on which each is to be used. It should not be possible for the commission to reach a view contrary to that of the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 218 relates to the fact that the clause allows the commission to have regard to any other circumstances. We feel that that is too broad, and it would be inequitable if the commission could have regard to circumstances that were not relevant to the licensed activity.
Amendment No. 219 would delete subsection (5), and amendment No. 220 would delete subsection (7). We are making the point that clause 220 provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations. We do not want there to be any conflict between what the Secretary of State determines and what the commission can do.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman proposes in this group several amendments designed to limit the way in which the commission will take decisions when granting licences. I could have sympathy with some of
Column Number: 278
them, were it not for the fact that the Bill already achieves their objectives. I fear that others could undermine the cohesive regulatory structure that we are trying to put in place for gaming machines.
On amendment No. 215, I wish that I could share the hon. Gentleman's confidence that his formulation ''to follow'' is better than ''to have regard to''. We think that the clause places the commission under the appropriate duty, which is to have regard to the licensing objectives. They are, after all, objectives. The commission must keep them constantly in mind when taking decisions, but I cannot agree that the amendment achieves anything better than what we have currently in the clause.
On amendments Nos. 216, 218 and 221, I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the risks of the commission taking damaging decisions on irrelevant grounds. I can assure him that nothing like that is promoted by the Bill. The commission should have regard only to relevant information and consider only pertinent facts. It must give reasons for all its decisions, and if any operator is unhappy it can appeal the commission's decision to the tribunal or even apply for a judicial review. I also have every confidence that the commission, like other statutory regulators, will be alive to its duties under public law. Therefore, I cannot see that these amendments would add anything to the Bill.
Finally, on amendments Nos. 217, 219 and 220, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with his concerns on this matter. Part 10 sets out a clear regime for the categorisation of gaming machines, and for the Secretary of State to make regulations about how those machines must operate. That will cover matters such as the percentage of stakes that must be returned as prizes and the display of information on the machine.
We will debate part 10 in due course, but it is not the be-all and end-all of machine regulation. There must be a role for the commission, so that it can ensure, when granting an operating licence, that the machines that an operator proposes to use have been sourced from a licensed supplier. The commission must be able to authorise particular varieties of games on machines as suitable for particular operators. That is what the powers in clause 66 are designed to secure, yet the amendments seek to remove them. In our view there is no contradiction between clause 66 and part 10 and no risk of dual regulation.
The commission and the Secretary of State are each given their own tasks by the Bill. The amendments try to change that split in a way that would undermine the commission's ability to regulate machines properly. I should add that they would also prevent the commission from regulating other gambling equipment, such as gaming tables, and mechanised cash bingo equipment, which would be very unfortunate. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Column Number: 279
Mr. Moss: I am most grateful to the Minister for his assurance that there would not be a conflict here through dual regulation. On that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Miss Kirkbride: I beg to move amendment No. 347, in page 27, line 42, at end insert
(e) shall only issue an operating licence for a casino following an affirmative vote in a local referendum.'.
The amendment is designed to explore what plans the Government have to consult the public on the location of casinos. We are still waiting to hear the Government's views on where the eight regional casinos that they will allow to proceed should be located, but they often say that a decision should be based on the public consent of the people living in the area as well as the wider view of where the Government would like casinos to be developed. They should therefore give the public a real opportunity to make a decision on the location of casinos and a real chance to say yes or no to casino development in their area, and there can be no better way of doing that than by local referendum.
I can imagine that referendums are not quite as popular in the Labour party as they once were. That is understandable, and Opposition Members take some pleasure in it, but the Government have pressed hard for referendums in a variety of contexts throughout the United Kingdom. If they mean what they say, which is that local people should be able to determine whether they want a regional casino, local people should be asked directly. I am sure that as a constituency MP, Mr. Pike, you, like all of us, are aware of the great frustration in this respect. People feel that although they are technically being consulted on a decision, they do not really have a voice in the final decision, and that the quangocrats take the wider decisions on behalf of communities and society.
No fully tested way of engaging with the public has been developed, so only a local referendum could constitute proper direct consultation with the electorate. What I am referring to also happens in America. In the recent presidential election, a great number of states had referendums at the same time on allowing changes to gaming laws. Coming from where I do on this issue, I was pleased that certainly one and perhaps most of them told the local legislatures that they did not want such gaming to proceed in their areas. It seems to me that a local referendum is a good way of truly engaging with local people in the way that the Government have suggested. I am talking about asking local people whether they would like a regional casino in their town or area. I would be grateful if the Government explained their views on the matter.
Mr. Caborn: I shall try to explain the Government's position. I am happy to accept the spirit of what the hon. Lady is saying. New casinos, particularly regional casinos, will likely be significant developments in any local authority area. Ample opportunity for proper public consultation is therefore essential, and the Bill provides that. When a licensing authority proposes its
Column Number: 280
licensing policy, it will be required to consult members of the public in its area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave that pledge on Second Reading, and we shall table amendments to that effect in good time before the Committee considers part 18.
The licensing authority will also have to give people who live close to any new development the right to make representations. The same will apply to businesses whose interests might be affected by the casino proposals. Given the likely size and impact of regional casino development in particular, there are bound to be many people and businesses in the licensing authority area who will be able to make representations. If they make representations, they can insist on a public hearing before the licensing committee or licensing board.
Local authorities already have wide powers to consult the local population, and we will make them wider through improvements to the Bill. They can hold public consultation and forum meetings. The Bill requires local authorities to hold public hearings if people want them and to provide opportunities for local opinion to be heard.
A requirement for a local referendum would push the issue a little too far. We elect our local councillors to take difficult decisions about education, transport and the environment on our behalf. There is no doubt that casinos raise difficult issues—nobody denies that—but to resort to a referendum would not do justice to the skills and expertise of the councillors up and down this land. Because of the safeguards already in the Bill, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
|
