|
Miss Kirkbride: I am grateful for the Minister's response and to some extent I accept that it is for local councillors to determine difficult matters. However, with a view to returning to this issue as and when the Government reveal their own thoughts on it, I point out that local councillors are likely to be offered significant inducements to accept casinos in the form of help local council tax or other services, so there is a case for asking people more widely whether they want casinos. On that note of caution, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 67 and 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Procedure
4.30 pm
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 222, in clause 69, page 29, line 36, after 'applications', insert
''which may not be delegated to local authorities,''.
This is a probing amendment. Clause 69 refers to the procedure in making an application to the commission for a licence. Subsection (4) refers to clause 22, which sets out the commission's policy. The amendment seeks to make it clear that
Column Number: 281
''the delegation of functions in relation to applications'',
as set out in subsection (4)(a), should not be made to local authorities. It may be that the commission and the Government have no intention of doing that, but it would be helpful to hear the Minister's assurances that some of those functions will not be delegated back to local authorities.
Mr. Caborn: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that his amendment is unnecessary. There is no possibility that the commission could delegate its powers to the local authority under clause 69 or any other clause. If it did so, it would be acting outside its powers. The Bill maintains a clear distinction: the commission licenses operators, whereas the job of licensing premises is for local authorities in England and Wales, and for licensing boards in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's amendment covers an important point, but I can advise him that the risk that he fears does not arise. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Moss: I am more than satisfied with the Minister's assurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
General conditions imposed by Commission
Mr. Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 229A, in clause 71, page 30, line 22, at end insert
''provided that such conditions may not unfairly or unreasonably grant another class a competitive advantage''.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 233A, in clause 74, page 31, line 32, at end insert
''provided that such a condition may not unfairly or unreasonably discriminate between different types of gambling activities''.
No. 234A, in clause 75, page 32, line 32, at end add—
No. 241, in clause 104, page 48, line 7, after 'activity', insert 'in a non-discriminatory manner'.
Mr. Foster: I give the Minister advance notice that if he gives the same assurance that he gave in response to the amendments to clause 65, I would be persuaded to withdraw my amendment.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that it should be expressly required that the commission acts in a way that does not discriminate unfairly between different classes of gambling activity. It must be clear that any policy decision in respect of conditions does
Column Number: 282
not unfairly distort the gambling market and should be subject to consultation and to a statement made by the Secretary of State.
The power to attach conditions is extremely broad and, as currently drafted, it is unclear under what circumstances individual conditions can be attached or on what grounds such conditions might be challenged. It is therefore essential that such a fundamental power is clearly described in a statement by the Secretary of State after consultation with key stakeholders.
I shall give the Minister one example of the imbalance that currently applies. Fixed-odds betting terminals are allowed in betting shops, but not in the 134 casinos in this country. The amendments seek to ensure that similar imbalances will not occur in the future.
Mr. Caborn: The amendments seek to ensure that the commission and the Secretary of State act reasonably in imposing conditions on operating licences and will avoid anti-competitive effects. Both parties will clearly wish to do that. It would be perverse for them to act otherwise, and if they did so, they would be open to legal challenge in the usual way.
It is not the function of conditions imposed by the commission or the Secretary of State to give rise to anti-competitive effects, but different circumstances and different types of gambling may demand different treatment. That may be necessary, not to affect competition, but to protect the public. As we share the objective of protecting the public, we should not accept the amendments.
Although operating licences are generally to be of an indefinite duration, clause 104 allows the commission to decide that certain types of operating licences may have a limited duration. Amendment No. 241 would allow the commission to behave in a non-discriminatory and reasonable manner, and that is clearly right. The commission will be required to publish the reasons for any limit on duration as part of its policy for licensing and regulation under clause 22. In addition, the commission will be constrained by normal rules of public law. Any arbitrary use of its powers may result in a decision being challenged by judicial review. That should provide the safeguard that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. Foster: The Minister has been inordinately helpful, and in the light of his response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72
General conditions: procedure
Mr. Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 230A, in clause 72, page 30, line 38, leave out 'in the Commission's opinion'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
Column Number: 283
No. 300, in clause 72, page 31, line 1, leave out 'such of'.
No. 231A, in clause 72, page 31, line 1, leave out
'as the Commission thinks appropriate (if any)'.
No. 244, in clause 112, page 51, line 41, leave out 'the Commission thinks that'.
No. 245, in clause 112, page 51, line 43, leave out 'it thinks that'.
Mr. Foster: As ever, seeking to be helpful, I say to the Minister that if he were to give reassurances similar to those that he gave to the Committee in response to amendments to clause 24, I might be minded to seek the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment. However, the amendments attempt to remove the subjectivity of the persons whom the commission is to consult before specifying and imposing conditions to operating licences, and aim to ensure that an objective test is applied to revocation.
Mr. Caborn: I wanted to say, ''I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave a moment ago'', but I dare not do that.
The hon. Gentleman is seeking clarity about the industry representatives that should be consulted on general conditions that could be attached to an operating licence. Clearly, when the commission is proposing the condition relating to a specific part of the industry, it will consult those industry representatives. If it is proposing a condition that will affect all operating licences, it will have to consult a wider range of representatives. However, the clause already provides for that.
On amendments Nos. 300 and 231A, I am more than happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiment. Conditions on operating licences are an important part of the regulatory structure and could well involve significant costs for the gambling business. However, it would be an excessive burden for the commission always to be required to consult the Secretary of State, local authorities, the police, gambling businesses and the public. Some conditional licences will address minor or purely technical matters, where wide consultation would not serve any great purpose.
I am happy to confirm that the Government will expect the commission to consult widely when it considers new conditions. The Gaming Board, which will form the nucleus of the gambling commission, has an excellent relationship with the industry, and we have no reason to assume that that will not be the case in the future.
Turning to amendments Nos. 244 and 245, the Bill provides for a range of circumstances in which the commission may revoke an operator's licence. The need for that power is indisputable, but the commission should use it only in particular circumstances, arising from a review of an operator's licence and the conditions for suspension or revocation. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern on the matter, but perhaps I can provide some reassurance: the circumstances in which a review may
Column Number: 284
take place are set out clearly in clause 109 and the conditions for revocation are set out in clause 113. The discretion to which the wording refers, and which troubles the hon. Gentleman, does not therefore provide a wider ground for revocation. It must be for the commission to form an opinion in each case, and no other outcome is possible. I do not think that his amendment adds anything, and I ask him to withdraw it.
|
