|
Mr. Caborn: 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.
Mr. Moss: 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
Column Number: 333
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Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 254, in clause 122, page 56, line 39, after 'produce', insert 'a copy of'.
The Chairman: 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'.
Mr. Moss: 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.
Mr. Caborn: 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.
11.15 am
Mr. Moss: 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.
Mr. Caborn: 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
Column Number: 334
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.
Mr. Page: 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?
Mr. Caborn: 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.
Mr. Moss: Well, we were given several answers.
Mr. Page: Take the last one.
Mr. Moss: 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.
Mr. Page: 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?
Mr. Moss: 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]
Column Number: 335
Mr. Caborn: 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.
Mr. Moss: 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
Mr. Moss: 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.
Mr. Caborn: 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.
Mr. Moss: 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.
| 
