|
Mr. Caborn: 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 Budd concluded that the demand test was outdated and reflected a time when legislation was guided by a wish to restrict opportunities.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.
Mr. Foster: 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?
Mr. Caborn: Yes.
Mr. Foster: 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.
Mr. Caborn: That is just for casinos.
Column Number: 355
Mr. Foster: 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.
The Chairman: 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
Mr. Moss: 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'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 140, in page 65, line 12, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
Mr. Moss: 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.
Mr. Caborn: 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.
Column Number: 356
The amendments would require the licensing authority to establish a separate committee to deal with a gambling premises licence. They would also prevent the functions of that committee from being sub-delegated to an officer of the licensing authority. The Government consider that requiring a licensing authority to set up two separate committees—one for licensing premises that serve alcohol and the other for licensing gambling premises—is wholly unnecessary. Those two committees would often consider similar issues in relation to one premises. Requiring two separate committees to be set up would create an additional level of bureaucracy, would be time-consuming and burdensome for the licensing authority and would result in considerable delay for applicants, because applications would need to be considered in their entirety by the committee.
Mr. Moss: 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.
Mr. Caborn: 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.
Mr. Moss: 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
Column Number: 357
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.
Mr. Caborn: 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.
Mr. Moss: 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.
| 
