Clause 148
Responsible authorities
3.30 pm
Amendment made: No. 160, in clause 148, page 66, line 23, after 'authority', insert 'in England and Wales'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 148, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 149
Interested party
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 330, in page 67, line 19, at end add
(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.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 331, in clause 327, page 144, line 3, at end insert
Column Number: 358
(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.'.
Mr. Moss: 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.
Mr. Caborn: 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.
Column Number: 359
Evidence from persons who have responsibility for social well-being might well form part of an individual representation, but we consider it important that there should be a clear link between the premises and the person making the representation. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Moss: 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 Chairman: I would call Mr. Hawkins to move amendment No. 35, but he is not here.
Mr. Foster: I would like to speak to amendment No. 2 that stands in my name.
The Chairman: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to move his own amendment, but technically, he is moving the lead amendment No. 35.
Clause 150
Making of application
Mr. Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 150, page 67, line 29, leave out from 'sought' to end of line 32.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 42, in clause 154, page 69, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
No. 2, in clause 154, page 69, line 24, after '150(3)(b)', insert
'unless substantial benefits of regeneration to the region will result from the proposed regional casino and'.
Mr. Foster: I looked at the other amendments in this group, and although I am technically moving the lead amendment, I shall not support it if a Division is called, because I can already predict the Minister's response. However, the group of amendments contains amendment No. 2, which is in my name.
One of the things that I find slightly surprising about debate on the Bill is that great mention is made throughout by the Government of the huge regenerative benefits that will flow from the deregulation measures relating to gambling. Before we heard of the proposals to cap the number of regional
Column Number: 360
casinos, we heard talk of 80,000 jobs and millions of pounds generated for the economy. Others were sceptical about whether that would happen; many have seen the Henley centre report, which pours a great deal of cold water on some of the Government's predictions. It is interesting that even the explanatory notes point out that, although there might be financial benefits on the one hand, there might be some losses on the other. There is clearly much debate and doubt surrounding the issue.
Amendment No. 2 would ensure that nothing would go ahead unless clear, demonstrable evidence could be provided of the regenerative benefits that will accrue. It is a simple amendment that would add a requirement for clear evidence of regenerative benefits if something is to happen. One would hope that that evidence would be independently audited and not just provided by the potential casino operator.
I am particularly conscious that we are in difficulty, because the Government intend to table major amendments on regional casinos, and they have said that they will consider measures to restrict the proliferation of large and small casinos—although we do not yet have the details of that. The Minister may be able to assure me that it will be appropriate when considering the details of the Government's amendments to refer to the regeneration benefits. Were he to do so, I would be more than happy to withdraw my amendment.
The Chairman: Before we proceed, I will explain the procedure so that everyone is clear about what we are doing. Technically, the hon. Gentleman has moved amendment No. 35. He has spoken to his own amendment, amendment No.2. If he chooses to move that amendment, the decision on it will be made at the appropriate place in the Bill—fairly shortly, because it relates to clause 154, not clause 150. Technically, therefore, he has moved—whether he wished to or not—amendment No. 35.
Mr. Caborn: In light of that, I will put on record the Government's response to all three amendments. May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that when we return with further amendments on proliferation and with more information to hand, there will be opportunities to discuss regeneration?
Clause 150 refers to making an application to a licensing authority for a premises licence. Amendment No. 35 relates to subsection (3). Subsection (3)(a) provides that a person who has been issued with an operating licence by the gambling commission may apply for a premises licence. Subsection (3)(b) enables a person who has applied to the commission for an operating licence, but has not yet had the application determined, to apply for a premises licence. The intention behind subsection (3)(b) is to reduce the amount of time between operating and premises licences being granted. Where an application is made under subsection (3)(b), the premises licence will not be issued to the applicant until an operating licence has been granted by the gambling commission.
Column Number: 361
Amendment No. 35 would remove subsection (3)(b), therefore preventing a person applying for a premises licence until he had received an operating licence from the commission. That would cause considerable delay and inconvenience for prospective gambling operators—a delay that the Government believe is entirely unnecessary.
Amendment No. 42 would allow people who had not been approved by the gambling commission to be granted a premises licence. The Bill allows people who have made an application for an operating licence also to make applications for a premises licence before the operating licence is granted, but it is important that the gambling commission approves the operating licence before the premises licence is granted. Only the commission can check that the operator is suitable, competent and that his operation is crime-free and competent. The Bill gives the commission extensive powers to do that job, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to weaken that process.
Amendment No. 2 would put a requirement on an applicant for a regional casino premises licence to demonstrate that substantial regeneration benefits will result from his proposals. The Government cannot agree to that amendment for four reasons. First, it would confuse planning and regulation. It is for the planning system to control where regional casinos should be strategically located. Regional planning and local authorities will take account of regeneration benefits when drawing up their plans and considering individual permissions.
Secondly, decisions on gambling premises licences should be made under clause 1 licensing objectives, to ensure effective regulation. We do not want to confuse regeneration with public protection in this Bill. We deliver protection; the planning process delivers regeneration. Thirdly, it is difficult to imagine how substantial regeneration benefits could be defined, or who would do it, other than under the planning system. The amendment is bound to lead to recourse to the courts in most if not all cases.
| 
