|
Mr. Hawkins: I question the requirement for small society lotteries to register with local authorities. From my experience with hospice lotteries—one operates in my constituency—I am very aware that they can operate in a range of local authority areas. From the drafting of part 5 of schedule 9, which deals with local authority registration, it seems that as long as the lottery is registered with one local authority, it should not matter which one. Having registered with the local authority, however, the matter needs to be referred to the gambling commission. That seems to be a unnecessary further expansion of bureaucracy.
I put it to the Minister that the Government are constantly loading more burdens on to local authorities, particularly small borough councils. Every time I talk to the senior officers of Surrey Heath borough council—it is entirely within my constituency, which is also partly covered by Guildford borough council—it says that it is constantly having new administrative and bureaucratic burdens landed on it by the Government, but they never provide it with any extra money to enable it to discharge those new functions.
If a hospice lottery or any other small lottery has to register—it will obviously have to do so under the Bill—it will have to register with every borough council and district council, as well as with the bigger local authorities that might be able to absorb the costs more easily. Those councils will have to start employing new people just to deal with lottery registrations, or they may create a new department to deal with them. Where is the money to come from?
Would it not be much more sensible, given that the Government are to set up a new thing called the gambling commission, which is to be centrally funded, if those small lotteries went straight to the commission? The commission will have to be notified under part 5 of the schedule in any case. I do not see the need for what I think will be a costly and overly bureaucratic exercise. Why cannot the whole thing just go straight to the commission? It will have to create its own records, and the Government would then fund registration out of general taxpayer revenue. It is something for which the Government should take responsibility, as they are setting up the system.
I hope that the Minister will give a firm undertaking—he may already have received authority from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that, for every council in the land, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can hand over some of the money that it gets from the Treasury every year; or that an special extra bit of the annual local government settlement will provide funding for that new bureaucracy. If not, this will be yet another example of the Government's constant and wholly unnecessary additions to bureaucracy, to no good purpose. Why duplicate the work? The registrations will end up with the commission, so why not send them there from the word go?
Mr. Foster: I gave warning to the Minister that I wanted to talk about the 50 club—or the 100 club, the 200 club or the 500 club, depending on the political party or other organisation running it. The Minister
Column Number: 491
implied earlier that in some, but not all, circumstances a local constituency association lottery might constitute a private society lottery. I hope that we shall now have some clear explanation as to whether a private society is defined by the number of members it has, by how secretive it is or whatever. It is important that we know; that will have a bearing on the future, not only for many of us but, more importantly, for the many charitable and other organisations that run such activities.
Can the Minister explain whether I have made a mistake in my understanding of paragraph 14(1) in respect of private lotteries? It reads:
''No advertisement for a private society lottery may be—(a) displayed or distributed except on the society premises, or (b) sent to any other premises.''
Am I right in interpreting that to mean that if Bath Liberal Democrat association runs a 200 club, it will not be allowed to send a flyer advertising the existence of its successful activity to its members, but that they will be able to find out about it only by means of an advertisement posted on premises owned by the association? That cannot be what is intended, but it is certainly the common-sense reading of the Bill.
While I am on the subject of common-sense readings, may I ask the Minister to reflect on paragraph 56(3) in part 5 of the schedule? Rightly, in my view, it says that if various organisations are to request documents from the local authority, that authority shall not make an unreasonable charge for them. However, it goes on to say that
''the authority may include a reasonable share of expenditure which is referable only indirectly to the provision of that service.''
That strikes me as a load of gobbledegook, but I assume that it refers to a share of the costs of the administration, such as the salary of the chief executive and the local solicitor. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
Thirdly, I would say gently to the Minister that at the beginning of part 5 we come back to our old friends the definitions of different councils. Despite all his reassurances that he would send me a letter explaining whether Bath and North East Somerset unitary authority is covered by the definitions earlier in the Bill which are repeated in paragraph 42, no such letter has yet reached me. I do not know whether other Committee members have received such assurances.
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will recall that a number of us joined him in seeking assurances about local authorities.
Will the hon. Gentleman also bear it in mind that the Minister told me as recently as Tuesday of this week, in response to a point that I made, that what the Government are introducing has been supported by the British Beer and Pub Association? Then, when I went to a reception held by the all-party group on beer last night and spoke to senior people from that association, I found that they completely disagree with that. I will come back to the point when we discuss licensing, but I am afraid that we are starting to reach the conclusion—I think that the hon.
Column Number: 492
Gentleman would agree—that we simply cannot place much reliance on what the Minister has said.
11 am
Mr. Caborn: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. When I give information out in this Committee, it is given genuinely. If anybody wants to challenge what I have said, it should not be on the basis of what happened at a function on the Terrace of the House of Commons when people have had a drink. That is totally unacceptable, and I expect the comment to be withdrawn. If not, the hon. Gentleman should provide evidence to me that what I have said is wrong.
Mr. Foster: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hawkins: I followed up the conversation that I had last night with the people from the British Beer and Pub Association, and they gave me a briefing and confirmed that what the Minister said about the association working with the Government and agreeing with their proposals was wrong. We will come back to the point this afternoon and if the Minister wants me to, I can read out all the association's disagreements with the Government.
Mr. Foster: I give way to the Minister.
Mr. Caborn: I am not going to have my integrity put on the line by Opposition Members. What I said was wholly true, and when Members bring the integrity of a Minister of the Crown into question, I expect them to tell me who said what and about what specifically. The remark was totally unacceptable.
Mr. Foster: I give way again to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hawkins: I suggest to the Minister that we return to the issue when we deal with licensing—we will thrash it out then. My position is absolutely clear. If I am briefed by members of a trade association, not only at a reception in the House but in a written briefing the following morning, I am entitled to put forward its concerns.
Mr. Foster: I give way.
Mr. Caborn: I want a withdrawal of the comment that I gave wrong information in my position as a Minister in this Committee. If substantive evidence can be brought forward, that is fine—I will answer the allegations. The integrity of a Minister is being brought into disrepute by the hon. Gentleman's statements.
The Chairman: I call Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Hawkins: I am simply stating what I have been briefed about. The Minister and I clearly disagree. We will come back to it when we deal with the substance of the licensing issue.
Mr. Caborn: That is not what was said.
Mr. Hawkins: We may need to refer to Hansard to find out exactly what the Minister said. What I am saying is that the British Beer and Pub Association has briefed me that it does not agree with the Government in the way that the Minister claimed.
Mr. Caborn: The words used were that we cannot believe what the Minister has said. That is unacceptable, and I want them withdrawn.
Column Number: 493
The Chairman: I think that the allegation in the final part of what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath initially said contained an improper implication.
Mr. Hawkins: I certainly withdraw the implication, but the issue remains.
The Chairman: I call Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster: I gave way many times in that discussion. Before the Minister intervened, I was about to say that I did not agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in his assertions. I am happy to put it on record that whatever disagreements I have with the Government about certain aspects of the Bill, the Minister has sought to accommodate the concerns expressed in Committee. When he has seen it as possible, he has been prepared to make changes.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that concerns continue to be expressed about the Bill by a number of organisations, of which the British Beer and Pub Association is one. Those issues will be more appropriately raised at a later stage. However, from our side of the argument, we feel that we can rely on the Minister and that when he makes an assurance, he will deliver on it. The point that I was making is that although I am totally confident that he will deliver on his assurances, I have not yet seen that in respect of the definition and I want to see it. I hope that we will get some progress.
I was trying to make five brief points, which have been slightly hijacked. My last point will now seem so mundane and trivial that I am not sure that it is worth bothering with. Nevertheless, paragraph 55 of schedule 9 states that the annual fee
''shall be of the prescribed amount''.
Can I take it—I do not see where the legislation ties in with those things that the Secretary of State will make regulations for—that this will be included in the list of fees, which will be the basis of regulations by the Secretary of State, and that individual local authorities will not determine their own fate?
| 
