|
Mr. Page: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford was advancing a parallel that could best be described with an examination of
Column Number: 544
employment law. There is a code of practice for the dismissal of staff, and if one does not follow it, one will find great difficulty in making that dismissal stick; whereas, if one follows the code and goes through its various phases as recommended, with the necessary appeals available to the employee throughout, a conclusion can be reached. Is that not a more accurate parallel? Our hon. Friend is saying that in this case it should be in the Bill as statute rather than as a code of practice.
Mr. Moss: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. However, such questions would be better addressed to the Minister, as he is responsible for the legislation, not me. I am sure that, in most cases, codes of practice will be enshrined in the statutory framework. Otherwise, as in the example that has just been given, why would anyone bother setting them out in the first place? However, as I am not a lawyer, I cannot say whether all codes of practice are necessarily enshrined in statute. I have no doubt that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. With that answer, I would be grateful if I could proceed.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman will be sharing my salary soon.
Mr. Moss: Is the Minister offering to share his salary? Is it on the record that the Minister offered to share his salary—and pension contributions and car? [Hon. Members: ''And shares. And the red box.''] No, I do not want the red box.
Amendment No. 364 relates to clause 268 on the removal of exemption. The use of the term ''on-premises alcohol licence'' in the Bill is technically wrong and unnecessary in the context. Under the Licensing Act 2003, the licensing authority—in this case, the local authority—does not issue an on-premises alcohol licence but a premises licence, which is bound by the relevant terms. Such a licence may or may not include the permission to sell alcohol or to supply it for consumption on the premises. The term ''on-premises alcohol licence'' has been invented during the development of the Gambling Bill. It may have some relevance in colloquial terms in the Bill, but it does not exist in the 2003 Act. The amendment would not alter the powers given to the licensing authority under the Bill, but it would make it clear under what authority such powers were exercised—that a premises licence was issued under the 2003 Act.
Amendments Nos. 365 and 366 also relate to clause 268. Amendment No. 365 would remove the words ''they think that'' so that the subsection would state:
''A licensing authority may disapply a section under subsection (1) only if'',
and in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) the circumstances are described.
The clause permits the licensing authority to remove the permission for category C or D gaming machines that has been given by virtue of the possession of a premises licence under the 2003 Act where alcohol is supplied for consumption on the premises if it thinks—that is the key word—that the presence of the machines would not be consistent with the licensing objectives. The 2003 Act is clear that judgments as to the effect of
Column Number: 545
a granting of a licence on the licensing objectives can be brought into play by the licensing authority only on receipt of valid representations by ''responsible authorities'' and ''interested parties''. Neither the council nor the licensing authority fall under those categories. Therefore, they cannot raise objections to the granting of a licence.
It is the job of the licensing authority to exercise its discretion as to the action to be taken in the light of representations. The Bill directly contradicts that principle, in that it grants the licensing authority the power to disapply the exemption on the basis of its own thought process. For the licensing authority to have such an ability on the basis that it thinks that something is not quite right is surely much too low a test, and the industry is concerned that some licensing authorities could misuse such a wide-ranging discretion to exercise their prejudice against small gaming in pubs, bowling alleys and the like without any proper control.
10.15 am
Amendment No. 367 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to impose further obligations on the holder of a licence held under the Licensing Act 2003 and makes provisions about the consequences of failure to comply with such obligations. Why are such provisions required? If they are required, why are they not included in the Bill? If the provision of gaming machines is enabled through the possession of a licence under the 2003 Act, the conditions apply to that licence and the sanctions available in the breach of any such condition are governed by that Act.
There is no advantage in seeking further and additional mechanisms through the Bill. If a licensee is in breach, in permitting under-18s to play the machine, for example, that would be open to a straightforward prosecution under the 2003 Act, while the enforcement authorities would be able to seek a review of that premises' licence. The power that is required is to enable the licensing authority to take appropriate action, such as removal of the machines. The granting of powers to the Secretary of State to impose further obligations appears misconceived and open-ended. Small-prize machines in premises covered by the Licensing Act are not going to lead to large-scale gambling bonanzas; nor is there any evidence of any issue with young persons' gambling in such places as pubs and hotel bars.
It is accepted that such machines need to be controlled and regulated. The industry is not seeking a proliferation of those machines, and although it believes that a modest increase in the prize level is needed to compete with all the deregulation that has occurred and is proposed, no one has been able to demonstrate that any real harm arises from the sector. We have had that debate on more than one occasion during the proceedings of the Committee. Why does the Secretary of State seek additional obligations and sanctions when the 2003 Act is perfectly capable of delivering the necessary controls?
Column Number: 546
Mr. Foster: I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the amendments referred to by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, but I was surprised that the Committee did not hear more details of his analysis of the likely implications of the amendments that propose that the starting point for pubs should be an automatic requirement for four machines.
The hon. Gentleman has received, as have I, an excellent briefing from the British Beer and Pub Association, which has drawn our attention to a number of concerns about not only the clause but some of the amendments about which we shall hear more detail from the Minister in a moment. It expressed considerable surprise that without any detailed consultation with the industry the Government have proposed such significant changes as a new licence—a pub gaming machine permit—in their amendments, which has happened rather a lot during our deliberations. Quite rightly, the BBPA points out that a number of other establishments will be similarly affected. Those include hotel bars, nightclubs, bowling alleys and so on. It wonders and I wonder whether the Minister is shortly to bring forward further amendments to establish the new concept of a bowling alley gaming machine permit or a hotel bar gaming machine permit. No doubt the Minister can clarify that for us. So there is some surprise not only that the amendments were introduced without consultation but at their wording. There is understandable concern about the increased bureaucracy that they will leave in their wake.
As I said, we on the Liberal Benches are concerned about the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire on the automatic entitlement to four machines. The British Beer and Pub Association suggested in its extremely helpful briefing that, were the hon. Gentleman's amendment to be accepted, it would lead to only a small increase—of approximately 5 per cent.—in the number of machines. That would be an additional 4,000 category C machines.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has done his homework on the Bill, would acknowledge that, were every pub in the land to take up an automatic entitlement to four machines, there would be in the region of 108,000 additional category C machines. I do not for a minute suggest that that would happen, but, although it is an extreme and unlikely scenario, he must accept that many of us are concerned about such potential. As we have expressed concern about the huge proliferation of machines that might occur under other aspects of the legislation, we are concerned about the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
Nevertheless, we are entirely supportive of some of the other points that the hon. Gentleman raised: for example, the strange use of language and the way in which that can be solved by using terms already in the Licensing Act 2003. I hope that, when the Minister speaks to the Government amendments and the clauses to stand part, he will explain clearly why he felt it necessary to propose such strange new permits, and how a bowling alley, for example, will be affected. Will
Column Number: 547
it—rather strangely—have to apply for a pub gaming machine permit, and would the same be true of a hotel bar and the like?
I hope that the Minister will also explain in more detail than I have been able to gather what discussions he has had with the industry on the matter and what his understanding of the industry's responses to the amendments has been. Certainly all of the conversations that I have had have led me to believe that inadequate consultation has taken place and that the amendments proposed by the Minister will create great problems for the industry.
Mr. Hawkins: As well as supporting the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, and a great deal of what the hon. Member for Bath said, I want to stress one point. As I mentioned, I have a long-standing link with the licensed trade as one of the founder members and officers of the all-party beer group. I have been joint treasurer of that group ever since it was set up. What concerns me is the lack of transparency in what the Government are introducing in the new clauses and schedules.
The British Beer and Pub Association has told those of us with an interest in the matter that the application and removal processes, which grant decision-making powers to the licensing authority, unlike the Licensing Act 2003, are not based on due process of representation from third parties entitled to make objections. The licensing authority will be acting in a judicial matter when granting the licence in respect of alcohol and public entertainment under the 2003 Act, but will be judge and jury when considering gaming machine permits.
As well as introducing a novel concept, with all the weaknesses to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Bath referred, the Government have introduced a completely different regime. As a lawyer, I find it peculiar, to say the least, that those who are making the decisions are to be treated differently on the alcohol licensing side than on the gaming side—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford want to intervene?
| 
