|
Mr. Prisk: My hon. Friend is raising an important point, but I wonder whether he has considered those who may be unclear, given the opaqueness of the regulations, as to whether they will be affected. I am concerned that when regulations are unclear those who might be on the cusp of the compliance burden are, as law-abiding citizens, anxious to comply. Does he share my concern, which many smaller enterprises will share, at the lack of clarity in the Bill?
Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I agree with him. It is one of the unfortunate consequences of the Government producing legislation as they go along. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) talked about the unsatisfactory way in which the legislation is proceeding. Major changes to the Bill are being introduced in the middle of our deliberations. I
Column Number: 548
do not want to restart my argument with the Minister last week; I simply echo what the hon. Member for Bath said mildly about consultation—or the lack of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire has repeatedly said that it is not satisfactory that major industries in this country, which were able to put forward their views on the original proposals to the scrutiny Committee, on which he sat, have not had the opportunity to take into account these last-minute major changes. The issue is serious and the Government would be wiser, as the British Beer and Pub Association suggested, to take it away for more detailed discussion and to ensure that the proposals are along the same lines as the Licensing Act, and then return at a later stage with amendments that have been more carefully thought through. This rushed way of changing legislation as we go along is not a good use of parliamentary time or consistent with the traditions of this place, and it is very worrying for those in the industry whose concerns I wish to reflect.
Mr. Page: I would like to pick up and run with my hon. Friend's comments; he is right. I have expressed concern about the way in which we seem to be making legislation on the hoof rather than taking a long and considered look at it. My hon. Friend referred to the scrutiny Committee, which was able to take evidence on parts of the Bill and make recommendations.
I have a difficulty and other hon. Members may have the same difficulty. Government amendment No. 360 states:
''leave out Clauses 267 and 268.''
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has spoken to amendments to clauses that, according to the Government, will not exist. Also, we are debating clause 268 stand part in this clutch of amendments, although it is the next item for discussion. There is a mass of new clauses of considerable complexity and depth on today's amendment paper. In addition, new schedule 2, which deals with pub gaming machine permits, runs to six pages of legislation.
We on the Opposition Benches in this Committee are being bounced into agreeing legislation that has not been properly considered. It is all right for the Minister sitting there, folding his arms, taking a relaxed view, being able to ram everything through with his huge majority unless my friend the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central comes to our rescue again, but those are my concerns. I turn to the explanatory notes for help, but now I do not know whether the notes on clause 268 have any relevance to all the new clauses in front of us, so we really are flying blind.
10.30 am
Mr. Prisk: I do not want to interrupt the excellent flow of my hon. Friend, but one concern that I know he will share, which he has not been able to share with the Committee, is about the significant question of competitiveness that would be posed to a number of businesses currently able to function if the legislation before us were to be passed without amendment. As
Column Number: 549
someone with a general interest in the small business fraternity, it would appear to me that there are significant changes in the legislation that could restrict competitiveness. I think in particular of the ability of our pubs to compete with larger chains that may run competing hotels and restaurants. Will my hon. Friend comment on the issue of competitiveness?
Mr. Page: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great deal of interest in the small business sector, as I did in my youth, which is why I understand his concern. The problem is that so many extra clauses have been rammed at us, and I am unable to give him a considered reply because they might deal with competitiveness. It is impossible to absorb six pages of legislation—new schedule 2—at a moment's notice.
Mr. Prisk: My hon. Friend, who has tremendous experience in the area under discussion, is struggling to cope with the number of amendments and in particular with the nature of the original legislation that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire hopes to amend. If my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire cannot cope with the welter of changes that the Government are introducing, how does he think small businesses will be able to cope?
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend flatters me. He is providing the Minister with ample opportunity to say later that this hon. Member is retiring from Parliament because he is past it, has had his day, and that it is no wonder that he cannot understand the legislation, because he is suffering from senior moments in every Committee. I will not follow my hon. Friend's argument, because I would probably be out of order as well. He raises a legitimate concern, however, which I cannot answer until I study and understand the impact that the proposed legislation will have. I will have to cling to the explanatory notes for clause 268 and hope that they have a touch of relevance to new clauses 16 to 18, Government amendment No. 363 and Government new schedule 2—pages and pages of legislation. I have been able to study the notes briefly, but not in depth or adequately enough.
Mr. Foster: During the brief reading to which the hon. Gentleman admits, he surely will have given some consideration to the references to fees chargeable. Has he given any thought whatever to the additional bureaucracy and fees that might be imposed on the establishments about which we are talking? In view of the earlier exchange that we had with the Minister, has the hon. Gentleman given thought to the possible need for a further amendment to include the establishment of gastro-pub in respect of gaming machines?
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman opens up yet another vista.
The Chairman: No, he does not.
Mr. Page: Unfortunately, proceedings up to clause 284 must be concluded by 5.30 this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman made a tempting and generous offer,
Column Number: 550
but I must proceed with caution. However, he touched on an issue that I was about to come to, which is regulation. I noted during my brief examination of the new clauses that the Government have endeavoured to set out in the Bill the reasons why the licensing authority may take action in certain circumstances. I would like to commend them for that—I want to be perfectly fair and give praise where it is due—but I have a difficulty in that I have not had enough time to read and fully comprehend the new clauses, so I must proceed with caution in issuing any praise.
When we examine the explanatory notes on clause 268—I cling to them as the only rock in this rapidly moving sea of legislation—we find subjective comments. The notes state:
''The authority can only take away these rights where they think that . . . the premises are used mainly for gaming, or the intention is for them to be used mainly for gaming in the future.''
That is highly subjective. Having considered the other aspects of the new clauses, I wonder how the licensing authority will reach such opinions, and whether we will be driven into producing yet another regulation. I presume that the Government will have to issue regulations or guidance to licensing authorities to clarify what is meant by
''the premises are used mainly for gaming, or the intention is for them to be used mainly for gaming in the future.''
I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that.
Mr. Moss: Is it not amazing, after all this time and the review of the scrutiny Committee, on which my hon. Friend sat, that the Government are chucking out—deleting—two full clauses of the Bill? They may not accept our amendments, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, they highlight the problems and discrepancies in the clauses. That is why the Government are to negative the clauses and have tabled new ones, but is it not astounding that they cannot get the Bill correct at this late hour?
Mr. Page: I think that everybody on the Committee would admit—even the Minister himself, if he were to be candid and open, which seems to be the policy of some Ministers these days when discussing various actions inside the Government—that substituting one and one third pages of legislation, part of pages 118 and 119—
Mr. Foster: It is eight pages.
Mr. Page: My research assistant has been doing the work for me and has come up with the necessary figure. It is a frightening situation. I am certain that the scrutiny Committee would have loved to have examined the relevant clauses and, if necessary, taken evidence on them to know how to proceed. I have again registered my concerns sufficiently on the problem. Knowing this Government, I have absolutely no doubt that I will be standing here later saying exactly the same about another set of withdrawn clauses, another set of new clauses and another ream of amendments. That is unsatisfactory.
What guidance and regulations will there be to the licensing authority on the subjective aspects of this legislation? There are many mechanistic points in the new clauses, such as the fact that a licence will be under threat if a child is seen operating a machine. That is fair
Column Number: 551
enough and understandable. However, as I have suggested, there are subjective aspects. What will the guidance and guidelines be for establishing whether premises are mainly used for gambling? Will it be based on turnover, profit or usage compared with number of pints consumed? That is a sample question on a theme that runs through all of the amendments, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
| 
