|
Mr. Caborn: There is that potential, theoretically. There are doubts about that. What the hon. Member for Bath said is absolutely right. The reality is that that has not happened. However, we are talking not about today but about tomorrow. We want a framework of law that will reassure people that there will not be a totally uncontrolled proliferation in gambling but will allow people who have legitimate claims to move their business forward. We believe that that is based on logic.
Column Number: 555
I return to the point on which many of the Opposition amendments are predicated—it is the BBPA that is saying that it wants to move to an average of four machines per establishment. I say that there is no rationale for that on today's operation or in the future.
Mr. Moss rose—
Mr. Caborn: We are probably labouring this point a bit, but I give way.
Mr. Moss: The BBPA does not want an average of four machines per establishment. It just wants the Bill to allow pubs four machines if they want them, without having to go through a bureaucratic process and pay extra money. The point is deregulatory. Given that market forces mean that the average is about two machines per establishment at the moment, there is no imperative in the industry to have more than a small number of machines. If the Government are happy with that, which they say that they are because they will give grandfather rights across the board, I cannot understand why we need to discuss all these clauses that add more and more bureaucracy. We are now talking about permits, which mean more work for the local authority, when we do not have a basic problem.
Mr. Caborn: That is the hon. Gentleman's view. It is one that he believes sustains his argument. We do not. We believe that it is necessary to take those powers so that we can reassure people that, if there is an increase in the number of gaming machines, it will be under controlled conditions. We believe that is the right way to move forward.
New schedule 2 is similar to schedules 8 and 11—in fact, it is a reproduction of them. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Anybody would think that we had changed the policy, but we have not. The late changes are not major changes of substance. One would have thought from the debate that we had changed it substantially. Pubs have no legal entitlement to a particular number of gaming machines, but the established practice is that they are allowed to install at least two all-cash amusement-with-prizes gaming machines, which have a £25 prize. Pubs can apply for additional machines and a licensing justice can allow more. Where pubs are large, it is common for a proportionate number of additional machines to be authorised so that customers who want to play can have reasonable access to them. Licensed ten-pin bowling alleys are in the same position. The Bill proposes that pubs and equivalent premises should be entitled to two category C machines and have the ability to apply for additional machines if the size of the premises or other factors justify that.
On amendment No. 369, I see no reason to amend the Bill to double the automatic entitlement. It may be that a number of pubs choose not to take up their full quota, but the amendment would sit oddly with the general policy of precaution on machines. As I said, if
Column Number: 556
pubs can make a reasonable case for having more than two machines, they can do so. However, such matters should be decided on their merits by the licensing authority and not left solely to the pubs themselves. Pubs that have already been allowed to install more than two machines will be entitled to keep them under grandfather rights. We recognise the case for that.
I do not agree with amendment No. 370, which would be inappropriate. It would remove the requirement to make gaming machines available in accordance with the relevant provision of the code of practice issued by the gambling commission. To fulfil the licensing objectives at the heart of the Bill, it is important that gambling commission codes of practice are followed regardless of the type of premises that the gaming machines are located in. It would be wrong for category C machines in an adult gaming centre to be operated differently from the same machines in, for example, a pub. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.
Amendment No. 364 is unnecessary because clause 262 sets out the definition of an ''on-premises alcohol licence'', referring to the relevant part of the Licensing Act 2003. I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 365 and 366 restrict a licensing authority's discretion when removing entitlements under clause 268. It is important that licensing authorities are given sufficient powers to take entitlements away where necessary and amendment No. 365 will unnecessarily limit their discretion. Amendment No. 366 will require representation to be received by the licensing authority before action can be taken under subsection (2)(a) of clause 268.
11 am
Mr. Moss: I am not sure why the Minister is responding to my amendments when the Government amendments would delete both clauses anyway.
Mr. Caborn: I am giving the rational arguments for rejecting the amendments. It is right to do so, but if the hon. Gentleman does not want me to, that is fine.
That point was raised last night, and it is a fair one. I was asked why the Government go into such great detail. One could be critical of what we have done during stand part debates. It is interesting that many people look to stand part debates for an explanation of a clause both now and later. It is right to give reasons why we take certain actions. Someone was critical because we have not debated all the clauses on stand part—we would have spent a lot of time on that if we had. However, the hon. Gentleman has a valid point, and it could well be that, at some stage, the arguments will go straight into the record without us having to give them all in Committee.
Mr. Moss: In his comments on amendment No. 370 the Minister mentioned that it was unhelpful that the code of practice under clause 23 and the involvement
Column Number: 557
of the gambling commission would not be brought to bear in this matter. The Government amendments delete clause 267, so subsection (7) will go, as I proposed in amendment No. 270. However, nowhere in new clauses 16 and 17 do I see any reference to the codes of practice. I wonder whether the Government have missed that.
Mr. Caborn: I can deal with that point straight away. I am aware that subsection (7) is reproduced in new clause 16. That subsection ensures that a person making a gaming machine available for use under the clause must do so in accordance with the relevant provisions of the code of practice issued by the gambling commission under clause 23. [Interruption.] Sorry, I should have said that the subsection is not reproduced in new clause 16.
While the hon. Gentleman is digesting that, I shall turn to amendment No. 367, on which a point was raised relating to the additional conditions to the on-premises alcohol licences. Those provisions are not reproduced in new clause 18. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.
I turn to Government amendment No. 363, new clauses 16 to 18 and new schedule 2. The purpose of the amendment is to assure clarity in gambling regulation and in alcohol regulation under the Licensing Act 2003. Where something is authorised under the Bill, the mechanism underpinning the authorisation should be found in the Bill and not the 2003 Act.
New clause 16 provides that premises with an on-premises alcohol licence issued under the 2003 Act will be automatically entitled to up to two category C or D gaming machines. That is largely similar to clause 267(1), but the entitlement will be subject to the conditions that the alcohol licence holder notifies the licensing authority that issued the alcohol licence and pays a small notification fee.
Mr. Hawkins: The Minister has just referred to a small fee. The question of the fee did not appear in the Government's regulatory impact assessment because the new clause has been tabled since that assessment was drawn up. The matter has been raised with me by several organisations, including the BBPA. The Government did not originally intend to raise fees, and several organisations, including the BBPA, are anxious to know what the fee will be, what it will cover and whether there will be substantial administration costs for the newly required piece of paper.
Will there be any difficulty with enforcement? The industry accepts that under-18s should not play category C machines and has voluntarily incorporated notices in pubs to that effect for years. Indeed, such notices are standard on machines in pubs, bars and clubs.
Mr. Caborn: It is a notification fee. Throughout the Bill, cost recovery is the overriding premise for all fees charged, so the fee would be low. The cost is for administration and enforcement by the licensing authority.
Column Number: 558
Under new clause 17 on-premises alcohol licence holders will also be able to apply to the licensing authority for a pub gaming machine permit, which will enable more than two gaming machines to be made available for use. Previously, any application for additional gaming machines would have been approved through conditions attached to the alcohol licence under clause 267(2). We no longer consider that the correct approach, since an entitlement to make gaming machines available goes beyond the scope of an alcohol licence under the Licensing Act.
The difficulty is in rolling six regulatory authorities into one, under the 2003 Act, and, through the Gambling Bill, bringing the 1968 and 1976 Acts into a modern setting, but keeping the main principles. How an those provisions be dovetailed to ensure that the people operating in the real world are not affected or, if they are, that it is for the better? That is why we have reflected on what has been said and tried to ensure that the provisions are as practical as possible and that issues do not fall on the sidelines. We have tabled the amendments to make the provisions clearer. I hope that the discussion that we have had with the industry will achieve that objective.
| 
