|
Mr. Moss: In clause 268 there is another reference to an on-premises alcohol licence. In my remarks about amendment No. 369 and others I pointed out that that term does not exist under the 2003 Act, so what does it mean? In deleting clauses 267 and 268, do the Government accept that it does not exist?
Mr. Foster: That is covered in new schedule 2.
Mr. Caborn: I shall come back to that in a moment. I have given the reasons for the provisions in this Bill on the on-premises alcohol licence. The challenge was whether to include such a licence in the Bill. It is defined in clause 262(b), which states that
'''on-premises alcohol licence' means a premises licence under that Part which authorises the supply of alcohol for consumption on the licensed premises.''
I am informed that that links the provisions to the 2003 Act.
New schedule 2 sets out a new procedure that is separate from the alcohol-licensing regime. New clause 18 enables a licensing authority to remove the right from a licensee to provide exempt gaming under clause 264 or to make gaming machines available for use under new clause 16. I am aware that our amendments do not address the concerns regarding premises that hold an on-premises alcohol licence but which may not fall squarely into the category of being used primarily for the consumption of alcohol.
Those concerns are not being ignored. I am aware of the concerns of the BBPA and others about the provision relating to gaming machines in premises with an alcohol licence. We are considering, with the association, what we can do to meet those concerns. We have given a commitment that pubs and licensed premises such as ten-pin bowling centres can continue to operate gaming machines, and we will honour that commitment. With that, I hope—
Column Number: 559
Mr. Foster: With respect, the Minister cannot just stop at that point. He has not explained whether the other types of premises will be required to have their own permit, and whether it will be called a bowling alley permit or whatever; we need answers on that. The Minister said earlier that the Government are now listening to the concerns about the new amendments expressed by the BBPA and others. Should we expect amendments to these amendments later? Will those amendments take into account concerns about whether individual licensing authorities could determine the fee, the shape that the application form will take, and what information is to be provided?
Will the Minister explain why there is suddenly to be an annual fee instead of a three-year fee? We have heard nothing about that. We had no explanation why, in paragraph 10(1) of new schedule 2, there is reference to ''An occupier of premises''. The occupier could be just a tenant, and not the holder of the licence, who is covered in paragraphs 8 and 9. Why have we got the strange notion that the licensing authority can cancel a permit when paragraph 15(1) says that
''gaming machines are being made available for use on the premises otherwise than in accordance with the permit''?
However, as it says earlier in the same new schedule that one cannot attach conditions to the permit, I am not sure what people will be in breach of—presumably the permit just says, ''You have permission to have two machines'' or whatever. Many questions remain unanswered. I hope that we will hear rather more from the Minister.
Mr. Caborn: I shall try to give the hon. Gentleman that information. First, we are aware that the name ''pub gaming machine permit'', which seems to have exercised hon. Members this morning, appears to limit the premises that may apply for it. That is not the intention, and we shall table further amendments to rectify that. We will make the name all-embracing to ensure that it can apply to all the premises to which I referred this morning.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the decision of licensing authorities to remove exemptions. Licensing authorities have more discretion under the Bill than they do under the Licensing Act, and we think that that is right, because the two have different purposes. We need sanctions appropriate to gambling, and we need the authority to be able to assess the impact of the licensing objectives. As I said, we are bringing about two fairly major changes in broad entertainment.
First, we are trying to streamline licensing and entertainment legislation by rolling six regulatory authorities into one. I hope that, when Committee members talk about bureaucracy and red tape, they acknowledge that light-touch regulation. The 2003 Act will be policed properly, and those who do not comply with it could well have their licence removed. That is one change.
Column Number: 560
Secondly, we are trying to link that with our modernisation of the gambling provisions under the 1968 Act, which we are doing by establishing the gambling commission and a new legal framework. I will not say that we have got every word right today, but we are listening carefully to the industry—we were asked to do that, and we are doing so—and will reflect what it says.
These are minor amendments. They do not substantially change our policy, the direction that we set out in our consultation, or what the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee advised. We accepted the vast majority of the Committee's recommendations, which are still very much embodied in the Bill.
11.15 am
Mr. Foster: I am not sure what point the Minister is making. These are not small amendments; they are significant amendments that may have a large impact on the institutions that we are talking about—predominantly pubs, but many others, too, as the Minister rightly said. However, he said specifically that he was determined to ensure that there would not be an increase in bureaucracy.
If the Minister is not going to answer the other points that I raised in my intervention, will he at least tell the Committee whether every licensing authority will set its own fees, establish the lay-out of the application form and determine the information that has to be provided? Or will that process be standardised throughout the country, so that the many pubs that are part of a large chain will not have to provide different sets of information for each application to a licensing authority?
Mr. Caborn: There will be some amendments, which will be minor—although hon. Members will have their own view on that—and they will take into account the concerns of the BBPA.
The hon. Gentleman asked about breach. People can be in breach of a permit by providing, for example, more machines than are permitted. There are a number of ways in which permits could be breached.
Mr. Foster: Can the Minister give another example?
Mr. Caborn: I have no doubt that I could give the hon. Gentleman plenty of examples, as I did a little earlier on gastro-pubs. If he wants a list, I will ensure that we provide a list of examples of how permits could be breached. I am sure that when he has that information he will agree that what we are doing is right. The Secretary of State will set the fees.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chairman: Order. Only one Member can take the Floor at one time.
Mr. Foster: In saying that the Secretary of State will determine the fees, the Minister has just answered one of my questions. However, I raised two related issues. Will the Secretary of State determine the shape of the
Column Number: 561
application form and the information to be made available, or will each licensing authority make its own judgment? [Interruption.]
The Chairman: Order. I have to say that the patience of the Chair is being tried considerably. It is not proper for officials continually to pass notes to the Minister in this fashion.
Mr. Caborn: I agree with you, Mr. Gale.
I shall give the hon. Gentleman specific answers on the detail of the amendments. Permits can be breached if children are playing machines, or if there are too many machines. I could provide a list of other breaches, but that should not be included in the Bill. We are establishing a gambling commission to deal with the issues, and we can debate that. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and to other Committee members.
Mr. Page: The hon. Member for Bath has, with just a few questions, punched a number of serious holes in the provisions. Although the Minister says that the Government amendments contain nothing of any great substance and that the policy remains intact, there are areas of doubt.
To reinforce what the hon. Member for Bath said—and as I mentioned in my brief contribution half an hour ago—I ask to what extent the licensing authorities will be asked to act in unity and to give uniform treatment in interpreting the administration of the licences. The Minister says that there will be a fee just to cover costs, but, with respect, I have seen how the councils and licensing authorities use fees as a means of raising revenue, rather than just to cover the direct costs. Will there be any central direction? I want to know whether the Government are considering that. Far be it from me to support regulations, but there has to be some regulation in this instance.
The Minister said, before speaking to the Government amendments, that he had consulted the BBPA, and we got the impression that it had ticked the box, but now he is saying that he is willing to consult it on the new clauses. Has the BBPA agreed and signed up to this raft of new clauses and the new schedule, or are there still some substantial queries that it cannot answer?
Mr. Caborn: I repeat yet again that we are introducing two detailed Acts of Parliament that will have a significant impact on this industry. We want to get that right. We are rolling six regulatory authorities into one, which involves the complex Licensing Act alone, although that is not operational yet. We are modernising through the Gambling Bill, by partial deregulation and by setting up a new regulator. We are ensuring that the regulation be brought smoothly into operation when the legislation is implemented. That does not happen simply overnight. We are working
Column Number: 562
hard with all those who have an interest, and they are providing an injection of common sense. If we have to return to the Committee or the House with a few amendments to ensure a smooth transition when the two new Acts of Parliament are implemented, we will do so. However, if everyone wants everything stated in the Bill, it will not be a Bill of 300 or so clauses; it will triple in size or be even greater.
The gambling commission will provide guidance on the standard approach. We are trying to give local authorities much more power, allowing them to be proactive in running their economy to ensure that regeneration and wealth creation can take place. Entertainment, recreation and gambling are sectors in a major industry, which forms a major part of our economy, so major modernisation is taking place. Those sectors are big employers and big wealth creators, and we are modernising the way in which they operate. That is what we are trying to achieve with the Bill. Not everything will be stated in the Bill—a lot will be left to the gambling commission. We want to achieve consistency and to give local authorities the freedom to become much more proactive than reactive in driving their economies forward. That is the object of the exercise and we believe that we will achieve it.
| 
