|
Mr. Moss: I take on board the Minister's arguments about policing, but as far as pubs are concerned there has been no argument about any substantial breaking of the existing law on the number of machine permits issued under the old system through the magistracy. So why are we trying to mend something that is not broken?
Mr. Caborn: As with many such things, there were, as the hon. Gentleman knows, no figures on that. We took a realistic approach to the issue. Premises will have grandfather rights, and the status quo will continue: if establishments have five or six machines, they will continue to have those machines. The permit will be granted automatically and the fee will be dealt with automatically. As I said, there is, on average, slightly more than one machine per establishment, and
Column Number: 578
we propose to allow establishments to have two machines. We think that that is right and we have, at least, established a generous baseline. Any establishment that wants to apply for more machines can do so. If they are refused, there are ways in which they can appeal.
That is an argument that will go on. We believe that we made the right judgment. Why did the trade organisation want to set the limit on machines at four and not at three or two? We have, at least, tried to argue our case rationally. The hon. Gentleman may not accept the rationale, but there we are. As Brian Clough always said, I am convinced that we are right.
The hon. Gentleman raised the use of the phrase ''think that'' in the Bill. Counsel has considered those words carefully. We believe that they are simply plain English. They do not allow an authority to evade its normal decision-making responsibilities or process. It must consider all decisions properly. That is why ''think that'' is in the Bill and why paragraph 1 of new schedule 2 says ''may apply'' rather than ''shall apply''. It says:
''A person who applies . . . for . . . or who holds an on-premises alcohol licence''
will be automatically entitled to two machines. They can also apply for more machines by way of the pub gaming machine permit. They do not have to apply for a permit if they do not want more machines. That is why ''may'' is used rather than ''shall''.
Responsibility for compliance with the permit rests with the permit holder. Paragraph 1 of new schedule 2 explains who may apply for a permit.
On removal of exemptions or machines, we are aware that new clause 18 does not replicate the words in clause 268(2), and will table amendments to address that.
I move on to the register of permits. It is important for authorities to keep a record of the premises that have been issued permits under the Bill. That is to ensure the effective regulation of illegally cited machines. In the age of electronic registration, that should not be overly bureaucratic.
The hon. Gentleman asked us to withdraw the amendments. We do not believe that that is necessary. We have developed the amendments and expect to add more, but we are confident that they do the job and do it well.
Mr. Moss: Before we broke for lunch, I put a question to the Minister. He gave a response that I honestly do not understand and I would be grateful if he revisited it. Clause 267(7), which one of our amendments would have deleted, refers to
''a code of practice under section 23''.
In other words, the gambling commission would presumably be involved, at a remove, in much of the process.
At the time, the Minister referred to clause 16. He probably meant new clause 16. I cannot see where in new clause 16 that kind of relationship is referred to. If the Minister is unable to clarify the point now, perhaps
Column Number: 579
he could do so at a later stage or write to the Committee so that we understand exactly where the reference to codes of practice will occur.
Mr. Caborn: It would probably be better if I wrote to the Committee.
The Chairman: We are debating new clause 16 in this group.
Mr. Caborn: Yes. I shall clarify the point in writing. If there is a fault, we will rectify it.
3.15 pm
Mr. Moss: I drew that to the Committee's attention because I followed what the Minister said last time, but I could not make it stack up. Either there is an oversight, in the sense that the code of practice has not been written into the new clauses, or the Government have taken our amendment and deleted the reference from the Bill, in which case we are very grateful, because we have not had to propose it.
As I understand it, it is up to me to withdraw amendment No. 369. I am disappointed in the Minister's response because he has said on more than one occasion that amendments in this group will be taken up on Report, so we have not yet got it right. To include the new clauses at this stage seems slightly premature, but we shall no doubt revisit the matter on Report. On the basis of our discussion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.
Clause 267 disagreed to.
Clause 268 disagreed to.
Clauses 269 to 272 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11
Prize Gaming Permits
Amendment made: No. 178, in schedule 11, page 188, line 29, at end insert
'except that in paragraphs 5 and 20(2) it means, where the application in question is made to a licensing authority in Scotland, prescribed by regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.
This Schedule shall, in its application to Scotland, have effect as if references to a chief officer of police were references to a chief constable.'.
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 324, in schedule 11, page 190, line 21, at end insert
'for a period in excess of six months'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 325, in schedule 11, page 190, line 24, at end insert
Column Number: 580
'(3) ''Occupy'' for the purpose of this paragraph shall mean to have one's place of business in, whether or not that business actually operates or is open to the public'.
Mr. Moss: I will be brief. Paragraph 13(1) states:
''A permit shall lapse if the holder ceases to occupy the premises specified under paragraph 11(1)(c).''
We want to add the words
''for a period in excess of six months''.
A permit will lapse if premises are left unoccupied, but there may be very good reasons, such as seasonality or renovation, why occupation in the strict sense is not possible or is broken for a short period. We have asked for a period of six months to give a little leeway.
Mr. Foster: I was just reflecting on the sensible proposal made by the hon. Gentleman, and I wondered whether he shared my interest in the language used in the schedule. Does it imply that the holder of the licence is the occupier on this occasion? During a previous discussion, a distinction was made between the holder of a licence and an occupier. Had he noticed that?
Mr. Moss: I did not notice it until the hon. Gentleman brought it to my attention. No doubt the Minister heard what he said and will reply if he so chooses.
Amendment No. 325 also refers to paragraph 13. It would add the words:
'''Occupy' for the purpose of this paragraph shall mean to have one's place of business in, whether or not that business actually operates or is open to the public''.
We are attempting to define occupation. It may satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but not the Minister.
Mr. Caborn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the amendments. I understand the concern that prize gaming permits should not be removed from a person who temporarily ceases to use the premises. However, the requirement for a six-month period is a little too rigid. We do not want permits for this sort of gaming to be in force when someone is not taking responsibility for the premises to which they relate. It is good legislative practice to ensure that if a permit holder ceases to occupy the premises, that permit lapses.
Whether someone ceases to occupy a premises will always be a matter of fact and degree. That will be judged by the licensing authority, which should be in a position to have all those facts. I am concerned that a six-month rule, as proposed by the amendment, would allow permits to continue even when it was clear that the premises had been abandoned by the permit holder, perhaps over a few weeks.
Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): I wonder whether the Minister could clarify something. The question of occupation is important. He and the Committee will understand that there is a clear distinction between occupation and continued responsibility under a lease. Will he clarify the Government's view of the scope of the Bill and the implications of the amendment?
Column Number: 581
Mr. Caborn: I was just about to come to that. I will now read the next paragraph of my brief. If the hon. Gentleman had waited, he would have got the answer. On the amendment that changes the definition of occupation, we want the word ''occupy'' to bear its natural meaning. We want the premises to which a permit relates to be the premises where the prize gaming is offered. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot see any benefit to the change.
Mr. Moss: I am prepared to negotiate on six months. The Minister said that he was sympathetic to the idea that there should be some kind of time limit. Perhaps three or four months would be better, but there may be circumstances—let us say that there has been an incredible fire on the premises that has gutted the place completely—when it may take up to six months to get people in. The insurance claim could go on and on before it was settled. The person then has to get the builders in to renovate the place. Are there other means in the Bill whereby some comfort could be given to operators that if they face those circumstances, their permit or licence would not be revoked as a result of lack of occupation?
| 
