|
Mr. Woodward: Nobody is remotely questioning the Minister's concern about the problems that might arise from gambling. However, until now it had been thought that it was up to the clubs and the developers to form associations with the casinos with which they wished to make an application. One of the major changes that the Minister has announced today, which surprised most of us, is that it will now be up to the local authority to run a competition to decide. That drives a coach and horses through any partnerships or agreements that clubs, developers and local authorities may have been nurturing and developing in good faith. Of course the Minister recognises the social consequences of gambling, but I am asking him to recognise the consequences for clubs that have been working in good faith on the predication that they would decide their partners for the development of a site. Today, we have the Government saying that clubs can no longer decide; the decision will be made by a local authority. That may cause problems about which they will quite fairly say, ''This is not a particularly good way to run a business.''
Mr. Caborn: All I can say to those businesses is, had we got agreement on Second Reading on the type of controls that we believed necessary, and had those satisfied the House and the general populace, the predication to which the hon. Gentleman refers would probably have held true. It was very evident from representations, as the Secretary of State said in the House and elsewhere, that we should consult more widely to address those concerns. We have done that, and as a consequence the system has changed. There is no doubt about that.
We have intervened in the marketplace much more rigidly than we wanted to, but that is because the House asked us to do so. Make no mistake—one can read Hansard—on Second Reading that was what the House asked us to do. If the House now believes the controls are too tight, it will have another opportunity on Report and Third Reading to say that we have
Column Number: 675
taken things too far. That is right, however, because there is a lot of concern about problem gambling. That is very clear to the Government and it would be wrong of us not to take it into consideration.
The system that we are putting in place is transparent, fair and leaves the final judgment with those that it will affect—local authorities. That is the right way to go. They will receive the advantages of planning gain on section 106 agreements and premises licences.
Mr. Jones: As the Minister has described it, if the operators get the premises licences, surely there will be a competition between different local authorities in the designated areas to attract those operators. Therefore, I suggest that the leverage power that those local authorities get and the maximum benefit that their areas receive will diminish rather than increase. Finally, how will the Government link the premises licence to the section 106 agreement of the planning application, which, according to their own document, are two separate processes? I cannot see how that can be done.
Mr. Caborn: As I said, local authorities have done it before. We are consulting the LGA. There is no doubt that the integrity of the planning regime must be maintained. We want to make sure that there is proper planning—
5 pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
5.30 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Caborn: I have given an explanation, and hope to give more details when we return on 11 January and consider the new clauses.
Mr. Tom Watson (West Bromwich, East) (Lab): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 316 and 317 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 318
Prize competitions
Amendment made: No. 23, in clause 318, page 140, line 11, leave out 'entering' and insert 'participating in'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 318, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 319 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 320
Offence committed by body
Amendment proposed: No. 372, in clause 320, page 140, line 22, after first 'the', insert 'gross'.—[Mr. Moss.]
Mr. Caborn: The amendment would place a strict test on the offence of negligence, so that the negligence committed must be of a gross nature. I am unable to accept that. If an offence is committed under the Bill,
Column Number: 676
and individual negligence can be proved, it must be irrelevant whether the action was of a gross nature. The significant factor is that an offence has been committed as a direct result of that person's actions, and they must therefore be liable for prosecution. It is imperative that officers are held accountable for their actions if an offence has been committed as a result. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 320 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 321
False information
Amendment proposed: No. 373, in clause 321, page 141, line 2, after 'he', insert 'intentionally'.—[Mr. Moss.]
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 374, in clause 321, page 141, line 7, at end insert
'and such false or misleading information was of a substantive or serious nature and had such information been true or accurate a decision made by the Commission or a licensing authority would have been materially different.'.
No. 375, in clause 321, page 141, line 20, at end add—
'(5) Where information or advice which is false or misleading is given by the Commission or a licensing authority and action is taken by the recipient of such information in reliance upon that information or advice, the recipient may rely upon such information or advice for all purposes, and the Commission or licensing authority may not take any action or do anything which they could not have done had such information or advice not been false or misleading.'.
Mr. Caborn: The amendments would place a stricter test on the offences under the clause. Amendment No. 373 seeks to make the giving of false or misleading information an offence only if it is given intentionally. That would make it more difficult to prosecute a person who gave false or misleading information. That is not acceptable. When applying for a licence or permit, it is the applicant's responsibility to provide accurate information. If they fail to do so, whether intentionally or not, they must be held accountable.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the purpose of amendment No. 374; he has not done so, but I thank him anyway. Its substance seems to be that an offence would be committed only if the commission would have come to a different decision if the correct information had been given. That would mean that a person could deliberately give misleading information and not be prosecuted if the commission would have come to the same decision. We cannot accept that position. If a person deliberately gives misleading information, they should be held accountable for their actions. The integrity of a licence holder is of utmost importance; indeed, it is one of the principles to be applied under clause 66(2)(a) when considering applications.
Column Number: 677
Amendment No. 375 would mean that if the commission or licensing authority gave information to a person, such as a licence holder, that person would have a legitimate expectation to act in accordance with that information, and that if it then transpired that the information given was false or misleading, it would be unreasonable for the commission to take any action against the person who acted in reliance on that advice. As public bodies, both the licensing authority and the commission will have a duty under public law to act reasonably, so the amendment is unnecessary. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 321 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 322
Value of prize
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) (Con): I want to ask the Minister one question about the clause. Subsection 2(b) gives the power to confer on the Secretary of State, the gambling commission, or another person, a discretion about values of prizes. I am puzzled that, with that blanket provision in an Act of Parliament, we are going to give the Government a power to return with subsidiary legislation in a statutory instrument that, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and I have said many times, the Government will ram through using their majority on a Committee without any real opportunity for debate.
I can understand why the gambling commission should have a discretion. I can just about understand why the Secretary of State might make regulations, although I would be much happier if it were the gambling commission making decisions about the value of prizes and the regulations for them. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could say why we need an open-ended discretion that the regulations can give the power to make a discretion to another unspecified person. That seems to me to be far too open. Although I am happy for there to be jurisdiction for courts or tribunals and provision for appeals, I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that point.
Mr. Caborn: In earlier sittings, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) asked me how we would determine the value of the prizes from the gaming machines that I referred to on clause 322. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about how the maximum value of prizes is calculated. If such matters were straightforward, we would put them in the Bill, but they are not.
At the moment, the Gaming Board must address such issues in valuing prizes for the existing redemption machines under section 34 of the Gaming Act 1968. It does so on a practical basis,
Column Number: 678
without, so far as we are aware, any difficulties. Customs and Excise has trodden some of this path already, with its provisions on bingo winnings in section 20 of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981.
The basic approach will be to consider the cost of the prize paid by the person operating the gambling. Sometimes it is necessary to calculate what he would have paid had he obtained it from another person, operating at arm's length. That is a relatively simple test that cannot cater for all the circumstances and prizes that will arise. So, we will expect the commission to continue doing the good work that the board has done in addressing those matters.
To the extent that further clarity will assist the commission and the industry, we will make regulations under the clause to provide rules on how to calculate the value of prizes. The Committee will note that we can provide for appeal rights in the event that someone disagrees with the way that his prizes are valued under the regulations.
| 
