Clause 66 - Consideration of application: general principles
Gambling Bill
4:15 pm
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman proposes in this group several amendments designed to limit the way in which the commission will take decisions when granting licences. I could have sympathy with some of
them, were it not for the fact that the Bill already achieves their objectives. I fear that others could undermine the cohesive regulatory structure that we are trying to put in place for gaming machines.
On amendment No. 215, I wish that I could share the hon. Gentleman's confidence that his formulation ''to follow'' is better than ''to have regard to''. We think that the clause places the commission under the appropriate duty, which is to have regard to the licensing objectives. They are, after all, objectives. The commission must keep them constantly in mind when taking decisions, but I cannot agree that the amendment achieves anything better than what we have currently in the clause.
On amendments Nos. 216, 218 and 221, I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the risks of the commission taking damaging decisions on irrelevant grounds. I can assure him that nothing like that is promoted by the Bill. The commission should have regard only to relevant information and consider only pertinent facts. It must give reasons for all its decisions, and if any operator is unhappy it can appeal the commission's decision to the tribunal or even apply for a judicial review. I also have every confidence that the commission, like other statutory regulators, will be alive to its duties under public law. Therefore, I cannot see that these amendments would add anything to the Bill.
Finally, on amendments Nos. 217, 219 and 220, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with his concerns on this matter. Part 10 sets out a clear regime for the categorisation of gaming machines, and for the Secretary of State to make regulations about how those machines must operate. That will cover matters such as the percentage of stakes that must be returned as prizes and the display of information on the machine.
We will debate part 10 in due course, but it is not the be-all and end-all of machine regulation. There must be a role for the commission, so that it can ensure, when granting an operating licence, that the machines that an operator proposes to use have been sourced from a licensed supplier. The commission must be able to authorise particular varieties of games on machines as suitable for particular operators. That is what the powers in clause 66 are designed to secure, yet the amendments seek to remove them. In our view there is no contradiction between clause 66 and part 10 and no risk of dual regulation.
The commission and the Secretary of State are each given their own tasks by the Bill. The amendments try to change that split in a way that would undermine the commission's ability to regulate machines properly. I should add that they would also prevent the commission from regulating other gambling equipment, such as gaming tables, and mechanised cash bingo equipment, which would be very unfortunate. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.