Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 246, in clause 112, page 52, line 10, at end add—

'(5) A licence holder shall at its option be entitled to an oral hearing before the Commission should the provisions of this section apply.',

''failure to pay is attributable to administrative error.''

I remind the Minister that that was what I meant earlier and I was surprised that he did not refer to the matter himself.

The revocation of an operating licence is a very serious matter indeed and can significantly affect the livelihoods of the licence holder. From time to time, revocation may be necessary to protect various members of the public. At the same time, however, I am sure that we would agree that the revocation of a licence should take place only after the licence holder has had every opportunity to put his or her case.

On occasions, some holders of an operating licence might find it easier to present their case in oral form than to do so in written form. The amendment therefore merely seeks to ensure that an operator whose licence is being considered for revocation has the opportunity to put their case in an oral hearing before the commission. The matter is quite simple and the Minister might tell me that that will be allowed anyway under another clause, in which case I will happily withdraw the amendment. Otherwise, I hope that he will explain why what is allowed in all other forms of natural justice will not be allowed in this case, where the removal of an operating licence is a significant event in the life of an operator.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

The need for a commission system of hearing for issues arising from operating licences is not in dispute. We expect the commission to build on the practices currently operated by the Gaming Board, which everyone accepts have served it well. The same applies to human rights considerations. We will expect the commission to consider them as one issue to be covered by the policy on licensing and regulation in clause 22.

To provide a right for every operating licence holder to have an oral hearing before the commission in cases in which the commission is considering revocation would go too far. Grounds for revocation might include areas where the need for revocation is clear-cut—for example if there is a conviction for a relevant offence or failure to pay the required fee. In such circumstances, it would be an onerous burden on the commission for the Bill to require that an operating licence holder has, of right, an oral hearing in every case. That could delay the revocation of licences through procrastination, with serious consequences ensuing. Written representation may suffice where there is no question in dispute, and in any event, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the commission in all its procedures will be subject to the Human Rights Act 1998. For that reason, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment. 

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

As I understood him, the Minister has said that, broadly speaking, hearings are the right sort of thing if they are required but that there might be certain circumstances or clear-cut cases in which a request for a hearing would be unnecessary prevarication by the operating licence holder, which would mean that others might lose out while the person still holds the licence. I understand that argument, but the Minister also said that, even in those circumstances, someone could use human rights legislation to get a hearing. To help me out, will he tell me how they could exercise that right under human rights legislation within the time scale that he is talking about, which is for rapid revocation? I have some difficulty understanding the compatibility of those two points.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

The answer is that the challenge would be by judicial review, which would be triggered straight away. In that sense, the timing is of no major consequence.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

But I am sure that the Minister will confirm that judicial review would take place after revocation and would not be part of the proceedings to consider whether it should take place. I hope that he will accept that there is a significant difference between someone having the opportunity to put their case—

Mr. Caborn indicated dissent.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister is shaking his head, but perhaps he could help me out. In the normal course of events, revocation would take place and then there would be a judicial review of that decision. I will waffle on while the Minister gets a clear note—now that he has one, I will give way.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

That clear note says that someone can challenge when the commission says ''No hearing''. That is when a judicial review would be triggered. For the record, I should also say that relevant offences include murder, and the question is whether such a person should have the right to a hearing.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I am most grateful to the ether for having provided the Minister with much greater clarity in his answer. I now have an assurance that there is a mechanism by which someone whose operating licence is due to be revoked and who is not given the opportunity of a hearing could make a legal challenge—through judicial review—before the licence is revoked.

I gently say to the Minister that his earlier argument about the need to do things speedily in certain circumstances has just been blown out of the water. It does not apply, for the reasons that he has now given. However, having had his assurance that people will have the opportunity to test such things appropriately before the operating licence is revoked, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.