Clause 112 - Revocation
Gambling Bill
10:30 am
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.