Clause 114 - Financial penalty
Gambling Bill
10:45 am
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
These are simple amendments. I suspect that the Minister will agree with the theory, if not the precise wording, of both of them. He will assure me that all the people in the list in clause 23 to which I refer will be involved in the consultation. When he puts that on the record, I shall be extremely happy.
While the Minister takes the opportunity to check that out, may I remind the Committee that clause 114 deals with the giving of financial penalties if conditions in an operating licence have been breached? I note that the commission has to develop a statement to explain the procedure that it will use. I suspect that that statement will not include details of any tariff system that might apply. However, rather bizarrely, unlike anyone in any other part of our legal system, those imposing penalties will have to
''have regard . . . to . . . the nature of the licensee (including, in particular, his financial resources).''
It would be interesting if one could be taken to court under our normal legal system, and have one's parking fine varied depending on one's income—that is the new approach that is being adopted.
At any rate, there is to be a statement on which there is to be consultation by the commission, the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor. I share that with the Committee because it is clearly relevant; it is in subsection (8)(b). I note with considerable interest that we are about to debate in another place the future of the Lord Chancellor. The Liberal Democrats have a whipped vote on whether the Lord Chancellor should sit on the Woolsack, but no whipped vote on whether he should have appropriate qualifications. I leave the Committee to consider the wisdom of that.
There is a list of consultees, and the third in the list is
''such other persons as the Commission thinks appropriate.''
I have suggested in my amendment who those people should be, because they appear elsewhere in the Bill. If the list is considered appropriate elsewhere, it might be sensible to include it here as well. The Minister will no doubt assure me that all is well.
Clause 116 covers a totally different issue, the levy that will be imposed by the commission on all those to whom it grants licences, which will be used for a range of purposes. We all know that some money will go to organisations such as GamCare to help with problem gambling, but it will be possible to use the money to meet any of the Bill's licensing objectives, which we have debated, or to deal with any
''harm or exploitation associated with gambling''.
My point is that there will be a lot of debate about the size of the levy. The Minister may like to comment on the likelihood that the cause of the increase in problem gambling that many right hon. and hon. Members expect as a result of the legislation will be, primarily, the increase in the number of casinos, particularly regional casinos with category A machines, not anything that is taking place in family entertainment centres. I assume that there will be a need to discuss a differential levy, taking account of the increased likelihood of different types of organisation adding to the issue of problem gambling. If so, it is vital that all organisations are consulted about arrangements for the levy, which is what the second amendment in this group would ensure. The first amendment relates to the penalties charged for breaches in operating licences; the second relates to arrangements for the levy. In both cases, we are seeking to insert in the Bill a list of people who must be consulted.