Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 266, in clause 138, page 61, line 29, leave out subsection (2).

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 335, in clause 138, page 61, line 30, after 'may', insert ', in exceptional circumstances'.

No. 339, in clause 194, page 89, line 4, after 'may', insert ', in exceptional circumstances,'.

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The amendment proposes to leave out subsection (2) of clause 138. The clause provides that the commission may direct that a stay pending appeal will not apply. However, there are no grounds for such a direction in the Bill. Damage could, obviously, result from a decision from which an appeal was lodged and, therefore, either specific grounds for refusal to apply the stay pending appeal should be set forth in the Bill or that power should be deleted.

Amendments Nos. 335 and 339, the latter of which is consequential in clause 194, insert the words ''in exceptional circumstances''. Any decision by the commission under clause 138 to override the right to a stay pending appeal would have serious and immediate consequences for the operator in question. If the power is not to be the subject of possible abuse, such a decision should be taken only in exceptional circumstances. The application of a stay is part of the normal remit process and should be reflected here. No action should be taken by the commission until an appeal has been heard, unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify overriding that principle.

There may well be circumstances that do justify overruling the stay, and we do not argue against that provision. We merely argue that the commission's right to exercise that power must be balanced by the need to demonstrate the compelling reasons for doing so.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. However, I do not think that the changes are necessary. Any decision taken by the gambling commission or a licensing authority to override the stay pending appeal provisions will be open to challenge through the courts by way of judicial review. Clear justification for overriding the provision will be required. In effect, that restricts both the gambling commission and the licensing authority to using that power in a reasonable manner. Owing to the potentially significant effects that such a decision might have on a licensee, we would consider it   reasonable to use the power only in exceptional circumstances. We therefore do not consider the amendment necessary.

Both the gambling appeals tribunal and the magistrates courts or sheriff have the power to overrule any decision removing the stay pending appeal provisions if they believe that such a decision is not appropriate. The power is provided to the tribunal in paragraph 13 of schedule 7. For the magistrates courts and sheriffs, that ability is contained in clause 194(2). It enables any overrule to be made that is deemed appropriate.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled amendment No. 266. It seems odd for the commission to have the power to direct its decisions or actions to take effect before a person has had his or her appeal against that decision determined. However, there is an important reason for including that power in the Bill. There will be circumstances in which, as a matter of public interest, it will be important that the decision of the gambling commission takes immediate effect. For example, if a self-employed bookmaker is alleged to have been involved in large-scale fraud, subsection (2) will enable the gambling commission to suspend his operating licence with immediate effect. He will still be able to appeal to the gambling appeals tribunal against the decision to suspend his licence, but in the meantime, in the interests of the public, he will not be able to continue to work as a bookmaker.

The removal of subsection (2), which the amendment proposes, would prevent the commission from taking that action. Instead, while the appeal is being heard, the bookmaker's operating licence would be considered to be valid. That could mean that he could continue to defraud his punters until the decision of the gambling commission was upheld. I hope that I have provided the hon. Gentleman with the justification that he required for the inclusion of subsection (2). On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am happy with the Minister's explanation and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill.