Principles to be applied
Gambling Bill
3:00 pm
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 359, in clause 145, page 64, line 38, leave out 'not'.
Lest the Minister draws my attention to clause 68 and the fact that we have already agreed to it and its making clear that a demand test is not required, I point out that that clause relates to the granting of an operating licence by the commission, and that in this clause we are discussing the granting of a premises licence by a licensing authority, namely a local authority. I remind the Minister that I am still waiting to receive a letter from him explaining the absence of unitary authorities in the list of those councils that are meant to be licensing authorities. He will recall that we are still trying to find out whether Bath and North East Somerset is a unitary authority or whether it will have to call itself something like a county without districts, bearing in mind there is no such county. I hope that I get an assurance from him to return to that matter.
The amendment relates to the issuing of premises licence by a licensing authority. We will shortly debate clause 157, which gives local authorities clear powers to say no to any casinos whatsoever for three years. That is a welcome power for local authorities.
The Minister will be aware, however, that some local authorities will not want to have to invoke clause 157, or a complete ban on all casinos, but will want an opportunity to consider, case by case, individual proposals for planning and premises licences. In doing that, they need to maximise their power to refuse the application. Many councils are aware that when they have considered casino and other planning applications in the past they have had had good reasons, as representatives of the local people, to deny the application, only to find their decision overturned on appeal to the planning inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. They are therefore conscious that their powers are not as total as they would like.
Surely it is important to enable councils to have the maximum range of powers to assist them in deciding whether to reject an individual casino application for a premises licence. That is why it is important that we return to the demand test as one of the measures that authorities can reasonably expect to use during their deliberations on an application. The amendment, which would simply delete the word ''not'', would mean that local authorities could take into account evidence along the lines of a demand test.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I sent a letter to you, Mr. Gale, as the Chairman of the Committee, on the hon. Gentleman's point about the explanation on local authorities and their status. I do not know whether that has been passed on, but I wanted to clear that up. I have not written to the members of the Committee individually, but through your good office.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. I am ashamed to say that I have not seen a copy of any such letter. The Clerk tells me that neither has he. If the ministerial team would be kind enough to pass a copy to the Clerk, we will make sure that it is circulated.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
Sir Alan Budd recommended, and the Government accepted, that the demand test be scrapped for casinos, bingo clubs and betting shops. Budd concluded that the demand test was outdated and reflected a time when legislation was guided by a wish to restrict opportunities.
The Joint Committee also considered the issue of demand. It did not recommend that the demand test be reintroduced but emphasised that licensing authorities should have the power to prevent the proliferation of gambling premises. The Government accepted that recommendation and drafted clause 157, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, to enable authorities to resolve not to have any or any more casinos in their area—you will know, Mr. Gale, that some such casinos already operate.
I do not believe that such a power is necessary for other gambling premises. Casino growth has been constrained far more rigidly than has any other sector of the gambling industry. Consequently, we originally anticipated greater expansion of casino premises than of other types of gambling premises. The Government have, however, further acted on concerns regarding proliferation. That is reflected in my announcement on 16 November regarding the cap on the number of regional casinos.
I am therefore content that the regulation-making power for new casinos, combined with an authority's ability to reject any premises licence application that is inconsistent with the licensing objectives, guidance issued by the gambling commission and the authority's own licensing statement, is sufficient to prevent proliferation. Individual applications can be refused but refusal must be on the grounds of the licensing objectives.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I am not surprised by the Minister's response and will comment on it when I respond to the debate. I ask the Minister one question. Could a local authority, in its policy statement, make it clear that it would consider new casinos only if there was clear evidence of demand for them? Could that be incorporated in the statement?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
Yes.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
In that case, I humbly suggest that the Minister's brief is slightly redundant. He is saying on one hand that Budd recommended that the demand test should go—the scrutiny Committee did not press for it to be reinstated—and the Minister is now making it clear that in fact the demand test can, in effect, remain as part of the local authority's policy statement. It seems that I have got exactly what I want, albeit by another method, unless the Minister wants to correct me.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
That is just for casinos.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
It is just for casinos. I am talking just about casinos; I wanted that just for casinos and it is just casinos that are referred to in the clause. I am delighted that I have achieved what I wanted by a different method. The Minister has now put it firmly on the record that the demand test can be used by local authorities if they put in their statement their intention to use the demand test as a criterion in their consideration of applications. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. Before we proceed, I should correct an impression that I have given. When a Minister gives an undertaking to write directly to a Member, the Minister must write to the Member and not to the Chairman of the Committee. The Chairman is always pleased to receive courtesy copies of correspondence, as, I am sure, are Committee Members, but the undertaking remains between the Minister and the Member. The Chairman cannot possibly or properly become involved in that process.