Clause 150 - Making of application
Gambling Bill
3:30 pm
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 150, page 67, line 29, leave out from 'sought' to end of line 32.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 42, in clause 154, page 69, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
No. 2, in clause 154, page 69, line 24, after '150(3)(b)', insert
'unless substantial benefits of regeneration to the region will result from the proposed regional casino and'.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I looked at the other amendments in this group, and although I am technically moving the lead amendment, I shall not support it if a Division is called, because I can already predict the Minister's response. However, the group of amendments contains amendment No. 2, which is in my name.
One of the things that I find slightly surprising about debate on the Bill is that great mention is made throughout by the Government of the huge regenerative benefits that will flow from the deregulation measures relating to gambling. Before we heard of the proposals to cap the number of regional casinos, we heard talk of 80,000 jobs and millions of pounds generated for the economy. Others were sceptical about whether that would happen; many have seen the Henley centre report, which pours a great deal of cold water on some of the Government's predictions. It is interesting that even the explanatory notes point out that, although there might be financial benefits on the one hand, there might be some losses on the other. There is clearly much debate and doubt surrounding the issue.
Amendment No. 2 would ensure that nothing would go ahead unless clear, demonstrable evidence could be provided of the regenerative benefits that will accrue. It is a simple amendment that would add a requirement for clear evidence of regenerative benefits if something is to happen. One would hope that that evidence would be independently audited and not just provided by the potential casino operator.
I am particularly conscious that we are in difficulty, because the Government intend to table major amendments on regional casinos, and they have said that they will consider measures to restrict the proliferation of large and small casinos—although we do not yet have the details of that. The Minister may be able to assure me that it will be appropriate when considering the details of the Government's amendments to refer to the regeneration benefits. Were he to do so, I would be more than happy to withdraw my amendment.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Before we proceed, I will explain the procedure so that everyone is clear about what we are doing. Technically, the hon. Gentleman has moved amendment No. 35. He has spoken to his own amendment, amendment No.2. If he chooses to move that amendment, the decision on it will be made at the appropriate place in the Bill—fairly shortly, because it relates to clause 154, not clause 150. Technically, therefore, he has moved—whether he wished to or not—amendment No. 35.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
In light of that, I will put on record the Government's response to all three amendments. May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that when we return with further amendments on proliferation and with more information to hand, there will be opportunities to discuss regeneration?
Clause 150 refers to making an application to a licensing authority for a premises licence. Amendment No. 35 relates to subsection (3). Subsection (3)(a) provides that a person who has been issued with an operating licence by the gambling commission may apply for a premises licence. Subsection (3)(b) enables a person who has applied to the commission for an operating licence, but has not yet had the application determined, to apply for a premises licence. The intention behind subsection (3)(b) is to reduce the amount of time between operating and premises licences being granted. Where an application is made under subsection (3)(b), the premises licence will not be issued to the applicant until an operating licence has been granted by the gambling commission.
Amendment No. 42 would allow people who had not been approved by the gambling commission to be granted a premises licence. The Bill allows people who have made an application for an operating licence also to make applications for a premises licence before the operating licence is granted, but it is important that the gambling commission approves the operating licence before the premises licence is granted. Only the commission can check that the operator is suitable, competent and that his operation is crime-free and competent. The Bill gives the commission extensive powers to do that job, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to weaken that process.
Amendment No. 2 would put a requirement on an applicant for a regional casino premises licence to demonstrate that substantial regeneration benefits will result from his proposals. The Government cannot agree to that amendment for four reasons. First, it would confuse planning and regulation. It is for the planning system to control where regional casinos should be strategically located. Regional planning and local authorities will take account of regeneration benefits when drawing up their plans and considering individual permissions.
Secondly, decisions on gambling premises licences should be made under clause 1 licensing objectives, to ensure effective regulation. We do not want to confuse regeneration with public protection in this Bill. We deliver protection; the planning process delivers regeneration. Thirdly, it is difficult to imagine how substantial regeneration benefits could be defined, or who would do it, other than under the planning system. The amendment is bound to lead to recourse to the courts in most if not all cases.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
The Minister makes a case that the amendment cannot be accepted because casinos will be located on the basis of the planning process, but I wonder whether that can truly be the case given that under the Government's proposals there will be only eight casinos. If Scotland or Wales gets one of them, there will not be enough casinos for each region. A higher authority will have to decide where the casinos go, because if not all regions can have one, who will decide who does not get one? How does that fit with what the Minister says?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
As I said to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), when we return to flesh out the statement that I made to the Committee on 16 November about the limiting of regional casinos, that will be the appropriate time to debate the question of regeneration, because we will be returning with the methodology on which the location of those casinos will be decided.
At that stage, it will be a little clearer how the planning process and regeneration will be involved. It is difficult to give precise detail at this stage, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be ample opportunity to debate regeneration at that point. The methodology will become clearer when we return with those amendments.
Mr John Pugh (Education Spokesperson, Education & Skills; Southport, Liberal Democrat)
The Minister seems to be saying that there is serious technical difficulty in defining ''substantial benefits of regeneration''. At some point, planning bodies will have to reject proposals because they lack any evidence of substantial benefits of regeneration. There will then be an appeals process, and an inspector will have to decide whether the reason for planning acceptance or rejection is a good one. The Minister is on the record as saying that that is a totally indeterminable factor. Does that not leave planning authorities in a weak position?
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I just said. We are, to some extent, discussing the issue in a vacuum. I accept that that is unfortunate, but because of the Second Reading debate and the Government's reflection on that debate and on public concern, we came back. I made a statement, and that statement had consequences that we are still working through with counsel, and we will have to bring considered amendments to Committee and to Parliament. It will be more appropriate to discuss the issue at that time. At the moment, as I said, we are discussing it in something of a vacuum, and I do not think that that takes the Committee any further forward.
There will be ample opportunity to scrutinise and challenge the procedure for regeneration in light of our having given licences for regional casinos. If the hon. Member for Bath will withdraw the amendment, we will have a useful debate later.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
The Minister has given a devastating response to amendments Nos. 35 and 42, which I moved in the absence of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Since I moved the amendments, I can say that, in a second, I will seek leave to withdraw them.
Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for leaping in to assist us in moving the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath. The purpose of amendment No. 42, which would delete subsection (2), is to try to tease out what would happen if a premise straddled the boundary between two local authorities. The subsection enables the license applicant to decide to which local authority he makes his application. If the premise straddled a boundary, on one side of which was a heavily built-up area that did not want a successful premises application, but on the other side of which there was not a built-up area, that premise might be built against the wishes of the majority of people in the vicinity. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand the problems with the subsection as worded?
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
Having said that the Minister provided a devastating response, I am beginning to reflect that perhaps it was not quite as devastating as it might have been. No doubt if the Minister has an equally devastating response to the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who has at last woken up to the fact that the amendment was tabled by one of his colleagues, I am sure that he will intervene. If not, there will be an opportunity to pick up the issue at a later stage. I suspect that he may be about to intervene any second now, though not quite yet, apparently.
I will continue responding to the Minister's response to the second amendment. The Minister implied that I was confused about planning applications on the one hand and premises licenses on the other and that I was saying that regenerative benefits should be dealt with only in relation to planning applications. There is nothing wrong with stating in the Bill that a premises licence will not be given unless there is clear demonstration of substantial regenerative benefits. That is what I was proposing, and I was clear about that. I was not confused, and I still believe that my proposals should be part of the way forward, not least because, under the section 106 agreements that exist regarding planning, it is not permissible to obtain excessive benefits. That is clear in planning legislation. Currently, we cannot get large-scale regenerative benefits under planning legislation, which is why it is necessary to find some other mechanism to do that. The Minister said that there would be ''ample opportunity'' to debate that at a later stage. As much of this matter will have to be debated on Report, I hope that that was a clear indication that he will look kindly on the proposals that will no doubt come soon, and that we should have an extended opportunity to debate them on Report, possibly taking two days rather than the traditional one.
The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) was absolutely right. The Minister was telling the Committee that it would be impossible to use phrases such as ''substantial benefits of regeneration'' because we would be in court all the time. I entirely accept that we are discussing these issues—casinos and where they might be—in a vacuum, but that does not alter the fact that we are going to have to use language of that sort, and it is extremely unhelpful for him to say that it will lead to all sorts of problems in the courts. I remind him of our discussion a couple of hours ago about what constitutes ''reasonable'', in which he said, ''Well, reasonable is reasonable; the courts will decide.'' In exactly the same way, if there were a judicial review of this nature, the courts would be perfectly capable of deciding what was or was not reasonable.
I assure the Minister that I was not confused. It would have been better if he had not made the passing comment that he did; at a later date, he may want to strike it off the record in some way. I note that he is beginning to understand the brief, and that he may wish to intervene regarding the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
Following that long explanation of very little, I will try to answer the two questions raised. In our statement of 16 November, we said that we would come back to this matter. I acknowledge what one could call the limitations of section 106, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that three licences are required: one from the gambling commission, which is about social responsibility—the primary reason for what we have done and why we have done it—the requirement for planning permission, and a premises licence.
All Committee members acknowledge that we want the maximum by-product of regeneration out of the legislation. We are carefully considering how that can be done within the limitations of all sorts of licensing conditions, whether in relation to the gambling commission, a premises licence or a planning licence under section 106. I hope that we will come back with a comprehensive approach to that, which will answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. That will be difficult because we are discussing those issues in a vacuum, but I assure him that we will return with a comprehensive approach, on which there will no doubt be substantial debate.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made a point about the straddle—the situation when a casino is in two areas, one of which has passed the restrictions under section 157. In that case, the applicants could apply to one authority that would license the casino, and the other could make representations. That is how that will be worked out. There will be mechanisms by which to make those types of representations, which should resolve the problem of straddling.
Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire looked totally blank during the Minister's answer, but I am sure that he was grateful for it, as I am grateful for the Minister's further comments. It is bizarre that the Minister began his earlier comments by telling me that I was confused between planning and premises but has just told us, in his latest rejoinder, that the premises licence may be one of the vehicles by which we will attach conditions in relation to regeneration. He now accepts that the mechanism that I proposed is a potential way forward; we shall find out at a later date what he proposes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 150 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 151 to 156 ordered to stand part of the Bill.