Clause 150 - Making of application
Gambling Bill
3:30 pm
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.