|
Schedule 3
The Gambling Commission
Mr. Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendment:
No. 128, in
Mr. Foster: We are making rapid progress and I have no intention of detaining the Committee for long. All members of the Committee have said how much they welcome the establishment of the gambling commission to replace the Gaming Board, and its increased powers. We did that without a murmur—we voted clause 19 straight through with no problem. Now we come to the schedule on the details of how it should be set up and operated and who should sit on it, and surprise, surprise, the obvious set of amendments have come from hon. Members wanting to ensure that their favourite people are among the commissioners on the new body.
I am well aware that the Minister will answer that he does not like lists because the people who are not on them are offended. I accept that he will tell me that he is sympathetic to the suggestion in my amendment that representatives of local government should serve on the commission, that he is certain that the Secretary of State will bound to ensure somebody like that will serve on the commission, and that his reply is a good enough assurance and we will all be happy. I just want to persuade him to give me that answer, which at least means a postcard to Mrs. Foster.
Column Number: 127
I hope that the Minister is well aware of the importance of the role that our local councillors will play in this legislation. Clause 24(4)(c), for example, refers to the importance of consultation with the LGA on guidance for local authorities. Clause 23(11)(a) talks about the importance of consultation with the LGA on codes of practice, and so it goes on. The Bill already refers to the importance of close work with those who serve in local government.
The Health and Safety Commission has gone even further than my suggestion: it ensures that among its commissioners there is a representative of local government—an elected councillor. There is nothing particularly onerous about my amendment; it places no great burden on the Secretary of State. I merely want an assurance from the Minister that we can be certain of the representation of at least one commissioner from local government. A postcard to Mrs. Foster at the end of a very long day would be very welcome.
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham) (Lab): I want to comment on the representation of workers on the commission, which gives me an opportunity to make a few points about employment conditions in the new casinos. We have not discussed the regulation of the employment relationship, but we have talked a lot about the regulation of the industry in general.
As many people are aware, there are two main unions for casino workers—the Transport and General Workers Union and the GMB. They have formed an alliance with Unite Here, the American trade union that organises in the gaming industry, to enter into early discussions with prospective investors about the setting up of new casinos.
It is important to consider the question of employee representation on the commission, because of the comparative experience of employment relationships and worker representation in different casinos at state level in the States. If one compares the situation in any of the 29 unorganised casinos in Mississippi with that in the 12 organised casinos in Atlantic City, one sees extraordinary differences between union and non-union wage premiums and the general terms and conditions enjoyed by people who work in the casino industry. The national gambling impact study commission stated:
''The commission recommends to state, local and tribal governments that communities with legal gambling should look to cooperation between labor unions and management as a means of protecting job quality.''
When considering an application, the new commission should take on board the views of staff in its deliberations as well as taking account of casino operators' previous employment practices—overseas, if necessary. There should be two representatives of the work force on the commission to represent the interests of workers in the industry. We should ensure that licences are granted to operators who will provide a decent working environment, careers and job opportunities for their staff. Many jobs will be created in the sector over the next few years, and we should seek to ensure that they are quality jobs, not
Column Number: 128
minimum wage jobs with few protections. Worker representation on the commission would be a positive step to ensuring that that objective is achieved.
Mr. Page: I reiterate that the establishment of a gambling commission is at the heart of the Bill. If we do not get the commission and its structure right, we will be in trouble. The Gaming Board has done a marvellous job, but the role is to be expanded dramatically and the amount of money available will rise from some £4 million to between £9 million and £11 million. It is time to move on.
The amendment puts a finger on the difficulty that faces us all. We want the gambling commission to have the flexibility to react to change and to do so through regulation, but we do not want it to be so free and flexible that it does not have firm guidelines in primary legislation. The hon. Member for Bath made a valid point. Some people should be members as of right, rather than having a membership that is too broad and flexible and that could come from any sector of the community. Representation of the local authority is particularly relevant, because such people will have experience of licensing. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath spoke about some of the problems in Guildford. I am not saying that a local authority representative would have intimate knowledge of the matter, but they would have the ability to tap into the local authority network to get the vibrations on whether an applicant for a casino licence, for example, was the right sort of person and what operating experience they had.
There is a delicate balance to be struck and we must try to get it right when setting up the commission. We do not want to prescribe it so tightly that it has no room to breathe and no time to move and react to changed circumstances, but nor do we want it to be so free and sloppy that anything could happen.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I agree with quite a few of the points that he is making. Does he support amendment No. 128, which would put worker representatives on the commission?
Mr. Page: I am sorry to say that I shall not be recommending that, because the number of organisations that could then claim such representation would become legion. If the hon. Gentleman went through the gambling industry, he could produce section after section of workers who would want representation. The commission would become a vast and unwieldy organisation.
Local authorities cover licensing throughout the length and breadth of the land and could advise not just on casinos but on many other areas, such as how betting shops and FOBTs are performing and how GamCare's responsibility is working through in a local area. There would be so much more that a local authority representative could touch on without their role being tight, narrow and specific. My left-wing and socialist heart is sympathetic, as opposed to the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who would be much harder and right-wing than me on such matters. I shall draw my remarks to a close with the comment
Column Number: 129
that a local authority representative would be a good thing.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas). When I had the discussion with the workers' representatives from the USA, to which I referred on Tuesday, I was struck by their degree of ownership and commitment to the industry in which they were working. That came from the fact that they had good conditions of employment and a high degree of training. All staff are vetted to ensure that they are fit and proper people to work in the gambling industry. They are provided with training so that they can care for and look after customers to ensure that no one is gambling to excess. If they identify such people, they bring them to the attention of management. They are also trained to identify anyone who may be under the influence of alcohol and incapable of making a decision about gambling. They take great pride in their relationship with the industry and their commitment to it, and the value and worth that they attach to their employment would add a great deal to the commission.
The setting of high standards of ownership in and commitment to the industry in order to ensure that it does not fall into the trap of the worst forms of exploitation, which we are concerned about, would be underlined by allowing those workers to participate in the decisions of the commission and have two representatives on it. I support amendment No. 128.
4.15 pm
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you for allowing me to catch your eye, Mr. Gale. I decided to make a short speech on the schedule, because, frankly, I am getting a little bored. I urge the Minister to reject both amendments.
Paragraph 1 does not tell us how many commissioners there will likely be. I urge that there not be too many, as a huge board becomes unwieldy and difficult for the chairman to manage. I imagine that the Secretary of State will first appoint a chairman, and then she and the chairman will have discussions as to who the other commissioners should be. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the process.
Whether representatives of local authorities, workers, employers, the Confederation of British Industry or anyone else I can think of who might belong to a special category, the type of people who are appointed are, sometimes, excellent, but sometimes they are put there purely because it is Buggin's turn, or because an individual body wants to get rid of someone who is a nuisance, saying ''Let us put them on that commission to get them out of the way.'' There are all sorts of reasons why reserving positions for specific categories may result in people who are not satisfactory.
| 
