|
Mr. Caborn: I can only repeat that we are not doing anything different to that in the 1968 Act. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening, but I explained that if an individual wants reassurance that their business can pass to the wife or another family member, they can have two people on the operating licence. People do put two people on the operating licence. This debate is about semantics. We are discussing hypothetical cases, but nothing similar has happened in the past three decades. People have used common sense: if they want a further operator, they put someone else on the operating licence. That is not too difficult. If it does prove difficult, there should be good reason for that—that is what the Bill should protect against.
I reiterate that I will need a lot of persuading before I undermine the integrity and transparency of the industry, which has come about as a result of the 1968 Act. Broadly speaking, that is what we are trying to transfer into a modern setting through a strong gambling commission. Therefore, we will reproduce whatever we can from the 1968 Act in the Bill. The case for the new clause has not been made. All the evidence to date is that people are sensible and operate within the confines of the 1968 Act, and that that has operated satisfactorily.
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for making every effort to justify his position. He has made some sensible arguments, which we accept. I must say that I am puzzled as to why the Bingo Association believes the arrangement to be a problem for its members; I
Column Number: 322
shall certainly seek its clarification. If the Minister is right in saying that there has never been a problem under the 1968 Act, he has a powerful argument.
I am trying to recollect whether we had a similar problem during debates on the Licensing Bill with how businesses could continue to operate when pub licence holders die. I believe that a solution was arrived at that might help us in this situation. Perhaps the Minister should have his officials look at that and consider whether something in parallel could usefully be used, because the solution in the 2003 Act enabled businesses to continue in the event of such things. However, under the provisions in question, the business might have to close down for a period.
Mr. Caborn: Representations have been made to my officials. We are probably talking about two things: the operating licence and the premises licence. To help the hon. Gentleman, I understand that a problem with the seven-day period in the premises licence has been raised in—[Interruption.] I think we need to go back to Room 10; things seem to be falling apart. The period is seven days. We have chosen six months, but that is to do with the premises licence. The issue has been raised and it may be that some of the big operators have been asking about the premises licence rather than the operating licence. I am just trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Moss: I am pretty sure that the Bingo Association knows the difference between an operating licence and a premises licence. In fact, its counsel wrote new clause 11 for our benefit. Those concerned are quite clear why they have asked us to table that new clause, speak to it and see what the Government's response would be. The Minister has made his position clear, but I would again ask him to look at how things are done under the 2003 Act. There may be a possibility in it that could be used.
The Chairman: I had better clarify whether the hon. Gentleman intends to move new clause 11 later.
Mr. Moss indicated dissent.
The Chairman: He does not. I would not have wanted him to miss the opportunity to do so, had he wanted it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 108 to 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 112
Revocation
Mr. Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 246, in clause 112, page 52, line 10, at end add—
'(5) A licence holder shall at its option be entitled to an oral hearing before the Commission should the provisions of this section apply.',
Column Number: 323
Clause 112 relates to the revocation of operating licences. I mention in passing, while the Minister is looking at his brief, that he might want to look again at subsection (3), which refers to a matter that we have discussed: whether
''failure to pay is attributable to administrative error.''
I remind the Minister that that was what I meant earlier and I was surprised that he did not refer to the matter himself.
The revocation of an operating licence is a very serious matter indeed and can significantly affect the livelihoods of the licence holder. From time to time, revocation may be necessary to protect various members of the public. At the same time, however, I am sure that we would agree that the revocation of a licence should take place only after the licence holder has had every opportunity to put his or her case.
On occasions, some holders of an operating licence might find it easier to present their case in oral form than to do so in written form. The amendment therefore merely seeks to ensure that an operator whose licence is being considered for revocation has the opportunity to put their case in an oral hearing before the commission. The matter is quite simple and the Minister might tell me that that will be allowed anyway under another clause, in which case I will happily withdraw the amendment. Otherwise, I hope that he will explain why what is allowed in all other forms of natural justice will not be allowed in this case, where the removal of an operating licence is a significant event in the life of an operator.
Mr. Caborn: The need for a commission system of hearing for issues arising from operating licences is not in dispute. We expect the commission to build on the practices currently operated by the Gaming Board, which everyone accepts have served it well. The same applies to human rights considerations. We will expect the commission to consider them as one issue to be covered by the policy on licensing and regulation in clause 22.
To provide a right for every operating licence holder to have an oral hearing before the commission in cases in which the commission is considering revocation would go too far. Grounds for revocation might include areas where the need for revocation is clear-cut—for example if there is a conviction for a relevant offence or failure to pay the required fee. In such circumstances, it would be an onerous burden on the commission for the Bill to require that an operating licence holder has, of right, an oral hearing in every case. That could delay the revocation of licences through procrastination, with serious consequences ensuing. Written representation may suffice where there is no question in dispute, and in any event, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the commission in all its procedures will be subject to the Human Rights Act 1998. For that reason, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Column Number: 324
Mr. Foster: As I understood him, the Minister has said that, broadly speaking, hearings are the right sort of thing if they are required but that there might be certain circumstances or clear-cut cases in which a request for a hearing would be unnecessary prevarication by the operating licence holder, which would mean that others might lose out while the person still holds the licence. I understand that argument, but the Minister also said that, even in those circumstances, someone could use human rights legislation to get a hearing. To help me out, will he tell me how they could exercise that right under human rights legislation within the time scale that he is talking about, which is for rapid revocation? I have some difficulty understanding the compatibility of those two points.
Mr. Caborn: The answer is that the challenge would be by judicial review, which would be triggered straight away. In that sense, the timing is of no major consequence.
Mr. Foster: But I am sure that the Minister will confirm that judicial review would take place after revocation and would not be part of the proceedings to consider whether it should take place. I hope that he will accept that there is a significant difference between someone having the opportunity to put their case—
Mr. Caborn indicated dissent.
Mr. Foster: The Minister is shaking his head, but perhaps he could help me out. In the normal course of events, revocation would take place and then there would be a judicial review of that decision. I will waffle on while the Minister gets a clear note—now that he has one, I will give way.
Mr. Caborn: That clear note says that someone can challenge when the commission says ''No hearing''. That is when a judicial review would be triggered. For the record, I should also say that relevant offences include murder, and the question is whether such a person should have the right to a hearing.
Mr. Foster: I am most grateful to the ether for having provided the Minister with much greater clarity in his answer. I now have an assurance that there is a mechanism by which someone whose operating licence is due to be revoked and who is not given the opportunity of a hearing could make a legal challenge—through judicial review—before the licence is revoked.
I gently say to the Minister that his earlier argument about the need to do things speedily in certain circumstances has just been blown out of the water. It does not apply, for the reasons that he has now given. However, having had his assurance that people will have the opportunity to test such things appropriately before the operating licence is revoked, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 325
Clause 114
Financial penalty
10.45 am
| 
