|
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 249, in page 56, line 9, after 'function', insert
'or a number of specified functions'.
Amendment No. 250, in page 56, line 11, at end insert
'(c) a person who administers arrangements for gambling'.
Government amendment No. 294.
Mr. Caborn: Amendments Nos. 293 and 294 will make it clear that the personal licence will relate to personal management offices or operators' functions as defined in clause 76. That was always the intention, but we became aware that some confusion arose from the present drafting of the clauses. Indeed, some have suggested that clause 61, which defines the operating licence, is what determines the type of personal licence. That is not the case. We are clear that the commission will have the freedom to define particular types of personal licence; for example, for croupiers or for the director of a betting organisation. The boundaries for the exercise are the definition of management offices and operating functions in clause 76. I appreciate that there is a level of complexity in reading between the two clauses but we believe that the amendments would pin down precisely what clause 120 refers to.
Column Number: 329
Mr. Page: I congratulate the Minister on moving this amendment, which neatly comes in and nicks the place of the one that we tabled, amendment No. 249. The obvious doubts and confusion that were not dispelled by the explanatory memorandum have now been clarified, but could I ask the Minister for further explanatory comment?
One of the problems in holding the licences is, in the case of amendment No. 293, that it refers again to
''the functions of a specified management office''.
What happens if individuals run more than one gambling site? Will they need separate arrangements or can their management office be allowed to operate in two places? Is the bureaucracy and the additional paperwork necessary? If they are not suitable to run one site, they cannot be suitable to run another, and vice versa. Could the Minister flesh that out a little? I believe that amendment No. 249 is more applicable and could be more flexible but, nevertheless, the Government will prevail.
Mr. Caborn: A management office is defined in clause 76(5). The hon. Gentleman's point is valid. However, the measure is not place specific, but person specific. In that sense, people can operate two sites.
Mr. Moss: I want to speak to amendment No. 250. In a debate on an amendment to clause 5 we discussed whether administering arrangements should be included. The Minister said that the Government wanted arrangements for administering gambling to be included. Yet the personal licence relates only to the provision of facilities for gambling or a person who provides those facilities; it does not encompass anyone who administers arrangements for gambling. We believe, in the interests of consistency, that if administering gambling appears in the earlier clause, it should appear here.
11 am
Mr. Caborn: I do not quite understand what the connection is and I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman. However, I will reflect on the point that he has made and see whether there is a need to make such a link. I am advised that clause 97(5) and (6) cover the point. An administrator is not included in this clause because he does not need a personal licence. There is more direct involvement.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 294, in clause 120, page 56, line 11, at end insert—
'(2) In this section ''management office'' and ''operational function'' have the same meaning as in section 76.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
Clause 120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 330
Clause 121
Application of provisions of Part 5
Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 295, in clause 121, page 56, line 13, after '5', insert—
'(other than section 61(2), (4) and (5))'.
This is purely a drafting amendment to clarify the effect of part 5 on part 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Application of provisions of Part 5 (No. 2)—
'The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with those parties listed in section 22(5), make regulations regarding those matters referred to in Part 5 of this Act as such shall apply to personal licences under Part 6.'.
Mr. Moss: We recognise the Government's attempt with amendment No. 295 to clarify what the clause stands for. We would go further. New clause 7 attempts to give greater clarity to what the Government intend. Either clause 121 should set out in detail the way in which personal licences are to be regulated, as has been done for operating licences under part 5, or the Secretary of State should issue a statement on the regulation of personal licences, following consultation.
A variation of a personal licence could result in imprisonment for an operator who is in breach of his operating licence due to a change in the personal licence under clause 30(1), and the defence of holding a valid operating licence will not be available. It is therefore critical that the provisions regarding personal licences are fully set out in the Bill, in order to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights.
An individual can also be liable to imprisonment for a breach of his personal licence under clause 132(4). That emphasises the need to ensure clarity in the Bill. Clause 121 attempts to sidestep important issues of detail by simply providing that the provisions regarding operating licences will be repeated unless otherwise amended by the Secretary of State. We believe that such an approach will lead to uncertainty as it will be impossible for those operating under the provisions to understand which will be modified and which will apply to personal licences. We believe that new clause 7 gives that clarity.
Mr. Caborn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving the new clause—
The Chairman: Order. The new clause has not been moved. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to move it later, he will no doubt indicate that.
Mr. Caborn: I therefore thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the new clause to the Committee. I think that he is trying to be helpful, but I am doubtful about how much the new clause would improve the
Column Number: 331
provisions of clause 121, which allow us to prescribe in regulation how part 5 should apply to part 6. That is, I think, what the hon. Gentleman wants. I admit that the clause does not impose a duty to consult, but I am not sure what such a duty would add.
It is our stated intention that procedures in part 5 should generally apply to part 6 as well. In part 6, we set out the primary differences. We have taken the regulation-making power to deal with matters that might need modification, to make them sensibly apply to a personal licensing regime. The alternative to that approach is to repeat in part 6 everything that we set out in part 5. I do not think that anyone in Committee would think that that was sensible; it would clearly mean needless repetition. Clause 121 provides a sensible way to recognise the contents of part 6 and the need to make further changes by regulation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider those points and not press the new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122
Exemption for small-scale operators
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 252, in clause 122, page 56, line 30, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 35 and insert
'mean an operator not employing more than ten full time permanent employees on each premises operated by such operator'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 253, in clause 122, page 56, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
Mr. Moss: Amendment No. 252 and consequential amendment No. 253 seek to define a small business or operator. The intention is to ensure that small operators are not burdened by disproportionate regulation. The definition of a small-scale operator will be critical as, for such operators, the operating licence will have the same purpose as a personal licence. The definition of small-scale operators should be in the Bill. The amendment seeks to provide an objective criterion to achieve certainty for those operating under the Act.
Mr. Page: I support my hon. Friend's arguments. We have shades of clause 56 in this debate. I am not asking the Minister to look at it again, and officials need not worry either. The issue is simply that that clause said on the age limit for category D gaming machines:
''The Secretary of State may by order create an offence of inviting, causing or permitting a child'',
and so on. We managed to tease out of the Minister the fact that the Secretary of State may come forward only if there were compelling reasons. The Minister was
Column Number: 332
short on telling us what a compelling reason was, but we got the idea that it would have to be of a dramatic nature.
In clause 122, tremendous powers are again given to the Secretary of State. It is a little bureaucratic and heavy-handed:
''In this section 'small-scale' operator shall have such meaning as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations.''
We are again putting immense power in the hands of the Secretary of State—or of the officials who will write the regulations that will duly appear for the House to agree. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, it is incumbent on him to give some idea of what the Government understand a small-scale operator to be. There must be some definition, and it would be helpful to hear it now rather than at a later date in a raft of regulations over which we have no control.
| 
