|
Adam Afriyie: I may, as I said before, be a bit naïve, as I am quite new to the House, but will the Minister explain how clause 6(3) is restrained with respect to the power to
''make different provision for different purposes''?
I suspect that there is a mechanism, but how is the provision restrained from giving a Secretary of State licence to do whatever they like, in any way they like?
Mr. Caborn: But it is not the Secretary of State who will do it; the National Lottery Commission will conduct the negotiations and report back to the Secretary of State. We are trying to create conditions under which the National Lottery Commission, from as large a field as possible, can extract what is, in its view, the best possible outcome for good causes in an efficiently-run lottery, probably the best run lottery in the world. That is the object of the exercise. We believe that clause 6 and schedule 1 will, as happened with previous provisions, give the National Lottery Commission that maximum negotiating capability.
4.15 pm
That comes off the back of two past experiences with lottery licensing which were not particularly good; I accept that. There has also been wide consultation, in terms of the review decision document on national lottery licensing and regulation. We have distilled all that. We believe that
Column Number: 209
we are giving the National Lottery Commission a good framework. Then it will have to report back to us. It will not be the Secretary of State who carries out the negotiations; it will be the National Lottery Commission.
Adam Afriyie: I understand the Minister's answer, but I was being fairly specific. Subsection (3)(c) concerns me. It states:
''may make different provision for different purposes''.
I just wonder what the restraint is. Could provision be made for allocating money to something that was not a good a cause? Where is the restraint in paragraph (c)? It seems very open. The other provisions are constrained by other parts of the legislation, but I cannot see how paragraph (c) is constrained in any way.
Mr. Caborn: The decision will have to be justified against the criteria. The acid test is whether good causes get the maximum amount of money. Everyone will be looking at that. This will not take place in isolation. We hope that there will be a series of bidders. The expressions of interest to date look quite healthy. There will be a serious competition. My personal view is that we will not be in a position where we will have to depart from having one licence. I hope that that is the case because that will be the best way to extract the maximum that we can. We have all the conditions, including the 15-year maximum licence. There will be one criterion that will be used to make a judgment; what is best for good causes? The National Lottery Commission will have to report back. Like every other non-departmental public body, it has restraints on it. However, it also has enough flexibility to maximise the take.
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): The Minister is trying to be helpful, and is succeeding. None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has raised an important point because the Minister appears to be explaining that there are things that are contained in neither the clause nor the schedule that do in fact restrain, or which he thinks will restrain, the actions of the Secretary of State under subsection (1). However, there is nothing written down, until Hansard is produced as a result of today's debate, that encapsulates the objective of raising the maximum amount for good causes. Is that the case?
Mr. Caborn: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. We have a system under which the Secretary of State is responsible, in the end, to Parliament. She has delegated to the National Lottery Commission, within certain parameters, the responsibility to negotiate a new licence for the lottery. What we are debating in relation to clause 6 and schedule 1 relates to the conditions under which it will carry out that negotiation. The endgame is to extract, from, we hope, a good field of applicants, the best outcome for the good causes. We are not talking about a constraint on the Secretary of State. It is the National Lottery Commission that will carry out the
Column Number: 210
negotiation and report back to the Secretary of State, and, by that means, to Parliament.
The provisions give powers and flexibility to enable the National Lottery Commission, first, not to get into the situation in which it was previously; secondly, to have a structure that will engage many bidders; and, thirdly, to ensure that we can extract the maximum amount from those bidders for good causes. That is the sole object and therefore the constraint. I do not follow the rationale of the point that was being made. I might be being a bit thick about that. That is the object and I believe that it is contained in the Bill. That is why I want the clause and schedule 1 to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Turner: So, the Minister is saying that, on the application of the National Lottery Commission, the Secretary of State would consider making an order and would then make such an order, subject to parliamentary annulment? Is he saying that it is not that the Secretary of State who is taking the initiative, but the National Lottery Commission?
Mr. Caborn indicated assent.
Mr. Turner: I have got it.
Mr. Caborn: I have nothing to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
National lottery licensing
Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD): Welcome back, Mr. Gale. You will be pleased to note that we are making rather more rapid progress than we did the last time you occupied the Chair.
Schedule 1 deals with national lottery licensing. It makes several changes to the National Lottery Act etc. 1993, including in respect of licensing persons to promote lotteries. I do not disagree with any particular aspect of the schedule, but I suggest to the Minister that the changes he wants to make to the 1993 Act do not go far enough.
I do not deny that I am slightly confused by some of the paperwork before us. The Minister has helpfully provided us with a copy of the now infamous Keeling document, which incorporates all the proposed changes to the 1993 Act, as amended by later legislation. I have struggled to make some sense of how schedule 1 has been incorporated in that document. On the assumption that I have got it wrong and the document is absolutely correct, no change is planned to section 6(5) of the 1993 Act, in particular paragraph (a). According to the Keeling document, after the Bill is passed, section 6(4) of that Act will state:
''The Commission shall not grant such a licence''—
to promote lotteries—
''unless it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to promote lotteries under the licence.''
Column Number: 211
Subsection (4) is very clear, stating that the commission shall not grant a licence unless it is satisfied that the person is fit and proper. However, immediately afterwards, subsection (5) states:
''In determining whether to grant such a licence, the Commission may consider—
(a) whether any person who appears to it to be likely to manage the business or any part of the business of promoting lotteries under the licence is a fit and proper and person to do so''.
The first of two successive subsections in section 6 states that the commission must ensure that a person is fit and proper, but the second says that it may consider whether the person is fit and proper. I am totally confused about what it is meant to do and why both provisions are necessary. I would be grateful for an explanation from the Minister.
Mr. Caborn: I shall try to explain. The hon. Gentleman has omitted to say that, before the changes we propose, the 1993 Act states:
''The Commission shall not grant such a licence unless it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper body to promote lotteries under the licence.''
The Bill will delete ''body'' and insert ''person''. We had a debate this morning about the definition of ''person'', and I told the hon. Gentleman that I shall write to him because the legal interpretation of that term is not as clear to the layperson as we want. We shall go to the lawyers and get the proper interpretation of whether the term includes the corporate body as well as persons. We were informed that ''persons'' includes the corporate body.
Section 6(5) of the 1993 Act states:
''In determining whether to grant such a licence, the Commission may consider—
(a) whether any person who appears to it to be likely to manage the business or any part of the business of promoting lotteries under the licence is a fit and proper person to do so''.
That is clear in the sense that the term ''body'' has been deleted and ''person'' inserted. I shall give the explanation of ''persons'', as we discussed this morning. I do not see any conflict at all.
Mr. Foster: I shall read my copy again—I apologise for putting it on the record twice and to anybody who may be given the task of recording what we are saying. I accept the change from ''body'' to ''person'', so I am incorporating that in what I say. Section 6(4) clearly states:
''The Commission shall not grant such a licence unless it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to promote lotteries under the licence.''
Subsection (5) states:
''In determining whether to grant such a licence, the Commission may consider—
(a) whether any person who appears to it to be likely to manage the business or any part of the business of promoting lotteries under the licence is a fit and proper and person to do so''.
It seems to be saying the same thing, with the exception that one says that the person must do it and in the other it says that they may. Surely it has to be one or the other. I assume that it has to be that they will do it.
| 
