| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow : I understand the triple lock, and I see what the right hon. Lady means by her preferred alternative, but surely there is something to be said for a backstop position. Given that she envisages only between 20 and 40 super-casinos but that her critics predict a very much larger number, I put it to her that introducing a limit in the Bill on the total number, as well as being right in itself, would help to facilitate the smooth passage of this important Bill, which in other respects she is entirely right to champion.
Tessa Jowell: I know that there will be a lot of discussion about this aspect of the proposals both here and, if the Bill secures a Second Reading, in Committee. The practical obstacle created by a cap is that the whole thrust of the regulatory and planning system is to leave decisions about new casinos to local people, but if an arbitrary limit is imposed, what do we say to those local authorities—there may be a significant number—that present applications for new casinos just as the cap is about to be reached, and—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and allow the right hon. Lady to speak.
Tessa Jowell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to explain what I believe is one of the issues of contention at the heart of the Bill, and it is important that, if hon. Members raise concerns about it, they should listen to the answer. This is not the end of the story, and I expect further discussion in Committee.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no appeal against the veto on super-casinos that she is giving to local authorities; otherwise, authorities will be overruled, will they not, by the Secretary of State?
Tessa Jowell: As the provisions stand, there is no appeal against the provisions in clause 157, but my right hon. Friend may wish to return to this point at another time.
Tessa Jowell: I intend to make some progress by returning to the licensing and planning regime.
If a casino application was considered to be too close to, for instance, a residential area or a school, it could be refused on the social responsibility criteria in clause 1. That is the case even before the planning regime and the third lock become effective.
1 Nov 2004 : Column 36
The planning system is crucial. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his Department for working so closely with me and my Department on the interaction of licensing and planning policy. He and I are happy to give the House a firm undertaking that the licensing and planning regimes will be fully aligned to ensure that the Bill is implemented in a cautious and responsible way that respects the wishes of local authorities and local communities. The Deputy Prime Minister and I will make sure that detailed advice is available about the transition period.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) (Con): What the Secretary of State is saying is helpful to the House, but what is the Government's current thinking on the Joint Committee's recommendation that there should be a separate planning use class for regional casinos?
Tessa Jowell: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall have more to say about that.
As Secretary of State, I have the power to commence the Bill in such a way that the gambling commission is got up and running and there is reasonable time to put in place appropriate local and regional planning frameworks before premises licence applications are made, and that is what I shall do. For regional casinos, we will make sure, under the provisions of the new planning regime, that regional spatial strategies are updated to take account of the Bill. Regional authorities will be able to analyse the best locations for regional casinos from the point of view of economic growth, tourism promotion and regional sustainability, as well as existing regional development plans.
Regional authorities will identify broad locations for regional casinos, but the local authority—the licensing authority—will have the final say, assuming that it has not already exercised its right to ban all new casinos in its area under clause 157. We will also make sure, for small and large casinos, that local development frameworks are updated to take account of the Bill, again assuming that a local authority has not imposed a blanket ban. All the usual safeguards and protections in planning law will be available to local authorities and local communities. Local communities will be consulted about any planning application for a new casino. They will make their views known, and there will be a public debate.
Some Members and, as the hon. Member for Ryedale said, the Joint Committee, have expressed concern that some casinos may bypass the planning system because of the absence of a separate use class for casinos in planning law. The current law theoretically allows any leisure facility, such as a swimming pool or cinema, to be converted into a casino without triggering planning controls, although, obviously, a premises licence—therefore, the planning regime—would be invoked. After the Joint Committee's second report, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister undertook to review the possibility of a new use class for casinos and invited comments by the end of October. I am delighted to announce today that he and I have agreed in principle to require change of use to a casino to be subject to planning control. Subject to further detailed
1 Nov 2004 : Column 37
consideration of the outcome of the review and the usual consultation, we are minded to amend the use class order.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): Given that planning in Scotland is, of course, devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive, has my right hon. Friend had discussions with Scottish Ministers to ensure that similar planning protection is given to local authorities and communities there, and will she make sure that the Bill does not come into effect in Scotland until such changes are made in the relevant Scottish legislation?
Tessa Jowell: I assure my hon. Friend that there have been ongoing discussions with Scottish Ministers as the policy has developed, and that those discussions will continue.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD): I suspect that there will be pleasure in all parts of the House at the news that the Secretary of State just announced. Will she confirm that what she is announcing is a separate use category for all casinos, not just for the super-casinos?
Tessa Jowell: Yes, I can confirm that.
Subject to further consultation, the process will proceed. I assure the House that the establishment of a separate use class is evidence that the Government do not want casinos to be allowed in by the back door. We aim to ensure that new casinos are taken forward through the development of the plan-making process.
That is the triple lock that we are putting in place for casinos. The system is robust and will, I hope, reassure the House and concerned communities throughout the UK that there will be no proliferation of casinos, whether small, large or regional. The system will allow local communities to ban all casinos or to reject specific casino plans that do not measure up to the social responsibility criteria in clause 1 or the requirements of planning law.
The nature of the new system is precisely why most economic and industry analysts expect the British market to be able to sustain only between 20 and 40 regional casinos. They have reached that conclusion because the policy that we have designed is so stringent and because they do not think that demand will be any higher. If demand is lower than analysts expected, there will be even fewer than 20 to 40 regional casinos.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. She mentioned that research indicates that the market will bear only up to 40 super-casinos. In that case, will she explain why having a cap in the Bill is undesirable? I would suggest that having one would be very desirable.
Tessa Jowell: Because there is a difference between a cap set by Government and the range of the likely levels of development set by industry forecasts based on the regulatory framework that the Government are establishing and the three elements of that regulatory system that I have set out.
Tessa Jowell:
I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so, although I have taken many interventions, I now intend to make progress.
1 Nov 2004 : Column 38
There will be three opportunities for consultation, two of which, on the licensing policy and on planning permission, will be obligatory. There will also be the opportunity to consult on the possible use of the resolution.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will regard the framework as well considered and robust. I assure hon. Members that on every aspect of the Bill the Government are listening and are open to proposals that will improve the protections in it. If hon. Members have suggestions about how the triple lock can be strengthened, proposals will be carefully examined at later stages.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |