| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that a more gradualist approach would also allow our indigenous business sector, with its well-deserved reputation for integrity, to leap in as a builder of this sector? It would allow our businesses to benefit themselves, as it is not open only to international investors. Internationally, not just America, but South Africa, Europe and others will be involved.
Mr. Knight: I quite agree; that is precisely the tenor of what I am saying. A gradual roll-out would allow the established British industry to adapt to the new regulatory framework and to compete on more equal terms. Its solution would be to delay the introduction of category A machines or the capping of their stakes and prizes for an initial period. Meanwhile, the stakes and prizes for category B machines could be raised, perhaps up to £10,000, effectively narrowing the gap between large and regional casinos.
I can see the self-interest in those proposals and I am cautious in case it negates the regenerative effect while allowing the later proliferation of category A machines in the existing 130 casinos. Their limited size would mean fewer actual machines than in the regional casinos, but I understand the Government's view that we should restrict the number of outlets and their geographical spread. Personally, I am attracted to the Joint Committee's alternative proposal of an aggregate national cap on the number of category A machines, as outlined earlier in the debate. However, those in the industry who argue that we should retain membership are correct. In that respect, I agree with those on both sides of the House. I believe that the directive on money laundering will require proof of identity, so there would be little extra regulatory impact in requiring membership. I agree with removing the 24-hour rule, but believe that membership adds a moment of reflection for the individual and a helpful form of control for the operator.
Some sort of cap on the number of regional casinos, at least in the short term, would assuage fears of a gambling explosion and allow us to test the market over time. My constituent, Mr. Dave Harkison of Swanage, e-mailed me last week, suggesting a limit of two per region, which I think is pitching it in roughly the right place. That limit might be best achieved through planning.
I very much welcome the effective veto that will be granted to local authorities to determine whether or not they will allow casino development in their area. I am pleased that the Government will introduce a new planning class use—a very helpful step forward. We must ensure that regional planning boards are effective and provide a strategic lead on planning. I support the proposal of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that regional planning guidance should provide the mechanism.
Despite many questions and concerns that remain at this stage, I find much to welcome in the Bill. I regret that its purpose has been so misrepresented in the media and that media sensationalism has stymied real debate over the important issues. The blurring of the Government's message may account for some of the more extreme press coverage that we have seen, but we must reverse the process and inform the public of the Bill's true value. As I see it, the Bill provides more
1 Nov 2004 : Column 113
protection, more freedom and huge potential investment for the regeneration of downtrodden towns and resorts. I support the aims of the Bill. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, voting with her this evening and then seeing what can be done to limit the number of super-casinos.
9.8 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) (Con): First, I have followed the debate on this area of the law throughout my time in the House. As the Minister and other hon. Members are aware, I have, not once but twice, been the shadow spokesman for my party on gambling—first when the Home Office was the responsible Department and again until May this year now that gambling is the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. My first involvement was as the Member for Blackpool, South in my first Parliament.
I should refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, as many other hon. Members have done, but point out that the major part of my speech this evening will be about casinos. The British company that asked me to do some consultancy work for it after I left the Opposition Front Bench in May is not involved in that field, so there is no conflict of interest when I speak about casinos.
My involvement in considering the original plans for resort casinos began when I was approached in the very early 1990s by Leisure Parcs, which was the pioneer of the concept in the UK. The main people behind the company—Mr. Trevor Hemmings and Mr. Marc Etches—came to the House at that time and gave briefings on more than one occasion to Members of all parties who had an interest in the matter. They pointed out the way in which resort casinos in other countries, particularly in parts of the USA, had successfully been used to create regeneration.
The main burden of my views throughout the history of the Bill—the Budd report, the Government's White Paper, all the work of the wonderful Joint Committee, which as many have said has been so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), and all the work by Members of all parties—has been to try to ensure regeneration. I share that view not only with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, but with my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who is on the Front Bench and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), as well as with the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) who is on the Government Back Benches.
If the Bill is not right by the end of its parliamentary process, the great irony will be that the very people who have spent years trying to promote the idea of resort casinos might find that the areas where they have been trying to pioneer the concept do not benefit. As Members from all parties have said, if we do not get it right and mega-casinos are allowed to proliferate everywhere, the run-down resorts that most desperately need regeneration will not end up with super-casinos and will not be regenerated. That is why the Government were so unwise not to accept all the recommendations of the Joint Committee.
In the short time available to me, I want to address one or two points that have not been mentioned so far, although the debate has been of high quality. Many
1 Nov 2004 : Column 114
influential Government Members in another place were members of my hon. Friend's Joint Committee. I welcome the concessions that the Secretary of State has announced today on such things as use class orders, and I want to consider the Bill constructively. I hope that I am lucky enough to serve on the Committee that will consider the Bill. I expect that it will be given a Second Reading because of the Government's huge majority, despite some Government Back Benchers voting against it, but I should point out that the Labour peers who served on the Joint Committee made it clear in all their work that they cared about regeneration just as much as I do. I therefore hope that in Committee the Government will be prepared to accept—at least to consider seriously—many amendments, because I suspect that if they do not do so, they will have to accept amendments from those influential Labour peers who served on the Joint Committee.
Throughout my time dealing with the industry, I have worked closely with the British Amusement Catering Trades Association—BACTA. Its concerns, on behalf of small arcades and machine manufacturers whose businesses are not restricted to seaside resorts but can be in any town in the country, must be safeguarded. I share the concern that hon. Members have expressed that if we end up with a Bill that damages the existing casino, arcade or racing industries, the Government will have done a very bad day's work. I hope very much that we will not end up with such a Bill.
I recognise in particular the importance of a national strategy on planning guidance, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale have rightly said. I hope that the Government will think carefully about how the Bill can be amended to ensure that casinos can provide regeneration and that they are located where that regeneration is needed most.
I doubt whether I am the only hon. Member to suspect that the Government ignored the Joint Committee's recommendations because of the dreaded influence of Her Majesty's Treasury. One can imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all the disapproval that he might initially have felt, given his background in the manse, for expanding casinos, telling Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, "If you must do this, I've at least got to maximise the tax take." I believe that that is why the Government have decided not to accept the Joint Committee's recommendation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is desperate for new tax revenue to plug the black holes that are becoming increasingly apparent in the rest of his policies.
We support something that has a positive benefit, especially for run-down seaside resorts. We must be careful that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not get the planning guidance wrong. The planning confusion that the Joint Committee's report clearly sets out poses a genuine danger.
Regeneration must happen in a way that is similar to successful examples in some cities in the United States. With other hon. Members, I had a presentation from the mayor of one of those cities. If I recall correctly, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who chaired the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I now sit, said that
1 Nov 2004 : Column 115
the Bill should include something akin to a section 106 agreement. Such a provision would enable the money that the casinos make to be hypothecated so that local communities get it. The Treasury and Governments of both parties have had a fixed objection to anything that smacks of hypothecation. However, it needs to happen. We now have some forms of hypothecation, for example, the use of money that is raised by speed cameras and the congestion charge.
The Secretary of State has been under huge pressure from her Back Benchers about the needs of the seaside arcades, the need to keep crane machines and coin-push machines, the potential problems for pubs and the need perhaps to allow the lowest category of machines to stay in fish and chip shops and pubs. On the basis of research, we do not perceive any great danger from those but there are potential difficulties, in the view of many trade associations, in the case of a massive proliferation. Several hon. Members have spoken about the dangers of organised crime and the problems of the so-called FOBM and FOBT machines.
I agree with the comments made early in the debate by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). She spoke about the need for Blackpool and similar resorts to reinvent themselves. If the Bill is amended sensibly in Committee and the Government accept the sort of proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and the Joint Committee made, we can get the measure right and provide for regeneration.
I want briefly to make a couple of other points. The British Horseracing Board suggests that the Bill provides an opportunity to deal with so-called sleeper bets. As a long-standing member of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock, I believe that the Committee stage could helpfully deal with that.
All those with an interest in racing will be worried by the news last week from a senior police officer, who is in charge of the current inquiry into some people who are involved in racing, that further arrests have taken place and that those under investigation now number more than 100. The huge inquiry will continue well into 2005. I shall not comment on any matters that are sub judice, but for the good name of racing, it is crucial that it is perceived to be a clean sport. I believe that it is 99 per cent. of the time. However, the Bill could stop betting on horses or dogs to lose. That would be helpful.
9.18 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |