|
Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford) (Con): This is another extraordinary development in what has been the most bizarre saga of the Bill's consideration. Today, the Minister has announced major changes to the Billchanges that alter completely the whole thrust of the Bill. He has done so when we had just finished considering clause 310 of a Bill that consists of only 337 clauses.
The Minister sought to portray those changes as a refinement or clarification of the Government's strategy. The truth is that he has put a coach and horses right through the centre of the Bill. The changes come on top of what was itself a pretty extraordinary announcement: the limitation of the number of regional casinos to just eight. Now the Minister says that no more than 24 new casinos of any type at all will be allowed in the country for the foreseeable future. That announcement has come just as the Bill is about to come out of Committee, and it has been made, as far as I can see, without any consultation whatsoever with the industry. It has not been subject to any scrutiny. The Bill has been through months and months of scrutiny by the Joint Committee. It has been subject to consultation, the Budd review and a White Paper, yet now the Government at such a late stage have decided to change the entire thrust of the Bill, the overall effect of which is that the liberalising, deregulatory measure that we started with will, in some respects, impose a more restrictive regime on casino development than exists at present.
10.15 am
Mr. Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab): Is the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument that he wants more large-scale casinos in this country?
Mr. Whittingdale: I want first to hear a rational explanation of the Government's decision. The logic of their position looks pretty shaky and we have not heard any detail of how they reached such a decision. I shall come to some of the essential questions to which we need answers before we decide whether we agree with the Government's proposals.
Mr. Byrne: I have a simple question: does the hon. Gentleman want more large-scale casinos in the country or fewer? Yes or no?
Column Number: 623
Mr. Whittingdale: Let me explain matters in a little more detail. We need to examine the Government's proposals for regional casinosan issue that we continue to be concerned about. Our worries are based on the fact that regional casinos will be a new development in the country. They will be investments of 150 million-plus, based on a business model of 20,000 people or more going through the door each week and of each casino containing up to 1,250 category A machinesa type of machine that has never been introduced into the country before. That is why we felt strongly that we needed to proceed cautiously and that a pilot scheme should be set up before we decide whether to allow into the country a greater number than that which is now proposed. We believe that there is a real danger that regional casinos and so many category A machines could lead to an increase in problem gambling.
As for large and small casinos, at present there is nothing to prevent them from being built as long as it happens within the permitted development areas. Indeed, the Secretary of State has repeatedly stressed the fact that the Government are imposing the triple lock, which would act as a barrier against proliferation. We pointed out that there was a flaw in the Government's argument, which was the loophole of use classes. That could have allowed developers of casinos to get around the triple lock and convert leisure facilities into casinos. Finally the Government recognised that argument and announced that they would close the loophole and establish a separate use class order.
At the same time, the Government stressed that they would impose minimum size limits for small casinos and that the minimum size would have to be 1,500 sq m, making it an investment of about 6 million to 8 million. For large casinos, that cost would be up to 30 million. In their response to the Joint Committee, the Government said specifically that, by imposing such restrictions,
''The Government believes that the minimum size for new small casinos of 500m2 of table gaming area is sufficient to prevent more proliferation.''
They are now saying that that is not correct and that there is a danger of proliferation, so it is necessary to impose the additional limitation on large and small casino developments.
The Secretary of State has also said that, when it comes to large and small casinos, the decision should ultimately lie with local authorities. On Second Reading, the right hon. Lady said:
''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 authoritiesthere may be a significant numberthat present applications for new casinos just as the cap is about to be reached''.[Official Report, 1 November 2004; Vol.426, c.35.]
We now have a problem with the Minister's announcement that there should be just eight small new casinos across the entire country. When we are talking about regional casino development of 150 million-plus, eight casinos seems roughly the number to consider. We want to debate how the Government reached the figure of eight for regional casinos,
Column Number: 624
although it is roughly in the ballpark, but the only possible justification for an eight, eight, eight restriction is a vague for some symmetry. Other than that, it is utterly bizarre to say that there should be the same number of 150 million-plus developments as of 6 million-plus developments. The Minister has not explained why the Government have chosen an eight, eight, eight configuration.
There will be some who have opposed the Bill from the start who think that the configuration should be six, six, six.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Very good!
Mr. Whittingdale: It was an illustration of how it would be in the Bill. However, eight, eight, eight has no more logic than six, six, six. This is an extraordinary decision that puts the planning body, which the Government will establish, into a difficult position.
Bob Russell: In view of the difficulties for the Government that the hon. Gentleman is advancing, perhaps the number ought to be nine, nine, nine.
Mr. Whittingdale: That is another alternative. One thing that is certain is that there are likely to be a large number of applications for small or large casinos.
Mr. Byrne: To move the debate beyond the question of numbers, if the hon. Gentleman is unable to set out the figure he regards as appropriate, does he support the idea of a cap on the number of casinos?
Mr. Whittingdale: I can see that the reason for capping the number of large and small casinos is to prevent proliferation. However, we will want to consider carefully what the number should be and I am pretty certain that we will not feel that eight, eight, eight is the right result.
We have been told about this huge change, which will alter the entire thrust of the Bill, in the past 20 minutes and with no warning. To expect us to be able to respond with detailed scrutiny at this moment is extremely unreasonable. I wish to return to the timing of this proposal and the amount of time that will be left to press the Government to provide us with further information on how they have come to the decision, because the serious time constraint will jeopardise effective scrutiny of the Bill.
Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the super-casinos are something new that has not been seen before in this country. However, does he agree that whatever number is chosenwhether it is eight, 10 or 15is completely arbitrary and nonsense? Would it not be better to leave it as it is at the moment, with the market in permitted areas deciding what the limit should be?
Mr. Whittingdale: That is a very interesting observation. The hon. Gentleman is, effectively, articulating the Government's argument, but the problem is that it is their argument from last month, rather than the one they are using today. He may have to discuss that with the Minister. Nevertheless, he asks a question that we will wish to address further when we return to the matter after Christmas.
Column Number: 625
The Government have to deal with how the advisory body will decide which eight areas of the country are to be allowed to permit the development of small and large casinos.
Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the points that he has made about the shambles that the Government have got themselves into, it is surprising that in this statement of national policythe Government's latest series of U-turnsthere is no reference to the need for casinos to be used for regeneration? That was such a big theme of the scrutiny Committee's work, which a number of hon. Members referred to as a concern, including the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and me. There is some tangential reference to seaside resorts, but does my hon. Friend agree that that is yet another peculiarity of this major change that the Government have dumped on us this morning without warning?
Mr. Whittingdale: I strongly agree. For some, one of the great attractions of regional casino development was that it was to bring regeneration benefit. It was obvious that the investment of 150 million-plus would transform certain areas, which is why we were keen for regional casino development to be directed to destination resorts that would benefit from regeneration. However, in the case of small casinos, for which the investment required is far less, regeneration benefits inevitably will not be nearly as great. That raises the question of the criteria that the advisory body will use in determining which areas of the country will be permitted the eight new small and eight new large casinos.
In his statement, the Minister laid great stress on the fact that local authorities will still be able to decide not to allow any casino development at all. A clause will be introduced that gives them the power to say no. Unfortunately, the Government have taken away from local authorities the power to say yes. The local authority might believe that it is very much in the interests of the area to permit the development of a small or a large casino. The authority might even have been allowed to permit that up until the Bill becoming an Act, if it happened to be in a permitted development area. However, the Government now say that they will take that power away and that unless the local authority happens to be in one of the eight selected areas, it will not be allowed any new casino development.
The Government are essentially establishing a lottery and it will be up to them to decide which eight areas will win prizes. One could even argue that the Government should register with the gambling commission as a body running a lottery with the prize of new large and small-scale casino developments.
| 
