|
Mrs. Humble: The situation that the Minister outlines is that in Blackpool, where the local authority has a regeneration strategy through its master plan. The local authority has identified the site on which it wishes to develop the casino. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the independent panel looks at which areas to identify, it will consider
Column Number: 671
whether there is a comprehensive regeneration strategy that includes the location of a casino, so that the local authority determines where the casino will be and the panel agrees to that location?
Mr. Caborn: To encapsulate it, it is the local authority that runs the competition at the end of the day. If it has a strategy or a blueprint, that would obviously be helpful.
Mr. Banks: We all understand that the licence is worth something in itself. [Interruption.] Well, it is. A licence must be achieved to start with. That being so, why not auction the licences?
Mr. Caborn: Because we did not go down that route. We have put the matter into the hands of local authorities. An operator will get a licence granted on the basis of social responsibility. The 24 sites will then be determined by a panel, which will be agreed by the Secretary of State. The local authorities that have been selected will then run the competition. It has planning powers and can grant premises licences. It will be for the local authority to determine that; it will not be done by auction.
We believe that that is the right way, because local authorities will determine the type of regeneration that they want for their area. I said in my statement that I hope that there will be consultation with local people as well, which is important. The responsibility has been put squarely with the local authorities to determine planning and premises licences once an operator has crossed the threshold of social responsibility.
4.45 pm
Mr. Woodward: On a point of clarification, does the Minister mean that if the rugby team in St. Helens have an agreement with a potential casino operator, the agreement is worth absolutely nothing? The local authority does not own land or the sites for supermarkets. The Minister seems to be saying that the agreements between all those people are now worth nothing because a local authority, which might change its political complexion in a few years' time, could say that it does not want a particular operator and that its competition will bring in a new set of rules. The club will want to have a realistic idea of where it is at the end of the day.
Mr. Caborn: It will have to wait, as will others, to find out whether it is to be one of the 24 sites that are selected, whether regional, large or small. That will be determined by the panel. If Wigan were to get a site, a number of developers would want to make a bid for it. The local authority, in conjunction with the rugby club and, possibly, others, could agree to give planning permission and a premises licence. That would be when the competition process took place. The key question will be whether it is one of the 24 sites, and that will be determined by the panel and sanctioned by the Secretary of State.
We looked at the figures, and we believe that eight casinos will give us a cross-section of resorts, towns and other areas. That number gives the necessary
Column Number: 672
coverage to do a proper evaluation without the danger of great proliferation.
Mr. Foster: I am conscious of the time. Earlier, I asked the Minister a couple of questions and they have not been answered. On the point that he just made, can he tell the Committee whether the concept of destination will inform the location of the regional casinos?
Mr. Caborn: The answer is yes. We could probably debate how one defines destination. As to consultation with the industry, we are meeting tomorrow, and I have no doubt that from now until we return on 11 January, hon. Members will be lobbied very hard. No doubt there will be amendments prompted by all types of people. It is important that we made the statement today, because there is time for people to reflect on what we said before we discuss the amendments on 11 January.
Mr. Moss: The Minister implied that we may be able to table amendments before we meet again. That is not possible. Government amendments will be made, but we cannot amend them until they are incorporated in the Bill. We might have new clauses on 11 January, but how can we have amendments to clauses that have already been agreed?
Mr. Caborn: I said this morning that we will do our best to ensure that all amendments are considered.
Mr. Moss: The Minister is not understanding me. How can we amend on 11 January clauses that the Committee has already ordered to stand part of the Bill? We can only have new clauses.
Mr. Caborn: It will be up to the Committee whether it accepts the new clauses. It can vote for or against them, and there will be stand part debates, Report and Third Reading. The Committee will have the opportunity to vote down new clauses and amendments, and if hon. Members are not satisfied they can debate the matter on the Floor of the House on Report and during Third Reading.
Mr. Moss: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. For clarification, we are coming back on 11 January. It is my understanding that the Government will table as many new clauses as they can which relate to today's statement. That is understood, and there is no problem. However, they cannot table amendments on that date. We can amend whatever we agree on 11 January only by tabling amendments on Report.
The Chairman: Has the point of order gone away?
Mr. Caborn: When I said amendments and new clauses, that was a rather sloppy explanation. Hon. Members have raised a number of detailed points, but they will be addressed in the new clauses and amendable on Report and Third Reading.
Mrs. Humble: I raised a concern about the time scale; my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South did the same. The outline that we have before us says that the independent panel will not come up with its judgment until the end of 2006. Will the Minister consider whether the time scale can be speeded up? Then interested local authorities, such as mine, will be able to have decisions made sooner rather than later. Can he explain why the independent panel will not
Column Number: 673
start its deliberations until the beginning of 2006, and will not report until the end of that year?
Mr. Caborn: Let us assume that the Bill completes its passage in the first quarter of next year. We will then set up the gambling commission very quickly. The Bill is not just about casinos; it contains important measures on remote gambling and electronic gambling which need to be addressed. We are already more than halfway towards setting up the gambling commission because we have the Gaming Board. That will form the core of the commission, and we will add further members to give it its full complement. At the same time as it becomes operational we will set up the panel to consider location. That will take advice from regional development agencies, taking into account their regional spatial plans, and make recommendations to the Secretary of State about the 24 sites. That can be done during 2006.
It will then be up to the gambling commission to invite companies that want licences to apply to it, and it will make decisions on them. That should not take too long. The licence decisions will be made on the basis of social responsibility and other conditions in the Bill. Those companies will then have licences. In parallel, the 24 locations will have been decided. It will than be for the Secretary of State to accept or reject the recommendations. Let us assume that they are accepted. Then the local authorities will invite those who have licences to apply for planning permission and premises licences. That could start in 2005 and carry on in early 2006. Once the premises licences have been granted, it will be three years before the casinos are operational. The gambling commission will collect all the data and report to Parliament.
Mr. Banks: Will there be an appeals procedure?
Mr. Caborn: I will come back to that.
Mr. Moss: Is the Minister saying that the panel can start work at the end of 2005, going into 2006, and local authorities such as Blackpool, and the rest of us, will all have to wait until there are 24 on the list, or can it proceed when it has decided on Blackpool?
Mr. Caborn: In England—Scotland and Wales will be slightly different, so let us take England—the panel will be asked to consider where the sites will be. Once it has made that decision, all 24 will be presented to the Secretary of State. When the 24 are known, the local authorities will be told, and the gambling commission will issue the licences. Those things will happen in parallel, then the competition will start. That seems very simple to me.
Mr. Woodward: Of course I realise what the Minister is saying. However, have he and his officials given thought to the football or rugby clubs who, in anticipation that they might be able to do something on their projects with casinos or other organisations, might now be negotiating sponsorship deals, perhaps to keep them afloat, in the expectation that they will forge planning applications with those organisations? Has the Minister been advised on and given thought to the fact that, in light of today's announcement, a number of football and rugby clubs may receive a letter tomorrow morning that says, ''There's no point
Column Number: 674
in us having this sponsorship deal with you for the next three years, the money's gone''?
Mr. Caborn: I am sorry, but I am taking through a Bill that could, if not handled properly, have a profound effect on the fabric of our society. When one considers some of the experiences around the world, one must say, ''We have to do this cautiously.'' The Government went to the House of Commons on Second Reading and said, ''We believe that we have enough controls to satisfy people's concerns.'' The answer to that was very clearly, ''No you have not.'' We returned to the House with a set of conditions that we believe address those concerns.
In the intervening period, every football club—certainly those in the premiership and the championship—has submitted an application to their local authority for planning permission for a casino. My own club, Sheffield United, has. It has pictures of the proposed casino up at the ground; I will be going up on Saturday. The money being spent is not the fault of the Government; if football clubs want to discuss casinos, it is entirely up to them. As a Minister, I cannot be held responsible for what happens to a rugby club, a football club or indeed a cricket club.
| 
