---

 
6 Mar 2006 : Column 587
 

House of Commons

Monday 6 March 2006

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

The unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker having been announced, The Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rugby League

1. Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): If she will make a statement on the support her Department is giving to rugby league. [55617]

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): Before I answer that question, may I congratulate Alastair Cook on scoring a fantastic century out in India? I think that this is only the sixth time in the history of the fantastic game of cricket that anyone has scored a century and a 50 in their first test match. I also congratulate Shelley Rudman, our silver medallist in the winter Olympics, and the rest of the team. They did a fantastic job. I want to pay tribute to the talented athletes scholarship scheme money that Shelley Rudman received from the Government. That scheme was designed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State some 18 months ago. Silver today, gold tomorrow.

Rugby league's recent modernisation was led by its superb chief executive, Richard Lewis, and I can see the game going from strength to strength. It is one of Sport England's top 10 priority sports, which is why Sport England has recently invested £11.5 million to build on the recent renaissance of rugby league. If other sports looked at rugby league for an example of what can be achieved in modernising their governing bodies, they could learn a lesson or two.

Paul Rowen: In December 2004, the Minister announced the creation of the national sports foundation, and the allocation of £2.5 million for rugby league, but I understand that no money has yet been allocated. Will he explain why and tell the House when rugby league can expect to receive its share of the resources?

Mr. Caborn: That was £27 million of public money that the Chancellor had put into his Budget, and it will start to come on stream in April this year. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are still discussing with the national governing bodies and those involved in the
 
6 Mar 2006 : Column 588
 
regional structure how best we can dispense that money to get maximum value from it. I remind Opposition Members that this involves £27.5 million of public money, and it will start to come on stream in April. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see rugby league getting its fair share.

Digital Television

2. Mr. Mark Lancaster (North-East Milton Keynes) (Con): If she will make a statement on the development of proposals for the Government's targeted assistance programme for digital switchover. [55619]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I hope that my departmental questions will continue to provide the political highlight in this place that they have done today. I should like to begin by extending the congratulations of the whole House to our British Oscar winners: Rachel Weisz; Nick Park and Steve Box; and Martin McDonagh. They are examples of the excellence of the British film industry and they all deserve our praise.

Ofcom will shortly publish data showing that the proportion of households with a digital television has now reached 70 per cent. That is an important landmark. We must now ensure that the principle of universal free-to-view television continues, and, to ensure that no one is left behind, we will provide specific help to the very elderly and disabled who are at most risk. The nature of the assistance will be heavily influenced by the trial that is under way in Bolton. This underlines our Government's commitment that the most vulnerable will not be excluded from the benefits of a digital society.

Mr. Lancaster: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. It is a special pleasure to see her here today, and I mean that genuinely. Is she aware of the special problems that Milton Keynes has in regard to the switchover? The city planners decided that individual houses did not need an aerial. Instead, they provided a central feed from an analogue mast. Furthermore, some houses have deeds that prohibit them from erecting an aerial. In the light of that, the changeover to digital in Milton Keynes will be especially problematic, although many people view it as an opportunity to get broadband, which they cannot get at the moment. As Milton Keynes is a unique case, would the Minister be prepared to meet people there to discuss the way forward?

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kindness and for his remarks of concern about his constituents. I am happy to meet constituents from Milton Keynes to discuss this specific issue, but he should be reassured that Digital UK is already in discussion with Milton Keynes council in relation to the specific problem that arises from the reliance on analogue cable. He can assure his constituents that Freeview will be available to them, as will the continued roll-out of broadband.

Mr. Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton, South-East) (Lab): Does the Secretary of State accept that many pensioners in particular are worried about not just the technology involved in digital switchover, but not
 
6 Mar 2006 : Column 589
 
having access to the many new channels and radio channels provided in that way? What is her Department doing not just to help pensioners with the technology, but to ensure that, as we move to that new technology, neither pensioners nor anyone else loses out on the expansion of choice in broadcasting that this entails?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend makes my point precisely in relation to the importance of universal free-to-view access for digital television. He makes a second important point about the distinction between the need for information and the need of elderly and vulnerable people for equipment. That is the information that we are seeking to develop in the Bolton trial. The early indications are that the greatest need is for information on how to use digital technology. We will ensure that the service meets the needs of individuals so that no one is left behind.

Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford) (Con): Does the Secretary of State accept that surveys already show that a large number of people, not just pensioners, struggle with digital technology and that it will be just as important to provide help to the socially isolated as to the financially disadvantaged? Will she confirm that, as part of the assistance programme, she will provide financial help to voluntary groups so that they can be trained to give the help that will be extremely important to all those who would otherwise struggle to benefit from the switchover?

Tessa Jowell: I can confirm that for the hon. Gentleman. It is an important point and one that no doubt will be reflected in his Select Committee's report, when it is published, on the impact of digital switchover, but voluntary organisations have an important part to play, street by street, in identifying those people who are at risk of being left out through not understanding or not having access to the relevant equipment. We intend to address that in the way he suggests.

Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that her Department will press those responsible for providing the hardware necessary to take the digital change to ensure that the buttons are large enough for people with visual impairment to see them and for people with arthritic hands to use them? There is a real concern here.

Tessa Jowell: Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point about the practical impact of switchover, and yes, we are taking serious account of that—talking to the manufacturers through Digital UK, which will produce guidelines with advice on this.

Gambling Premises

3. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): What measures she is taking to increase the number of licensed gambling premises. [55620]

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): Parliament took the decision to limit the number of regional casinos in the first phase to one, and we are implementing the legislation on that basis. We do not rule out the possibility of asking Parliament to approve an
 
6 Mar 2006 : Column 590
 
increase in the number of regional casinos, but the impetus for any change will not come from the Government and we have no plans to return to Parliament on this issue.

May I again underline the fact that the new legislation is about new protections, not new casinos? The implementation of the Gambling Act 2005 will ensure that all gambling premises, including casinos, are subject to tough but fair regulation by the Gambling Commission and the local licensing authorities.

Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister therefore rule out the possibility of increasing the number to eight?

Mr. Caborn: As I said, we are prepared to consider doing that if the House decides that it wants to move there. I repeat that the Act has achieved everything that the Government wanted to achieve—that is, dealing with online gambling and remote gambling. We believe we have done that. If there has to be any change on regional casinos, it will be done through a consensus in the House. As I said in an Adjournment debate last week, it is for the Opposition parties to come forward and probably resurrect the amendments they tabled in Committee, when they were asking for four.

Mr. John McFall (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op): Does the Minister agree that the debate last week was enlightening, but that the original pilot, focusing on one super-casino, is deficient? We need a pilot focusing on different parts of the country so that we can have more than one casino, which would reflect the social and economic factors in different communities.

Mr. Caborn: I entirely agree. That is why the Government proposed that there should be eight casinos. Just before the election, however, the Opposition in their wisdom decided to reduce the number to one. We conceded that, because in doing so we secured the Act that we wanted, which protected the vulnerable and, especially, children from remote and internet gambling in particular. That was the purpose and the core of our Bill, and the question of casinos was subsidiary to it. If there is a wish for the number to be increased to any number between one and eight, we are prepared to consider that, but the Opposition parties will have to indicate their support.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) (Con): May I remind the House that the scrutiny Committee suggested no limit on the number of regional casinos and said that they would bring about massive regeneration? As for the growth of gambling, does the Minister concede that, although children are banned from gambling premises, the growth of e-gaming and, before long, mobile telephony will cause problems? How does he intend to ensure that remote gambling is well regulated and that a proper regulatory framework governs those who gain access to such sites, in Europe or even in countries outside the European economic area?

Mr. Caborn: As we all know, the hon. Gentleman chaired the Committee that scrutinised the Gambling Bill. He did so very ably and he has raised an important point. Yes, under the Act we have taken power to control remote and internet gambling, to the extent that a member state can do that. We intend to call a
 
6 Mar 2006 : Column 591
 
conference of Ministers responsible for gambling law in various countries to establish whether international regulation is a possibility. I agree that children and vulnerable people are being exposed to a new kind of gambling, or mechanism for gambling, that will be difficult to control unless there is international recognition in the form of regulation. We will call the international conference within the next few months.

Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab): Surely the issue of regional casinos does not just concern licensed gambling. It is also about job creation and investment in local communities. Ought there not to be investment in hotels, shops and so forth in the vicinity of casinos? Will the Government be a little more affirmative in launching their crusade for eight casinos, even if the full support of the Opposition is not forthcoming?

Mr. Caborn: As we said throughout the Bill's passage, we wanted eight casinos, small or large, in eight regions to test the social impact on the community. We agree about the possibility of regeneration, but I repeat that it was Opposition Members who reduced the number from eight to one before the election, and it is for them to act. [Interruption.] We are not so naive that we do not know what wash-up is all about just before an election. It was the Opposition who forced the Government to reduce the number from eight to one. Let the poker faces opposite put their cards on the table. It was they who tabled an amendment in Committee providing for four casinos and then reneged on it because their leader thought it politically expedient for them to do so. They know that, we know that and the country knows that.

Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): On the one hand, the Minister's Department has overlooked a loophole in the law that has allowed a proliferation of casinos under the old Act. On the other hand, they dither about increasing the number of casinos in the pilot under the new Act. Why is that? The Secretary of State said last April that she reserved the right to revisit the number of regional casinos in the pilot and, indeed, under section 175(8) of the Act, she has the power to increase the number to the eight that the Minister so clearly wants. It is disingenuous of him to say that that requires the support of the whole House when an hour and a half's debate on a statutory instrument in Committee would do the trick. Why does he not get on with it?

Mr. Caborn: As the old saying has it, when you are digging a hole, chuck the blooming shovel away. That is exactly what the Opposition are doing: they are digging themselves into a bigger and bigger hole.

Yes, there will be an increase in the number of casinos provided for in the Gaming Act 1968. We have set a final date of 28 April for applications. For the record, we are talking about 54 permitted areas. We are not talking about the whole of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is covered by the 1968 Act. I go back to the point: if the hon. Gentleman wants to move from one to eight, we will be prepared to do that. I repeat that we got everything that we wanted out of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that there has been a bit too much repetition on that matter.
 
6 Mar 2006 : Column 592
 

---