Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Clement-Jones: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 not moved.]

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Lottery]:

[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 31 and 32:

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

9.15 p.m.

Schedule 2 [Lotteries: Definition of Payment to Enter]:

[Amendments Nos. 34 to 41 not moved.]

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.
 
6 Apr 2005 : Column 827
 

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Establishment of the Commission]:

[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]

Clause 20 agreed to.

Schedule 4 [The Gambling Commission]:

[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Duty to promote the licensing objectives]:

[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 [Policy for licensing and regulation]:

[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 47A:

The noble Lord said: This group contains a very large number of minor drafting and technical amendments to the Bill. I have speeches on all or any of them if anyone wants to hear them. However, if no one wants to hear them, I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: I have a large number of amendments in this group, to which I shall not speak individually or in any great detail. The Committee will perhaps be pleased to hear that. However, I should like to make a few brief comments on my Amendments Nos. 182 and 183.

Amendment No. 182 concerns the relationship between the licensing system for casinos and the planning system. Amendment No. 183 seeks to determine whether a regional casino—however many or few we may get—will contribute towards regeneration in the area in which it will be situated.

It seems to me that these two issues have not been satisfactorily "bottomed" yet. As regards the relationship between the licensing system and the planning system, we clearly do not have time to discuss that in detail within this wash-up procedure. Nevertheless, however few casinos may be built, we should consider how the systems will work out in practice. If the new regional and large casinos have the effect on an area which it is claimed that they will have—whether that is beneficial or otherwise—clearly, their impact will be important vis-à-vis the spatial planning system. It seems to me that the Government simply have not thought out the relationship between, and the sequence of events involved, in the two sets of decision-making, how they interact and which will be regarded as the primary system of decision-making. In my view that ought to be the spatial planning system, but I think that the Bill suggests otherwise.
 
6 Apr 2005 : Column 828
 

Great claims are being made in this area as regards regeneration. We shall no doubt find out through experimentation whether that is the case. However, in my view before a decision is made to go ahead with one of these casinos, the local authority concerned and, indeed, the adjacent authorities, need to be absolutely satisfied that the regeneration benefits which are claimed will occur. An independent assessment of that needs to be carried out in each case just as a project of that size which had great environmental implications would have to undergo an environmental impact assessment.

I wish to put on record that I believe those matters have still not been properly sorted out. We have still not received satisfactory explanations, answers and guarantees regarding those issues. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, with regard to the issue that she raised, we shall have to return to these issues in the future.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for raising those serious issues and legitimate concerns, but the trouble is that they are not really legitimate concerns for this gambling regulation Bill. They are matters for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and you cannot very well include planning matters in a gambling regulation Bill. If the noble Lord had been present at the many meetings that we have had with ODPM officials and with Ministers, he would appreciate the complexity behind the request that he is making.

Lord Greaves: If the Minister would like to invite me to such meetings in future, I should be delighted to attend.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We shall see who is around after 5 May, shall we?

The issue was recognised by the Secretary of State on Second Reading in the House of Commons. She confirmed that any change of use of a building into a casino will be subject to planning control, which is one of the most important aspects of planning. That cannot appear in the Bill, but it is enormously important in the regulation of casinos. We have been considering how to do that. We have been considering changes to the regime for planning together with ODPM, and those discussions have included regional spatial strategies, on which ODPM has placed a great deal of emphasis, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred.

Amendment No. 183 is not particularly helpful, because the Bill already has plenty of provision for licensing authorities to make clear their regeneration objectives for the licensing of casinos, and they have all the powers that they require to secure those benefits. Although I do not disagree with the sentiments, I do not see what value it adds to the Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will keep a close watching eye on those developments as they proceed after the Bill becomes law.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
 
6 Apr 2005 : Column 829
 

[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 [Codes of practice]:

[Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 53A:

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]

Clause 25 [Guidance to local authorities]:

[Amendments Nos. 55 to 66 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 66A:


"(iva) the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple and the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple,"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 [Duty to advise Secretary of State]:

[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]

Clause 26 agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 68:


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page