---

6.15 pm

I was grateful to my noble friend Lord McIntosh, who as a Minister took great responsibility for piloting the gambling legislation through the House and therefore is extremely well equipped to comment on subsequent developments with the Act. I was grateful to him for indicating that we should not overdramatise the impact of casinos. I recognise that the extension of gambling facilities requires proper regulation. That was the whole basis of the Bill, which was supported in this House and in the other place by significant majorities.

The Government recognised that the expansion of gambling in this country, which has increased in recent years, is not related to casinos at all. We have not got the order in place yet, so no new casinos have been built. We have had some small extension of casinos under the old legislation, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sought to strike fear into the House. The number of casinos has gone up from 138 to 139. Casinos must be put in a proper framework. It is because we foresaw the expansion of online gambling and various other gambling outlets that we were so concerned to put in place a regulatory structure for gambling, to minimise crime attached to gambling and to provide safeguards for the vulnerable, particularly children.

I have been challenged on why the Government did not respond to the fact that the choice of Manchester over Blackpool was not universally popular. Is it not strange that politics are such that, because we were not taking a political decision, no one has mentioned the Dome? The word has not crossed anyone’s lips; I scarcely thought that I would be the first to mention it. If we had been involved in a political decision, if the Government had called in the independent panel and said, “We have second thoughts on all this”, I

28 Mar 2007 : Column 1689

have not the slightest doubt that every political current that obtained before the panel reported would have become vigorous and vibrant again. We would not have been locked into a two-way controversy between Blackpool and Manchester; the Dome would certainly have featured strongly. There are others with considerable claims as well.

That is why it should be respected that the Government gave an independent panel a job with specific reference in the context of the Gambling Act, and the panel fulfilled its obligation. I recognise, in particular with the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Blaker, that there are old affinities and loyalties regarding Blackpool. I also recognise the problems of other seaside resorts that applied for casinos, but we know that Blackpool has particular difficulties. As I said, the issue as far as the Government are concerned is what we can do to help Blackpool. The Secretary of State has indicated today that fresh resources are to be directed towards Blackpool. The answer is not to overturn the recommendation of the independent panel and play politics with the process.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, my noble friend keeps referring to the panel and that it did the job. Yet Professor Crow’s report points out that, because of his interpretation of his terms of reference, it would be virtually impossible for him to recommend a destination casino. How could the panel fulfil its duty?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Professor Crow identified that Manchester fulfilled the criteria better, which is why he recommended it. There was sound, substantiating evidence for that.

My noble friend Lord Lipsey claimed that I had been reluctant to indicate a change of mind by the Government, but it is not so. I pay tribute to him and to my noble friend Lady Golding for their assiduous work. In terms of the acceptability of their amendment, the Government will ensure that it is supported so far as we are able. I accept it in spirit, but not every word.

Noble Lords: Ah!

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, before noble Lords say that those are more weasel words, I should say that of course I will not accept the phrase,

“regrets the haste with which the Government accepted the Panel’s report and laid the draft Order”.

We maintain, quite properly, that we acted entirely correctly, within a proper time limit and after full consideration. Therefore I accept what my noble friends seek to achieve with their amendment, but I cannot be expected to accept every phrase. That is why I will seek to identify what that means in terms of the Motions before us.

I understand entirely the reservations of the right reverend Prelate and the most reverend Primate. We are grateful to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for his contribution today, and wish he was able to be with us rather more often. As he will recognise, the case has also been articulated by his

28 Mar 2007 : Column 1690

colleagues. I pay tribute in particular to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, who has not just spoken effectively on the issue today but worked through the long hours to play his full part in the gambling legislation. I understand why there is scepticism about certain aspects of regeneration, but I must say something to both of them and to the whole House. We must respect opinion when it is articulated in such a careful, considered and constructive way, but the application for a regional casino came from the local authority of Manchester. It will take the responsibility if the process of allocating the licence goes further.

In parts of east Manchester, the casino may be adjacent to residential housing, but there are other parts where that is not so at all. That is for the planning authority to decide. Of course we can reach different judgments from others about best interests, but this process is above all a local one. If local authorities and the people whom they represent do not think that a casino of any size or description is in the interests of those people, they do not apply. However, we have evidence of conspicuous levels of interest and application. Manchester not only enthused about its own application but is more than overjoyed, as the House would expect, that it has been selected as the location for the regional casino. Noble Lords have their own views about process, of course; I recognise their validity, but when we judge what is in the best interests of local people, we do have some regard for what we consider. Here, we are considering the decisions of local authorities to make the applications. It will be their responsibility to see them through for the benefit of their people.

Let me come to the two amendments that have been the focal points of most contributions this evening. As I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, there are problems with his amendment with regard to conventions and the fact that the Liberal Democrats, who often seek to pride themselves on being the forces of democracy, are extraordinarily prone at times to ride roughshod over the conventions of democracy in the relationship between the two Houses, which is what is intended today. His amendment does not advance the cause of Blackpool one jot. If anyone in this House thinks that a large number of Liberal Members will vote in line with the amendment without having Blackpool somewhat to the fore, they underestimate the force and personality of their leader, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who showed no hesitation in emphasising how important he thinks that it is for Blackpool. But to vitiate the order does not advance Blackpool at all; it just stops the process. The noble Lord suggests that it would surely be easy to substitute Blackpool for Manchester. Would it be as easy as substituting Manchester for the Dome, for example, or as easy as saying to Manchester, “We’ve had second thoughts, because powerful people in the House of Lords who have close associations with Blackpool have persuaded the House that Blackpool should be substituted”? What kind of decision-taking would that be? The House cannot support the position of

28 Mar 2007 : Column 1691

the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am grateful for the support that we received from the opposition Front Bench.

We come to the crucial point of to what extent the Government are able to respond to the will of this House, and in what form. We are eager to do so. We are all too well aware that the controversy of the past few weeks has not advanced the cause of the benefits that we think we bring to our people, benefits attested to by all those who supported the legislation, including a majority in both Houses and—I repeat—of the representatives of local authorities that seek to use the legislation. What can the Government do to address the anxiety expressed and the respect for the work that my noble friend Lord Filkin did with his committee, and the work of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and my noble friend Lady Golding, who has tabled her amendment?

I am not bound to accept every word of the amendment, but the Government accept it in spirit. It would authorise pilot local authorities to license casinos in their areas. From this Dispatch Box, I cannot say that we can instruct local authorities how long they should take to make their individual decisions. They are the arbiters of their fortunes in those terms. That is the consequence of the legislation that we passed and the position that we adopted. However, I can state with considerable confidence that the process is such that it is inconceivable that licences will be issued before the end of this year. The local authorities have a great deal of work to do in setting up the licence position, and then all those interested in making bids have to marshal those bids; therefore, there will be no question of licences being granted before the end of the year.

The Joint Committee envisaged in my noble friend’s amendment ought to be able to report within a six-month period. I recognise that there is the long Recess, but there will be a number of parliamentary months before we reach that stage. The local authorities will want to keep the committee informed about their progress. They are bound to be watching closely. They have seen the difficulties that the Government have been in over this order, and rightly so; in some respects local authorities watch this House almost as closely as I am enjoining this House to watch local authorities. Local authorities will want to inform the committee about their progress and they are bound to do so, if they have any sense at all. We ought to respect the good sense of local authorities, particularly when they are engaged on this novel and, some would say, hazardous exercise of establishing licences for casinos. It is certainly a challenging exercise for which they know they will be answerable to their communities if things go wrong. They are bound to take into account any recommendations that the committee may make.

6.30 pm

That is the basis on which we can proceed if my noble friend’s amendment is accepted. For the Government, that would be a considerable shift from the position that we adopted. That is bound to be so; Governments must act, take decisions and set up

28 Mar 2007 : Column 1692

structures and we are proud of the way that we approached the whole issue through legislation and presented it to the independent panel. However, we recognise that there have been concerns about the outcome. There were bound to be such concerns, because there will be only one winner out of a large number of aspirants; but a listening Government are prepared to accept the amendment as a constructive way forward to improve the position. Accordingly, I urge the House to reject all other amendments, except that in the name of my noble friend Lady Golding and to pass the Motion, duly amended.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this has been a very good debate and I thank all noble Lords who spoke in favour of my Amendment No. 1. Clearly, a number of issues need to be answered so that noble Lords can go quietly, so to speak, into the Lobbies in favour of Amendment No. 1. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that that would overturn the deliberations of an independent panel; but do we have to agree that the process was fair, simply because the panel was independent? What about having the right terms of reference? What about interpreting those terms of reference properly?

Nor has this debate turned the issue into a political football. It is about Parliament making sure that the right decision is taken on probably the only super-casino that we will ever have. There is a remarkable degree of consensus around this House that the process was not fair and not carried out properly.

What is the essence of the Government’s deal? It is certainly not in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Golding. It is the “spirit” that he accepts, not the little words in the amendment. It is all in the correspondence, which I have read—and, I suspect, many noble Lords have not—and is extremely insubstantial. The noble Baroness, Lady Golding, called that a concession; the Minister called it a change of position; the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, called it a change of heart; and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, called it a formidable package—many people would say that about the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. What does this mean? The Government will set up a Joint Committee and in the correspondence they say “Yes, the committee will be free to examine the issues”. What real concession is that? If my amendment is passed, you get the Joint Committee, anyway. Its conclusions will not be binding on the next Parliament. They will certainly not be implemented before the next election and they might possibly be implemented only after the next election. Social impact studies will not be available for years. The east Manchester casino would still go through.

This is the original pig in a poke, bird in the bush and jam tomorrow, I submit. I say to the Conservative Front Bench that, strangely enough, the whole deal put forward by the Government seems to rely on the return of a Labour Government next time around. So it is very insubstantial.

Secondly—and here I speak directly to noble Lords on the Conservative Benches—many have said that it is not legitimate for this House to vote on a fatal Motion against an order. This is an unusual

28 Mar 2007 : Column 1693

situation that calls for an unusual solution. The essence of my amendment is not so much to disagree with the order as with the CAP report that underpins that order. Both Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State, and the Minister on 30 January said that Parliament, rightly, would determine the outcome of this process. Does that apply only as long as we agree with the Government?

To set noble Lords’ minds at rest, I have looked at what the Joint Committee on Conventions said. The final paragraph in its chapter on secondary legislation said:

“The Lords SI Merits Committee considers that powers and conventions in this area are adequately codified in each SI's parent Act and in the Companion, and that nothing further is called for. Parliamentary scrutiny of SIs is a growth area; the power to reject SIs gives Parliament “leverage”, and should if anything be exercised more, not less”.

Noble Lords may well remember that the original Motion of Lord Simon of Glaisdale included in the Companion stated that this House’s ability to make decisions on orders is unfettered. Only recently, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, who I greatly respect, moved a fatal Motion to the equality regulations; 122 Peers voted with her and no one mentioned the convention in the debate. What a smokescreen is being erected here.

Can we stand by and simply let the order go through without the kind of proper scrutiny that the CAP’s recommendations deserve? We need carefully to re-examine the basis and the principles on which we want a decision on the location of the one super-casino to be founded. We need to return to the concept of minimisation of harm, not treat the issue like some glorified laboratory experiment on social impact. The fact is that we have all, step by step, been taken on a path which leads to entirely the wrong conclusion. This is not something that we should tolerate and I wish to seek the opinion of the House.

6.37 pm

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 123; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS
Acton, L.
Addington, L. [Teller]
Ahmed, L.
Alli, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Astor, V.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Blaker, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Boothroyd, B.
Bowness, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Burnett, L.
Butler of Brockwell, L.
Butler-Sloss, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Canterbury, Abp.
Cathcart, E.
Cavendish of Furness, L.
Chidgey, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Cotter, L.
Cox, B.
Craig of Radley, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
Deech, B.
Dundee, E.
Dykes, L.
Falkland, V.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fookes, B.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L.


28 Mar 2007 : Column 1694

Fowler, L.
Glasgow, E.
Goodhart, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Hurd of Westwell, L.
Hylton, L.
Inglewood, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Jopling, L.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Kilclooney, L.
Kirkham, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Liverpool, E.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Lucas, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mar, C.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mawhinney, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Mitchell, L.
Monson, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Morgan, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Neill of Bladen, L.
Neuberger, B.
Newby, L.
Northbourne, L.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Palmer, L.
Parekh, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Peterborough, Bp.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Razzall, L.
Rea, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rees of Ludlow, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rennard, L.
Rix, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Roper, L.
St. John of Bletso, L.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Sharman, L.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Shrewsbury, E.
Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]
Smith of Clifton, L.
Southwell and Nottingham, Bp.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Taverne, L.
Tebbit, L.
Tenby, V.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tordoff, L.
Tyler, L.
Valentine, B.
Waddington, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walpole, L.
Walton of Detchant, L.
Warnock, B.
Watson of Richmond, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT CONTENTS
Adams of Craigielea, B.
Adonis, L.
Amos, B. [Lord President.]
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Armstrong of Ilminster, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]
Berkeley, L.
Bhattacharyya, L.
Billingham, B.
Bilston, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bradley, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Colville of Culross, V.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Cunningham of Felling, L.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Denham, L.
Donoughue, L.
Drayson, L.
D'Souza, B.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Falkender, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Ford, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Gale, B.
Golding, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollick, L.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.


28 Mar 2007 : Column 1695

Howie of Troon, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Ewelme, L.
Jones, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kingsmill, B.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Leitch, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McDonagh, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Onslow, E.
Patten, L.
Prosser, B.
Quin, B.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Richard, L.
Robertson of Port Ellen, L.
Rooker, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
Sandwich, E.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Varley, L.
Warner, L.
Whitaker, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Wolfson, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Greater London Authority Bill

6.49 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

In 2000, the Government restored democratic, citywide government to London. They established the Greater London Authority with a directly elected mayor and Assembly to provide strong, accountable leadership for the capital—leadership which had been noticeably absent since the Conservative Government so mistakenly abolished the GLC 14 years earlier.

This was a change that Londoners themselves wanted. Londoners in every borough voted overwhelmingly in favour of establishing the mayor and Assembly in the referendum of 1998. The creation of the GLA fulfilled the Government’s commitment to put Londoners back in charge of the way in which their city was run. Just as we delivered a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales, so we introduced a new structure of London government that has helped London’s resurgence in the age of globalisation. These reforms have provided a firm foundation for London’s unprecedented economic success in recent years, but they also keep faith with the heritage and stature of the city.

28 Mar 2007 : Column 1696

London is a truly global city and has never been more vibrant and more successful. Its economy is larger than that of many European countries. It drives the national economy. It accounts for 40 per cent of the UK’s export growth and 18 per cent of our GDP. Its financial and business service sectors are increasingly challenging New York for the title of the world’s financial capital.

---