Casinos (Hansard, 9 December 2004)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
My Lords, the Government have announced that to minimise the risk of problem gambling we will limit the number of regional casinos in the first phase to eight. We will consider whether consequential changes are necessary to avoid proliferation of large and small casinos. Work is currently under way on the amendments to the Gambling Bill necessary to achieve that, and we will bring them forward as soon as possible.

§ Lord Hanningfield
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can he give a firm assurance that before any of those casinos are constructed a full assessment will be carried out for each potential site to determine the economic, employment, infrastructural and anti-social behaviour impact? What process will be used to ensure that the views of local people are listened to?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
Yes, my Lords, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, an assurance that care will be taken and that all the factors he listed will be taken into consideration. I cannot give him an assurance on how that will be achieved because we are still working on it. However, all the things he mentioned will happen.

§ Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the Gambling Bill. Is my noble friend aware of the almost universal welcome given to the Government's decision to limit the number of regional casinos to eight? That is very much in line with the recommendations of the Joint Scrutiny Committee because generally it was felt that this would allow one or two depressed seaside resorts to benefit from substantial programmes of regeneration and will, as my noble friend has said, avoid the problems of proliferation which would otherwise have taken place.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I do not want to commit myself to whether any of those eight will be located in any particular seaside resort or in any other place. The idea is that the eight projects will form an experiment to see what happens with regional casinos sited in different locations. They could include seaside resorts as well as urban centres or, indeed, out-of-town centres. All of those will be examined as potential outcomes of the first phase.

§ Lord Barnett
My Lords, what is the Government's case for having any "super" casinos? If it is to 977 redevelop areas that need redevelopment, have the Government considered whether this is the best way to finance such redevelopment or whether there are any better ways that would not fall to give a huge yield to these casino investors from the poorest and most addicted gamblers in the country?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I am glad to have advance notice of the attitude of my noble friend Lord Barnett to the Bill when it comes before this House. It will be a pleasure to debate it with him. However, regeneration is not the only purpose of casinos. They are a legitimate form of leisure activity, which is one of the considerations we have in mind.

§ Viscount Falkland
My Lords, it was noticeable that, in response to the timely Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, the Minister did not use the term "super" casinos, which is used in the Question. Is it not the case that the term "super" casino reflects neither the Government's aims, nor indeed is it in current usage among those who served on the pre-legislative committee or within the industry? Is it not a fact that the industry—including those abroad who stand ready to invest—does not see gambling in itself as the generator of the kind of moneys that would regenerate seaside resorts or any other place? Does the Minister agree that, instead of casinos, we shall have leisure centres of a high quality where gambling plays a significant but appropriate part?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I considered whether to answer using the term "super" casinos, but with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I did not really know what the term meant, so I used the term that we use in the Bill. It is the experience of other countries that if you have very large casinos, they are complemented by other forms of provision for leisure activities. To that extent, I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is right.

§ Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the terms of my noble friend's Question as set out on the Order Paper are fundamental to the future operation of casinos and their impact on surrounding communities? Given that this Bill has been subject to so much pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation, is it not extraordinary that the Minister is unable to answer these fundamental questions today? We have had three years of proposals, consultations and scrutiny.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I agree entirely that the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, are relevant. The answers to the questions referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will be available as soon as we complete our preparation of the amendments to the Gambling Bill, which will be very soon indeed.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell
My Lords, like others, I welcome the Government's move to cap the number of these "super" casinos. Surely the potential 978 social consequences of these very hard gambling venues are too severe to be left to market forces alone. Does the Minister agree that the potential social consequences of "super" casinos are so severe that a period of less than five years for the first so-called "phase" would look indecently hasty?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I agree entirely that social consequences are a very significant element—in fact, possibly the most significant single element of the considerations we shall take account of in the first phase. We will do that when we consider when it is appropriate to come back to Parliament for any extension of the first phase or to extend plans for further casinos.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords—

§ Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords—

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

§ Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, can the Minister say what powers local planning committees will have in this process?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, they will have powers of three kinds. First, local authorities as a whole rather than just planning committees will have the right, under Clause 157 of the forthcoming Bill, to reject casinos of any kind in their area. Secondly, local planning committees will have responsibility for the planning aspects of the location and composition of casinos. Thirdly, local licensing committees will be responsible for issuing premises licences. They will consider the appropriateness of the premises and the benefits which may accrue to the local authority and the local area as a result of the establishment of casinos.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, perhaps my noble friend—

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, we have heard two speakers from the Labour Benches and so we have had our share.