Gambling Bill

Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2004.

Standing Committee B

Gambling Bill

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to what I am sure will be a contented series of sittings. Before we go any further, I shall deal with some housekeeping arrangements. When I am in the Chair, hon. Members may remove their jackets at any time. I cannot speak for my co-Chairman and I take no offence from those who pre-empted my consideration for their comfort.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Gambling Bill, in addition to its first Meeting on Tuesday 9th November at 9.30 am, the Standing Committee shall meet when the House is sitting on Tuesdays and Thursdays (except for Thursday 18th November, Tuesday 23rd November, Thursday 25th November and Tuesday 21st December) at 9.30 am and 2.30 pm;

(2) 20 sittings shall be allocated to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

(3) the proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the table below and v shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the table.

TABLEProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings Clauses 1 to 11; Schedule 1; Clauses 12 to 14; Schedule 2; Clauses 15 to 19; Schedule 3; Clause 20; Schedule 4; Clauses 21 to 28; Schedule 5; Clauses 29 to 119; Schedule 6; Clauses 120 to 1325.30 pm on Tuesday 16th November Clause 133; Schedule 7Clauses 134 to 2185.30 pm on Thursday 2nd December Clauses 219 to 231; Schedule 8; Clauses 232 to 242; Schedule 9; Clauses 243 to 259; Schedule 10; Clauses 260 to 272; Schedule 11; Clauses 273 to 278; Schedule 12; Clauses 279 to 2845.30 pm on Tuesday 14th December Clauses 285 to 312; 5.30 pm on Thursday 16th December Clauses 313 to 333; Schedules 13 and 14; Clauses 334 and 335; Schedule 15; Clauses 336 and 337; remaining proceedings on the Bill5.30 pm on Tuesday 11th January 2005

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

May I begin by also welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. This is the second occasion on which I have had the privilege to serve under your chairmanship. We spent a happy couple of months discussing the Communications Bill and I have no doubt that we shall have an equally enjoyable experience while examining the Gambling Bill under your guidance.

The Bill has been subject to considerable debate and discussion for several years. It stems from the Budd report, which is coming up to three years old, since when there has been extensive consultation with those who are affected. There has been much debate, and the draft Bill was examined by the Joint Committee. Perhaps I could again put on record our thanks to the scrutiny Committee for its work. There is no doubt that it carried out an extremely comprehensive examination of many of the issues raised and its recommendations have improved the Bill in those areas where they have been accepted. We believe that in those areas where its recommendations were not accepted, the Bill would be greatly improved if they were taken up.

Our deliberations in Committee will be aided by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) who served on the scrutiny Committee, and by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who is not present at the moment but who was also a member of that Committee. The fact that the Bill has already been examined in detail does not mean in any way that it should not be subject to close parliamentary scrutiny. It has 337 clauses and 15 schedules; it is a comprehensive piece of legislation and, although the scrutiny Committee did good work, it did not go through the Bill clause by clause, which we believe would be beneficial.

It has occasionally been said that a scrutiny Committee's examination of a Bill reduces in some way the need for a Standing Committee to spend much time on it. That is not the view I took on the Communications Bill. You will probably bear out, Mr. Gale, that that Bill was subject to much controversy and some amendment in Standing Committee, despite the work of the scrutiny Committee which had examined it previously. I have no doubt that the same will apply in this case.

Since the scrutiny Committee carried out its work, there have already been some changes in the Government's position. We particularly welcome the concession that the Secretary of State gave on Second Reading when she met one of the concerns that had been expressed: the loophole in planning law that would have allowed any leisure facility to be converted into a casino without additional planning permission. That was a clear loophole and on Second Reading the Secretary of State belatedly agreed to close it. However, there are still many other areas of concern on which the Government have not yet said that they are willing to amend the Bill accordingly, and we shall press those matters in the Committee.

We are still of the view that the Bill is badly flawed. The Government are fond of saying that the Bill is 90 per cent. regulatory and just 10 per cent. liberalising. That may be so, but the 90 per cent. that represents mainly regulatory measures is essentially a fundamental overhaul of legislation that is more than 30 years old. The Bill goes on to take account of new developments that have never been legislated for, such as online gambling. It will have an enormous effect, not just on the gambling industry, but right across the leisure industry. That is why it is important that all the provisions are examined closely to ensure that we get

them right. Having said that, the Government are correct that the greatest controversy surrounds the 10 per cent. of the Bill that is liberalising.

It is an astonishing achievement of the Government that they have taken a Bill that was widely welcomed and for which almost everyone agreed there was a need, and managed to produce legislation that almost everyone is opposed to—other than some Labour Members and the American casino companies. The creation of such a coalition is quite an achievement. It comprises not just the UK gambling industry, but the Churches, the Christian Institute, the Salvation Army, the Methodist Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury—who has said he has serious concerns about the Bill—and the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who has said that it could undermine the social fabric. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said that the Bill

''in its present form is very likely to result in a considerable increase in individual and social disorder as a result of excessive gambling''.

The Guardian has said that the Bill

''could be one of the most destructive aspects of Labour's legacy and a dreadful metaphor for the Government's uncertain purpose''.

It has been joined by the Daily Mail, which has said that the

''Bill is a cast-iron guarantee of human misery''.

Perhaps most extraordinary of all is a statement that I thought I would never hear: Polly Toynbee has said that she thinks that the Daily Mail is right on this issue.

The Bill has also united opposition throughout the House. On Second Reading, just a week ago, 29 Labour Members voted against the Bill and many more abstained. Curiously, none of the Government Members who voted against the Bill have been fortunate enough to be selected to serve on the Committee, which is a sadness. It is odd that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has not been selected. He said:

''This is a truly nasty Bill.''

Indeed, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), said:

''I believe that the Bill would be bad for the country, bad for hard-working families and bad for the party.''—[Official Report, 1 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 54.]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am afraid I am a truly nasty Chairman. The hon. Gentleman is trying very hard and almost succeeding, but not quite. We had better return to the programme order.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I am merely indicating why it is important that the Bill be scrutinised, given the depth of concern about it throughout the House. However, I shall abide by your ruling, Mr. Gale, and not continue to quote the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who said that the Bill was ''gaga''. It is a matter of some concern that the Committee does not fully reflect the views of the House, as expressed a week ago on Second Reading, which makes it more important that we should speak for those Government Members who have expressed concern but will not have the opportunity to set that out in Committee.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Just to put the record straight, of the 29 Government Members who voted against the Bill, not one applied to serve on the Committee.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I suspect that that was because they realised the response that they would have received had they done so.

It is important that we examine the Bill closely. Lord McIntosh, the Secretary of State and the Minister have said that the Government are in listening mode. They have dropped heavy hints that they are willing to make concessions and that they will listen to argument. Indeed, we are beginning to see a flow of Government amendments, and we anticipate and hope that there will be more in due course. That makes it even more important that we examine the Bill carefully, because if the amendments are to go as far as we would want in order to make the Bill acceptable, they will have to be substantial. That will mean that we will be looking at a very different Bill to the one put before the Joint Committee and, indeed, the one before us today.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government were wise they might return to something close to the recommendations of the Joint Committee, so ably chaired by our hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), and that if they were to do so they might find that they had diffused a lot of the critical storm that they have most unwisely stirred up?

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He is right to say that, if the Government had accepted the recommendations of the second report of the Joint Committee, many of the issues would have been diffused, there would have been less concern and they would have perhaps found it easier to get the Bill on to the statute book. I am not sure, however, whether that would now be enough. The level of concern that has been expressed requires additional measures, and although I hope that the Government will adopt the recommendations that they additionally rejected, we will press for further safeguards. In particular—this will form part of a debate this afternoon or later this week—the level of concern is such that it makes sense to adopt a pilot scheme to try out the provisions and assess their impact on a small number of areas.

The Government have given us an undertaking that they are willing to listen, and we hope that they will be open to our suggestions and amendments during our proceedings, but we do not have that long in which to go through such a substantial Bill, so although I do not oppose the programme order, I must make it clear that we have a lot of ground to cover in a short time. It is unfortunate that there has been barely a week between Second Reading and the beginning of proceedings in Committee. The old convention about the length of time that Committees are given to draft and table amendments seems to have gone out of the window completely; it has become quite common to give us just a week. The Government say that they are willing to listen and at least entertain arguments about the ways in which the Bill can be amended, but that task is made more difficult if we are not given sufficient time to consult with those affected and to draft and

table amendments. We will abide by your rulings throughout, Mr. Gale, but we will be operating under some pressure to table in time amendments to what is inevitably a detailed and complicated measure.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly unfortunate that the Government appear not only on this occasion but with several recent Bills to have completely abandoned that convention, and that there seems no reason at all for such indecent haste when they have already made it clear that the Bill will carry over into the next Session? There is plenty of time, and it suggests to me—I do not know whether it does to my hon. Friend—an air of desperation from a Government faced with hostility from the media and so many organisations.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

Again, my hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We accepted that the Bill should be carried over so that there would be more time and it would not run into the buffers at the end of this Session. There should be plenty of opportunity for debate. There is some apparent concern about another possible event next May, which might get in the way, but that is completely outside our control, and I am sure that the Minister has no regard for it either. Rather than rush the Bill on to the statute book in order that we can get it through Parliament before anything that might or might not happen next May, it is important to get the Bill right.

The Bill is potentially dangerous, but if we build in the right safeguards we can avoid realising many of the concerns that people are expressing. If we get it wrong, it could result in considerable hardship and misery for many. That is why it is desperately important that we go through the Bill very carefully to be absolutely certain that we have built in the right safeguards. So, rather than rush at it in a desperate race to get it through Parliament, we are determined to take our time in order to get it right.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I am about to take up a minute of the Committee's time, but I will add it as injury time to the half hour available for this debate. We clearly have a problem in the Public Gallery: a large number of people wish to hear the proceedings, but there is inadequate space. I do not know whether I will be able to do anything about that later. We do not normally address the strangers in the Gallery, but I will just say to anybody who holds a press card that there is a Press Box, and using that would release another four seats for people waiting outside who would like to come in.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Once again, I am delighted to serve on a Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. I welcomed the contribution from the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), particularly when he referred to the cross-party coalition that exists when expressing concerns about some aspects of the Bill. However, on the programme motion, I am rather more optimistic than he is about how much time it will take to deal with the issues.

The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that there is a great deal in the Bill that every member of the Committee, and I have no doubt the whole House, supports. Many Members spoke on Second Reading and made that clear. There was clear support for bringing remote gambling—whether it be internet gambling or interactive television gambling—under regulation. There was a great deal of support for enshrining in the Bill social responsibility requirements for casino operators, and for some of the measures that attempt to give greater protection to children. There was certainly cross-party support for the introduction of a new, more powerful regulator, with the move from the Gaming Board to the gambling commission.

On those issues—whether we are talking about 80 or 90 per cent. of the Bill; the proportion does not really matter—there is a great deal of support, and I am optimistic that, subject to a few minor technical amendments from the Government, we will be able to make progress quickly through those parts of the Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw our attention to the key areas of concern, which may well require considerable debate in Committee.

Those issues are the introduction of the new super-casinos, the so-called regional casinos, and the introduction in those particular establishments of the new, highly addictive unlimited prize machines—the so-called category A machines. There are considerable concerns about those matters and the Committee will need to spend time deliberating on them in some detail. I have no doubt that Members on both sides of the Committee will wish to explore with the Minister their concerns about how the provisions could create an uneven playing field for our home-grown, indigenous casino operators, who over the past 40 years have been successful in developing a reputation for integrity and crime-free operations.

There is a need to consider the speed of the introduction of unlimited prize machines, and there will be concerns—they were expressed by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford and many others on Second Reading—about the likely impact of the new types of casinos, with their unlimited prize machines, on problem gambling. I referred in my Second Reading speech to my extreme surprise at the statement by the Secretary of State to the Joint Committee. She said:

''If this legislation gave rise to an increase in problem gambling then it would have failed and it would be bad legislation''.

No one who I have spoken to on any side of the argument, other than the Secretary of State, believes that the Bill is unlikely to increase the problem, even with some of the amendments that may be made.

The Committee will also need to debate in some detail the location of the new super-casinos. We are well aware that the original intention was that they should be destination casinos, which would require people to make an effort to get to them. It was not intended that they would be on the high street, with the opportunities for ambient gambling and the increase in problem gambling that would ensue. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of the Joint Committee, the Government changed their view on the

matter at the last minute and the proposal in the Bill is no longer for destination casinos but rather for ubiquitous regional casinos. We will need to consider that in some detail.

The Committee will have difficulty in its deliberations because of the absence of crucial information. For example, the code of conduct that will be drawn up by the new gambling commission may have a significant impact on people who are considering whether to open a new super-casino, yet we have no idea what it is likely to contain. The Committee will also be conscious of the significant number of additional powers for the Secretary of State, and therefore of the secondary legislation that will arise from the Bill, but we have not had an opportunity to see any of the details. I hope that some of that information may become available during the Bill's passage.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of as yet unseen secondary legislation. Does he agree that it would be enormously helpful if the Committee were able to include some of the most crucial points in the Bill? Clearly, there would be huge uncertainty for many people in the industry and in local communities if what were to emerge from the Bill were a blank cheque. The Government would come along later and, through secondary legislation, deal with vast swathes of important issues that would not get the scrutiny that this Committee would give them.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I agree in large measure with the hon. Gentleman's comments. I hope that when the Minister winds up this debate he will give us, at the very least, an assurance that the Committee will be able to review some of the secondary legislation, even if only in draft form, if matters cannot be dealt with through amendments.

I made it very clear that I am rather more optimistic than the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. I hope that the Committee will agree to amendments, whether introduced by the Government or any member of the Committee, which will control the proliferation of super-casinos; significantly reduce the likely rapid growth in the number of category A machines; redefine the new super-casinos as destination casinos; deal with money laundering and problem gambling by requiring people who enter the super-casinos to produce some form of identification; and introduce even stronger powers for local councils to reject casinos. If such amendments were tabled soon, we would make quick progress.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Is not one of the key facets of the Bill the role of the gambling commission in monitoring and overseeing this whole brave, new venture? Much of the legislation that the hon. Gentleman refers to will be introduced as a result of the advice that the commission will give the Government. It is vital that the commission's remit is clearly defined in the Bill. We do not need to worry too much about the immediate legislation, but we must be very careful to ensure that we get right the powers for the future.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I expressed concern about information that we do not have, but perhaps I should have placed on the record the real concern that we do not have any information about possible changes to the tax regime, which may make a huge difference to what will happen. [Interruption.]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am sorry, Mr. Foster; I was going to wait until you had finished but I have been trying to negotiate something while you were speaking. The Committee will appreciate that parliamentary proceedings have not only to be heard but be seen to be heard, where possible. Therefore, I propose that we allow members of the press and parliamentary pass holders to use not just the first box but additional seats. That should allow in just about everybody who needs to come in. I am sorry to have interrupted you, Mr. Foster.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful, Mr. Gale. It is important that our deliberations are heard.

I shall end quickly by saying that I am an optimistic member of the Committee. I believe that the programme motion gives us an opportunity to raise all the issues, subject, of course, to my belief and that of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford that we will hear some significant announcements from the Minister on the points that I raised. I genuinely believe that that will happen; I certainly hope so. As you know, Mr. Gale, were I to be successful, I would look forward to writing a long string of letters to Mrs. Foster about such successes.

Question put and agreed to.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available on the Table in the Room. I also remind all members of the Committee that adequate notice of amendments must be given. As a general rule, my fellow Chairman and I will not accept manuscript or starred amendments, including starred amendments that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.Clause 1 The licensing objectives

Clause 1 - The licensing objectives

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in

clause 1, page 1, line 7, after first 'crime', insert ', public nuisance'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 71, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, after second 'crime', insert

'or being operated by anyone with a criminal record,'.

Amendment No. 72, in

clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'fair', insert 'socially responsible'.

Amendment No. 36, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(d) ensuring that there is no link between excessive drinking after licensing hours and casino gambling in city or town centres.'.

Amendment No. 37, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(d) ensuring that the views of the Chief Constable for any police area determine the appropriateness of any increase in gambling provision in that area.'.

Amendment No. 73, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(d) ensuring the development of new gambling opportunities is gradual and controlled to minimise the potential for social harm.'.

Amendment No. 80, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(d) promoting fair competition between those associated with gambling.'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am delighted to debate amendment No. 1, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I hope that I will have the opportunity to say a few brief words about some of the other amendments in the group with which we have a great deal of sympathy.

Clause 1, ''The licensing objectives'', begins by stating:

''In this Act a reference to the licensing objectives is a reference to the objectives of—

(a) preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime''.

I doubt that there is a single member of the Committee who would have any concern about those words. However, I believe that we should add public nuisance to the list.

The Committee is well aware of the distinction between public nuisance and disorder. I have no doubt that the Minister, in looking for ways to suggest that the issue is already covered, will have considered the definitions of the two offences. Disorder, which is covered in the legislation, refers to a disturbance of the peace or public order. It is a criminal matter and, obviously, we hope that nothing in the Bill leads to an increase of it; we do not want increased disorder.

However, public nuisance is much more a civil offence. Depending on the definition that one uses, it is something that offends the public at large. The three categories in the clause do not cover the whole range of negative social consequences that could arise from gambling, and they do not offer much in the way of scope for local authorities that might understandably be concerned about the potential public nuisance effects of the introduction of a casino in their area. They do not have the opportunity to deal with that issue. Indeed, local authorities' policies, as we shall see, are fairly low down in the hierarchy of considerations.

The code of practice that will flow from the licensing objectives and the guidance that will come from the gambling commission should be drawn up with regard to those objectives, which should include the issue of public nuisance. Committee members do not need me to remind them of the sort of examples we might be talking about: fighting, shouting, loud car stereos and horns, car doors banging and all forms of antisocial behaviour.

Why is it important that we deal with that in the objectives? The answer is simple. As the Bill stands, the local authority is unable to take account of effects that may occur not in a new casino or on gambling premises, but further afield, outside those premises. It is crucial that local authorities have the opportunity to do so. Indeed, the Local Government Association said when it wrote to all Members about the Second Reading debate that the prevention of public nuisance should be a licensing objective:

''The licensing objectives set out in Clause 1 of the Bill do not address potential problems of nuisance arising in the street outside gambling premises. This is particularly likely late at night and when alcohol has been consumed. While the Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on local authorities to deal with statutory nuisances arising from the premises itself, and to investigate residents' complaints, it is not possible to use this legislation to deal with street nuisance, even where the problem is directly attributable to a particular venue.''

Use of the Environmental Protection Act for such matters is therefore not possible. The LGA goes on to say:

''This omission will seriously hamper the ability of councils to ensure effective management of the environment around gambling premises and provides residents with little scope to make representations should street nuisance occur. The LGA believes that a new licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance should be added to Clause 1.''

I entirely agree with that, which is why I have tabled the amendment.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by others. I shall be interested to hear from the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) when he speaks to his amendments. I have some concern about amendment No. 37, which places a great deal of power in the hands of the chief constable; I believe that a wider range of opportunities should be available. I look forward to hearing the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) too.

I have huge sympathy for amendment No. 73. Committee members have made it clear that we all share the aspiration expressed by it. Whether the end of line 11 is the most appropriate place to insert the words is perhaps debatable, but we entirely support the sentiments behind it. I note, too, that there is an opportunity in debating the matter of public nuisance to consider some of the wider issues covered by the Bill.

I would like to get something on the record early on in order to secure a response from the Minister that might influence subsequent amendments. Many people are deeply concerned that the Government are quite rightly addressing in respect of the Licensing Act 2003 and related matters whether clubs and pubs should be able to stage special drinks offers such as happy hours and charge cheap prices. I am concerned about the potential for public nuisance partly because of the well established practice in casinos of offering cheap and often free drinks to some customers. If we find a solution to that problem along the same lines as the Government's solution to the problem in pubs and clubs, it may minimise the potential for public nuisance. Public nuisance, however, is different from disorder, and it is vital to include it in the Bill. That is why I am pleased to move the amendment.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we proceed, the Committee will have realised that the amendments associated with amendment No. 1 effectively embrace the entire clause. I shall probably not therefore be minded to allow a stand part debate. Hon. Members may wish to know that in order to avail themselves of the opportunity to speak on a fairly broad basis.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

May I add to the comments already made that it is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Mr. Gale? I apologise if I am not very well heard this morning, but as sod's law would have it, I have had a massive cold over the past few days and I am finding it difficult to speak. As long as the Minister can hear me, that is the most important thing.

I wish to move amendments No. 71, 72, 73 and 80, but before that, I wish to make a quick comment about amendment No. 1, moved by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. At this point I had better explain the arcane methods by which we operate. The hon. Gentleman will realise, but some newer members of the Committee may not, that although it is open to any Member to speak to any of the amendments, they will not be moved until we reach the appropriate place in the Bill, at which point they will be moved formally. It is open to any Member to indicate later in the proceedings when the appropriate point is reached that they wish to initiate a formal division, and, if so, the Chair will consider that wish sympathetically. For the moment, however, the only amendment that can be moved is amendment No. 1.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I take your guidance, Mr. Gale.

As far as amendment No. 1 is concerned, the idea of public nuisance was introduced as an amendment in debates on the Licensing Bill. For whatever reason, the Government saw fit not to accept it. In retrospect, it might have been a very useful addition, bearing in mind the increase in binge drinking and the problems associated with it in our towns and city centres since those debates and the enactment of the Licensing Act 2003. If that increase is to be complemented—I cannot think of an alternative word—by large numbers of people visiting large casinos in the same town and city centres, we may have even more of a problem.

If the regional casinos at the top end of the scale are to open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and if the rules on membership are swept away as the Government propose, the binge drinkers will simply turn out of the pubs and head for the casinos where the bars are still open. That will place an enormous amount of responsibility on the shoulders of those people running the casinos, and something in this Bill that relates to public nuisance may indicate to them that they have serious responsibilities.

Turning to amendment No. 71, which refers to paragraph (a), we have no problem with the Government's proposals and the licensing objectives for

''preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder; or being used to support crime''.

We agree with all those objectives, but do they cover preventing people with a criminal record from becoming involved in the operation of casinos, or anything relating to gambling and betting? No doubt the Minister will explain why the words in my amendment are not needed. They are intended to tease out whether the words used in the Bill would include people with a criminal record. Those people may now be going straight—if that is the right term. However, we do not want those kind of people associated in any shape or form with gambling.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

To pursue that point, are we talking about a criminal record anywhere in the world?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I would have thought so. A criminal record is a criminal record. We do not want people from abroad with criminal records coming to run our betting and gambling organisations. So, yes, the provision would be all-embracing. This is a probing amendment to discover whether the Government have considered that and whether in their view the wording in the Bill would cover that point.

Amendment No. 72 would insert the words ''socially responsible'' after the word ''fair'' in paragraph (b). At the heart of the Government's problems with the Bill is the fact that there is no control—or does not appear to be—over the number of larger or regional casinos that might develop. Numbers in the region of 20 to 40 have been bandied around at the top end. Forty regional casinos, each with a maximum of 1,250 category A machines, would mean that suddenly we could go from nothing to, potentially, 50,000 category A machines in casinos around the country.

To many people, that is a huge leap in the dark in the sense that there is little evidence to hand on the impact of the machines in this country and on problem gambling in particular. Some work has been done in Australia, but it is fairly threadbare at this point. The Government seem to expect Parliament and the electorate to embrace an idea of what might be described as proliferation. Mr. Haslam from Blackpool said that in his view that number of regional casinos and category A machines constituted ''proliferation''. If that goes ahead, the impact on local communities will be immense.

At the heart of the Government's problems is also the conflict between what they are saying on one hand about their desire for protection—the thrust of their comments so far has been that the Bill is all about regulation and protecting the vulnerable and children—and what they are saying on the other hand about not knowing how many regional casinos there might be and not really caring, because market forces will determine that.

The initial plan was that the regional planning bodies would decide where the casinos would go and local authorities would then take that on board. However, the numbers would not be constrained by any limit imposed by Government or in any other way. In the end, it would be those who wish to invest in such facilities who would decide whether the market would

stand 40 or 50 casinos, or whether there should be fewer than that.

The thrust on the planning side is to place the facilities where regeneration would be easy to obtain, and more obvious and measurable. That brings us into city centres and to run-down areas of our large conurbations. So, it is possible that casinos will be placed right in the heart of large populations of people. Of course, that is where the regional casino developers want them to be, so that there is the greatest market potential and the greatest access by the majority of people to their facility. Any business man in their position would think in exactly the same way. That would mean that the problems of convenience and of ambient gambling would raise their heads in a way that is different to anything that we have experienced in this country hitherto.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but will he reflect on the representations that I and, no doubt, he have received saying that we already have an ambient gambling problem with the growth of opportunities in high-street betting shops, not least because of fixed-odds betting terminals? I hope that we return to that issue.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I agree with that point: there is a problem but it is nothing like on the scale of the potential problem if we had 40 or 50 regional casinos with huge numbers of machines in them.

So there is a problem. The Government say that the Bill is about protecting the vulnerable and, especially, children. However, because of the way in which the Bill is structured, there could be 40 or more huge casinos, which will be in our city centres, not in the countryside. Some may be in coastal resorts, but the majority will, under the planning conditions, go where regeneration benefits would be greatest. That will be in city centres, right in the middle of the so-called vulnerable populations that the Government say they are trying to protect.

One reason why there has been such a massive reaction to the proposals is that people do not know what they are signing up to. Parliament does not know what it is signing up to. If there are changes to the Bill, it will be fine. We hope that we will come on to those changes later and that the Government will move in the direction that is desired not only by us, but, judging from the small rebellion on Second Reading and the speeches made by many of their colleagues, by many Government Members.

We feel that the words ''socially responsible'' ought to form a key ingredient of one of the Bill's objectives so that the gambling commission, who will be managing those objectives, can say to regional casinos, ''There are problems, not just with the operation of your facility but with the knock-on social effects of where you are and what you are doing.'' That may mean that social organisations are brought into the consultation process. Mandatory environmental impact assessments are part of many

planning applications. Why not have social impact assessments in this context? I am not suggesting that we put them in the Bill, but I believe that there needs to be some constraint and some acceptance of social responsibility.

Amendment No. 73 would insert paragraph (d), with the objective of

''ensuring the development of new gambling opportunities is gradual and controlled to minimise the potential for social harm.''

I covered many of the points that relate to the amendment. We have tabled an amendment to clause 7 which raises the issue of restricting the number of regional casinos through pilot schemes. I do not want to rehearse the arguments that we will use at that time. It is an attempt on our part to ensure the gradual development of regional casinos, which are the main problem. The larger of the smaller casinos will take care of themselves in time. However, a huge explosion in the number of regional casinos over a short period would take us into an area into which we have never been. Indeed, I do not think that any country of the UK's size and density of population has given such huge numbers of people access to such casinos. Parts of Australia have liberalised gambling, although we perhaps do not want to go down the same road. However, the population density in Australia is nothing like what it is here, and access to category A machines is nothing like what it would be if regional casinos were established in our city centres and other densely populated areas.

We therefore want development to be gradual so that we can measure the impact of the new casinos on the social and economic fabric of their areas. That means taking things slowly, adopting a piecemeal approach and ensuring that we get things right before allowing further expansion.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

Will the hon. Gentleman expand on what he means by gradual implementation? How would it be achieved? Could he specify the numbers involved?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I did say that we had tabled an amendment to clause 7 which relates to pilot schemes. Those would be our starting point. The Government would then commission a report and present it to Parliament, which, on the basis of the evidence, would decide whether to go for another four, 10 or 20 casinos. So, the process would be gradual, and it would start with a pilot scheme. However, I do not want to rehearse those points now.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I do not want to anticipate the debate on that subject, but how would the four be allocated? Would that be done through the planning mechanisms, or would Parliament decide?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am not going to rehearse all the arguments that we shall deploy later, but we could proceed in several ways. There is no reason why the Government could not say that they would have four casinos in areas A, B, C and D. Indeed, they may decide on more than four, although we hope that there will be some movement on that. Equally, certain regions could be asked to tender for one casino, which could then be put out to a bid process. So, we could proceed in all sorts of ways, but the essential point is

that we start with a small number and check to see how they are working before we increase the number by between 20 and 40, which is the scale that the Government seem to envisage in the Bill. We are saying that that is unacceptable and that we want the development to be gradual, if possible.

Amendment No. 80 would add the objective of

''promoting fair competition between those associated with gambling''

in line 11 of page 1. It would increase the power of the gambling commission—which will, of course, be delivering on such objectives throughout the industry—by providing that it can act to prevent a distortion of the competitive market and ensure that consumer choice is enhanced by effective competition, so far as that is consistent with the other licensing objectives. It also seeks to ensure that the licensing objectives are applied uniformly and consistently. Underpinning all policy should be the objective of fairly implementing the revised regulatory scheme, which will achieve equity for consumers and operators, with safeguards against discrimination.

There has been quite a reaction from the existing industry to the Government's proposals subsequent to the scrutiny Committee's second report on regional casinos—[Interruption.]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Can hon. Members try to resist the temptation to engage in private conversations in the Room? There are wonderful green Benches provided for that purpose outside the Room and they are extremely comfortable.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Thank you, Mr. Gale; that was helpful.

I was talking about the existing casino industry's resistance to the Government's response to the second report There is a breakdown in communication, a breakdown in trust and a breakdown in co-operation, not just across parties, but with the people on the scrutiny Committee who did an excellent job over a long period. All the previous consultation with the industry in this country seemed to count for nought when, out of the blue, the Government suddenly came up with the final proposals that are enshrined in the Bill. I hope that we can chip away at those, but essentially that relationship broke down.

The amendment seeks to reintroduce some fairness and equity. We are dealing not just with a commodity that is traded on our high streets and through our normal business channels. At the level of regional casinos, gambling is highly profitable. Let us not kid ourselves; people will make a lot of money. Those profits will be made on the back of ordinary people, not just the high rollers that I happened to see in a club in London the other week—I went on an investigatory expedition, of course. I could not possibly afford the stakes that I saw being used on a blackjack table, but such gambling goes on. I do not want to do it myself, but I see no problem if other people want to. However, a lot of money is involved. American investors talk about 10,000 to 20,000 people going through their doors during a weekend; that is their threshold. It is like a football crowd going through the doors over two days. It is a huge number of people. Many of them will not be able to afford the £25 chips that I saw being

tossed on to a blackjack table the other night, but people on modest incomes will be tempted to go the extra mile for prizes.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree, following his fact-finding visit, that the vast majority of profits, particularly from the new super-casinos or regional casinos, will come from machines. He said that the amendment is concerned with promoting fair competition between those associated with gambling and he will be well aware that there is a rather mixed view within the British industry on how best to achieve that. Some argue that the best way would be to have no category A machines in the new super-casinos, which would make it fairer for existing casinos. Others say that we should perhaps allow some category A machines in existing large and small casinos as they will be defined. Does the hon. Gentleman have a view on the way forward, or am I pre-empting something that he may wish to return to later?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Yes to all those questions. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: if we want to establish a level playing field, there must be equal opportunities for all. As he well knows, under the Bill category A machines will go only into regional casinos. Existing casinos, whether large or small, will not have access to them. He is right in saying that the machines will deliver the profits, not the gaming tables.

Our view is that there should be equalisation somewhere, and we will come to that later. We do not have a fixed view that there should be x number of machines here, there or wherever, but existing casinos—probably just the large ones, not the small ones—should have access to category A machines in limited numbers. Alternatively, the stake payout could be increased for category B machines, which currently have a limit of £2,000. It is incredible that the Government are saying that someone on a modest income could wander into one of these new regional casinos and gamble away on category A machines. The one in east Manchester, if it gets built, will be on one of the most run-down housing estates in the city.

There is nothing wrong with that, although there is evidence to suggest that a great temptation will be placed in people's way and they may gamble more than they expected to. But compare that with the member of the London club casino that I went to last week: he was gambling huge amounts of money on the blackjack table. The Government say that he can do that, but he cannot spend more than £1 in a category B machine; it is fatuous. A sensible playing field needs to be established. We would like to see it set out in clause 1, under objectives, that the gambling commission must seek a fair and level playing field.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point. I was glad that when he mentioned the new casino in east Manchester, he added, ''If it gets built.'' When considering where these casinos will be built, we must bear in mind the danger that large inland, inner-city casinos might prevent the successful operation of casinos in our run-down resorts. We will have to look at where these casinos should be and what the Bill

should say about that. I certainly would not want to accept that Manchester is bound to have a casino, because it might damage the chance to help resorts in the north-west.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I take on board what my hon. Friend has said. I know that he has close ties with Blackpool. If he wants me to put it on the record that I have no preference for east Manchester over Blackpool, I am happy to do so, but speaking as a Mancunian, it just slipped out that I knew about the proposals for east Manchester. Certainly, we have made no decision on where the casinos should be. Having said that, there is a strong case for one in Blackpool; there is a strong case for resort casinos. The concept behind these mega-complexes is that people will have to make an effort to go to them to experience a range of leisure activities.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I am not going to say now what I want to say to the hon. Gentleman when we deal with his amendments to clause 7, but is he seriously considering regeneration possibilities in the context of the whole area? He will know that Manchester has enjoyed enormous regeneration over recent years. How would a large regional casino fit into what is already a booming city with enormous regeneration potential? There is a difference between the widespread regeneration of a town or area and simply a large development in an area, which does not link to that wider regeneration context.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North—

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

And Fleetwood.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Indeed. I could do with some of her fishermen's friends at the moment.

The hon. Lady made a strong plea for Blackpool over Manchester. I would not wish to interpose myself in that argument. She makes a good point. Manchester already has many developments and the regeneration aspect and payback for Blackpool would far outweigh any commensurate and proportional impact in Manchester.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

Does my hon. Friend not think that the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) has pointed out precisely what is wrong with this Bill: it will attract investment to the wrong places and not the right ones? That is a very good critique of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We still stand by the need for regeneration. Hopefully, regeneration would be a key component of any regional casino development system that is decided on and that evolves. We make that point later in our amendments to clause 7. We do want the maximum benefit to be derived from these developments. How that is measured is another open question, because regeneration is not the same as section 106 agreements or the tariff under the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. They are all different, but I believe that we have an idea about what regeneration really means, and the

Conservative party is keen to ensure that any regional casino developments yield very important and measurable regeneration results.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Does not this demonstrate the problem that we are creating for ourselves? I accept that we do not want a free-for-all in the marketplace so that the market determines where the casinos go, but we have just been given the example of Manchester v. Blackpool. I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says about limiting the numbers and having pilots, but surely he must have a mechanism for determining where the casino should go, whether that is Blackpool or Manchester. One cannot simply say ''pilots'' and then leave the question up in the air without having some idea of how one will determine it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

With all due respect, that debate relates to clause 7.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; that debate does come later. I appreciate that the early stages of discussion of a Bill such as this can sometimes be difficult because waters get a little muddy, but very clear amendments have been tabled to clause 7, which is probably when this debate should take place.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I did not want to be seen to be doing your job, but I will happily debate those issues then. They are critical to the Bill. Most of the Bill and its nuances here and there can be adjusted, but the guts of it lie in where the casinos go, how many there should be and what criteria we use to choose where to put them. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) is spot on, but we will have that debate a little later.

I believe that I have covered all my amendments to clause 1.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Not amendment No. 37.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

One of my hon. Friends will deal with that.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, because it is very difficult for anyone to argue that we should be against social responsibility in the gambling industry. There is, however, something rather patronising and almost Victorian about this debate. People will not be forced to go into casinos. They will not be rounded up and driven into them; they will go into them willingly. Although one must be relatively cautious, particularly when moving into new territory, it is necessary to remind the Committee that in the end people are responsible for their own actions.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman refers to Victorian values. If I remember rightly, there were gin shops in the Victorian era, which caused huge misery and problems for women and children. Is he saying that that sort of responsibility should be abrogated?

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

The hon. Gentleman knows that I did not say ''Victorian values''. That would be a very stupid thing to say. I leave it to the former Conservative Prime Minister to come up with such sayings. Little boys used to go up chimneys, too, as the

hon. Gentleman knows. He also knows that I would not be in favour of that, although if I remember rightly—not personally, of course: I might be old, but I am not that old—there were all sorts of lurid tales and suggestions that if little boys were prevented from going up chimneys, it would mean hunger and starvation for their families and they would lose their jobs. There is a Victorian aspect to what I am hearing this morning. I said that there is something Victorian about it; I did not refer to Victorian values.

In situations such as this, it pays the Opposition—opposition to the Bill crosses the Floor; there is opposition among Members of all parties—to paint the most lurid possible picture of what might happen: huge casinos on every street corner causing poverty, distress, destitution, suicides, family break-ups and civilisation as we know it to grind to a halt. That is a rather lurid picture. We ought to keep what might happen in some context.

The Bill is a welcome development, offering large numbers of opportunities for regeneration and enhanced facilities. People will have the opportunity to go into casinos, which they do not have now because of the limited number of them around the country. Although it is good to talk about social responsibility, in the end people must be responsible for their own actions. We in this place are taking people's individual responsibilities away, because someone will always say, ''What are the Government going to do about this? Why don't the Government do something about this?'' I get sick and tired of hearing that. It is necessary to move with caution, but not to be overly patronising in our view of the population as a whole. If we can resist temptation—well, if most of us can resist temptation—why on earth cannot the rest or the great majority of the population? Oscar Wilde said:

''I can resist everything except temptation.''

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Perhaps that quotation has led the Government very sensibly in clause 23 to specify what the code of practice established by the new commission should contain. I assume that the hon. Gentleman will support that clause. Does he not accept that that is absolutely about social responsibility?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. We shall enjoy that debate when we come to it.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I was going to say that. Everyone wants to do your job, Mr. Gale.

I did not argue against social responsibility, but I am trying to inject a greater measure of reality and trust into our approach to this issue. Somehow we feel that we are okay, but that we must protect everyone else. I do not feel that we need to do that. From my contact with the gambling industry, I am fairly certain that there is a great deal of social responsibility in it already. The industry does not want to destroy its own trade and right to work. It has to be socially responsible. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said that this is about making profits. Of course it is, but if it were a question of gambling operators wringing people dry, no one would want to go into a casino. There has to be a fair distribution of money in casinos and machines in order to make gambling attractive. We need to say that in

the end people must be responsible for themselves. Although we must include realistic safeguards, we should not be patronising about it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Having heard what the hon. Gentleman has just said, and having for years listened to him making speeches about how we wants to ban hunting, I am amazed that he is such a liberaliser on this issue. Does he not accept that he could have made precisely the same speech in debates on the Licensing Bill, and that we know that that Bill has led to positive harm with binge drinking? We must be very careful to ensure that the public and the vulnerable are safeguarded.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I am not arguing that we should not put in place adequate safeguards; I am merely saying that we should give credence to people's ability to handle their own affairs. I have to address the point, and shall do so briefly, because the hon. Gentleman challenged me on it. There is a big difference between what people do to themselves and what they do to others, which includes other species. There is no conflict in my views. If the hon. Gentleman did not realise that I would have thought the issue through, he underestimates me. Of course there is a difference, and that is all I need to say.

I was making the point that we must not assume that everyone is so feeble-minded that they cannot make their own choices based on their own judgment and what they want to achieve.

Bob Russell rose—

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I am trying to get out of this speech but I keep getting interrupted.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can remember what drove the Labour Government of Harold Wilson to introduce the Gaming Act 1968.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

As a matter of fact, no, I cannot. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would help me?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is not rising to his feet.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I suspect that in much of the legislation that we had in the past, and in the situation prior to 1961 as well, the issue was about regularising activities that people indulge in. If we do not properly regulate such activities, criminal fraternities will step in and do it for us in a way that we would find socially undesirable.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Was the hon. Gentleman aware that prior to the 1968 Act there were more than 1,000 casinos in the country?

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

No, I was not. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for educating me about that. I know that the situation is limited now, and that, for instance, in West Ham the football club wants to operate a casino but is unable to do so. [Hon. Members: ''Ah! Now we know.''] Given the fact that that was in the newspapers, it can hardly be called a well-kept secret. West Ham has to find some way to get people to go to the ground if not for the football. I speak as someone who has the privilege and pleasure of representing much of the area covered by the

ground, although I have never been a supporter of the club. That gets me into difficulties from time to time, but, under the circumstances, one has to stand up for one's belief. One can change many things in one's life, but one should never change one's allegiance to a football club.

There are opportunities, but I return to the original point, which is that we should by all means safeguard those whom we believe to be vulnerable, but we should not get things out of proportion. The great majority of people in this country will be able to go to a casino if they want to, although many people will not want to. Personally, I do not find casinos at all attractive, but I do not see why I should be part of a process to deny people that opportunity.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I want to begin, as I did my speech on Second Reading, by referring the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. To go a little further than that, a recent article suggested that the Government had packed their side of the Committee. However, the article, although absolutely accurate as far as it went, also included a reference to what I said on Second Reading, but by omission gave completely the opposite impression of the facts. I made it quite clear on Second Reading that I wanted to talk principally about the casinos issue, as I in fact did, although I also mentioned that since I had ceased to be the shadow Minister responsible for gaming I had undertaken a small consultancy for a British company. I made it clear that that company was not involved in the casino business, nor would it be.

By not including the second part of my declaration, the newspaper that referred to the composition of the Committee gave exactly the opposite impression of the facts. It is clearly of some concern that when the national press report the proceedings on this Bill, they should seek to give the opposite impression to the facts by leaving out salient information when Members make speeches.

I will concentrate on the two amendments against which my name appears first, although I will touch briefly on the other amendments against which my name appears, simply to say that I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Bath.

I understand that the genesis of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bath was the views of the British Amusement and Catering Trades Association, with which I have worked happily for many years since I was the hon. Member for Blackpool, South. BACTA does a great deal through its charitable work, such as its work with Gamcare to help solve the problems of those who are addicted to gambling. I have worked with BACTA on an amicable—and, of course, unremunerated—basis on several pieces of legislation. Over the years, it has shown through its advice to Members on both sides of the House that it has the interests of the whole community at heart, so I was happy to add my name to amendments suggested by BACTA.

I particularly support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. As he knows, I share the concerns that he mentioned, to which we will return in our debates on clause 7. I abide by your ruling, Mr. Gale, that we should not anticipate that debate. However, you asked us to indicate when speaking to amendments if we wish to press them to a Division, so I will say that I am anxious to do so with amendments Nos. 36 and 37.

I tabled the amendments because of issues that affect the town closest to my constituency, part of which includes wards in Guildford borough, where there is a problem about which the previous chief constable of Surrey, Denis O'Connor, who has just retired and is now a member of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, has briefed all Surrey Members of Parliament. At a meeting, a year or so ago, he showed all Surrey MPs a CCTV video of the kind of thing that goes on in Guildford town centre late on Friday and Saturday nights. He showed us the activities of what he called the Guildford warriors: young people—principally, but not exclusively, men—who drink far too much and then get involved in serious violence. That is a problem for law-abiding citizens in Guildford town centre, and for the police. Sadly, many of the police officers who try to sort those problems out and protect law-abiding people have been the victims of assaults, sometimes serious, and have suffered quite serious injuries.

Excessive drinking is clearly an issue in any town centre. However, there may be light at the end of the tunnel: I have seen a lot of press coverage about parts of the country in which local authorities have taken steps to abolish or prevent so-called happy hours, after which there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of offences committed. When one is dealing with a Bill such as this, which may allow people who have drunk too much in town and city centres to then go into new casinos, one is bound to be concerned. Amendment No. 36 would ensure that

''there is no link between excessive drinking after licensing hours and casino gambling in city or town centres'',

and amendment No. 37 would ensure that

''the views of the Chief Constable for any police area determine the appropriateness of any increase in gambling provision in that area'',

adding safeguards to the Bill. In the Second Reading debate at the beginning of last week, the Secretary of State spoke a great deal about her much-vaunted so-called triple lock. Adding those extra safeguards would put some extra locks in place.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that excessive drinking causes problems for the police, but I am sure that he would accept that it also causes problems for many other people in our towns and cities. Therefore, I wonder whether he would explain to the Committee why the wording of his amendment No. 37 refers to

''ensuring that the views of the Chief Constable for any police area determine the appropriateness of any increase in gambling provision in that area.''

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his wording precisely means that the chief constable would be all-powerful in such matters? I would have far preferred

an amendment that sought to ensure that the views of the chief constable would be taken into account alongside the views of various other organisations, not least those of the local authority.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

In answer to the hon. Gentleman, the chief constable's views should be paramount in the decision making because we are seeking to protect our fellow citizens by keeping out organised crime and avoiding social problems. Who better than the chief constable to do that, particularly in the light of the example that I have given from Guildford? The chief constable is more aware than anyone else of the problems and has specific responsibilities for the safe policing of an area. He is the man more responsible than any other for ensuring that the twin objectives of safety for the law-abiding and keeping out organised crime are met. I would have a great deal more faith in the decisions of chief constables than in those of the sort of regional authority to which the Government seem to be wedded and which I was delighted to see the voters of the north-east so decisively reject, to the enormous anger and frustration of the Minister's former boss, the Deputy Prime Minister.

I hope that we will give the police a greater role. Putting matters to consultation is not enough. We all know that people can be consulted to death. I often feel when I read Liberal Democrat policy proposals that they believe so much in consultation that no decision would ever be reached at all. There is death by consultation in any area of the country where Lib Dems are within an iota of power. I do not believe in consulting but in decision making. I happen to have a great deal of faith that chief constables would make the right decisions on the matter because I know how much they worry about what happens in their area.

There is a second reason why I use the example of Guildford. It just so happens that the man who owns nearly all the late-night drinking bars in the part of Guildford where all the clubs are next to one another and problems arise—all Surrey MPs have seen the closed-circuit television—has already publicly made it clear that he wishes to have a casino under the provisions of the Bill. He wants to turn some of the late-night drinking clubs into a casino operation because he envisages great opportunities for making money. I have never met the gentleman, nor do I know much about him, other than what he has himself said publicly, but I would be very concerned about that. I know the effects that his clubs have on law-abiding citizens, including many of my constituents for whom Guildford is a centre that they wish to visit. I know of the problems.

I may have identified at least a possible solution. I do not completely rule out some alternative wording, as long as it is not just about consultation to death. I do not ever suggest that my drafting is much better than that of anybody else in the Committee.

Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)

Has the hon. Gentleman consulted the chief constables on his proposals?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

No, I have not, for precisely the reason that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and I complained about the

programming. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has just arrived. The Government know that there used to be a convention that the Committee stage of a Bill was not started until a clear week after Second Reading. That week would have given us time to consult before the Committee stage. [Interruption.] The Minister says, from a sedentary position, that this proposal has been many years in the genesis; of course it has, but it has changed dramatically. The Government's proposals are very different from those in the draft Bill that went to the scrutiny Committee.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, members of the Committee have had only a limited time in which to table amendments. However, I do not doubt that there will be time for further consultation before the Bill goes to the other place. As I said on Second Reading, I suspect that what will determine the final shape of the Bill will be the views of many Labour peers, some of whom served with my hon. Friend on the scrutiny Committee. They have already said that they are much happier with what the scrutiny Committee said than with what the Government propose. I know those Labour peers and how much influence they have on their colleagues. The Minister and the Secretary of State are well aware that they will have to make huge concessions in this House. If they do not, their proposals will be changed dramatically not just by Conservative peers and Cross Benchers, but by Labour peers who want the Bill to be much closer in spirit to the measure that went before the scrutiny Committee.

I have said all I need to say about my reasons for speaking to amendments Nos. 36 and 37. I support what the hon. Member for Bath said.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

It is widely recognised in this country and internationally that the gaming and betting industry in the UK is largely free from corruption and criminal elements. That is the result of tough enforcement, which the Bill will reinforce. I therefore welcome paragraph (a), which sets out the objective of preventing gambling from being the source of crime and disorder. I sympathise with amendment No. 71, as it is important that those who run casinos or who are involved in gaming should not have a criminal record.

It is not so much that the operation of casinos or licensed betting outlets may involve organised crime as the fact that they may be used to launder large sums of cash. At present, there is clear protection and reassurance because people have to join casinos, so the operators and gambling commission know, or can identify who is laying the money. I am anxious that, if there is a large explosion of super-casinos, with no membership rules and no form of identity required, they will be used by unscrupulous individuals to launder large amounts of cash, possibly using different individuals to do so.

The Committee needs to look carefully at that issue, as we do not want to undo the Government's good work in introducing the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. That measure is already having an effect in my

constituency as people have to explain why they have large assets and where certain amounts of cash have come from. We do not want casinos and the gaming industry to become an easy way to get rid of or ''to clean'' large amounts of money that have been generated from the drugs industry, which causes misery to our constituents.

I welcome the new forms of gambling in the Bill, such as exchange betting, which has become popular. However, I have a word of caution: people using betting exchanges can remain anonymous in laying bets against one another. We need to look at that, because it is one way of laundering large sums of cash. The argument is that we would know that the money was to be paid into some other account. We would, but we would not know who was betting. It does not take a genius to work out that such a method could be used to deal with large amounts of cash.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do not want to anticipate a later debate—I mention it now because the hon. Gentleman may not have had the chance to read it—but my amendment No. 26 to clause 9 deals with some of the points that he makes. In the light of what he said, I look forward to some sympathetic consideration when we reach that point.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am grateful for that intervention but I want to raise the matter now.

It would be sad if we passed the Bill without tightening some of its provisions, because we could inadvertently give organised crime new opportunities. We do not want a criminal element to become involved in gambling; it is universally recognised that, to date, it has not been involved. It is about not just the operation of the Bill but ensuring that people cannot use gaming and gambling casinos as a way of ''cleaning'' their ill gotten gains.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I appreciate that it may be difficult for the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to understand the word ''consensus''.

I put it on record that I have been participating in the Parliament and Industry Trust scheme for some months. I have been placed with the Gala Group. There is no financial interest in it, but it has provided me with a little insight.

I shall concentrate on amendment No. 1, which is to do with public nuisance. I could accuse the Government of many things, but would never accuse them of deliberately wanting to promote public nuisance. In the spirit of consensus to which the Minister alluded, the amendment would go down well in communities that are concerned not so much about casinos, despite many people's grave reservations, but about their spill-out effect, which would be similar to that in our towns and cities when people spill out from major drinking establishments.

It would be a positive sign of the consensus that the Minister seeks if he were to take the amendment on board, because public nuisance is the cause of considerable concern. To include such a provision in the Bill would go a long way to assuring people that

there is a lot of sense behind what the Government propose.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I respond briefly to something said earlier. It was suggested that Government Back Benchers all support of the Bill. Although I voted with the Government on Second Reading, I made it clear that they would not get my support in future if the Bill were not significantly amended. The suggestion that we are all in agreement about the Bill is not correct.

The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford prayed in aid a number of organisations. I commend those organisations for their consistent approach. However, we could not say that of the Opposition. The former Front-Bench spokesman on culture, media and sport, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), said that he welcomed the liberalisation of gambling. Having spoken to small clubs and gaming bodies, he indicated that his main concerns were for good causes and for the small clubs. He made no reference to regional casinos or the other concerns raised today by the Opposition. There is an inconsistency in their approach.

Mr. Moss rose—

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I shall finish the point before giving way to the hon. Gentleman. It is a shame that we are so close to an election. We are clearly seeing Members of Parliament posturing in preparation for a general election. This is the sort of Bill that, generally, MPs can deal with in a mature way that benefits constituents. There is a duty on those on both Front Benches to deal with the Bill in a sensible way that benefits the public, not party positions.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

It would be interesting to know when my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk made the comments reported. I suspect that he was in that post four years ago, before the scrutiny Committee considered the Bill and the reports were written. At that time, no one knew—in fact, no one on the scrutiny Committee knew—that the Government's proposals would be such that there might be up to 20 or 40 regional casinos. That was not even on the horizon. We are in favour of liberalisation; we have not said that we do not want to liberalise the law. All we are saying is that we must proceed cautiously.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The comments were made on 26 March 2004, so it was nearer four months ago than four years ago.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is sufficiently broadminded to accept that the Bill is before us today because the Government chose to introduce it less than a year before we all expect there to be a general election. Furthermore, he criticises MPs who oppose the Bill for playing politics with it. Surely he has been in the House long enough—I think that he has been here longer than me—to know that any measure dealing with gambling is bound to cause a great deal of concern among Members of Parliament.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I accept that point. My point is about the change, the sudden volte-face, in the position that certain people have taken on the issue.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

As we have said many times, on Second Reading and even today, we can all be happy with 90 per cent. of the Bill, because that 90 per cent. is modest and reasonable. The concern relates to the 10 per cent. that deals with casino gambling. No one has changed their position on that matter—it is a new phenomenon that the Government are introducing, to which many of us object.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

The hon. Lady continues to make my points for me. I thank her very much. Given that we agree with 90 per cent. of the Bill, and if there is so much that is good about it, I am surprised that hon. Members have voted against it. The duty of hon. Members is to amend legislation. Our duty is to improve that 10 per cent. of the Bill, so that we can move forward with consensus. It is important that there be consensus on such a Bill.

Let me move on. I sympathise with the intention behind the amendments, but I have to question whether this is the right part of the Bill to deal with the issues that they raise. If, as a consequence of the Bill's introduction, we finish up with disorder on our high streets as a result of people over-indulging in alcohol, the legislation will have failed. Frankly, if the Bill sanctions over-indulgence in alcohol as an accompaniment to gambling, it is a squalid Bill that will fail to protect people from the worst forms of exploitation that we can imagine on our high streets. However, I do not think that the Bill is going in that direction.

I say to Opposition Members that the place to deal with the issue—I am putting my hon. Friends on notice that I might propose an amendment in a future debate—is clause 23. I am surprised that that clause does not mention anything to do with alcohol and gambling. We need to deal with the issue in the code of practice. If we create a situation in which, while gambling in casinos, people can indulge in alcohol to the extent that people fear, the legislation will have failed. It is essential that the code of practice includes a reference to alcohol to the effect that expectations are high.

I had the privilege of speaking yesterday to people employed in the gambling industry in America and I was astonished at the level of regulation in the American casino industry. They were very complimentary about the level of regulation. They also explained that staff are trained, including in how to spot people who are over-indulging in alcohol while gambling. There are notices in some casinos warning the public about drinking alcohol while gambling and asking people to come forward if they identify anyone who is too much under the influence of alcohol while gambling. The Bill should deal with those matters, rather than public disorder on our high streets.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point about alcohol. However, can he address the issue of public nuisance, to which my amendment relates? Does he accept that there is a distinction in law

between disorder and public nuisance? Many members of the public are already deeply concerned about public nuisance in relation to pubs and clubs. Does he not think that it would be appropriate to have the words ''public nuisance'' included in the Bill as one of the objectives to be avoided?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I do not think so. We are discussing establishments whose primary function is gambling but, as a result of the Bill, they may cause nuisance and disorder on our streets. I do not think that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for trying to deal with the question of nuisance on our high streets, which is caused by elements that are licensed under other legislation, such as that covering alcohol. The hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue by trying to introduce a provision to deal with that matter under the clause. To ensure that we protect the public, we need to deal with that matter through the operators' code of practice.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

On that argument, I presume that the hon. Gentleman would propose deletion of the word ''disorder'' in relation to clause 1(a). I would be surprised if he wished to do that.

The hon. Gentleman has already referred several times to the code. Clause 23, which is clearly related to this clause, provides that the code will have regard to the licensing objectives. If the code refers to the licensing objectives, it is vital that we get those objectives right.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I accept that that is correct, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman suggests in his amendment that the nuisance caused will be similar to that seen at late-night drinking venues and discos. I do not believe that this licensing legislation can deal with that element of public nuisance and public disorder. The clause concerns the regulation of the gaming side of the operation. He confuses the issue by introducing that aspect into the clause. If an operator is providing alcohol in a way that is creating a nuisance, that should be dealt with in the code of practice. That is the most appropriate and strongest way in which the gambling commission can handle the matter. Regulations already exist under which local authorities can deal with nuisance and licensing.

Mr. Foster indicated dissent.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Yes, they do, because local authorities are becoming the licensing authority.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that the Liberal Democrats have tabled this amendment about nuisance, when they opposed the measures that the Government introduced to tackle antisocial behaviour?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will conclude by reiterating what I said earlier. We need to strengthen the code of practice, because that is the most appropriate way in which to deal with the concerns raised by the amendments. The provisions in clause 1 are sufficient, and I shall not support the amendments.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, the hon. Member for West Ham and I served on the scrutiny Committee.

I am in a little difficulty at the moment, because having listened to what the hon. Member for West Ham said, I find myself to the left of him politically. That will put me into an extremely difficult position, but I shall try to overcome those problems.

As I am talking of degrees of difficulty, the scrutiny Committee had a difficulty in that the whole Bill was not available on day one to be gone through and seen as a piece. It emerged from some osmotic process, which shows the difficulty in getting the drafting of the Bill exactly right. I think that everybody agreed that the Bill was not exactly right on Second Reading.

Amendment No. 73 goes to the heart of the difference between the scrutiny Committee and the Government, and produced a torrent of concern from the media. I think that the media overdid it and exaggerated, but why let the facts get in the way of a good story? There has been plenty of publicity about the issue, and there we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), with her journalistic background, may wish to comment on the accuracy of journalism and the various areas that have an impact on politics.

The scrutiny Committee asked for comprehensive planning guidance and advice to be available from the various regional bodies, so that anybody making any form of application could know exactly where they were and what they were about to do in their application. We would all agree that those regional bodies are as new-born babes compared with the existing county council structure, and they do not have the tried and trusted case law to advise them on how to go forward with various planning applications. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath was cruel to refer to the recent result from the north-east, but I wonder what that will do for the effectiveness of the various regional assemblies.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Very briefly, as I am conscious of the time, one of the results of the Government's humiliation in the recent referendum in the north-east was that the chairman of the South East England regional assembly called for the abolition of his own assembly and others like it yesterday.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

If I were to respond to that completely irrelevant and erroneous intervention, I would have your wrath come upon me, Mr. Gale. As the Committee has some days to go, I wish to catch your eye frequently and not right at the tail-end Charlie, which seems to have been the case in this instance. [Hon. Members: ''Oh!''] My experience tells me that, although I know that the Chairman is really quite a fair man.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. It may be for the convenience of all members of the Committee to know that this Chairman calls people in the order in which they rise.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Oh dear. I was hoping to be number one next time.

To return seriously to the matter, the advice to the regional bodies must be comprehensive and clear. We have already seen the problems that are being raised. What happens when two regions put forward their various candidates and the towns and cities are close to each other on the border between the two regions? The one thing that was agreed between Ministers from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was that the Deputy Prime Minister did not wish to arbitrate on all the cases put to him. The rest of it was not exactly a seamless whole, with the two Departments working closely and comprehensively together.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Gambling Bill

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

May I indicate to the Committee that I will be chairing the sitting on Thursday morning and, in accord with the Speaker's statement, at 11 o'clock we will stand and have two minutes' silence to observe Remembrance day? I tell you that now, although I will also remind you on Thursday morning, as it would help if people were not going in and out of the Room at that time. I will simply call for the two minutes' silence and Members will stand.Clause 1 The licensing objectives

Clause 1 - The licensing objectives

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No. 71, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, after second 'crime', insert

'or being operated by anyone with a criminal record,'.

Amendment No. 72, in

clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'fair', insert 'socially responsible'.

Amendment No. 36, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(d) ensuring that there is no link between excessive drinking after licensing hours and casino gambling in city or town centres.'.

Amendment No. 37, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(d) ensuring that the views of the Chief Constable for any police area determine the appropriateness of any increase in gambling provision in that area.'.

Amendment No. 73, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(d) ensuring the development of new gambling opportunities is gradual and controlled to minimise the potential for social harm.'.

Amendment No. 80, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(d) promoting fair competition between those associated with gambling.'.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. I am delighted to see you, as I was having a little trouble just before we adjourned. I am sure that, with your fingertip control, all will go smoothly from now on.

If I remember correctly, I was saying that the Government made a big mistake in not agreeing with the scrutiny Committee's advice on a more coherent

pattern of guidance to the regions. I remind hon. Members what the Joint Committee said:

''While we acknowledge the Government's reluctance to publish national guidance relating specifically to regional/leisure destination casinos, we believe that it could help to ensure a consistent approach between regional authorities and avoid the need for applications to be called in for determination by the First Secretary of State.''

Amendment No. 73 goes to the core of the debate and touches on this matter to a significant extent. In response to the Joint Committee, the Government stated:

''The Government accepts that national planning policy guidance should, where it is appropriate, deal with casinos.''

The response then says that various papers

''and the two joint statements already provide a comprehensive policy framework.''

I was taken aback by that response, and subsequent events have shown that the public and the media have come down very much on the side of the Joint Committee rather than that of the Government, hence all the media excitement of the past couple of weeks.

Amendment No. 73 is key to the whole debate. If the Minister were inclined to accept it, we could all pack up and go home. If we could be clear about how new gambling opportunities will be developed and expanded, everyone would know exactly where they were.

When my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke to amendment No. 73 and was asked what he had in mind, he mentioned pilot schemes. Perhaps the Government should actively consider that route. The Joint Committee suggested that the Government examine very closely the French system as a means

''of ensuring the development of new gambling opportunities is gradual and controlled'',

to quote from the amendment. In France, central Government say to various cities and towns that they can have a casino, and then the city or town negotiates with the various bidders to get all the benefits that it thinks it needs.

We visited one centre that had recently been granted permission to have a casino. The casino operator built a new theatre, and many roads and other means of access were improved. That type of benefit could accrue, but the interesting thing was that the new casino developments were dictated by central Government. I am not saying that that is the way to go, but it is obvious that the public have comprehensively taken fright at the idea of unbridled expansion. The Government are on record as saying that the market should decide. In an issue such as this, the market should not decide. We need careful regulation and development, and we want to ensure that everything goes the right way.

There have been comments about rowdiness in casinos. I am not a great casino attendee, but in those that I attended as part of the work of the Joint Committee we saw no drunkenness or rowdiness. In fact, the people playing the tables and slot machines looked decidedly miserable to me. They did not look

as though they were enjoying it at all; they looked like they needed a bit of cheering up.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD) rose—

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman is going to tell us about his rowdy experiences in the local casino.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

No, I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the 131 existing casinos. However, does he not share my concern about the new breed of casino, the new super or regional casinos, in the Bill, where circumstances might be very different because of the large number of people likely to attend?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman has obviously seen exactly what I am going to say next, because I have a little note that says ''50–50''. He is absolutely right that, going on the experience in America, the new super-casinos—whether they are called resort or destination casinos is by the by—will take their revenue with an almost 50–50 split. Some 50 per cent. of revenue will come from gaming, and the greatest percentage of that will come from slot machines, but the other 50 per cent. will come from various leisure activities, including shows, entertainment, meals and so on. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) waving at me?

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

There is an assumption in this Committee, and before it becomes received truth it should be examined, that the large casinos will somehow inevitably lead to rowdy behaviour. That problem can be dealt with by a raft of measures, and the hon. Gentleman has already said how well ordered existing casinos are. Why can we not assume that that will be extrapolated to the new casinos?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I have no objection to what the hon. Gentleman says. Dredging my memory banks, I do not think that I have said anything to the contrary that should make him leap to his feet. Casino staff are trained; they are not the average lad, with no training in how to deal with drunks and rowdiness, who has been asked to serve behind the bar at the Pig and Whistle for half an hour on a Saturday evening. Due to their training and numbers, casino staff are perfectly able to deal with problems if they occur, so I do not make any of the assumptions that the hon. Gentleman tries to put into my mouth.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As I think my hon. Friend knows, I agree with several of the points that he has made. As far as a number of current casino operators and, indeed, many potential operators, are concerned, there is no danger. Does he recognise, however, that when, as in the case very close to my constituency that I mentioned, the very same person who operates all the late-night drinking venues currently causing problems also applies for the casino licence, one must consider whether the Bill will ensure that only the reputable people who will take the precautions about which my hon. Friend talks get the chance to run casinos?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I happen to know the string of wine bars and pubs in Guildford to which my hon. Friend refers, and I can only agree that they cause enormous trouble, particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings. A great deal of police time is occupied in trying to sort out a very young clientele who are behaving in a perfectly disgraceful fashion.

I beg your indulgence, Mr. Pike, because I am about to move slightly away from the subject—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Not too far.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I shall be back in 30 seconds. The answer to my hon. Friend is that the granting of a licence is not a simple process. Permission must be granted by the gambling commission and then various uses must be granted by the local authority. If I was on the local authority and I saw that the area was causing nothing but riots and chaos every Friday or Saturday night, I would be disinclined to give planning permission and the casino would not get the licence to operate anyway.

I will now quickly return to the subject; last time, I was led astray, but I am trying to reform. This is where the role of the gambling commission is going to come in. The whole thrust of amendment No. 73 is that the development of new gambling opportunities needs to be

''gradual and controlled to minimise the potential for social harm.''

It is all there. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State, realising that she was being sent out to bat on a rather sticky wicket and seeing yawning chasms under her feet and all the other clichés that come to mind, did a lot of back-pedalling and made a series of quite substantial promises. The amendment is the Minister's big opportunity to put flesh on the bones of the Secretary of State's words. What are the gradual and careful developments that are necessary to ensure the minimisation of social harm? The obligation is on the Minister and I look forward to hearing what he will say.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. I think that it is the first time that I have been under your chairmanship and I shall look forward to the objectivity and sense of fair play that you are renowned for in the House.

It was an interesting morning, which was completed by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). We have had Victorian values, West Ham football club, fox hunting, a sortie into the north-east referendum and the inevitable letter to Mrs. Foster. I shall try to keep succinctly to the amendment paper.

The amendments would extend the scope of the licensing objectives. Amendment No. 1 would include preventing gambling from being a source of public nuisance. Amendment No. 71 is intended to preclude anyone with a criminal record from being a gambling operator. Amendment No. 72 would make social responsibility part of the licensing objectives. Amendment No. 36 would include the objective of preventing a link between casino gambling and excessive drinking after licensing hours. Amendment No. 37 would involve the chief constable in assessing

the impact of increased gambling. Amendment No. 73 would add a new licensing objective requiring the development of new gambling opportunities to be gradual and controlled. Amendment No. 80 would add to the objectives fair competition between gambling providers.

Amendment No. 1 would particularly affect the way in which premises licensing is carried out by local authorities. It would allow local authorities to take public nuisance considerations into account when deciding whether to grant a gambling premises licence and what conditions to apply to it, or when reviewing a licence that was already in force. The Government do not accept that that is either necessary or desirable.

Some gambling premises—casinos and bingo clubs—are allowed to serve alcohol to their customers, and the Bill will not stop that happening. Their entitlement does not spring from gambling laws: as one or two of my hon. Friends have said, it comes from the licensing law itself. Casinos and bingo clubs in England and Wales get their entitlement from the Licensing Act 1964. However, by the time the Bill is on the statute book, the Licensing Act 2003 will have come into force. The equivalent licensing laws govern casinos and bingo clubs in Scotland. The 2003 Act includes the prevention of public nuisance as a licensing objective, understandably so given the unfortunate connection between excess alcohol intake and bad behaviour. That was referred to by a number of hon. Members this morning.

The relevant risks associated with licensing of pubs, bars and other premises on which alcohol is sold include noise and antisocial conduct, particularly at night. That has been referred to in connection with Guildford. Accordingly, it will be open to licensing authorities, when considering applications for casinos and bingo halls to be licensed premises under the 2003 Act, to take account of the public-nuisance risk just as they do when considering any other application. If any casino were to put its alcohol licence at risk by allowing public nuisance, it would almost certainly put its continued existence and its licence at risk. Therefore, it is unnecessary in the case of casinos and bingo clubs to duplicate provisions that are already in licensing law.

There is no intention of allowing other gambling premises, such as betting shops and machine arcades, to sell alcohol, and there is no reason to apply to them a nuisance test over and above the law on noise and other nuisance. There is no well established association between betting and nuisance of the sort that unfortunately exists between alcohol and nuisance. We do not believe that there is any reason to single out betting shops for special treatment in contrast to grocery shops, newsagents or any other shop.

There are provisions in the general criminal and civil law on the control of public nuisance. If they are not thought to be adequate—I am not expressing a Government view on this—the solution is to strengthen the general law, not to adopt specific measures for gambling premises on the basis of no

evidence of need. In practice, all licensed gambling premises are more likely to conduct themselves responsibly than the general run of premises, if only because they will have to satisfy not just the local licensing authority concerning their present licence, but the powerful gambling commission in relation to their operating licence.

Amendment No. 1 would be regulatory overkill. The official Opposition, who continually badger us about red tape and over-regulation, should reflect on their amendments in the light of my explanation. Amendment No. 1 would only reinforce the apprehension in the gambling industry that local authorities will be over-zealous in regulating premises, and I do not believe that those fears are well grounded. It would impact significantly on the matters that could be taken into account by local authorities and would go beyond what is reasonable. I cannot advise the Committee to accept it.

Amendment No. 71 is also unnecessary and heavy handed. It is unnecessary because clause 66 already provides for the gambling commission, having regard to the licensing objectives, to be able to refuse an application for an operating licence on the grounds that the applicant is unsuitable. One of those objectives is the prevention of crime in connection with gambling. Further, clause 67 provides for the commission to be able to refuse an application solely on the grounds that he or she has been convicted for a relevant offence, as listed in schedule 6, even though the applicant might otherwise be suitable. The offences are either intrinsically serious or directly relevant to the conduct of gambling.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I wonder whether we could have it on the record that when we refer to a criminal record we mean as a result of a conviction anywhere in the world and not just in the United Kingdom.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I believe that to be so. If it is not, I will write to the hon. Gentleman. The offences concerned are those in schedule 6.

The provisions do all that we believe is necessary to keep gambling crime-free—a desire that has again been stressed clearly this morning and this afternoon. Amendment No. 71 is over the top and would appear to exclude from employment in the gambling industry anyone who has a criminal conviction for any offence whatever that is not yet spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. If the brother of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire had a conviction for speeding or dropping litter, the amendment would prevent him from setting up as a bookmaker or bingo club proprietor. One has only to state such a consequence to see how disproportionate and ridiculous that would be. There are ample powers in the Bill to prevent criminals from joining the industry, and the amendment would not add anything useful to them.

I have no quarrel with amendment No. 72, and what I take to be the intention behind it. We all want gambling to be provided in a socially responsible way, and the Bill marks a giant step forward in that direction. The present law does not recognise social

responsibility as a function of gambling regulation, which is why the Gaming Board has to rely on voluntary codes of practice agreed with trade associations as a way of hoping to prevent mischief such as excessive play. I am, however, reluctant to write into the licensing objectives the words in the amendment. We may all have a general idea of what constitutes social responsibility, but I am far from sure that it is a definitive enough concept to stand as a licensing objective in its own right.

In the context of gambling regulation, previous calls for the industry to act in a socially responsible way have been calls to take proper measures to prevent their customers from gambling excessively, and to ensure that children and adults with potential or actual gambling problems are kept away from opportunities to gamble. That is exactly the area covered by the third licensing objective, which is set out in paragraph (c). If, as the amendment seeks, social responsibility were added to paragraph (b), it must mean something different from protection of children and the vulnerable. What could that different thing be? Some might argue that it was socially responsible to prevent any advertising of gambling, whereas others would strenuously disagree.

The intention behind the amendment is praiseworthy, but I fear that it would infect the Bill with uncertainty and vagueness from the outset. I reassure the Committee that the Bill as drafted will through licence conditions give the gambling commission and licensing authorities all the powers that they reasonably need to ensure that operators act with social responsibility. I cannot therefore advise the Committee to accept an amendment that converts social responsibility into a licensing objective of its own. It is an umbrella concept that includes fairness and protection of children and the vulnerable.

Amendment No. 36 is aimed at ensuring that casino gambling in town and city centres is not associated with excessive drinking. I am unsure why the Opposition think that excessive drinking is all right in places other than town and city centres, but I will let that pass.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I would like to make it abundantly clear that I do not regard excessive drinking as acceptable anywhere. I think that my speech made that clear, and the Minister knows it perfectly well.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Yes, I think that that is true; it was just an error of drafting, and I concede that point. The main point is that casinos are licensed to sell alcohol under licensing law, not under this legislation. They cannot lawfully serve alcohol outside the hours during which they are licensed to sell it. The amendment sets up an imaginary problem that does not need to be solved. The powers in the Bill enable us to deal with casinos that allow excessive drinking to an extent that results in disorder. That is also the case if casinos allowed customers to gamble when drunk—that would certainly violate their social responsibility requirements to protect the vulnerable—so the amendment is unnecessary. It is a criminal act to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk.

I agree with the thinking behind amendment No. 73. In developing the policy expressed in the Bill, we have from the outset stressed that any relaxation of regulatory controls must be cautious, controlled and carefully monitored. The Budd report drew clear attention to the problems that had been experienced in places such as Australia.

I had the opportunity to go to Australia to see how it had dealt with deregulation. Many people in Australia wish that they could draw back from that deregulation, because it has created some real problems. The visit was a sobering experience, which had quite an effect on my thinking as I returned to deal with the Budd report and ''A Safe Bet for Success''. It is probably the worst example anywhere in the world of deregulation and the effect of the market on gambling. We must learn from that. Indeed, much of the Bill has been conditioned by the experience of Australia. That is why I think that when the Bill comes out of Committee it will be good legislation.

Where there has been over-aggressive deregulation and where it was proving difficult to rein back and deal with the social and public health problems, we have always taken the lesson to heart. The Bill provides a flexible framework of regulation. We propose to loosen the tap a little in certain areas, but we have made it clear that we are equally ready to tighten it again if that is necessary. Indeed, we could tighten the tap using measures in the Bill. That will be done if evidence of harm begins to emerge.

It is one thing to state that as a general policy approach; it is another to try to write it in to the Bill as a specific licensing objective in clause 1. The licensing objectives of clause 1 are not there for show but to do useful work. They will determine what the gambling commission does when considering applications for operating licences and in setting conditions for those licences. They will do the same for premise licences issued by a local authority. All those applications must be dealt with fairly and on their individual merits. If a local licensing authority had to have regard to an extra licensing objective of the kind proposed, what the authority could, or indeed should, do would be obscure.

As a statement of the general approach that the Government and the regulator should take in exercising their powers—whether to lay statutory instruments or impose licence conditions—I am happy to agree with the intention behind the amendment. However, we do not need a new objective. We have the powers that we need to achieve what the amendment seeks.

We are in favour of fair competition, but there is no need to add a fourth licensing objective in the guise of amendment No. 80. I leave aside any quibbles about what is referred to as ''those associated with gambling''. The key point is that the gambling business, like any other business, is and will remain subject to general competition law. It is the job of competition law and the competition authorities established under law—the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading—to pursue the objective of regulation. That is not properly the task of the gambling commission. If we were to ask the

commission to take that task on, it would significantly add to its costs and create duplication and conflict with the Office of Fair Trading. I cannot believe that the Committee wants that. Therefore, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The purpose of the amendment and the way in which I presented it were aimed at overcoming the problem whereby only certain categories of casino—the regional casinos—will have access to category A machines. That means that the existing industry will not have access to those machines in their existing casinos. Is that not like granting planning permission for a brand new supermarket chain to compete with existing supermarkets in every location in the country, and giving them special treatment concerning the goods that they can sell over the counter?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That may be the case, but we believe that we are taking the right approach. There is no doubt that there are differences between the types of casino. That is why we have the categories of regional casino, large casino and small casino. There are differences between casinos and the hon. Gentleman refers to one of them. I do not believe that that judgment is in conflict with competition law and I am advised that it is not. If the judgment were against competition law and people were aggrieved, they would have the right to take the matter to the OFT or the Competition Commission.

This morning we were told that there would be no clause stand part debate because the debate would be wide-ranging. So, I conclude by saying that clause 1 is the cornerstone of the Bill. It sets out the objectives of gambling regulation and, therefore, sets the framework in which the gambling commission as the regulator for gambling operators and the local licensing authorities as the regulator for gambling premises should carry out their responsibilities. So it is an important part of the Bill.

There are three objectives and we need to focus on them, because some of the publicity about the Bill and the debate has missed that. The objectives are keeping crime out of gambling, ensuring fairness and, importantly, protecting children and the vulnerable. All are necessary and all have equal weight in the Bill—as they will, hopefully, when it becomes an Act. Together, they will ensure that gambling is carried out in a socially responsible way.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham asked the interesting question: why the Gaming Act 1968? If one looks back, one finds that that Act, introduced by the then Labour Government, was designed to remove crime and money laundering from our society. It was a very specific and prescriptive Act. The Budd report, the White Paper, entitled ''A Safe Bet for Success'', and the Bill all reflect the need to come to terms with the new electronic age and the somewhat outdated 1968 Act. It is interesting to see what has happened since 1968, and we are absolutely determined to ensure that the underlying principles of the Act are translated into this Bill by making sure that gambling is crime-free.

The objectives proposed by the independent gambling review, chaired very ably by Sir Alan Budd, commanded general support, and we have carried them through into the Bill. I hope that with that explanation right hon. and hon. Members who are signatories to the amendments will withdraw them and not force them to a vote.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

May I say how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pike? You have experienced many Committees over many years, and you will not be surprised to see yet again the normal procedure of Committees unfolding, whereby the Opposition parties put forward suggestions to improve the Bill and the Government oppose them so that there is a strange changeover of our roles elsewhere. It is disappointing to hear the Minister agree with nearly everything in the amendments under discussion, while urging the Committee not to accept them.

The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire will be particularly disappointed by the Minister's response, because he was telling us only a few minutes ago that if we agreed to amendment No. 73, we could pack up and go home. It is clear that the programme motion will still be in force for some time, given that the Minister was unprepared to accept that amendment, although we all note with great pleasure that the Minister agreed with the thinking behind it and with the approach described. We therefore look forward with some anticipation to the debates on clause 7, when the Minister will describe in more detail how he sees us moving forward in the spirit of amendment No. 73.

Many of us would entirely agree with the Minister's remarks about the 1968 Act and the importance of retaining the principles on which it was based; namely, to ensure that crime is kept out of gambling. I therefore hope that when we come to deliberate on that issue and, in particular, the need to place in the Bill a provision requiring a form of identification to be presented on entry to a casino, he will be supportive of those proposals.

I want to comment on the Minister's response to amendment No. 1, which I moved. I wanted to include the avoidance of public nuisance in the Bill's objectives, but the Minister said that it was neither necessary nor desirable. He said that it was not necessary because the main cause of any public nuisance would be alcohol-related activities within casinos which are covered by the Licensing Act 2003. He absolutely assured us—although, based on that Act's track record, not totally convincingly—that it will be in force by the time this Bill is in force. The Minister smiles at that. He knows that the Act has not had a particularly good track record on implementation.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman is being a little mischievous. He knows that the first allotted day has been assigned and that the timetable is enshrined in the Act. It will become fully operational roughly this time next year.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister remains cheerfully optimistic. He will be well aware that only a few

days ago he submitted for consultation the new fee structure. A storm of protest has already fallen on him and his Department about that. There may be a need to rethink things, certainly in regard to that.

The Minister made the point that it is only the alcohol-related activities in casinos that could give rise to public nuisance. Of course, he is wrong. We have many examples of public nuisance being caused by non-alcohol-related activities. One has only to look at the problems associated with fast food and takeaway shops, taxi ranks and cab offices, to know that what he says does not give us the whole picture.

The Minister also said that the amendment was not desirable. He said that it would be regulatory overkill. He is entitled to his view. However, I was disappointed to hear him go a step further and not only talk about regulatory overkill, but suggest that the amendment would enable local authorities to go beyond what it is reasonable for them to take into account. I suspect that local authorities may be particularly disappointed by that remark and by the fact that they would not be allowed, on behalf of the communities that they serve, to take public nuisance into account in respect of a gambling premises licence, but could do so only in respect of the alcohol-related activities in the casino.

That said, I would like the opportunity to reflect on the Minister's contribution, to consider some of his words and to have some further discussion with the Local Government Association before deciding what further action it might be necessary to take. To give me that opportunity, and to give the Minister the opportunity to reflect on his own words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 36, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(d) ensuring that there is no link between excessive drinking after licensing hours and casino gambling in city or town centres.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 12.

Clause 2 - Licensing authorities

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 74, in

clause 2, page 1, line 17, after 'councils', insert—

'(iia) a unitary council.'.

May I welcome you, Mr. Pike, to the Chair? This is my first time under your chairmanship on a major Bill. I have served under your chairmanship before, on delegated legislation, and it is a pleasure to do so again.

It is always interesting at the start of a new Bill Committee to see how the nuances of the debate play out, how the Minister plays his hand and how Members interpret what he says. There were moments in the Minister's last response when I thought that I had scored three bull's-eyes with my amendments. He said that they were agreeable, that they were worded perfectly, that they fitted the Bill and that they went to the heart of the Government's objectives, but they are rubbish and in the bin. I now know where he is coming from.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do not think that my hon. Friend's amendments are rubbish and in the bin. I rather suspect that the Minister's wise words acknowledging their value simply pave the way for the enforced retreat that the Government know that they will have to make under pressure from Labour peers in another place.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That may or may not be so.

It is my pleasure to speak to amendment No. 74, which is a simple amendment. The Minister probably has an equally pleasurable way of saying that it is not necessary. In looking down the list of councils in the clause, I noted that unitary councils were not included. Of course, that may be another oversight by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, or unitary councils may well be covered by some other clause at the back of the Bill. I wait to see what the Minister has to say about it.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I shall get in my usual courtesies to the hon. Gentleman and try to be as helpful as always, but I shall resist the amendment. It would introduce a reference to a unitary authority where one is not necessary. At a basic level, ''unitary authority'' describes an authority that exercises all the principal

local government functions for its area. A county council to which the functions of a district council have been transferred is therefore a unitary authority. Unitary authorities are already covered by clause 2, so I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendment, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I suspect that I am not alone in being slightly puzzled by the words that the Minister just read out. They sounded like the kind of thing that Sir Humphrey might have said in ''Yes Minister''. There may well need to be some further explanation. The amendment brings forward wider issues. I mention that now in case the debate is extended, although I may have the opportunity to talk on stand part.

One reason for inserting ''unitary council'', in addition to the avoidance of doubt in the light of what the Minister has just said, is to make it absolutely clear that the principal decisions will always be made by the authority closest to the people. I am very concerned indeed—this came up briefly during the exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire this morning—about the way in which the Government are continuing to pursue their agenda of pushing as much decision making as possible from local people to regional level.

I have already referred to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister's plans were severely derailed by the massive and sensible vote by the people of the north-east last week, but it is crucial to ensure that everyone knows that vital decisions on these issues will be taken by the level of government closest to the people who elect that government. I tabled an amendment, which was not selected but may be able to be covered in a stand part debate, seeking to state in this part of the Bill, for the avoidance of doubt, that no such decisions should be taken at regional level. That is not germane to the amendment before us and I would stray out of order if I talked too much about that, but it would be helpful not only if the amendment were accepted, for the avoidance of doubt, but if we made it absolutely clear to those who send us here—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason that the Minister is resisting the amendment is that the vote in the north-east was not only against the north-east regional assembly, but against unitary authorities? Perhaps the Government are cooling on the idea of unitary authorities. While my hon. Friend is responding to that point, perhaps he would also comment on the fact that there are no such things as metropolitan boroughs in the list of councils.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do not know the answer to my hon. Friend's second question and no doubt the Minister can deal with that when he responds, but I heard my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire raising the same query sotto voce.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold may be right about his first point—I do not know—but it is important that those who follow our proceedings with great care know that we as an all-party Committee have tried to ensure that the local authority closest to those people will make the crucial decisions. In

another debate—perhaps on stand part—we shall return to the role, or otherwise, of regional decision making, but I wanted to place my concern on the record at this stage.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Purely for the avoidance of doubt, I would like to ask the Minister to assure me that my local authority, Bath and North East Somerset council, will be a licensing authority. It is in neither Wales nor Scotland, so it is not covered by paragraphs (b) or (c). It is not a council of the Isles of Scilly. It is not a common council of the City of London. It is not a London borough council and it is not a district council. As I understand the Minister's definition, Bath and North East Somerset council has suddenly become a county council for a county—not that I knew we had one—in which there are no district councils. It is certainly not a county and, to my knowledge, to this day it has never been known as a county council.

Several hon. Members rose—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am in difficulty, but I give way to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones).

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Newcastle city council is not a district council, but a metropolitan borough council. North Tyneside and Gateshead councils were in existence before the Conservatives did away with Tyne and Wear county council. Does he agree that Newcastle city council is not covered?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The honest answer is that I have not the foggiest notion, because of the gobbledegook that came from the Minister. I hope that he will get up and, instead of just reading his brief, explain the position in common language that we can all understand. I want to know how Bath and North East Somerset council has become a county council for a county.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The answer is remarkably simple. Unitary authorities will not be able to have licensed casinos, and nor will metropolitan ones. That is the Government's way of limiting the number of casinos around the country. It is relatively simple, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not spotted it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but we are all now desperate to hear from the Minister, so I shall resume my seat.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

What about Sheffield?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Sheffield is okay; I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.

Several questions have been asked about the role of the various councils. I have asked my officials to check with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. [Interruption.] It is not the ODPM's fault. I wish the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) would wait. He argues that there has been no dialogue, and now I am supposed to have accused another Department.

There are some concerns. We shall get the absolute definitions, and I shall bring them back to the Committee. I shall ask the ODPM to make clear exactly what they are. As I understand it, the definitions have been taken broadly from the Licensing Act 2003. I shall check it and respond to

the hon. Gentleman's concerns and questions at the earliest opportunity.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Regardless of whether the wording is correct, will the Minister assure us that it is his intention that unitary authorities such as Bath and North East Somerset council, Newcastle city council and others like them would be considered licensing authorities under the Bill?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The answer to that is yes. In trying to evolve local authorities' ability to be the driving force for regeneration of their economies, we are increasingly putting powers into their hands, whether that is to do with gambling or licensing, so that they are not reactive, but can become proactive. That is the Government's clear position. We are trying to work with authorities in respect of licensing on liquor and gambling and in other areas where levers can be pulled to move forward the economies of the local authorities. The rationale for that is to put them together and to bring them as near to the point of action as possible.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

So the answer was yes.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

With a good explanation.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We have learned a second lesson in record time this afternoon. When the Minister gives a gabbled response that no one can understand, it means we are on to something, and I think that we are on to something here. It would be helpful if the Minister checked with the ODPM, which has landed him in the proverbial, that we had the appropriate list of licensing authorities.

There is a difference between the licensing functions of various councils and the planning functions, which also come into an assessment of where casinos and gambling institutions are to go. I cannot see how unitary councils are covered, but if there is an assurance from the ODPM that they are, and the definition of a county council for a county in which there are no district councils covers it, fair enough. A valid point was made.

In the interests of clarity, why do we not use the term ''unitary council'', which everyone understands? It is understood in the minds of the general public, who would not understand what a county council for a county in which there are no district councils actually means. I am making a plea for simplicity. If we mean ''unitary'', let us include that in the Bill. If there is a gap in relation to the metropolitan boroughs, they should also be included. They are certainly not district councils in my view. Following the Minister's assurance that he will return with the appropriate definitions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for what he said, because I spoke before his response. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that we have learned the

valuable lesson that, whenever the Minister reads out an official brief very fast, we can assume that we are on to something and keep pressing the matter. The Minister's comment that he will return to us with a definition was helpful.

Under clause stand part, I can refer in more detail to my concerns about the regional aspect of the issue. I know that it will, to some extent, be dealt with by a later part of the Bill but it is relevant here, because there is a danger of confusion in the scheme that the Government have put forward, which is unnecessarily complex. The best body to decide whether there should be a casino and its related developments in a particular area is the local authority. That issue is covered by the licensing authorities clause—clause 2.

There is also the spectre of regional bodies deciding where in the region the casino might be appropriate. Only after that will the more local local authority, if I may put it like that, consider the proposal in relation to licensing. The scrutiny Committee and, in particular on Second Reading, its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), whose work on the Bill has been widely recognised on all sides, made the point that it would be more sensible if Parliament took a national decision about what is appropriate. Many people on the Opposition Benches, and on the Government Back Benches, who are less in favour of liberalisation than I am, also believe that it is the responsibility of Parliament to decide on issues such as the one that we are talking about.

I remember vividly that, on Second Reading last Monday evening, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), a widely respected Member, whose view of the legislation is different from mine, said that Parliament ought to decide that there should be just one new casino—a pilot one. He said that he would be perfectly happy for it to be in Blackpool. Whichever view one takes on whether there should be one, four, six or any number of new casinos, surely that decision could be taken nationally, with the subsequent licensing decisions taken by the most local councils as set out in clause 2.

What worries me is that the Government and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister and his closest allies, including the Minister, want to use the Bill as a mechanism for giving more power to regional bodies. We know why they want to do that. They have always wanted to turn the UK into a place divided into regions, fitting in with the European Union's regional agenda. That is in the face of huge public hostility such as we saw in the north-east, where they tried out the regional referendum because they thought that it was their best chance of getting it through. We know from last week's vote that, if that was their best chance, they have no chance in the rest of the country. That is what they are up to. Anyone who does not realise that has not read the Deputy Prime Minister's speeches of the 10 ten years.

Mr. Banks rose—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Before I call Mr. Banks, I note that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is straying from what is in the clause. There is no mention of regions. We are discussing

licensing authorities. However, he has given way to Mr. Banks, so I call him. Let us make sure that we stick to what we are debating.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I had better not get up then.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I accept your ruling, Mr. Pike. Perhaps I can return to the Government, the Deputy Minister and the Minister's real agenda later. I will certainly give way to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), because I agreed with much of what she said on Second Reading.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

Who am I to say that there should not be one pilot and that it should not be in Blackpool? However, other people might disagree with that.

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the point that I made on Second Reading, which was about the need for transparency. If the Government are going to give directions and say ''There, there and perhaps there'', the Bill could be open to all sorts of challenges and people could reasonably ask, ''Why?'' Will he therefore consider a national framework and the setting of some rules within which the Government can properly operate, so that the local authorities that are interested in the proposals would have some idea of how to bid or to compete?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That is a helpful intervention. I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of transparency, but for that argument to be valid it does not matter who is making the decision. As I am sure she realises, with the huge amounts of money behind some of the overseas companies, even if the Government were to get their wish—I do not think that they will—and the decisions were to be made regionally, there would still be challenges through the courts. Many of those huge, international conglomerates have literally got money to burn if they wish, and they can keep challenging the transparency of those decisions if they are made regionally. There would be a greater guarantee of transparency if Parliament and the Government made the decisions.

As the hon. Lady knows, I was not adopting the argument of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, saying that there should be only one pilot, in Blackpool; I would prefer to liberalise more. I want to ensure that after the Bill is implemented we see regenerative effects in the rundown resorts, including Blackpool. There is very little between her views and mine, but I hope that she understands that her transparency argument, which is a good one, could apply at any level. I want the main decisions to be made in the Bill and the local decision making made by the councils most local to the people. It would be a defensible system.

Not wishing to infringe on your ruling, Mr. Pike, and knowing that we will return to that issue, I just wanted to make the point on stand part that I would have liked to see in this clause a statement that for the avoidance of doubt, as we are putting in unitary

authorities, none of those decisions will be taken regionally. I have made the points that I needed to make, which were important to get on the record.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I will clear up the misunderstanding about the authorities. The clause will define the authorities that have a responsibility for licensing gambling premises and carrying out other associated regulatory functions under the Bill. In England and Wales, they will be the same authorities as those carrying out functions under a parallel provision in the Licensing Act 2003. In Scotland, the authorities will be those licensing bodies that already have responsibility for regulating gambling and the supply of alcohol.

Under the Bill, the authorities will take over all functions undertaken in England and Wales by licensing justices, magistrates, and in Scotland by the licensing board and the local authority. Bearing it in mind that casinos and many bingo clubs also serve alcohol, and that many pubs, clubs and other premises licensed to sell alcohol also have gaming machines, it makes sense to ask the same local authorities to run both systems.

The systems will be different, because apart from anything else the licensing objectives are not identical, but there is clearly a lot of common ground and scope for coherence of approach and efficiency of administration. The approach proposed in the clause will also inject an element of democratic local accountability, which is lacking.

We are confident that the local authorities identified in the clause are the right bodies to license gambling premises, issue permits and carry out the other essentially local regulatory responsibilities for which the Bill provides. We are working closely with the authorities to ensure that they are ready and prepared to take on those responsibilities when the Bill is brought fully into force.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister talks of discussions with the local authorities to ensure that they are ready. I remember that when we were debating the Licensing Bill, assurances were given by the then Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting that the local authorities were being brought on board and knew exactly what was going on. We have just heard about the fees structure and, as was pointed out earlier, many authorities are up in arms about the fees under the Licensing Act 2003. Will the Minister assure us that this time his Department and the local authorities will get their act together, so that the appropriate grant money will be made available to allow the authorities to do their job properly?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I do not want to wander too much into the Licensing Act or, indeed, the level of licensing. We have said absolutely consistently that the fees will be cost-effective, and we believe that they are. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State put a safety valve in the system. We said that the National Audit Office will review the fees and that we would rectify them upwards or downwards if they were wrong. This debate is taking place against a background in which we have consulted widely on the fees, and the Local Government Association and the Local Authorities

Coordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards have made submissions.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I wished to intervene on the Minister. He has sat down, but perhaps I could just make one small observation. The Minister said very clearly that the slight inconsistency that we have identified in respect of responsibility in metropolitan district council areas matches the provisions in the Licensing Act. We have obtained a copy of that Act, and he is entirely wrong. The list of authorities in the Licensing Act is exactly the same as the list of authorities in the Bill. However, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which lists the authorities that may give advice to a regional planning body, has a list that includes a county council, a district council for an area for which there is no county council—the two categories that are included in the Bill—and a third category of metropolitan district council. In other words, a metropolitan district council is not the same as a county council or a district council for an area for which there is no county council. It appears that it is not only the Gambling Bill that is deficient. Perhaps the Licensing Act is also deficient and half the country is not covered by it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I point out to my hon. Friend that in fact the Act is entirely different. The Bill refers to

''a county council for a county in which there are no district councils'',

I thought that he read ''a district council for which there are no county councils'' from the 2004 Act, which is the opposite.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

The wording in the Licensing Act is slightly different. It refers to

''the council of a county in England in which there are no district councils'',

which we can probably take to be the same as a county council in which there are no district councils.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is on to a very good point. The wording in the Licensing Act is much clearer than the wording in the Bill. If the Bill said, ''a council for a county in which there are no districts'', it would be much clearer. The Minister and his officials have lifted and edited the words incorrectly, but no doubt we will get a clearer definition when the Minister has done his checking with his colleague at the ODPM.

Mr. Banks rose—

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can cast light on the matter.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Let the hon. Gentleman respond to the point that has been raised before he gives way again.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

In answer to my hon. Friend, he has made it even clearer that complete confusion reigns over the three pieces of legislation.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Before the hon. Gentleman, who has gone through all this like Sherlock Holmes, gets too

excited, let me just say, fine, I hear what he says. Mistakes may have been made, or we may be right—I do not know, as I did not take the legislation through the House—but obviously both your side and this side missed it. I do not think that it is anything to get excited about. It is not a major political score.

We will rectify any mistake. I will come back to the Committee and explain who has responsibility for liquor licensing and gambling. The hon. Gentleman should not get over-excited, as I shall come back with a rational answer for him.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Just to confuse matters further, the Minister said ''your side'', but I do not have any side.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I promise that I shall remain entirely calm about the matter. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has said in my ear, the so-called triple lock is undermined if we discover that large parts of the country are not covered by the Bill at all. We shall look forward with considerable interest to the Minister's explanation of the apparent contradiction.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I do not want to intrude in this terrible mess. However, because it pays to do so in politics, I just want to point out that the mess of local authorities is entirely the responsibility of successive Conservative Governments.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

Had we introduced yet another layer in the form of regional assemblies, it would have been an even greater mess. Happily, that has not happened.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

At least the Labour Government were prepared to consult. The proposals were rejected, but we consulted, which is far more than the Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher were prepared to do when the abolition of the—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. We are getting wide of clause 2.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

May I shed a little more light on the problem? I served on the Standing Committee considering the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and you were in the Chair, Mr. Pike, so you will remember clearly that we spent almost a whole sitting debating an amendment, very similar to that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, on unitary authorities. Eventually, the Committee was convinced that unitary authorities were covered by the definition in the Bill. However, we carefully probed the idea that metropolitan authorities were very different from district councils. The Minister's Department needs to look carefully to see whether his definitions are consistent with those of the ODPM. I think that he may find that they are not.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Gambling

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 81, in

clause 3, page 2, line 7, after '9', insert 'and section 11'.

This is a probing amendment. We seek clarification from the Minister. Paragraph (b) says in brackets, after ''betting'',

''within the meaning of section 9''.

Our amendment would insert ''and section 11''. It is uncertain whether section 11 has been left out because it relates to prize competitions. It would appear that prize competitions are also subject to the Bill and we believe that a specific reference should be made to avoid any doubt or confusion.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Clause 3 gives a general definition of the concept of gambling as meaning gambling, betting and lotteries. Betting itself is defined in clause 9. The amendment is a probing one, but we are not clear why the hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to add a reference to clause 11. That clause makes it abundantly clear that prize contributions that satisfy the conditions set out in it thereby constitute betting for the purposes of clause 9. Betting of the kind defined in clause 11 is not a different and separate kind of betting from that described in clause 9; it is clause 9 betting. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that and will take it as an explanation in response to his amendment. We resist his amendment and ask him to withdraw it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I have to be honest and say that I did not really understand that. If I am being entirely truthful, there were so many nines and 11s that I was confused about where we ended up. On this occasion, however, I am prepared to take the Minister's assurance. We still have a chance to return to this point when we discuss clauses 9 and 11. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in

clause 3, page 2, line 8, leave out 'entering' and insert 'participating in'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 14 to 17, 23 and 24.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

These are technical drafting amendments. Their purpose is pretty straightforward: it is to introduce clear and consistent language into the clauses that refer to participation in a lottery. The amendments do not serve to change the substance or meaning of the clauses; nor do they introduce any new policy into the Bill. Amendment No. 12 makes it clear that the clause applies only to competitions where all participants are required to guess or predict the answer.

Amendment agreed to.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 27, in

clause 3, page 2, line 8, at end insert

'and subject to section [national lottery]).'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 28 to 34.

Government new clause 3—National Lottery.

Government new schedule 1—Amendment of National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c.39).

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The nature of the national lottery is that money raised for good causes is clearly different from other forms of gambling. The Bill should therefore treat the national lottery separately from the rest of gambling. The national lottery has its own legislation, and any fundamental changes to it are best made through national lottery legislation. However, certain aspects of the Bill should apply to the national lottery. First, it would clearly be inconsistent for any individual who cheats at the national lottery to be treated differently from someone who cheats at gambling. Government new clause 3 makes cheating at the national lottery an offence, punishable to the same extent as someone cheating at any other form of gambling.

Additionally, the provisions relating to the enforceability of contracts should also apply to the national lottery. Those who operate or play the national lottery should have the same assurance that they will receive what they are owed as those entering into any other form of gambling contract.

It is right that the national lottery and the rest of gambling have separate regulators, but that does not mean that they should operate in a vacuum. The Government believe that the gambling commission and the National Lottery Commission should be in regular contact with each other about issues that affect them both. The Bill already attaches a duty for the gambling commission to consult the National Lottery Commission when it becomes aware of a matter in which the National Lottery Commission may have an interest. It also adds a power for the Secretary of State to enforce that.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

Will the Minister clarify for the Committee an issue that arose a few months ago? I believe that a young man in some sort of young offenders institution or even prison won a very large payout on the national lottery. The Secretary of State, as she is wont to do when the newspapers get on to an issue, demanded that action be taken and that such people should be deprived of their benefits from the national lottery. Does the Minister intend to do that?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I do not know the exact details of the case, so it would be wrong of me to respond today, but I will consider the matter and write to the hon. Lady.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I want to ask the Minister a sub-editing question. We have just had a vote on deleting the word ''entering'' and replacing it with ''participating in'', yet the phraseology in new clause 3 is ''entering'' each time. Should it be ''participating in'' or ''entering''?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I shall finish the rest of my explanation. My officials will give me an answer to the hon. Gentleman's point, which I will give to him when I sit down.

Paragraph 1 to the new schedule adds the same requirements to the National Lottery Commission. For the first time, the Bill provides a definition of a lottery. The national lottery is the biggest lottery in the country, so it is entirely correct that the definition

should also apply to it. Paragraph 2 to the new schedule would achieve that.

Government amendment No. 33 repeals section 2 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. That is consequential on the repeal of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, which the Bill replaces. None of the provisions will extend to Northern Ireland. The amendment therefore simply prevents the repeal of section 2 in Northern Ireland.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I want to raise a couple of issues and make a couple of comments. I was interested in what the Minister said about people who might defraud the national lottery. I entirely understand what he is getting at, but the thought immediately came to mind that that is a bit rich coming from a Government who in opposition said during the passage of the National Lottery etc. Bill that lottery money should never be used for purposes that should really be funded by the taxpayer. Since they have been in government, they have hijacked a large proportion of what should have gone to good causes and directed it to purposes connected with health and education—which should be taxpayer funded. The biggest defrauding of the national lottery has been carried out by the Government.

Nevertheless, I know that that is not what the Minister is aiming at in the provisions that we are considering. I am surprised to hear him say that he does not remember the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) referred. I accept his word that he does not, and I do not expect him to be able to answer off the top of his head, but I am surprised, because it received huge publicity not only at the time but regularly ever afterwards. The person concerned has wasted all his money and been involved in breaches of the law following his release from the institution, which has received further coverage.

When I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of National Heritage before 1997, Ministers were provided with a news cutting service, so that every story that related to the Department's work—particularly something as potentially controversial as lottery winners—was automatically given to Ministers. Perhaps only the Secretary of State sees those things now, or perhaps it is only the Under-Secretary in the House of Lords.

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said; I think that it sticks in the craw of law-abiding people, who pay their pound, their standing order of £16 or whatever to compete in the lottery for a week or eight weeks at a time, when large wins are handed over to criminals. That undermines the purpose of the lottery. The Minister says that the Bill is not the right provision in which to do something about that, and that any changes should be made by amending national lottery legislation, but the fact remains that the Bill deals with aspects of the national lottery.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I am sure that my hon. Friend clearly remembers that many of our national

newspapers were in full flight on the issue and Ministers, including the Secretary of State, were very keen to suggest that the fault lay in the drafting of the original Act by a previous Conservative Government. Now that the moment has arrived to tackle the matter, the whole thing has been forgotten.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend is right. Time after time, not only in matters that are the province of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but across the Government, Ministers are always in favour of the knee-jerk response that gets the eye-catching headline: ''Of course we will do something.'' However, faced with the acid test of a real opportunity—which the Bill provides, as my hon. Friend points out—they duck it. They think that the press agenda has moved on. My hon. Friend, as a distinguished former journalist, knows how the media caravan moves on. The story is no longer the focus of attention. I hope, however, that now that my hon. Friend has raised the matter, she will be able to alert some of her friends in the media about yet another broken promise, and yet another occasion when the Government have proved to be all talk but no action.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I remember the case particularly well; the thing that annoyed me most was that I had not won that amount of money on the lottery. I do not understand; the guy did not steal the lottery ticket. I assume that he paid his pound. I do not understand why people who might find themselves detained at Her Majesty's pleasure should be precluded from joining in the lottery, if they want to pay their pound. What is the problem?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. That intervention was very helpful to me; I was just thinking that the point that is being debated is not relevant to the offences under discussion. I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will bring his remarks speedily to a close.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall of course abide by your ruling, Mr. Pike, but my hon. Friend's intervention, which gave rise to this short passage of the debate, was relevant, because the fact that the Government amendments and the new clause and schedule deal with one category of offences in relation to the lottery means that the Government could have used the opportunity to deal with some other issues had they chosen to do so. My answer to the hon. Member for West Ham, to finish the point, is that I think that most law-abiding citizens think that those in prison should not be allowed to buy lottery tickets. If we had a referendum, I suspect that the votes would be on my side, but we shall leave that for another day.

There is an opportunity to raise one other serious point about the new clause and new schedule that I wanted to ask the Minister about. Government amendment No. 34 inserts a note into schedule 14 stating that the repeal of section 2 of the National Lottery etc. Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland. I would like the Minister to explain why that is being inserted into the Bill, because I do not understand what makes Northern Ireland different. I would be grateful if he responded to that point.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Just for clarity, I was not saying that the issue was not important. I was saying that it was

not an offence that related to the clause that we are debating.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I shall respond to the question that was asked about entering, which is the word the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) used. ''Entering'' is used in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which is why it appears in the amendments—to maintain consistency. On the question of Northern Ireland, none of the provisions in the Bill will extend to that country. The amendment simply prevents the repeal of section 2 of the 1993 Act in Northern Ireland. That was the explanation I gave, and I stand by it.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I am sorry if this sounds pedantic, but although I understand the advice given I am now more puzzled as to why the original wording in the previous amendments was carried. I cannot work out why it is necessary to include the two phraseologies in the same Bill.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I thought that I had given a reasonable explanation of that. I shall ask my officials and counsel to supply further explanation if the hon. Gentleman is still concerned about the wording, and I shall return that to the Committee. The advice given by counsel was to maintain consistency and simplicity and to marry the national lottery with provisions in the Bill, which we believe protects the punter even more than at the moment. If that is not right, I shall return to the matter and explain it to the Committee.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Is the Minister saying that, given that it was necessary to table amendments to the draft Bill, the Licensing Act 2003 would equally benefit from such changes—in other words, the National Lottery etc. Act wrong?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I am not saying that the 1993 Act is wrong. We believe that there are more protections relating to offences under the Bill that were not in the 1993 Act. If the hon. Gentleman reads my explanation in Hansard tomorrow, it will be clear that where we are using the powers in the Bill, weaknesses in the 1993 Act will be strengthened by the amendments.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The last line of new schedule 1 states:

'' 'lottery' has the same meaning as in the Gambling Act 2005''.

I am not aware of a Gambling Act 2005. Are we now legislating on the basis of what may or may not happen in the future?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

We can dance on a pinhead if we want to, but I thought that this was the Gambling Act 2005.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Where does it say that?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It will become law in 2005.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

It could be the Gambling Act 2004 if we hurried up.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

In that case, we would table an amendment and make it 2004.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

One purpose of the Bill is to streamline the regulation of gambling, so that it is consistent

across all forms of gambling. Until now, gambling regulation has operated separately and differently for different forms of gambling. The Bill will introduce consistency by means of a regulatory mechanism. The product of that is that we need a single definition of gambling that is regulated by the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Remote gambling

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 75, in

clause 4, page 2, line 18, at end insert

'other than that used for the playing of linked and multiple bingo under a bingo operator's licence.'.

The game of linked bingo is played simultaneously in a number of bingo club premises linked by a two-way audio connection, so that the drawing and the calling of the numbers are contemporaneous. The calling takes place in one of the premises and is heard in all the others. A claim in one of the premises is also heard in the others. That type of bingo may be played only under the authority of a bingo club licence issued under part II of the Gaming Act 1968. Almost 580 bingo clubs play linked bingo at some time, although they do not play it in one link because technology cannot yet accommodate that number of premises in a fully interactive mode.

Multiple bingo is played jointly in different bingo clubs, with the drawing of the number taking place before the beginning of the game at a central location licensed especially for that purpose. Those numbers are transmitted via a computer connection to all participating bingo clubs. The game is played in each of the participating clubs and numbers are called in a specified period that begins and ends at the same time for all clubs. Each club produces its winner, the details of whom are transmitted back to the central location. The overall winner is the person who called ''House'' with the lowest number of numbers called. That type of bingo was authorised by the Gaming (Bingo) Act 1985. It may be played only in bingo club premises licensed under part II of the Gaming Act. About 450 clubs play the main form of multiple bingo, which is called the ''national game'', every day of the year except Christmas day.

Thus, while the two games are slightly different, both use a link. That link between premises operates by means of remote communication. The clause on remote gambling discusses remote communication. The fear is that, because of the link by the normal communication channels covered in clause 4, the clubs will be faced with a licence under remote gambling as well as their licence for bingo. The amendment seeks to ensure that that is not the case and to include in the Bill provision that those clubs may derogate from the all-embracing catch-all situation outlined by remote communication in clause 4.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I will be commendably brief. I support what my hon. Friend said. I think that the area is a valuable one on which to get clarification. I, too, have

received various representations from those connected with the bingo industry. The clause is of great concern and, unless it is satisfactorily cleared up, it will be much more difficult for bingo clubs to compete with casinos with prizes of any value. I would be grateful if, when the Minister answers, he told me whether the clause also covers the linking of casinos for prizes. As he probably knows, if one goes into a casino, one can place a bet on poker and, by placing an extra sum of money, link into a central scheme that includes more than one casino, so that there may be quite a large jackpot at the end of the day. I am curious to know whether this part of the clause covers that.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Amendment No. 75 would exclude linked or multiple bingo from clause 4, which covers remote gambling. The Government are resisting that.

The Bill contains a clause setting out the concept of remote gambling to cover gambling where the participants are not face to face on the same premises. Players who participate in linked or multiple bingo in different bingo halls are clearly neither face to face nor on the same premises.

Linked or multiple bingo takes place in many separate bingo halls throughout the country. The Bill does much to remove the burdens on bingo operators, particularly those relating to linked or multiple bingo. Such bingo is currently subject to a host of detailed regulation, such as rules about conduct and financial limits. The Bill does away with that, but it would not be appropriate to exclude such bingo from clause 4. Any gambling that is operated with remote communication equipment must be regulated through the appropriate licence by the gambling commission. Companies wishing to offer linked or multiple bingo will require a remote bingo operating licence with appropriate licence conditions to ensure fairness and protection for players. Bingo halls with a general bingo operating and premises licence will be able to offer linked or multiple bingo if they hold a remote bingo operating licence, or they can use the services of someone else who holds a licence.

The Bill must maintain coherent regulation of remote gambling and the amendment would damage that, so I ask the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire to withdraw his amendment.

In reply to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, the answer is yes.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

So that there can be no doubt, will the Minister confirm that he said that the linked bingo games that currently take place will continue to take place and that nothing in the Bill will prevent that?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is correct.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.