Gambling Bill

Public Bill Committee, 16 December 2004.

Standing Committee B

Clause 308 - Broadcasting

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 398, in clause 308, page 134, line 15, leave out 'that section' and insert

'section 319 of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)'.

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Pike. Subsection (2) could leave one unsure as to whether Ofcom must have regard to section 307 of the Gambling Act or section 319 of the Communications Act 2003 when it is setting, reviewing or revising standards for broadcast advertisements for gambling. Clearly, it is the latter section that is applicable, and the amendment would make that far clearer than does the existing reference simply to ''that section''.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire, as always, to strive for clarity, the amendment is unnecessary. It is perfectly clear that the section of the Communications Act referred to in subsection (2) is the same as that referred to in subsection (1) directly above it. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

On the basis of the Minister's clarification, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 399, in clause 308, page 134, line 16, at end insert

'in conjunction with any relevant bodies empowered by it under section 1(7) of the Communications Act 2003.'.

The purpose of the amendment is to reflect in the Bill the co-regulatory relationship that has existed between Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority since 1 November 2004 in respect of broadcast advertising. Section 1 of the Communications Act concerns Ofcom's general powers and functions, including its ability to transfer and assign to other identities. Section 1(7) refers to part 2 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and is the instrument by which Ofcom is able to contract out its functions as appropriate. Ofcom's first use of that power was in the area of broadcast advertising regulation a little over a month ago.

Ofcom has also contracted out the code-making powers for broadcast advertising to the Committee of Advertising Practice (Broadcast)—or BCAP, as it is known—which exists within the ASA system. Ofcom continues to have strong supervisory back-stop powers over the code-making process, and BCAP will continue to work in partnership with Ofcom in setting, reviewing and revising standards.

The amendment reflects the existence of this new but already close co-regulatory relationship and would serve to ensure that the rules that are initially established—and, undoubtedly, subsequently reviewed and revised—for broadcast advertisements for gambling products and premises are the best that they can be.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that Ofcom should set and review its standards for gambling advertising in conjunction with the body to which the relevant functions have been contracted out. However, I do not believe that the amendment would have that effect; instead, it would serve only to confuse the arrangements recently put in place between Ofcom and BCAP. Under those arrangements, BCAP sets the broadcast advertising codes, and appropriate back-stop powers are reserved to Ofcom, which is the regulator.

The Bill does not change those arrangements. It may be that the responsibility for setting the codes for broadcast advertising for gambling should similarly be the primary responsibility of BCAP, with BCAP undertaking consultation with the gambling commission and ensuring that the standards reflect the provisions of the regulation under clause 307. I am advised that to achieve that we shall most likely need to introduce a further contracting-out order, as provided for in section 1(7) of the Communications Act 2003. We shall consider that provision further with Ofcom, but it is clearly not appropriate for this Bill. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am most grateful for the Minister's explanation, and for the recognition that some amendment to the contracting-out arrangements may be required, as provided for in section 1(7) of the 2003 Act. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 401, in clause 308, page 134, line 20, at end insert

', and

(c) shall consult one or more persons who appear to the Commission to have a relevant responsibility for regulating the advertising industry'.

This amendment uses words similar to those in clause 23(10)(e). It requires the gambling commission to consult persons whom it identifies as having a relevant responsibility for regulating the advertising industry when it issues or revises a code that includes provision about the advertising of gambling. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those same persons who the commission consults when issuing, reviewing or revising a code under clause 23 are also involved in any work Ofcom may undertake on broadcast advertising codes.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

As with amendment No. 399, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that when Ofcom sets and reviews its standards for gambling advertising, it should do so in consultation with experienced persons in that field, and indeed in a way that is likely to produce consistency across the media for the benefit of advertisers and members of the public. However, the amendment would allow the gambling commission to dictate to Ofcom who those people should be, and it confuses a clear distinction in the Bill between the responsibilities for broadcasting and non-broadcasting advertising. It will cut across the arrangements set up by Ofcom for contracting out its broadcasting functions, which were in large part designed to achieve the same ends as those sought by the hon. Gentleman.

As I explained in response to the previous amendment, we shall consider with Ofcom whether the responsibilities set out in the Bill should be similarly contracted out to the BCAP, but given the contracting out already in place and the close working relationship between the broadcasting and non-broadcasting arms of BCAP, it would be frankly unhelpful to introduce the gambling commission formally to the process of code setting, particularly if such responsibilities were added to those contracted out by Ofcom to BCAP. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister has given an assurance that he and his officials will consider the matter. Will he undertake either to write to the Committee about it, if that is possible, or, if the timing fails to fit in with the passage of the Bill through this House, perhaps make that information available to our colleagues who will debate the Bill in the other place?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is a very good suggestion. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and members of the Committee, and ensure that those who deal with the Bill in the other place are informed as well.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am most grateful to the Minister for that assurance, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 308 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 309 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 310 - Foreign gambling

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 416, in clause 310, page 135, line 21, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (2A),'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 417, in clause 310, page 135, line 25, at end insert—

'(2A) Gibraltar, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles do not fall within the definition of ''foreign gambling'' for the purpose of this section.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Pike. The amendments relate to a matter that was raised with me on an urgent basis by the representative of the Gibraltar Government in the UK, Mr. Albert Poggio, who called me on Tuesday lunchtime on behalf of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Mr. Peter Caruana. I believe—the Minister will no doubt confirm this—that the Gibraltar Government have also been in touch with the Foreign Office and received a reassuring reply on the point that I am about to make. Perhaps the Foreign Office has talked to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the issue. I certainly hope so.

The Gibraltar Government's concern was that there needed to be clarification that there was no question of Gibraltar being treated as a foreign state and falling foul of the provision. I have been working with the Government of Gibraltar for a considerable time. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Throughout my time in Parliament, I have been a supporter of the Government of Gibraltar and an active member of the all-party Gibraltar group. Whatever the legislation, I am always concerned to ensure that the position of Gibraltar is safeguarded.

While drafting the amendment, I thought that I may as well seek clarification on behalf of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, with whose representatives I have also worked closely. In recent years, with the growth of remote gaming, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar have seen a substantial boost to their economies. I am sure that, whichever party was in power, Her Majesty's Government would not want to do anything to damage those economies. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on this point. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendments. It will be useful to clarify the position of a number of territories in relation to the clause. I will take Gibraltar first, because it was the issue that he raised. As a territory for whose external relations the UK is responsible, Gibraltar is a member of the European economic area. Therefore, a gambling operator based in Gibraltar will not commit an offence by advertising in the United Kingdom. To make that absolutely clear the Government intend to table an amendment on Report to confirm the position in relation to Gibraltar.

The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are a slightly different case. Those territories do not fall under UK jurisdiction for the purpose of the EEA, so operators based there would technically be classed as operators of foreign gambling under the clause. However, subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State the power to specify particular non-EEA jurisdictions from which advertising is permitted. In that way, the Secretary of State can create a white list of non-EEA countries that are allowed to advertise their gambling products in Great Britain.

In order to be approved for inclusion on the white list, a country must be able to demonstrate that it has a regulatory regime that meets standards set out in the Bill and fulfils the Government's key licensing objectives. It must also conform to the principles of fair tax competition and transparency. Those matters will be assessed by the DCMS and the Treasury respectively.

The Secretary of State has received correspondence from Alderney and the Isle of Man on this issue and has offered them assurances that they will be white- listed. Operators based in Alderney and the Isle of Man will therefore be able to advertise in Britain. We have not yet received any requests from the Channel Islands to be included on the white list, but we would happy to consider such a request.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister may not be familiar with this, but I should explain that Alderney is one of the Channel Islands. He just said that his Department has not received requests from the Channel Islands, but he should have said the other Channel Islands. I was delighted to hear the earlier part of what he said.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I stand corrected. As my officials nod, I shall continue.

I hope that I have clarified the position of those territories, and although I shall resist the hon. Gentleman's amendment, I shall undertake to re-examine the clause to ensure it properly reflects what I have described.

I have agreed with the Minister of State for Northern Ireland that the application of the clause should be extended to cover Northern Ireland in order to ensure equal protection for all citizens of the United Kingdom. We are in discussions with those in Northern Ireland about the appropriate way of implementing a white list consistent with the devolution arrangements set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to make that clarification and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That is enormously helpful and I am grateful to the Minister for his thorough reply. It will be enormously reassuring to the Government of Gibraltar, and no doubt to the Government of Alderney. The Minister has clearly left open the possibility that the other Channel Islands, particularly Jersey and Guernsey, will be able to contact his Department in due course.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will table Government amendments on Report to enable the specific position of Gibraltar and Alderney to be clarified. I am also grateful for what he said about Northern Ireland. I am pleased that my amendment has enabled this helpful debate, and in light of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 310 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 311 - Territorial application: non-remote advertising

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 405, in clause 311, page 135, line 36, at beginning insert 'wholly or partly'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 406, in clause 311, page 135, line 38, leave out

'prohibitions in sections 309(1) and 310(1) apply'

and insert

'prohibition in section 309(1) applies'.

No. 407, in clause 311, page 135, line 40, at beginning insert 'wholly or partly'.

No. 408, in clause 311, page 135, line 41, at end insert—

'( ) The prohibition in section 310(1) applies to anything in the way of advertising which is done—

(a) wholly or partly in the United Kingdom, and

(b) otherwise than by way of remote communication.'.

No. 409, in clause 312, page 136, line 20, at end insert

'; for which purpose a reference to Great Britain shall be taken as a reference to the United Kingdom.'.

No. 410, in clause 336, page 150, line 33, after '40,', insert—

'( ) section 310,'.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The clause clarifies the application of part 16, where advertising is by non-remote means, such as a poster on a hoarding. When advertising takes place in Great Britain by non-remote means, the following provisions will apply. There will be regulations controlling the form, content, timing and location of advertising of gambling, and offences will be created of advertising unlawful gambling and advertising foreign gambling.

Amendments Nos. 405 and 407 are drafting amendments to ensure that letters or other materials sent from abroad are also subject to those provisions. The inclusion of the words ''wholly or partly'' acknowledges that although letters may be targeted at people in Britain, at least part of the process takes place abroad in the location where the letter is posted.

For example, a letter sent to Britain advertising gambling in Australia—whether the gambling is remote or non-remote—will fall foul of the offence of foreign gambling under clause 310, as Australia is not in an European economic area state. Amendments Nos. 406, 408, 409 and 410 ensure that clause 310, which prohibits advertising of foreign gambling, applies to Northern Ireland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

As Committee members will be aware, the majority of the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. One exception is the repeal by clauses 319 and 336 of sections 9 to 9B of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981, which extend to Northern Ireland. As clause 310 is in part intended to replace those sections, it is necessary to extend it to Northern Ireland as well. That is what the amendments achieve. We need to replace the protection provided to Northern Ireland by those sections of the 1981 Act, but it is important to note that extending clause 310 to Northern Ireland brings additional protections to that territory by allowing decisions on the advertising of foreign gambling to be made on regulatory grounds, as well as for revenue protection.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 406, in clause 311, page 135, line 38, leave out

'prohibitions in sections 309(1) and 310(1) apply'

and insert

'prohibition in section 309(1) applies'.

No. 407, in clause 311, page 135, line 40, at beginning insert 'wholly or partly'.

No. 408, in clause 311, page 135, line 41, at end insert—

'( ) The prohibition in section 310(1) applies to anything in the way of advertising which is done—

(a) wholly or partly in the United Kingdom, and

(b) otherwise than by way of remote communication.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Clause 311, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 312 - Territorial application: remote advertising

Clause 314 - Enforceability of gambling contracts

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The clause makes gambling debts recoverable by law. The occasional incident when a bookmaker has not paid out winnings naturally tends to grab the headlines and Opposition Members certainly do not defend bookmakers who welch on their customers. However, the incidence of punters failing to honour their debts is more frequent and goes largely unnoticed outside bookmaking circles. In fact, even within the industry bad debt is recognised as a business cost that must be managed.

The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 did not admit the ability to recover gambling debts by law through an oversight, the thinking at that time being that if a gambler suffered a rush of blood to the head and got heavily into debt, the gambling operator should not be able to bankrupt the debtor or force them to sell their house and thereby penalise their family and so on. On the other side of the coin, the main reason for a gambling operator defaulting on a genuine winning bet is, usually, when his business has failed. From time to time, of course, cheats emerge, but generally a punter suing a failed operator would, even if successful, end up in a queue of creditors. It might be said that bookmakers would not be obliged to sue a non-payer but, given the opportunity, no doubt some would.

In short, the clause is unlikely to bring any great benefit to anyone other than the lawyers, and perhaps the Minister should explain what advantage he thinks it would have over the present situation.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I am not in the business of giving lawyers even more money and profits than they receive now—[Interruption.] Do hon. Members not realise that we are streamlining the bureaucracy and making it easier for people to operate businesses? As the hon. Gentleman said, gambling contracts are unenforceable under current law. The clause brings gambling contracts into line with other contracts by providing that a contract relating to gambling will not of itself render the contract unenforceable. The provision does not override any other rule of law that prevents enforcement on the grounds of unlawfulness.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was trying to catch your eye, Mr. Pike, but failed to do so and perhaps I can raise my query by way of intervention.

While the Minister is dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), can he give us guidance, either now or in writing, about sleeper bets, which I raised on Second Reading on behalf of the British Horseracing Board? This seems to be the appropriate clause—while we are discussing the legality of gambling debts—on which to explore the Government's plans for sleeper bets and what will happen to the money involved. As I failed to catch your eye, Mr. Pike, perhaps the Minister would agree to write to me about that.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I will try to answer the point about sleeper bets later.

I return first to the comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. Gamblers could be encouraged to pay too much, which might have been one reason for the old provision, but the Bill will protect consumers directly through the operating licence conditions and controls. That is a significant move forward from the previous Act and a clarification.

On sleeper bets, we are in discussion with the bookmaking industry about the possibility of a voluntary code of practice. With that, I hope that the clause can stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 314 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 315 - Power of Gambling Commission to void bet

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The clause allows the gambling commission to void a bet if it is satisfied that the bet was substantially unfair. Again, although the intention is laudable, problems may emerge because of the way that the provision is constructed.

Let us consider a situation in which the connection of a racehorse lays his horse on a betting exchange at an attractive price, in the knowledge that the horse will not run, is unfit or will be stopped by his jockey. That is known as laying to lose, and that type of activity has generated a great deal of adverse publicity for racing in recent months. Let us say that the commission becomes aware of that corrupt activity and voids the bet. As I read the clause, only the bet or bets entered into by the person who interfered with the outcome of the event will be voided. However, thousands of other people are likely to have placed bets on the same race, and all of those bets will have been affected in some way by the corrupt activity. For example, hundreds of betting shop punters may have backed the horse that did not try to win, and were therefore defrauded. Equally, the horse that wins the race might have lost if all its opponents had run on their merits.

It is not difficult to imagine that there would be considerable unrest and disillusionment if betting shop punters were to learn that, although a particular bet had been voided because of corrupt practice, all other losing bets in the race would stand. The effect would be that anyone who backed the non-trier along with the perpetrator of the fraud would get their money back, but other punters who had backed the same horse with a bookmaker would lose.

Voiding all bets on a horse or race would not be a practical solution because the majority of cash bets are settled quickly, and it could be some time after the race that the alleged corruption was exposed. It would then be impossible to inform, trace or identify punters entitled to their money back.

There is no suggestion that the perpetrator of that type of fraud should be allowed to benefit, or that those with whom they bet should be disadvantaged, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister's explanation of what other sanctions he feels a perpetrator might face. For example, will the commission have the power to ban the perpetrator from betting in future? Can the commission prosecute the individual, or will it refer matters to the Crown Prosecution Service?

I do not think that the industry as a whole is opposed to the Government's aims as outlined in the clause, but it is keen to know what measures would be put in place as a real deterrent to the return of the circumstances that we have discussed. Would the Government take strong action against the offender in addition to ensuring that he received no benefit from his corrupt activity?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I shall give the Committee the general background, and then come to the specifics that the hon. Gentleman raised.

The clause gives the gambling commission the power to make an order to void unfair bets. The order will cover bets accepted by, or through, the holder of any of the licences mentioned in the clause. When the order is made, the unfair bet in question will be void, and any contract or other arrangement relating to the bet will also be void. Any money paid in relation to the bet must be returned to the person who paid it. That mechanism is an essential safeguard to customers and betting operators, and will enable the commission to support sports regulators.

We recognise that the power must come with some qualifications. The commission can make an order only once it is satisfied that a bet is substantially unfair. In deciding whether a bet was unfair, the commission must consider the factors listed. The commission can issue an order to void a bet only within six months of the result of the bet being determined. When a party has been convicted of cheating, the commission will be allowed an unlimited time to issue an order. We can remedy injustice through voiding, but it is unfair and unnecessary to void all bets on the race. We cannot deal with everything. The point does not apply. So, on the specific point, the answer is yes, but on the general point, it is no.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 315 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That further consideration be now adjourned.—[Mr. Watson.]

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

On 16 November, I set out to the Committee our proposals to set an initial limit of eight on the number of regional casinos. I promised that there would be a statement of the Government's overarching national policy on casinos and that we would describe in more detail how the initial limit would work in practice. There is considerable interest in Parliament and elsewhere about the proposals, and with your permission, Mr. Pike, I will use this opportunity to set them out in more detail.

The Government's policy on casinos is, as everybody knows, based on the three broad objectives of the Gambling Bill: to protect children and the vulnerable, to prevent gambling from being a source of crime and to ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way. Britain has a low level of problem gambling, and we are committed to maintaining that record. Casinos are already tightly regulated and the Gambling Bill will strengthen the strict controls that are in place.

There are, however, a number of regulations that the Government believe are outdated. The 24-hour rule, the ban on advertising and the permitted areas rule unnecessarily restrict customer choice and discourage investment and economic regeneration. The tourism and leisure industries are increasingly important sectors of our economy. The casino proposals in the Bill, with the emphasis on increased regulation, can make a positive contribution to those sectors. Regional casinos, in particular, offer clear potential for regeneration. They not only provide gambling activities but may also include a range of other facilities such as hotel accommodation, restaurants, live entertainment and other leisure attractions. Many parts of the country could benefit greatly from regeneration through such leisure developments.

The Government recognise, however, that the casino proposals in the Bill represent a significant change and that we need to take a cautious approach to assess whether their introduction will lead to any increase in problem gambling. We have taken the view that the risk of an increase in problem gambling will be reduced if a limit is imposed on the number of casinos. We announced our intention to set a limit on the number of regional casinos, and I said at the time that the Government would consider whether any consequential changes were necessary to avoid proliferation of other categories of casino. Our conclusion is that the limit on the number of regional casinos will lead to a significantly greater rise in the number of small and large casinos than would otherwise have been the case.

That has made us reconsider the potential risk posed by small and large casinos. We now believe that, as with regional casinos, it is right to set an initial limit of eight each on the number of large and small casinos. The Government believe that, in order properly to assess the impact of those new casinos, there needs to be a sufficient number of casinos in each category to allow their impact to be assessed in a range of areas and types of location that might be suitable. Those include, for example, urban centres and seaside resorts in different parts of Britain. A limit on regional, large and small casinos of eight each is consistent with that aim and ensures that any risk is minimised.

The Government will appoint an independent advisory panel to recommend where the locations of the regional, large and small casinos should be. No earlier than three years after the award of the first premises licence, the Government will ask the gambling commission to advise on whether the introduction of the new types of casino has led to an increase in problem gambling or is increasing the risk of that. We believe that such a period is necessary to ensure that a full assessment can be made.

Once that assessment has been made, it will be easier to judge the continuing need for a limit. If, on the basis of that assessment, the Government decide to allow more casinos to be established, the order allowing that will need to be approved by Parliament. None of those provisions will affect the ability of a local authority to refuse to have any new casinos of any size category in their area. Today, we are making available a document that sets out our policy in detail, including the role of the advisory panel on new casino locations and arrangements for existing casinos.

I will briefly set out how the different parts of the process will fit together. The independent advisory panel will make recommendations on the locations of the new casinos. It will be appointed by the Secretary of State and will need to have knowledge and expertise in a range of issues, including planning, securing regeneration, tourism and addressing the social impacts of gambling. In order to ensure that the impact of the new casinos can be assessed on the basis of a broad range of information and experience, the advisory panel will be asked to identify areas for the new casinos that will provide a good range of types of location and a good geographical spread of locations across Britain.

Subject to those criteria, the panel will be asked to choose areas likely to benefit from a casino in economic development terms. It will be asked to present the Minister with a list of up to eight recommended areas for each of the three categories of casino. After consulting the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly, the Secretary of State will decide which location to choose.

I will say a few words about the role of the planning system. In England, regional planning bodies, as part of their development of the regional spatial strategies, will need to consider possible broad locations for regional casinos within their region, taking into account national planning policy guidelines. Before the panel finalises its recommendations on regional casinos, it will need to ensure that they are compatible with the broad locations identified in the regional spatial strategies. The identification of specific sites for all three categories of casino will be a matter for the local planning authorities in their local development frameworks, having regard to national policy and the regional spatial strategy.

Local planning authorities will also be responsible for deciding applications for casino development. Operators will be required to apply for planning permission in the usual way and all applications will be considered on their merits and in line with national and local planning policy. Applications may come forward at any stage. The decision on whether they should be called in—the decision by the First Secretary of State—will be made in light of the Government's call-in policy and the particular circumstances of the case.

On the licensing system, the gambling commission will award operating licences to companies on the basis of the usual licensing criteria, but the process will incorporate an additional stringent test on social responsibility, to reflect the fact that the casinos will present new risks in relation to social harm. Operators will need to demonstrate a commitment to reduce the risk posed to vulnerable people and to make information and assistance available to people using the casinos who may be affected by problems related to gambling.

There will be no limit on the number of operating licences that may be granted. The initial limit on the number of new casinos will be given effect through the premises licensing. A local licensing authority will only be able to award a casino premises licence if one has been identified for its area. The process for awarding a premises licence will have two stages. The first will be a regulatory test to ensure that all proposals satisfy the premises licensing requirement, which is in the Bill. The second stage will be triggered where there are more applications for a casino premises licence than the local licensing authority is permitted to grant.

The second stage will involve a competition held by the local authority on the wider casino proposals. We will consult the Local Government Association and others about how the competition should be conducted. The competition could be judged on a wide range of issues, reflecting the issues, concerns and priorities that are important to that area. Those might include, for example, employment and regeneration potential, the design of a proposed development, the financial commitments by the developer to local projects, the location, the range of facilities and other matters. The local authority may also wish to provide an opportunity for consultation with local people. It would set out its priorities and concerns in a set of objective key considerations and then invite operators to submit entries to the competition.

The eventual winner will be eligible for a full premises licence once planning permission has been obtained and the casino has been built. The operator will therefore need to have an operating licence, a premises licence and planning permission. Planning permission is likely to be conditioned with the planning obligations. The premises licence process and the planning consent process will need to be conducted taking account of the need to separate clearly the licensing and planning functions.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the DCMS will issue guidance to local authorities on the propriety issues surrounding those processes. The applicants proposed in the preferred option would not be a material consideration in the planning decision. However, once planning permission has been granted and the casino built, the operator will be able to apply for a full premises licence, which it could expect to obtain provided that there had been no material change in the proposals since the competition.

Finally, I shall say a few words about existing casinos. The arrangements for regional large and small casinos are aimed at minimising the risk of problem gambling that would come from a large increase in the number of casinos, particularly from a proliferation of the high-stake and high-prize gaming machines. Existing casinos must be allowed to continue to operate and to have the opportunity to compete for the new licences. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to allow them to have all the new casino entitlements in circumstances where a limit is imposed on the establishment of new casinos. Accordingly, we propose that there should be no size requirements on those casinos and that they should not be subject to the ban on advertising and the 24-hour rule. However, they will be restricted to the equivalent gaming machine entitlement of 10 gaming machines of up to category B and they will not be allowed to provide bingo or betting on real or virtual events.

To achieve that, there will be a separate category of premises licence for casinos that already had a licence under the Gaming Act 1968. A company operating one of those casinos may apply for a regional, large or small casino premises licence. If one is awarded to an existing casino, it will be able to operate with all the new entitlements authorised by the new licence.

My officials and parliamentary counsel have been working pretty hard to prepare amendments that give effect to this new policy. It is important that the Committee should have the opportunity to debate the amendments before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House on Report. The Government intend to table the amendments as soon as possible. Some will be new clauses and new schedules, which we will be able to consider during our sitting on 11 January. I hope that we will be able to table the amendments before the House rises for Christmas. If that is not possible, I shall write to all Committee members to give them notice of the amendments before we table them, which will be as soon as possible in the new year. I want to make sure that all Committee members can consider the details proposed in good time, before the Committee meets.

If Committee members want to communicate during the recess, they should leave their addresses, which may be different from those of their constituency offices, with us. We shall make sure that we communicate directly with them.

In conclusion, it is clear that the range and framework of casinos need to be reformed. As I have said, casinos have the potential to contribute to the leisure and tourism sectors, and to the economy's economic development much more widely. However, we are clear that we need to take a cautious approach to avoid the proliferation of casinos in high streets across the country and to maintain Britain's good record on problem gambling. The proposals offer that balance, and a cautious approach.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

This is another extraordinary development in what has been the most bizarre saga of the Bill's consideration. Today, the Minister has announced major changes to the Bill—changes that alter completely the whole thrust of the Bill. He has done so when we had just finished considering clause 310 of a Bill that consists of only 337 clauses.

The Minister sought to portray those changes as a refinement or clarification of the Government's strategy. The truth is that he has put a coach and horses right through the centre of the Bill. The changes come on top of what was itself a pretty extraordinary announcement: the limitation of the number of regional casinos to just eight. Now the Minister says that no more than 24 new casinos of any type at all will be allowed in the country for the foreseeable future. That announcement has come just as the Bill is about to come out of Committee, and it has been made, as far as I can see, without any consultation whatsoever with the industry. It has not been subject to any scrutiny. The Bill has been through months and months of scrutiny by the Joint Committee. It has been subject to consultation, the Budd review and a White Paper, yet now the Government at such a late stage have decided to change the entire thrust of the Bill, the overall effect of which is that the liberalising, deregulatory measure that we started with will, in some respects, impose a more restrictive regime on casino development than exists at present.

Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

Is the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument that he wants more large-scale casinos in this country?

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I want first to hear a rational explanation of the Government's decision. The logic of their position looks pretty shaky and we have not heard any detail of how they reached such a decision. I shall come to some of the essential questions to which we need answers before we decide whether we agree with the Government's proposals.

Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

I have a simple question: does the hon. Gentleman want more large-scale casinos in the country or fewer? Yes or no?

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

Let me explain matters in a little more detail. We need to examine the Government's proposals for regional casinos—an issue that we continue to be concerned about. Our worries are based on the fact that regional casinos will be a new development in the country. They will be investments of £150 million-plus, based on a business model of 20,000 people or more going through the door each week and of each casino containing up to 1,250 category A machines—a type of machine that has never been introduced into the country before. That is why we felt strongly that we needed to proceed cautiously and that a pilot scheme should be set up before we decide whether to allow into the country a greater number than that which is now proposed. We believe that there is a real danger that regional casinos and so many category A machines could lead to an increase in problem gambling.

As for large and small casinos, at present there is nothing to prevent them from being built as long as it happens within the permitted development areas. Indeed, the Secretary of State has repeatedly stressed the fact that the Government are imposing the triple lock, which would act as a barrier against proliferation. We pointed out that there was a flaw in the Government's argument, which was the loophole of use classes. That could have allowed developers of casinos to get around the triple lock and convert leisure facilities into casinos. Finally the Government recognised that argument and announced that they would close the loophole and establish a separate use class order.

At the same time, the Government stressed that they would impose minimum size limits for small casinos and that the minimum size would have to be 1,500 sq m, making it an investment of about £6 million to £8 million. For large casinos, that cost would be up to £30 million. In their response to the Joint Committee, the Government said specifically that, by imposing such restrictions,

''The Government believes that the minimum size for new small casinos of 500mŽ2? of table gaming area is sufficient to prevent more proliferation.''

They are now saying that that is not correct and that there is a danger of proliferation, so it is necessary to impose the additional limitation on large and small casino developments.

The Secretary of State has also said that, when it comes to large and small casinos, the decision should ultimately lie with local authorities. On Second Reading, the right hon. Lady said:

''The practical obstacle created by a cap is that the whole thrust of the regulatory and planning system is to leave decisions about new casinos to local people, but if an arbitrary limit is imposed, what do we say to those authorities—there may be a significant number—that present applications for new casinos just as the cap is about to be reached''.—[Official Report, 1 November 2004; Vol.426, c.35.]

We now have a problem with the Minister's announcement that there should be just eight small new casinos across the entire country. When we are talking about regional casino development of £150 million-plus, eight casinos seems roughly the number to consider. We want to debate how the Government reached the figure of eight for regional casinos, although it is roughly in the ballpark, but the only possible justification for an eight, eight, eight restriction is a vague for some symmetry. Other than that, it is utterly bizarre to say that there should be the same number of £150 million-plus developments as of £6 million-plus developments. The Minister has not explained why the Government have chosen an eight, eight, eight configuration.

There will be some who have opposed the Bill from the start who think that the configuration should be six, six, six.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Very good!

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

It was an illustration of how it would be in the Bill. However, eight, eight, eight has no more logic than six, six, six. This is an extraordinary decision that puts the planning body, which the Government will establish, into a difficult position.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

In view of the difficulties for the Government that the hon. Gentleman is advancing, perhaps the number ought to be nine, nine, nine.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

That is another alternative. One thing that is certain is that there are likely to be a large number of applications for small or large casinos.

Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

To move the debate beyond the question of numbers, if the hon. Gentleman is unable to set out the figure he regards as appropriate, does he support the idea of a cap on the number of casinos?

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I can see that the reason for capping the number of large and small casinos is to prevent proliferation. However, we will want to consider carefully what the number should be and I am pretty certain that we will not feel that eight, eight, eight is the right result.

We have been told about this huge change, which will alter the entire thrust of the Bill, in the past 20 minutes and with no warning. To expect us to be able to respond with detailed scrutiny at this moment is extremely unreasonable. I wish to return to the timing of this proposal and the amount of time that will be left to press the Government to provide us with further information on how they have come to the decision, because the serious time constraint will jeopardise effective scrutiny of the Bill.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the super-casinos are something new that has not been seen before in this country. However, does he agree that whatever number is chosen—whether it is eight, 10 or 15—is completely arbitrary and nonsense? Would it not be better to leave it as it is at the moment, with the market in permitted areas deciding what the limit should be?

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

That is a very interesting observation. The hon. Gentleman is, effectively, articulating the Government's argument, but the problem is that it is their argument from last month, rather than the one they are using today. He may have to discuss that with the Minister. Nevertheless, he asks a question that we will wish to address further when we return to the matter after Christmas.

The Government have to deal with how the advisory body will decide which eight areas of the country are to be allowed to permit the development of small and large casinos.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the points that he has made about the shambles that the Government have got themselves into, it is surprising that in this statement of national policy—the Government's latest series of U-turns—there is no reference to the need for casinos to be used for regeneration? That was such a big theme of the scrutiny Committee's work, which a number of hon. Members referred to as a concern, including the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and me. There is some tangential reference to seaside resorts, but does my hon. Friend agree that that is yet another peculiarity of this major change that the Government have dumped on us this morning without warning?

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I strongly agree. For some, one of the great attractions of regional casino development was that it was to bring regeneration benefit. It was obvious that the investment of £150 million-plus would transform certain areas, which is why we were keen for regional casino development to be directed to destination resorts that would benefit from regeneration. However, in the case of small casinos, for which the investment required is far less, regeneration benefits inevitably will not be nearly as great. That raises the question of the criteria that the advisory body will use in determining which areas of the country will be permitted the eight new small and eight new large casinos.

In his statement, the Minister laid great stress on the fact that local authorities will still be able to decide not to allow any casino development at all. A clause will be introduced that gives them the power to say no. Unfortunately, the Government have taken away from local authorities the power to say yes. The local authority might believe that it is very much in the interests of the area to permit the development of a small or a large casino. The authority might even have been allowed to permit that up until the Bill becoming an Act, if it happened to be in a permitted development area. However, the Government now say that they will take that power away and that unless the local authority happens to be in one of the eight selected areas, it will not be allowed any new casino development.

The Government are essentially establishing a lottery and it will be up to them to decide which eight areas will win prizes. One could even argue that the Government should register with the gambling commission as a body running a lottery with the prize of new large and small-scale casino developments.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. [Hon. Members: ''He can.''] He might attempt to. He is trying to have it so many ways, he could be a Liberal. He is arguing for a free-for-all. He is arguing that the planning authorities should be given the power at a local level to have a casino if they want one. He began the Committee stage by arguing for a cap on regional casinos; now he seems to be arguing completely the opposite.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

We have consistently made it clear that we regard regional casinos as something entirely different, new and untested—as opposed to large and small casinos, which we have had in this country for a long time and which have been operating without giving rise to any significant gambling problem. That is why we felt that we should proceed very cautiously with regional casino development. There may be a danger of proliferation because of the imposition of a cap on the number of regional casinos and as a result it might be sensible to have some limit on large and small casinos. However, does the hon. Gentleman really believe that eight, eight, eight is a sensible limitation on each category of casino? The Government have come up with no explanation of how that decision has been reached.

We want very carefully to consider the issue, which has been bounced on to the Committee at the 11h hour. Although I do not necessarily relish the prospect of spending the entire Christmas recess reading the documentation that the Minister has kindly promised to drop down my chimney on Christmas day, we will need to consider the matter extremely carefully because it represents an enormous change to the Bill. To some extent, we have been wasting our time for the past four weeks, because the Government have now changed the Bill so much.

Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

I realise that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to join us in many of the sittings over the past four weeks, but has he read Hansard and, if so, does he not feel that we have had much of this debate already?

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

We have debated other parts of the Bill that we think are important and wish to be on the statute book, but the Government are jeopardising their objective by this announcement. We have not been able to debate the aspects of what they have announced today because they have only just, at the 11th hour, changed the whole nature of the Bill. The Bill is now a complete and total shambles. It has not been properly consulted on or scrutinised, and we have been left with one day in Committee to consider the forthcoming amendments, which will not be published until the House rises. We will then return to the Floor of the House for a programme motion on Report.

One of the first things I would ask the Minister to consider is whether the motion should now be lifted to ensure that the House of Commons has a proper opportunity to examine the question in detail. It is not satisfactory to push the Bill through the House of Commons, with essentially one day in Committee and one day on Report, when such enormous changes have been made. If the Government insist on that, I warn them that the other place may feel the Bill has not been properly considered and may want to do so in great detail. The Minister knows the consequences of that. We want to see the Bill on the statute book, but the Minister is not making it easy.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Before I call the next Member, may I comment on a couple of points that Mr. Whittingdale has just made? This Committee of course has no power over the out date; that is a matter for the Floor of the House. If he wishes to pursue the matter, he will need to raise it in business questions, because it would need a new resolution of the House. We can change our sitting hours, but by order of the House, we must finish, at the latest, at 11.59 pm on 11 January. We could adjust the time by changing the programme motion to that time, if we so wish. We have done that in a previous Committee, but we cannot go beyond that time. At the moment, we will finish at 5.30 pm, but it is within the Committee's power to change that, if the Committee so wishes.

The Government have stated their intention to try to table before the recess the new clauses and appropriate points arising from the Minister's statement this morning. The final date for tabling any new clauses that may be debated on 11 January is 4.30 pm on the Friday before the Committee sitting. I hope that that clarifies the matter. I have checked that position, because with us going into the recess I was not quite sure about it.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I am extremely grateful for that clarification, Mr. Pike. It is very helpful. However, this change is so substantial that, although we will want to consider the new clauses, instead of continuing until one minute to midnight in Committee, it would be much more preferable and important to lift the motion for the amount of time available on Report, so that the entire House of Commons has longer to examine the changes.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That only underlines my point. The House, not this Committee, must change that motion. I was stating what was within the scope of this Committee. The question arose in a previous one, although not exactly in that format. I know what our powers are, because we had to check particularly carefully during that previous Committee.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

May I start by welcoming the Minister's announcement? He promised to come back to the Committee with a statement, and he has. He has therefore enabled us to debate the issue today and to consider it in further detail when the amendments are tabled, and there will be a further opportunity on Report. He has provided a detailed statement, which will merit much closer examination, so I look forward to seeing the detail of the amendments.

Certain questions need to be asked, based on the statement. One or two points leapt out at me from what the Minister said, and I give him notice that I am likely to come back with even more. He said that the identification of the operators and locations of the new casinos will be subject to broadly the same arrangements in each case—whether the casino is regional, large or small. Will those arrangements include the planning arrangements and the discussions that he outlined? As has been said, the smaller casinos will not bring the regeneration benefits that the larger casinos, and certainly the regional casinos, will, so I would like some clarification of what those arrangements in each case will mean.

My right hon. Friend said that an independent advisory panel will be set up. Who will be on it? Clearly, that will be a key issue.

I am disappointed by my right hon. Friend's announcement that the Government do not think that a separate national planning policy is required. He talked about using the regional assemblies' proposals for their regional spatial strategies. As I mentioned on an earlier occasion, interest in the development of casinos differs from region to region. He well knows that in the north-west there has been the largest number of expressions of interest. Therefore, determining locations in the context of individual regional assemblies' regional spatial strategies may result in certain regions identifying a need in their region for more than the eight casinos and other regions identifying a need for none.

I would have thought that it was preferable to have some national policy statement that could be a framework within which decisions could be made. I am sure that many colleagues in the north-west would look forward to having more than one or two regional casinos in that area.

I also noted my right hon. Friend's references to competition. As somebody who is no expert on planning laws—I make that statement openly—I wonder how a competition process can be set in the context of planning laws. He says that the ODPM and the DCMS will issue guidance to local authorities on the issues surrounding the processes. That will be vital. If a local authority says that it has one site, asks who wants it and then has many bidders for that site, how it deals with the bidders will be vital. It must be protected from criticism that it has acted unfairly in respect of any of them.

In Blackpool, we already have competition for the one site that has been identified in Blackpool's master plan. Blackpool council, the councillors on the planning committee and the local authority as a whole need clear guidance on how to respond to the different bidders.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the hon. Lady knows, I sympathise with the view that she is expressing on behalf of Blackpool, which I represented between 1992 and 1997 as the MP for the old Blackpool, South constituency. On her other point about needing national guidance, does she agree that there will be much greater difficulty in ensuring that casinos go where the regeneration is needed if the Government are not prepared to give a firm indication in the Bill of a national policy? The difficulty with a regional context is that some inland towns might be able to out-muscle seaside resorts such as Blackpool. Does she share my concern? Blackpool's plans would be severely damaged if large casinos were put in places such as Manchester, Liverpool and Preston, and not Blackpool.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The hon. Gentleman is repeating the argument that I made on Second Reading. If the matter is simply left to the regions, their priorities may not be the same as the Government's central priorities on regeneration.

As well, there must be a much clearer definition of regeneration. Local authorities operate within a framework where they recognise development gains from large developments, and some are very skilful in exploiting those gains. However, in the regeneration of a seaside town, for example, we are considering a much wider argument, involving environmental issues, transport infrastructure and the other businesses in the area, in a wider context than that of the development that is going to take place. We need clear guidelines on how the regional spatial strategy for the regional assemblies will take into account the definition of regeneration. We all think that we know what it means, but people have different ideas about it.

I made a point earlier about how decisions will be made and how they will link to local tourism strategies. Regional development agencies have responsibility for developing tourism in their areas. Some are doing that very well and recognise the economic importance of the tourism and hospitality industry. How will the independent advisory panel engage with the tourism debate? Will it consider the wider issues, rather than focusing on a narrow definition of economic development?

How will all those elements come together in the time scale the Government have set out? If I have experienced one serious disappointment, it is the time scale, which refers to the end of 2006. In Blackpool, a master plan is already being implemented. Anyone who has been to the town recently will have seen the developments on the south promenade to the southern gateway into the town. We now have development of the central gateway into the town. In both those imaginative proposals, the local authority is moving ahead with its master plan, but the resort casino proposals are a vital part of that, and link to the aspiration for a new conference centre and new entertainment centres, and the desire to bring in new visitors.

Those factors are all linked. If there are delays in the announcement of where the regional casinos are to be sited—and large and small casinos—it will be difficult for a local authority such as Blackpool properly to co-ordinate the planning process.

That authority has risen to the challenge that the Government have set in the ''Tomorrow's Tourism Today'' document, and it is reinventing the town. It is pulling all those ideas together and it will need to know, sooner rather than later, where the regional casinos will be, whether Blackpool will get one and where the large casinos will be. I applaud my right hon. Friend for recognising that large and small casinos will have an effect on the regeneration that can come from regional casinos. Will the large casinos be in the same eight areas as the regional ones? Does the Minister anticipate eight different locations for the small casinos, the large casinos and the regional casinos? That will impact on the regeneration potential of the regional casinos.

Finally, returning to the planning rules and regulations, the Secretary of State's announcement that recognised the need for a separate planning use class for casinos was welcomed. At the moment, planning proposals are coming from operators of other entertainment venues, including family entertainment centres and the like, which wish to change their use to casinos. Will there be a planning vacuum while the Government are changing the rules on the new planning use class? What will happen in those circumstances? Will the local authorities be required to act under the existing planning guidance until we get new planning guidance? How will that impact on the development of small casinos?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

My hon. Friend touches on some important points in relation to planning, because one of the consequences of the regulations is that the regional casinos will start at different times. It is possible to envisage a regional casino opening in Blackpool in 2008, and if St Helens were fortunate enough to be chosen to be a site for a regional casino, one opening there in perhaps in 2010–11. That would give the panel reviewing the regional casinos a real problem. How would it be able to assess across that time span whether such casinos created specific problems? At the end of one three-year period, another regional casino could be just about to open.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The Government have made it clear that they want a review of the impact of regional casinos, but we need to ensure that there is a proper time frame to work out how those casinos impact on the local community. The RDA will assess the economic regeneration potential and the impact on the larger economy, and the gambling commission will consider the impact of the new casinos on the local community and whether there has been an increase in problem gambling. We need an appropriate time frame within which to ensure that that assessment can be made.

I welcome further clarification on the timing issue from my right hon. Friend the Minister. How soon will the Secretary of State liaise with her colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to come up with the vital new planning rules—on the change of planning use class—that councils can operate with now? What response are the councils supposed to give now to the people who are coming forward with proposals? How will the Department develop the new guidance that the local authorities will require, both to consider whether they want to develop regional, large and small casinos and how the competition is supposed to operate?

When one hears an announcement like the one we have just had, one always considers issues about which one is not sure and wants to question the Minister. I reiterate that I welcome his statement, because we have a much clearer framework within which to advance this debate. That will be important in my constituency and in many areas that are considering establishing casinos to regenerate their towns.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I have been in the House for 28 years but I never had an experience like this before. Can you tell me what the status of this debate is? Will it finish at 11.25 am? Can it resume at 2.30 pm, or can it continue until an unlimited hour? Does it have any standing at all? I should be grateful if you could tell me, because it is most unusual.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I have chaired many Committees, but this is the first time I have ever had to allow a debate on a dilatory motion, although I have always wanted to. The debate is in order and runs until 11.25 am, when it lapses.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Unless the Government Whip moves the motion again at 2.30 pm, when we can start again.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The Whip can move the motion again at 2.30 pm. It lapses at 11.25 am, but if the Government Whip wishes to move it again at 2.30 pm, he can do so. Standing Orders allow only the Government to move a dilatory motion.

The motion has been moved for a specific purpose: to allow this matter to be debated. The Minister gave an assurance at a very early stage and I think that Committee members want to debate the issues. I cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of the issues—the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that—but the motion was moved for the Committee's convenience.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. You rightly said that the debate that we are having, which is fundamentally important, could be resumed at 2.30 pm, but that that is at the discretion at the Government Whip. Before we decide who speaks next on this important issue, I would like to know whether this debate will be guillotined at 11.25 am or whether we can have an assurance that we will be able to continue it when we reconvene at 2.30 pm.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I cannot answer that question. The Government Whip and the Minister have heard the points that that hon. Gentleman has raised.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I suggest that if hon. Members want to discuss the matter, we should do it through the usual channels.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That is the appropriate way forward.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

May I say how impressed I was with the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, who managed in her final few remarks to totally cover her back? Earlier, she begun by asking herself a question; she wondered how all this matter would come together. She ended her remarks by saying that we now had a clearer framework in which to operate. She managed to have her cake and eat it, but I congratulate her on appropriately raising a number of significant concerns and questions to the Minister about how the new proposed way forward will work.

In the past few hours, we have been living in a pretty traumatic time in the world of politics. All sorts of changes in the Government have been taking place. No doubt, some thought that the Minister might not be with us today, but in some other position. I have now discovered why it is unlikely he would have been moved by the Prime Minister; the Minister has today made a significant U-turn. A massive change in Government policy has taken place.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

If I may finish the point. Such a change in policy is not in accordance with the approach taken by the Minister's leader, the Prime Minister. The Committee will be well aware that the Prime Minister made that clear in his conference speech in September of last year. Echoing the words of Margaret Thatcher, he said:

''I can only go one way; I've not got a reverse gear.''

The Prime Minister may not have a reverse gear, but it is pretty clear that the Minister and, no doubt, his Secretary of State have.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

The hon. Gentleman seems to have a very selective memory. I recall, and he will recall, that I have expressed my concerns about the Bill in this Committee. He must concede that the Government said that they were listening and that they were prepared to make significant changes—and they have done. He should recognise that.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I think that I was recognising that by saying that it was a very significant U-turn and that the Minister has got a reverse gear. In a minute, I will say whether or not I welcome the U-turn. [Interruption.] I would like to give way to the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), but I will refer to him in a second and, after I have done so, he may wish to intervene.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

A reverse gear is not needed to do a U-turn.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

The hon. Gentleman must be referring to a three-point turn, as one needs a reverse gear for that.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I think that I got my come-uppance properly there, although I am grateful for that intervention.

The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) was asking why the decision was to go to eight, eight, eight. He wondered whether there was any different logic in going for, say, six, six, six, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) suggested, nine, nine, nine.

When we initially heard that there would be just the one eight, the hon. Member for West Ham made a helpful contribution and told us that perhaps the number had been chosen because it is the atomic number of oxygen, because it is a lucky number in Chinese or because, in Buddhism, there is reference to the eightfold path to spiritual progress. He ended with various other suggestions, including the fact that eight is the symbol of infinity when the figure is on its side.

In light of the hon. Gentleman's contribution, I pondered the significance of eight, eight, eight. Eventually, it seemed appropriate to look for something relevant to the issues that we are debating—namely casinos and gambling. I eventually stumbled upon the answer on a tube journey two days ago. I noticed a large advertisement for the No. 1 internet casino in the world, which is none other than www.888.com.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. We are going a little beyond the matter under debate. We should keep to the subject.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I hear what you say, Mr. Pike, and I shall move on. However, it is not inappropriate to probe the Government on why those particular figures have been chosen. They have made a significant U-turn, and I am increasingly convinced that they are having second thoughts about the Secretary of State's belief, stated on Second Reading, that the Bill would not lead to an increase in problem gambling, and if it did, the Bill would have failed. It is increasingly clear that the Government, and certainly the Minister, are beginning to wonder whether they can rely on that belief.

I note that the Minister in his statement now refers to the need for the gambling commission during this pilot period

''to advise on whether the introduction of the new types of casino has led to an increase in problem gambling or is increasing the risk of that.''

There was also reference to the fact that we must ''reflect the fact that'' regional, large and small casinos

''will present new risks in relation to social harm.''

The Government are beginning to pick up on the fears and concerns of many people about whether a proliferation of casinos—particularly regional casinos, with their large numbers of untried and untested category A machines—would lead to an increase, and perhaps a significant increase, in problem gambling.

We will want to study the Minister's statement and any further information made available in some detail. If what is proposed is to be the way forward, I would like to ask him a number of questions about it. First, can he give the Committee an absolute assurance that he has checked that there will be no legal challenge to the proposals that he has made today? Secondly, can he assure the Committee that that advisory body that is to be set up, which will make recommendations on location, will be given guidance by the Secretary of State? In that guidance, will the crucial issue of location, which is particularly important for regional casinos, be central?

I mention that because I have on a number of occasions said that if we are to go forward with this untried, untested model of the new super-casinos, it is crucial that we take on board the advice and recommendations of the Joint Committee. It made it very clear that it believes that any regional casinos ought to be destination casinos to avoid the problem of ambient gambling.

I notice in the Minister's statement today that it will be the task of the advisory panel to give advice on

''a good range of types of location''.

I can understand the possibility of having a good range of types of location for regional casinos, all of which would meet the criteria of a destination casino. I hope that that is what the Minister means and that that is the assurance that we will get.

I hope that the Minister is not going to tell us that we will trial regional casinos in locations that would not meet the definition. I remind him that the Joint Committee made it clear that we should consider destination casinos for regional casinos and that the Minister in another place referred to the importance of not having gambling thrust in one's face. The Minister will also be aware that many other pieces of evidence suggest the importance of ensuring that, when talking about regional casinos, we are talking about destination casinos. I hope that I can have that assurance from him.

I also hope that we can have greater clarification on—perhaps in response to the debate, but certainly as soon as possible—the point raised by the hon. Members for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on intervention. It was suggested that regeneration had not been mentioned in the statement, but that is not true. The statement refers to regeneration. The Minister said, in reference to the criteria that will be used to judge competition, that various issues and priorities would be taken into account. I quote from his statement:

''Those might include, for example, employment and regeneration potential''.

Particularly in relation to regional casinos—I accept that there is a difference when talking about small and large casinos—I find it extremely surprising that the statement says that the criteria ''might include'' employment and regeneration. I do not deny that the Minister said on numerous occasions in Committee that the social consequences must be the No. 1 priority. However, we were also told clearly in Committee that regeneration was the second most important criterion for regional casinos. That was also made clear to the House and the public at large. However, the statement says that the criteria ''might'' have regard to regeneration. During the deliberations of the Joint Committee and the ministerial responses to those deliberations, we were constantly told of the importance of regeneration. I hope that we eventually move to a point at which no regional casino will be accepted unless there is a clearly articulated plan for regeneration benefits to come from it and that that plan will be independently audited, so that it is not just reliant on what the developers or what the local council that intends to benefit say.

Nevertheless, I also say to the Minister that the Committee needs assistance on our understanding of the planning gain, which is where the regeneration is likely to come in under what we are used to calling section 106 agreements. The problem is that my analysis of the previous planning legislation and, more recently, of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, shows that a local authority is not allowed to obtain excessive benefit from any development. It is certainly not allowed to take a share of the profits. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what the legality of the regeneration that is coming forward would be, if that regeneration is as significant as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood hopes that it will be for Blackpool.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

There are three processes, and one is through the gambling commission. The hon. Gentleman is right; the constraints of planning and section 106 agreements are well tested and could not possibly deliver the type of regeneration mentioned. If he refers to paragraphs 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the policy statement, he will see that economic gain can be achieved by local authorities through the premises licence.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful for the Minister's clarification, and I am sure that the Committee is. However, I hope that he can assure us that putting out a premises licence—for tender, effectively—so that a local authority can maximise the income will not go in any way against other legislation. I come back to my previous point: we need to be assured that there will be no legal challenges on the issue.

I—and, I suspect, other Committee members—have other concerns, which I hope will be addressed. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood touched on the powers of local authorities. The Minister is well aware that, under clause 157, local authorities can give a blanket refusal to any casinos whatsoever for a three-year period. However, a local authority might, for whatever reason, be interested in at least exploring the possibility of having a casino in its area; the advisory panel may have recommended that one of the casinos should be located there.

In those circumstances, I hope that a local authority that had chosen not to use the clause 157 powers because it wanted to consider the possibility of having a casino would still have an absolute right to say no to a casino proposal. That absolute right of a local authority—always subject, of course, to judicial review—is crucial, but does not exist in planning law. A local authority can say no, but that can go for appeal to the Secretary of State as an additional procedure. I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge that a casino application could come forward to a local authority that was unhappy with it but that had not used clause 157 to impose a blanket ban on casinos. Such a local authority might say no to that casino, but the casino could win on appeal to the Secretary of State. That would mean that local authorities did not have an absolute power to reject a casino. I hope that we can work with the Minister and the Government to find ways to ensure that local authorities have such an absolute power.

My final point is about the demand test. The Minister will be well aware that some time ago we debated an amendment that I had tabled that proposed putting the demand test back into the system. At that time, he assured me that that was not necessary. I challenged him, and asked whether a local authority could include in their licensing policy statement their own version of a demand test. He said that yes, they could. I believed that all was well, and that we had the demand test. However, I have studied clause 145(2), and it is clear to me that that is not possible and that, somewhere along the line, we need to address how to put back into the system the demand test, which is one of local authorities' crucial powers.

I hope that we shall have the opportunity to discuss the issue of public nuisance again. When the guidance is drafted for the advisory panel, perhaps reference to that issue will be made. I am not the only person who is concerned about such matters; local councils and members of the public are, too. The Minister will be aware that, only a couple of weeks ago, his noble Friend Lord McIntosh gave a clear assurance to the House of Lords that public nuisance would form part of the deliberations about the location for the new casinos. Given that assurance, I hope that the Minister will give us another assurance today that matters of public nuisance will be part of the system that he is developing.

At the moment, I am not willing to say that the proposal of eight, eight, eight will receive the full support of my party. I have listed several issues about which we have considerable concerns and there are further areas about which we need more information to know how the system will work. I accept, however, that if we limit the number of regional casinos—which I welcome—it could have a knock-on effect on the number of large and small casinos that might be developed without control being placed over them.

As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, I acknowledge equally that such a proposal is going against what local authorities might wish to do. However, on a first reading, it makes sense to acknowledge that any further growth in small and large casinos will be in a different climate from the current climate because there will be the added competition and implication of the regional casinos and, of course, the continuing growth of other forms of gambling, not least internet gambling. Notwithstanding their belief that they will lose power over this for a few years, local authorities might find it beneficial to have the results of the pilots that are being proposed for a few years to see what the impact will be. Although I am uncertain of the definitive position, we look favourably on the Minister's proposal, albeit with the concerns that I have expressed and the desire to obtain answers to my various questions.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I welcome the Government's statement. I recognise that they said that they would be moving in that direction and I understand the problem with setting a cap. It is difficult to define whether the figure should be four, eight or so on, but we must reach a conclusion about the approach to take. On Second Reading, hon. Members on both sides of the House were worried about proliferation, especially of the large, regional casinos, and wanted a stepped approach taken towards their development.

There is a problem, however, now that we have eight, eight, eight in the location of large and small casinos. If the cap were lifted in the future, that could determine the location of the next phase of regional casinos. When applications are made about the locations of the casinos, we must be clear whether we shall look favourably in future on the possibility of their becoming regional casinos or not. We must know whether that will be a possibility. If it is, that raises all sorts of other concerns about the stage at which they become a large or a small casino. We must take into consideration the long-term possibilities of their increasing in size.

The statement referred to competition at the planning stage. That is a difficult matter. Already, planning is fraught; it can become very litigious. Examples from America have shown that operators of casinos can be extraordinarily litigious. Some states have been tied up for years in legal wrangles with casino operators, so the guidance on how the process will be managed must be watertight and clear. At present, the planning process is started at the instigation of the developer. A developer will buy a location or reach some sort of agreement to purchase a location if planning permission is granted and then approach the local authority for planning permission.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) said that those processes may be out of sync. There may be a developer further down the road who has identified a site, and another potential developer-in-waiting. That could make it difficult for the local authority to determine how to proceed and with which partner, as a different developer may offer different things for the local community in terms of regeneration. Those things may be so desirable to the local authority that it wants to wait, rather than be forced into the process by the first developer in the queue.

There are all sorts of issues in relation to the planning process. If two or even three developers in tandem want to open casinos in the area, and there is only permission for one, how should an authority choose between them? That decision could land local authorities in a great deal of difficulty. The guidance on that must be absolutely clear and watertight.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

What would happen in such a case if the local authority were the landowner? Would there be regulations to ensure that local authority decisions are made without bias?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

It would be a fortunate local authority indeed that owned such a location, and I would wish it good luck. We must consider the ongoing benefits to the relevant area. Clearly, a local authority would have an inducement if it were to benefit from the profits.

Comments have been made about the possibility of public disorder and problems with other public services. A developer may want to make an ongoing contribution to such services. Planning permission can include obligations such as ensuring that areas are free from litter, an approach that is frequently used with the major takeaway chains in most of our high streets. That needs to be clarified.

How will the Government determine what constitutes problem gambling and what is a reasonable or unreasonable increase? We must be frank about this: there will be an increase. We are getting rid of the 24-hour rule and lifting the ban on advertising. If there is to be advertising on TV, I hope that there will be a 9 o'clock watershed. I do not want to see such advertising earlier in the evening.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I am conscious of the time and of other hon. Members wanting to speak.

How will we determine what is an acceptable increase? We must be clear about the fact that there will be an increase in gambling as a result of the measures, otherwise we would be proceeding on a false premise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood mentioned a national framework. The Government have to be fair. They must set a framework—criteria against which either regional or local planning authorities will operate when determining what benefits are sought from having a regional casino, whether large or small, in their area. If we go for the regeneration aspect—as we should—with employment and economic regeneration at its heart, we have to set a framework and clarify what we are trying to achieve. If we are to assess the impact of the casinos, we must have all or nearly all of them in place before the clock starts ticking on the three-year period. We cannot start a clock from when the first one is built and say that we will have an assessment in three years from then. We must have a clear framework.

The overlapping impact of subsequent developments on things such as problem gambling has been mentioned.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

My hon. Friend will speak later and can respond to me then because others want to get in and I have taken slightly longer than I said I would.

My last question to my hon. Friend the Minister is this: can existing casinos apply for re-designation as regional casinos at their existing location? A reference in the statement that has been circulated says that they can. Does that mean that they can become operators elsewhere or that they can redefine the premises from which they currently operate?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I am very shocked at what the Government have come out with today.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Of all the members of the Committee, the hon. Lady should welcome the statement.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

The Minister asks me to welcome the statement, but it is something of a dog's breakfast. The questions raised, which I do not intend to repeat, are relevant and he will have as hard a time answering many of them as he had with the dog's breakfast that he has put on the table for us to chew over.

I want to return to the point about how on earth we got here. The Government have been preparing this legislation and considering how to change gambling laws for years. I hold no brief whatever for casino operators who, I am sure, will not send me any Christmas cards, but I feel sorry for them because the Government have led them up the garden path completely and utterly.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Shafted.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

Quite right. They have been led to believe that there will be a free-for-all and they have acted in good faith.

Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

The hon. Lady has baffled me. Is she in favour of a cap on casinos, or a free-for-all?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will say what the Government should do. Given that there have been so many changes to the Bill, I hope that there is still an option to do what the Government should have done in the first place—[Interruption.] Mr. Pike, I feel that the Committee is being rather boisterous and is not allowing me to pursue my argument in the way that I would prefer.

I want to put on the record my belief that the industry has been treated shabbily. I have had many representations from people in Blackpool, Coventry and all over the country who have gone about their business reasonably, given what the Government said initially. Even though I did not want the plans to come to fruition, I think that they have been treated shabbily and the recent Home Secretary's view of the leadership of the Minister's Department is accurate given the complete fiasco on this Bill. I notice that he does not react to that. Nevertheless, we all have our own opinions.

Would it not be sensible to do what I have always said would be the right way forward and give one or two permissions for a destination resort, which might involve more than one casino in the same place? As the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood knows, I am a big fan of Blackpool. Although it has been making the running, I do not see why it should not have been rewarded for its efforts in pursuing a gambling alternative for its tourism product. If the Minister had done that, he would have solved all the problems that other Labour Members have raised about his proposal. We could simply have had one resort destination casino in the country—or two if we must placate the Scots. It would have been clear what was on offer and the industry could have gone about its business knowing that there was one prize to achieve. That would have addressed all the Government's arguments about problem gambling.

I am pleased that, very late in the day, the Government have come around to the idea that there is such a thing as problem gambling and that it could be unleashed by their proposals. If they had acted in the same way as America and allowed a resort destination casino, they would be in a considerably better position now. They would also have got around the other complications that will ensue when determining how planning permission will be arrived at, given that so many planning applications will want to secure the agreement of the committee that the Minister wants to set up. Had he had one destination area in mind—he did not have to say that it would be Blackpool—he could have said, ''Give me your bids and tell me what you will do for the nation's resort areas where you want to have a casino.'' Whichever one offered the most to the local community would have got the prize, and he would have pleased Blackpool and another place.

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

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

The Committee was very boisterous this morning in your absence, Mr. Gale, and I hope that you will keep it in good order this afternoon.

I would like to conclude my earlier comments, because the Government have come forward with the most extraordinary changes to a piece of legislation that, although long in gestation, has changed on an almost daily basis in Committee. Many Members made very good points that will need answering. Given that there have been such changes, I ask the Minister to think again, because there is a clearer way forward. Now that the Government have admitted that the dreadful problem of problem gambling may be unleashed as a result of the new regional casinos and the impact that they might have on other casinos—a problem that they had not previously accepted—it is time to think again and put together a Bill that is much more modest in its changes to our gaming laws, creating one or two Las Vegas-style casinos.

We could see what impact such casinos would have. If we find that they are popular and make a great contribution to the local community, but we would not want them to proliferate and find that there was a real reason why the Americans have destination rather than regional casinos, we may want to stick to just one or perhaps two areas in the UK where that kind of gaming is available. That would be a much more reassuring way forward, because some of the eight, 16 or 24 casinos will be in city centres. That is not the right place for such activity.

If the Minister were to go forward along the lines that I have suggested, all the other problems raised by members of the Committee would be much more straightforward to answer. There would be no planning process problems nor any potential litigation. The intentions behind the measure could be much more clearly stated in the Bill, it would be much easier for the casinos to understand what they were bidding for and those local authorities that wished to have a destination resort could put their hands up and say, ''OK, come and have a look at me.'' When all the casinos had put in their bids, the Government or the new quango that they want to introduce could decide who offers the best deal for the local community and the wider interests of the UK.

That seems to be a much simpler way forward. It would reassure many hon. Members who are still nervous about what is being unleashed by this Bill, and it would dig the Minister out of the hole that he continues to find himself in. On that note, I leave it for others to make further points.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. You are an experienced Chairman, and no doubt you have come across this unusual circumstance many times before. However, for me, this is the first time in 28 years in Committee that we have gone into the quasi limbo-land that is constituted by this debate on a Government statement. My point of order is directed at the Government Whip. He has moved that further consideration be adjourned, but do we know when we are going to come back? Are we going to come back this afternoon? What about the Committee members who are not present? Will they be notified about when we come back? It really is a most peculiar and unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The motion that further consideration be adjourned is under debate. The hypothesis that the hon. Gentleman puts forward does not yet arise. It remains to be seen whether, in due course, the usual channels will seek to press the motion to a division.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I started out as an enthusiast for the Bill because I thought that liberalisation of the archaic gambling laws in this country was long overdue and because of the welcome provisions on tightening protection for children and on internet gambling. As a former chairman of development, I could also see the benefits that the new casinos could have in that regard. In my past life, the entertainment industry played a key role in regenerating areas of the city in which I was a councillor. That was important.

We heard an interesting speech this morning from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), the tail end of which was this afternoon. She referred to the Bill as a dog's dinner. I agree that that is what we are now getting. I have a lot of time and respect for the Minister, whom I have known for many years, but he is being asked to put something through the Committee and the House that will not get through in its current form. I cannot understand why that should be so.

On many of the issues, apart from that of casinos, there is a degree of agreement on both sides of the House. The issue that rightly concerned hon. Members was that of regional casinos, and I would have left it to the existing planning rules to sort that issue out. A cap was brought in at eight, which went a long way towards alleviating fears among both Government and Opposition Members. I accepted that as a possible way forward.

I cannot understand why a cap has now been brought in for large and small casinos. Where has the pressure for that come from? During lunch, I tried to get to the bottom of the issue. I understand that the special adviser from the Department, who knows a lot more than mere politicians, argued that there was internal pressure from the parliamentary Labour party, which was concerned about the issue. I know that such individuals are far more in tune with what goes on in the PLP than I am as a member of it, but I did a straw poll at lunchtime. I sought out six parliamentary colleagues who were opposed to the Bill on Second Reading and asked them whether they were concerned about large and small casinos. Not one of them was concerned about them. They were quite happy with the limit of eight regional casinos. I asked whether they were aware that the new limit had been put forward this morning, and they were not.

I ask, again, where the sudden concern has arisen from, because the PLP is not concerned about large and small casinos. I also ask why the limit was set at eight. The same question could be asked about regional casinos.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

Before my hon. Friend moves on to that question, I suggest to him that there are two reasons to be concerned about the proliferation of large and small casinos. First, I have had representation from amusement arcades, and people who run other gaming facilities in seaside towns. They see the proliferation of small and large casinos as having a real impact on their viability even though the family entertainment centres take children and casinos will not. Nevertheless, those establishments believe that the number of adults who come in will be affected.

Secondly, there is the issue of those amusement centres that are considering becoming casinos. Again, they will be lost. There is real concern that proliferation of small and large casinos would have an impact on amusement arcades in seaside towns, as well as impacting on the clientele of regional centres if there is an adjoining large casino in the nearby town.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am grateful for that intervention, but I know that my hon. Friend supports the Bill and I am not sure that the Government Whips are concerned about her not voting for it. However, I cannot accept her point because towns such as Blackpool already have the necessary planning powers to stop development. Why have an artificial cap as we have here?

I keep asking, ''Why eight?''. I am told that it is convenient to have eight regional casinos. One could argue that we do not want 10 because that might put more pressure on getting regional casinos going. That is absolute nonsense and when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, it will re-open a debate that I thought we had put to bed. If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is political ineptness, and this situation is a good example of it. It is unfortunate that we are getting a reputation for increasing ineptness.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's helpful contribution to the debate. He asked why there are eight. If one adds the three eights together, they make 24. The Prime Minister made a statement saying that there would be between 20 and 40 new casinos. Does he think that has anything to do with the number chosen?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is giving credit to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in assuming that the matter is on his radar screen. I do not think it has been during the past few hours and days. It is quite clear that the market will decide the issue. Local councils will take a decision on casinos by means of planning legislation.

As a former chair of development on Newcastle city council, I know that there is always a development fad that comes along. A few years ago it was supermarkets, then it was multiplex cinemas. At one time, no fewer than six multiplex cinemas had submitted applications to Newcastle city council. Everyone knew that there was not enough room for six multiplex cinemas. How many did we end up with? One—because the market could only sustain one.

I would argue the same thing in relation to the large and small casinos; I do not accept the idea that putting a cap on their number will somehow help the situation. I also do not accept the argument that we will end up with a large or small casino on every street corner. The market will find the right level. If we want to ensure tighter development of large and small casinos, it can be done through the councils' current planning processes and land ownership. Opening this can of worms again has been a big mistake.

I am very concerned about the advisory panel. My party is getting into a situation in which, if it wants to shy away from a tough political decision, it sets up an advisory panel, says that it is independent and that it will take the decision. I am sorry but I am an old-fashioned politician and I believe that politicians should take those decisions—either national politicians here or local politicians at a local level. I do not accept the idea of giving the decision to yet another quango. That ducks the real issues.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman elaborate on his point. Is he concerned about what the Minister read to us at the beginning of the debate? He said:

''Regional Planning Bodies as part of their revision of Regional Spatial Strategies will need to consider possible broad locations for Regional casinos within their region.''

The document goes on to say that they will have to follow national planning policy guidance. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's expertise in this field will help us, so will he tell us whether he shares my interpretation that that means those revised regional spatial studies will have to be consulted on a second time even though that was required of them in their original form? Does he concur?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Possibly I do, and I want to deal with that point now. What is the relationship between the advisory body and the local planning authority? That is certainly not clear in what has been put before us today. Point 16 states:

''Operators will be required to apply for planning permission''—

that is self-evident—

''in the usual way and all applications will be considered on their merits in line with national and local planning policies.''

No reference is made to gambling, or the horrors of gambling, which the new body will cover. It continues:

''Applications may come forward at any stage. Decisions on whether they should be called in for decision by the First Secretary of State will be made in light of the Government's call-in policy and the particular circumstances of the case.''

The law currently exists to limit development, whether at a local or national level, so I do not know why on earth the body needs to be set up.

I am also perplexed by point 22, which also attempts to define the difference between planning and the so-called licensing system that the new body will cover. It states:

''The premises licensing process and the planning consent process will need to be conducted taking account of the need to clearly separate the licensing and planning functions.''

It continues by mentioning that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will issue guidance. The next part is quite amusing:

''The fact that an applicant's proposal may be the preferred option in the competition will not guarantee planning permission.''

I am sorry, but which developer in their own right is going to enter a competition if there is no sign of getting planning permission? It is nonsense.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Just to add to the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the situation, does he not find it slightly odd that the sequence of events is that the competition will be in respect of the premises licence? However, before a person gets a premises licence, they have to get planning permission and, in that context, the assumption is that they might get a premises licence afterwards.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Quite. That is why the relationship between planning and the so-called body is not clear.

I cannot work out what the defined areas will be. How big will they be and where will they be? Clearly, if we are going to try to encourage regeneration, they should be in areas such as run-down inner-city centres. That is a planning issue. It has nothing to do with gaming. From my experience of developers, they do not like sites like that. They want clean, greenfield sites because they are easier, cheaper and more profitable to develop. Whoever decides where those sites are going to be will be popular because people will track their decisions and deliberations carefully. Clearly, if someone owns land in those areas, they will find that it is potentially very profitable.

The other issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) addressed this morning, is the review period. If we get the first large or small casino in 2008, what time period will there be for the review of that casino and its impact? All developers would need to be given a starting-gun date by which everyone must have their planning applications in, their approved sites and their operators licence. Then we would have to fire the gun and they would all have to start building at the same time and open at the same time. That would mean that, at some time in the future, we could say, ''Right, we will now review what has happened,'' but that is not how development works. Some developments fall behind time, and the casinos could open over 10 years.

The idea that there will be a realistic assessment of the way in which those casinos have affected gambling in an area is nonsense. That is not going to be done, and so we have a cap that provides local monopolies to a lot of suppliers. I have always been against public or private monopolies, and I certainly think that this move will create them.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely helpful and erudite speech.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is what you think.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

It is what I think and I am more than happy to say it. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) is on to an extremely good point. The document does not say—perhaps this will not be specified when we get the amendments either—on what sample the gambling commission will arrive at its wonderful conclusion that there is no problem gambling going on and that therefore there can be further development. On the time scale that is being talked about, if the Government insist that there is a sample of eight or even 16 new casinos, that will add on years before any valid judgment can be made.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I agree. The point is that the Bill was supposed to be a liberalising measure. It is actually going in completely the opposite direction. Even in the permitted areas where casinos have opened, what has happened to assess the effect of gambling? Nothing at all. I do not think that the effect that gambling will have in an area is as clear cut as whoever has drafted the Bill thinks it is.

Another point, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood mentioned this morning, is that, unless we adapt a national framework to the planning guidance, this will not work. Councils will get themselves in all sorts of legal problems. This morning, someone said—I cannot remember who—that councils have the right to refuse. They do, but what happens if they want a casino in their area and they grant planning permission? Different councils could grant an array of planning applications but, because of the artificial cap, they will not be able to have the casino.

I know of one city in the north-east, for example, where three or four applications are coming forward. Will they back off and say, ''We'll wait and see what happens''? I do not think that they will. They will put planning applications in. The council will be in the invidious position of having to judge them on the basis of what is coming forward. The measure is a minefield. The only people who will benefit will be the planning lawyers, who will have a field day.

I am a supporter of the Bill; it is a good thing. However, we are kicking it into the long grass. That would be fatal to some of the good things in the Bill and to the cities and towns that need development. I hope that the two caps have not been introduced because the new regional casino people, for example, the Americans who want to come in, have said that they will be affected by the competition. If that is the motive, the only people who will lose out will be those in the casino industry in this country, which, up until now, has run a good, clean and decent ship.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. It was interesting that he was able over lunch to talk with a sample of six Labour Members—I think that he said that they were Labour Members who voted against or had concerns about the Bill on Second Reading. I am sure that more than six are in the Tea Room at any given time over lunch. However, we have heard on the grapevine that one of the reasons that the Government have come forward with the proposals is the groundswell of opposition on the Labour Back Benches.

If the hon. Gentleman is speaking for his colleagues on the Back Benches, he ought to take us a little further. Before the amendments are even thought of or printed, he ought to whip round more than six and present the case to the Minister to say that there is not massive opposition to capping large and small casino levels. There was opposition at the top end and the regional level, which was shared with us, but I do not think that the Government need to go down the road of capping both the large and the small.

The hon. Gentleman talked about kicking the Bill into the long grass. I thought over lunch that this is a bit like a game of rugby. We all know what it is to kick into touch but the ball of the casinos has been punted over the south stand at Twickenham and we cannot now find it. We do not know where we will go from here. The casino industry is apoplectic after seeing what has been produced. It has spent four years in detailed consultation with officials in the Department, the Gaming Board, Ministers and the scrutiny Committee. It has spent a lot of money and time giving evidence and writing documents, and it thought that there was consensus on the way forward.

On the Conservative side, there was genuine support for the majority of the findings of the scrutiny Committee. Indeed, the Government, in response, agreed with 90-odd per cent. of those findings. The key area where there was a big question mark was regional casinos. That was the one area that caused considerable concern. The reason is simple. It has been mentioned on more than one occasion in this debate. We were introducing category A machines, which hitherto had not been seen in this country. They were the new ingredient, and we were allowing not just 20 but 1,250 in casinos.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

Having served on the scrutiny Committee from time to time—[Interruption.] I thought that I would get that in first.

Obviously, this proposal would have completely changed our views on the matter. It would be useful if the hon. Gentleman suggested from the Front Bench that the scrutiny Committee be reassembled in order to consider it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That is an extremely interesting idea. The scrutiny Committee reconvened to consider the regional casinos—or destination leisure casinos, as they are called. I do not know whether such a suggestion would carry more weight if it came from me. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point, but there is not a great deal of time. I believe that, when all this began, most people were genuinely interested in getting the Bill on to the statute book before the general election, which we all expect some time in the spring. That means that the other place has limited time to consider the Bill.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

The worst way to make legislation is by giving ourselves an artificial timetable. There are big implications to consider. What is the point of hastening to get it wrong? It would be better to delay the thing in order to get it right. We all know of examples of legislation that was made on the hoof and had to be changed. Why bother about the general election? Why not just say that we are going to get the Bill right and give it as much time as it needs?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Just because the hon. Gentleman is not standing in the next general election, it does not mean that it will not exercise the mind of many of us in the interim. I do not wish to argue with him, as we are not on opposite sides of the fence. We want to make decent legislation.

At the beginning of the process, there were the bare bones of a good Bill, which most of us accepted needed to be tweaked and modernised for all sorts of obvious reasons. However, it contained the casino element, which has gone completely off the rails.

The industry is up in arms. Until these pieces of paper appeared and the Minister made an announcement this morning, it did not know what was contained in the proposals. It has not been consulted at all during the many weeks since the scrutiny Committee published its last document. It is completely in the dark as to where the proposals have come from or where they will leave it. It sees the proposals as a direct attack on the commercial interests of a section of British industry that until now has paid its taxes and caused no problems whatsoever, whether measured in terms of social responsibility or problem gambling.

This squeaky-clean industry was working under outdated laws in the Gaming Act 1968. People in the industry welcomed change and wanted a level playing field. We now have a complete mismatch, which is totally illogical, and the commercial interests of those people are now severely dented.

Not only is the industry being told that there will be only eight large and eight small casinos, but the document states—I came across this over lunch, when I was reading it thoroughly again—that existing casinos will be told that they can have only 10 machines, which is the same number they currently have. All the work that the scrutiny Committee did on the ratio of gaming machines to tables—two per table for small casinos and five per table for large ones—does not apply to existing casinos. They have to stay as they are.

There will be eight new large casinos and eight new small ones. Although the Minister did not confirm this, I assume that the gaming machine to table ratio will apply to them. There will also be eight regionals. A whole new industry is being set up. At one end there will be category A machines, which no one else can have, and 16 new casinos with more gaming machines per table than the existing casinos will be allowed. Who on earth thought this up? Where is the level playing field? The proposal is an attack on British industry, and on people who have invested in the status quo for many years. They are being told that there is a whole new regime. Of course, the Government are assuming that someone will come forward and invest in small casinos. The people to whom I talk say, ''Forget it.'' The economic return will not lead to the development of new small casinos, even with the square footage required under the arrangements.

Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

I have been searching unsuccessfully for this so far today. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of a cap on the number of casinos?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I propose a pilot scheme for regional casinos. I have not tabled an amendment that says large and small casinos must be capped. I am not in favour of a cap. I am in favour of ensuring that there is no proliferation, but that is a completely different question. There is a million miles between proliferation and castration.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The hon. Gentleman must be circumspect in what he says.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Yes, perhaps I should not have used that word. Reduction is a better word. The proposals not only reduce the potential for the existing industry, because they set up others in competition with more beneficial arrangements, but they stop in their tracks the development proposals that many had in train. Proliferation may be okay, but it is clear that these people are not stupid. Why do we assume that they cannot run commercial interests. Why do we assume that they will suddenly come forward with millions and millions of pounds to build casinos that no one wants to go into? Why do we not stop and ask that question? These people are commercially successful. They are not stupid.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Were what the hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago to be the end of the matter, I would share his concern about the existing casinos but has he not read paragraph 25? It says:

''A company operating a casino which already had a licence under the 1968 Act may apply for a Regional, Large or Small casino premises licence. If it is awarded one of them for an existing casino, then it will be able to operate it with all the new entitlements authorised by the new licence''

Does he not interpret that as meaning that, if the casinos get the new licence for the existing premises, they will be able to have the increased number of machines? He said that they would not be able to do so.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I saw that as well. We are talking about only eight small and eight large casinos. As I understand it, the 134 existing casinos could apply—

Mr. Caborn indicated assent.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am right. They could apply for a new licence under the new regime. The existing casino could by making an application transfer itself into a new large casino. Therefore, under the new arrangements, provided that it had the square footage and the ratio of machines to gaming tables, it could move into the new regime.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter. Does he agree that the existing casinos in some large cities will convert, which will make the figure of eight superfluous?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

No, the limit is eight new large casinos and eight new small casinos. There will not be a massive development. The Minister knows what I am talking about. [Interruption.] That is what it means. The Minister nods in assent. We can take it as read that that is what could happen. I do not think for a moment that it will happen.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

In a moment. That will not happen because, unless the existing casinos have spare land or can go up several floors, they will not meet the square footage requirements for the new large casino. There will be constraints on site.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there may well be locations where that could be achieved? It is no good saying that this is not what it means, because it is what it says. The legislation will have to be very tight, otherwise the smart lawyers and the smart operators will go above the eight; they will try to come in on the back of this. If it does not mean that, the Minister must spell it out clearly in the various clauses.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If one has grandfather rights on an existing casino, but then moves to a new casino, meeting all the requirements, one will not retain grandfather rights on the old one. There might not, therefore, be an increase in the total number of casinos if 16 existing casinos decided overnight to become large or small casinos.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I can think of at least one casino in the north-east that has a very large car park and which could easily expand to become a large casino. It would be possible to develop a new, large casino on an existing site, so even though there is a cap of eight, there will not actually be eight new casinos.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I agree. Obviously, if land is available, there is the option to expand. In many cases, however, that expansion possibility will be limited, so, again, a constraint is placed on the commercial market.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the desire of existing casinos to expand and to apply for licences for small or large casinos. Does he accept, however, that a lot of existing casinos do not want to do that? Some very small casinos occupy a niche market and will want to remain private clubs, satisfying the customer base that they have now. Has he done research to find out how many of the 130-odd existing casinos would in fact want to apply for the new licences and how many want to keep occupying their niche market as private clubs?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That is an extremely useful question, but as we only knew about the provisions at 10.30 this morning, the several people to whom I have a hotline have not yet given me that statistic, so the answer to the hon. Lady's question is that I do not know. I suspect that the industry was looking ahead on the basis of the arrangements that were agreed in the scrutiny Committee; as far as everyone understood from the negotiations and the consultation with the Government, that was the way forward. People were already planning to expand into large or small casinos, and not simply to change the ones that they had.

The arrangements that were agreed as regards the ratio of gaming machines to tables—existing businesses might have asked for more, but they accepted those arrangements as a way forward—have now disappeared for existing businesses. In the past few hours, they will have had to revisit the thinking processes and the plans that the hon. Lady mentioned, because there is a whole new ball game out there. I suspect, as I said earlier, that no one will put money into new small casinos, because given the constraints that now exist on size the market will not exist.

The industry is commercially successful and does sensible, pragmatic research; it will not invest unless it can see a return on its investment. It has done capacity estimates. If one builds a casino, one has to start by working out how many people are likely to come across the threshold. Only a proportion of the population goes to a casino, so one works back from that until one gets to a threshold population of about 100,000 for a large casino. One has only to go round the main towns and cities to work out how many extra casinos using that capacity threshold indicator there could be. Leaving aside the regionals, there could be another 50 casinos, on top of the 134 that we now have. The market will decide whether that happens, but there will not be huge numbers of new casinos, because no one is going to spend £13 million to develop a large casino.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I shall speed up now so that we can make a little more progress. I have two or three more points to make.

In the early part of the Government's statement today, they reiterated their reasons for moving down this road. I have the list here. They believe that certain regulations are outdated and say:

''The 24-hour rule, the ban on advertising and the permitted areas rule unnecessarily restrict customer choice and discourage investment and economic regeneration.''

I agree with all that. However, the Government are now bringing in permitted areas by a different name: there are to be eight localities for small casinos, eight for large ones and eight for regionals—24 in total. Whatever we call them, they are permitted areas, and the way in which the Government prescribe where casinos will eventually go is no different from the old methodology. I hardly see that as progress.

We seem to be embarking on an extended pilot scheme. [Interruption.] The Minister says, ''Just so.'' We agreed on eight regionals, and the Government extended that to eight large casinos and eight small ones. I suspect that there will not be eight small new ones. In that case, what will the Government do? Will they allow 16 new casinos, whether large or small? I think that many more will proceed on that basis.

What are the large and small casinos going to test? Do we need another pilot scheme for large and small casinos? We do not. The new casinos will not have any machines that are different from those in the current casinos; they will be category B machines. They might have more of them—say five machines per table, so if there are 40 tables, that will be 200—but they will be the same type of machine, the one with a maximum payout of £2,000. So what are the Government testing? I say, nothing. There is nothing that they cannot find out from the existing industry, which has run category B machines for years without any problem. It is a myth that eight new large and eight new small casinos are needed to test out some hypothesis; the test is irrelevant and unnecessary.

On the other hand, if the Government were to say that they would allow category A machines to go into the new casinos on a proportional basis—we tabled an amendment to say that 20 per cent. of those machines ought to be there—that would make some sense. That would be a real pilot scheme, testing out category A machines in northern regional casinos. Just to test out the category B machines in new casinos is a waste of time and money. The hon. Member for North Durham raised the important issue of when the assessment should be made. When will the gambling commission say that it has evidence either way?

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The hon. Gentleman was talking about what could be tested. The new small and large casinos will be in a different situation; they will not require 24-hour membership. There has been a lot of debate in this Committee about the possibility of an increase in problem gambling if casinos are located in high streets, in easily accessible areas where people can walk in off the street—ambient gambling. Perhaps it would be useful to have a limited number of small and large casinos to test just that, as well as testing the impact of new casinos on other businesses in their area, especially if they open in seaside towns.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but my understanding is that the existing casinos will not have the 24-hour rule, so they will not have to have membership. There will be accessibility to existing casinos under the Bill, so with all due respect to the hon. Lady, her point does not apply. We might be testing the fact that a large casino, probably as big as the biggest that we now have, will have several hundred machines. That will certainly bring in more people, but it will not necessarily increase the likelihood of problem gambling.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I repeat my earlier point: the existing casinos can remain as private clubs. Many of those to which I have spoken wish to do that. Therefore, we are talking about something different. Throughout our debates on casinos, the hon. Gentleman has advocated caution. I know that the bulk of his comments concerned regional casinos but does he not acknowledge that there should also be caution regarding the large and small casinos?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Caution, yes; proliferation, no. What are the Government proposing? They are proposing 16 new casinos with category B machines, which are already in existing casinos, so what is new? Will the hon. Lady explain her point? What is new? Nothing, except the possible number of machines in relation to the number of gaming tables. That is the only new ingredient, and it is not worthy of all this fuss—the prescribed hoops to jump through, and the planning measures.

Proliferation can be tackled in different ways. One could argue that when there is a certain level of development in a region, planning measures should be brought to bear to prevent overdevelopment. There are simple ways of dealing with that without going through all these machinations.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Is not that the salient point? Planning regulations at local council and regional level should stop overdevelopment anyway.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Yes, but there is more to consider than the planning issue, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned more than once, and on which I agree with him. Even if the matter is left to the free market, developers are not going to build these things, which, at a development cost of £30 million for one large casino, are a huge investment, unless they are in a populated area with a threshold population of about 100,000, so there will be limits on investment. If the Government want to control development, they could do it in other ways.

The hon. Gentleman gave us a model of the timing of the assessment—he gave some dates—based on development not starting until 2007. There will be construction costs. The idea that every new casino will be up and running with the starting gun in 2007 is nonsense. The new casinos will be phased in over two or three years, and the gambling commission will have to wait three years before it pronounces, but on what evidence will it pronounce? What will be the sample? Will it be one casino, or 16, or 24? No one is saying. So, on what basis will it advise the Government, ''There is no problem with problem gambling, and we recommend that further development of casinos at various levels can now take place''? If the Government say that they do not think that the gambling commission—

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

What about the other side of the coin? What if the commission says that there has been an increase in problem gambling? What will it do—close down the casinos?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That is an interesting question. For casinos that are to be developed in that period, there will be plans and planning applications in gestation, and construction on some casinos may have started. If the commission pronounces too early on the grounds that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, what will happen to those investments? It is not clear that the Government have thought that through. That is an excellent point.

The outcome of the assessment is still unclear. If it is unclear to us, it is sure to be unclear to the people in the industry who are supposed to make this investment. Why would they bother when the situation is so uncertain? Why would someone invest £30 million per large casino when they do not know when the Government will pronounce on this matter, what the outcome will be, and whether regional casinos will be able to compete with category A machines? There are so many question marks and uncertainties that I will be surprised if the industry puts its money where the Government expect it to.

Let us not forget that the kind of companies that we are talking about do not just run casinos. Most of them—and there are not many—also run bingo halls and other leisure pursuits. Huge numbers of people in this country play bingo. I was told that in one constituency—a Labour marginal one, but I do not want to underline that—half of the electorate are members of the local bingo club, the owners of which also have casinos. What will such owners do if they are not happy about what is going on?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

They will do what they did last time.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

If the Minister knows that they will do something, that should be fed back to his Back Benchers, because commercial clout will come to bear at the end of the day and there may well be political fall-out. I simply drop that pebble into the pool and let the ripple reach the Government Benches. It may be passed on to certain Labour colleagues in discussions on the subject.

On a final note, the Government have consulted the industry on all this throughout the past four years, and before they print their amendments and run into a lot of flak on their return on 11 January—it is out there waiting to hit them—I urge them to talk to the industry right now, starting tomorrow, to try to work out something sensible, because the way that things are going, this Bill will not reach the statute book.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Much of what we are hearing these days comes to us via a circuitous route. The hon. Gentleman recommends that the industry has a meeting Ministers straight away—tomorrow could not be soon enough—but is he aware of the rumour that Lord McIntosh has summoned the industry for a meeting at 9.15 am tomorrow?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I was aware of a 9.15 am meeting, not with this Minister but another one, but I have now been told that it has been pulled, so I do not know whether the rumour is true. The noble Lord McIntosh is not privy to the proceedings of this Committee, so unless he reads Hansard or listens in, how will he assuage the fears of the industry?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

He is listening to our proceedings. They are being broadcast.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I shall wave to him, in that case. [Interruption.] They are being broadcast on radio, not on television? Sorry, I thought that there was a camera. If there were, I would play to it a little more.

One of the Bill's problems may well be that too many Ministers have been thrown the pass and allowed to run with it for a time, and we have not had the usual continuity of one Minister piloting the Bill all the way through its passage. There are serious problems with it. We share the Government's view that we do not want a proliferation of casinos. Market forces will do something to prevent that. If the Government want to adjust the pace of development, there are mechanisms at their disposal other than the incredibly bureaucratic, regulatory and prescriptive methodology of their statement.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I shall be brief. It is exceptional to have an Adjournment debate in Committee, as we all know. I genuinely consider the Minister to be a very good friend of mine, and I hope that I have not strained our friendship too much during our proceedings. However, anything that I have said has been meant to be helpful to the Government, because I can see the problems coming down the line. The Minister will cop them all, which in many ways is unfair on him. The Bill is a poisoned chalice, and it has got worse as it has passed through Committee. I must tell my right hon. Friend in all humility that the Government would do better to pull the Bill entirely and reconsider it.

These are major developments with enormous implications. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood is demurring, but she, like me, has a particular objective. The worse thing to do is set ourselves artificial timetables, and tell ourselves that we must hasten the Bill through Committee because a general election is on the way, and then we will all be able to repent at leisure. This part is so significant that it should be pulled from the Bill, and if the Scrutiny Committee is not to be reconvened, my very good friend the Minister, his officials and the industry should reconsider it. At the moment, of course, this part of the Bill looks like the worst of all possible worlds, and the support for it is disappearing fast.

We all thought that the number of super-casinos was settled at eight, which is a strange figure. I have heard Opposition Members saying, ''We believe there should be a limit, but we are not going to say what that is.'' It is unfortunate that the Government, having come up with something, then proceed to be heavily criticised because they are trying to answer a point, but not in the way that other Members want it answered. However, no one has told the Minister precisely what the number ought to be. It is easier for those like myself who have said that the market as modified by the planning process should determine the number.

The idea that there will be 150 new large casinos—that is the figure plucked out of the air by the media which has caused the Government to panic—is absolute arrant nonsense. The amount of money involved would mean an investment of about £4.5 billion by the industry, and clearly neither the planning process nor the industry would be prepared to do that. We are tilting at a rather substantial man of straw constructed by the media.

The Government say that they have been listening. That is fine, but others could say that the Government are now panicking. That is why it would be far better, in the interests of the Minister's long-term career, which I hope will be fruitful, and the Government's reputation, to accept that the matter has got slightly out of hand and that it should be reconsidered, particularly as we now have the figure eight applied to large and small casinos.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said everything that I wanted to say about the advisory panel, but of course that will not stop me, as it never stopped any other Member of Parliament, saying it all over again. The panel seems like another layer of bureaucracy. We have not only set another artificial figure, but invented a new body to see how the artificial figure will be arrived at. My God, the panel will need the judgment of Solomon to do that. In the end, it will still report to the Minister with its recommendations, and he can turn them over. Let us foreshorten that process: why does the Minister not make a decision straight away?

I have noticed that so often in government, of whatever party, we do not trust ourselves to take decisions. It is not really surprising that if we do not trust ourselves, the people do not trust us either. We always seem to think that our judgment will be coloured. I have made plenty of mistakes, but I prefer to make my own mistakes than to have them made for me by experts, because it is the experts who in the end get us into all the trouble. They are there to advise, but Ministers are there to decide. In the circumstances, the Minister would be far better off if he took the decisions himself.

The uncertainty in the industry is enormous, and it really is not good enough. These ideas have been going around for years. Decisions have been made, money has been invested and local authorities and football clubs have got together. They thought that they would be able to put together packages that would be acceptable under the Government's previous announcement, and they now find that that has all been thrown to the wind. At some point, someone might say that the number applied to the three categories of casino was a restraint on trade and decide to challenge it in the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Caborn indicated dissent.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

The Minister is shaking his head, but I hope that in that area his advice is good, because in some of the others it has not been so. I do not blame him, because we are discussing a highly complex area. In the end, we ought to trust the planning process, the market as modified by the planning process and the good sense of the industry. It is not there to try to exacerbate problem gambling. If the industry were going to abdicate its social responsibility, it would not be as healthy as it is, nor would it have the reputation that it has. The Government ought to have more trust in the ability of the industry to ensure that the market does not get out of hand.

As for problem gambling, quite honestly we are making far, far too much of it. It will be rather too late once the provisions are enacted to find out that there has been an increase in problem gambling. I do not believe that there will be a significant increase, so we should proceed with the original proposals. They were proposed far too long ago for us to go back to them, however. Given that the Minister will, I know, listen to the disquiet among Members on his own Back Benches, he ought to pull this part of the Bill and reconsider it in full.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has made an interesting if not powerful case as to why some aspects of the Bill should go back to the drawing board. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham on a thoughtful speech, and in particular on the planning aspects of it. He is clearly very knowledgeable about that. I will return to that point briefly in a moment. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) again made thoughtful contributions, which I sincerely hope the Minister takes on board.

Although the hon. Member for West Ham virtually dismissed the concept of problem gambling, he echoed the complacency about that issue exhibited in the Minister's statement this morning. The right hon. Gentleman said that Britain had a low level of problem gambling, which, according to the statement, accounted for less than 1 per cent. of the population. Put in those terms, it does not sound like a big problem, but 1 per cent. of the population is between 300,000 and 500,000 people, which is a lot.

Interestingly, the Government announced about three hours ago that they are going to cut the number of soldiers. There are about 100,000 soldiers. So, in one day, we have had Government measures that will reduce the number of soldiers in Her Majesty's armed forces and increase the number of problem gamblers above the current figure of 500,000. That may tell us something about new Labour—they cut the number of soldiers and increase the number of problem gamblers.

Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

The number of troops has risen by 2,410 since 1997. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on that?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. We are not going down that route.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I am grateful, Mr. Gale.

In the Minister's statement, reference is made to the assessment of whether the introduction of the new casinos will lead to an increase in problem gambling. Elsewhere the statement makes reference to whether regional, large and small casinos present hitherto untested risks of social harm and to the need for arrangements aimed at minimising the risk of problem gambling following an increase in the number of casinos. So, the Government acknowledge that there is a risk.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

There is a risk in everything.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The point is that no Government should be taking measures that are likely to increase the risk of a problem—in this case, the problem of problem gambling.

To follow on from the point about what would happen if the assessment is that there has been an increase in problem gambling, I ask whether such an assessment would mean that a licence will not be renewed. It strikes me that we are on a one-way journey. Casinos will be established; the question is then whether the number of casinos remains the same or increases. In the Minister's statement, there was apparently no mechanism that could lead to the number of casinos being reduced if problem gambling was proven to be a direct result of the increased number of casinos.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is looking for risk-free policies. No policy comes risk free; no more than life does. By going out in the morning, we run the risk that something nasty and unpleasant will happen—if not in this place, then somewhere else. Does the hon. Gentleman think that there might be a trade? If there is a slight increase in problem gambling but an enormous increase in regeneration and employment, would he not consider that a fair exchange?

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I do not think that any increase in risk is a fair exchange. That argument could be pursued on road safety: if we did away with pedestrian crossings, traffic could move more quickly. That is not a risk that I want to take. An assessment will be made of the impact on problem gambling of the limited number of new casinos. That is what the Minister told us this morning. All I am trying to ascertain from the Minister when he replies is whether we are on a one-way journey, or whether there will be provision not just to hold the number of licences but, if problem gambling is proven to have increased, to retract from the position that has been established.

That is a reasonable question because we then come on to the advisory panel. I am not sure whether the statement that the Minister made was identical to the one that was circulated. Does the Minister remember the following sentence about the advisory panel:

''Clearly, all Panel members must be able to demonstrate independence from any potential interested parties and must have an appreciation of the need for impartiality''?

Can he confirm whether that was in his statement or whether there are two versions?

I realise that time is pressing on, so I return to the planning issues that the hon. Member for North Durham raised, very adequately. Perhaps the Minister or his officials could write to all members of the Committee to clarify the exact situation on section 106 agreements and planning gain. Can the Minister confirm that section 106 agreements, whether for casinos or any other developments, are plan-led, and that the local authority determines what the planning ought to be, not the developer, the licence holder or whoever else? Further, will the Minister confirm that the planning gain does not have to be site-specific and that the local authority will determine both what that planning gain is and where it is located?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

In my constituency, we have been keen on attracting a casino for a simple reason. We are a city growth pilot area and as such we saw few ways of attracting private sector investment. Then the prospect of a regional casino arose and a series of our problems began to disappear.

In the last year or so a considerable planning application has been put together through the local authority that involves supermarket retailers, a hotel, an arena, conference facilities, a water park, and a 19,000-seater stadium for our rugby club, the Saints. At the heart of that development was a regional casino. Six weeks ago, for reasons that I can partly understand, all that was turned on its head, although I put aside whether we should have been in that position.

There was already serious competition in the region. The local authority therefore started to consider whether, if we were unlikely to get a regional casino, we should predicate the development on a large casino and build out of that in the hope that if the pilots did not demonstrate a huge growth in problem gambling resulting from regional casinos—I acknowledge the problem, however, particularly in relation to internet gambling—the development could ultimately lead to a regional casino and regeneration, which in St. Helens would mean around 1,500 well paid jobs.

What the Minister has said in conversation with my local authority today has thrown it into complete confusion. The authority is now not sure whether to proceed with the various partners with an application for a regional casino, a large casino or a small casino, bearing in mind that the total number of casinos that might be approved is 24. The cost of proceeding is several millions of pounds so, given the numbers across the country being invited to take part in the competition, we are talking about many tens of millions of pounds of public money at least, as well as private money.

There is very little guidance about how the competition may be framed. People feel that the odds are stacked against them, because there is an assumption that certain places are already well ahead in the game, albeit perhaps for good reasons. Now, my local authority does not know what to do, how to spend its money or how to work with the partners.

My local authority now knows from the Minister's statement that no decision will be made until 2007, which is three years away. Even if St. Helens were fortunate enough and clever enough to have attracted the Minister's eye to succeed in its application, it would then have to put in a planning application. However, because of the complexity of the project that is being put together—it is a city growth scheme; a major regeneration scheme with 1,500 jobs—it will almost certainly be called in by the Secretary of State. Even if it were chosen as one of the eight regional pilots, it probably would not get planning permission until the back end of 2008, and would therefore probably not be constructed until 2010 or 2011. A three-year pilot takes it to 2014.

If it is a genuinely open competition, the Minister must tell us that it is acceptable for pilots not to return their final analysis for 10 years from now; otherwise schemes such as that for St. Helens might just as well not waste their money, let alone their breath, in making an application. It is incumbent on us to give a proper steer on the question, because a lot of money is involved, both public and private.

Critically, in my town, the Saints are involved. The Minister has generously taken an interest in the club's problems, but I remind the Committee that the Saints are an extremely successful rugby team. Unfortunately, because of the state of its ground, it faces huge problems every year with the Health and Safety Executive. Each year, the HSE takes away a number of seats, and the club is losing revenue as a result. It urgently needs to move: it cannot wait 10 years, not least because the HSE will close the ground. The problem with such uncertainty is obviously extremely serious in a town such as St. Helens, because rugby is not just a part of life there; for many people, it is a way of life.

We come back, therefore, to this morning's statement. The Saints are looking for partners—retailers, a casino and others—and the club thought that it had found a way forward. That has been turned on its head. This morning's announcement means that the idea of a large casino may well be turned on its head, although we do not know. The club might be better off tearing up the whole thing and saying, ''We cannot play here any longer because it is not going to work for us. We should go elsewhere.''

I say that because it is important that the Minister, his officials and those advising him realise that much more is at stake than advice about eight small casinos, eight large casinos and eight regional casinos. Huge regeneration projects are genuinely predicated on these matters, and the uncertainty and lack of clarity that has regrettably resulted from this morning's statement—ironically, it was made to clarify matters—has probably left local authorities, clubs such as the Saints and casinos up and down the country far more uncertain than they were first thing this morning.

I hope that the Minister realises that his hon. Friends on the Government Benches genuinely want the Bill to succeed; none of us want the Bill to fail. Opposition Members still will not give a commitment on whether they are in favour of liberalising gambling and whether they will trust the people. I can tell the Minister that St. Helens has debated the matter. Yes, some people in the town are worried about problem gambling, but on balance they would rather trust themselves than have others telling them how to lead their lives.

The consequences of going down this road are extremely detrimental for city growth projects and for projects involving clubs such as the Saints. A 10-year waiting period is pretty unacceptable. It is incumbent on the Government to make realistically clear how the review will work. If it is genuinely open to the panel to advise the Minister on a broad range of options, we could have one pilot reporting in five years' time on whether it was a success, and then have to wait another five years for the next pilot. Having only eight pilots is a pretty unacceptable way of judging things.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I am not trying to curry favour with the Minister, but I ask the Committee not to blame him. He is the fall guy—the patsy—sent in to try to cover up inefficiency, terrible mistakes and the fact that various Government Departments will not and cannot talk to each other in order to put together a coherent policy. He has my sympathy. I recognise that, while he smiles through the pain, his limbs are being quietly torn from him in slow, painful jerks. However, he is the Minister, and he has to take the rough with the smooth. How Lord McIntosh will get on in the House of Lords, I really do not know. He is in for a very rough time.

The statement is a partial step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the way in which certain clauses have been phrased creates more gaps than we had before. You will be delighted to hear, Mr. Gale, that I shall speak in a form of shorthand. This subject could be extended for hours and hours, but I shall be commendably brief.

I wish to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove on the planning process and costs. The proposals are becoming incredibly bureaucratic and expensive. When the Government devise planning regulations, they seem to do so without any reference to or concern for the cost to people who make planning applications. The hon. Member for North Durham dealt with that point—not so much the cost but the efficiency of the operation—very well.

I draw the Committee's attention to the last sentence in paragraph 22 of the Minister's statement:

''Once planning permission has been granted and the casino has been built, the operator will be able to apply for a full premises licence, which he could expect to obtain provided there has been no material change in the proposals since the competition.''

I ask the Minister whether he would put £150 million, £200 million or £250 million into building a project on the chance that he ''could expect to obtain'' a full premises licence? Any management that did so would want their heads tested. There must be a great deal more certainty in the process than the possibility of getting a licence at the end of it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bath—I keep calling the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) my hon. Friend; I can see this partnership developing in time—discussed the lack of clarity on regeneration. The matter was also brought out by the scrutiny Committee. Paragraph 22 of the Government's response to its report states:

''The Committee is concerned that the lack of clarity surrounding regeneration benefits could result in potential regeneration benefits being lost. This is a serious risk which needs to be addressed''.

That is absolutely correct. As the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) just said, regeneration benefits will be vital to saving some areas from continuing run-down. We want a clearer definition of the regeneration benefits.

Again, I echo the call for clear national guidance. The scrutiny Committee acknowledged

''the Government's reluctance to publish national guidance relating specifically to regional/leisure destination casinos''.

The Minister's statement does not provide any clear guidance on the national scene. In fact, it seems to involve a great deal of face-saving. The Government's response to the scrutiny Committee states:

''The Government does not consider that a separate national planning policy statement on casinos is required. However, we are currently finalising PPS6'',

and so on. Everything that I have heard from members of this Committee is a call for clear national guidelines. The Minister should take that on board.

My next point is about advisory panels. I am not sure whether they are pushing or pulling, or where the authority will lie. Paragraph 13 of the Minister's statement refers to the regional planning bodies:

''Their proposals will then feed into the recommendations of areas for the initial eight Regional casinos by the Advisory Panel.''

Will their proposals feed in first? If so, the advisory panel will in fact make the decisions. We have heard that the Secretary of State does not want to intervene; he is very selective about calling in applications. As the hon. Member for West Ham said, however, there could be a challenge, which could go much higher up the legal process. Paragraph 9 says:

''the Advisory Panel will be asked to identify areas for the new casinos''.

Which will be paramount—the advisory panel or the regions? We should know.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be some clarity on paragraph 9? It says that the panel will need to ensure

''a good range of types of areas, and . . . a good geographical spread of areas across Britain.''

It then says:

''The Panel will also want to ensure that those areas selected are willing to license a new casino.''

Does he agree that there could be a conflict if the panel thinks certain areas should have a casino in the interests of geographical spread, but local people do not?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I would love to agree with the hon. Gentleman, because I recognise the mischief he is causing, but I do not feel that the issue is a runner, because the advisory panel would be remarkably foolish to start considering areas that have set their face against a new casino. However, there are opportunities for excitement there, too.

How will the advisory panel be made up? I do not know how many British citizens understand how regional casinos work or what fund of knowledge—if that is the right phrase—there is in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Does the Department have any advice about how the advisory panel might be brought together? I would like to hear from the Minister about that.

My last point is about this country's hard-pressed casino operators. If we go through with these measures, we shall see the creation of a supply-side monopoly, which will last for a minimum of three years, and more likely for five, six or seven years. I do not know where that will go. Sometimes, existing casinos will be tied in by their existing leases.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Speaking of leases, paragraph 25 states:

''Arrangements will be made to ensure that existing casino businesses can in the future be transferred to new owners and to new premises if the current premises for some reason become unavailable (such as end of lease or fire)''.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

That is handy.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Yes. So, a business that wants to move from where it is trading to more modern facilities apparently cannot do so unless its lease ends or it has a fire.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

My hon. Friend has made exactly the point that I was going to make, so I shall not repeat it, save to say that I am with him heart and soul. Perhaps the Government want to create a new industry of arson. It would then be very convenient and easy to obtain a new lease: just burn the old place down and away we go lads, no problem. Of course, I cannot endorse that, although my hon. Friend has made a proper point, and the rules must be looked at.

I must side with the right-wing Member for West Ham—my political blood brother—and say that I think that the Government should pull the Bill, reconvene the scrutiny Committee, listen to what it has to say and then bring the Bill back. In that way, we can get on and have a sensible Bill that will work.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I want to respond to one or two points that have been raised. I have no doubt that we will have a detailed discussion on the new amendments on 11 January. I remind the Committee that Budd was asked to review gambling because of remote and electronic gambling, which were of real concern to the industry and to the Government. The vast majority of the Bill—about 90 per cent.—deals with those areas. We are now talking about 10 per cent. of the Bill. I want to put it on the record that there is no disagreement about that 90 per cent. We need to deal with the remaining 10 per cent.

I made a statement on 16 November and said that I would come back with more information. I am pleased that I have come back earlier rather than later to ensure that the Committee can discuss the matter. We have had a useful discussion this morning and this afternoon that has addressed some of the issues that will arise as we bring forward the new clauses and amendments. I want to remind the Committee why the Government have brought forward the amendments.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

No, let me make some progress.

To a large extent, the scrutiny Committee accepted that we could control proliferation by the triple lock, particularly in terms of the planning regime. On Second Reading, we indicated that there could be use of class orders. They were asked for and we responded to that. However, it was clear that there was still concern, both in the House on Second Reading and in the country, that there was a danger of proliferation. What we put in place and what was recommended to the House was not as robust as many wanted it to be. That was made clear in the House on Second Reading. That is why we made a statement to the Committee on 16 November about the eight regional casinos. However, I also clearly indicated at that time that, if we were dealing with proliferation, there would be consequences for large and small casinos. We said that we would reflect on that and return to the House.

I am bound to say that any business that has started to predicate its investment strategies on a Bill that is going through Parliament—whether it is this Bill or any other—knows that there is an element of risk and chance, because that is the nature of making legislation. Businesses may well make the right decision, but sometimes they will make the wrong one. However, we cannot put legislation on to the statute book based on one or two developers doing certain things. It has been made clear that football clubs, rugby clubs and all sorts of sites up and down the country have been trying to get into pole position. That is right. That is what the free market is about and they can take that opportunity. However, the Bill cannot be predicated on that.

What we are trying to do is manage the change. There was real concern and that manifested itself in all sorts of ways, culminating in the Second Reading debate. We took heed of that. The Secretary of State clearly said that she would consult with a host of people. That has happened. We got the feeling that they wanted to ensure that we brought in further constraints and that is what we have done. Let us be absolutely clear: we are managing change in difficult circumstances. We must reassure people.

This is the first phase. It will be properly evaluated and Parliament will make a decision based on that evaluation. It will not just be somebody from the Government; it will be Parliament. We made that very clear: it will be Parliament, based on a proper evaluation. We are moving into the unknown to some extent, particularly with regional casinos.

Australia is the one example where the market let rip and there was no control over that. I would debate that matter with anyone who wants to see the market go into this area and who believes that the industry there is acting with social responsibility. In Australia, it was a race to the bottom. There were many social implications. It has changed some of the social infrastructure. Those who visited Australia returned saying that they did not want that to happen.

We have taken the cautious route all the way. We thought that we had been cautious enough when we presented the Bill to Parliament. Clearly, we had not. We had to revisit that. That is why today's statement has been made on the back of the statement on 16 November, when I said that we would limit regional casinos to eight. We want that evaluation. It will not simply look at the eight casinos in the regions. A total of 160 casinos will be evaluated: the 136 casinos that are operating now and the 24 new casinos.

Let us be clear: small and large casinos will be different from those with grandfather rights. They will have considerably more gaming machines. Yes, they will be able to have bingo and betting. Yes, they will be much larger than the current casinos. There will be a wide portfolio of casinos ranging from regional casinos to the existing casinos and those that want to remain as small, members' clubs. There will be something like 160 casinos in this country, which will be evaluated. The evaluation will be carried out by the gambling commission. It will present it to Parliament, which will make the decision. That is right and it will reassure people.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I must take issue with the Minister on this spurious figure of 160 casinos taking part in the trial. There has been nothing wrong with the existing casinos. There is no evidence of problem gambling. The Gaming Board monitors that carefully. Why do we need to revisit the existing situation? It is a red herring.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It is not a red herring. It is a fact of life that there will be 160 casinos. Some will have been given greater freedoms to varying degrees relating to grandfather rights, 24-hour opening and advertising. We believe that it is necessary to test that to reassure the public that what we are doing is in their broad interests and will not create major problems through problem gambling. There are real concerns about that. We will have a portfolio of casinos ranging from the large regional casinos to the small and the existing casinos, which will have greater freedoms under the Bill. They will be tested in that evaluation.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Can the Minister give us some guidance on what happens if the investigation shows that there has been an increase in problem gambling? Would some of the licences not be renewed? What will happen if the evidence is that the number of problem gamblers has risen from the current estimate of 500,000?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is exactly why we have given the powers to the gambling commission. That is why we are changing the way in which we police gambling. As I have said many times, we are taking the best of the Gaming Act 1968 and putting it into a regulatory framework. There will not simply be an evaluation of problem gambling. The gambling commission will be charged with looking at the casinos that are in operation to ensure that problem gambling does not increase. If it does, it has the power to intervene long before a decision is taken to build more casinos. That is an important part of the gambling commission's remit. It can intervene in the licensing arrangement to deal with that part that it believes is creating the problem gambling.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The Minister says that the commission would have the power not to allow an increase in the new level of 160. Will it have the power to reduce that number, or are we indeed on a one-way route?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It is not a question of being on a one-way route. We must bring certainty to the marketplace. The evaluation would find out where the problems were that encouraged problem gambling. The gambling commission has the power to intervene selectively in a casino or all the casinos if it believes that something deliberately creates problem gambling. Will it have the power to remove a licence? The answer is no. Once a licence has been given, one cannot start withdrawing it, unless the licensing conditions are broken—that is a different matter. In the case of problem gambling, the answer is no. The investment has been made, we stand by that investment and we believe that the powers given to the gambling commission mean that it will be able to intervene.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

This raises an incredible spectre. Let us take the regional casinos; we are talking about £150 million of investment. Is the Minister really saying that if, at the end of a trial period of, say, three or five years, the gambling commission decides that there is enough evidence that there is an increase in problem gambling because of the 1,250 category A machines in such casinos, it will turn round to those casinos and say that it will reduce the numbers to 500 or 600? The whole economic financial basis of that investment will be completely destroyed, and no one will go ahead if that is a possibility.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is exactly why we are doing what we are doing. We are taking a prudent and cautious approach. It is in the interests of the investor as well as of the population that we approach the matter cautiously. The gambling commission and the powers that we will give it mean that such a scenario should not arise. The cautious and incremental approach, and ensuring that the regulation operates, means that we will not find ourselves in such a scenario.

I want to go through a number of the questions raised. A lot of them will be answered and debated further when we bring back the amendments. There is a meeting with representatives tomorrow morning. British and overseas interests will be presented.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Together?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Together. My right hon. Friend Lord McIntosh will take that meeting.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister will not be there.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

No, I have constituency matters. One good thing about being in the other place is that one does not have constituents to meet on a Friday or Saturday.

We need to test the small and large casinos because they have eight to 15 times the number of gaming machines. They can also provide betting and, in the case of the large casinos, bingo. They represent a new form of casino gambling with a combination of products on a much larger scale than we have now. That is why we want to make sure that they are tested as well.

The hon. Member for Bath asked about proceeding on a legal basis. Yes, we believe that we have a sound legal basis to proceed. He asked about guidance on regeneration and the advisory panel. Yes, the panel will be advising on regeneration, along with the other issues that I raised. The last point that he raised was about the premises licence; it was this morning, so he has probably even forgotten himself.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

No. I have a list.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Regeneration will come from both the planning obligation and the premises licence. The Bill will give local authorities the power to conduct competitions and with that they will be able to ensure that they get planning gain on section 106 agreements. The premises licence will allow them to go beyond the scope of planning permission under section 106.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

So we have a scenario of a competition in a local authority area between two operators bidding for the same location. Which will win: the one that bids the highest on the section 106 agreement or the one that wins the competition on some other basis? How will the council decide on that? It is a minefield.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Anyone would think from the debate that councils are a bit naive and that such planning applications will be the first major developments that they have had to deal with. Quite honestly, there are some skilled operators inside local government. There are constraints on section 106 and planning gain, as we all know, but the local authority giving the planning permission will weigh that up and deal with it. We want to ensure that the competition is transparent and not open to legal challenge. That is why I said in my statement that we will be sitting down with the Local Government Association to work out what advice to give to local authorities. We have made it very clear that the planning process has integrity and that it must be maintained. On the other hand, there is a premises licence, through which further advantages for a particular area can be negotiated. So, there are two opportunities for a local authority to negotiate gain from such development.

That must be put into the context of the work of the gambling commission, which will give out the licence. As well as setting out the normal licensing conditions laid out in the Bill, it will have a clear position on social responsibility. That is absolutely paramount, which is why we are doing what we are doing. We want to ensure that social responsibility is the first criterion, which is why we are running this type of piloting development.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister is giving some helpful information. For my own clarification, the Minister said that when the competition takes place any developer involved will be expected to talk about the regenerative benefits of their scheme in relation to both the premises licence and the planning application. I assume, therefore, that the Minister envisages that the total package will be presented at the competition stage, when the gain from planning and from the premises licence application will be put together.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is right. A premises licence will not be granted until the end of the process because the authority must ensure that the applicant has delivered on the agreement about the premises. If all three stages were agreed at once, the authority would have no control. An operator gets a licence to operate from the commission, which takes into account social responsibility. At the same time, based on the given criteria, the panel will recommend the 24 areas, which will be spread throughout the UK because Scotland and Wales will also be involved. When that has been agreed and the licences have been granted, the licensees will be able to apply to operate in those areas determined by the panel—once they have been accepted by the Secretary of State. The licensees then negotiate for planning permission, and section 106 comes into play. The granting of a premises licence, which is negotiated with the local authority, is the last thing put in place. As long as the licensee has complied with all the conditions set out at the beginning of the negotiation, it will receive a premises licence.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

The key thing about the Bill is increasing the powers of regeneration. I found from experience in local government that control over land—planning permission—was very important. What the Minister has suggested will give an awful lot of power to a developer or operator with a licence. It will go round an area with a cheque that will be very attractive to many local authorities. The planning gain that authorities will get out of any deal will be quite small because they will be fighting over one operator. My right hon. Friend is giving developers an open chequebook.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It will not work like that. Let us say that 20 companies want a licence to operate in the UK and get one, and the sites have been selected by the panel and the Secretary of State. Any one of those companies can go to one of the local authority areas that has been selected—for a regional, large or small casino—and say, ''We want to offer X,Y and Z.'' One area could probably have three or four operators applying. I cannot believe that any of those 20 operators with licences would not try to get one of the 24 sites.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

It depends on the site. Will it be a small geographical area in a city, a city or a city region? If it is the latter, there will be competition between different authorities, and the bargaining ability of those local authorities in the face of operators with very attractive licences will, frankly, be zilch.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

We are talking about the local authority's licensing area. Let us take Sunderland as an example. Its licensing authority may determine according to all the criteria that Sunderland ought to have a regional casino. It would then be up to Sunderland to determine through its planning process where it wants the casino to be. Bids will be made; any operator who has a licence may decide that it wants that site in Sunderland. It will want planning permission, and then it will have a premises licence. That is no different.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

But that is taking away the local authority's key bargaining chip, which is control over the site and planning. That is the only way to control such matters in my experience. The last development that I was involved with led to £23 million in planning gain, because the developer wanted a site. What is proposed will produce competition between different cities and councils for those who are holding very lucrative licences. Therefore, a site's natural gain at local level will no longer exist.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It is absolutely contrary to that. Had the previous situation arisen, that would have been the case. Eight areas will get permission to run regional casinos. There are 20 operators, any of which can go to one of those eight areas and say that it wants to develop a casino there. One could say that that is a buyer's market, not a seller's market.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The situation that the Minister outlines is that in Blackpool, where the local authority has a regeneration strategy through its master plan. The local authority has identified the site on which it wishes to develop the casino. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the independent panel looks at which areas to identify, it will consider whether there is a comprehensive regeneration strategy that includes the location of a casino, so that the local authority determines where the casino will be and the panel agrees to that location?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

To encapsulate it, it is the local authority that runs the competition at the end of the day. If it has a strategy or a blueprint, that would obviously be helpful.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

We all understand that the licence is worth something in itself. [Interruption.] Well, it is. A licence must be achieved to start with. That being so, why not auction the licences?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Because we did not go down that route. We have put the matter into the hands of local authorities. An operator will get a licence granted on the basis of social responsibility. The 24 sites will then be determined by a panel, which will be agreed by the Secretary of State. The local authorities that have been selected will then run the competition. It has planning powers and can grant premises licences. It will be for the local authority to determine that; it will not be done by auction.

We believe that that is the right way, because local authorities will determine the type of regeneration that they want for their area. I said in my statement that I hope that there will be consultation with local people as well, which is important. The responsibility has been put squarely with the local authorities to determine planning and premises licences once an operator has crossed the threshold of social responsibility.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

On a point of clarification, does the Minister mean that if the rugby team in St. Helens have an agreement with a potential casino operator, the agreement is worth absolutely nothing? The local authority does not own land or the sites for supermarkets. The Minister seems to be saying that the agreements between all those people are now worth nothing because a local authority, which might change its political complexion in a few years' time, could say that it does not want a particular operator and that its competition will bring in a new set of rules. The club will want to have a realistic idea of where it is at the end of the day.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It will have to wait, as will others, to find out whether it is to be one of the 24 sites that are selected, whether regional, large or small. That will be determined by the panel. If Wigan were to get a site, a number of developers would want to make a bid for it. The local authority, in conjunction with the rugby club and, possibly, others, could agree to give planning permission and a premises licence. That would be when the competition process took place. The key question will be whether it is one of the 24 sites, and that will be determined by the panel and sanctioned by the Secretary of State.

We looked at the figures, and we believe that eight casinos will give us a cross-section of resorts, towns and other areas. That number gives the necessary coverage to do a proper evaluation without the danger of great proliferation.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am conscious of the time. Earlier, I asked the Minister a couple of questions and they have not been answered. On the point that he just made, can he tell the Committee whether the concept of destination will inform the location of the regional casinos?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The answer is yes. We could probably debate how one defines destination. As to consultation with the industry, we are meeting tomorrow, and I have no doubt that from now until we return on 11 January, hon. Members will be lobbied very hard. No doubt there will be amendments prompted by all types of people. It is important that we made the statement today, because there is time for people to reflect on what we said before we discuss the amendments on 11 January.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister implied that we may be able to table amendments before we meet again. That is not possible. Government amendments will be made, but we cannot amend them until they are incorporated in the Bill. We might have new clauses on 11 January, but how can we have amendments to clauses that have already been agreed?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I said this morning that we will do our best to ensure that all amendments are considered.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister is not understanding me. How can we amend on 11 January clauses that the Committee has already ordered to stand part of the Bill? We can only have new clauses.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It will be up to the Committee whether it accepts the new clauses. It can vote for or against them, and there will be stand part debates, Report and Third Reading. The Committee will have the opportunity to vote down new clauses and amendments, and if hon. Members are not satisfied they can debate the matter on the Floor of the House on Report and during Third Reading.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.