Gambling Bill

Public Bill Committee, 11 January 2005.

Standing Committee B

Gambling Bill

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I am sorry for the delay, but I was not expecting to be in the Chair until 2.30 this afternoon. There seems to have been some misunderstanding in the communications.

Clause 330 - Interpretation

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 385, in clause 330, page 146, leave out lines 33 to 37.

Happy new year, Mr. Pike. This is a probing amendment. There are apparently three definitions of ''prize'' in the Bill and we believe that that could lead to some confusion and perhaps, down the road, to some litigation in order to interpret the meaning of the word. In particular, we feel that the exclusion of the reference to winnings in clause 61—we tabled an earlier amendment on that—seems unfortunate because the reference to winnings was previously one of the defining elements for distinguishing between gaming and a lottery. The definition of a prize for a lottery should include anything of value, as the present law states.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Happy new year, Mr. Pike; let us hope it is a productive one. Perhaps I can explain why there are three separate definitions of the word ''prize'' in the Bill. As we discussed in our very first Committee sitting, and as the hon. Gentleman said, we have modernised some of the definitions in the existing legislation. In doing that, we have worked hard not to leave out any necessary elements. There was a concern that our definition of gaming had left out winnings, but in fact our definition of prize in clause 6 expressly includes winnings at subsection (5). That is our first definition. In relation to gaming, the definition needs to include prizes and winnings, where winnings are the money staked and prizes are things put up in advance by the operator.

Turning to the subject of gaming machines, we want to ensure that people do not evade the limits on what can be won from a machine by claiming that their particular prize is outside the definition. We could simply have put ''money'' or ''money's worth'', but we felt that it was important to be clear that when we are talking about a prize from a machine, we really do mean anything that can be won by playing it. Our second definition refers to any moneys, articles, rights or services won.

Lastly, we have provided a separate definition for a prize from a lottery. There is a degree of duplication between the definition of a prize from gaming machines and a prize in a lottery. That is deliberate because in both cases we want to ensure that any sort of benefit is covered. However, importantly, we need to make it clear that where people participating in a lottery put up part of the prize, that does not stop it being a prize. It is not just an independent prize put up by the lottery operator that counts. It is any form of prize offered.

I hope that that explains why we need three definitions of the word ''prize''. We believe that they are needed to deliver that policy. I hope that that explanation is comprehensive, but if it is not and if members of the Committee need more details, I am willing to provide them in writing.

Perhaps I can take this opportunity to draw the attention of Members to a letter that I sent to them correcting one point that arose during the debate on clause 310. In the debate on 16 December 2004, I inadvertently advised the Committee that the Government had offered assurances to Alderney and the Isle of Man that they would be white-listed under subsection (3) of clause 310. In fact, the Government have not yet formed a view on territories to be white-listed. The Secretary of State has received applications from Alderney and the Isle of Man on that issue and those applications will be considered against the criteria that I outlined on 16 December. I am sorry for reporting the position with that slight inaccuracy.

I also apologise for steering off the amendment to give that explanation. I hope that, with my explanation, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I was grateful for the Minister's letter. Last night I thought at first that it said, ''a policeman only wearing his helmet.'' However, it did clear up the position.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

You seem to have started the new year on a good note, Mr. Pike. You have had the letter; I have not. Opposition Members have not received it yet. It is obviously winging its way to us by the usual pigeon post.

I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful explanation. The area is a complicated one and it might be helpful to Committee members if he wrote to us, setting those matters out so that they are put on the record. Those expressing concern would then have that in black and white. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 24, in clause 330, page 147, line 39, leave out 'entering' and insert 'participating in'.

No. 363, in clause 330, page 146, line 43, at end insert

'''pub gaming machine permit'' has the meaning given by section [Pub gaming machine permits],'.—[Mr. Caborn]

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 386, in clause 330, page 148, line 14, at end insert—

'(d) shall include betting as referred to in section 9.'.

Again, I shall be brief. Clause 9(1)(a), referred to in the amendment, deals with making or accepting a bet on the outcome of a race or ''other event or process''. Clause 330 refers to a virtual game or other event or process. It is rather unclear whether that refers to games or virtual events and virtual processes. The clause should be clarified in the way that our amendment suggests so that the meaning is clear.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to be clear that betting on virtual events is permitted under the Bill. During the past few years, there has been a significant increase in the contribution that products such as virtual greyhound racing make to the bookmakers business. It is certainly not the intention of the Bill to deprive them of legitimate betting product. However, the amendment is quite unnecessary. Clause 9 states clearly that betting can take place on the outcome of any event or process, which includes the outcome of a virtual event.

Other provisions in the Bill expressly refer to betting on virtual events. Clause 64 expressly states that holders of the casino and general betting operating licence may apply facilities for betting on virtual events. That is well complemented by clause 164, which ensures that holders of casino and betting premises licences are able to make available facilities for betting on virtual events. In light of that, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for the Minister's explanation and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 330, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 331 and 332 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 333 - Amendments and repeals

Schedule 13 - Minor and consequential amendments

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 412, in schedule 13, page 195, line 8, at end insert—

A1 In section 44 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (refreshment houses)—

(a) omit '', or knowingly suffer any unlawful games or any gaming whatsoever therein,'', and

(b) in the heading, omit '', or gaming''.'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 415, in schedule 14, page 199, line 6, at end insert—

'Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (c.47)The words '', or knowingly suffer any unlawful games or any gaming whatsoever therein,''.'.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The offence of knowingly suffering unlawful gaming or gaming in refreshment houses in London is superseded by the provisions in the Bill. The amendments add this part of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 to the list of repeals that will be necessary following the enactment of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 413, in schedule 13, page 196, line 9, leave out 'or bingo premises licence' and insert

', bingo premises licence, adult gaming centre premises licence, family entertainment centre premises licence or betting premises licence'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 414.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Paragraph 7 of schedule 13 refers to section 40 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995, which enables London's local authorities to grant alcohol licences for near-beer premises. To qualify for a near-beer licence, alcohol can be sold only if it is to be consumed on the premises and the operator must provide companions for customers or light entertainment; I am not sure what that means, but we might find a definition. Premises licensed under part 2 of the Gaming Act 1968—casinos and bingo clubs—are excluded from that regime. We are extending the provision to include adult gaming centres, family entertainment centres and betting offices. Such premises currently do not serve alcohol but there is nothing to prevent them from seeking a near-beer licence if they wish to do so. The amendment would close that loophole.

Amendments Nos. 413 and 414 are necessary to ensure that adult gaming centres, family entertainment centres and betting offices will be excluded from the near-beer licence regime.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 414, in schedule 13, page 196, line 10, after 'Part 8' insert

', or a family entertainment centre gaming permit under section 231,'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 14 - Repeals

Schedule 15 - Transitional

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 418, in schedule 15, page 202, line 1, after 'use', insert

', or could lawfully be used,'.

This drafting amendment is relevant to our new casino policy, which we will discuss in detail later. It refers to paragraph 3(a) of schedule 15, which enables the commencement order bringing into force part 8 of the Bill to include transitional provisions allowing casinos that are already operating when this part of the Bill comes into force to continue to do so.

Amendment No. 418 extends that provision to premises for which a premises licence has already been issued, whether or not a casino has begun to operate there. A licence holder under the current Gaming Act 1968 will still be able to operate as a casino after the new regime comes into force, even if it has not begun operating by then. That will avoid penalising operators who, for a wide variety of practical reasons, may not have their casinos up and running before this part of the Bill commences.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 336 - Extent

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I do not intend to detain the Committee too long, but I want to establish on the record whether there is the potential for confusion if an operator is based in Northern Ireland. I am particularly concerned with subsection (2). Unlike subsection (1), it states:

''The other provisions of this Act shall extend only to—

(a) England and Wales, and

(b) Scotland.''

I assume—that is always dangerous, but particularly with this legislation—that that means that the other provisions to which the subsection refers would be relevant if an operator is based legally in Northern Ireland but has associated or linked operations in England, Wales or Scotland. I would be most grateful if the Minister clarified exactly the nature and scope of how the provisions will operate if a company that is legally based in Northern Ireland does or does not have direct or indirect operations in England, Wales or Scotland. I would be most grateful if the Minister assisted us.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The Bill applies to Northern Ireland on only two counts. The first is chain-gifting, which will become an offence in Northern Ireland under clause 40, and the second is the repeal of sections 9 to 9B of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981. Gambling regulation is devolved to Northern Ireland, but it was agreed that those two matters should be extended to cover the whole of the UK. If a Northern Ireland operator had premises in Great Britain, they would need an operating and a premises licence to operate in Great Britain.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

If I might follow that up briefly, it seems that there is a differential in the regulatory burden for operators who are based in Northern Ireland. I am aware that this was generally established at the beginning of the deliberations on the Bill, but there seem to be some avenues for confusion. I am slightly concerned that the Bill's application may get caught up between the two regions and lead to uncertainties among operators.

Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Department has considered the matter with great care and that it will ensure that there is no confusion about the detail of the Bill's implementation? Under subsection (1), clauses 40 and 319 relate to Northern Ireland, but the other clauses do not. I hope that he will be able to assure the Committee that that will be made crystal clear in the way the regulations are applied, as there is an opportunity for confusion, which could lead to all sorts of other problems as well.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says. I shall ask my officials to ensure that there is no ambiguity. The position is actually the same as what we have today—the status quo prevails—but I hear what he says. I do not believe that there is any dispute with what we are trying to achieve. He simply wants to ensure that the Bill is crystal clear. I shall ask my officials to reflect on that and determine whether we can make it any clearer.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

To satisfy my curiosity, I understand that the vast majority of the Bill is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland. The Minister picked out two clauses that will apply in Northern Ireland, one of which is about chain-gifting. I am as concerned about chain-gifting as everyone else, but many other matters are of equal concern; for example, internet gambling, which we spent some time debating. Why has chain-gifting in particular been selected for application in Northern Ireland?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I was going to give my own answer, which is that things can be posted in Northern Ireland. Chain-gifting has been brought in as a new criminal offence to protect the public on a reserve matter. That is why it has been singled out. The hon. Gentleman knows that it was the subject of much concern on the Floor of the House before the Bill was introduced, and I gave a commitment from the Dispatch Box that we would examine the matter seriously, and that is what we have done. That is why we have extended the provision to Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 336, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 337 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I want to refer to what the Minister helpfully said by way of correcting a wrong impression he had given, inadvertently, in response to me on 16 December. While the Minister was speaking, I did not have the chance to look back at what was said in Hansard, because I was not expecting him to provide that correction date. Having done so, I wonder if he, having corrected what he said about Alderney and the Isle of Man and apologised, for which I am grateful, will clarify whether his undertaking to me and the Committee in the short debate on my amendment to clause 310, in which he said that the Government will table a specific amendment on Report to clarify the position of Gibraltar, still stands? I would be grateful if he confirmed that on the record.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Yes.

New Clause 1 - Consultation with Commissioners of Customs and Excise

New Clause 2 - Prosecution: time limit

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause will extend from six to 12 months the time limit for bringing prosecutions of summary offences under the Bill. The time limit for laying any information for a summary offence is set out in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The limit is six months, which may not give the gambling commission or the licensing authorities sufficient time to investigate an offence adequately and take the decision to prosecute. The gambling commission may need to monitor a premises over a period if it suspects that money laundering or serious fraud is being committed. The six-month period is too limiting for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3 - NATIONAL LOTTERY

New Clause 6 - Non-commercial betting

New Clause 8 - Gambling software operating licence: standards

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause makes an important improvement to the Bill by allowing the commission to set standards in the licences of gambling software companies under part 5. As hon. Members know, many of the gambling products now available depend on computer software that generates images on the screen, such as for internet poker rooms. Software that underpins such games must be tested carefully, and the new clause allows that. I believe that the companies are keen on that. The new clause will allow the commission to mandate individuals to test software, or a random sample of software, and requires licensees to make software available for testing.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I have a technical question, but nevertheless an important one. A rogue supplier of software may offer something that can be downloaded remotely. How will the commission be able to regulate a piece of software that people use for gambling, which may have been downloaded from a company far from its control? Clearly rogue software that is beyond the United Kingdom's shores, and therefore beyond the ability to be regulated, offers the greatest danger. Some of the established players, who will be subject to the new clause and the standards proposed by the Government, may feel that they are under a regulatory burden but have to compete with others who do not have to meet the same high standards. Will the Minister establish for us and put on the record the thinking behind the commission's ability to get to grips with this issue?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend is raising an important point. Does he agree that an issue that we have debated in the Committee, which will come up again later on one of my new clauses, is whether it would be sensible for the protection of consumers to kitemark certain remote gambling sites as British sites and therefore under the commission's control? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government found a way to do that, it might address some of the consumer protection issues that he has rightly raised?

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

As usual, my hon. Friend has made an excellent point. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to what I suspect is the answer to my question. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

I am interested not simply in the consumer protection point but in the different standards to which players in this market will have to work and the way in which the Government intend to enforce the regulations.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Downloading is covered by the definition. The commission will be able to pursue operators using illegally downloaded software. How it does that technically is up to the commission. I assume that it would bring in experts, because it is a highly technical operation which one would not expect to be set out in a Bill. We believe that the new clause gives the commission the power to bring in the technical know-how. We have made it clear that downloading remotely comes within the definition and therefore would be acted upon by the gambling commission.

We have explored kitemarking, but under European Community laws a kitemarked scheme is against competition policy. However, an operator can advertise that it is licensed by the commission. That is one of the standards that we want to set. The operator would then know that the product conformed to the standard set by the commission and that it is transparent and fair in operation.

To reply specifically to the hon. Gentleman's point, the rogue operator is acting illegally. We believe that the commission has the necessary powers and resources to tackle the problem.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I accept that the Minister will have to ask the commission to put forward its own practical approach to the issue in due course. While we do not expect kitemarking to be included in the Bill, it is important in our discussions that the view of the Minister and the Department are clear. Despite the legal statement that he made, does the Minister see that there is an important merit in the concept underlying a kitemark? Does he agree that it would be beneficial? Without seeking to tie the hands of the commission, does he accept that that concept is one that should be noted in the commission's future actions?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

What is the difference between a kitemark and a sign on the screen saying that the operator is licensed by the commission? We are saying clearly that licensing by the commission will bring an operator under the commission's standards. The commission will not give licences out without due consideration and will make sure that licences are complied with and policed. It is important that people using products that are licensed by the commission know that they will get a fair deal. From the point of view of the European Commission, kitemarking would be anti-competitive and therefore we will not use it.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Would it be possible for the commission to use as part of its address or logo a bunch of red cherries or something similar ? That could appear on the authorised licences. It would get round the problem, because I suspect that the problem is relates to national identity and not to a logo of the type that I describe.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I do not disagree. If a cherry is symbolic of a licence from the gambling commission but is not seen to be anti-competitive by the European Commission, fine, let us have cherries. What is a kitemark? Is it a cherry, a licence or something else? What I want to make sure is that people know exactly what product they are getting. The point raised was about the cowboys who are trying to infiltrate the marketplace. I believe that the Bill includes enough powers and resources for the gambling commission to be able to act against the cowboys.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9 - Operating licences: conditions: information

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Although the new clause applies to all operating licence holders, it may be helpful to consider it with betting exchanges in mind. It is essential to ensure that the gambling commission has the teeth to do its job properly. At present, clause 115 requires licence holders to provide information only to the commission. However, it is essential that betting operators share information with others, including sporting authorities. That information may include details of suspicious betting patterns on an event or the identity of an account holder suspected of having access to inside information about a sport.

Sharing information is vital if we are to provide adequate safeguards for consumers and protect the integrity of sport. The new clause brings in stringent requirements on betting exchanges, giving the commission the power to force them to surrender information to the relevant authority.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. For gaming in this country to advance, we must ensure that we have the cleanest and most open operations in the world. Without that we will not attract the revenues that are out there in the world. I am sure that that revenue will come to this country once people know that we continue to operate a rigorous, open and honest gambling regime.

I ask the Minister to be a little more detailed in his explanation of the requirements for operators to register and to provide details. Will those requirements apply exclusively to betting exchanges or will other gambling operators, such as bookmakers, also be required to release all the names of their credit customers? To what extent will the gambling commission have the power to go into all of those bodies?

Betting exchanges have created an audit trail that did not previously exist. I welcome that audit trail, and I think that it is to the benefit of racing, although it obviously extends into other areas of gambling. To what extent will the clause influence the regime of following and checking those taking part in gambling?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The detail of the requirement is for the commission to settle. I have said many times during the deliberations of the Committee that we are setting up a regulator, and we are giving effective powers to that regulator. The gambling commission has powers and the clause will settle in detail how it uses them. It has clear terms of reference to follow, and will act within them.

The provision is not singling out betting exchanges; it applies to all licences held in gambling and betting. I gave betting exchanges as an example, but the provisions cover all those who are licensed.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The Minister again makes a point that has been a bone of contention and a worry to me. We are giving blanket permission to the regulator inside the gambling commission, and his or her terms of reference will come in due course through secondary legislation. I wonder whether that is desirable. Should we not have on the face of the Bill the limits, controls and powers of the regulator? At the moment, we seem to be giving a carte blanche to the regulator, enabling it to do whatever it wishes subject to regulations following at a later date.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is unfair. What we have done about the powers of the commission is laid out in the Bill. We have included the checks and balances and described where the commission can be challenged if it is deemed to be acting irresponsibly. As the hon. Gentleman said when questioning the new clause, we have to keep integrity in the industry; that is paramount.

Our aim is to translate the 1968 Act into the modern setting, which the Bill will do. At the heart of that process is the integrity of the industry. We are ensuring that the commission has the powers to act in a fast-moving industry in a way that was not possible under the 1968 Act. It is right that we grant those powers, but we must include in the Bill the necessary checks if it is deemed that the gambling commission is acting irresponsibly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 16 - Gaming machines: automatic entitlement

New Clause 17 - Pub gaming machine permits

New Clause 18 - Removal of exemption

New Clause 19 - Inspection: powers of entry: person accompanying inspector, &c.

New Clause 20 - Premises licences: specific cases: casino premises licence: overall limits

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take Government new schedule 3—Applications for Casino Premises Licences.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

New clause 20—[Hon. Members: ''It is the one about 8,8,8.''] I remember and I will answer the 8,8,8 question. It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is not present. It does not matter about getting on quickly, because it will take him a long time to get back here from where he is. He is over the pond, as they say.

In my statement on 16 December last year, I made it clear that the Government had listened to the concerns expressed by the House about our proposals for new casinos. I acknowledged that the proposals in the Bill represented a significant change in the nature and scale of casino gambling in Britain. We have therefore decided that we need to take a more controlled and cautious approach to the introduction of the new types of casino provided for in the Bill to ensure that they can be operated without increasing the prevalence of problem gambling. In our sitting on 16 December, I said that I hoped to table new clauses and schedules on the Government's casino policy before the Christmas recess. I was glad to be able to do so on 20 December. I hope therefore that members of the Committee have had plenty of time over the Christmas break in which to study them closely. On 20 December, I also sent Members on the Committee the text of those amendments that could not be tabled because they amended clauses that the Committee had already agreed. I hope that that was also helpful. If the Committee approves the new clauses and schedules that are being debated today, we will table the further amendments on Report.

We had an interesting and wide-ranging debate during our sitting on the last day before the Christmas break. I appreciate that it was difficult for the Committee to reach a comprehensive view without sight of our amendments, so, with the Committee's indulgence, I shall offer a detailed explanation of what new clause 20 and new schedule 3 achieve and why I think they represent a prudent way forward for the public and the casino industry alike.

New clause 20 is the key to controlling the proliferation of casinos in the country. It prevents there from being any more than eight new casinos of each of the three types provided for in the Bill.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister says that the new clause prevents more than eight new casinos in each of the categories. Can he explain why the word ''new'' does not appear in the new clause?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

No, I cannot, but I will look into that question when I have finished making my point.

Until Parliament decides otherwise, when the new regime comes into effect there will be a maximum of 24 new casinos in Great Britain.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Does the Minister accept that, although 24 does not sound a lot numerically, the number of gaming machines that will be accommodated primarily in the super-casinos will represent an increase of something like 800 per cent. on current provision?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I do not know whether that figure is correct when one takes into account the number of gaming machines now present in pubs, clubs and casinos. However, I accept the general point. Anybody who wants to work it out can do so because the number of gaming machines per establishment is absolutely clear. In the light of our experiences in Australia, we have tied machines either to an establishment or to the number of tables. There will be a clear link between the number of machines and the operation of gambling in this country, if the Bill is enacted. The provision is in the Bill, so anyone who wants to make a calculation they can do so.

It is a clear policy decision not to allow machines to proliferate. The hon. Gentleman is right: the issue is not purely one of casinos; the important part is how we control the number of gaming machines. That is what I believe we have done in the Bill. I do not know the actual figures, but no doubt somebody will calculate them.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Just for clarification, the provision mentions no more than eight premises per licence. Does that include existing premises, for example bingo halls and smaller casinos, converted to larger casinos, or does it refer to brand new casinos separate from existing bingo halls that want to convert to casinos?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

If my hon. Friend allows me to explain a little more, I will answer his questions and come to the point about the 130-odd casinos—there is a debate about whether the number is 135, 136, 137—plus the 24 new ones. The number is important if we are to place at the centre of the Bill the need to test what happens as the new casinos are introduced so that people are secure in the knowledge that problem gambling will not proliferate. That is at the heart of what we are doing, because, as I said in my opening remarks on the clause, we have reflected on the arguments advanced on Second Reading and on the representations made to the Government.

Until Parliament decides otherwise, there will be an absolute maximum of 24 new casinos in the new regime. That is achieved in new subsections (1), (2) and (3). Members of the Committee had some seasonal fun and the Tories started before I got to my feet talking about the figure eight and the reasons for its selection. It is a decision based on the exercise of judgment, not on any precise, irrefutable scientific process, or on going to the Library to find out what the definition of eight is. There is no mystical significance to that number. We wish there to be a reasonably large number of each type of new casino so that the impact can be assessed in a range of areas and types of location that might be suitable. We think that a limit of eight each is a reasonable number to achieve the aim while ensuring any risk of problem gambling is minimised.

Some members of the Committee said on 16 December that there was no need for concern about small and large casinos, because there are plenty operating and they present no problems at all. The Government believe that that is incorrect. Small and large casinos under this Bill will be very different from those operating now. They will be bigger and offer new combinations on a large scale. All can offer eight to 15 times the maximum number of jackpot gaming machines offered in casinos now; large casinos will be able to offer betting and bingo in addition to casino games; and small casinos will be able to offer betting. The facilities will be appreciably bigger and different from those now on offer, so we must be cautious in our approach to their development.

I have also heard it said that it is unfair that the existing casinos will not be able to benefit from the full range of commercial rights that new small and large casinos will have. Again, I think that is incorrect, even though I acknowledge the disappointment that the operators feel. The reasons for imposing a limit on the new types of casino is because of the social risk that they pose, and that is true of small and large casinos, too. We propose to test limited numbers to minimise the risk. That cannot be achieved by testing as many as 150 casinos. If we did not impose the restrictions that we have, and gave the same rights to the 136 casinos currently operating, it would bring the total of new-style small and large casinos to about 150.

If an existing casino is one of the up to 24 areas selected by the Secretary of State, it may apply to operate one of the new-style casinos like any other applicant. We also needed a comprehensive solution because we had to acknowledge the implications of setting an initial limit on the number of regional casinos. If we had not done that and did nothing to control the number of small and large casinos, there would inevitably have been a market reaction and the risk of a large overall increase in the number of casino premises.

Subsection (4) of the new clause requires the Secretary of State to determine by order where new casinos can be licensed. Premises licence applications to licensing authorities that have not been specified by the Secretary of State will not be allowed. To assist the Secretary of State in that decision, if the Bill gains Royal Assent we will appoint an independent advisory panel to recommend areas for regional, large and small casinos. Obviously, the members will need a range of experience in, for example, casino regulation, problem gambling and economic development issues. The advisory panel will be asked to identify a good range of types of area, with a good geographical spread across Britain. Subject to those primary criteria, the panel will be asked to choose areas in need of economic development and likely to gain regeneration benefits from a casino. It will be important for the advisory panel to take into account the broad locations being identified in the emerging work on regional spatial strategies, which we hope will become available during 2006.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The Minister is making an interesting point about where the sites will be located. Will the criteria under which the independent advisory panel operates be published? If so, at what stage? Will everybody have a clear idea of how it operates?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The criteria will be published. The process will be open and transparent to the public. That will be laid out by the Secretary of State.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

The Minister referred to the regional spatial strategies that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is driving forward. Could he confirm that significant development and redevelopment measures may emerge because of the new casinos and, therefore, that they will have a significant and important effect on the strategies, which clearly would need to be amended? The regional spatial strategies will affect many other issues such as housing and transport, and it would be helpful if he would clarify that they will have to be amended once the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has agreed to new casinos. Does the Minister agree that the strategies would need amending?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Not necessarily. The regional spatial strategies are under consideration now and authorities will be asked to consider whether their strategy should include a regional casino. That would be quite permissible. They work very closely with the regional development agencies at regional level—such things do not stand in isolation. Consideration of the strategies includes economic development, transportation, housing and recreation, and casinos would be part of the strategy.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

The Minister will know that the east of England plan is out to consultation as we speak. Let us say that Great Yarmouth is chosen—I show no particular preference—after consultation on the plan ends in March this year. There is a danger that the plan would go forward and have to be amended after the public consultation. Can the Minister confirm that an adjustment such as a major casino in a town within the regional spatial strategy would require the strategy to be amended to reflect that significant change?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

If the plan had been out for consultation and the whole of the consultation had finished, yes. I must admit that I am not au fait with the timing of the spatial plans—as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is an ODPM matter—but I shall take his point on board. Previously, any additions to regional planning have gone out for further consultation, and I imagine that the same criteria apply. I hope that if the Bill is on the statute book before any of the spatial plans are passed by the ODPM, they can be amended in that consultation process. However, I shall take the point on board, because the east of England spatial plan will probably be the first to be put in place. I shall look at the timing and ensure that we come back with an answer.

Subsection (4) of the new clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales before making decisions on the location of new casinos. Both devolved Administrations have a major role in land and economic development, as well as in local government, so it is important that they are consulted.

Subsection (8) allows the Secretary of State by order to vary the limits on the new casino categories or lift them altogether. That is what makes our new proposals a test rather than a permanent cap. We have said that the Government will ask the gambling commission to advise on the impact of the new types of casino no sooner than three years after the award of the first premises licence. We believe that such a period is necessary to ensure that a full assessment can be made. We will keep an open mind on the most appropriate moment to assess the impact. If only a couple of new casinos are open after three years or if casinos are not open in a good mix of locations, it would be foolish to try to make a decision on the basis of a small sample. We want to be sure that our decisions are based on a good spread of casino locations and types and a fair overall number. I do not say that in the expectation of any extension of the initial period, but the Government must make decisions about further expansion on the basis of firm data.

If, with the advice of the gambling commission, the Government decide to propose that it is safe to allow more casinos to be licensed, that decision will need the approval of Parliament. That is set out in subsection (8) and again reflects what Parliament said on Second Reading.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

Am I right in thinking that, even if only one or two casinos are operation three years after the commencement order, the Government may, in their wisdom, decide that that is enough to make an assessment and say ''These casinos are okay''? As a result, instead of the eight promised, we could then have the 30, 40 or 50 envisaged in the Government's original Bill. Is the provision not just a fudge to get where they wanted to be in the first place and avoid Parliament's views?

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Very shrewd!

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Not at all. It is not particularly shrewd either. I have said that we would want a good spread and fair numbers to make the decision.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

How many?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

As many as the commission believed was right for it to make a sensible decision, but at the end of the day the safety valve is Parliament. As I said, Parliament will say whether there will be an extension. I have just said that and it is clearly laid out in clause 20, which the Committee debated. That gives the reassurance that the House sought on Second Reading.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

As the Minister has been an MP longer than I have, I am sure that he will be able to help me with this question. When he says that Parliament will be consulted, will it be in a Standing Committee, whose members are chosen by the Whips, or in the full House, where we can all have a say?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It will be the full House; it will be Parliament that decides. It will be both Houses of Parliament, if there are still two Houses of Parliament when the matter comes to be discussed. Parliament itself will make the decision.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

That sounds all very well and good, but may I pin the Minister down? Is he saying that the vote will take place on the Floor of the House?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Yes, on an affirmative resolution of the House.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

That is not the same thing.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Yes it is. It takes place on the Floor of the House.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

Will there be a motion debatable by the full Chamber of the House of Commons?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Yes, that is the intention. We want to give the House responsibility for an extension. We think that that is very important. If the hon. Gentleman has concerns, he can raise them. We believe that we have covered the matter under clause 20.

Mr. Foster rose—

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Just let me answer the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). We are reflecting what was said on Second Reading. The Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that if there is to be any movement from what is set out in the Bill, we shall carry out a proper assessment. We are not in the business of trying to out-manoeuvre people. We are dealing with a very serious issue, which is why we are doing what we are doing. When the 24 casinos are up and running, the new gambling commission will make an assessment, which will go back to the House. The House will then decide whether it wants to move the process forward. It would be stupid for any Government not to take into consideration the position of Parliament.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and a happy new year to you, Mr. Pike.

To be helpful to the Minister, I note that subsection (8) of new clause 20 commences:

''The Secretary of State may by order''.

It is the normal convention of the House that an order would be considered by a Committee. There are different types of order, but it would normally go to a Committee rather than to the Floor of the House. If the Minister is saying that the provision is to be an exception to the rule and will be dealt with on the Floor of the House, will he assure us that ''order'' is the correct word? In my limited experience, which is nowhere near as extensive as the Minister's, I have never known an order to be considered on the Floor of the House.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

First, orders have been debated and voted on in the House—

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The Minister has made some quite remarkable statements. I have to ask him about the authority by which he makes them. Has he got permission from and the agreement of the Leader of the House so that if the Labour Government are fortunate enough to win a second term—[Hon. Members: ''Third term.''] Does the Minister have the authority to state that there will be a debate on the Floor of the House? Has he already cleared that point with the Leader of the House?

In addition, many orders have a time limit. Would there be a move to increase that limit so that there can be a full, proper debate, not one of these one-and-a-half hour truncated affairs?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I cannot determine what will happen on the Floor of the House in three, four, five or six years' time.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

You just did.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

All we are doing is laying down the formula. It may well be that a decision is taken not to move forward with the process, or the House may argue that it does want to move it forward. There may be all sorts of circumstances. I am saying very clearly what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading in response to several expressions of concern about how the project will move forward. We will move it forward on the basis of an informed debate, based on information gathered by the gambling commission three years after the opening of the casinos. we shall bring that to the House of Commons and Parliament to be determined by an affirmative resolution, and I believe it would be the intention of the day to have that debate on the Floor of the House. I can go no further than that because a Government of our persuasion might not be in power six, seven or eight years from now.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

Shock, horror!

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Indeed. Those are the conditions that we have set out, and we have tried to cover them in clauses 332 and 20.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

Before we leave this point, it is important to state that what the Minister just said does not sound quite as firm a commitment as the one he seemed to give about two minutes ago. Obviously it is dependent on his party being in Government, but as the spokesman for a Labour Government he said clearly in his initial remarks that any debate on the order would take place on the Floor of the House. He now appears to introducing an element of doubt. Will he say that, as the spokesman for the Government on the matter, he will bend every sinew to make sure that the motion is debated on the Floor of the House of Commons and not rubber-stamped in a Committee?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

All I can say is that if the controversy about extending casinos is similar to that about introducing them, any Government would have to be stupid not to ensure that the matter was debated on the Floor of the House and would not take public opinion with them. We have got to do that.

I know that one can make political gestures that we had on the Floor of the House, but we have reflected on what was said on Second Reading and on the representations that were made. To be honest, we have also had discussions with Front-Bench Members of the Opposition parties to make sure that we bring in a piece of legislation that is workable and commands a broad consensus. That is why the Bill went to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. I reflect what the Secretary of State said. I cannot determine what the Leader of the House will do in six or seven years time, but I believe that the matter ought to be debated on the Floor of the House. That is why that we choose to require that the affirmative procedure be used.

New clause 20 brings into effect new schedule 3, which sets out the process for awarding premises licences for any of the new categories of casino where a limit has been imposed on the number of licences of that category that may be granted. The first step that the licensing authority must take is to invite applications in accordance with any regulations made by the Secretary of State under paragraph 2. Where the number of applicants exceeds the number of available premises licences, a two-stage process will be used to decide who is awarded a licence. Our expectation is that there is likely to be a two-stage process in all areas.

Paragraph 4 describes the first stage, which is a regulatory test to ensure that applications satisfy the regulatory premises licensing requirements in the Bill. Paragraph 5 describes the second stage, which applies when the number of applicants who have passed the regulatory test is greater than the number of licences that the local authority is permitted to grant. The second stage will be a competition held by the local authority to determine which of the competing applications would bring the greatest benefit to the local area. That competition could be judged on a range of issues, reflecting those that are important to the area. Those may include, for example, employment and regeneration, the design of the proposed development and financial commitments by the developer to local projects. Local authorities will set out their priorities and concerns and will then invite operators to submit entries to the competition.

The Government think it best to give local authorities a large degree of discretion about which benefits would be most suitable for their area. We do not think it helpful for the centre to be prescriptive about the requirements, because we are not best placed to judge local circumstances and because I am more than confident that local authorities will be able to develop comprehensive and ambitious strategies that will benefit their local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) pointed out, some local authorities have done that and their plans are at an advanced stage.

The winner of the competition will be granted a premises licence or a provisional statement. If a provisional statement is granted, the operator will be eligible for a full premises licence once the casino has been built. Paragraphs 8 and 9 make provision about the issuing of provisional statements, including allowing licensing authorities to set a time limit on the duration of a provisional statement. A time limit may be necessary to prevent a licence holder from holding on to its licence without using it in order to prevent competitors from being able to open a new casino.

Paragraph 6 obliges local authorities to follow a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State about how the second-stage competition should be run. That code will be important to help ensure that the local authority manages the process properly and objectively. We will consult the Local Government Association and others in due course before issuing the code.

In my explanation of the competition process, I hope that I have made it clear that it is the local licensing authority that will make the decisions about which operator to select. The key point for local authorities and local communities is that the casino operator will have to convince local authorities that its is the best proposal for the community in accordance with the stated objectives of the local authority.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) was concerned that casino companies could use the new system to play authorities off against one another. I hope that he is now reassured that the opposite is the case and that local authorities will have the gift of a licence while a casino operator will have to earn it.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Will my right hon. Friend clarify a point? What would prevent a casino operator from selling or changing ownership of a licence before the casino was built?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Whoever they were selling to would have to have an operating licence from the gambling commission. That would be a commercial deal, and it would be discussed with the various operators and people concerned. It would be a normal commercial transaction.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

So, a casino operator with a premises licence would have a commercially saleable product. I accept my right hon. Friend's point that it would have to be sold to another casino operator, but the provision is creating a product with quite a lot of value.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Very much so. It will be for the local authority to ensure that it gets that value from the negotiations between it and those who hold the licence. The panel will make a decision for a regional casino in area X. Those who want to will bid in the competition and it will up to the local authority to award the premises licence. The local authority will determine what it wants for its community, and when the premises licence has been issued, whoever takes it on will have to deliver what was agreed when it was granted, whether to operator A or operator B.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the Minister knows, I and many other Committee members, not least Labour Members, have been concerned about ensuring that we get the regenerative effects of any new casino development. I want to hear him say that there is a mechanism whereby a local area, such as Blackpool, will have some guarantee of getting the regenerative benefits of what the Government are doing. The Government seem to be handing over the third revision of the Bill with no guarantee that the regenerative benefits that so many members of the scrutiny Committee wanted to be achieved will flow from the legislation.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I must stress yet again that we are doing what we are doing to ensure that we approach the development of such casinos cautiously, mainly because of social responsibility. There is no doubt about that and that is why the gambling commission is the first port of call in giving licences to ensure that fit and proper people operate a licence. Beyond that, and as I made absolutely clear when moving some amendments this morning, that regeneration will be subject to local authority negotiation, and there are no better people to negotiate such regeneration and decide who should have one of the 24 licences. Anyone who gets one of the eight regional licences will be in a competition, which will, to a large extent, be conducted by local authorities. I have said that we will discuss with the Local Government Association and others how to implement those criteria to ensure that it is transparent and fair.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The point that I have made to the Minister—not just once, but on a number of occasions—is that surely in this overarching legislation that is creating the new structure, it is for the Government to provide the mechanism by which local authorities can get the money. Given his answers to the hon. Member for North Durham, when a company has satisfied the basic minimum requirement of being a fit and proper company—I see the hon. Gentleman nodding—the whole thing can be shifted to another company that may be fit and proper but has no intention of providing the regenerative benefits. That is the difficulty. By failing to provide a mechanism in the Bill to ensure that the money goes to regeneration, the Government have sold the pass. They are handing the whole problem over to local authorities.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood what I said. I am saying that the local authority will give a premises licence or a statement of premises licence, which will contain all sorts of conditions that I have just outlined and may include regeneration or investment. It is best for the local authority to do that by way of a competition. The criteria will be clearly laid out by the local authority, the negotiation will go ahead and whoever has signed up to operating the premises licence will have to deliver. That is why I said earlier that the premises licence might not be granted totally until the project is up and running. That provides the added leverage—an added stick—to ensure that the project is completed. Whoever takes responsibility for the licence will have to carry out that work.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I want to clarify one point. As I understood the Minister's earlier comments, the independent panel will be working against criteria that include economic regeneration as a key element. In allocating the eight licences for the regional casinos, the panel will look at economic regeneration; take cognisance of the regional spatial strategy; and make recommendations to the Government, who will determine where those eight regional casinos will be. With the key aspect having already been identified by the panel and the Government as economic regeneration, the local authority will then examine the competition to ensure that it maximises that benefit. Have I painted the right picture?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be a written agreement, as stated in paragraph 5(3)(b) of new schedule 3. The authority

''may enter into written agreement with an applicant, whether as to the provision of services in respect of the authority's area or otherwise''.

There will be a written agreement, whoever is the operator. If there is a sale from one operator to another in the intervening period, as long as they are licensed by the gambling commission and take on the full conditions on which the premises licence has been issued, the sale will be permissible.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I have to say that in my experience that approach is fine in the purest sense, but in practice once somebody has a premises licence, they have a marketable commodity that they will sell for a large sum of money. They will have created a valuable asset, which might be worth millions of pounds. I accept that they might wish to pass it on or transfer it to somebody with a casino who is approved by the commission, but in reality and from my experience, if the new operator says, ''We cannot afford to do X, Y and Z,'' a gun is held to the head of the local authority, which has to take it or leave it.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That is the real world.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The real world is what it is. In the real world, the competition for eight regional casinos will be pretty intense. If the reaction caused by us limiting that competition is anything to go by—people want more than that number—there is no doubt at all in the real world that eight regional casinos are going be pretty successful as a product in the marketplace in Britain.

We can debate that until the cows fetch us, but quite honestly, one makes a judgment based on reality and, looking around the world to where that type of regional casino has been operating, one finds that they are quite profitable. A great concern of the House and the country was that to allow this process to move too quickly might create a lot of problems. We have made the process more potent, not less, in terms of its ability to regenerate and be a financial entity in its own right in the real world.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I accept the point regarding the Valhalla in which the Minister lives, but I am concerned to ensure that if someone gets an operator, they do what they are supposed to do. I am sorry, but in practice they will not do it. My right hon. Friend should consider ways to tighten up the process to ensure that what operators offer is delivered. I can see it now: local authorities will face a licence being passed on or sold to another operator, who might suddenly come back to the authority and say, ''Sorry, but we can't afford to do this.'' The authority will have no option but to accept it. My right hon. Friend might want to tighten up the legislation if he wants to ensure that regeneration is the effect of what he is proposing.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

On the transfer of conditions, in any commercial deal, the laws of the nation and company laws are laid down. I do not believe that a set of bandits, rather than responsible companies, are operating here. To get a licence through the gambling commission, companies will have to acknowledge their corporate and social responsibilities and show that they are fit and proper persons. They will be major companies, not fly-by-nights. If they decide to take over a premises licence, they will have to take over the conditions entered into by the original signatory. I do not believe that such companies will start reneging on those deals. I cannot guarantee that absolutely, but companies entering contractual arrangements with a local authority or a private company can be dealt with through various company laws and the courts of this land.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

The Minister might want to give the commission power over the transfer once an operator gets its premises licence. If a licence is going to be transferred to another company, the commission might want a veto of some kind over that. At least that would protect what he is trying to achieve.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I do not know whether that would be the right way forward. If there are good reasons for a premises licence being transferred transparently and in a proper commercial way to deliver what the local authority agreed with the original licensee, I see no reason to impose further constraints to stop it. It might be a proper commercial deal that benefits the local authority and others, so we should be extremely careful.

I believe that the safeguards and procedures that we have included in the various stages of the licensing process give adequate comfort to local authorities and the gambling commission. If people transgress, contractual and company laws outside the Bill will ensure that local authorities can get what they deserve.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I want to be absolutely clear that I understand what the Minister is proposing, so it will be helpful if I tell him what I think he is proposing and he tells me where I am wrong. Is he proposing that the new commission will decide which areas and local authorities get the precious eight regional casinos and then decide which of the operators is to be granted a licence in those areas, or will he allow operators to be granted a licence and then bid to the local authorities to determine who will be given one of the eight casinos? Who will be in the driving seat of allocating the casino operator to the local authority, and what conditions will be set?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The hon. Lady is not quite right, so I shall explain the procedures again. To start on the road of operating a casino in this country, someone will have to get a licence from the gambling commission, which will be given to a fit and proper person in terms of their social and corporate responsibility. In parallel with that, a panel will determine where those 24 licences should be granted against criteria of regeneration and after consulting the regional development agency, regional spatial strategies and others. That panel will come to a decision for the 24 sites for regional, large and small casinos.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

Not local.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Wait a minute. Against the criteria laid down, the panel will decide where those sites will be and make recommendations to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will say yes.

It is always dangerous to name names, but let us say that eight regional licences are determined for sites A, B, C, D, E, F and so on. The local authority—let us say it is Birmingham—will get a licence in its planning area. It can then invite any one of those who have received a licence from the gambling commission to make a bid. It will have laid down transparent criteria for what it wants for offering a regional casino licence to one of those bidders, who will bid against those criteria.

The local authority will have the power to give both planning permission under section 106 and a premises licence. There will be a negotiation about that. There are three separate things. The first is a licence to operate, which will come through the gambling commission. Alongside that, the panel will meet and determine against the criteria where the 24 licences ought to go. Its decision will go to the Secretary of State, who will inform the local authority that it can develop a regional casino. The local authority will have the powers relating to planning and the premises licence to be able to negotiate with those who want to bid. That is the procedure. It is quite simple, and I think it is pretty clear and transparent.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). Is the Minister saying that, when the panel identifies the 24 areas where the casinos will go, it will specifically nominate local authority areas? In other words, if the panel decides that Chelmsford will be blessed with a regional casino, it will have to be in the borough of Chelmsford, not the district of Maldon, which is right next door.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It will be the local authority, because it must give the planning permission and the premises licence. That local authority area, with planning permission, will be designated as the authority to invite those who want to bid to do so.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the local authority have to apply to be considered or will it be told it has been chosen?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I have no doubt that, in the real world that we live in, the members of the panel, who are sensible people, will get a real feel for who wants a casino. If the Lobby of the House of Commons is anything to go by, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are a lot of contenders out there. It is amazing how many people said on Second Reading that they did not want casinos, but by God, the comments I have heard in that Lobby in the last few weeks suggest that more casinos would not be a problem. Make no mistake about it.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

May I give the Minister some encouragement? The process that he has outlined today is almost exactly that employed in France. The French Government give a specific authority the ability to grant a licence. The authority takes in the bids, finds the benefits and takes things forward.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is news to me. It is always interesting to know these things. We are following the French on this, but I hope they will be following us on the 2012 bid.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I agree entirely with the Minister's final remark. I want to ask again for clarification of a point raised in our deliberations just before Christmas. My understanding is that the competition will be for the premises licence—it clearly will not be for planning permission—yet in normal circumstances the planning gain comes in a deliberation in respect of the planning application. We then get into the question of section 106 agreements as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

We know that, under the planning legislation, local authorities are not allowed to make excessive gain from a planning application. Therefore, this major regeneration benefit will come only through a mechanism that allows a local authority to make bids in a form beneficial to its area as part of the competition for the premises licence. Will the Minister confirm, first, that I am correct on that? Secondly, if I am, will he also confirm that his staff have checked that there will be no problems in that respect in relation to competition law?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

The answer to the last question is yes. Our lawyers say that what we are doing is absolutely within competition law. That is not to say that there will not be some gain from applying for planning permission, but, as the hon. Gentleman will readily accept, it is limited. We have introduced the premises licence, so that the true economic gain can be obtained from such a development. The two things are separate, and we have introduced the premises licence because the integrity of the planning laws must be maintained. That is why planning will be done separately. Nevertheless, there can be planning gain under section 106, although it will be limited in scope. The real economic gain could be achieved by the premises licence.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Could I not apply for planning permission without having a premises licence? What would the criteria be for a local authority, if, for example, I set up a company but did not have a premises licence and wanted to apply for planning permission? It seems that there is nothing to stop anyone doing that. As part of the process, will the council have to designate the site in advance, or will it just be a geographical area? I can envisage a situation in which people will appeal against refusal of planning permission for perfectly legitimate projects that meet planning regulations, on the grounds that they do not have a premises licence.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

If anyone wants to apply for planning permission for anything, they can do so—if they are daft enough to spend a lot of money doing something that they know will not materialise, they can apply for planning permission. Indeed, there are local authorities that have granted planning permission for casinos in the full knowledge that a licence will be needed to operate them. I have said before that I think every football club—certainly every premier division and every first division football club—and many rugby clubs have already been examining development in terms of casinos. They are entitled to do that, but that does not necessarily relate to what I am doing in terms of putting legislation on to the statute book.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I would not be daft if I applied for planning permission, because if it was granted I would have a marketable commodity with an actual value to a whole range of operators who would potentially have licences. I do not accept that the two can be knitted together as the Bill envisages.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

We can debate this, but the local authority may decide that it does not want such development in a particular area, because it will not deliver the regeneration that it wants. It might be more selective in relation to a site where the premises licence is conditioned not by planning but by economic gain. The authority might say, ''You asked for planning permission for that site and we have given it to you, but that is not our preferred site. Our preferred site is this one for these reasons.'' It is entitled to do that with the premises licence.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Yes, but I want to finish speaking to the new clause.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister was critical of organisations such as rugby and football clubs that have already put in planning applications. However, they did so because they believed all the promises that the Government had made up to and including Second Reading, before their series of massive U-turns. Those organisations were not being stupid; their only stupidity was in believing that the Government would follow through on what they had been saying for months, throughout the scrutiny Committee process and through the passage of the legislation until midway through the Standing Committee proceedings, when they went into reverse.

The hon. Member for North Durham, with all his experience of the local authority world, clearly takes the same view as me, that developers quite frequently change the goalposts in the middle of a negotiation and hold pistols to the head of a local authority. Would it not therefore be a much greater guarantee of regeneration, instead of leaving the whole issue to be negotiated between the potential operators and local authorities, the Government included a specific mechanism in the Bill that gave the local authority the opportunity to get those regenerative benefits? That would put the local authorities in a much stronger negotiating position to guarantee those benefits.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. The Minister said when he gave way that he wanted to finish speaking to the new clause. I recognise that we are discussing an important point, but hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate the new clause when the Minister has finished. I will therefore support the Minister if he resists giving way too many times.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

To answer the last intervention, if anything has put local authorities in a stronger negotiating position it is the limitation to eight regional, eight large and eight small casinos. There is no doubt that it is a seller's market. I cannot tell local authorities what to do, but I have every confidence that they will be able to extract what they want from the process. The key point is that the casino operator will have to convince the local authority that its proposals are the best for the community, having regard to the authority's stated objectives. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham was concerned about that point, but I hope that I have reassured him and that my explanation of the system will also reassure members of the Committee who are concerned about the risk of legal challenges to local authorities. The Bill will give authorities a foundation to run a competition on the basis of benefits to their areas. As long as local authorities act reasonably, they will have wide discretion to seek benefits for their areas.

The proposals offer a balanced and cautious approach to the introduction of the new legislative framework for casinos. They represent a significant shift from our position on Second Reading. That shift has happened because we have listened. On Second Reading, hon. Members on both sides of the House asked us to put in place a stricter regime. We have done that in a way that puts public protection above all other interests, whether commercial or those of local authorities. The proposals allow us to secure economic and regeneration benefits while ensuring that we can maintain Britain's good record on problem gambling.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister rightly refers to the existing very good record, so it is important that we consider existing businesses. I am, I confess, one of those who did not spend the entire Christmas period reading the information that the Minister sent us, so I must have missed something somewhere, but will he explain what will happen to existing casinos? Clause 7 makes it clear that there will be four categories: regional, large, small and below the minimum size for a licensed casino. I think that the whole Committee understood during debate on that clause that all existing casinos would be confirmed as being in one of those four categories. However, as new clause 20 does not refer to new casinos, we are now talking about having only eight regional, eight large and eight small casinos. Presumably that leaves all the rest as they are, with none of the benefits from the changes made. Will the Minister clarify that there will now be no changes in the designation, categorisation or naming of existing casinos, whether we are talking about 130 or, as he said today, 137?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I say that there are between 135 and 137 casinos because no one is clear on exactly how many we have; it depends who is asked. There are two ways in which things will change for the 130 or so casinos in this country: the 24-hour rule will go, and they will be able to advertise. Beyond that, they will not get the commercial rights of small and large casinos that I have just explained, because they will be able to take betting and bingo in some cases, and betting in others—there will be an extension of that. There are four categories of casino: regional, large and small casinos and the 130-odd that are operating now, which will have new commercial rights in the sense that there will be no 24-hour rule and they will be able to advertise, if the Bill goes through.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Does that mean that the Minister will introduce amendments to clause 7? I take it from his body language that that will not be the case. I just want to be clear. I think that what he has said means that all existing casinos stay exactly as they are, albeit with the two changes to which he referred. If one of those casinos, in Chelmsford or wherever it might be—it already exists—lobbies the advisory committee on the basis that it wishes to convert itself into a small, large or even a regional casino, that will mean that it becomes one of the 24.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Absolutely. That is why we can say with certainty that there will be no more than 150 casinos. There could be fewer. If all 24 go to operators that are already there, there will only be 136 casinos. We could have a maximum of 150, but if 24 casinos are already operating and want to take up the licences in their areas, they could do that.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

This is the last time.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does not the explanation given to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mean that the selected 888 will have a considerable commercial advantage over existing casinos? What we will have is a reduction in the overall number of casinos because existing ones will be at a commercial disadvantage. Will there not be a reduction in the numbers, which might be what people want?

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

That is one scenario. However, we can paint another scenario. Had we done what we said we were going to do at the beginning of the Second Reading, a lot of those casinos would definitely have gone. There is no doubt that the 130-odd casinos have had a monopoly under the 1968 Act. The Bill will liberalise that marketplace because the demand is there. We are acting cautiously, which is why we are introducing three different types of casino: the regional, the large and the small. The House will determine later whether it wants that to progress, but there will be a maximum of 150 casinos operating in this country. It depends which scenario one wants to paint. It could be said that the current operators of casinos are much more protected than they would have been had the original proposition of between 20 and 30 regional casinos gone through.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Will the Minister explain why millions of pounds were wiped of the share value of casino operators if that is going to be so successful?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

If over time the new casinos are seen to be developing in a cautious and socially responsible fashion, Parliament can relax the very tight restrictions on supply inherent in the proposals. For the moment, we are taking one cautious step at a time, which I believe to be the right approach.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

We do not have a great deal of time left this morning so perhaps I shall just introduce some of our concerns. I congratulate the Minister on his bravado performance, but I hope that he will understand that if we are to have a meaningful debate on the clause, there are an awful lot of questions that it would be helpful to have answered before we explore the Government's thinking, rather than waiting until the Minister sums up. That is why a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee wanted to probe the Minister a little further. An awful lot of questions remain unanswered even after the statement the Minister made when the bombshell was dropped on 16 December, and the tabling of the amendments. We need greater clarification on those questions.

Part of the problem is that the genesis of the Bill was a matter of consultation, building consensus and giving the industry and other interested bodies the opportunity to have an input. However, the new clause, which fundamentally changes the thrust of the Bill, has come out of nowhere. It has certainly not been subject to anything like the consultation that the Bill had had before. As far as I can see, it was subject to no consultation at all. The gasps of amazement with which it was greeted from every corner suggests that the Government had not sought to obtain the views of any of the interested bodies before reaching their conclusions. I said that the Government had abandoned the consensus approach, perhaps the only consensus that I have managed to find is one that this is an absurd position to adopt and will make for extremely bad law.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

If I recall, the amendment from the official Opposition was for four regional casinos. What would the hon. Gentleman have done about large and small casinos had the amendment for four regional casinos been accepted?

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

That is an important part of our argument. We draw a strong distinction between the approach needed for the introduction into this country of an entirely novel concept: the regional casino—an enormous investment attracting thousands of people every week. Regional casinos incorporate up to 1,250 machines of a kind that we have never had in this country. We have always said that that needs to be introduced very carefully, which is why we advocated the pilot scheme and all the other safeguards. However, the considerations that apply to large and small casinos are entirely different. Those casinos are not a novel concept: we have had large and small casinos in this country for some time. They will not contain any category A machines, so all the risks that people are concerned about that are associated with category A machines will not apply to large and small casinos.

If there is a danger that capping the number of regional casinos might lead to a proliferation of large or small casinos, there are safeguards already built into the Bill that would prevent that—or at least that was what the Government told us repeatedly throughout the earlier stages of our debate. They had decided not to go down the route of imposing an arbitrary limit on number, but had instead put in safeguards that would use market mechanisms to limit the number. We feel that if there is a danger that capping the number of regional casinos will lead to greater proliferation, that can and should be addressed by a different method from the one that the Government have suddenly decided to adopt, which is to impose an identical cap on the number of large and small casinos as well. I have yet to discover anybody who recommends such a strategy. It was greeted with some astonishment when it was unveiled.

This debate is extremely unsatisfactory because many of our concerns relate to the way in which the Government have chosen that particular number, why they have decided to adopt that route and not another, and how the process of selection will take place. In the normal course of a debate of this kind, the best way of probing the Government's thinking would be to table amendments that reflected how we felt that the system could operate better. However, because the Government have dropped the provision in right at the last minute as a new clause, we have no opportunity to table any amendments to it. We are presented this morning, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, with a huge new clause that completely changes the Bill. We must either support the entire new clause or reject it.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I did indicate the procedure for tabling amendments to the new clauses before Christmas. They could have been tabled up to Friday of last week. I made that clear in the last sitting before the recess. I was trying to be helpful to Committee members. I just want to make that clear.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Pike. Perhaps we did miss an opportunity. However, given the time scale we were set, it would have been extremely difficult. There will be a better debate on Report, when we will be able to table our amendments to the new clause and when we might be able to test the Government's approach in a little more detail. However, that is not to say that we cannot flag up a number of our concerns in the stand part debate on the new clause. That is what I seek to do this morning.

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

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. On a wholly non-partisan basis, may I express the hope that 2005 brings you all that you would wish for yourselves, although I have to recognise that, given the circumstances, that cannot possibly apply to every hon. Member present.

New clause 20

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this we may take Government new schedule 3.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I shall begin by reciprocating your good wishes for the new year, Mr. Gale. Although you were not present to hear me, before lunch I sought to set out our concerns about how late in the proceedings the new clause is being considered and the real difficulties that that has caused us. To some extent, that means that we shall wish to explore the Government's precise thinking in greater detail on Report, when we shall table amendments, but I want to outline a number of general concerns today.

The new clause implements not one but two U-turns by the Government. As they are two wholly separate U-turns—one of which we welcome, the other we gasp at—we must consider them separately because our attitude to each is different.

The first implements the Government's decision to impose a cap on the number of regional casinos. Certainly, most of the publicity attached to the Bill has concentrated on regional casinos, and many of the concerns relate to the impact that they will have, particularly in relation to the possibility of problem gambling. We have always argued that a major change of this kind must be made cautiously and that, before we go further, we must ensure that the concerns of many people are not justified.

Originally, the joint scrutiny Committee recommended that the controls on the number of regional casinos, which it was widely felt were necessary, should be introduced by means of economic measures, particularly in relation to the minimum size threshold. We considered that a suitable method and very much regretted the Government's decision not to adopt that recommendation. If they had done so, many of the difficulties that they have subsequently experienced could have been avoided. Instead, they tried to reassure us that there would be no more than 24 regional casinos, but there is no obvious control in the Bill to bring that about. The casinos represent a wholly new concept in the United Kingdom, as well as investment on a scale never before seen and an increase in the numbers participating in casino gambling on a scale never before seen. They will also contain, for the first time, category A machines, and many of the anxieties about a possible increase in problem gambling relate to the use of those machines, based on experience elsewhere in the world, to which the Minister has referred following his visit to Australia. For those reasons we suggested the adoption of a pilot scheme.

When the Government proposed imposing a cap of eight casinos, we generally welcomed that. We discussed whether eight was the right figure; some people had suggested that it should be smaller. I think that we initially said four, the British Amusement Catering Trades Association said four and others advocate one per region, but there is a legitimate debate around the number. We may wish to explore that further in due course, too.

It was because of the completely untested nature of the casinos and the machines that they will contain that we considered a pilot scheme appropriate, followed by a full assessment of its impact and then further consideration of whether to allow more casinos. In principle, therefore, we support that part of the new clause: the Government have gone a long way to addressing concerns and conceding our points. However, the concerns that we expressed and the reasons why we felt it appropriate to adopt a pilot scheme and a precautionary approach apply to regional casinos, but not to large and small casinos.

Large and small casinos are not a novel concept in this country. We have large and small casinos; we have had them for a considerable time. Indeed, the Government have acknowledged on many occasions that this country has been remarkably successful in avoiding many of the problems experienced by other countries. There is not a significant level of problem gambling in the UK or of organised crime in our casinos. The existing UK industry has a good reputation for behaving responsibly and has adopted measures to prevent those problems. Therefore, the arguments for a precautionary approach for regional casinos do not apply to large and small casinos.

Furthermore, many of the concerns about the danger of an increase in problem gambling relate to the introduction of category A machines, which in other countries have been the driver to significant levels of gambling addiction. The Government decided—a decision not necessarily welcomed by the industry—that the large and small casinos would not be allowed to have category A machines, which would be allowed only in the regional casinos. Again, there was no need to apply the same safeguards to large and small casinos. It is still a mystery to every outside observer, and indeed to us, why the Government, suddenly and out of the blue, produced proposals to put a cap of eight on the number of new large casinos and eight on the number of new small casinos. All those campaigning against the Bill had focused on regional casinos. I do not believe that even the Daily Mail, which has been perhaps the most vocal campaigner, called for a cap on large and small casinos. Certainly we have not been lobbied to that effect.

The only explanation that the Government have given is the statement in the policy paper issued by the Minister relating to the overall effect. It says:

''The Government has 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 would half agree with that: we agree with a limit on the number of regional casinos, which was where the danger of problem gambling was seen to lie. There is no justification for simply equating the two. Then the Government decided that, if they were to impose a limit, the number should be the same. There has been no explanation why eight is an appropriate figure for small or large casinos, or for regional casinos. That, too, is something that we will want to explore.

We were told that the other driver was the concern expressed in the House of Commons. The Minister has repeatedly told us that the Government have listened and that their amendments reflect the outcome of listening. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) told us just before Christmas that when he talked to his colleagues and expressed concerns about the Bill, none of them asked for a cap on large or small casinos. Therefore, when the Government say that they are listening, my first question is, to whom? I have not found anybody who feels that this is a necessary or sensible limitation. Its effect is to make the outcome of the Bill a regime that is more restrictive in respect of casino development than the existing regime.

The Bill was supposed to be liberalising—a cautiously drafted and gradual step forward, but one that would gradually liberalise the regime. We have now gone in the opposite direction and will end up with a Bill preventing the establishment of any more than 24 new casinos. That will halt the investment plans of many UK and overseas companies in their tracks. It will undermine the economic plans of many local authorities. It will have a significant economic impact and it will undoubtedly lead to loss of money, investment and jobs.

When we were debating the matter before Christmas, we speculated about why the Government chose the 888 formula. Slightly frivolously, I suggested that 666 might seem more appropriate to the critical observers of the Bill. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) suggested that 999 was appropriate. I begin to suspect that the correct figure is 555—5 May 2005. It seems to me that the Government are losing their appetite for the Bill in the approach to the general election.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Let me put the hon. Gentleman's remarks in the context of what we are asking the Committee to accept now and what the House was saying to us.

Let me deal first with the notion of limiting the number of regional casinos to eight—or, indeed to four, as would have happened had we accepted the official Opposition's amendment. All the evidence suggests that the demand is there. A lot of figures were bandied about in the trade, but there would probably have been between 20 and 30 regional casinos. Those casinos would have had 1,250 machines each. If we limited the number of regional casinos to eight and there was a market demand for 20 to 30 such casinos, there would be an unmet need. That is what the market was saying.

If we said that that need was going to be met and left the large and small casinos to the market, it would not be the case that the small casinos we have now, of which there are 136, would be anything like even the small casinos that will exist under the Bill. We are talking about eight or, indeed, 15 times—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. It is the job of the Chair to try to facilitate the debate. I was working under the assumption that the Minister was going to offer information to the Committee. I cannot allow him to make a speech at this stage because the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) has the floor.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

May I finish?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Briefly.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I will be brief. I wanted to point out to the Committee that the 136 existing small casinos would not be the same as the eight small casinos and, therefore, that to say we will be judging the pilot on 150 such casinos would be misleading and would not be a response to the concerns expressed on Second Reading.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

All the people I have spoken to from the industry—overseas investors and people from the UK industry—say that the concept of a regional casino is entirely different to that of a large or small casino. It is based on 20,000 people going through the door every week. Regional casinos will attract people who have never contemplated going to a casino before. They will go there because it offers all sorts of other attractions—restaurants, swimming pools, theatres and so on. It will be a new leisure experience. That is something that will not be offered by the other casinos. That is the business model of regional casinos and it is why investors believe that they will attract a new demand that does not at present exist in the UK. That is why investors are willing to invest such enormous sums in regional casinos. So, to say that because there are not going to be 20 regional casinos—there are going to be only eight—all the people who would have gone to the 20 regional casinos are going to want to go to large or small casinos is simply not right. It flies in the face of the business models that are being suggested for regional casinos.

It is interesting to note that all the overseas operators—MGM, Las Vegas Sands and other big international operators—have shown no interest in investing in large or small casinos. They do not meet their business model. Their business is large, leisure destination resort casinos, and that is an entirely different concept. I do not accept that there is a danger of a huge explosion in the number of large and small casinos as a result of imposing a cap on regional casinos.

Even if there were such a danger, the Government have repeatedly said that the measures in the Bill were designed to prevent proliferation. The Secretary of State clearly said that economic measures through the imposition of a minimum floor requirement would restrict the number and only a certain number would be economically viable. The industry told us that there is demand in this country for 200 at most. The Government are proposing 24 new ones on top of the 137, so this would perhaps put the number up to 40 or 50 at most, and, clearly, those are not large or small. I simply do not accept that the Government had to impose two additional caps in order to avoid a massive proliferation.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, under existing planning law, the Government could have limited the number of large and small casinos by calling in planning applications and opposing casinos at the local level?

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

The hon. Gentleman touches on a point that I was about to come to. I entirely agree with him. Other mechanisms are available that would allow local authorities to decide whether they felt that a casino was appropriate or would allow the Government to take a national view. We would not have been required to impose an arbitrary limit.

To decide then to pick eight small and eight large simply because we had decided to pick eight regional casinos seems utterly bizarre. A regional casino requires an investment of £100 million to £150 million or more—there will be only a small number of investments at that scale—whereas the investment of £6 million for a small casino is probably equivalent to building a brand-new Tesco. There is likely to be a huge potential demand, yet the Government are allowing only eight across the whole country. It is difficult to imagine what criteria could possibly be used to decide which eight local authorities will win the prize of being allowed to offer the opportunity to build a casino.

The imposition of a second, additional cap is crude, arbitrary and unjust, and we will certainly want to consider alternative methods—perhaps economic controls or the planning system—of strengthening the ability of local authorities to determine whether they wish to allow casino development. The Minister offers them a nuclear option of allowing none at all, but perhaps there should be greater scope for them to decide whether a small but not a large was appropriate. The arbitrary cap will have an enormously damaging effect on the existing industry, and flies in the face of everything that the Government have said the Bill is trying to achieve.

I wish to examine a few specific concerns about the Government's suggestions as to how the process will work. First, I hope that the Minister can tell us a little more about the criteria that will be applied in determining which areas are chosen for development. As he said this morning, plans for the development of casinos are far advanced in several areas. Obviously, Blackpool is one, and the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who used to represent Blackpool, spoke about it. But there are many others. We know about Caesars in Wembley and the football clubs up and down the country. The Minister himself said that almost every premiership club was considering the development of a casino or had incorporated one into its plans. One suspects that almost all of them will now be severely disappointed. The Minister said that they should not have presumed that the Bill would be passed, as legislation is always subject to parliamentary approval, but the Government had given them a firm indication that that would be the case. It would have required foresight beyond that of anyone in this Committee to have predicted that the Government would suddenly adopt this provision at the very last minute and, as a result, torpedo the investment plans of football clubs and others in many areas of the country.

My other point, which is of real concern, is the time scale that is being imposed for the process to be undertaken. In his initial statement, the Minister said that the advisory panel would start its consideration during 2006. That is considerably more than a year away. The Government seem to be doing their best to get the Bill on the statute book by the end of March, presumably before a general election, but there will then be a delay of more than a year before the advisory panel starts to work. We have been told that it will then not complete its work before the end of 2006. No operator will be able to start making firm plans until they know which areas have been chosen. As a result, the earliest that a regional casino is likely to be up and running and producing a return on investment is around 2009. That seems an extraordinary time scale. One international operator has already told me that if that is the time scale, it will abandon its plans to come to this country and go to a country where it will feel rather more welcome than it has felt here to date.

The time scale is unjustifiable. How can it possibly take that amount of time simply to identify the areas? A simpler way might be to say that there should be one per region, which would cut out the necessity for the advisory panel. The existing time frame may have the effect of preventing investment and may deter many of those who were previously looking to invest in this country.

The local authority of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood has brought its concern to our attention. It stated:

''The Minister has stated that an announcement is unlikely before the end of 2006; it is only at this stage that the specified licensing authorities will be able to engage with potential operators and enter into a competitive procurement process. This will be followed by the lengthy scheme development, land assembly and construction processes. This could well project casino openings into the next decade and this should be avoided.''

Will the Minister consider whether there is some way in which the process could be speeded up? There is a real danger that on the present time scale it will not take place at all.

My second concern is that in determining the locations for the eight regional casinos, the major consideration clearly will be the regeneration benefits that they offer. That has been the driver behind much of the Bill. There is no doubt that an investment of the scale £150 million or more will provide a local economy with an enormous boost in job creation, regeneration and development. It is easier to judge competing applications in terms of regeneration benefits when discussing investment on that scale. However, the regeneration benefits of small casinos will not be significant, so what different criteria will be taken into account to decide where small and large casinos will be? It seems that the advisory panel will pick winners out of a hat because the Minister has given no indication of the primary considerations in deciding whether a particular local authority should be allowed to develop a small or large casino.

I would like the Minister to confirm another point. He will recall that we have always argued that regional casinos are most appropriately located in destination resorts and that they should not be located in urban centres. Placing them away from centres of population in places where people must make a conscious decision to visit them will be one means of avoiding a significant increase in problem gambling.

Of enormous concern to the United Kingdom industry is the effect of the Government's proposals on the existing estate; the 136 casinos that are already up and running in the country. The Minister tried to explain in his opening remarks why the Government have decided that a wholly different regime will apply to existing casinos from that which will apply to new casinos. He talked about the need for a small number of new casinos in order to assess the impact on problem gambling. The threat from problem gambling will come from the new concept of category A machines and already plenty of evidence shows that the existing estate has not led to significant increases.

What the Government are proposing for the changes that will be allowed is small compared with the effect of the introduction of regional casinos. When it comes to deciding where the new casinos should be allowed, can the Minister say whether it will be presumed that they will not be located in close proximity to an existing casino? Clearly, if a new casino is allowed and operates under the new regime close to an existing casino, it will almost completely undermine the viability of that casino. To avoid such a situation, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say that the 24 casinos should not in general be allowed to be developed close to existing casinos.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Surely that is not possible. The Minister said this morning that some of the existing casinos might want to change into new, large casinos. Such a restriction would therefore prove to be disadvantageous to existing casinos.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

The Minister's remarks about the economic potential of existing casinos seem slightly confused, a matter to which I shall return.

The existing casinos are all sited in what until now were permitted development areas. Such places were chosen because presumably they were regarded as the places that were most appropriate to site casinos. If we allow further development, it is more likely that the casinos will be located in the old, permitted development of holiday resort, the places where tourists visit; areas where there is a proven demand for casinos. It seems that either way the effect of the Bill will damage—perhaps fatally—the viability of existing casinos. Such businesses will be punished for having operated successfully and responsibly in this country by not being able to enjoy the benefits in their existing estate, which will be given to the new casinos.

Yesterday, an operator told me that he had just opened a new casino in Leicester—an investment of £6.5 million—yet that casino will be restricted to 10 gaming tables. For all he knows, a new casino may be given permission to operate close by with far more tables, with the additional opportunities of bingo and betting that will be allowed under the new regime. Such a situation cannot be equitable. It will do real damage. The Minister suggested before lunch that, because the Government were allowing only a limited number, the existing casinos would be in a much stronger position. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said, what happened when the Government made their announcement? Half a billion pounds was wiped off the share price of the UK operators.

Clearly, the market does not believe that such action will strengthen the position of the UK industry; nor does the UK industry. The Government are bringing in a Bill that has been developed and worked upon for four years in close consultation with the industry. It is a Bill that everyone said was necessary, but the UK industry is on the point of saying that it would rather not have a Bill than have this one, because it is so badly flawed and will represent such bad law. That is a phenomenal achievement, and the Government's failure to provide any justification for their latest policy undermines them further.

I hope that the Government will continue to listen—they claim that they have been listening—to the industry and others who are saying that the arbitrary cap of eight on large and small casinos will totally undermine the UK casino industry, and will do nothing to achieve the Government's stated objectives.

Given the time scale left to us for the consideration of the Bill, it is beginning to be increasingly difficult to say whether the Bill will ever get on the statute book. We continue to be of the view that a vast amount in the Bill is important and necessary, especially in terms of providing additional powers for the gambling commission and regulating internet gambling. However, the Government are jeopardising the success of the whole Bill through this last-minute decision and through introducing this latest shift, which is uncalled for, unjustified and unfair. I hope that the Government will think again.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I said before Christmas that I came to the Bill supporting it; I thought that it was good in terms of its regulatory aspects and what was being put in place to protect children and others. Also, I genuinely thought that it was a good idea to use casinos and the gambling industry to regenerate areas such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood.

Before Christmas, the Bill was referred to by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) as a dog's dinner. Frankly, I think that it is becoming worse than that, now that we are seeing the implications of what is being put in place.

I have still not heard a satisfactory reason why the arbitrary number of eight has been chosen for small and large casinos. I can understand why that has been decided in relation to regional casinos; that was a proper response to Second Reading. However, there is certainly no call to limit the numbers of small and large casinos. I am still waiting for a large number of parliamentary colleagues to argue that, but I think that most colleagues have not even worked out that the Government are introducing such a measure.

Some people take a moralistic view of gambling, and think that it is the worst thing ever invented, and others take a liberal view. I do not; I take the middle road. We have to give people responsibility for what they do with their lives, and we have to admit that in this country there is a well-regulated industry. It has not had the criminal and other elements that we have seen exist in other countries.

Putting in place such a limit is not a liberalising move. We are actually going the other way; we will restrict the casino and gambling industry. Existing casinos will certainly be at a disadvantage, compared with the 24 casinos that are to be allowed, which will have a hell of a lot of different powers and attractions. The provision will put some existing casinos at risk. I have never been in favour of creating monopolies, whether state or private, but we are creating lucrative business opportunities for those who get one of the 24 licences.

I accept, as I said earlier, that the regional casino issue is separate, but the other new casinos will put the existing 136 casinos at a disadvantage, and that is unfair to existing operators. Overall, we have run a tight and good ship in this country. The investment that will come forward should not just go into new casinos; however, the investment needed in existing casinos will not be made. No one will put their money into the existing casinos if one of the new casinos opens nearby or they cannot get the offer made to the new casinos.

I have heard the explanation of the advisory panel and how it will lead competition in terms of planning, but that will not work. I will deal with the reasons for that in a minute. There is a naive approach to how it will work in practice. I am opposed to quangos and advisory panels.

This will be a lucrative job for someone. However, we have not yet seen the criteria for granting the areas, which will be different for regional casinos and small casinos, and we do not know whether those will be the same. Likewise, as we have seen already, there will be a lot of competition for people wanting a regional casino in their region. If there are only eight large casinos and eight of the others, there will be a lot of disappointed councils and developers. Will there be an appeals process for councils that want such a casino but do not get one? Will there be a regional spread and balance throughout the country? That will also be important. The great gifts that the individuals appointed to the advisory panel will be given to judge those matters beggars belief. Those people will be popular for a time, as they are wined and dined and courted throughout the country and given reasons why a region should have a casino. It will be a popular job for some and lucrative for the consultants who try to persuade them that a region, town or city should get one of the sites.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We are listening avidly to the hon. Gentleman's destruction of the Government's case. Has he given any thought to how much the advisory panel alone will cost the taxpayer?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

If it is like anything else we have set up, it will not be cheap. What expertise will the people on the panel bring to the job? Political decisions will determine where regional casinos are sited. As I said in December, if we are going to make political decisions, let them be made by people who are elected, rather than handed to people who are not.

We still have great problems with planning. I accept what the Minister is doing to try to get competition going, but there are fundamental problems. One such problem is that a person does not need a casino operator's licence to apply for planning permission. Under the process we are talking about it seems as though people will need one, but they will not. A lot of developers will speculatively submit planning applications in different areas, even before the areas are designated. It is not clear yet whether the councils will be able to hear those applications, because we have been told all along that the planning process will be separate from the premises and operator's licence. If a developer submits an application in Birmingham, the council has to hear it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Like everyone else, I am following the hon. Gentleman with great care, but it is not it even more confusing than he suggests? Presumably, to get a premises licence there has to be a large amount of information about the nature of the premises involved and we would only know that if there had been a great deal of advanced work done on the planning application.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I appreciate that, but I have a different point of view. Anyone can apply for planning permission and if they apply speculatively, a council will have to hear that application. However, on what grounds could it refuse such an application? It could not do so on the basis that there was no premises licence, because there would not be grounds or reasons in planning law for refusing it. Once the areas are decided, there will be a deluge of planning applications for different sites throughout a city. Will councils say, ''I'm sorry, we cannot hear any of those because we have to wait and see which operators have premises licenses''? That will not happen. The councils will have to hear them. If they then turn them down because a casino operator has not got a premises licence they would be in a difficult position; I do not think that that would be grounds for turning down that planning application.

Many developers will be speculatively putting in planning applications, and the one that achieves the first of them in a certain area will have a valuable prize; they will then be able to hold their own competition among the various operators that have licences. If there is such a feeding frenzy of planning applications, things will get bogged down; there will be months and possibly years of planning appeals.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

In view of the hon. Gentleman's many years' experience of local government and planning issues, I would like to ask him a question. Let us say that a local authority happened to own land on which an application it favoured was made, and Joe Bloggs down the road came in as well; if the authority showed favouritism to that application, would that open it up to a legal challenge?

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

In my experience, I am not sure that it would. If a council has a stake in the ownership of any such land, I understand that the matter would have to be referred to the Secretary of State. However, the point of the matter is that anyone can put in a planning application on any land; they do not have to own that land. I could put in a planning application for a casino on your house, Mr. Gale; I would not have to own your house, or have any interest in it.

I do not understand how the apparently well ordered competition laid out in the legislation will work in practice. There will be confusion about the relationship between the planning process and this new process that is being set up. That takes us back to a fundamental point. The way to control numbers is not to invent this complex new system; the number of casinos can be limited by using the current planning law. In any case, I do not think that lots of large and small casinos would have been developed, because the market would have reached a point where people no longer invested because they knew they would not get a return.

I hope that the legislation is not enacted in its present form, because it will not work. It will hold up development in a lot of areas where it is desperately needed, and it will cause a huge amount of confusion from which only the lawyers will gain.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I, too, wish you a happy new year, Mr. Gale.

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Durham. He has a lot of experience in the matters under discussion. His contribution illustrates the concern that many people have about these proposals; on this issue, there appears to have been a lack of any consultation, not only with the industry itself but with those with expertise in planning matters and in local councils.

It is worth reflecting on how often the Minister has told us in recent times that his entire raison d'etre for the changes is the Secretary of State's commitment to consult—a commitment given very clearly on Second Reading. Just before Christmas, the Minister told the Committee:

''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.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 December 2004; c. 666]

In the light of the huge outcry that there was, I think that we would all respect the Government if they were prepared to consult and to make changes. Many Opposition Committee members have urged changes on the Government, some of which they have now accepted, particularly in relation to the number of regional casinos. However, one would assume that that consultation would involve all the interested parties. In this case, since concerns have been expressed by hon. Members from all parties in the Committee about the effect of the Bill on the existing industry, that body of people would clearly certainly have been included in the consultations before the new proposals were brought forward. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) rightly pointed out, that consultation did not take place. Those people, like many others, were extremely shocked and surprised by what has happened.

We know what happened to the share prices. We also note in the briefings that all members of the Committee have doubtless received that, for instance, the British Casino Association states that this new policy

''cuts from under us the ability to maintain our existing estate and make future investments . . . Regardless of the Minister's protestations, this policy has evolved with undue haste, in a vacuum, and in no way reflects the deliberations of four years of consultation and two Joint Scrutiny Committee reports''.

In those circumstances, and given that the consultation did not take place, I am sure you will understand, Mr. Gale, why it was necessary earlier this morning for a large number of questions to be asked of the Minister about this policy U-turn. You will also understand why those questions will continue and why for many of us it is difficult to accept readily the proposed changes.

The Minister has answered a number of questions that we have raised, such as whether he is confident in respect of legal challenge in relation to competition law. He has told us, although many of us are not convinced, that his answer provides a solution that will work—for example, in relation to how the competition process will operate.

However, there are many areas of continuing concern. For example, this morning I asked the Minister whether, in the light of the fact that the existing casinos were not now to be categorised as either large or small, there were going to be changes to clause 7, which specifies the definitions of categories of casino. He told me that there was to be no change. Yet, I have studied his words in one of our earlier deliberations, and he said:

''To achieve that, there will be a separate category of premises licence for casinos that already had a licence under the Gaming Act 1968.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 December 2004; c. 621.]

Well, if that is the case, and the Minister is now confirming that I am right, presumably a new category needs to be added to clause 7(5) in that regard; if not, perhaps the Minister can advise me later on how that will be achieved without such a change.

Much of our concern centres on how the advisory committee, which is potentially expensive, will operate, and more importantly under what operating rules it will carry out its deliberations. We have been advised by the Minister that the Secretary of State will give guidance to that body. I at least would find that our deliberations would have been eased had we had some indication of the nature of that guidance. For example, the Secretary of State has assured us on a number of occasions that regeneration will be a key issue in any consideration of the determination of location. Yet, I remind the Minister that he told us on 16 December that regeneration might be—not would be—one of the criteria that will be taken into account.

Many of us have raised several times in Committee our concern about the issue of location, and particularly whether or not regional casinos will have the sort of destination interpretation of location that was envisaged by the scrutiny Committee and supported by many others. We have not heard about that from the Minister; he merely says that there will be a good range of locations. That gives us no indication as to what the thinking will be in that regard.

We would have had a more fruitful debate—albeit at this late stage in our deliberations—had we had more information from the Minister about the nature of the guidance that the advisory committee will receive. In relation to the actual proposals, I think it has been made clear by both myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester that, as far as regional casinos are concerned, we are not averse to the cap of eight for a pilot period. We understand that that will potentially last for two studies being carried out by the Gambling Commission.

In relation to small and large casinos, like the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford we have a number of concerns as to whether this is the right way forward. Certainly, the industry is adamant that it is not, and will create significant difficulties for the existing industry. We have proposed, on a number of occasions, other ways in which proliferation of small and large casinos might be tackled, while giving greater powers to local councils to make decisions in the best interests of the local people that they serve. Therefore, we shall be looking at ways of altering the mechanism for reducing significant proliferation, not looking at the eight, eight, eight proposals, but at other measures along the lines that we have already proposed: the reintroduction of the demand test; looking at public nuisance issues; strengthening the powers of local authorities to say no to a specific casino proposal.

There are alternative routes that could and should have been explored. Although I entirely accept that the Minister was right to acknowledge that if there is now to be a cap on the regional casinos, we need to have regard to what effect that will have on large and small casinos, I am not convinced that the solution brought forward in new clause 20 and the new schedule 3 is necessarily the right one. We would wish to reserve our position between now and Report, when we will hopefully table amendments that will look at alternative ways of addressing the issue that the Minister rightly drew to our attention. I expect that we shall do so in continued consultation with a wide range of bodies, and very much regret that when the Minister brought forward his proposals he was not able to tell us that they had been as the result of any detailed consultation. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford says, I do not know of a single person outside this Committee who can give me any justification whatsoever for the particular figures proposed in this amendment.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I rise to support this new clause and the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister, because unlike my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham I never supported the idea of a free market response to this. In all the discussions that we have had over the past several years, the focus for the development of large casinos—initially called ''resort casinos''—was always on creating a small number, to aid regeneration. What we have here is a much better scheme, and a much better part of the Gambling Bill that had previously caused so many concerns. There were very genuine concerns about proliferation from, on the one hand, people who believed that it would lead to a large increase in problem gambling, to people who like me on the other hand, who wanted to see more of a focus in any casino development on regenerating our resorts and other run-down areas. With these proposals, we can move along those lines.

John Whittingdale (Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am interested to learn of her support for the clause.

Blackpool council, in its approach to us, has argued very strongly that it wants to create a ''critical mass'', and it would like to see a ''casino cluster'' in Blackpool to achieve this; in other words, of the new licences, more than one should go to Blackpool. If there are only going to be 24 across the country in total, does she really think that this is likely to lead to Blackpool getting more than one of those licences?

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. In earlier discussions, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and I have raised the issue of critical mass. We know that Blackpool has been arguing for some time that to regenerate a resort—building a conference centre and so on—critical mass is needed. I have raised that issue with the Minister.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

How many does the hon. Lady want?

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I am being heckled, Mr. Gale. How many do I want? Blackpool's master plan is for two at least; I would be more than happy to see more.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

No; I have to move on and make some serious points. When my right hon. Friend the Minister made his announcement before Christmas, I raised some points as an initial response. Having had time to look at the amendments during the Christmas period, I want to reinforce those points. My view remains the same: there are issues that need to be addressed.

When he made his original statement, I raised the issue of time scale with the Minister. Many local authorities and organisations that want to invest in casinos have already waited a very long time. I was concerned before Christmas when he said that the time scale would be the end of 2006, and I remain concerned. When he considers the implementation of the proposals, I urge him to bring forward that time scale; I cannot accept that that would be impracticable. Surely the independent panel could be appointed within a couple of months of the enactment of this Bill and the appointment of the commission. It could set in train an investigation that would consider where the casinos should be located.

This morning there was some debate about the role of regional planning organisations and the time scale for the development of the regional spatial strategies. There is already a lot of information available at regional level in the regional development agencies and the regional planning organisations. I am sure that that information could be given quickly to the independent advisory panel when it is set up. I am not convinced, and I was not in December, that we need to wait for detailed regional spatial strategies to be produced.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Will my hon. Friend enlighten the Committee as to what expertise or tactics Blackpool will employ to get two of the 24 casinos? If the distribution is fair, there will be no chance whatsoever of Blackpool getting two casinos, although it wants them for its development. Furthermore, what would happen if the advisory panel decided that Blackpool should not have a casino?

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

My hon. Friend is challenging me, and I hope to rise to the challenge. I do not want to labour the time scale issue; we explored it this morning and I mentioned it during earlier discussions.

My second point, which has been made before by other Committee members and me, is about destination gambling. This morning I asked the Minister whether the criteria within which the panel will operate would be published. We need to consider those criteria. The Minister mentioned that regeneration potential would be key. When the panel considers a variety of different locations, it should seriously consider destinations, as outlined by Blackpool and other resorts. Such resorts have argued coherently on how to avoid a proliferation of problem gambling. If people have a destination to go to, rather than just walking down the street, they are planning on how they will gamble as part of their visit to a particular resort destination.

My local authority of Blackpool—I am responding here to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham—has been arguing for some time that in order properly to bring about the sort of large-scale regeneration needed, the critical mass of one casino may not be enough. I urge the Minister, when he gives guidance to the independent panel, to examine the possibility of a particular destination having not one, but two such licences. I am ever the optimist.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that an old-fashioned way of doing that would be for the Government to take a political decision and say that Blackpool should have one, which would be better than setting up this silly advisory board?

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

We have had that debate during the proceedings of the Committee as well. I fear that many of our colleagues would want transparency in any decision-making process, and would want to know why decisions were being made and why certain areas were allocated licences.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I fully support the hon. Lady's efforts for her constituency, which have been considerable. However, I put it to her that she would serve her constituents much better by voting against the Government's proposals today because, as the hon. Member for North Durham has just said, Blackpool could be specifically mentioned in the Bill and not just a prospect within its context. Surely she would be much better off using her position on the Labour Back Benches to vote against the Government to put pressure on them to give way on these important matters, rather than going along with what is being proposed, which may not suit them her constituents.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I think that Blackpool's case stands on its own. Blackpool can argue the case within the framework that the Minister has introduced, and it certainly will.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I am listening with fascination. Given that Blackpool council have made it clear that one regional casino would not be sufficient for redevelopment and regeneration of the town to be sustainable, and given that the Bill offers the prospect of only one regional casino in Blackpool, will she explain why she is supporting the Government?

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

Blackpool developed a masterplan that included more than one casino before the detail of the Bill was published and before my right hon. Friend the Minister's proposals. Its ideas were developed then and clearly it would wish to progress with them, but if one regional casino licence is on offer, I am sure that the local authority will grasp at that and get all the regeneration potential out of it that it can. It has the backing of a large number of people in the town, local businesses, the regional development agency and the like.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

It is misleading to the Committee to say that Blackpool will have only one casino. It does not say that in the Bill; if the panel agreed to it, Blackpool could have all eight regional casinos. The Bill does not limit Blackpool to one—[Laughter.] That is as hypothetical as the question posed by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk).

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I will sum up with the third point I wanted to make, which concerns the scenario testing time scales. I urge the Minister to consider when that time scale for testing will start, and how much would have already been developed on which he could make a reasonable decision. There is a concern that if the testing time scale starts as soon as the panel is set up and any decision is made, there may not be eight regional casinos developed within that time. There is always the danger that if after three years not all have been developed and the Government decide to allocate more regional casinos licences, some of the first wave could be disadvantaged and developers will go looking for what they might consider to be better localities to develop any second wave of regional casinos.

I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to look again to ensure that sufficiently robust information is available before any decisions are made. That links to my first point about the time scale for determining the areas and the location of the licences. The sooner that is done, the sooner local authorities and developers can start putting together their ideas and developing their proposals. It will allow the Government more time to carry out the essential testing that they will need to do when they examine the impact of the legislation.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and I have campaigned over a long period to enable the regeneration benefits to come to Blackpool and, indeed, other run-down resorts. I share the scepticism of her hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, who spoke so ably earlier on in this debate. I fear that if the regional panel decides, for example, that the Manchester City football ground proposal is better for the north-west, the words in the speech that she has just made may come back to haunt her. I hope that that does not happen.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I put the alternative to the hon. Gentleman, which he and his hon. Friends, as well as I put on Second Reading. If the process were left to the free market, Blackpool would not stand a chance against the large conurbations in which much of the American money wishes to invest, in particular. The current proposals are a real chance for Blackpool, and without them there would not be that chance.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I hope for Blackpool's sake that it ends up with at least one of the new regional casinos and some of the regeneration benefits, but I have considerable doubts about that, and about the hon. Lady's wisdom in supporting so strongly her Minister, when others who were originally so supportive of the proposals, such as the hon. Member for North Durham, have turned against them.

The Government have more or less achieved the unique position of uniting almost everybody in the industry against them. They started off with the good will of at least a part of the industry. Throughout the long history leading up to the Bill and the work of the scrutiny Committee, there was a broad consensus among most of the industry and the observers following the process, and there was then a barrage of negative publicity just before Second Reading; the huge, overhyped and hysterical campaign led by the Daily Mail. That provoked many people to write to Members of Parliament, and many Labour Back Benchers and the Government panicked.

The first panic was the massive U-turn over the regional casinos, which put under threat the opportunity many of us felt the new big casinos would have to regenerate not just Blackpool, but run-down resorts all round the country. Not content with that first U-turn, which was perhaps only too predictable a response from this Government in the face of the media campaign and the pressure put on Ministers by Back Benchers on Second Reading, the Government then decided to make a further U-turn by inserting a completely arbitrary limit on the small and large casinos. The U-turn upset the remaining parts of the industry that still supported them, and it seemed to me that nobody called for it. Labour Back Benchers did not, nor did the media. The media hysteria was about regional casinos, so it seemed extraordinary that the Government should make a first U-turn, followed by a further U-turn, which alienated the remaining parts of the industry that had been kept on side up to that point.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

If we panicked and suggested eight regional casinos, why did the hon. Gentleman support four regional casinos? Was that not panic?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the Minister knows, I have always been one of the most free-market people, although not as free market as the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who is safely ensconced in the States for this debate. After what he said about the Government's original U-turn, one can only imagine what he would say today, but I suspect that the savage criticisms made by the hon. Member for North Durham about his own Government would pale into insignificance if we had the hon. Member for West Ham with us. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire pointed out earlier, the hon. Member for West Ham had already accelerated past my hon. Friend and myself and was speaking to the Committee from the far right of politics, anticipating his enjoyment of his new position in retirement as a trenchant free marketeer.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

In the House of Lords.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Who knows? The hon. Gentleman may be right. I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham will continue to be able to dignify Parliament in some capacity in the future. I think that we would all welcome the continued opportunity for him to exercise his wit.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for West Ham was present during our deliberations on the Minister's announcement on 16 December and asked a number of pertinent questions, including one that has still not been answered about the appeals procedure.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I remember that. On the basis that those pertinent questions were asked and not answered, it is rather a shame that the hon. Member for West Ham is not with us to follow them up. A full-blown speech from him on the proposals would have been a sight to behold.

In addition to following up and agreeing with everything that the hon. Member for North Durham said, from all his experience in local government, I want to refer to the concerns of the British Casino Association. Other hon. Members may have received the same letter as me from Viscountess Cobham, the chairman of the British Casino Association. I thought that it was important to put those concerns on the record because my own experience of being shadow Minister with responsibility for gaming—on two occasions; once when it was the responsibility of the Home Office and now under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—means that I have had quite a lot of opportunities to study the industry and I agree with what Viscountess Cobham says.

Viscountess Cobham states:

''the concerns we raised in anticipation of the Government's announcement''

on 16 December

''are entirely overshadowed by the impact which the actual Statement of National Policy . . . is having, and will have, on our business. This is perhaps best underlined by the fact that within hours of the Minister making his Statement, over half a billion pounds was wiped off the value of Britain's leading four casino operators: and this for an industry widely regarded as the most socially responsible in the world.''

I am sure that the Minister is proud of his ability to cost British industry more than £500 million within hours. It must be one of the most staggering achievements of the Government's seven and half years in office. However, the chairman of the British Casino Association points out that, in her view—and indeed in mine—

''the provisions of New Clause 20, and associated New Clauses, are . . . unnecessary and . . . ill-considered.''

Viscountess Cobham says:

''We are deeply alarmed that this policy, announced during the penultimate sitting of a Standing Committee and without any consultation with the British industry, cuts from under us the ability to maintain our existing estate and make future investments.''

She says that the regulatory regime that the Government propose to create

''is more restrictive for current casinos than the Act''

that the Government originally said that they were going to liberalise and modernise. She continues:

''In essence, the 134 casinos currently operating in the UK will be frozen in time, and denied both the ability to evolve and the opportunity to provide customers with the leisure facilities which new entrants will be encouraged to provide at other venues around the UK.

Not only will the New Clauses have a devastating effect on British industry, but they contain within them contradictions and imperfections which . . . will result in bad law and do not achieve the Government's stated aim of creating a gradual and controlled expansion of the industry with consequential regenerative benefits.

Regardless of the Minister's protestations, this policy has evolved with undue haste, in a vacuum, and in no way reflects the deliberations of four years of consultation and two Joint Scrutiny Committee reports. It introduces more uncertainty into a market already reeling from numerous policy changes and, in our view, fails to take into account the very real concerns the industry has sought to convey to Government.''

I could not agree more. The Government have cut the ground from under the feet of the existing industry. It is extraordinary that they have done that at the last minute without consulting the industry in any way. Under normal circumstances, I would be tempted to call a division on new clause 20 and vote against it. However, because my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) have said that both Opposition parties wish to introduce specific amendments on Report, because I do not wish to constrain the House's opportunity to consider the matter fully and vote on it and because, if I called a division, that opportunity might be constrained on Report, I will not call a division. For the reasons set out and articulated by Viscountess Cobham and by the hon. Member for North Durham I was tempted to do so.

The fact that the Minister has managed to create a situation in which one of his—until now—most loyal Back Benchers, who started his contribution today by saying that he came to the Committee as a supporter of the Bill and who is knowledgeable about local government, has been turned into a bitter opponent of what the Government are doing, is yet another reinforcement of what a bad job the Government have done and how badly they have mismanaged the issue.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

You will recall, Mr. Gale, as will the Committee, that on 16 December we had the most extraordinary situation, the like of which I have not experienced in 28 years in the House. We adjourned so that the Minister could slide in a statement to try to put some flesh on the panic-ridden statements of the Secretary of State when she moved the Bill on Second Reading.

At the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford rightly commented:

''Today, the Minister has announced major changes to the Bill—changes that alter completely the whole thrust of the Bill.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 December 2004; c.622.]

I say amen to that. What my hon. Friend did not say, because he did not know at the time, was that that statement has plunged the industry into chaos, confusion and anger. What I knew at the time was that the statement completely wiped out great chunks of the work of the scrutiny Committee. We have wasted our time due to the carelessness of the Government, who did not come forward with policies and a Bill that could be properly examined.

We have eight, eight, eight. I want to deal briefly with the second and the third eights. If we had known that that was the Government's wish, we would have taken evidence on the matter. We would have examined it and come up with a recommendation. But, no. Out of the blue, the Government have panicked and come forward with what I consider to be an unworkable arrangement. I had hoped that during the Christmas period a bit of sanity would have emerged. I would have understood the reasoning behind the Minister's statement, but I regret that the only advantage of eight, eight, eight that I can see is that it includes a degree of alliteration that might make it easier to remember.

Prior to that 16 December statement, it already seemed to me that the regulations and changes in the Bill would control the numbers of those smaller casinos. The Government were not going to allow an unbridled expansion. It seemed to me that the Bill was already doing the job that the Minister wants to achieve. However, as I said, that was swept to one side on 16 December.

I am not going to repeat the comments made about the amount swept off the stock exchange. I made those comments before the House sat for the day. The Minister would not give way for me to make those comments, but I hope that they were recorded in Hansard. The Minister feels that wiping £500 million off share prices does not matter too much. His attitude is, ''It's only share value.'' However, anybody who runs a business knows that the value and assets of the shares are an important component in raising finance for expansion, growth and development.

If millions of pounds are wiped off the shares, that damages businesses, just as the Chancellor has damaged so many pension companies by taking money out of advance payments on dividends. However, no doubt the Government will eventually learn about the requirements of industry and commerce.

I can only repeat that this statement seems to have been made without consultation with the industry after four years and two scrutiny committees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, it comes in at clause 310 out of a total of 337, not quite one minute to midnight, but very nearly. If anybody is proud to think that this is how a Bill should be operated and run, they have another think coming. If anybody has any doubts about the value of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber, this statement at this late stage must have swept them away. A second Chamber is absolutely necessary to put right these diabolical mistakes.

However, I want to give praise where praise is due. I value the announcement of a figure of eight for the super-casinos for appraisal. I did not agree with the laissez-faire, open-market approach adopted by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport until she was frightened into submission by her Back Benchers, the media and the press. I am glad that the hon. Member for West Ham is not here, because he would be leaping to his feet and shooting me down, believing that the original position should have been maintained. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) is not here, but I can guarantee that he will be given many a trip over a long distance whenever a Committee comes up again in future.

Why do we need a number of super-casinos for appraisal? It is because we want to see that they are properly run. Because they are new to this country—a new phenomenon—we want to ensure that they will give fair play, protect the vulnerable, be crime-free and, obviously, protect children. Therefore, I value that and want to see it, but I cannot see why we go down this route.

As a member of the scrutiny Committee, I turn back to what it said to the Government. It said:

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

The First Secretary of State, or his representative, made it clear, in giving evidence to the Committee, that he did not want to be involved; he wanted his position and office to be apart from the process. He wanted the proceedings to take place without constant reference up to his Department. With things as they were, we could not see how that could be achieved. Therefore, as I see it, this advisory panel will lend cohesion to that planning process. However, at some stage those recommendations will require the ministerial nod, which is completely at odds with what the scrutiny Committee was told.

I shall not go through new clause 20 in detail, but one part states:

''The Secretary of State shall, having consulted the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales, by order make provision''.

If the Secretary of State is to consult Scotland and Wales, why not consult, for example, the northern or north-west regions? Are not those regions, as well as Scotland and Wales, worthy of consultation? I delicately point out that there are considerably more people in some of the regions than in some other parts of the country. Once again, we are not treating everybody on an equal basis.

Of course, that is separate from the planning confusion that has been ably outlined and illustrated by the hon. Member for North Durham. All I can say to him, as a slight aside, is that he is adopting a high-risk strategy. When I worked on the shop floor, there were two routes for troublemakers; they were sacked or made foremen. I am not sure what will happen to him, but I hope that the Government Whip writes a suitable note to the powers that be to get him promoted rather than sacked. He is a person who can go far, particularly considering that we are in a room where one can still see the blood on the carpet from last night.

I wish to return to large and small casinos. I do not understand why they are being treated in this fashion. Have they failed in any way? Have they been dishonest? Have they corrupted children? Have they taken advantage of the vulnerable? Have they become a source of crime? If they have, I would like to know, and then I would see some justification for the second and third eight. However, we have no evidence that they have done any of those things. The figures seems to be arbitrary—plucked out of the air—and I do not believe that anyone has worked it through. I am absolutely certain that if the scrutiny Committee had considered it, it would have come up with a completely different recommendation.

If the new clause reaches the statute book unamended, the plain fact is that it will damage the 130-plus casinos that are already in this country. As I said, to the best of my knowledge, those casinos have operated fairly, in a crime-free way, and do not deserve to be discriminated against in this fashion. I shall not labour the point any more, as my hon. Friends have already made it. I endorse what has been said. I sincerely hope that we will not vote against the new clause at this stage but that the Government will see sense, actually carry out some consultation—that may be to their advantage—and table amendments on Report that will rectify at least some of the damage that has been done.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

When the Government set out on their Gambling Bill, the talk was about 20 to 40 mega-casinos. We are told that the Government listened to opposition and concerns and reduced the number to eight. Would the Minister give an assurance in his summing up that no representations were made by American backers to introduce a Trojan horse amendment whereby we would suddenly have two more categories of eight casinos? Can he also give an assurance that those two other categories of eight casinos will not, at some stage, magically evolve into mega-casinos because of the fact that they have already been established? It is quite simple. He can either give a straight answer and say, ''No, that is not the case'', or he has to explain to this gathering and the wider public where these two other categories of eight came from. Why are they there?

Finally, can we please have a list of all the existing casinos before we get to Report? I find it quite extraordinary that the Minister is unable to say how many casinos there are in this country. I would have thought it quite a simple thing to have a list but, throughout the 20 sittings we have had, we have had various numbers given.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I begin by apologising for being absent during the Minister's proposal of the new clauses. Under the Government's original timetable, of course, we were expecting to be on Report today. On that basis, I agreed to speak at a conference on gambling, so I had to go and explain to the great outdoors just what a mess was being made of the Bill in Committee. I said, ''I had better rush back to make sure it does not go further off the rails''. I apologise for not being here to listen to what the Minister had to say, but I suspect that what he said this morning was not a great deal different from what he gave us on 16 December, when he produced the casino ''Statement of National Policy''.

I do not want to rehearse the speech that I made then, tempting though that it is. A number of points have already been made today, and I want to focus on what I consider to be some critical issues. The first is the choice of the triple eight lock. That is the new buzzword.

I do not have any bugging devices in their organisations and I am not a fly on the wall, but if I was one of those investors I would be saying ''Look, we have been in discussions with you''—i.e. the Government or the special advisors to the Government—''for one, two or three years''. Perhaps it was after the Budd report that people suddenly thought, ''Now there is an opportunity for major investment in the United Kingdom''. And they would be saying, perhaps, ''We have been entertaining your special advisors, flying them to and from Las Vegas, for years now. We have invested heavily in market research in this country. It shows us that the potential is x, y and z. The figures of 20 to 30 fit in with our overall projections of where we might be. And you, the Government''—perhaps not the Minister himself, but filtered through the usual channels—''have now said to us that we are competing with existing industry in the UK for just eight. You have got to be joking,'' is what they would be saying.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

If we had accepted the hon. Gentleman's amendment, they would have been bidding for four, not eight.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That is totally irrelevant. We tabled an amendment for four for different reasons. I am talking about the negotiations between the Government and their advisers, and those in the industry who are going to invest in these 20 or 30 casinos. [Interruption.] If the Minister would just listen to me, he would see that I am developing this in a particular way.

They have now said, ''You have got to be joking. You are restricting us to eight. We have put all this money in. We have been given all these promises and assurances. Do you realise that if you restrict regionals to eight, then we are going to face severe competition from money going to large and small, particularly large casinos? If there is no cap on those, you are going to undermine our investment. So we would like you to put a cap on them, so that our investment, in the initial phases, is protected on the flanks.'' What better figure to come up with—

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Than eight?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister has got it in one. That is why it is eight. There are eight of both because if there are eight small ones, there might as well be eight large ones.

That question has not been answered as yet. The Minister has not jumped up to say that I was not here when he answered it. The Government must justify why they have plucked these figures from the air. Frankly, if I were an investor looking at the new scenario, I do not think that I would bother to invest in a small casino.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Fine.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Fine, says the Minister. He does not want eight small casinos anyway, so why not say zero for small casinos if that is the Government's attitude? People will not invest in small casinos under the current regulations in the Bill.

The Minister's notes state that the gambling commission can carry out an assessment of the so-called test. Let us look at that test for a moment. The Government are saying that its purpose is to test the new casinos in different locations and environments and to assess the social implications and effects. However, there is nothing new in the new large and small casinos. They will have only category B machines, which are currently in existing casinos. There will be no category A machines to test in large and small casinos, so where is the test model? The test could be done in the 10 existing casinos. Why are they banned from the test? What is the point of a test to look at the impact when 136 potential test sites are being removed at a stroke? There is no logic in any of that.

After three years, the gambling commission will come along and say that three or four casinos have been built and ask whether it can make assessments on those. Will the Government say that until all 24 are built and assessed there can be no movement for the future? That is not clear. Under the Government's timetable, which my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford spoke about in depth, they are not setting up the panel until 2006—

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Not true.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That is what the Minister's report says. It says not before 2006. That is when the panel will start its work and that must feed through all the paraphernalia of procedures and steps which the hon. Member for North Durham rightly highlighted. It will be years before the first casino is built. We are looking at 2008 or 2009 for the first one. There will not be a huge rush to build them. From 2009-10 it will be 2013-15 before the gambling commission comes along to make an assessment. We want a cautious approach, but that is ridiculous. No one with money to invest will consider such a time scale. They will use their money for other things. If the Government want regeneration, and they say that they do—that is a key factor in making these decisions—they have to talk to and listen to the people who want to make the investment.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Another scenario is that, in the 12 months before the Bill becomes law, there might be an explosion of people trying to get into the casino game. In Newcastle-upon-Tyne, one organisation is turning an amusement arcade into a small casino. It got planning permission to do so late last week. Could there be an explosion in similar applications prior to the Bill becoming law? That would defeat the object of the Bill, which is to try to limit the numbers.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

That is possible under current planning arrangements. The Government have promised that they will block that from happening—although not under this legislation—by means of the land-use category. At the moment, as I understand it, there could be sideways movement from leisure complexes into casinos. If the Government do not want such proliferation, they had better move quickly.

If the Government want the Bill as it is currently written, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, they will not get support from us. I doubt that the Bill as drafted will get through the Lords. The Government have to start listening to people, particularly on casinos, and they have to come to a practical and pragmatic outcome to which the industry can sign up.

The industry signed up to the scrutiny Committee. It is four years since Budd, the industry has given evidence to the scrutiny Committee and there has been a second report, which balanced out the aspirations of the various entities involved. Let us not forget that, in order to ensure a reasonably level playing field, the last scrutiny Committee report recommended considering allowing category A machines in large and small casinos, and recommended ''a proportion'' be allowed to do so. That is in paragraph 47; I looked it up over lunch. That is what the industry thought would happen. Suddenly, there was the first U-turn. The Government said, ''No, we are not having that. All category As will go into the mega-casinos—up to 1,250 of them.'' At a stroke, existing industry was discriminated against, and that discrimination has continued.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The hon. Gentleman is obviously well briefed and well informed on the subject. Would he like to suggest why the Government have ignored all that advice and gone down the route that they have taken?

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

We have been trying for weeks to get that out of the Government, but with no success. The Minister will have an opportunity to answer that important question in a few minutes.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

If I ever get to my feet.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I will give the Minister time in a minute. He need not panic; I am nearly there.The Government set great store by the fact that they listened carefully to the opposition that came from their Back Benchers on Second Reading and subsequently. Before Christmas, the hon. Member for North Durham told us that he held a quick consultation in the Tea Room with those Labour Members whom he thought were against the proliferation of regional casinos on Second Reading. According to his straw poll, none showed any opposition to large and small casinos developing as everyone expected them to. He said today that he did not think Labour Back Benchers had any idea of the fact that eight, eight and eight had been proposed, let alone had a view on it.

I throw this gauntlet down to the Government; if the reason for the proposal is genuinely opposition from Labour Back Benchers, why do the Government not write to them tomorrow? They should put the proposals to them and ask them to say whether they are in favour of the cap on large and small casinos, or whether they are not fussed about it. The Government will not do that, of course, because they know that the answer would be, ''What's the problem?''. There is no great tidal wave of opposition to large and small casinos developing as the scrutiny Committee and the industry expected.

If the Government really want to test all the proposals under the new legislation, why not have a proper test? Why not include the existing industry, rather than ignore it? Why not have category A machines distributed around the system? If that is a problem for the Government, they should come up with a sensible cap. If few small casinos will be built under the present arrangements, it is pointless to nominate eight, because the investment will not be made in the initial phase.

The Minister admitted today that under the proposals that we are discussing all eight of the regional, all eight of the small and all eight of the large casinos could be located in the same region. I cannot believe that they will be, but there is no built-in geographical distribution. The statement on national policy says, loosely, that the panel will be set up to consider the geographical spread of locations throughout Britain and that it is supposed to consider a good range of types of location. However, in the same breath as it mentions locations, it also mentions areas: which is it to be? There is a difference between an area and a location. If those are the same, the statement should use the same word. The job given to the panel is difficult and, without proper guidelines, almost impossible. Why set up an intermediary? The Government could easily do the job. There are only 24 locations for three types of casino—it is not rocket science, for goodness sake. Why set up an expensive panel that will take time to deliberate, and even when it has done so who is to believe that it has found the right results?

We will not oppose the clause. There is little point in doing so, because we will lose the vote. The debate has been good and has strongly questioned the Government's proposed solution to their difficulties. We will table amendments on Report and continue to argue for a level playing field and a sensible, pragmatic, easy way forward, rather than the over-complicated mish-mash before us.

How many Committee members have asked in this debate, ''Where is the consultation with the industry?'' Consultation ceased at the end of the scrutiny Committee's second report, since when there has been no consultation or discussion with the industry in this country. It is no surprise to me that the Government have got themselves into a mess; they have not consulted. If they cannot carry the industry with them, they should not expect to carry Members of the other place, because they will not sign off bad legislation.

Miss Kirkbride rose—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I will call the hon. Lady, but she has been in the House long enough to know that it is customary to hear the entire speech before rising to speak, particularly when the Chair has called the Front-Bench spokesmen.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I am grateful to you for your calling me to speak, Mr. Gale. I did not realise that the Committee would sit for as long as it has done and I had to pop out for an engagement, for which I apologise.

I wish to put on the record my opposition to the Government's proposals. It was obvious when we started that the Government had got it wrong in wanting a free market. They listened to the House, for which they should be congratulated, but in doing that and seeking to fix the problem as they have, it was inevitable that they would end up facing the chorus of opposition that they have heard today. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) that it would be difficult for the Government to get the Bill through the House given the level of opposition that they are encountering, even from their own Back Benchers. It is certainly unfair to the domestic industry at present, and it is hard to understand why the Government wish to disadvantage the domestic industry by creating 24 new casinos with so much more marketing power available to them when there seems to be no good reason for so doing.

The issue before the House is regional casinos and the different type of gaming that they will introduce. Why the Government have sought to make life even more complicated with a further 16 casinos, large and small, is beyond me. I very much fear the Government will do what they planned to do all along, which is to delay proceedings at this point by saying that they will look at what has happened in the light of experience three years down the road. We are not sure when the three years start. Do they start at the point at which planning permission is given, or when the casinos are built? We do not know how many casinos have to be built before the Government will ask the relevant committee to investigate whether they have been a success and whether they should be allowed to extend. As I said earlier, I smell a rat. Action will be taken as quickly as possible on the basis of as little evidence as possible and the conclusion will be that we should have as many as possible and, in that way, the Government will get to where they started from in the first place. Whatever reassurances the Minister gives now, we do not know when that moment will come. As we all know from our experience of previous Ministers, promises are not worth the paper they are written on, as they will be written in Hansard. I fear that we will end up where we always thought we would end up.

In trying to fix matters by creating amorphous committees that will decide matters on our behalf, as opposed to doing what the hon. Member for North Durham suggested and making a ministerial decision about where the regional casinos will be sited, the Government have got into even more trouble than even they could have envisaged. It is hard to see what criteria will be used when deciding the location of the regional casinos. Many parts of our wonderful nation are crying out for regeneration, so who will decide which area will receive the precious eight? On what criteria will that decision be based? Destination? Will it be decided on the basis of the more people who can get there within 20 minutes, the merrier? Bearing in mind the different views that are held in this Committee, it seems utterly impossible that another committee whose members are not even elected can decide competing and irreconcilable interests. That is the politics of a mad house—but, there we are; we have a Labour Government.

I cannot begin to imagine what sort of the mess the Government will get into. Let us consider the eight regional casinos that will be allowed to proceed. We can assume that, because politics enters the frame—politics enters into everything, whether we like it or not—Scotland and Wales will get one each. That is two down, six to go. We assume, but do not know for sure, that Blackpool will have one because it has been so noisy about it. However, if that happens, it will really infuriate other centres in the north-west that consider that they should have a casino. In the north-west, football clubs, Liverpool and parts of Manchester will be beside themselves if they think that they will not get a look in, so there is a question mark over whether Blackpool will receive a casino. The word is that London will have one—it is the capital, there is tourism to consider, and anyway the business plans have already been predicated on the basis that it will get a casino because that is how the taxpayers will be repaid for the vast sums that have been lavished on Wembley and the dome for no good purpose.

That leaves three centres. I presume that my own area—the midlands—will have a casino, because it would be impolitic not to give it one. Therefore, there will be a big bust-up between Birmingham and Coventry, both of which already have plans afoot. The Minister's area will be exciting, because Sheffield has an all-singing, all-dancing plan on the table, ready to go ahead.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Three.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

It has plans for three casinos, and they all have wonderful criteria attached to them. However, if Sheffield gets one, Leeds, York racecourse and the entire north-east will be upset. Where does the other one go?

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Bristol.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.