Clause 1 - The licensing objectives
Gambling Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. I am delighted to see you, as I was having a little trouble just before we adjourned. I am sure that, with your fingertip control, all will go smoothly from now on.
If I remember correctly, I was saying that the Government made a big mistake in not agreeing with the scrutiny Committee's advice on a more coherent
pattern of guidance to the regions. I remind hon. Members what the Joint Committee said:
''While we acknowledge the Government's reluctance to publish national guidance relating specifically to regional/leisure destination casinos, we believe that it could help to ensure a consistent approach between regional authorities and avoid the need for applications to be called in for determination by the First Secretary of State.''
Amendment No. 73 goes to the core of the debate and touches on this matter to a significant extent. In response to the Joint Committee, the Government stated:
''The Government accepts that national planning policy guidance should, where it is appropriate, deal with casinos.''
The response then says that various papers
''and the two joint statements already provide a comprehensive policy framework.''
I was taken aback by that response, and subsequent events have shown that the public and the media have come down very much on the side of the Joint Committee rather than that of the Government, hence all the media excitement of the past couple of weeks.
Amendment No. 73 is key to the whole debate. If the Minister were inclined to accept it, we could all pack up and go home. If we could be clear about how new gambling opportunities will be developed and expanded, everyone would know exactly where they were.
When my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke to amendment No. 73 and was asked what he had in mind, he mentioned pilot schemes. Perhaps the Government should actively consider that route. The Joint Committee suggested that the Government examine very closely the French system as a means
''of ensuring the development of new gambling opportunities is gradual and controlled'',
to quote from the amendment. In France, central Government say to various cities and towns that they can have a casino, and then the city or town negotiates with the various bidders to get all the benefits that it thinks it needs.
We visited one centre that had recently been granted permission to have a casino. The casino operator built a new theatre, and many roads and other means of access were improved. That type of benefit could accrue, but the interesting thing was that the new casino developments were dictated by central Government. I am not saying that that is the way to go, but it is obvious that the public have comprehensively taken fright at the idea of unbridled expansion. The Government are on record as saying that the market should decide. In an issue such as this, the market should not decide. We need careful regulation and development, and we want to ensure that everything goes the right way.
There have been comments about rowdiness in casinos. I am not a great casino attendee, but in those that I attended as part of the work of the Joint Committee we saw no drunkenness or rowdiness. In fact, the people playing the tables and slot machines looked decidedly miserable to me. They did not look
as though they were enjoying it at all; they looked like they needed a bit of cheering up.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD) rose—