Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 198, in clause 157, page 70, line 35, leave out 'casino' and insert 'gambling'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 199, in clause 157, page 70, line 39, leave out 'casino' and insert 'gambling'.

No. 201, in clause 157, page 71, line 4, leave out 'casino' and insert 'gambling'.

No. 203, in clause 157, page 71, line 9, leave out 'casino' and insert 'gambling'.

No. 204, in clause 157, page 71, line 11, leave out 'casino' and insert 'gambling'.

No. 205, in clause 157, page 71, line 13, leave out 'casino' and insert 'gambling'.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

The amendments would all have the same effect. They relate to the proposal that local authorities should have the power, if they so wish, of a complete veto for up to three years on any new casinos in their area. I welcome the fact that the clause covers those issues. It is important that local councils should have such powers. However, the Local Government Association has, rightly, pointed out to me and, no doubt, to other members of the Committee that its members have to deal with many other forms of gambling. That includes, for example, betting shops. The LGA goes further and says that the Bill is in part about future-proofing. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that it has been a long time since any substantial gambling legislation was before the House, and once the Bill is enacted it will likely be a long time before there is any more. Therefore the Bill must be about future-proofing.

The LGA argues on behalf of its members that it would make much more sense to have this three-year moratorium clause in respect not only of casinos but of all gambling premises. It would be up to a local authority to determine whether to invoke such a provision, but it would make a great deal of sense.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled the amendments, but they are not necessary to achieve his objectives. Most gambling premises already have their place on the high street—for example, betting offices, bingo clubs and machine arcades. Those establishments have not been restricted from applying for licences to operate in premises throughout Great Britain. Instead, the regulatory systems under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 and the Gaming Act 1968 have controlled the location of those gambling premises through licensing and permits. The Bill is designed to continue that practice through appropriate licensing by local authorities and licensing boards. With the addition of planning laws, we are confident that gambling premises will be controlled satisfactorily by the licensing provisions in the Bill.

Casinos, however, have been treated differently from other gambling premises over the past 40 years. They have been restricted to 53 permitted areas and have had a number of limitations placed on them, which has restricted their development. Since the expansion of the casino industry is a new departure for Great Britain, and having taken account of the concerns expressed in the scrutiny Committee process, we concluded that it would be prudent to include the   resolution-making power in clause 157. That will give licensing authorities an additional tool to control casino development in their area.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but will he explain what would be lost by agreeing to the amendment? He is saying that local councils have powers over other forms of gambling establishments, and he is absolutely right. Even without clause 157, they would have similar powers in respect of casinos. What would be lost if the amendment were accepted? I entirely accept everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but I fail to understand why he does not agree that the amendment would be an additional power for local authorities.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I do not believe that anything would be gained by accepting the amendment. Local authorities have the powers to deal with such matters now. The powers that we have given to local authorities under the clause in response to the scrutiny Committee and others are all the powers that they want.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I hate to correct the Minister, but he is factually wrong. There is a huge difference between that and a local authority having the power of veto over a new casino that is not subsequently challengeable. There is no appeal mechanism; there is no chance that the local authority will lose out. If it decides to take such action, the local authority alone will make the decision. As for other gambling establishments, it is certainly true that they have the power to say no, but the decision of a local council can be—and often is—overturned on appeal to a higher authority. Including all gambling establishments within the three-year veto gives additional powers to local authorities. I hope that the Minister understands that.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

The further explanation that I have received from my officials says that such matters cover licensing objectives only, with the exceptional case of casinos when demand is relevant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Since the expansion of the casino is a new departure in Great Britain and, having taken account of concerns that were expressed by the scrutiny Committee, we concluded that it would be prudent to include the resolution-making power under clause 157, which is very powerful for local government. The fact that we have included that power for casinos does not mean that it is appropriate to include it for all gambling premises—far from it.

The licensing process under part 8 of the Bill is robust and already includes a process of allowing people affected by the development to object to it. Each authority must have regard to its licensing objectives, commission guidance and codes of practice when making its decision. On that basis, I believe that we have given powers to local authorities to be able to   deal not only with casinos, but other gambling establishments. It is flexible enough meet their demands.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I am completely unconvinced by the Minister's argument. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 141, in clause 157, page 71, line 16, at end add

''and consulted upon in accordance with section 327.''.

This is a simple amendment. Under the amendment, any resolution under subsection (1) relating to casino licences shall be published by being included in a statement or revision under section 327 and consulted on. In other words, we want the Bill to show that proper consultation has taken place before a resolution is made about whether a licensing authority resolves not to issue a casino premises licence.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

The amendment has considerable merit and we want to ensure that people have a role in determining whether casinos should be sited in particular areas. Indeed, there are already various mechanisms under the Bill for giving local people a voice. However, I agree that more can be done under clause 157 about public consultation on resolutions concerning casino licences. I wish to take a little more time to decide the best mechanism of achieving that. Clearly, we have the option of drawing on the spirit of the amendment. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to withdraw it, I shall give the proposal further consideration.

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am most grateful to the Minister for offering to consider the matter. I ask him to send a postcard not to Mrs. Foster on this occasion, but to Mrs. Moss. We shall wait to see what happens on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

May I use this opportunity to suggest to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that if he is sending a postcard, perhaps Mrs. Foster can have a certified copy?

Unless I have missed it and it is somewhere else in the Bill, there is no requirement on a local authority to consult before it resolves not to issue a casino premises licence as set out in clause 157. Will the Minister comment on that issue of consultation?

Has the Minister had appropriate legal advice on subsection (2)? Is it possible for a licensing authority, in making a decision to adopt a three-year exclusion principle, to have regard for any principle or matter? My concern is that it would presumably be possible for a local authority to use a totally spurious argument for not issuing a licence—for example, all the people discussing casino issues have red hair and the local   authority does not like red-haired people, or something ludicrous and silly like that. Such a local authority would be covered against judicial review because of the wording of the clause. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments, as that point has been raised by an eminent lawyer.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

When the hon. Gentleman is writing to Mrs. Foster, will he put in a postscript: ''I will listen to the debates''? Had he been listening, he would have heard the response that I gave to amendment No. 141. That answered his first question on clause 157. In future, he should listen to the whole of the debate and not just to the debate around his own amendments. However, that is a matter for him. I am sure that Mrs. Foster will be pleased to note that he will take such consideration. Yes, there is complete discretion under subsection (2), but that cannot be irrational. So the red-haired people would be able to make representations, because the local authority would not be acting rationally.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I am most grateful to the Minister for the first answer and I shall be more than happy to rescind one of the postcards as punishment for my failure to listen. There is concern in the Local Government Association about the potential costs of all those consultations, and I hope that such costs will be borne in mind in future local government settlements.

I am grateful that the Minister put his legal argument on the record, but I say to him—and, through him, to anyone else who may be listening—that a very eminent lawyer of his acquaintance and mine questions whether his answer is satisfactory. He believes that the issue would open up a charter for lawyers and that a great deal of money might be made. The Minister assures me that that will not be the case; the eminent person to whom I refer will not be happy, but the rest of us might well be.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

That eminent lawyer made that comment from a sedentary position. I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I hope that the Minister is right because one does not want to see vast sums of money wasted. I am grateful to him for his comments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 157 ordered to stand part of the Bill.