Clause 158 - Mandatory conditions
Gambling Bill
4:00 pm
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 345, in clause 158, page 71, line 21, at end insert—
'(1A) Regulations under this section shall include a prohibition on any authority which issues a premises licence from holding an interest directly or indirectly in a business of the licensee.'.
The amendment is designed to explore the Minister's thinking on a key issue that has not been much raised in the Committee: the kind of benefit that local authorities might receive for giving permission for a regional casino to proceed. The issue will come up again and there will be more to say on it; we heard what the Minister said about how the Government would decide the rationale for distributing the eight regional casinos. However, in the meantime it would be interesting to hear the Government's thinking on the permissible benefit for the granting of permission for a regional casino.
When we had a free-for-all among large and regional casinos, many people were concerned that local authorities would simply be bribed into accepting a casino in their area, because of the enormous benefit that could be accruable to that local authority. Irrespective of what the Chancellor said today in his pre-Budget report, I suspect that pressure on council tax will still be very great for the foreseeable future.
Mr Mark Prisk (Assistant Chief Whip, Whips; Hertford and Stortford, Conservative)
It is going up by £100.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
My hon. Friend mentions £100, which is very interesting. We were not present at the debate concerning that, but we will watch the speculation with interest.
Nevertheless, some of the regional casinos would be in a position to offer great financial benefit to the local authority, and therefore to local council tax payers. That must be enormously attractive to local councillors, who are always under pressure about council tax increases and service provision in general.
I want it on the record that there is clearly a balance to be struck in terms of local people benefiting from the location of a regional casino. However, how will that benefit be decided, and who will be doing the deciding? If it is to be the local authorities and we, in some shape or form, reach a free-for-all and a bidding process, there will be a huge incentive for a casino to be located in an area that is less desirable, simply because the planning authority—the local authority—will want to cash in on the deal.
That is not necessarily what the UK as a whole would like. It will want the casinos to be located in what I would call more marginal areas of interest to the casino industry. We want local people to benefit, but I would prefer that benefit to be enacted and exacted by central Government, rather than be a potential bribe to local councillors to agitate very hard for the casino to be located in their area.
The amendment is an exploratory one and I would not want it to be included in the Bill at the moment, because I would not want local communities not to benefit from a casino. There is clearly a quid pro quo; there have been some interesting ones in the States. Equally, there is the danger that there will be an auction in which casinos are located in undesirable areas simply because the money on the table was too attractive for local councillors to turn down.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I hear what the hon. Lady says. I am sure that she appreciates that once we were forced to intervene into the marketplace, as we were by demand on Second Reading—concerns were expressed—the whole rationale for the location of casinos altered. That is what we are now working through. I assume that there will be time to debate this, but that will be against the background of our considered amendments.
I take on board the point that the hon. Lady makes. It involves some of the issues that we are currently working through to ensure that we come back with amendments that will start answering some of her questions. Once there had been intervention in the marketplace, the equation became a different one. She rightly points out some of the potential pitfalls as well as some of the opportunities. I hope that, when we return with our considered amendments, she will be able to support them. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
It is a shame that we cannot hear a little more of the Government's thinking on those matters. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 158 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 159 ordered to stand part of the Bill.