asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, in response to the defeat of the Gambling (Geographical Distribution of Casino Premises Licences) Order 2007 in the House of Lords on 28 March, they will introduce two orders separating the super-casinos from the other proposed casinos.

My Lords, following the vote in this House, Ministers are considering how to proceed. We will make an announcement in due course, but there is one point I want to make absolutely clear. As the Secretary of State has said on previous occasions, there can be no more than one regional casino in the current Parliament.

My Lords, I recall a tired colleague in Another place declaring that if Keir Hardie were alive today, he would be turning in his grave. Certainly Keir Hardie would be puzzled at the readiness of the Government to get into bed with the promoters of these super-casinos when the social effects are so clear and public demand is so limited. Would it not be more democratic, now that we know there is strong Opposition in the House, to allow a separate vote? When will the decision be made about the procedure?

My Lords, Keir Hardie lived before the development, for instance, of the football pools, which are a great attraction for working people in this country in terms of gambling. My noble friend has to recognise that there have been social changes over the century since Keir Hardie. Of course there were demands for these casinos. It is clear that a large number of local authorities saw the benefit of the regeneration effect of casinos, and they voted and put forward proposals in the full knowledge that they would have to stand the test of the response of their local communities to the proposals they were putting forward.

My Lords, I hope the Minister will comply with a Motion passed in this House that aimed to separate the 16 large and small casinos and have a separate order for those, and remit the issue of the super-casino to a Joint Select Committee. But what he has just said about the government policy seems directly at odds with what the Prime Minister said only 10 days ago: that he would like to see two super-casinos in one region. What response does the Minister have to that?

My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is quoting the Prime Minister quite rightly. The Prime Minister was reflecting the fact that the Bill originally had provision for eight casinos, and that the claims of Manchester and Blackpool might be strong but there was no way they could be delivered within the framework of a single casino, which was in the Act that was eventually passed. What happened in this House, as evidenced by the fact that a substantial section of the Liberal Democrat Party voted against the order and for the Motion, was that the Liberal Democrats were persuaded that Blackpool was a better offer than Manchester, when in fact no such proposition was before the House.

My Lords, can my noble friend first say what is the Government's assessment—or reassessment as the case may be—of Manchester's case?

My Lords, Manchester's case was identified by the independent committee—that is why we introduced an order fully consistent with its recommendations. Those virtues were put before the House but were rejected.

My Lords, given what the noble Lord said about having only one super-casino, is it not possible that that could be reconsidered, especially if there will be a committee to consider these matters? Is there not an advantage in having two super-casinos so that a comparison can be made between them if one is in an urban environment and the other in a destination environment?

My Lords, we are governed by the Act as it stands, with provision for one casino. Of course in the distant future it might be possible to extend the number of super-casinos, but prior to the 2005 election, the Government proposal was for eight, with the expectation of a wide regional spread. It was the Conservative Party which insisted that there should only be one, and we have to live with the consequences of that.

My Lords, does my noble friend not accept that one of the principal reasons why the House rejected the order on 28 March was precisely because a large number of us, myself included, felt that the process and the conclusions of the Casino Advisory Panel were seriously flawed? It had in effect misdirected itself and ignored the findings of the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the Gambling Bill and the tone that prevailed throughout its subsequent passage. Therefore, is not the most sensible course for the Government to follow the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Anderson and split the order, at the same time establishing proper parliamentary scrutiny into the case for, and location of, the one regional casino?

My Lords, my noble friend has to live with the consequences of this action, as do we all. Whatever his motives for voting, the result was to lose the order. The Government are in a difficult position because we could be subject to judicial review if we acted on part of the inspector's report and not on all of it. My noble friend may adduce that he voted against the order on those grounds, but noble Lords voted on it for many different reasons. The single most obvious fact was that a considerable number of noble Lords thought the casino should be in Blackpool rather than Manchester. That is why the order was lost.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

My Lords, have the Government worked out the sum that will need to be charged to super-casinos and others to pay for the costs of rehabilitation of those families who are due to become addicts as a result of this increase in the number of casinos? The sums projected were pretty high.

My Lords, the whole point about the Gambling Act 2005 is that it brought to the fore the concept of social responsibility for gambling, to protect vulnerable groups, particularly children, but also adults who might be subject to addiction. The Act established a framework in which those issues can be effectively addressed, and it is working. However, we do not have the new casinos—certainly not the regional casino—against which to test social effects more effectively and widely. That was the intention behind the order put before the House.

My Lords—

My Lords, we must move on—we are well into the twenty-third minute.