Foster quizzes Burnham on casinos

3.44.29pm GMT Wed 27th Feb 2008

[Feb 26] Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat): ' . . As the Secretary of State said, it was back in March last year that Liberal Democrats . . proposed a mechanism by which to proceed with the . . casinos.

Despite the answer that he gave earlier, I fail to understand why there have been 11 months of needless delay. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important for local people to be consulted on more than just planning for specific casino proposals? Will he explain how that will happen? I welcome today's publication of the two reports, but the scoping study was due to be completed in November 2006. Why has there been a 16-month delay? As we have heard, the Government initially wanted, and voted for, an unlimited number of super-casinos. Then they wanted eight, then one, and now they have dropped the idea altogether. Has not their flip-flopping led councils on an expensive wild goose chase? We understand that £1 million of taxpayers' money has been wasted.

I too welcome the extra help for Blackpool and Manchester, but given that the Secretary of State did not answer the question asked by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), how does he respond to Manchester's claim that much of the rumoured help is already in the pipeline? Does he accept that while we debate the introduction of 16 casinos, far more are creeping into the country through the back door? In 2005 the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), then Minister with responsibility for gambling, said: "we can say with certainty that there will be no more than 150 casinos.". We know that there are already 144 casinos, and if we add 16, the total reaches 160. However, will the Secretary of State confirm that according to the Government's latest figures, up to 125 applications under the Gaming Act 1968 are still in the pipeline? That brings the total to not 150, but 285. So was not the former Minister wrong? What is the Secretary of State's estimate of the likely number of casinos?

I congratulate the Secretary of State on being consistent in one respect. He is the third successive Secretary of State since 2003 to threaten a compulsory levy if the gambling industry, most notably the internet gambling industry, does not contribute more to the Responsibility in Gambling Trust. He wants a substantial increase, but without a clear target and deadline, does he not risk sounding like the boy who cried wolf? The Government may have arrived at the right solution in the end, but the process of reaching it has been a sorry saga of dithering, wasted opportunities and considerable cost.

Andy Burnham (Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media & Sport): Although I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, I could not work out whether he supported the order; but let me take him on directly in regard to his accusation about dithering. He spoke of 11 months of delay. Surely it would have been wrong not to reflect on the deep concerns expressed on both sides of both Houses, and wrong not to take soundings from the local authorities involved. We allowed time for local consideration of the issues, and I feel comfortable that that was the right way to proceed.

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman about the consultation of local people. This is essentially an enabling order. It is right for the decision to be made at local level, and I expect local authorities not just to use the powers and observe the requirements to consult provided by the Gambling Act 2005 but, as good practice, to consult local people and communities at every stage of the process, particularly when the detail of the proposal is clear. It is very important that there is an expectation of consultation all the way through.

On the number of casinos under the 1968 Act, the hon. Gentleman put out figures last week claiming that potentially 300 casinos were in the offing. They are not our figures; I do not recognise them at all. There could not under any scenario be anything close to 300. He is right that 144 are in operation. The order would allow for 16 more. Others have been turned down and are awaiting appeal, and others are being processed by the Gambling Commission, but the numbers come nowhere near the figures that he published last week.

May I say a word about the legislation that we have introduced? Under the old 1968 Act system, the House had no control over the proliferation of new casinos. Applications could be authorised through a local process. However, under the Gambling Act 2005, which we passed in this Parliament, the will of Parliament has to be heard before any new casinos can be created, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, we suspended further applications under the 1968 Act some time ago.

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments. I think we responded rightly to the concerns raised, and I hope that he and his colleagues will support the order when it comes before the House. [theyworkforyou.com]