Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

I must make some progress. I have given way far more—in fact, 100 per cent. more—than the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has tried to turn this into an issue of party politics, yet she cannot deny that a clear coalition of concern has emerged in both Houses and across all parties in the weeks since the casino advisory panel published its report. Before the strong arm of the Government Whips swung into action, 83 of her Back-Bench colleagues signed an early-day motion questioning the panel’s decision and calling for the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Gambling Bill to be reconstituted. That is the clearest evidence that there can be of the concern that exists on both sides of the House. Were that not enough to make the Secretary of State think again, last week the House of Lords Merits Committee raised some crucial questions. It stated that the order might"““imperfectly achieve its policy objective””." One of the three core objectives of the Gambling Act 2005 is"““protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling””." Yet the Committee found that the casino advisory panel’s interpretation of its criteria"““did not give high priority to the prevention of harmful effects to the community from gambling””." It said that the panel"““veered towards their terms of reference with their emphasis on the research testing of impacts rather than the minimisation of harm””." The Joint Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who is in his place, concluded that regional casinos should be located in a resort destination rather than in a city centre where there is greater risk of ““ambient””, or casual, gambling from people living nearby.