Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

Not only that, but it is not a very good point, because I happen to know that although the casino is destined to go to east Manchester, under the legislation it is within Manchester’s rights to relocate it anywhere within the area, as the Minister for Sport confirmed to the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee. I can happily refer hon. Members to the relevant Hansard. Lord McIntosh told the Joint Committee:"““we have taken the view that in what I call destination gambling—in other words where you have to make a positive decision to go into a location where gambling takes place, rather than casual gambling which is thrust at you at the street corner—there is likely to be less increase in problem gambling than there is from casual gambling.””" As Professor Peter Collins, an expert in gambling who is himself based in Salford, which is not in east Manchester, said:"““convenience is the single greatest spur to increase problem gambling””." Yet when Lord Filkin asked Professor Crow, the chairman of the casino advisory panel, to confirm whether"““Their interpretation of their terms of reference made it virtually impossible for them to recommend that there should be a destination casino?””," Professor Crow replied, ““Yes.”” Are we not right in wanting to scrutinise further why such a diametrically opposed approach was taken by the casino advisory panel? Why is the Secretary of State content to push this order through without proper consideration of that fundamental discrepancy? Why are the Government so intent on forcing their Back Benchers to rubber-stamp this decision without allowing proper scrutiny? It is also not sufficient to say that the casino advisory panel simply followed its terms of reference. Is the Secretary of State content that, as the Merits Committee makes clear,"““the panel had added some elements to the selection criteria, for example their own assumptions about relative profitability””." Or is she happy that, according to the Committee, the panel’s analysis of the ability of local authorities to manage the process"““was not in the terms of reference””?" What is clear is that many of the problems arose from the panel’s interpretation of the terms of reference. I quote the Lords Committee again:"““Adding maximisation of profit into the consideration…seemed to have a greater weight on the Panel’s recommendations than minimisation of harm””." Does not the Secretary of State find it amazing and worrying that maximisation of profit was such a priority for the panel, ahead of reducing social harm? Indeed, the casino advisory panel’s report states explicitly:"““Problem gambling is more of a town planning consideration than one for us””." How does that square with the Secretary of State’s claim that her legislation will protect the vulnerable? The Secretary of State’s explanations of the casino advisory panel’s terms of reference are simply not sufficient. We have no confidence that the rationale of the casino advisory panel was the same rationale as this House had in mind when it agreed to a pilot scheme of new casinos—[Interruption.] It is not enough for the Secretary of State and Ministers to say that the Gambling Commission will tackle problem gambling. This pilot must not be some sort of social experiment. The new legislation clearly states that it should be about minimising harm, which must include the decision about where to locate the regional casino. In the light of all the expert advice gathered by the Lords Committee and its conclusions, we believe that the panel’s recommendation on the regional casinos should be subject to further scrutiny by a properly reconstituted Committee of both Houses. That is necessary to ensure that Parliament is confident that the final decision is the right one, and that the importance of minimising problem gambling is fully taken into account. The Secretary of State’s argument that this is putting 7,000 jobs at risk, which I have seen rehearsed in some of today’s and yesterday’s newspapers, simply does not hold water. We are calling for a four to six-week delay while this recommendation is given proper scrutiny. Given that the casino will not be built for three years or so, and that the legislation has in any case been on the cards since 2001, why would a delay of six weeks make any material difference whatever? Is it because, as many believe—and in line with her concession in the other place—the Secretary of State has already realised that the whole process was flawed? Yes, we supported the establishment of an independent panel to advise the Secretary of State on the locations of the new casinos, but the right hon. Lady should not abdicate her responsibility and hide behind what is ultimately advice—I repeat, advice—without giving the recommendations adequate parliamentary scrutiny. So far, her only concession has been to extend the length of this debate to three hours and to offer up a Committee that, on closer inspection, is likely to be powerless. That is simply not good enough.