Categories of Casino Regulations 2008

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this fascinating debate, although I feel that I am dealing somewhat with Winston Churchill’s famous pudding. I am not quite sure where the theme is, particularly when I hear it suggested around the House that all sorts of noble Lords who usually disagree with each other are agreeing on points today. Those points all seemed fairly narrow at that stage; they do not lead up to a general theme to which I can so readily reply. If I may, I will concentrate on responding to the discrete points that have been made, and through that I hope to portray a thread of consistency on the Government’s position. After all, I have already outlined that in my opening statement and do not have a great deal to add to how I began the debate on the virtues of that position. The criticisms that have been voiced do not lead to a conclusion in any way, shape or form, so this regulation and the order ought to be supported. I agree, of course, with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, indicated a moment ago; it was reflected in the debate that the issues regarding gambling are complex and challenging. He was, after all, buttressed by my noble friend Lord Woolmer indicating some fluctuations over the years among certain local authorities. That was one consistent theme; while it is all right for noble Lords to say, ““Well, it’s absolutely clear what the nation wants””, in rather a negative stance on some of these issues, that is not the voice of the people as represented by their local authorities. Where do your Lordships think that the applications have come from, if not from a succession of local authorities representing their people? It is important to respond to that aspect of the disappointed position on Blackpool that the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Clement-Jones, reflected. My noble friend Lord Bradley also indicated that Manchester was disappointed with the decision. Let us get one thing clear: the legislation only allows for one regional casino, so there is no compromise suggesting that the Government could think about it and produce two answers to which should be chosen. It could not, for the legislation binds us to one. Did this Labour Administration only ever want one regional casino? No; we had proposed more than one, but in the famous wash-up period prior to the 2005 general election it will be recalled that the Conservative Opposition insisted on there being only one. Let me be clear; if it is suggested that the Government lacked a policy in this area, there are a number of significant constraints in the legislation creating our difficulties. I am not going to discriminate between the rival claims of Manchester and Blackpool. Talk about going over the old bones that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred to! That would be something to chew. I agree that it is important that Manchester put forward its case to obtain the regional casino and that Blackpool was unable to sustain its case, even though we all knew it had advantages in its need for regeneration and its strategy to address it. On both those cases, I am in agreement. So are Ministers who count more than I do in the Administration, and they are determined to ensure that Blackpool gets the resources it needs. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, presented the issues in this House, but he was kind enough to pay tribute to my honourable friends in the other place, the elected representatives for Blackpool, who argued their case with the greatest force. Their arguments need to be met, and we need to make progress on that. Likewise, my noble friend Lord Bradley is scarcely alone as Members in the other place are determined that Manchester should not be disadvantaged by this decision, although in one obvious sense it is because it won the position and a decision by Parliament took that opportunity away. I am not going over the debate that led to that decision, save to say that when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, says that there is a congruence of opinion with regard to the order— there certainly was one in the voting Lobby—he is a sophisticated enough politician to know that people can arrive in the voting Lobby through different motivations. Although I listened to his arguments with the greatest care, as I always do, when he says that he won over the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, I do not think that that was the case. The most reverend Primate had a clear set of principles against the casino strategy and did not think it would promote regeneration. He did not think it would promote regeneration in Blackpool either. The idea that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, won over to that Lobby such a significant Member of the House is wrong. Let us come to the detail of the decision. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, emphasised that there are two classes of casinos to which different considerations obtain. That is so. That is the fact of the legislation. There are 144 casinos under the 1968 Act and 16 under these orders. We have been able to modernise the position as far as the orders relating to the 2005 legislation are concerned, but the other casinos exist under the 1968 Act, and there is bound to be a difference in approach to the two classes of casino. He also suggested that the level of taxation on gambling is too high and warned us of the consequences. Of course the industry protests that the tax is too high. Is there any industry or individual that does not protest that taxation is too high? Any industry will do so in every forum. It is clear that when opportunities provide themselves the industry responds and seeks to be creative. I recognise the point about bingo. Ministers are in discussion with interests concerned with bingo because it is having difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, identified that issue. The Government are not are not going to resile on the ban on smoking in public places. If an unintended consequence of that is that people who used to go to bingo and enjoyed the smoke-laden atmosphere are now not able to do so and go with less frequency, the Government are going to regret the consequences for bingo, but will not resile from the legislation for obvious reasons. We recognise that there is a drop in bingo attendance and want to look at aspects of that. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the total increase in casino numbers under the gaming Act is a marginal increase at this time. He is right that in the most extreme case there could be 216 casinos in that category. I indicated that in my opening statement. The numbers will be nothing like that. Again, I emphasise that local authorities have to agree to these proposals. If local people decide that a casino is a good business for their area—and certainly as far as the 16 are concerned it is quite clear that they do, which is why they went through the long process of application—noble Lords must have reservations about the extent to which we can be critical of a process in which local decision-taking is of crucial significance. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for clearly indicating that with this order the Government are fulfilling exactly the decision that this House took when it rejected the order, and based that almost overwhelmingly on the issue of the regional casino and the difficulties that noble Lords identified with that position. The House will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, proposed an amendment to the effect that we should proceed with the other 16. That is exactly what we are doing. I give way.