---

Gambling: Casino Advisory Panel Report

And in Manchester, my Lords, as my noble friends point out. No doubt the report will repay further reading in the run-up to that debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about the timing of the debate, so that we will really have the opportunity to examine the grounds on which the decision was made, which has obviously been such a disappointment to many in those two areas. This House, like the other place, will be surprised by the Secretary of State's statement: "““We thought it was right to be cautious””." Just before the general election, it was the opposition parties who were urging caution on the Government about the spread of casinos, especially the regional casino concept, not the Government. The Government were very gung-ho for the concept of eight super-casinos. I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said today about not expanding the number of casinos beyond 17 until their ability to aid regeneration while not increasing problem gambling has been thoroughly tested. I hope that the Minister can confirm that we will be able to debate the methodology to be suggested by the University of Lancaster: how it is judged whether regeneration can take place without increasing problem gambling. Today's announcement of 17 new casinos has hit the headlines, but the Minister may cast his mind back to a programme just this weekend that revealed that 68 new licences have been approved by the Gambling Commission in the past two years. Although some have had premises licences refused, that could lead to another 40 or 50 casinos on top of today's 17. There are even more applications in the offing. How does that square with the statement by the Secretary of State that the Government willnot even consider allowing any further casinosuntil proper evaluation has been made of the17 announced today? Why did Mr Richard Caborn say two years ago that, "““we can say with certainty that there will be no more than150 casinos. There could be fewer””?—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 11/1/05; col. 718.]" Was that not a complete misstatement? Doesn’t it look as though there will be more than that? What will be the final total of new casinos? I also wonder whether the Secretary of State regrets saying about three years ago: "““If this legislation””—" the Gambling Bill— "““gave rise to an increase in problem gambling then it would have failed and it would be bad legislation””." She said in a recent ““Any Questions”” broadcast that, "““every single bit of change in legislation, if it proves to give a rise to harm, will be rescinded””." Can the Minister confirm that that is indeed government policy? Then we have the issue of expenditure on problem gambling. Given that we spend £270 million on treating alcohol addiction, should not the gambling industry be paying much more than the current £2.5 million to the main body that helps deal with gambling addiction? Will the Government ensure that the new casinos make a proper contribution to help fund solutions to gambling addiction? At least in the Statement, the Minister committed to no further growth in gambling opportunities until we test out what we already have and are likely to have following today's announcement. I very much hope that he will confirm that that is rock-solid government policy. We look forward to the debate on the affirmative resolution.