Proceeding contribution from Lord Shutt of Greetland (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 10 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Localism Bill.
Localism Bill
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I am aware that this amendment would make changes that some elements of the British casino industry have been seeking for some time. I can sympathise with the sentiments behind it, but this is not the right time to discuss the issues that the noble Lord raises. It is not an uncontroversial proposal and it would be wrong to assume that there is unanimous support for it either inside or outside the industry. Seventeen new licenses were provided for by the Gaming Act 2005 aimed at contributing to economic development and regeneration in carefully selected locations. We do not know what sort of impact this proposal could have on the eight competitions to award the new licenses which are currently under way. All of those have yet to launch their processes. It would not be right to bring forward measures at this stage which could undermine these competitions and adversely affect the benefits that these new casinos could bring to local communities. Nor should we assume that the casino industry in Britain is united behind this proposal. I understand that the industry is split over the idea. The National Casino Industry Forum supports it, but the Casino Operators Association is thoroughly opposed. That is not to say that the Government reject outright the principle behind the amendment, but there is some way to go before we could consider offering our support and we would need to look at some issues. For example, the amendment as proposed does not require the 40 or 50 currently dormant casino licences to be handed back as a quid pro quo. That might be an important gesture to ensure that any new flexibility did not lead to a substantial increase in the number of casinos. The relevant Minister, the Minister for Tourism, who is responsible for gambling policy has met with representatives of the industry a number of times and they are fully aware of his views. I am sure that he would be prepared to consider this matter in the future in the terms that I have just outlined. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 730 c1365
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Devolved matters Assets Council tax Contracts for services Casinos Housing Land Freedom of information Licensing Liability Greater London Gambling EU law Fines Empty property Increases European communities Local government Motor vehicles Northern Ireland Local government finance Litter Property Business rates Referendums Procurement Local government services Ombudsman Parish and town councils Scotland Voluntary organisations Young people Wales Repairs and maintenance Smoking Local Government Ombudsman Pedicabs Petitions
- Legislation
- Localism Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-22 18:39:47 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771225
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771225
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771225