Local Government and Transport Committee, 14 Dec 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Official Report 444KB pdf

---

Gambling Bill

Item 2 is on the Gambling Bill, which is a United Kingdom bill. I will explain the process that we intend to follow in a second.

First, as the convener of the committee, I want to raise an issue of concern about a letter that appeared in The Herald this week from Fergus Ewing MSP, who is a member of the committee. Much in the letter is political debate, which I may disagree with, but the specific issue of concern that I want to raise is that it misrepresents the decision that the committee took at last week's meeting. Specifically, I refer to the statement that

"It was not the committee but its Labour and Liberal members who voted to hand over powers on gambling to London Labour."

That is a factually inaccurate statement. When the committee considered the issue last week, it had a debate on the scrutiny that it would apply to the Sewel motion that was being lodged by the Executive; it did not vote on whether to approve the Sewel motion. Personally, I think that it is a discourtesy to members of the committee and does a disservice to the Parliament when members of committees make statements that are inaccurate. I know that Mr Ewing wishes to respond on the issue, and I hope that he will clarify his position.

Convener, you did not inform me that you were planning to raise the matter; otherwise I would have been happy to discuss it with you. I really do not want to curtail the opportunity that we have for questioning the minister. Further on in the letter, I say that the matter will be decided when the full Parliament considers the Sewel motion. That is the correct position, as we all know. I hope that that clarifies matters and that we can move on. I would have been happier if you had given me notice that you were planning to raise this rather personal matter. You replied to the letter in The Herald today. I take issue with what you said, but that is politics.

I have no problem with members of the committee making political points in the media; what I have a problem with is members of the committee making points that are factually inaccurate in the media. That is a discourtesy to other colleagues on the committee and does a disservice to the Parliament. I hope that we do not have any further examples of factually inaccurate statements being made about decisions of the committee.

Convener, you have quoted selectively from a letter and I have pointed out that, later on, the letter states that the Sewel motion—

I do not intend to get involved in a debate about this.

May I finish?

No. I wish to move on.

You have raised a personal matter, convener. I think that I have a right to reply.

Will you please respect the authority of the convenership, Mr Ewing? I gave you the opportunity to respond. I am disappointed that you did not respond by apologising to members of the committee. You had the opportunity to respond and you will have the opportunity to make your political points later. If members of the committee make references to decisions that the committee has made, I expect those to be based on fact.

Let us move on to the UK Gambling Bill. We have with us the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, Tavish Scott MSP, and his supporting officials from the Scottish Executive. I will set out to members the way in which I intend the committee to handle this business, which follows on from a decision that the committee made last week. Members will be aware that there is no formal procedure for the consideration of Sewel motions in committees. However, at the meeting last week, we agreed how we would handle this Sewel motion and the arrangements are set out in the committee's papers.

First, I will allow the minister to make an introductory statement, outlining the context of the Sewel motion and the Executive's justification for using the Sewel motion arrangements. I will then allow a question-and-answer session, at which point either the minister or the officials who are supporting the minister will respond to members' specific questions. I urge members not to move into the political debate at that point, if they can avoid it. I intend that part of the process to be questions and answers only.

We will then move into a debate on the Sewel motion, which has no formal status in the Parliament's standing orders. The decision on the motion will be taken by Parliament, but the committee's debate will form the basis of a report that will be submitted to Parliament and made available for members to consider when Parliament debates the Sewel motion that the Executive proposes. At the end of the committee's debate, I will allow the minister to respond to any points that have been raised in the course of the debate. Finally, I will give the committee the opportunity to decide whether it wishes to recommend the Sewel motion to Parliament.

That is the process that I intend the committee to go through. I invite the minister to make his introductory statement.

Thank you very much, convener. I am grateful for the time that you have taken to rearrange business for this item. I have with me Jacqueline Conlan and Ken McKenna. Jacqueline is leading the Executive's bill team on licensing reform and is the head of our licensing team. I will make some introductory remarks, as you have invited me to do.

First, it is important to lay out the Sewel motion's context and the component parts of the bill that are our responsibility. The UK Gambling Bill is a matter for the UK Government and the UK Parliament, as gambling is a reserved matter. Our motion on the bill will create a framework that gives Scottish ministers more power—not less—to regulate gambling in Scotland. Without the Sewel motion, there would be no Scottish influence on the parts of the UK legislation that are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. I am against that, as I suspect most people in the Parliament are.

Yesterday, I met Richard Caborn, who is a minister of state in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and is piloting the UK bill through the House of Commons. We discussed various aspects of the bill's regulatory powers and its general progress. The bill will restore control of commercial gambling, for example, which has been undermined by new technology, and it will increase social responsibility. That is a key aim of the bill and I want to ensure that Scottish ministers can play a full and active role in achieving that aim. There is, for example, no current regulation on internet gambling. Some 4 million people throughout the UK gamble online every week, and the UK bill will regulate that gambling. That is just one measure that suggests that there should be support for the proposals.

The choice is simple and stark. We can either accept the powers that require the consent of the Parliament—and hence the Sewel motion—or let powers stay in the hands of UK ministers. I think that all committee members have a copy of the Executive's memorandum on the bill, which sets out the background and the existing and proposed devolved powers. I will not repeat what all those powers are, but I would like to say a few words on the main aspects of the bill.

The bill progresses proposals for the modernisation and consolidation of all gambling legislation following an independent review in 2001, which is known as the Budd report. Existing gambling legislation dates back to the 1960s and much of it is outdated. The bill is required in order to deal with the new technology—for example, internet gambling, which did not exist back then. Some 90 per cent of the bill aims to tighten the rules to cover new forms of gambling.

The bill will also provide new protections for children and vulnerable persons, which are important in the context of social responsibility. Those protections will apply throughout the United Kingdom. A powerful new body, the gambling commission, will be established to regulate gambling. The commission will have power to investigate, prosecute and remove gambling operating licences if necessary and will be responsible for operating personal licensing. Again, social responsibility will be an explicit condition of an operating licence, with breaches triggering penalties or even the loss of a licence.

The current powers of Scottish ministers to set licence conditions for some gambling premises will be extended by the proposals to cover all gambling premises in Scotland. Local licensing boards in Scotland will be responsible for all premises and will be required to prepare three-year licensing board statements. Licensing boards will have power to decide whether the local community wants any more casinos in its area—in other words, local licensing boards can say no. Any new supercasino would be regulated by conditions that are set by Scottish ministers.

I am sure that the committee knows that the UK Government announced on 16 November that the number of regional casinos in the first phase of development will be limited to eight. Decisions on the location of any regional casino in Scotland will be taken only in consultation with Scottish ministers. In London yesterday, I discussed the fact that that will be explicitly stated in the United Kingdom legislation.

In summary, gambling is a reserved matter and the Scottish Parliament has no power to legislate on it. Therefore, the only realistic way in which Scottish ministers can acquire the new powers is through the Sewel motion. Scottish ministers will have a wider range of controls under the new system than they currently have. They will be able to set a range of licence conditions within the new national framework. We can and want to play an active part in achieving the bill's overall aim of increased social responsibility in gambling.

I am sure that the committee will want to explore a number of issues that arise from the Sewel motion and I am happy to answer any questions that members have as well as I can.

All members seem to want to ask questions. I will try to get round everybody in turn. We will start off with David Mundell.

Will the minister put on his parliamentary business hat—I think that he is still also the Deputy Minister for Parliamentary Business—and explain the process of timetabling and conjoining legislation that operates between the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament?

I presume that you are asking about Sewel motions.

I was asking specifically about the backdrop to the Gambling Bill. Will you talk about the discussions that took place between the Executive and the UK Government about the need to synchronise timetables?

A lot of work goes on, principally at official level, around the parliamentary stages at Westminster. We are talking about UK legislation, so the principal driver is the speed or otherwise of the process through the parliamentary channels—in the House of Commons and the House of Lords—at Westminster. On the mechanisms of the direct connections, I will say only that there are very frequent discussions between officials and that, as appropriate, ministers discuss with their opposite numbers how best matters can be progressed. The discussions obviously take into cognisance Scottish interests and what Scottish ministers want to achieve on behalf of the Parliament, bearing in mind that we will be held accountable for that.

Do you agree a timetable?

We can never agree a timetable, because the Westminster timetable is fluid, as is our own legislative timetable. We can agree as best we can an indicative timetable, but we never set down a hard-and-fast timetable, because such matters are by definition fluid.

Is the UK Government seeking confirmation from you that the Sewel motion will be agreed to?

If the motion is not agreed to, we will have none of the additional powers that it provides. I have argued that it is in our interests for Parliament to agree to a motion that would confer additional powers on Scottish ministers, who are accountable to the Scottish Parliament. It would be strange in the extreme to refuse to agree to a motion that would confer powers on us. If the motion is not agreed to, we will have no control over the additional points, because gambling is reserved to Westminster.

I will be sympathetic to that point when you adopt the same line on timetabling under a UK Conservative Government.

You might have to wait a long time for that. Was that your final question?

It was a statement.

I seek definitions from the minister on a couple of points. What will be the length of the "first phase" in relation to the eight supercasinos?

What do you mean by the "first phase"?

We have been given an assurance that only eight supercasinos will be allowed in the UK in the first phase, one of which will apparently be in Scotland. What does that mean?

The first phase is three years.

So we are really being told that by the time the first supercasino has been built, work on another one could have started.

I do not follow the logic of that. It is right that there should be that three-year period, which is not an insignificant amount of time and will allow for the checks and balances in the system that I am sure members ardently support. For example, social responsibility clauses will provide opportunities for a range of factors to be considered. In addition, work will be done by the proposed gambling commission and other bodies on the effects of any supercasino that is constructed. The three-year period will allow a lot of other work to go on.

I caution you to be careful. You moved from talking about regional casinos to talking about supercasinos.

They are one and the same thing.

That brings me to my second question. How would you define "large" in relation to a casino?

Forgive me for not knowing these off the top of my head, but square foot areas are given for large, small and regional casinos. Regional casinos and supercasinos are the same size in terms of square footage. I am sure that Ken McKenna can answer your question.

The sizes will be determined according to a range of criteria, including the minimum number of tables, the maximum number of machines and the customer area. Generally, a small casino will have up to 80 machines, a large casino will have a maximum of 150 machines and a regional or supercasino will have a maximum of 1,250 machines.

I will allow you one more question, Tommy.

That is difficult, because I have a few more questions.

I will let you ask more questions at the end.

How many people will be employed in the new gambling commission? I am particularly interested in the commission's role of liaising with and reporting to procurators fiscal on breaches of regulations under the Gambling Bill in Scotland. Will the commission be well enough resourced and employ enough people to allow it to carry out that duty?

Ken McKenna will provide the specific figures, if he can find the appropriate bit of paper. You raise the important issue of the gambling commission's responsibility to report directly to fiscals in Scotland. Three licensing objectives will give rise to such reports: first, preventing gambling from being a source of crime, being associated with crime or being used to support crime; secondly, ensuring that gambling is conducted fairly and openly; and thirdly, protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling. I accept the premise of your question, which is about the importance of the commission's role in that.

The gambling commission will evolve from the present Gaming Board for Great Britain, which has about 80 staff. That figure will increase dramatically; I believe that it will go up to as high as 280 in the initial phase, although it will probably come down to about 200 at a later stage.

Is that the UK figure?

Yes.

So we are talking about 28 staff in Scotland.

I do not think that the staff will be proportionated in that way. The figures that I gave were the UK ones.

I will explain how I intend to continue with this question-and-answer session. I have a list of members who want to ask questions and I will get to you all. I will try to balance the questions among the representatives of the different political parties. I ask members to ask no more than two or three questions initially. If members have pressing questions to which they wish to return, I will allow those at the end, once everyone has had a chance to ask their initial questions.

I welcome the minister's comments on the tightening of the rules. As recent reports have confirmed, internet gambling is becoming an issue.

I have three questions. First, will the minister confirm that Westminster could have gone ahead with the bill without consulting us and that some of the advantages that he described, such as the widening of the Scottish ministers' powers, would not have happened without that consultation? Secondly, can a licensing board say no to a proposed supercasino, wherever it may be in Scotland? Thirdly, given that the Sewel memorandum mentions three different sizes of casino which, as Tommy Sheridan outlined, will be small, large and regional, what assurances have we received about the small and large casinos, rather than the first phase of eight regional casinos?

I ask you to remind me of your second question, which I missed. On your first point, you are right that the issue is reserved, which is why we have engaged actively in the issue. We would not have been able to take the additional powers that will accrue to the Scottish ministers and therefore to Parliament if we had not embarked on the process. In blunt terms, it would have been a breach of the Sewel convention had we not gone down this road because that is the mechanism that exists.

The issues that you rightly raise about small and large casinos are under active consideration by UK ministers, who have not concluded their discussions on the subject. The bill is in committee at Westminster as we speak, and a final committee session is expected on Thursday for further consideration and Government proposals. The point that you raise is acutely understood and proposals in that area are being considered although I cannot pre-empt what might come.

Will you remind me of the second question?

It was whether a licensing board could say no to a supercasino.

Yes is the short answer.

Thank you for coming along to explain matters to us so well. I have only two questions. First, what qualitative research has been done, either by the Scottish Executive or Westminster, into the economic and social effects of allowing casinos to be established outside the current permitted areas of the four cities in Scotland, considering the prevailing conditions in Scotland?

I ask the minister to bear in mind paragraph 19 of the Executive's "Consultation Paper: Devolved Powers in the Draft Gambling Bill", which states:

"At present casinos may only be established in permitted areas which are defined in regulations by Ministers. This power is to be discontinued and in common with UK Ministers, Scottish Ministers will no longer have power to determine the areas where casinos may be located."

It goes on to say:

"It is proposed that in future the location, number, size and character of casinos will largely be determined by the market and guided by existing planning policy objectives."

Sylvia Jackson's point should also be borne in mind when we read in the document:

"It will be necessary for authorities to have grounds on which to conclude there would be a detrimental effect in permitting further casinos."

Ken McKenna will deal with any precise research. It is important to say that, although the powers to allow permitted areas for casino development are being removed, it would be inexact—or just wrong—to infer from that that no additional powers will be given to Scottish ministers. The removal of permitted areas status—if I can use the word "status" in this context—is more than compensated for by the new power at local level for Scottish licensing boards to say no to casinos in their areas at any time if they do not want them. Mr Crawford linked Sylvia Jackson's point to that matter so I am linking it straight back.

In addition, it is important to recognise that, when issuing licences in Scotland, licensing boards will have to have regard to the statutory guidance issued by the proposed gambling commission. In that context, the licensing objectives are important—the prevention of crime, the fair and open conduct of gambling and the protection of children and vulnerable people from harm or exploitation. We must recognise the need to strike a balance but, bearing in mind the strong guidance, the proposed gambling commission and the nature of the conditions that licensing boards will set, I strongly contend that any potential operator will not be able to ignore those objectives. Perhaps Ken McKenna will comment on research.

It is fair to say that not a lot of research has been carried out into permitted areas to date. Scottish Development International commissioned some research—I think that it is called the Collins report. However, the clear position is that the establishment of any regional casino will be regarded as a three-year pilot. The evaluation at the end of the three years will include consideration of social and economic issues.

We are talking not just about regional casinos, but about smaller and larger casinos as well. Will the minister confirm that if the legislation is passed and a bingo hall decides to convert itself into a casino, no further planning permission will be required, because previous planning decisions will have established its right to operate in a particular class?

No, I do not think that that would be the case because, as Mr Crawford will know from having read the memorandum to the Sewel motion, we are going to consult on the particular planning policy guideline—national planning policy guideline 8, if I remember rightly—in 2005. Those issues will be raised at that time, and will be subject to consultation and a final determination by Scottish ministers. Under the current regime, any change would have to happen under the regulations that apply to casinos in Scotland. If there were to be any changes in future, they could only happen after due consideration of the planning guidance that will be adopted following the consultation in 2005.

You are saying that when the new legislation comes in, you will consider applications to convert bingo halls into casinos because they are in the same class, but they will not be able just to convert.

We will consider those matters in consulting on the draft planning guidance.

My first point seeks a restatement, because that is useful. As you understand it, the gambling provisions in the Gambling Bill are not matters over which the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence.

Correct.

That context is helpful.

What is your understanding of who will have input to the decision and who will have the final say on whether a regional casino is approved?

Being written into the bill—if this has not already been done, it will happen—is the right of Scottish ministers to be consulted by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in the process of making a final determination. However, as was made abundantly clear to me yesterday in London, it will be for Scottish ministers and the Parliament to examine the framework that we want to have in Scotland in relation to licensing boards, the planning system, issues around social responsibility, concerns about antisocial behaviour in particular areas that might emanate from casino activities, and other matters around any rise in gambling addiction.

Scottish ministers can put in place a framework that will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and which will lead to us being clear about the regulations on supercasinos. When and if—it is important to remember that this is still an if—the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in London has a proposal on the table and wishes to go forward with it, the Scottish Executive will have a firm view on whether that is appropriate for Scotland.

On the general provisions on casinos, can we clarify the grounds on which local licensing boards will be able to refuse a casino licence? As well as allowing them to deal with individual applications, will you confirm that the bill provides for licensing boards to have policies to have no casinos or no more casinos in their areas?

That is my understanding.

It might be helpful to direct you to the content of the Gambling Bill. Clause 157 deals with a resolution not to issue casino licences, and states that

"A licensing authority"

—which in Scotland is a licensing board—

"may resolve not to issue casino premises licences."

It sets out that such resolutions apply to all casino premises, that they can be revoked by a further resolution, and that they last for three years, which is the same length of time as the policy statement lasts. It is important to note that the clause states that in passing a resolution

"a licensing authority may have regard to any principle or matter."

In other words, the clause is widely drafted and gives wide powers to licensing boards.

I have some points for clarification. The minister said that there was a difficulty with fluidity in timetabling of the bill. Does he have an indication of when Westminster expects to complete passage of the Gambling Bill?

Westminster expects to complete the committee stage on Thursday this week—I guess that there is a Christmas rush, unlike in other Parliaments—but I ask Ken McKenna to give an indication of when the Commons and Lords stages will be completed.

At the moment, the committee stage is expected to end at the tail end of this week. The bill is scheduled to begin report stage in the week beginning 11 January and the hope is that, if it continues to make the good progress that it is making at the moment at Westminster, it could, subject to the general election, be completed and on the books by about May or June 2005.

Many questions have been asked about the consequences of agreeing to the Sewel motion on the bill, but I will concentrate on the consequences of not agreeing to it. If Westminster passes the bill without a Sewel motion attached to it, would it be possible for this Parliament to introduce legislation that would fill the gap? If we were not to agree to the Sewel motion, would we leave Scotland exposed, without the powers that are being asked for?

The short answer is no and yes. Short of rewriting the split between the devolved and reserved responsibilities in the Scotland Act 1998, we would be as you describe. I would argue that we would be considerably worse off.

We have already had a consultation on the bill that reflected positively on the Sewel motion. If we did not agree to the motion, we would have to begin consultation on a bill, which would not allow us to have a bill in place by the time that Westminster passes the Gambling Bill. Would anything in the Gambling Bill be affected by any future planning bill in Scotland?

The short answer, as I said earlier to Mr Crawford, is that we will consult on the NPPG in relation to gambling in 2005 with the expectation of concluding the consultation, reaching a view and publishing guidance during next year. There is no question but that that will come before a planning bill. The combination of the Sewel motion, the additional powers for Scottish ministers in the Gambling Bill and the consultation on the planning guidance will undoubtedly precede the introduction of any planning legislation, which will be at a time in the next few years at which you and I can only guess.

Will you confirm that the only way in which to get the protection for which people in Scotland have begun to ask is to pass the Sewel motion?

That is my view.

I will raise the concerns that were put to me by Mr Perrins, the managing director of Carlton Clubs plc, which is the largest independent bingo business in Scotland. I raised them last week, so the minister will be aware of them. Bingo is a form of soft, mild gambling that, at present, is enjoyed by, I believe, 1 million people—which makes it the second most popular pastime in Scotland after fishing—and in which 96 per cent of those who play, most of whom do so as a form of social activity, win a prize. What Mr Perrins's fears boil down to is that, as he understands it, the Gambling Bill will allow the large casinos and regional casinos to offer bingo, which, he thinks, would be a lure to bingo customers.

Does the minister feel that we should, in principle, have the power to prevent bingo from being offered in the three proposed types of casinos? If he agrees that that is a legitimate view, will it be possible to prevent bingo from being intermingled with other games in the new large casinos and supercasinos in Scotland under the powers that the Gambling Bill will introduce?

I do not wish to be aggressive about this, but the first thing to say is that the changes that were announced on 14 November were very clear about any potential growth in the number of supercasinos. At the very most, there will be one such casino in Scotland. There is a big if, and lots of caveats around it. We should not try to suggest—and I am sure that Mr Ewing is not trying to do so—that there will suddenly be an explosion of such developments in Scotland. I respectfully suggest that the premise of his question might apply to England—he will have to respect my lack of knowledge about England; it is not my responsibility—but does not, I honestly believe, apply to Scotland.

I agree with the comments that Mr Ewing makes about the nature of bingo and the social aspects of the activity. However, I do not think that his concerns stand scrutiny in the context of what may happen, if it happens at all.

I will press the point, because the concerns have been put to me by experts in the bingo industry. I am sure that the minister agrees that their views deserve to be taken seriously. Their concerns are that, under the proposed Westminster legislation, existing bingo clubs of a certain floor space could—and in some cases will—be converted into casinos that will still be able to offer bingo. One expert adds that an operator in Dundee has already opened a casino on the first floor above the existing bingo club, perhaps in readiness for the potential opportunity that the bill opens up.

If we set aside the rights or wrongs of the matter, should not we have the power in Scotland to prevent such developments from happening? Am I not right in saying that if the motion is passed, we will not have the power to prevent that from happening?

There has been a change of activity in one premises in Dundee, which I assume has taken place under the current licensing regime; if it has not done so, the operator will be in clear breach of its current operating licence. If the activity has changed, it will have changed under the current regime under which we operate.

I do not want in any way to disparage the context of the issue's being raised or the advice that Mr Ewing has been given by professionals in the sector. The issues are being considered at Westminster. All I am saying is that in Scotland, where we may—I emphasise, may—have one additional supercasino or regional casino, as they are the same thing, it is extremely unlikely that a problem of the scale that is being suggested would emerge, because the degree of change is very small.

The concerns are not only about supercasinos—the regional casinos. They are also about small casinos and large casinos. The concerns are that the bingo industry, which we might see as being like a small retail corner shop, will be replaced by the supermarket, in the form of the large casino. The debate today is about whether we will have the power in Scotland to prevent that from happening. I want a yes or no answer. My reading of the situation is that, unfortunately, we will not have that power.

A cautious approach is undoubtedly being taken. The concerns that are being expressed are understood. We had that discussion in London yesterday and the matters are being considered carefully.

I do not believe that a problem of the scale that is being suggested will arise in Scotland. I repeat that if licence conditions are as they are now, any change that happens now must be within the current licensing regime.

In response to questions from Sylvia Jackson, the minister advised the committee that, under the new regime, licensing boards would have the power to refuse casino licences. Would the power to refuse casino licences under the new regime cover the concern that Mr Ewing raises about a bingo operator who might wish to become a bingo and casino operator?

My understanding is that it would.

Licensing boards would have the power to refuse to give an operator a casino licence.

Yes.

The points about the Sewel motion have been well made and I accept the position.

The Executive's paper says that consultation papers were provided to interested stakeholders. Is that how the Executive goes about its business? Does it contact interested groups? How open was the consultation exercise? It would help to have information on that.

Will you forgive me if I let Jacqueline Conlan answer that? She knows the subject inside out and will give a better answer than I would.

We took that approach with the bill because one of our concerns was that, although the UK Government had undertaken quite a lot of consultation in the UK, nothing specific had been done in Scotland to flag up the changes that will take place and will affect local authorities and the trade. We issued the consultation paper in the normal way, as a public Executive paper that is available to everybody on our website for example, but we also sent it to a list of about 130 people. We based the list on our knowledge of the situation here and compiled it with the help of our Westminster colleagues. We sent the document directly to those people to reach the right people and to provoke a response.

I thank the convener for allowing me to participate in the committee's debate about the motion. My concern emanates from my Glasgow perspective. Most of the pressure, especially in relation to regional or supercasinos in Scotland, will probably involve Glasgow. Such casinos are major; you talked about 1,250 gaming machines in them. My back-of-an-envelope calculation suggests that they offer a potential take in the order of £75 million, so they are significant in any terms.

I will explore the sensible place for decisions in principle in Scotland—I accept that the matter is reserved. You said that locations would be decided in consultation with Scottish ministers—that means where, not whether, a casino will be established. You also said that the Executive would take a firm view on what was appropriate in Scotland. I will press you on that. Does the Executive or the Parliament have powers to say no if we decide on an all-Scotland basis that we do not want super or regional casinos?

I hope that I described the framework of mechanisms that we will establish if the Parliament agrees to the Sewel motion. The Scottish ministers will have additional powers. I will not repeat everything that I have said, but those powers will be as I described them. They will place a heavy responsibility and burden in relation to any application for a super or regional casino in Scotland on planning, which is by definition a devolved responsibility, and on the gambling commission. Ultimately, it will be for the Scottish ministers—subject to parliamentary scrutiny—to decide on the position if any application is made.

I am asking whether the Executive has the ability in the bill or in agreements with the Parliament in London to decide whether to have a supercasino.

If local people and local authorities decide through licensing boards that they do not want a supercasino, they will not have one. I said that earlier to someone—I apologise for forgetting whom.

I will press you on licensing boards, which you said could decide to have no casinos in their areas. In a way, that is a version of the permitted areas approach. Does it allow boards to say that they will have casinos but not a particular class of casino?

No.

Should it? Did you discuss that in London?

We have considered the issue. The system will not operate in that way. I am not sure whether the situation that you describe would arise. We will continue to discuss the issues. As Jacqueline Conlan said, boards will be able to resolve to have no casinos or no more casinos in their areas. Such a decision will not affect existing casino premises and an authority will have to be able to justify its decision. That is how we will proceed.

I have a question about the sensible place for decisions to be made. In Scotland, local authorities are relatively small. A great deal of money could come in—I refer to the capital costs of developments and so on. If an authority is talking about having a major casino development—one of the big ones—at the back of its mind might be the thought that if it does not go for it, the neighbouring local authority, which is only 20 miles down the road, will go for it instead and attract the development to its area. If decisions are made at licensing board level, do not we run the risk of having piecemeal decisions that are made not on planning grounds but on the ground of relative competitive advantage between different local authorities?

With respect, I do not buy the Dutch auction argument, because of the framework that I have described. I honestly believe that a range of mechanisms is in place—not just planning and the licensing board, but the mandatory conditions that ministers will set for boards. That range and framework of measures, in addition to the significant role that the gambling commission will play, will create a proper mechanism for decisions to be taken, if the need to do so arises. I hope and argue that that will obviate the dangers of the kind of approach that Mr Brown has described.

I said that I would give members an opportunity to ask further questions, but I ask them to keep their questions as concise as possible.

I will do so. I have two further questions for the minister. I refer you to paragraph 12 of annex A of your memorandum, on page 12 of paper LGT/S2/04/29/5. I seek clarification of clause 166 of the bill and the fact that the Private Security Industry Act 2001 has not been extended to Scotland. I find the paragraph confusing, because it states:

"Appropriate amendments to the Gambling Bill will be made in due course. We intend to use the legislation which amends the PSIA 2001 to amend the Gambling Bill at the same time."

If the 2001 act does not apply to Scotland, how can amendments to it apply to Scotland?

I hope that Jacqueline Conlan or Ken McKenna will be able to deal with that. Forgive me for not knowing the answer to the question.

The position is that the 2001 act will be extended to Scotland, but that has not yet happened.

It is just a timing issue concerning how the two pieces of legislation fit together. The intention is that they should fit together. There are timing issues related to other bills, such as the licensing bill.

In due course, the 2001 act will apply in Scotland.

We can provide a definitive answer in writing. I apologise for not being crystal clear about the answer to Mr Sheridan's question.

I would appreciate it if you could provide further explanation of the clause. I understood that there was talk of the Scottish Parliament regulating the private security industry, rather than just piggybacking on UK-wide legislation.

We can provide you with chapter and verse in writing.

My second question might also be based on a misinterpretation. You said that the Sewel motion and the Gambling Bill will deliver more power to Scotland, not less. Do you not think that that is over-egging the pudding, given that the Gaming Clubs (Permitted Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 1971 are to be removed? We have more power at the moment, which will be taken away from us.

I do not believe that that is the case. The removal of the permitted rights system is more than adequately compensated for by the additional conditions that will be put in place, which we discussed earlier. The three criteria with which the gambling commission, in particular, will deal—on children, vulnerable people and organised crime—are strong compensatory mechanisms. I accept that there is a balance to strike, but it is heavily weighted towards improvement in the system, which the Sewel motion will deliver.

Yes, but surely you would accept that, under the current permitted areas regulations, Scottish ministers can decide to have one casino or none. If your answer to Robert Brown was accurate, it seems that licensing boards will now have the ability to say no, not Scottish ministers, who will only have a right to be consulted.

No. I have obviously not described adequately enough the framework of mechanisms that will be put in place by the combination of the licensing board, the gambling commission, the planning guidance and so on. The combination of those factors is acute and will weigh heavily in relation to these decisions. The balance of the argument is strongly in favour of what we are doing.

I will put on my subordinate legislation hat and ask about proposed devolved powers.

Paragraph 8 of the Sewel memorandum talks about the setting of fees and opening hours. I would like to know about the regulations. Earlier, Bruce Crawford raised a point about paragraph 9, which deals with the issuing of premises licences and permits in Scotland and the requirement for licensing boards to have regard to statutory guidance issued by the gambling commission and the licensing objectives, among other things. I would like to know how that will be processed to ensure that the decision that the licensing board makes is rational and based on useful criteria.

Sylvia Jackson has asked a fair question. The issue relates principally to the mechanism by which the gambling commission will consult Scottish ministers on some of the conditions, such as fees and so on. The fees will be set centrally by Scottish ministers but, in respect of the conditions, we will be part of the process that involves the gambling commission. In addition to that, material relating to the mechanism will be published; in that sense, it will be open.

We have already talked about how that would work to the Gaming Board for Great Britain, which is already examining implementation. We both recognise that, because of the powers that Scottish ministers have to set licence conditions, we will need to help the Gaming Board with the draft guidance in order to cover the position in Scotland in relation to licence conditions. The intention is that we would work closely with the board.

Will the devolved powers be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament through subordinate legislation?

Yes; you will have a chance to see it.

Clause 157 of the Gambling Bill says that a licensing authority could resolve not to issue licences to casino premises. However, that is subject to a number of conditions. One of those is that a resolution under clause 157(1)

"shall have no effect in relation to a casino premises licence issued before the resolution takes effect"

and

"shall have no effect in relation to anything converted into a casino premises".

The minister will be aware that, in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, bingo halls and casinos are in the same use class, which means that many casinos already have planning permission to operate as bingo halls and vice versa. Does that mean that, as far as the issue of legislative power is concerned, existing casinos could not be prevented from providing bingo in Scotland?

An issue relating to use classes will be wrapped up in the consultation that is done on planning. Could you repeat your question, please?

The question is: will we in Scotland have the power to prevent existing premises that have the necessary permissions to act as casinos—that is, gaming permission and planning permission—from offering bingo?

I do not think so, but I will come back to Mr Ewing formally on that to give an appropriate and, more important, an accurate response.

I seek clarification, given the answers that we have heard to some of the questions that were put earlier. It was made clear that you will have input to the licensing conditions that will allow licensing boards to make decisions on regional casinos. You said that there will be a reflection on NPPG 8, which will set the criteria according to which planning for casinos will be done. Is the answer to Robert Brown's question that the Scottish Executive will have influence over whether particular casinos are given the go-ahead?

Yes. I believe that Michael McMahon's central contention is absolutely right. That is what we seek to do through the framework that I described. In addition, because a national planning policy guideline is, by definition, published and available, it shows ministerial intent and the intent of the Scottish Executive in that regard. I say a firm yes to the question that Mr McMahon raises.

That brings us to the end of questions. As I said, I will allow members to indicate what they think about the Sewel motion. I ask members to communicate their thoughts briefly and we will then move on to decide what the committee as a whole thinks about the Sewel motion and whether it is appropriate to recommend to the Parliament that the motion be agreed to. When members have made their contributions, I will allow the minister to respond to the points that have been made, but I urge him to respond to the specific points and not to make a further speech at that point. That is not an insult to the minister.

You know me too well.

I look forward to hearing the minister's conclusions. I suspect that we will not necessarily agree.

If we agree to recommend to the Parliament that the Sewel motion should be agreed to, we are at best acting prematurely and at worst abdicating our responsibility to the people of Scotland fully to scrutinise the legislation that will be passed with our approval at Westminster. I say that in the knowledge that the convener has had some letters from churches that support the view that we need to undertake fuller scrutiny.

I am also aware of the comments from Carlton Clubs plc that are referred to on page 16 of the Scottish Parliament information centre paper. Carlton Clubs states that the Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill did not

"visit Scotland or take any evidence from any Scottish operatives whose businesses would be affected by the … Gambling Bill"

because

"draft clauses for the gambling legislation as it would apply in Scotland were not made available in time for the Joint Scrutiny Committee (JSC) to include them in its review."

Those are powerful words.

Today, in response to my question, we heard that Executive officials are not aware of any qualitative research that has been carried out either at Westminster or by the Scottish Executive on the economic and social impact of allowing more casinos—be they small, large or super—to be established outside the current permitted areas in our four main cities. The bill, as it affects Scotland, has therefore not been subjected to full scrutiny at Westminster. The Scottish Parliament has a duty and a moral obligation to carry out full scrutiny, which Westminster has failed to do properly.

The Executive has not made a safe and robust case for passing the powers to determine where casinos can be established from Scottish Executive ministers to local authorities. Paragraph 19 of the Executive's consultation paper states:

"This power is to be discontinued and in common with UK Ministers, Scottish Ministers will no longer have power to determine the areas where casinos may be located."

That goes for small casinos, large casinos, regional casinos, supercasinos, or whatever we want to call them.

I am also concerned about the proposal to lift restrictions on casinos offering live entertainment. Paragraph 55 of the Executive's consultation paper states:

"At present the Gambling Clubs (Licensing) (Scotland) Regulations 1969 require licensing authorities to impose restrictions preventing casino premises from offering live entertainment."

Those restrictions will be lifted as a result of the Sewel process. The regulations were put in place for good and solid reasons: to prevent people who turn up to casinos to listen to music, to watch an act or for wider family entertainment—as was mentioned by the supercasino people from whom we heard today—from being sucked into a destructive gambling habit.

Why do we need a full scrutiny process? On the social impacts, the information that I have received from Dr Gerda Reith of the University of Glasgow is that research into gambling habits shows that Scots are the biggest gamblers in the UK. Some £80 per person per annum is spent on gambling in Scotland, compared with £52 per person per annum in England. Why on earth do we want to make problem gambling in Scotland potentially worse?

The Auckland report is qualitative research material, but Westminster did not examine it, as the report did not come out until October. Similarly, the Executive has not had the chance to examine it. The report, which was commissioned by the UK Responsibility in Gambling Trust, considered the experience of the United States of America and New Zealand in particular. It states:

"With respect to links between gambling availability and problems, it is of interest that the researchers found that location of a casino within 50 miles … was associated with approximately double the rate of pathological gambling".

It states:

"location of a casino within ten miles of an individual's home is independently associated with a 90% increase in the odds of being a … pathological gambler."

It found:

"the four counties with the greatest access to casinos had the highest problem gambling rates and the four with the least availability had the lowest rates."

I do not want to go on ad infinitum about the report, but it covers other issues and I will draw attention to two of them. It states:

"the data tend to support the contention that the widespread legalisation of gambling in the nation may result in a significant increase in the incidence of compulsion gambling".

Finally, it states that

"age under 30 years, low income and single marital status … less formal education and non-Caucasian ethnicity"

are risk factors for problem gambling. I leave members to take cognisance of what else the report says. It is pretty powerful evidence.

On the economic front, I have heard evidence from all sides about the additional economic activity that casinos can contribute. However, as far as I can see, casinos only redistribute economic activity. There is a danger that small pubs will be hoovered up into larger casinos and that money will be taken out of local communities and no longer spent in Scotland. I refer to Glasgow in particular, where there are already difficulties, and other areas in which there might be larger casinos. That matter concerns me greatly. Have we not learned lessons from small shops closing when the supermarkets came along? I think that Fergus Ewing referred to that matter earlier. We lost many small corner shops to the bigger supermarkets. The same thing will happen to some of Scotland's pubs. We are not justified in proceeding on the basis that the measures promote a sustainable economy.

As I said, we should not recommend that the Parliament agree to the Sewel motion. At best, that would be to act prematurely; at worst it would be to abdicate our responsibility to scrutinise the proposed legislation fully. That scrutiny has not been carried out. Our moral duty and our obligation to Scotland are that we recommend to the Parliament that the Sewel motion should not be agreed to.

The problem is that Bruce Crawford has been speaking about a different motion from the Sewel motion that the Parliament will consider. The Parliament will not consider a motion to pass powers from the Scottish Parliament to Westminster.

I did not say that.

You did. The motion does not mention our passing to Westminster the power to pass the Gambling Bill; it makes no reference to whether the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Executive approves the proposals in the Gambling Bill. The motion states that if the Gambling Bill—which is a UK bill on a reserved matter over which this Parliament has no legislative competence—is passed, the Scottish ministers should at least have some powers under it. The question is whether the Scottish ministers, and through them the Scottish Parliament, to which the ministers are accountable, will have any say in the control of gambling premises in Scotland. If we do not pass the Sewel motion, the ministers will have no say in that. The UK Parliament could pass a bill with the same provisions, but under which UK ministers were responsible for implementing the regulations in Scotland, not the Scottish ministers. That is what the Sewel motion is about.

We should cut through the nonsense that the issue is about scrutiny by the Parliament. We have no responsibility for scrutinising the bill because it deals with a reserved matter. We cannot tell the UK Parliament whether it should pass the bill, because the matter is not our responsibility—it is reserved. The motion is the most clear-cut case of a motion on a reserved matter that has ever come before the Parliament. The Sewel motion is about giving the Scottish ministers powers to make regulations on a reserved matter. As such, it is a straightforward motion that we must support.

The place for scrutiny of the bill is at Westminster. I ask SNP members how many contributions to the debate SNP members of Parliament at Westminster have made. The answer is none. That is the level of scrutiny that the SNP has given the bill at Westminster. The Scottish Parliament should not be responsible for doing the job of Westminster MPs, who should be doing it themselves. Let us recommend that the motion be passed, because it will give sensible controls to the Scottish ministers and therefore some say to the Scottish Parliament on an important reserved issue.

There are good arguments for having UK legislation on the issue, because we need a uniform approach to the regulation of the industry. Any legislation on the issue should apply across the board, throughout the United Kingdom.

I turn to an issue that Fergus Ewing raised. No greater campaign could be launched than one to save bingo halls—that is a worthy cause—but Fergus Ewing presents a red herring in raising the issue. I see no evidence that the casino operators are targeting the bingo industry. Bingo would not provide those operators with sufficient income to allow them to make a living. Unfortunately, there is evidence that the operators will look to increase their income from the casino industry, but I see no evidence whatever that they will target Jeannie and Jessie, who make their way to the Forge bingo hall in Parkhead or the Possilpark bingo hall. We must tighten up the bill to prevent operators from using bingo halls as a cover to pursue casino interests. However, Fergus Ewing presents a red herring—the operators have other fish to fry.

I support the Sewel motion because we should have a UK process to ensure that the approach throughout the UK is uniform.

I will not support the Sewel motion. I gave some of my reasons for that at last week's committee meeting. I do not believe that we would be proceeding on the current basis if there were not a UK Labour Government and a Labour-led Scottish Executive. It is disappointing to see Iain Smith kowtowing in such a way about agreeing to the Sewel motion. If there were not a UK Labour Government, I cannot imagine that the members who are supporting the motion would be happy about the removal of powers from Scotland without debate and scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament.

Will David Mundell give way?

This is not that kind of debate.

There was no reason why the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament could not have worked in harmony to develop the proposals, but it is clear that that did not happen. Instead, the UK Government came up with proposals and expects the Scottish Executive to deliver on them in Scotland without the appropriate scrutiny. Bruce Crawford referred to what the churches have said about that.

Nothing of what Iain Smith and others described during the debate as doing down Scotland needs to happen. I am surprised to hear Labour members say that the UK Labour Government would somehow leave Scotland in a bad position—surely it would not do so. Iain Smith is a Liberal Democrat and might have no influence over a UK Labour Government and Labour ministers, as he indicated, but surely Labour members have influence with their colleagues. What is the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland? He must look out for Scotland's interests.

I cannot support the Sewel motion, which is just a fix and would set a bad precedent. I do not think that such a precedent would be followed under a Conservative Government, because the very members who are supporting this motion would be squealing against such an approach.

I apologise, convener, but if I do not catch the 6.30 pm train I will miss an important appointment.

I am unable to give a qualified and professional comment on the subject, because I do not even buy a lottery ticket. However, a serious issue has been raised about the removal of powers from Scottish ministers. Iain Smith and the minister must accept that a removal of powers is inherent in the bill. They argue that Scottish ministers are more than compensated for that, but not everybody agrees that that is the case. The matter should be further investigated, because the impact of the loss of powers has not been sufficiently explored.

There is probably more to unite than to divide the committee on the bill, because I do not think that anyone is arguing that it is a brilliant thing and that we should welcome the new casinos—it is not and we should not. The bill would replace the strong powers in the Gaming Clubs (Permitted Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 1971 with what seem to be diluted powers. For that reason, I cannot support the motion.

Like Iain Smith, I think that some people are generating confusion about who is responsible for the legislation. It is a shame that some of the arguments that members made have not been pursued in Westminster, where they should have been pursued. I take on board a little of what members said about scrutiny and I hope that the minister will take up and pursue the matter.

To me, the evidence that Bruce Crawford gave suggests that the issue should be considered from the Westminster perspective. He mentioned data on the distance of casinos from homes, but nobody mentioned the dangers of the internet and the several million people each week who access internet gambling. That issue must be addressed. We have to move with the times and modernise legislation. I am one of many people here who are against gambling. I want to tighten up the legislation, so I welcome the bill's measures on the internet.

I see advantages in having a Sewel motion and taking the measures forward through our delegated powers. A lot of work will have to be done before we get to subordinate legislation. I am sure that our input at that stage will be welcome.

We all welcome the regulation of internet gambling. There is no dispute about that around this table, although I believe that the matter should be scrutinised properly.

On Paul Martin's point, I, too, initially thought that bingo customers would not be the sort of people who would go to casinos. Only after speaking to the people involved did I learn that experience in America and Australia shows that it is possible to lure a proportion of bingo customers away—not all of them, by any means, but some. Paul Martin referred to, I think, Jim and Jeannie at the bingo not being casino customers—casino customers are James Bond and ladies wearing haute couture. That is the wrong image; things are not like that any more. Casinos now provide every type of leisure, so the fears are by no means fanciful—I would not have put forward my arguments today if I thought that they were.

I will be brief and address three significant points that have not been raised. First, the minister suggested—he was backed up by MSPs from Executive parties—that if we do not pass the Sewel motion we will end up with fewer powers. With respect, minister, that does not take account of section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which, as it happens, is my least favourite provision in the act. The Scottish Parliament can make laws, but section 28(7) states:

"This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland."

I do not like it and neither does Bruce Crawford—we would like to scrap it—but there it is. Westminster can predominate over this Parliament.

The argument put forward clearly by the minister, as the record will show, is that if we do not pass the Sewel motion we will not be given the powers, but that is patently wrong. I see that the minister is frenetically getting advice, which I am sure will be welcome. I look forward to hearing it. We all like advice. I do not claim to be an expert, but there is a simple point. The minister's proposition does not stand up. Westminster can do what it wants. It says so in section 28(7).

Secondly, section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that Westminster can transfer powers to Scotland. A lot of powers have gone down south, but there are one or two examples of powers coming back up—I welcome that in the spirit of consensus, which, as you know, convener, I seek to instil wherever I go. However, we have not seen many examples of section 63 being used. Westminster could probably legislate over internet gambling, but there are real concerns—moral, social, economic and religious—that have not been sufficiently addressed.

Finally, after I raised the issue at First Minister's question time, the First Minister said that he would use the licensing powers to prevent an explosion of gambling north of the border. He also argued that the powers would be adequate. My main contention today is that either the powers will not be adequate—as I think I demonstrated in the example that I gave of the risks of having bingo and casinos—or there is, at the very least, serious doubt about whether the powers will be adequate to protect Scotland and to fulfil the promise that the First Minister is quoted in the Daily Mail and other papers as making to the Parliament. The First Minister promised that the powers would be sufficient and that there would be no risk that we would be powerless to prevent the spread of—some people would see it as being a virus—hard gambling, unlike in Australia, where there are now serious addiction problems five or 10 years after gambling laws were liberalised.

I hope that those points inform the debate and I will be most interested to listen to the minister's response.

Earlier, I was worried that Fergus Ewing's concern was that James Bond would lose all his money to Blofeld in a casino and would not have enough left to give the SNP a donation.

As a guest of the committee, I will not say much. I agreed with much of what was said about the implications of the bill and about whether we were having the right debate. However, I strongly disagreed with Fergus Ewing's comment about the Scotland Act 1998. It seems strange to suggest in effect that Westminster should be invited to ignore a resolution of the Scottish Parliament to reject a Sewel motion. That seems to be a peculiar approach. Fergus Ewing would be the first to object if such a procedure were followed.

On the substance of the matter, there is a sense among members that we are having a debate on the wrong issue. However, I have concerns about where the sensible place is to take decisions on the matter as it relates to Scotland. I asked questions that were germane to that point. We have received a degree of reassurance from Tavish Scott on the matter, but I wonder whether there could be further discussions between the ministers in Edinburgh and the ministers in London—particularly against the background of the First Minister's comments, to which Fergus Ewing referred—about whether it would be more sensible for the power to decide whether to proceed with supercasinos in Scotland to be placed at the Scottish Executive level rather than with local authorities. It seems to me that a Scotland-level decision is required on those matters. However, that is a side issue in relation to the Sewel motion and I do not want to say much more about it, as it is a matter for the committee. I would like to leave the issue with the minister and with the committee.

Unlike Bruce Crawford, I have not turned up with a prepared speech. I have listened to what the minister said and I want to respond to the minister's comments rather than to rehearse comments that, in Bruce Crawford's case, were made on "Good Morning Scotland" today. Bruce Crawford should have listened to the points that the minister made.

Nevertheless, Bruce Crawford outlined in his speech some of the concerns that I, too, have about the damage that the casinos could do. It was worth while for him to lay the concerns out, as that enables us to consider the issues that confront us. However, the minister explained that the licensing conditions would be directed from the Scottish Executive and that national planning policy guidelines would be directed from the Scottish Executive. Given that we know that people are already waiting in the wings—we have seen some plans and proposals in Glasgow—it may be too late if we do not take the powers that would become available to us through passing the Sewel motion. We could find ourselves in a situation in which someone could move ahead and build one of the casinos before the Parliament could consult, draft legislation and bring forward the powers that we would want to have to address the issues that Bruce Crawford outlined.

The Parliament should agree to the motion in order to provide the protection that people want. If we do that, we will not abdicate responsibility in respect of moral, religious or other considerations. We will be taking account of them and saying that we want to do something about the matter now. I do not want the Parliament to walk away from the situation and leave the decision on a casino to be made without the Scottish Executive having any powers over the matter. The motion will ensure that the Scottish Executive has those powers. That is why we should support the motion and not walk away from the issue.

I invite the minister to respond to the points that were raised in the debate. I ask him to restrict himself to those issues, although I suspect that that still gives him quite a bit of leeway.

I am grateful for your latitude, convener, and I will briefly deal with what I hope are the main points that were raised this afternoon.

I begin with what Bruce Crawford said. There has been wide agreement in the consultations on removing the clause that relates to live entertainment, particularly as that matter is covered by the ability of licensing boards to regulate by condition. I hope that Bruce Crawford will look at that evidence. He did not raise the issue during the questions, only during his speech, so it is difficult for me to respond more fully to his comments.

I submit that we all share the concerns about addiction. I hope that no members try to claim the moral high ground; I do not care for the insinuation that some members made that ministers do not care about such issues. It would be good if some members listened to everything that has been said on social responsibility. Ministers care about those issues and an insinuation to the contrary does not do the Parliament much good. There will be regular surveys of problem gambling—there will be a survey prior to the commencement of the bill and regularly thereafter—and I hope that that will assuage concern on that point.

On debt, I hope that Mr Crawford acknowledges that the Government is committed to reducing vulnerability to multiple debts and that it provides something in the region of £4.5 million to citizens advice bureaux and other debt advice organisations through debt advice services and local money advice. I hope that that deals with any suggestion that we do not appropriately confront that significant issue in Scotland.

On consultation, for Mr Crawford to claim—I hope that I quote him accurately—that the matter was not subject to full scrutiny at Westminster does not say much about his SNP colleagues. I have checked and discovered that not one SNP MP raised any concern on the bill: SNP MPs have not asked one oral or written parliamentary question during the bill's progression. Mr Crawford should stop lecturing us and have a word with his SNP colleagues at Westminster.

I will deal with the other issues that members raised. I respect and agree with Iain Smith's point about the importance of the additional powers—and therefore the ability to deal with gambling—that will be passed to the Scottish ministers, despite what the Opposition seeks to imply.

Paul Martin rightly raises the need for uniformity of legislation in the UK. Some might not find compelling the concerns about internet gambling, the gambling sites that are available and why we should have UK-wide legislation, but I do. I will not get into the constitutional argument, which, no doubt, the SNP members will make, that we should have a separate gambling commission that can deal separately with internet sites. As we know, internet sites are not only UK-wide but worldwide, so it is right to have UK legislation on the matter.

Paul Martin was also right to remark on Mr Ewing's persistent desire to suggest that there will be an explosion of casinos in Scotland. By definition, and from everything that has happened in London and here, there simply will not be. Some people should stop scaremongering.

I could not even begin to understand where Mr Mundell was coming from. His argument was bizarre. I had better say nothing more about it, otherwise I will fall foul of the convener.

Mr Sheridan has left the meeting—I respect the fact that he had other duties. It is important to acknowledge that 90 per cent of the bill is about greater regulation of the gambling industry. Mr Sheridan might bear that in mind when he considers the matter further.

I take Sylvia Jackson's points about scrutiny and Michael McMahon's points about planning guidance and the pressures in Glasgow. I have tried this afternoon to suggest that the powers that the Scottish ministers will gain from the bill will allow for those additional pressures to be dealt with through the framework that I have described.

It is important to note that the UK Government's casino policy has been modified to avoid a proliferation of regional casinos, of which Scotland might—I stress that word—have one. The measures that have been taken in response to the concerns that have been expressed provide further reassurance on the bill's approach to gambling. Ministers will be consulted fully before any decisions are taken about the location of any regional casino in Scotland and, as I said, 90 per cent of the bill is about the greater regulation of the gambling industry, which, I presume, is something that we would all support.

The Sewel motion that is before the committee this afternoon is the only realistic way in which Scottish ministers can acquire more and new powers—not fewer powers—that will allow us to have greater influence on gambling issues in Scotland. That is the right approach. I am grateful to the committee for considering these issues this afternoon and hope that it will recommend to the Parliament that the motion be agreed to.

That concludes the debate on the issues to which the Sewel motion relates. The debate will be published in the Official Report and will form the body of a report by the committee to the Parliament. I propose that the committee considers whether to recommend that the Sewel motion be agreed to. Does Mr Ewing want to make a different point?

As the committee knows, the Official Report is often not available—for perfectly understandable reasons—until the sixth day after a meeting. I hope that there is no question that, if the Sewel motion is debated by the whole Parliament, as one would expect, the debate will take place before all members—not just members of the committee—have had the opportunity to read the full Official Report of this meeting.

I am advised that it is not likely that the motion will be debated by the Parliament before the Official Report of the meeting is available. I will ask the clerks to make a specific request to the official report that the section of today's Official Report that relates to the Gambling Bill is given priority in its work.

I will ask members first to indicate whether they believe that the committee should recommend that the Parliament agree to the Sewel motion. I will then ask them to indicate whether they believe that the Parliament should not agree to the motion.

Those who do not support the Sewel motion may want to attach reasons to that, instead of simply making a bald statement.

That was the purpose of the debate. We are intending to report the full content of the debate and the committee's recommendation. Members will be able to read Bruce Crawford's comments and views on the motion.

The question is, that the committee recommends to the Parliament that the Sewel motion be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)

Against

Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 0. The majority of members of the committee recommend that the Parliament agree to the Sewel motion.

I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance.