Plenary, 12 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Official Report 463KB pdf

---

Gambling Bill

We proceed slightly early to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion S2M-2118, in the name of Tom McCabe, on the Gambling Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.

I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm the Executive's position on this important motion, which the Local Government and Transport Committee considered, debated and supported on 14 December 2004.

The Gambling Bill is fundamentally a matter for the United Kingdom Government and the UK Parliament, because gambling is reserved. Therefore, there is no question of handing power back to Westminster—as the Opposition constantly alleges—because we do not possess the power in the first place. The motion on the Gambling Bill simply suggests that we should agree to a framework that will give Scottish ministers more power—not less—to regulate gambling in Scotland.

This is a debate less on gambling than on the constitutional position of the Scottish National Party-Tory alliance. Despite having diametrically opposite views on the subject, it appears that they will once again be united in voting. Dressed up in synthetic fury, Mr Crawford—who, to be fair, does synthetic fury rather better than does Mr Ewing—will highlight supercasinos as contributing to problem gambling and no doubt will imply that only nationalists care about such issues. If the Tories follow the lead that Mr Mundell took in the committee, they will also oppose today's Sewel motion.

The aim of the UK bill is to introduce regulatory powers over commercial gambling, because the current powers are being undermined by new technology. For instance, there is currently no regulation of internet gambling, which the bill will remedy. Increased responsibility is one of the bill's key aims, which I want Scottish ministers to be able to play a full and active role in achieving.

For the most part, the UK bill will simply tighten the rules to cover new forms of gambling and to provide new protections for children and vulnerable persons that will apply throughout Great Britain. A powerful new body—the gambling commission—will be established to regulate the industry. During my meeting with her yesterday, the chief executive of the Gaming Board for Great Britain, Jenny Williams, stressed that the current powers are becoming inadequate and that there is a need for the important role that the new gambling commission will have. Social responsibility will become an explicit condition of an operating licence and breaches of the licence will trigger penalties, which could include the loss of the licence. Local licensing boards will have an important role in being responsible for the licensing of all premises.

That accords with the vast majority of responses to the Scottish Executive's consultation exercise, which was additional to that carried out through the normal mechanisms for UK legislation.

Licensing boards will be required to prepare three-year licensing policy statements. Boards will have the power to decide whether the local community—local people—wants any more casinos in its area. If so, the casinos will be regulated by conditions set by Scottish ministers. It is important to stress that the motion will allow a new power to be established, under which local decision makers, licensing boards and people will—rightly—have wide scope for saying no to casinos at any time. We welcome that extra measure of control.

Moreover, the bill will include a specific clause to ensure that there is consultation with Scottish ministers prior to any decision by UK ministers to approve areas of Scotland as being suitable for new casinos. Scottish ministers would consider such a proposal extremely seriously when reaching a collective view. UK ministers have indicated that, if the view of Scottish ministers was that there should be no new casinos in Scotland, they would give the greatest possible weight to that view in their consideration.

Gambling is a reserved matter and there is no power to legislate on it in the Scottish Parliament. The only realistic way in which Scottish ministers can acquire new powers is through this Sewel motion. Scottish ministers would have a wider range of controls under a new system than they have at present. Parliament would have more say and there would be greater accountability. That alone is a good set of reasons for supporting the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees the principle of including in the Gambling Bill provisions which confer powers on the Scottish Ministers, including powers to set fees and make regulations on the conditions to be attached to gambling premises' licences and permits, and agrees that the relevant provisions to achieve this end should be considered by the UK Parliament.

We are very short of time for this debate, so timings will have to be strict.

At the outset, I make clear that we think that some aspects of the Gambling Bill make good sense and that there is significant support for them in the wider community. However, we do not accept as a sensible solution the proposal to remove from Scottish ministers the power to determine the areas in which casinos may be located.

We all know that the public debate across the UK has centred mainly on the acceptable number of large and regional casinos that the UK Government will allow. As the debate has become hotter, new Labour has scaled back its initial plans for a bigger number of large and regional casinos. The problem is that, although this week new Labour may be shrinking back from its original proposals in the face of considerable hostility before an expected general election, there is absolutely nothing to prevent it in the months and years after the election from revising upwards the number of large and regional casinos. When it inevitably does so, Scottish Executive ministers will be able to do heehaw about it, because by then they will have abdicated their responsibility.

At present, casinos can be established only in permitted areas, defined by ministers. Paragraph 19 of the Executive's consultation paper on the devolved powers in the Gambling Bill states:

"This power is to be discontinued".

It also states:

"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."

If that were not bad enough, the Executive is also agreeing to allow Westminster to remove the restrictions on live entertainment in casinos. What is the basis of the Executive's argument? In paragraph 56 of its consultation document, the Executive says that the UK Government's response to the Budd report

"accepted that the restriction on live entertainment should be removed as it prevented casinos offering a more attractive environment to consumers and was one of the obstacles to the development of resort casinos."

At present, the power to impose restrictions comes from the Gambling Clubs (Licensing) (Scotland) Regulations 1969. Those restrictions are in place for good and solid reasons. They are intended to prevent people who want simply to turn up to watch an act or to participate in wider family entertainment from being sucked into a destructive gambling habit. Separate provisions already exist in England and Wales. Paragraph 58 of the Executive's consultation paper states:

"Licensing Boards were not enthusiastic about the removal of the restriction on live entertainment. They felt that the current system worked well."

We all know that the proposals will have social and economic impacts, and Scotland spends £80 per person per annum on gambling, whereas the figure in the rest of the UK is only £52.

If the reasons that I have set out are not good enough for opposing the Sewel motion, I point out that when the issue was considered by the Westminster Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill it took no evidence at all from the Scottish operatives whose business would be affected by the bill's provisions. Moreover, no qualitative research has been carried out into the social and economic implications of casinos in Scotland.

The reasons for rejecting this Sewel motion are compelling indeed. For example, research from the United States of America clearly shows that people under 30 on low incomes and people with less formal education are much more likely to become problem gamblers. Westminster decides and we in Scotland pay the price of additional social problems and their inevitable impact on the public purse.

I have been asking myself, "What is the difference between Charles Kennedy and Jim Wallace? Between Malcolm Bruce and Tavish Scott? Indeed, between the Liberal group at Westminster and the Liberal group at Holyrood?" The difference is that, at the second reading of the Gambling Bill at Westminster, the Liberals voted en bloc against it—as did 31 Labour MPs. However, here in Holyrood, the Liberals will be doing new Labour's work for it. That brings to life many of the clichés that we have heard about the Liberals.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry—I would do so, but I have only 15 seconds left.

We have heard that the Liberals look in two directions at once and sit on the fence; that they are hypocrites with no real principles; and that they are Labour's poodles. We will vote against the Sewel motion in the same way as we voted against the Gambling Bill at Westminster. The Liberals should do the same.

For background information, I make it clear that Conservative colleagues at Westminster voted against the Gambling Bill at its second reading. The Conservative party has serious concerns about the proposed liberalisation of the rules on casinos and feels that if the bill were passed, it would allow the development of new supercasinos with 24-hour immediate access and unlimited jackpots. We believe that, as it stands, the bill will open the door to a much larger number of supercasinos than the eight suggested and that they will be placed in urban areas close to where people live. However, Westminster is clearly the place to make such objections about the bill's principles and the Conservative party will continue to do so there.

We have more fundamental objections to the Sewel motion. We do not object to the Westminster Government dealing with devolved matters through legislation for the whole United Kingdom, if that is the most appropriate way forward. That is clearly covered by section 27 of the Scotland Act 1998. Moreover, we do not object to changes in constitutional arrangements that relate to reserved matters or to any increase in devolved powers. Indeed, that can happen under section 63 of the 1998 act. As a result, Tavish Scott is quite wrong to suggest that the Sewel motion is the only basis on which this matter could be addressed. We simply object to the increasing use of the Sewel motion procedure, which is not regulated by the Scotland Act 1998 or by any other properly set-out procedures. Indeed, Lord Sewel himself has said that it was never envisaged that the procedure would be used on more than 50 occasions.

I am afraid that the use of Sewel motions has become symptomatic of the Executive's failure to establish statutory and verifiable working arrangements with the UK Government. Indeed, what can only be described as a back-of-a-fag-packet arrangement has developed between the Executive and the UK Government to deal with issues that straddle reserved and devolved competences or with devolved issues on which the UK Government is legislating.

That is simply not good enough. The arrangements might well work when they are made between a Labour UK Government and a Labour-dominated Scottish Executive. However, as Lord Norton recognised, such a relationship relies heavily on good will and will not work with a Government of a difficult political persuasion either at Westminster or in Scotland.

As a result, we believe that there should be an independent review of the working arrangements between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments so that procedures can be established, agreed and understood. In my view, there is no way that some of the people who advocate that the Scottish Parliament should give up its powers, as it would do today by agreeing to the Sewel motion, would be prepared to follow such a line if a Conservative Government had made exactly the same proposals.

The matter is one on which I find the Liberal Democrat approach—not for the first time—totally bewildering. As Bruce Crawford pointed out, the Liberal Democrats at Westminster are against the thrust of the bill, but Iain Smith attempted to suggest in committee that, if Parliament did not pass the motion, the UK Government would somehow deliberately prejudice Scotland. In doing so, he showed that, under the present Labour Government, the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland has been totally undermined. The Secretary of State for Scotland should be defending Scotland's interests on reserved matters at Westminster, and that is part of the constitutional ambiguity that needs to be cleared up. Until those issues are cleared up, we will certainly not be supporting motions such as the one that is before us today.

Sewel motions have been a contentious issue for some time in the Parliament, with the Opposition regularly complaining either about the frequency of their use, as David Mundell has just done, or about the perception that powers are being handed over unnecessarily to our Westminster colleagues—a complaint that has come from Opposition parties on all sides. We are reminded that such complaints are made because of those concerns alone; Opposition members are not opposed to Sewel motions in principle and say that they will consider each one in turn and on its merits. Therefore, I am baffled that the Opposition is opposing this particular Sewel motion on the Gambling Bill that is before the Westminster Parliament. If Opposition members are not opposing the Sewel motion merely for opposition's sake, they must come up with better reasons for opposing it than they have done so far.

No one can dispute the fact that the modernisation of the UK's gambling laws is badly needed or the fact that the legislation required to effect any such changes is largely reserved to Westminster. I find it peculiar that Opposition members are looking for Scotland to have its own legislation on the issue. I am not concerned about their espousing their desire to have such legislation, but I am baffled that anyone could see that as the best way to address concerns about gambling in Scotland.

Given that the Gambling Bill is already under way at Westminster, it would be impossible for the Scottish Executive to introduce its own legislation to parallel that being proposed for the UK. That being the case, the practical effect of our not supporting the Sewel motion would be to prevent Scottish ministers from being given the opportunity to consider proposals to establish a regional casino in Scotland. The Sewel motion seeks to give Scottish ministers powers that they do not currently have. Without those powers, a regional casino could be established under UK legislation and we would not even have begun the process of legislating on gambling, even in those areas that are devolved to Scotland and over which the Scottish Executive has authority.

Like other members, I am concerned that little, if any, encouragement should be given to the extension of gambling in Scotland. The social problems associated with gambling addiction are well known and far too extensive in our country already. However, I do not think that we should overhype the problems that the creation of a regional casino would bring. For example, I doubt whether many bingo players would drift away from their couple of games of housie a week towards the poker and blackjack tables in a casino. I also doubt whether the punter who puts a few pounds on the greyhounds or the horses would be any more susceptible to gambling addiction. My concern is about the establishment of a culture of gambling that would suck people, especially younger generations, into the heavy gambling promoted by big business as a glamorous leisure pursuit.

I would like the Executive to obtain the powers that will allow it to have an input to the new gambling environment that the Government in London proposes. If people are worried about the potential expansion of gambling-related social ills, to oppose the Sewel motion would be perverse. Westminster is responsible for the bulk of the powers over gambling, but the Scottish Executive has been given the chance to expand its involvement, and we should seize that opportunity. I am not much of a gambler myself, but I am prepared to wager that the Sewel motion is being opposed for no reason other than the fact that it is a Sewel motion, and that if members examined what it would deliver, the Parliament would support it.

David Mundell will be pleased to know that the Procedures Committee has agreed to conduct a review of the Sewel convention. We will consider a remit for that inquiry at our meeting next week.

It is important that we are clear about what we are and are not voting on today. Voting on the Sewel motion today does not mean that the Scottish Parliament supports the principles behind, or the proposals contained in, the United Kingdom Gambling Bill; it does not imply support for or give support to the bill. In this instance the Sewel motion is solely about whether certain powers that are contained in the bill, in as far as they relate to Scotland, should be exercised by UK ministers or Scottish ministers. That is what we are deciding.

The motion is different from the Sewel motions that we have dealt with usually. This Sewel motion does not give our consent for the UK Parliament to legislate in a devolved area; it deals with an area that is wholly reserved to Westminster. The bill deals with areas in which the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate. Although it is true that Scottish ministers currently exercise certain powers on matters related to gambling, they are exercised under reserved legislation. The Scottish Parliament cannot legislate to change those powers, nor can it legislate to change the primary legislation from which the powers are derived.

If the UK Government chooses to legislate in the area, it is for members of the UK Parliament to ensure that the legislation is subject to full and proper scrutiny and that the changes to the law are justified. I say to Bruce Crawford that that is what Liberal Democrat MPs are doing at Westminster. They are ensuring that the law is properly scrutinised and that changes are made to ensure that the law is justified. That is not what SNP members are doing at Westminster. They have not even raised the issue in that Parliament.

Will the member give way?

Sorry, but I have only four minutes and I want to complete my speech.

It is for Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament, not for members of the Scottish Parliament, to ensure that the proposals that affect Scotland are measured and appropriate. We should no more second-guess and interfere in the work of MPs on reserved matters than it would be acceptable for Westminster MPs to second-guess and interfere in the work of members of this Parliament.

Most of the Gambling Bill is uncontroversial, welcome and overdue. However, I fully understand the concerns that many members both in this Parliament and at Westminster have about the proposals on casinos. Liberal Democrats at Westminster voted against the Gambling Bill at second reading because of the provisions on casinos, to try to ensure that changes are made to the bill before it is passed. The UK Government has already made substantial concessions as a result of the concerns raised by Liberal Democrat MPs and others at second reading; in particular, it reduced significantly the proposed number of supercasinos as a result of concerns raised in the debate at Westminster. [Interruption.] I did not claim full responsibility for the Liberal Democrats. I said that the Liberal Democrats and others raised concerns in the debate. I believe that the SNP did not speak in the debate, as usual.

The major concern about the Sewel motion is in relation to the power for Scottish ministers to veto casino applications. The bill proposes to remove the power for ministers, whether UK or Scottish, to specify where casinos are located. Instead, that power will be given to local licensing boards. It is a matter of judgment whether such decisions are better made locally or by ministers, but I contend that the powers that the bill gives to Scottish ministers to make regulations governing the conditions for granting licences to casinos, along with existing powers in relation to planning regulations, will provide Scottish ministers and, through their accountability to Parliament, the Scottish Parliament with adequate control over the extent of casino expansion in Scotland. In addition, the bill places a specific duty on the gambling commission to consult the Scottish ministers before a supercasino can be located in Scotland. In my view, that gives power to Scottish ministers to say no.

Those powers will be available to Scottish ministers only if we agree to this Sewel motion, otherwise they will be exercised by UK ministers with no accountability to this Parliament. That is the reality and no amount of political posturing by the SNP or the Conservatives will change that. I urge members to support the Sewel motion.

The Scottish Green Party shares many of the concerns that have been expressed about Sewel motions, such as about their overuse and the scope and scale of the issues for which they are used. I have expressed those concerns in the past. However, whatever the meaning of this Sewel motion, it is not for this Parliament to remain silent on any issue or development that affects Scotland, whether it originates in London, Brussels, New York, Washington or wherever.

The bill is deeply contradictory. It sets out to facilitate a significant expansion of the gambling industry—there would be no prospect of the gambling industry making the investment in new regional casinos if it did not expect a significant increase in the uptake of gambling—yet the rest of the bill sets about addressing the need for protection from the very effects of expansion that the first part of the bill would allow as well as some of the social responsibility issues that Tavish Scott mentioned.

The bill should be seen as a pay-off to the gambling industry for the introduction of better regulation. If the Government wants to regulate an industry, it should simply do so. We do not seek the tobacco industry's permission to regulate smoking or the sale of tobacco, or that of polluters to regulate environmental matters. Therefore, we should not seek the gambling industry's permission to regulate it. One of the purposes of government is to restrain activity that causes social harm.

I want to consider the expansion that will result. There will be not only supercasinos, but the potential for 24-hour opening, unlimited jackpots and betting on Christmas day—I wonder how that squares with the support on the Labour back benches for the proposal to restrict the opening of retail stores on Christmas day. There will be an increase in the ability of casinos to advertise. How can such things do anything but lead to an increase in the take-up of gambling and in the incidence of problem gambling? Even in their scaled-back form, the proposals that are going through Westminster will lead to both consequences. No one could think that the gambling industry could undergo such expansion without an increase in problems being caused.

I am not at all convinced by the regeneration argument that has been made. Supercasinos might well create some employment, but so would other forms of recreational and entertainment facility. Many such facilities might possibly create better and more rewarding jobs. The Greens' take on many economic matters is that we must focus not simply on the amount of economic activity that can be generated, but on its effect—its impact. Creating some jobs might be a good thing, but if the operation is about taking money away from hard-pressed communities, including from victims of gambling addiction, and sending it straight into the hands of large corporate players, the long-term impact on communities in which such casinos operate will fly in the face of social justice.

We have been told that the UK limit will be set at eight regional casinos and that, even if one is proposed for Scotland, Scottish ministers will have at least a consultative role and potentially even a veto. However, both assurances—on the limit on numbers and on the role of Scottish ministers—are short term. They do not give any permanent protection, place permanent limits on the number of supercasinos or their location or give an assurance about the long-term intentions of Scottish ministers. In addition, we have not heard from the minister about what the Executive intends to use the powers for.

For all those reasons and other reasons that I do not have time to go into, Green MSPs will vote against the Sewel motion.

I echo what Patrick Harvie has said about the bill. The Scottish Socialist Party will also oppose the Sewel motion.

There should be no pretence over what the bill is about. Its main motivation is an anticipation of increased profits and tax revenues. Of course there will be an increase in gambling and compulsive gambling as a result of the bill. There will be exploitation of the poorest and most vulnerable to generate profits for the richest and most powerful.

Casinos already operate on the basis of inducements. They ensnare and hypnotise people into a superficially glamorous world—an escape from reality. The introduction of live entertainment will merely perpetuate that and increase risks. Casinos prey on the dreams of people whose only perceived chance of a better life is the big win. Just one more casino that opens for 24 hours a day with no cooling-off period for joining means no relief for the families of compulsive gamblers, no cut-off point, no end to the gambling day and no time at which the partner of the absent compulsive gambler can finally close the curtains, stop watching for the headlights and listening for the footsteps and go to sleep. The Parliament has a duty to the families and partners of compulsive gamblers. The number of such gamblers may be relatively small, but that is where the pain, heartache and misery are and it is not funny.

The alcoholic will eventually fall down, but the compulsive gambler—who will have access to gambling 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and who will be able to use ever more dangerous methods of acquiring the limitless money that casinos consume—will not. More children will go without shoes, coats and meals and more women will have their doors battered down by the moneylenders. At least membership has a delaying effect, as it involves the 24-hour cooling-off period. At least restrictions on opening hours ensure that the gambling day is finite, which means that gamblers' families get some respite and the gambler has the opportunity to refrain for a while.

Gambling addiction organisations, gamblers and the families of gamblers in Scotland should have the right to have the issue debated and legislated on in the Scottish Parliament. That right should not be removed by Westminster. The Sewel motion should be opposed in principle and, regardless of what happens in the Parliament today, the expansion of supercasinos into our most vulnerable communities should be opposed tooth and nail, using whatever means necessary.

In Australia, where gambling has been totally deregulated, problem gambling has quadrupled. By sacrificing the poorest and most vulnerable people for tax revenues that could easily be raised through progressive direct taxation, the Government will be trading in misery. The Government's proposals represent yet another regressive tax. They will mean that the poorest people—those who are on the lowest incomes—will pay more in tax, while the rich and powerful will get to sit on ever-growing piles of winnings, which are much more secure and are certainly not reliant on the impossible odds of the spin of a roulette wheel or a pull on the puggie. I ask members to oppose the motion.

This is an important debate on a substantial issue that has already caused the UK Government, in spite of its swollen majority, to beat a headlong retreat on a number of fronts.

In broad terms, I support the analysis of the Sewel motion that has been laid out by Tavish Scott and Iain Smith among others. However, there is a wider dimension. I am vehemently opposed to the idea of regional casinos—it is probably the worst idea to have come out of Government in recent years. It is made worse by the fact that such casinos have been linked with category A, unlimited-jackpot machines. The UK has one of the lowest levels of problem gambling in the world, but the Government wants to put in place arrangements that will double those levels. On top of drugs problems and problems with alcohol and tobacco addiction, Glasgow—the most likely location in Scotland for a regional casino—will have a gambling addiction problem. I make no bones about saying that I do not find particularly compelling the vision of Glasgow as a sort of wet Las Vegas.

Although this short debate is on a Sewel motion and relates to a reserved matter, it raises issues of great importance with which the interests of the Parliament are closely engaged. Ministers say that the Government's gambling proposals are not the business of the Scottish Parliament, even though we have spent a good deal of our time trying to deal with problems of excess debt, have invested in debt advice and debt arrangement facilities and have changed the law of diligence to help the victims of debt. Is it true that the Parliament has no concerns about the issues that the Gambling Bill raises?

Let us consider slot machines. Each regional casino will be allowed to have as many as 1,250 machines. That is more than the total number of gaming machines in all existing UK casinos. One casino could rake in £75 million a year from those machines alone; that is before anyone goes near the tables. The £150 million investment will soon be got back from the punters.

Research in the United States indicates that 30 to 55 per cent of casinos' slot machine income comes from problem gamblers. There is a debate to be had on the issue and that debate should be had in Scotland. The issue should not slither about in the undergrowth of the home rule settlement, hiding from the world and from the light. The decision should be made nationally—

Will the member give way specifically on the point about slithering?

I am sorry. I am not taking interventions, as my time is very short.

The member has made his position clear.

The decision should be made within the framework of the constitutional settlement by the Scottish Executive, which is accountable to the Parliament, in the full light of day.

It is true that the issue of gambling is reserved to Westminster. In my view, that is right. However, there is no law that says that, within the framework of gambling regulations that has been established by the Westminster Government, Scottish ministers cannot discuss the issue with the UK Government and ask for and obtain a clear understanding that—in practice—if, after being consulted on the bill, they say no to supercasinos in Scotland, their view will be honoured by the UK Government. I am concerned not with the format, but with the reality.

I ask the Executive for a number of assurances. First, I ask it to clarify the very helpful words that Tavish Scott gave in his opening speech on the effect of the consultation. Secondly, I seek an assurance that the local licensing boards will be able not only to reject applications for more casinos per se but to discriminate between different sorts of casinos so that they can reject applications for regional casinos in their area, even if they do not reject applications for other sorts of casinos. Thirdly, I seek an assurance that adequate time will be given for a full parliamentary debate to be held before the Scottish Executive makes its views known to Westminster.

Those requests are nothing unusual and they overthrow nothing. They do not relate to any Scottish Executive policies or partnership pledges. I am asking only that the partnership parties, the Parliament and the Executive should have an effective voice on this vital subject.

We move to closing speeches. I call Sylvia Jackson to close for the Labour Party.

In winding up, I will make just five points, the first of which concerns the Gambling Bill itself. It has to be acknowledged—indeed, I think that it is acknowledged—that gambling is a reserved matter and that only a small percentage of the issue is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Secondly, we have to acknowledge that the process of dealing with such legislation, given that gambling is essentially a UK matter, is via a Sewel motion. The Scottish National Party wants powers that the Parliament does not have, but it always wants powers that we do not have.

Thirdly, the Sewel process allows members of the Scottish Parliament to have our say and allows Scottish ministers legitimately to discuss important issues such as regional casinos with UK Government ministers. The bill will give us more powers, including a local say through the licensing boards. Without the Sewel motion, the UK Government would make all the decisions. Surely the SNP does not want that to happen.

Fourthly, concerns were expressed at the Local Government and Transport Committee about the small and large regional casinos. The SNP should remember that, after the discussion with the minister, the committee went through the various safeguards. The first of those is the licensing boards, which ensure that decisions are taken at the local level. The second safeguard is the conditions. Indeed, Bruce Crawford asked, as I did, a number of important questions about the criteria by which the boards would make their decisions and the conditions that they would consider. The minister replied honestly and agreed on the importance of the point that not only ministers but the gambling commission would examine those matters. The third safeguard is the review of national planning policy guideline 8, which will start this year. That will assist with any planning issues that relate to gambling.

Fifthly, the bill will put more controls on gambling. That has not been mentioned in the debate—indeed, I was amazed that Carolyn Leckie did not mention it when she spoke on behalf of the Scottish socialists about the evils of gambling. The bill attempts to deal with the problems of internet gambling. I wonder why that fact was not mentioned earlier. For all those reasons, I ask the chamber to support the motion.

We are now back on track. I thank David Mundell for waiving his second speech—

Hear, hear.

No, it was very helpful. It means that I can offer Kenny MacAskill the full five minutes and Tavish Scott his full six minutes.

Mr McMahon said that he was baffled. I am somewhat perplexed that he should fail to see that the debate is not so much about procedures as about principles. The procedures can be addressed, whether through the Procedures Committee—to pick up on a point that Mr Smith made—through the methods that Mr Mundell suggested or through another means. However, the issue is fundamentally a question of principle—Mr McMahon may have forgotten that, but we believe that it is fundamental. The principle is whether we wish to have supercasinos in our communities, a point that, to his credit, Mr Brown of the Liberal Democrats touched on. It is also fundamentally about the problems that gambling causes, which can be exacerbated by supercasinos, and whether we wish to regulate supercasinos or leave them unregulated.

The ethos in our new chamber since the First Minister first spoke in it has been one of raising the game, not simply raising the stakes. In this magnificent auditorium, we are supposed to be raising our sights; we are supposed to be raising our game, not just playing the game, whether the puggies that Ms Leckie referred to or other games such as blackjack.

Our society is different geographically, demographically and socially. As other members have indicated, we know that we have a problem that we need to address. If we fail to do so, we will pay the consequences. If we do not address the problems with the Gambling Bill, we will have to deal with crime, health and debt problems and a whole array of other problems that will be exacerbated by the bill and for which the Parliament has devolved responsibility.

Mr MacAskill talks about the principles. If all the issues are so important, why did no SNP member take the time to raise them in the Parliament at Westminster, to which they are reserved?

The principle remains the same—the new Labour Government is closer to the likes of Bernie Ecclestone and the big American casino companies that wish to come in than to the ethos of looking after the people whom it is supposed to represent.

We know that gambling is a serious problem and causes difficulties. Information on that has been clearly provided by churches, academics and others. The statistics prove that we have problems and, whether from Australia or elsewhere, they show that supercasinos will exacerbate those problems and make them infinitely worse.

The Parliament has a duty to legislate to ensure that supercasinos do not come here. That is our responsibility and we must accept it. Of course, there is no difficulty with people going to the bingo or having a flutter—those are not problems—but we have a duty as a state and as a Parliament to address factors that will make matters infinitely worse. We legislate on narcotics. We legislate on pornography. We have a duty to legislate on supercasinos, given the harm that people will do to themselves, their families and their communities if such casinos are introduced.

The bill will open Pandora's box and we will face a significant problem. I am glad that Mr Brown spoke out against it; I hope that he will have the courage of his convictions and vote in accordance with them. We are aware that the issue is about individual responsibility and teaching people about the consequences of gambling, but we have a duty as a state to take responsibility where people fail to address their own problems. We legislate on smoking because we believe that it can be detrimental. We act not because we are a nanny state, but because we acknowledge that there is a significant problem and that there is an onus on this Parliament to act.

The debate is not about procedures. The procedures could be resolved without even involving the Scotland Act 1998. Fundamentally, the issue is one of principle. However, if people have no principles or cannot decide whether their principles come through Brown or Blair, or through the American companies that are the main backers, it is no wonder that they abrogate responsibility. Others in the chamber believe in the principle that we have to take responsibility. We believe that gambling causes social problems that supercasinos will exacerbate and we fundamentally believe that it is the responsibility of all members to vote against the bill.

The main suggestion that has been made in the debate is that there will be a proliferation of supercasinos throughout Scotland. That is absolutely not the case, as those members who have contributed rationally to the debate have illustrated. The main issue that has been raised has been that of supercasinos or regional casinos. The regulatory regime that I have described and that I discussed at length with the Local Government and Transport Committee on 14 December is clear. Pressure has been put on the UK Government's policy on the number of supercasinos and several licensing and regulatory checks will be put in place if the motion is passed. However, those hurdles will not be put in place if the Parliament follows the SNP-Tory coalition on the issue.

First, the powers of licensing boards will include a specific provision to say no to additional casinos of any size. Licensing boards can take a different approach to the three categories of casino, which is the answer to Robert Brown's point. I stress again that, if local people and communities do not want more casinos, the licensing board can reflect that view and not have any. Secondly, national conditions will be set by the Scottish ministers, who are accountable to the Parliament. Again, those conditions will be important checks in the licensing regime. Related to the conditions will be a consultation on the national planning policy guidance that will be used by local authorities, which will impact directly on the development of such casinos. That is a further check in the regulatory regime.

Thirdly, in direct response to the legitimate concerns of many members, I reaffirm that the UK Gambling Bill will include a clause with regard to consultation with the Scottish ministers. UK ministers have said that they will give the greatest possible weight to the Scottish ministers' views in their consideration. SNP members will weep and wail that that isnae enough—for them, it is never enough. However, if they thought rationally and logically about the matter—I am perhaps departing from reality in even making that suggestion; after all, why should we allow a rational argument to get in the way of a synthetic rant?—they would realise that, in circumstances in which ministers consider an application and communicate a negative view to Whitehall, it would seem logical that such a view could not be ignored.

Mr Crawford raised the issue of consultation. He was wrong about live entertainment, as he has been wrong on the whole issue all along. A consultation exercise in Scotland, which included responses from licensing boards, showed a majority in favour of removing the current restrictions on live entertainment.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No. Mr Crawford would not give way to me, so he can just sit down.

The debate has had little to do with gambling and everything to do with the astonishing fact that the Tories and the SNP, despite having diametrically opposed views on the subject, will once again vote together. The SNP will oppose a Sewel motion that gives Scottish ministers and the Parliament more power, not less. The nationalists believe that, as with all reserved powers such as defence, foreign affairs and social security, the Parliament should have responsibility. Of course, the Tories want no new powers for the Scottish Parliament—Mr Mundell was explicit about that. The Tories never want new powers for the Parliament; in fact, they did not even want the Parliament in the first place. There is no greater illustration of their commitment to the Parliament than the fact that Mr Mundell, Mr Johnstone and Mr McGrigor all want to go and live in another place. So much for their commitment to Scotland.

The SNP and Tories are working together for diametrically opposed reasons. There is no greater illustration of the paucity of the Opposition parties' argument than their complete indifference to the actual issue and the crumbling inadequacy of their stance of opposing each other while voting together.

Mr Ewing can carry on standing.

The debate is about additional powers being given to Scotland on a reserved matter. If the Parliament rejects the motion, as the Opposition parties want, MSPs will be unable to hold ministers to account for the use of those powers and the UK Government will simply retain them. Of course, that is what the Tory-SNP Opposition wants. I presume that the pro-independence Greens and SSP will support that position. It is about time that the pro-independence Greens and SSP got more attention—they are very quiet about that policy plank. We should use the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 on the SSP and Green policy plank on independence.

I urge the Parliament to reject the SNP-Tory coalition's political posturing on the constitutional question, which leaves those parties electorally sterile and impotent in each other's arms. I commend the motion to the Parliament, as it will give ministers greater powers and will therefore allow the Parliament to hold the Government to ever greater account.