Executive hands over aces on gambling bill

• Executive to adopt Westminster Gambling bill in Scotland via Sewel motion

• Gambling bill to allow for UK-wide 24 hour super casinos

• Opposition parties accuse Scottish Executive of abdicating responsibility

Key quote

"If your committee will not hear oral evidence from those concerned ... this surely calls the Sewel process into serious question as a way of avoiding debate" - Rev Graham Blount, Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office

Story in full LABOUR and Liberal Democrat MSPs were last night accused of abdicating their responsibilities after caving in to Executive demands not to have a full debate in Holyrood over UK-wide proposals to liberalise the gambling industry.

The anger was sparked after the Scottish Parliament’s Labour-dominated local government committee supported calls by ministers to pass responsibility for the controversial issue to Westminster under a so-called Sewel motion.

The decision came despite opposition by the SNP, Tories and the churches for greater scrutiny of the Gambling Bill in the Scottish Parliament.

The Executive had argued the bill had been thoroughly scrutinised in Westminster already and that using a Sewel motion would give more powers to Scottish ministers. A UK-wide approach was the only sensible way forward, ministers added.

Yesterday, Tavish Scott, the deputy finance minister, told the committee that claims Scotland would be swamped with casinos was "scaremongering".

The new legislation is controversial because, although it introduces tougher regulation of the industry, it also paves the way for Las Vegas-style super-casinos, open 24 hours a day with more than 1,000 slot machines paying out unlimited prizes. Eight super-casinos have been approved for the UK over the next three years with one coming to Scotland. Critics believe such a move could lead to a rise in the number of gambling addicts.

The Executive has become embroiled because, although most of the legislation is not devolved, licensing of gambling is the responsibility of local authorities north of the Border and Scottish ministers set the corresponding fees.

The Executive also has the power to set regulations which govern the conditions for granting and renewing casino and bingo club licences.

Last night, there was outrage after the local government committee voted by five votes to three to recommend to the full parliament that a Sewel motion be used. There was also concern over the growing use of such motions by the Executive to avoid controversial legislation being debated in Holyrood with MSPs accused of "abdicating" their responsibilities.

Sewel motions were intended to be used occasionally for minor bills that, if legislated upon separately at Holyrood, could delay the parliament’s law-making priorities. However, the instrument has been repeatedly used by the Executive and critics argue a raft of laws announced in the Queen’s Speech will be pushed through without full scrutiny in Scotland.

Last night, opposition was led by Robert Brown, a Liberal Democrat MSP whose party officially supports the Sewel motion. "It is essential that Scottish ministers have control over Scottish casinos and have the power to stop the building of casinos altogether if appropriate," he said. Mr Brown warned that local authorities would feel unable to reject the chance of a super-casino and the huge sums of money involved in such developments it is was left to them.

"The parliament has full powers over other planning matters, even relating to nuclear power stations," he said. "It seems very odd that we should not have full powers over casinos."

Bruce Crawford, an SNP MSP, also called for a full debate. "Punting this down the road for Westminster to deal with is entirely the wrong way of doing things," he said. "Super-casinos have been shown to severely increase problem gambling and could also have an adverse effect on our local pubs and clubs."

The Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office, which represents the Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland and other major denominations, also insisted a full debate at Holyrood was the only way forward.

The Rev Graham Blount, an official with the organisation, expressed his concern at the committee’s approach. "If your committee will not hear oral evidence from those concerned ... this surely calls the Sewel process into serious question as a way of avoiding debate," he said.

Peter Perrins, managing director of Carlton Clubs, Scotland’s largest independent bingo operator, also added his fears over what he described as the Executive’s "abdication" from a wider public debate.

"The public have a right to be concerned about the potential for a proliferation of super-casinos in Scotland and the associated problems of gambling addiction," he said.

However, Mr Scott, argued that without using a Sewel motion, Scotland would be more exposed to large casinos. He pointed out that the right of Scottish ministers to be consulted will be included in the proposed bill. And he also emphasised that additional powers will be passed to Scottish ministers by the draft legislation, including measures to control the building of super-casinos through planning and licensing conditions.

"The choice is fairly simple; either we accept the powers which require the consent of this parliament, and hence the Sewel motion, or they stay in the hands of UK ministers," he said.

Mr Scott denied there would be any "explosion" of new casinos, insisting: "There is simply not going to be, and I really do think some people really should stop scaremongering on that."

Dr Lesley Sawers, chief executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, said the debate over the parliamentary process missed the fact new casinos would boost local economies.

"The argument, more importantly, should focus on the economic benefits," she said.