Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1080
- 1099)
THURSDAY 29 JANUARY 2004
CLLR RICHARD
GRANT, CLLR
CAROLINE SEYMOUR
AND CLLR
GRAHAM BROWN
Q1080 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Is
there not a further argument that if you have a proliferation
of particular kinds of facilities you will get cut-throat competition
which, in the areas of drinking and in terms of gambling, is likely
to lead to problem gambling occurring because it is made so easy?
Cllr Seymour: Yes.
Q1081 Chairman: I was fascinated by Councillor
Seymour's answer about adult gaming centres, because the witnesses
we had the other day and previously seemed to indicate that proprietors
of adult gaming centres and, for example, betting shops think
they are going to be major losers under this Bill if more casinos
develop. Do you have a worry that you are going to have to license
betting shops and adult gaming centres in parts of your communities
which, at the moment, would not satisfy the demand test with serious
social consequences?
Cllr Seymour: It is certainly
a possibility. I have not really thought about it very carefully
but, yes, I think there is a distinct possibility that could happen.
Q1082 Lord Mancroft: The draft Bill gives
you the authority to attach conditions to classes of licence holders
and to individual licensees. What conditions do you envisage applying?
Cllr Grant: The conditions that
will be attached obviously do not want to duplicate existing statutes—for
example, in relation to employee safety or food hygiene. The Bill
already sets out conditions in relation to the operation of the
business—for example, the maximum number of gaming machines
to be provided—but matters that could be considered for
conditions by the local authority may relate to the opening hours,
noise abatement works to contain noise, door supervision and designing
out crime, closed circuit television. In terms of designing out
crime, I think we are encouraging design to make sure that there
are no darkened corners or areas that could provide refuge for
somebody wanting to attack somebody else, or an area that is sheltered
that would encourage all sorts of people to congregate in a place
that would cause problems so that the design is a good design
and it does not, by its very nature, produce a lot of problems.
There are also points to be included in terms of health and safety
relating to members of the public such as the provision of drinking
water and first aid and aspects to do with drug control. For example,
I understand that in some establishments to discourage intravenous
drug users blue lights are used so that you cannot see where the
veins are. Those are thought through aspects of design that are
in there so that we do not provide opportunities for difficulties
to arise.
Q1083 Lord Mancroft: Are those not more
planning issues? They have nothing to do with gambling, have they?
Cllr Grant: It is to do with the
design of premises, to set quality standards. You are actually
saying, "What is the quality of this experience?"
Q1084 Chairman: I would be very interested
if the Local Government Association could ask those of its members
which have casinos in their area, notwithstanding the fact that
these proposals are likely to lead to larger casinos than we are
used to, what experience they have of crime and disorder, of drug
taking in casinos, because the evidence we have been given is
that none of those issues is a concern right now. We would like
that clarified.
Cllr Seymour: Certainly.
Q1085 Jeff Ennis: Do local authorities
have staff with the necessary skills and experience to take over
responsibility for licensing, in your opinion?
Cllr Seymour: Yes. We already
do a great deal of licensing of different premises and different
activities across local areas. I think most councils do a very
good job of granting licences for various things. These are not
just small scale licences. For example, we do entertainment licences
and things like sports grounds and so on. We have great experience
of dealing with all sorts of different licences and therefore
I believe local government is capable of picking up anything that
is thrown at it, but we need to be given a lead in time that is
realistic and also we need to be given money up front to provide
training to staff and for recruiting staff and training members
in new roles. We are however slightly concerned because of the
position of the Licensing Act 2003, when we were given significant
new powers. We do not yet have the guidance and yet we are going
to be expected to do things shortly. From a local government point
of view, it would be nice to feel that we had that system bedded
down before we were given something else on top of it. I think
local government does have the skills and the people available
to do this new licensing. Given the right lead in time and the
right amount of funding, we could do a very good job.
Q1086 Lord Walpole: You state that you
are very concerned that the fee income will not provide sufficient
funding to prepare for and implement the Bill without having to
transfer funds from other services. In the event of there being
less than adequate resources, would this affect the administrative,
inspection and enforcement roles of local authorities? I suppose
I ought to declare something which I have not declared before,
which is totally relevant as far as gambling is concerned. I do
hold an entertainment licence.
Cllr Brown: When comments about
fee levels etc., come up, there are probably some elements who
might say, "You would say that, wouldn't you?", but
local authorities are going through very difficult times at the
moment with regard to budget. I think it is important that extra
duties do not create further deficits in balancing the budget
book. There are 376 licensing authorities in England and Wales.
Significant funding would be required for such up front costs
as training of members and officers, recruitment, computer software
and hardware, office accommodation, producing policies, consultation
and so on. Inadequate resources would mean that local authorities
would not be in a position to carry out new functions effectively
from the date the new regime starts. There is always that difficulty.
If you have a duty to do something and you do not have the funding,
which budget do you take it from. Information that you have seen,
sent to the LGA in October 2003 from member authorities, shows
that the costs of developing licensing policies under the Licensing
Act will be over £7.5 million. This is just one of the up
front costs. Local authorities find themselves in a position today
where the Licensing Act is likely to come in in August but there
has been no information on what the fee levels will be or what
the regulations are. Authorities are very much in the air, not
knowing what the situation is.
Q1087 Lord Walpole: Presumably the same
department is going to run all this licensing, is it not, whether
it is what used to be called a magistrates' licence, an entertainment
licence or a casino licence?
Cllr Brown: Yes, but if fees do
not cover the ongoing costs from year to year it will impact on
local authority functions across the board. Delays in processing
applications and reduced checks could be a result. Resources may
be diverted from other work areas. Should our council tax payers
have to subsidise this work? If I could refer to the policy document
that was produced with regard to the Bill, paragraphs 3.26 and
3.27, 3.26 states, regarding the Gambling Commission fees, that
the Commission will seek to recover through licence fees the full
costs of the operation and administration. "The amounts to
be recouped by the Commission will be the costs of its activities.
There will be no element of profit or surplus." Fine; no
problem. 3.27: "The Secretary of State will set licence fees
following advice from the Commission." Paragraph 3.73: "The
costs to local authorities will be met through applications and
annual licence fees. These fees will be set and adjusted by the
government in secondary legislation." There is no reference
there to any consultation with the local authorities.
Q1088 Chairman: In paragraph 3.3 of the
second memorandum that you sent to the Committee last week, you
say that you have made available to DCMS significant information
about the expected costs of the new system under the 2003 Act
in relation to licensing. What representations have you made about
this and with what response? Do you want to write and tell us?
Cllr Brown: Yes. Because of certain
issues, we would prefer to write.
Cllr Seymour: Licensing will be
taken on by the same department but obviously it is an add-on
and therefore it means you cannot probably achieve more licensing
with the same number of staff. You would need to train people,
but also we do have a concern about this element in the Bill.
It is very prescriptive about the size of the licensing committees.
If that is carried forward into this Bill, you could have a problem
whereby some members in very busy authorities would have to be
almost sitting constantly, dealing with licences. We hope that
that is not going to be as prescriptive.
Q1089 Lord Walpole: Magistrates did,
did they not?
Cllr Seymour: Yes, but they did
not have to have the same pool of people. I think it was only
about 10 or 12 people that they were talking about. I think it
is unrealistic in a busy authority to expect those people to deal
with all the applications and we would like some sort of flexibility
about that.
Cllr Brown: All local authorities
should be treated equitably with the Gambling Commission in making
representations with regard to fees and the fees chargeable should
reflect the actual costs of the individual authorities. I think
it is important that we do look at locally set fee levels. The
government has agreed an independent review of the Licensing Act
regarding fees and we strongly believe that the fees should be
locally set. We are not looking for any back door way of making
money to subsidise other services.
Q1090 Chairman: How can you justify charging
more in Powys than in Herefordshire?
Cllr Brown: I do not know whether
we would.
Chairman: You might have the opportunity
if you had your way. That is the point.
Q1091 Jeff Ennis: Because of the transfer
of existing licensing services from the magistrates to local authorities,
do you envisage a need to possibly transfer some of the staff
over from magistrates to local authorities?
Cllr Seymour: I do not think it
has been discussed in great detail. Certainly in some areas it
has been quite difficult getting information out of the magistrates
about numbers of staff. I would imagine, under existing employment
legislation, if it was deemed that people had a right, then local
authorities would look at that. In my local area, that has never
been suggested.
Q1092 Jeff Ennis: Is it something that
we could have a note from the Local Government Association on?
Cllr Seymour: Yes, certainly.
Q1093 Lord Mancroft: Of course, resources
are always a problem and if you take on new work it is inevitably
difficult. Under the Licensing Bill, we are talking about 60,000
pubs and clubs. If the casino industry was to double, it would
mean that one in three authorities had one application. It is
not quite on the same scale, is it, the concept of sitting there,
endlessly licensing seven days a week? One application a year
in a third of all authorities would double the industry? It is
not a great deal. That does not take account of adult gaming centres
but if the entire industry doubled you would still have fewer
than two applications a year per authority. It is not a huge increase
in workload, is it?
Cllr Seymour: No, but you would
still have to train members in issues and so on so that they could
sit on licensing committees. I take your point that we are probably
not going to be sitting every day of the week but in some authorities
people could be a lot busier.
Q1094 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Because
exactly the same issues arose on the Licensing Bill and the size
of the committee, could we have a note about whether, when you
look at what was actually said by ministers about the application
of the numbers on the licensing committee, you still hold the
view that all this is unfair?
Cllr Seymour: Yes.
Q1095 Viscount Falkland: At this stage,
we are all facing the prospect of a complex and in many ways radical
piece of legislation which places considerable additional burdens
on local authorities. How do you see or would you hope to see
your relationship with the Commission developing? Are you doing
any work at the moment with the Gaming Board and what is your
relationship at present with them? How do you see this whole area
developing? Is it developing in the way you want it to?
Cllr Seymour: We have started
dialogue already with the Gaming Board and the LGA have set up
a gambling task group on which myself and Councillor Brown are
members. Staff are setting up a meeting with the Gaming Board
so that we can discuss issues. We would like to see a very good
relationship between local authorities and the Gambling Commission
at a strategic and operational level. We would like you to look
at the relationship we have with the Health and Safety Commission,
where local authorities have an elected member who is a commissioner.
We would like to see a commissioner from local authorities appointed
to the Gambling Commission so that there could be good liaison
between local authorities and the Commission. The commissioner
on the Health and Safety Commission provides a lot of feedback
to authorities on her role and it does help the liaison between
the two bodies to have a sensible relationship. We would very
much like to see a place automatically going to a local authority
member on the Commission. We believe that local authorities should
be consulted on all the guidance and codes applicable to their
role. To achieve that, we need a very good working relationship.
We recognise that and hope that we can have one.
Q1096 Viscount Falkland: Are you concerned
about the dangers of crime associated with gambling which can
develop if you are not extremely vigilant? Is it a possibility
you would have somebody from your local police authority in the
way you have suggested as a representative?
Cllr Seymour: No. I would have
thought we would have somebody more from the licensing side as
a representative. I think it is the Health and Safety Commission
or government that chooses the representative's name to be put
forward.
Q1097 Chairman: The Gaming Board has
been given the opportunity to appoint additional members now.
Have you made any representations about whether one of them should
represent local authorities?
Cllr Seymour: I do not know, but
we can let you know.
Q1098 Baroness Golding: Are there any
difficulties likely to arise for planning processes from applications
which may be processed between 7 August 2003 when the DCMS/ODPM
paper on casino policy was published and before the draft Bill
becomes law? It sounds as though there are going to be.
Cllr Grant: It sounds like there
might be but it is too early to say or to give a definitive answer
on that. If we are able to give a more detailed answer during
the time you are looking at this, we will pass that information
to you.
Q1099 Dr Pugh: Do you have a view on
whether large casinos are best sited outside town centres or inside
town centres?
Cllr Grant: Current government
policy is to direct large developments either to town centres
or to the edge of towns rather than on green field sites, but
it really is a matter for local policy.
| 
