Supplementary memorandum from the Local
Government Association (DGB 103)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Local Government Association (LGA)
is pleased to submit further written evidence to the Committee
and welcomes the opportunity to give oral evidence on 29 January
2004. This evidence should be read in conjunction with the Association's
earlier submission that looked at the general implications of
the draft Bill for the democratic role of councils as deliverers
of public services and representatives of local communities. This
evidence develops those issues in relation to specific clauses
in the draft Bill itself and concerns particularly local authority
(LA) discretion, fees and start up costs, the relationship with
the Gambling Commission and raises some further general issues
about social inclusion and planning.
1.2 It is recognised that the range of premises
that are covered by the draft Bill present different issues and
challenges and the impact of the policy on the development of
the industry and the new types of premises that may arise is,
to a degree, a matter of speculation. For the purpose of this
evidence no distinction has been made between the different industry
sectors, unless otherwise specifically mentioned.
2. LOCAL AUTHORITY
DISCRETION
2.1 The presumption to grant an application,
contained in Clause 125(1), limits unreasonably the discretion
of councils and does not allow flexibility according to local
conditions. Council considerations are to be subject to Commission
Codes of Practice and guidance, the licensing objectives and the
LA gambling statement. The hierarchy of directions to be taken
into account means that the status of the Council's own policy,
developed to reflect local issues and the result of consultation
with local police, residents and businesses, will be reduced to
that of an after thought.
2.2 Notwithstanding paragraph 2.1, the LGA recognises
the importance of consistency in decision-making and regulation
to the industry, and will encourage and support LA elected members
and officers to learn about the operation of gambling businesses.
To this end LGA has agreed additional funding for LACORS—Local
Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services—to provide
advice and guidance to LAs in this new area of work.
2.3 The LGA believes that: — the Bill should be amended to allow
LAs to impose an area wide ban on particular types of gambling
premises, as recommended in the report of the Gambling Review
Body, or to otherwise restrict premises that are to be granted
licences, where such restrictions are reasonable to secure the
well being of the local area.
3. FEES AND
START UP
COSTS
3.1 While the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)
accompanying the draft Bill makes some estimates of costs to LAs,
the LGA is 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.
3.2 The preparation for substantial new duties
of this type includes staff recruitment and training, IT software
and hardware, office accommodation. Taking the cost of preparing
a licensing policy under the Licensing Act 2003 as an example,
significant funding will be required for start up costs. The Department
for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has indicated that some monies
will be made available via the Revenue Support Grant but the amount
is not yet known. A table indicating the costs of preparing a
licensing policy under the 2003 Act is attached at Appendix 1.
This is based on information sent to the LGA in October 2003 from
member authorities.
3.3 Once the new system is in place, the costs
of administration, inspection and enforcement of gambling premises
licences will vary from area to area. Despite the LGA's calls
for powers to charge locally set fees for licences issued under
the Licensing Act 2003, the Government imposed centrally set fees.
At the time of preparing this evidence the fee levels have still
not been made available. However, LGA has made available to DCMS
significant information about the expected costs of the new system
under the 2003 Act, and over 150 LAs have indicated to the LGA
that significant budget deficits are anticipated when fee income
is set against costs.
3.4 However, the LGA is pleased to see that in
Clause 155 the Government has responded to LA concerns about certainty
of ongoing fee income by providing for the licence to be discontinued
if the annual fee is not paid.
3.5 The LGA believes that:
— Clause 146 of the draft Bill should be
replaced to allow for locally set fees, with an agreed framework
relating to costs, accountability, levels of LA activity and consultation.
— Schedule 9 of the draft Bill should amend
the Licensing Act 2003 to providing for premises licences to be
discontinued if the annual fee is not paid.
4. RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE
GAMBLING COMMISSION
(SCHEDULE 2)
4.1 It is essential that, from the start, the
new relationship between LAs and the Gambling Commission is transparent
and recognises the role of councils in leading their communities
and working with others in order to promote well-being. An effective
central-local partnership with joint agreement on principles and
priorities can be a powerful way to ensure a smooth transition
to the new regime and a genuine partnership to ensure delivery
of the reform policy and improvements for communities.
4.2 In other areas of regulation there are notional
partnerships with central agencies, however experience shows that
these models could be improved. LAs are keen to set up the best
working relationship possible and LGA officials have already had
an initial meeting with Gaming Board representatives.
4.3 The LGA believes that:
— LA interests should be represented within
the Gambling Commission at Commission, strategic and operational
level. This could be achieved by pursuing a similar model to that
between LAs and the Health and Safety Commission (HSC), with a
local authority elected member appointed as a Commissioner and
regular bilateral meetings. Dedicated staff to liaise between
the Commission and LAs should be considered.
5. POWER TO
MANAGE NUISANCE
ASSOCIATED WITH
GAMBLING PREMISES
5.1 The licensing objectives set out in Clause
1 of the bill do not address potential problems of nuisance in
the street outside the premises that can arise, particularly late
at night and when alcohol has been consumed. While the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 places a duty on local authorities (LAs) to
deal with statutory nuisances arising from the premises itself,
and to investigate residents' complaints, it is not possible to
use this legislation to deal with street nuisance, even where
the problem is directly attributable to a particular venue.
5.2 This is inconsistent with the objectives
in the Licensing Act 2003 and it is the LGA's view that this omission
will seriously hamper the ability of LAs to ensure effective management
of the environment around gambling premises and provides residents
with little scope to make representations should street nuisance
occur.
5.3 The LGA believes that:
— A new licensing objective of "the
prevention of public nuisance" should be added to Clause
1.
6. LICENSING
COMMITTEES
6.1 Clause 126 of the draft Bill indicates that
the same Committee and procedures will apply as under the Licensing
Act 2003. At the time of preparing this evidence we have not yet
seen the secondary legislation or guidance under the 2003 Act
relating to Licensing Committees. It is hoped that sensible measures
will be offered to local authorities to ensure compliance with
the Human Rights Act 1998 without unnecessarily restricting local
freedoms. The implications of the prescriptive approach contained
in the sections of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to Committees,
such as the limit on the number of members of the main Committee
and the number and membership of the sub-Committees are outlined
in para 6.2 below.
6.2 The number of premises to be licensed under
the 2003 Act by each LA is to increase up to 10 times. In the
period of transition between the current system and the new, which
could be as short as nine months, every licensee will be required
to apply to the LA for conversion and for any changes. The restriction
on the size of Committees and sub-Committees is predicted to cause
significant logistical difficulties given the statutory time limits
in the Act. In large authorities an unreasonable burden of work
could be required of a relatively small number of members—daily
meetings have been mentioned in the largest; in small authorities
a significant proportion of the total members of the Council,
up to 50 per cent in some areas, may be needed to sit on Licensing
Sub-Committees with a possible negative impact on other Council
work.
6.3 While LAs see their new gambling role as
a sensible extension of current licensing arrangements, there
is concern that over-prescriptive legislation will hinder their
ability to deliver an efficient and effective service. The provisions
of the Licensing Act 2003 must be seen to deliver capacity to
Committees for decision-making before gambling is added to their
responsibilities.
6.4 By way of contrast to the above, it is hard
to see how clause 133 (3) (c) of the draft Bill, (the ability
of authorities to decide that representations will not influence
their decision), does not contravene the rules of natural justice
and Human Rights Act requirements for a fair hearing.
6.5 The LGA believes that:
— Schedule 9 of the draft Bill should amend
the Licensing Act 2003 to enable LAs freedom to set up Committees
in line with local needs, with the power for reasonable delegation
to officers, compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998.
— The timetable for implementation of this
legislation must not commence until the new alcohol and entertainment
regime has settled down and allow reasonable time to prepare for
the new gambling duties, such as development of and consultation
on policy, training, staffing and so on.
7. SAFETY OF
CHILDREN
7.1 Schedule 6 of the draft Bill, which largely
reproduces schedule 9 of the Gaming Act 1968, sets out the process
for granting permits for Category D gambling machines which may
be used by children without the presence of a supervising adult.
Such premises include family entertainment centres, cafes, take-aways
and cab offices.
7.2 Schedule 6 allows the local authority wide
discretion in the granting of such permits and while it is acknowledged
that such premises are a feature of many seaside resorts, the
provision of a safe environment for families with children should
be paramount.
7.3 Arun District Council reports a recent incident
where a child was abducted from an amusement arcade and indecently
assaulted. In LGA's view the proposal as it stands does not exclude
persons convicted of sex offences from holding a permit to provide
such machines and is a wasted opportunity to improve child protection.
7.4 The LGA believes that:
— The procedure in Schedule 6 should more
closely reflect that of premises licences, contained in part 8
of the Act, to ensure that sex offenders and persons with relevant
criminal convictions cannot hold permits for Category D machines.
8. UNNECESSARY
BURDENS
8.1 Schedule 8 of the draft Bill proposes that
societies organising small-scale lotteries be registered with
the LA. Clause 40 requires that each registration be notified
to the Gambling Commission and Clause 42 that a proportion of
the fee accompanies the notification. It is not clear what the
role of the Gambling Commission will be in relation to such lotteries,
and it is the LGA's view that this passing on of monies is an
unnecessary bureaucratic burden on LAs, the cost of which must
be met by the lottery organiser.
8.2 The LGA believes that:
— The procedure in Schedule 8 should be
amended to remove the requirement for monies to pass to the Gambling
Commission unless a cogent business case can be made.
9. IMPACT ON
SOCIAL INCLUSION
9.1 While gambling can be a legitimate form of
entertainment for people who can afford to lose money, the deregulation
of gambling laws as a route to regeneration and personal income
maximisation in local areas could be said to be doubled edged.
The LGA would wish to sound a note of caution with regard to the
problems that could arise, that would be contradictory to the
work local authorities are doing to alleviate child poverty and
financial exclusion.
9.2 In deprived areas, particularly if these
are areas unlikely to attract tourists anyway, regeneration through
the relaxation of gambling laws is unlikely to have the desired
effect on addressing local poverty. It is the view of LGA that
the opportunities for employment in gambling premises for members
of disadvantaged communities are likely to be low skilled, with
little chance for "up skilling" to allow them to access
wider employment opportunities.
9.3 For disadvantaged communities the promise
of a way out of poverty presented by gambling is a powerful draw.
The issues relating to adults using housekeeping money to finance
a gambling habit are well rehearsed and the potential for credit
card abuse could lead to widespread personal and family debt problems,
leading to criminal activity to finance the habit and putting
vulnerable people at an even greater risk.
9.4 The potential risks for children associated
with playing gaming machines, including small-stakes slot machines,
would seem to be similar to any other addiction. Once addicted,
children may have to engage in crime to finance their habit and
their education would very likely suffer, affecting their long-term
chances of a decent life.
9.5 The LGA believes that:
— the Bill should be amended to allow LAs
discretion to impose an area wide ban on particular types of gambling
premises or to otherwise restrict premises that are to be granted
licences, where such restrictions are reasonable to secure the
social well being of the area and to protect children, young people
and vulnerable adults.
10. PLANNING
CONTROLS
10.1 The relationship between planning and licensing
is very important in ensuring that negative impacts of developments
are minimised and LGA would encourage parallel policy development
and close liaison between officers. A Council's gambling licensing
policy statement should be informed by and co-ordinated with all
related planning policy development.
10.2 Under proposals in the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Bill, Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) will be expected
to have policies for leisure developments of regional significance,
including the largest casinos, and to identify suitable locations
within the region that would optimise their contribution to tourism
and regeneration. RSS will be the policy of the Secretary of State
who can intervene to make changes at any stage.
10.3 Also under the proposals in the Bill, LA
Local Development Frameworks must be in conformity with RSS. This
means that the Secretary of State will be given direct powers
over councils, which could see large scale casinos imposed on
local communities, in effect by the Secretary of State and his
appointed Regional Planning Body (RPB). Clauses in the Bill to
introduce Simplified Planning Zones make this a real prospect.
10.4 Whilst the Government has recently brought
forward proposals to require RPBs to seek advice from County Councils
(and other local authorities) in the preparation, monitoring and
review of their RSS, on all matters of direct or indirect relevance
to them, and to require those councils to give advice to RPBs,
there is no ability for LAs to change their plans or query changes
once the Secretary of State and his appointed Inspector have produced
a report on the plan. The LGA is seeking the freedom for LAs to
amend plans as they see fit in the light of the Inspector's report
to retain essential local discretion.
11. ISSUES SPECIFIC
TO WALES
None identified at this time.
January 2004
| 
