Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1480
- 1499)
TUESDAY 24 FEBRUARY 2004
MR NICK
BUNN, MR
TONY KELLY
AND MR
PETER MATTHEWS
Q1480 Chairman: There is just one
further point on Lord Brooke's question. You have mentioned the
point of the person just spinning the ball in the centre of a
group of 10 or 12 machines. One observation which was put to us
is that the people who sit at their terminals, playing roulette,
prefer that method of playing the game because they find the roulette
tables intimidating and too much of a challenge for them. We equally
observed on one of our casino visits that the roulette table is
the table where the person who is in charge, the croupier, is
actually under the most stress. Is there not a slight conflict
here in the answer you have given in that, on the one hand, it
is a stressful occupation with literally constant play and there
can be a number of players around a roulette table, and, on the
other, the use of the terminals is one way of avoiding that?
Mr Kelly: Yes, I accept what you
are saying entirely, but our company says that those machines
or that system should exist, but it should be seen as being a
machine on a manned table and, therefore, being allowed to contribute
towards the table ratio and, therefore, it justifies three more
machines. What is going to happen here is you will have a machine
effectively justifying three more machines.
Q1481 Chairman: Could I just ask
you, Mr Bunn, about another comment you made. You said that 40
is too low. I presume from that that you are referring to the
current proposal and what has been described to us as the "cliff
edge" where once you get to 40 tables, you can have unlimited
machines. I think you made it clear that there should be a ratio
and I am assuming from your knowledge that you do not think there
should be unlimited machines in any circumstances?
Mr Bunn: That is correct.
Q1482 Chairman: But if 40 is too
low, what figure would you suggest would be the point at which
the number of machines which might be possible should be higher
and do you have a view as to what the ratio above that level should
be?
Mr Bunn: I would think at least
80 tables, and then after 80, 10 machines per table.
Q1483 Chairman: After 80?
Mr Bunn: Yes.
Q1484 Chairman: So after 80 tables,
which would be within 20,000 square feet, you would stick with
three to one, which the Government has proposed, or higher?
Mr Bunn: I think there would have
to be some sort of sliding scale, but I am not an expert on these
things. Our problem is that the availability for play and the
tables are actually there. The other comment, as I said earlier,
is that you need a cap of some description. Unlimited machines
is asking for trouble.
Chairman: Can we move on to licences.
Q1485 Lord Mancroft: What proportion
of casino workers do you think need a personal licence under the
new regime?
Mr Kelly: We assume it is going
to be the same as it is now. It is approximately 60. With the
regulation our casinos will be having more staff, I imagine, or
I guess it will remain the same at 60 per cent or thereabouts.
Q1486 Lord Mancroft: Are there any
benefits in keeping the licensing of gaming staff operator-specific?
Mr Kelly: No. I am actually totally
against the proposed changes and we think it should stay as it
is at the moment where the casinos are responsible for the licensing
of the staff and that should be their responsibility, not transferred
on to the croupiers or the licensed staff.
Q1487 Lord Mancroft: Why not?
Mr Kelly: We feel that once you
remove it, once you allow staff to travel with their own licence,
which is the proposal, you will allow agencies to set themselves
up and we believe that for an industry which is so regulated as
ours is, it is far too important for the integrity and responsibility
to allow agencies to have any part in this industry.
Q1488 Lord Mancroft: Why?
Mr Kelly: Because, for example,
at the moment now the Gaming Board have very severe restrictions
on our social contact, what we can and cannot do and we are tied
to one operator. If you had what I would call a "looser"
system, you are going to have a system of people working for one
operator on Monday, a different operator on Tuesday and on Wednesday
they could be visiting the casino themselves and playing which
we do not think is a good idea. Also there is quite a lot of transfer
within the industry between operators and we think this is a great
opportunity for the Gaming Board to check on and scrutinise individuals
transferring and re-applying for a new licence. Without that,
they would have a one 10-year licence and they could hold it in
their back pocket for 10 years, so there is no opportunity for
scrutinising the transfer.
Q1489 Baroness Golding: With regard
to that, what problems would you say are associated with the employment
of casual staff in casinos with people going in and out? How do
you keep a check on that type of thing with regard to licences?
Do you see there are problems with that?
Mr Kelly: Again we are not sure
how you would check on it. We are not sure what is going to happen.
The current position at the moment is that it has worked very
well for the last 30 years and our gaming staff are well respected
throughout the world, so we can see no reason why we should change
that. That is our position on that.
Q1490 Baroness Golding: Well, the
proposals are that these large casinos would extend into betting
shops, into entertainment, into bingo. Are you saying that you
should have one licence or one licensing system?
Mr Kelly: Well, the licensing
of gaming staff is going to be a specific licence. It is an entirely
different licence from bingo or from the other areas of betting.
The proposal is that it will still retain casino licensed staff
and it will be an entirely separate licensing system on a personal
basis.
Q1491 Baroness Golding: But will
you not be recruiting other staff within the casino and perhaps
under different conditions?
Mr Kelly: I do not really understand
the point you are trying to make there.
Q1492 Baroness Golding: Well, if
the casinos at the moment are mainly just casinos, the proposal
is that within the large casinos there will be betting shops,
there will be entertainment shows, there will be perhaps bingo
extended. When you have all of those things in there, will you
be recruiting obviously in that area as well?
Mr Kelly: That licence will still
remain for casino staff. Even if there are other activities going
on, the personal licensing will still remain specific to the gaming
staff. That is how it is now and how it is proposed to be. The
difference is going to be though that currently it is the operator's
responsibility to ensure that the licence is in place and that
the staff get a licence.
Q1493 Baroness Golding: That will
apply to all the activities that are proposed to be in casinos.
Mr Kelly: I am not even really
sure for the casino of the licensing conditions for betting or
bingo.
Q1494 Baroness Golding: Could I ask
Mr Matthews what problems you have had in Tasmania with licensing?
Mr Matthews: The situation in
Tasmania is that there are two casinos, north and south, and both
are owned by the same family. It is a privately owned company
and they own resorts on a part of their estate. If you work in
a casino in Tasmania, you work for Federal Hotels, so our issue
is totally different. We cannot transfer our licence to Victoria
or New South Wales, but we have to apply for another licence over
there.
Q1495 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: What
proportion of casino operators do you find are resisting union
recognition for their staff?
Mr Bunn: Out of the big four,
there is some resistance from one, but the other three have signed
union recognition agreements. Tony's company, London Clubs, have
virtually signed a voluntary agreement, but the other two had
to go through the CAC process.
Q1496 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: What
do you imagine will happen when the new operators come in as a
result of this legislation? Are you hopeful that you will get
recognition agreements with them?
Mr Bunn: I think we will have
to work for them, is the answer. I think we will have to recruit
on the ground and work with them before we get recognition probably.
Q1497 Chairman: Could I just clarify
the exchange you have had with Baroness Golding. The policy statement
of November 2003, paragraph 3.45 effectively appears to be saying
that a flexible regime of personal licensing is necessary and
it sets its face against licensing named positions, so I think
the flavour of what Baroness Golding was asking was that if you
have got people working in a casino now, their job is relatively
casino-specific in the traditional sense of the kind of activity
which goes on in casinos. If, however, the casino starts to offer
bingo or taking bets on horseracing as additional activities,
it is not proposed that people would have to have specific licences
for those specific activities. I think the question we would really
like to ask you is whether you feel that the individual members
of staff that you represent would be capable of providing a range
of activities in terms of their employment or whether you think
their employment should be specific to what they were employed
to do?
Mr Kelly: We believe that their
licensing should be to have one employer, so let them multi-task
within that one employer and that is fine.
Q1498 Chairman: And leave the employer
with the job of ensuring that the employee—
Mr Kelly: That is how it has worked
for the last 30 years, yes, and we see no advantage in changing
that.
Chairman: Can we now move on to problem
gambling.
Q1499 Viscount Falkland: Could you
tell the Committee how many of your members at present are trained
to identify and deal with what we recognise as problem gambling
and do you think that such issues should be a routine part of
employee training? Further to that, do you think that the training
they receive at present is adequate or, more importantly, will
be adequate if we should see a greater amount of gambling in this
country as a result of this legislation?
Mr Bunn: Well, there is not any
training at the moment whatsoever and we would very much welcome
training on social responsibility as we think that is an essential.
Where we have got a bit of a problem is where you apply that in
practical terms. If you have got a croupier or an inspector on
a table and somebody is playing on that table and you know that
they are a problem gambler by certain symptoms that they show,
how do you put the training you have received on social responsibility
actually into practice? It could be dangerous and it could result
in assault at the worst possible end of the scale.
| 
