Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1820
- 1839)
TUESDAY 2 MARCH 2004
YVETTE COOPER
MP, MRS VICTORIA
THOMSON AND
MR ELLIOT
GRANT
Q1820 Jeff Ennis: Supplementary to the
line of questioning that Tony Wright and Lord Faulkner have already
pursued, because I think it is a very important point, do you
not think, Minister, we are being slightly timid in terms of using
casinos in terms of future regeneration? If we look at Yorkshire
and Humber, we represent two very similar constituencies; two
very socially and economically deprived constituencies that are
really adversely suffered from the collapse of the mining industry
over the last 10 years or so, and, obviously the RDAs have got
a job to create as many jobs within the region as possible. So,
as far as they are concerned, they go for the easy gains and the
easy hits. In Yorkshire we have decided to have five cluster areas,
and what worries me is that the main potential casino resort-type
development that has been put forward at the present time in Yorkshire
is in Meadow Hall, which is already part of one of the five cluster
economic growth areas. Do you not think we should be more interventionist
as a government and direct the regional planning bodies and the
RDAs and say, "Look, you have developed your regional strategy
to go for the easy hits. We have an opportunity here to use a
large, casino-style development to actually go into the areas
where we are not going to achieve easy hits"? We need to
be more directional and more interventionist to actually make
sure that we do achieve a certain amount of regeneration.
Yvette Cooper: What I think would
not be appropriate is for the ODPM to say, "It should be
Grimethorpe not Meadow Hall". I do not think it would be
appropriate for the ODPM to decide on particular locations from
the national level, because all of the work that we have done
has been to try and get more and more decisions made at the regional
level, where people have the expertise. Decisions about Yorkshire
should be made in Yorkshire on these kinds of issues. I think
we need to stick to that principle. There is a broader question
you are asking about the nature of the focus of the RDAs and the
balance between economic growth and regeneration issues, and so
on. I think we fail in our RDA strategy if we allow too much of
a polarisation between economic growth and regeneration, because
we will only get long-term, sustainable economic growth if, also,
that includes economic growth in the most deprived communities.
There has always been a danger, I think, that people think of
regeneration as not being about economic growth but about patching
up housing for a few community groups rather than patching up
jobs; regeneration is about getting jobs into deprived areas.
Equally a long-term, sustainable economic growth strategy will
not work if you leave particular communities behind and you do
not get jobs into the most deprived areas. Because of all the
changes that are taking place with the SRB funding and so on,
we are in discussions with the RDAs at the moment, and Jeff Rooker
and the Deputy Prime Minister have already had meetings with the
RDAs, just talking to them about what the long-term strategy now
needs to be. Economic growth in the most deprived areas is a real
priority for the RDAs as we move into the future. So I think those
sorts of discussions are on-going. I think I would separate that,
however, from the question about who should decide what the exact
location is, because I think that still needs to be done at the
regional level.
Q1821 Jeff Ennis: Do you not think, though,
Minister, having heard the evidence and seen what is happening
in Yorkshire and the Meadow Hall scenario, that we have got to
try and relieve this tension between the areas that are actually
doing very well at a sub-regional level and the areas that are
not, like the Barnsleys and Castlefords of this world? If we allow
the industry to develop where they want to develop, they are going
to develop in the Meadow Halls and the Trafford Centres, and what-have-you,
throughout the country, and they are not going to go to Scarborough,
Great Yarmouth and Blackpool; they are going to go where the biggest
centres of population are. Do you see that as a danger?
Yvette Cooper: I think that is
why we have said that the regional planning bodies need to take
account of regeneration considerations. I think that is why we
do not think the regional planning bodies should simply decide,
"Where does the industry most want to go? That is it—tick
the box, that is fine", and the industry goes where they
most want to. Of course you have to take into account the industry's
views about what is economically viable for them and the kind
of location that could sustain a casino resort, because there
will be some locations where it will be more difficult than others.
So, of course, you need to take account of those sorts of issues,
and of course you need to take account of wider knock-on impacts
for other industries: Is it going to be a development which needs
a lot of hotels around it that are already in existence? Is it
going to be a development that needs good transport infrastructure?
That kind of thing. So of course you need to take into account
all of those sorts of things, but we are saying very explicitly
that we would also expect regional planning bodies to take account
of regeneration issues, given the huge regeneration potential
for this. However, it is a matter for them and not for us to take
that decision about location.
Q1822 Mr Meale: Minister, with the establishment
of regional planning bodies and the competition which exists between
local authorities, do you not think it is time to examine the
guidance criteria for calling planning applications in? As you
know, there is strong evidence which seems to suggest that wherever
a public body meets an objection there automatically has to be
a call-in. This gives a prime opportunity for local authorities,
who are always in competition with each other, particularly over
the new planning apparatus which is going to be put in place,
to call in every application and, therefore, just clog up the
system.
Yvette Cooper: I think, again,
in the same way that I described earlier on, what you would hope
is that the new approach of developing a Regional Spatial Strategy
would actually involve local authorities sufficiently at an earlier
stage. So, yes, they are going to have disputes and disagreements
about whether something should be in Manchester or in Liverpool,
but they should have those arguments at the development stage
of the Regional Spatial Strategy rather than having those arguments
at the late stage about an individual application that comes in.
You should have the argument and agree, "All right, it is
going to be Manchester"; "All right, it is going to
be Blackpool" (or it is going to be wherever the location
is) at the early stage, and agree on your Regional Spatial Strategy.
Then when the application comes forward there should, therefore,
be much less likelihood of a local authority putting in an objection—
Q1823 Mr Meale: Minister, you will agree
that if the guidance criteria which is given to civil servants
and government officers at the moment is upheld and retained,
then the situation is that individual companies which want to
invest can have made the application and been through all those
early stages, and all the rest of it, and then another adjacent
local authority or, perhaps, a transport authority which is part
and parcel of the local authority area, like a county council,
might just say "We have got to stop this. We are going to
slow it down, so we are going to have it pulled in."
Yvette Cooper: Clearly, what you
do not want is what is, effectively, a malicious attempt to delay
something for no good reason. On the other hand, there are going
to be cases where, actually, there is a genuine problem; that
a particular proposal that has been put forward is going to have
some serious transport consequences or is going to have a serious
knock-on impact for the neighbouring local authority and so on.
If the development is such that it is a deviation in some way
from the Local Plan, or whatever, and it has not taken into account
particular problems with the railways or the motorway, or something
like that, then it is right that those issues should be considered.
I think it would be a mistake to say "As long as it accords
with the Local Plan therefore nobody should be able to object
at the local authority level", but I would agree with you
that you should be able to avoid mischievous complaints that do
not go anywhere. Certainly, if that does prove to be a problem
we should review that.
Q1824 Chairman: Everything you have said
so far, I think, comes down to, more or less, the issue of size.
I am not sure the Committee and people listening to our session
this morning are any the more clear as to whether the Government
thinks there are two categories of casino or whether there are
three. There is the one extreme where, clearly, there are the
smaller ones, which are only of local significance, and at the
other extreme there are the very large ones, which you could say
are of regional significance, but in the middle there are some
other large proposals which could quite easily scupper a resort-style
casino in a place like Blackpool or Scarborough or somewhere else
and neuter the effect of the regional plan. When is the Government
going to come to terms with the issue of size in planning considerations,
let alone the issue of size in the licensing proposals in the
Bill?
Yvette Cooper: As I tried to set
out earlier, and I have been very clear with the Committee, we
have not made a decision on where the line should be drawn. It
is clear what some of these large resorts are and how they should
be considered; it is clear, on the other hand, what some of the
small resorts are and how they should be considered. What we have
not yet got is exactly where to draw the dividing line between
the two. We have not done that yet, and I have been very clear
with the Committee that we have not made a decision on that yet.
The timescale, we hope and currently expect, for making that decision
would be by the summer. As I said, I am also happy to give further
evidence to the Committee as and when we get further details about
this, should the Committee think that to be appropriate and, obviously,
to inform the Committee as soon as we can about that. However,
there are, as I set out earlier, genuine issues that do need to
be considered in some detail. What you do not want to do is wrap
up a whole load of relatively small casinos that will not have
a regional impact into a whole regional procedure, and vice versa;
you do not want to find that a whole load of developments that
are going to have very big impacts on the wider area are not being
appropriately considered by the planning system. So we are trying
to get this right and trying to ensure that we have a clear definition
that will be obvious for the industry to use. We cannot have a
fuzzy, grey line on this; we are going to have to have a very
clear definition, but we are not yet in a position to make the
decision between our departments about what that definition should
be.
Q1825 Chairman: The Government's proposals
appear to us to have two competing effects: if you take the definition
of "small" and "large" that is in the Bill,
"small" casinos will have a restricted number of machines,
and it is quite clear to us that the machines are the generators
of profitability for these kinds of developments. Equally, the
Government has the restriction on machines in the smaller casinos
to prevent proliferation, but once you get into the category of
what they call "large" in the Bill, you have substantial
access to machines and, therefore, profits. Is that the cut-off
point where you think there is, or there should be, a requirement
for regeneration in the granting of the licence?
Yvette Cooper: We are not yet
in a position to decide that. The definitions set out in the Bill
have been set according to licensing consideration and licensing
requirements. So the requirements of the licensing regime that
should apply to different kinds of casinos are obviously reflected
in the Bill. There are other considerations that we need to take
into account as part of the planning system, which is just part
of the normal way the planning system would work, and we need
to have further discussions and come to an agreement about exactly
the way in which size should be measured for the planning system—whether
it should be the same or whether it should be different and what
the appropriate cut-off point should be.
Q1826 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I
just want to make absolutely certain I have understood the Minister.
The decisions which you have just been talking about are going
to be taken, you hope, by the summer, and I take it that is in
collaboration with the DCMS?
Yvette Cooper: Exactly.
Q1827 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The
Minister, Lord McIntosh, yesterday said, on behalf of DCMS, that
the problems that the board/shadow board will have about their
preparations are a function of when the second reading takes place,
because they cannot be given government money beyond a certain
figure in advance of that. You have also said that you think it
would be acceptable and sensible for this Committee to be reconvened
to examine the joint decisions reached by you and the DCMS (I
infer) before second reading because, presumably, second reading
will include both those definitions in the Bill. Do you agree
that there really are some pretty substantial timing complications
ahead which leave those people who are investing with serious
unknown variables?
Yvette Cooper: I do not attempt
to judge for the Committee whether it would appropriate or not
for me or other ministers to give further evidence. I think that
is a matter for the Committee to decide, and should you decide
you wish to I am very happy to come back and give further evidence.
It is your decision, and I would not presume to give you any recommendation
on that. Given that there are always uncertainties for any industry
when there are Bills going through Parliament, given the changes
that can take place as Bills pass through Parliament, I do not
think that these are actually any substantially greater as a result
of the timing of our decisions around the planning system. We
will need to come to those decisions and we will need to take
those decisions, but I think we need to recognise that there is
already a mechanism in the planning system for dealing with big
developments, medium-sized developments and small developments.
The critical issue that we have still got to take some decisions
around are actually about the way in which it will work with the
Regional Spatial Strategy process, but the Regional Spatial Strategy
process will also take us some time to implement. It is true that
we are in a transition period here, and that means a transition
period for the industry as well as a transition period for Parliament,
as well as a transition period for the whole of the planning system.
Of course, that means there are different things applying during
that transition period than apply afterwards. I do not think there
is any way of avoiding that transition period, given the changes
that we are trying to introduce to the planning system and to
other aspects at the same time, and given that the Bill actually
needs to pass through Parliament first.
Q1828 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Again,
I just want to understand. The fact that the agreement has not
been reached between you and the DCMS in terms of these fairly
critical issues is, as I understand from your answer, a function
of the coincidence of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
going through, and all the implications for Regional Spatial Strategy
that that has, and that we are victims of that particular series
of coincidences.
Yvette Cooper: No, I think there
are two separate things taking place. One is that the planning
system is being reformed as part of the implementation of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill when it finally completes
its course, which will allow a different approach to the development
of the Regional Spatial Strategy. What we are trying to do as
part of this process and in the discussions around this Bill is
set out the way in which consideration around casinos would apply
under the new planning system that is being brought in. I think
we attempt to set that out in some detail. However, we should
recognise there are, in the existing planning system in the interim,
standard procedures for dealing with big developments, whether
they be casinos or not. There is a separate question about the
fact that the DCMS and the ODPM have not yet agreed the detail
of the cut-off point between the way in which very large casinos
and small casinos would be determined, but that would be the way
in which they would be determined as part of the new planning
system that is being implemented. I do not think that the fact
of us having further discussions in order to make that decision
should cause any additional, undue problems for the industry,
given the timescale that we are currently operating on.
Q1829 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Your
answers, Minister, are commendably clear and your evidence has
been extremely impressive. Can I clarify whether the fact that
you have not reached agreement with the DCMS up to now is only
incidentally due to the other Bill going through, and that it
is just simply the fact that you have got too much to do?
Yvette Cooper: I do not think
it is related to the timing of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Bill. I think even if there was no Bill we would still be at exactly
the same stage in terms of the discussions with the DCMS about
what the appropriate size should be. I am sorry if by talking
about the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill I introduced a
red herring into the debate. I think there is a specific issue
that needs to be resolved between us and the DCMS, and any other
departments that may take a view, which is exactly how we should
define what are the big ones, what are the small ones, which ones
need to be considered at the regional level, which ones need to
be considered at the local level—simply because with the
kinds of definitions that we have used for other kinds of developments
you cannot just simply use the same definition that we currently
use for large retail developments to apply to casino developments.
Equally, we cannot simply just apply the criteria that have been
used for licensing simply to the planning system without taking
into account all the other issues the planning system needs to
take account of. So we are just taking some time to work through
the detail and work out what the most sensible measurement is
because we need a clear measurement that everybody can keep using
into the future.
Q1830 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: So,
contrary to the impression that some of us had from your earlier
evidence, casinos are different?
Yvette Cooper: They are different
from retail developments.
Q1831 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: And
they are different from other instances which you gave in terms
of—
Yvette Cooper: I think they raise
exactly the same kinds of issues as retail developments, as leisure
developments, and so on, for the planning system, because the
planning system is concerned with how many people are going to
be travelling there; what is the impact on the local environment;
what is the impact on the local economy and how many jobs are
going to be created. They are all the same kinds of questions,
but if you have a development of 10,000 square metres' floor space
for a retail development, that will probably draw different numbers
of people from a similar casino development. So the same principles
apply but, naturally, the detail in terms of the numbers of people
and the size of the impact will be different, and you cannot simply
translate "Because we use this criterion for retail, therefore
we can use the same criterion for casino developments." We
just need to recognise that the degree and specifications may
be different. Personally, I do not think the broad principles
are different; I think the broad principles are exactly the same
ones that the planning system deals with all the time.
Q1832 Chairman: In the interests of balance
and fairness, you and I both represent Yorkshire constituencies,
as does Mr Ennis. In terms of regional importance, where does
London fit into the framework that you have outlined to us today?
Is it the Government's view that some of the sites that are mentioned,
for example, in the memorandum we have received from London First
Centre Investment Agency for London, such as Battersea Power Station,
Earls Court, Olympia, and even the Dome and the Shell Centre,
have potential for redevelopment as casinos? Would they fit into
the strategy that you have outlined in terms of regional importance?
Yvette Cooper: I think, again,
the ODPM would not take a view on what the appropriate sites should
be within any individual region. That should be a decision for
the regional planning body. The same would apply in London just
as in other parts of the country. The number of different uses
that we have had put forward over the years for Battersea Power
Station and the Dome—
Chairman: A former London Member of Parliament.
Q1833 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Unless
I have misunderstood, though, London is in fact, in the context
of the Bill that is going through their Lordships' House at the
moment, ahead of the rest of the country because the Mayor is
effectively concluding a Regional Spatial Strategy at this time.
Yvette Cooper: It is true, and
I think it will happen across the board that different regions
will move at different speeds in terms of determining their Spatial
Strategy. London, you are right, does have a slightly different
arrangement because of the role of the Mayor, and it is also correct
to say that many of the kinds of issues that we would expect to
be discussed as part of regional strategy and Spatial Strategy
are exactly the kinds of things that have already been discussed
as part of the development of the London Plan. So it is true that
different regions will be at different speeds, but equally, I
think, it also remains the case that the ODPM's position with
regard to London planning decisions will be the same as the ODPM's
position regarding discussions about Yorkshire, or other regions
as well.
Q1834 Chairman: In all your answers the
implication has been that local authorities through Local Plans,
and regional authorities, development agencies, and so on, through
Regional Plans, can have some control over where new casinos are
likely to emerge and be developed. Blackpool Council suggested
to us that a separate planning class should be introduced for
casinos. Other witnesses have pointed out to us that if casinos
remain in the D2 use class, then not only bingo clubs but, also,
nightclubs and indoor tennis courts—any large premises which
currently has a D2 use—could transform themselves into casinos
without the need for further planning permission. I think this
is a critical part of how we can deal with the prevention of proliferation
and, also, from your point of view, protect local and regional
planning strategies as well. Do you think there is not a case
for casinos having a specific planning purpose?
Yvette Cooper: Yes. We did consider
this and I think our view at this stage is that there really is
not enough evidence to argue that the casinos would be distinctly
different from the bingo halls or the nightclubs, and so on. What
you have to remember is you can only switch use without getting
planning permission if you do not have to do any major work or
redevelopment. So if you are talking about a bingo hall that suddenly
wants to treble in size in order to become a casino, then it would
of course have to go before the planning—
Q1835 Chairman: Some of them do not need
to.
Yvette Cooper: They will need
to be able to do it without having any major adaptations and changes
taking place. You would have, already, a constraint on them suddenly
doubling in size or changing completely the nature of the development
location, so we are only talking about those which would actually
be able to change their use without any major adaptations that
would need planning permission. At this stage, we do not think
that there is a need to have a separate categorisation. We are,
however, proposing to introduce a new classification, the D3 classification,
in future anyway—a late-night leisure classification. It
could be appropriate at a future stage to decide that casinos
should be treated as part of that, if it turns out that casinos
have additional problems compared to bingo halls because of late-night
usage or that there are other issues that mean that there should
be an extra planning requirement on switching from a bingo hall
to a casino. At this stage we do not think there is any evidence
to say that is justified, and we obviously do not want to make
the planning system too cumbersome and put in extra regulations.
However, it remains a possibility for us to choose to do so at
a later stage, if necessary.
Q1836 Chairman: So your mind is not closed?
Yvette Cooper: Our mind is not
closed.
Q1837 Chairman: It may be linked to this
cut-off point between small and large.
Yvette Cooper: We certainly could
consider it in that light. At this stage, however, we do not see
there is a need to have a specific use category. The thing is,
with the big developments that we are talking about, they are
going to need planning permission anyway. You are not going to
be able to convert Meadow Hall—Marks & Spencer—
Q1838 Chairman: The big ones certainly
would. I can quite see the point that there is going to be regeneration,
and there is the point I made earlier that the casino is just
part of a major leisure project, just one element. However, you
would not need much planning consent, it seems to me (and to most
of the Committee and the advice we have had), if you were talking
about something at the smaller end. That could quite easily be
10,000 square feet of gaming table.
Yvette Cooper: We get back to
the issue that we have not yet taken a decision about the exact
size. So certainly we can look at it as part of that. However,
on the basis of the evidence that we have at the moment we do
not think that there is a need to change the use category. As
I said, our minds are still open in terms of the future, and we
do have a route to do so in the future; it is not that we would
have to kind of re-open the whole question, but we have a route
because we will be changing the use categories for the late-night
leisure at a future point anyway.
Q1839 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Could
I just verify something? Your examination of the late-night use
issue—is that what arose out of the Use Class Order implications
in the Licensing Bill, both historically and, indeed, for the
future?
Yvette Cooper: Victoria, I do
not know what the historical genesis is.
Mrs Thomson: The Use Classes Order
changes were themselves subject to consultation. Looking back
we had two exercises: consultation on the Joint Statement and
on the Use Classes Order changes. Casinos began to be raised towards
the end of the Use Classes Order consultation period, so it was
very much a part of ODPM's consideration.
|
