Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1840
- 1852)
TUESDAY 2 MARCH 2004
YVETTE COOPER
MP, MRS VICTORIA
THOMSON AND
MR ELLIOT
GRANT
Q1840 Baroness Golding: Minister, do
you see any difficulties that are likely to arise for planning
processes for applications which may be processed between 7 August
2003, when the paper on the casino policy was published, and before
the draft Bill becomes law?
Yvette Cooper: I think that there
should not be. It is not uncommon to have emerging policies and
policy changes taking place, and there should really be mechanisms
for dealing with it. The way that it may need to work is that
if there are planning applications that go in where you might
expect the position to change a few years down the line, then
it may be, for example, that the joint statement that has been
made by the DCMS and the ODPM would be a material consideration
in that case. So you would actually be able, within the existing
planning system, to use the guidance we have set out about the
way we want the future arrangements to take place to be a material
consideration, even in the short term as well. As I said earlier,
even in the current system where you will expect major applications
to come through a planning inquiry, and so on, there is also a
whole process by which stakeholders, including regional stakeholders,
can make their views known and they can be taken account of as
part of the planning decisions as well.
Q1841 Chairman: Anecdotally it has been
suggested to us that because a number of planning consents have
been granted it does not follow that they have got licences, and
any licences would have to be under the existing structure of
licensing. I think it would be very helpful to us to know how
many there are, and whether you, through your department, can
cause an inquiry to be made as to how many casino planning consents
have been granted since August last year.
Yvette Cooper: I certainly will
ask if we have that information. What I do not know is how much
of that information will be held centrally or not, but we will
send the Committee any information we have.
Q1842 Lord Walpole: How are you going
to ensure that the link between gaming and planning legislation
is simple and direct?
Yvette Cooper: Obviously they
are separate, but they are currently working in parallel, and
will need to continue to do so as well. Operators will be able
to apply for planning permission at the same time that they apply
for a provisional premises statement and an operating licence
from the Gambling Commission, and so on. The only difference to
the current system in planning terms relates to the largest casino
proposals, anyway, so we already have parallel tracking of these
sorts of things. Also, the planning system is used to operating,
I suppose, in parallel to other kinds of regulatory regimes, and
so on, so it is not unusual for the planning system to need to
operate. Obviously, that does not mean that we should be complacent
about reports of them operating effectively together, and not
causing difficulties along the way. It should be possible, certainly,
to put the planning system in other areas.
Q1843 Lord Mancroft: I wonder if you
could explain to me if you can apply for planning permission and
go the Gambling Commission in tandem? The Gambling Commission
does not exist, or will not exist.
Yvette Cooper: I am sorry, they
will be able to. They will be able to do so in the future. Is
your question about the current, existing system or about—
Q1844 Lord Mancroft: Yes.
Yvette Cooper: In terms of the
existing system, obviously there are parallel systems at the moment,
and it should be possible for those parallel systems to work effectively
together, in the same way that it would be for planning and issues
which involve other kinds of regulatory questions, like waste
or energy issues and so on, or licensing or late-night licences.
I think it is not unknown for the planning system, both at the
moment and in the future, to need to operate in parallel with
other kinds of regulatory regimes. Whether that works effectively
in every single local authority is a separate question, and it
is obviously an issue that we need to keep working on to try and
ensure that they do.
Q1845 Lord Mancroft: The difficulty is
that the sort of planning permission which is seeking a 10,000
square foot casino, for example, is illegal under current gambling
laws. So they cannot operate in parallel at the moment because
the roles are not parallel.
Yvette Cooper: Not for small-scale
ones.
Q1846 Lord Mancroft: They are not going
to be allowed under the draft Bill.
Yvette Cooper: No. I am sorry,
I think we need to clarify which bits we are asking questions
about. The point I am trying to make is that it is not uncommon
for the planning system to work in tandem with different kinds
of licensing systems. That would need to be the case in future
with this Bill in place. It also has to happen currently with
a whole range of different kinds of applications where licensing
applications need to go in at the same time or where other kinds
of regulatory considerations need to take place at the same time.
The planning system is supposed to be able to operate in tandem
with other licensing or regulatory regimes. As it is, I think
that probably works to different effect in different areas, but
it is certainly possible and it is certainly possible for them
to work very effectively together, and I do not see why that should
change for the future as a result of the introduction of the Bill.
Q1847 Chairman: The Bill requires the
Gambling Commission to issue guidance on licensing to local authorities.
We suspect that that guidance would equally have implications
for planning. So should the face of the Bill say that the Gambling
Commission should also provide guidance to Regional Development
Agencies, given the importance that you attach in your answers
to the regional planning and development process in determining
where these really large destination casinos might be located
and what benefits to the local community there might be in having
them in a particular area?
Yvette Cooper: I think the work
the Gambling Commission needs to do is to ensure that premises
are properly licensed. I think there is a broader question that
once you accept that we will be able to license much bigger premises
and be able to do things in a different way, and so on, there
is then a consideration for the planning regime and, also, Regional
Development Agencies and for other economic bodies, about the
appropriate location for these sites and appropriate regeneration
benefits that can be had, and the economic linkages and so on—just
as they would with any other industry or any other organisation.
I think I would be cautious about confusing the role of the Gambling
Commission in terms of the licensing with the broader economic
questions that will be the preserve of the planning system and
the Regional Development Agencies. I do not know if you had a
particular thing in mind that you think they should recommend
or not recommend.
Q1848 Chairman: What is becoming more
and more clear to us is that the Government is making it clear
that it is not going to chose the places where these destination
casinos are going; it is effectively putting it across to the
Regional Development Agencies. The Government's strategy, from
the DCMS perspective, is to have a licensing strategy which avoids
proliferation of casinos and proliferation of machines and the
link into problem gambling. There just seems to be a void in the
middle as to who is going to control the expansion of these types
of premises. So far as we can see, if the Government is not going
to do it then the only organisation that can is the Gambling Commission,
and the Gambling Commission's guidance would be the mechanism
to achieve that. It is not interfering in planning; it is actually
saying to regional development agencies and to regional planning
bodies as well, "Look, these are the criteria that we think
are important in you considering whether or not you want to grant
consent to these sorts of places."
Yvette Cooper: What you would
certainly expect is that the Gambling Commission would be one
of the stakeholders we consult on the Department's regional spatial
strategy, and the regional spatial strategy would need to look
at the issue about how many, what the location should be, what
the level of need is and therefore how much land we need to designate,
and so on. I can certainly imagine the Gambling Commission being
one of the stakeholders that would put forward a view for the
regional planning body. I suppose if the Gambling Commission chose
they could submit a single piece of guidance (they could call
it) to each area, but I think it is right that the regional planning
bodies should be the ones to take the final decisions, having
taken the views of different stakeholders involved and then make
their final decisions on planning grounds as to what the appropriate
locations and so on should be.
Q1849 Lord Donoughue of Ashton: Minister,
I noted when replying to Lord Brooke on the list of considerations
taken into account when planning a casino—and of course
it is possible to issue conditions before issuing a licence—you
gave quite a list of considerations but you did not actually mention
social problems resulting from casino development. We have today
the Henley Forecast on this suggesting upwards of a quarter of
a million problem gamblers. When in France we noticed that the
Ministry of the Interior and the Police played a very direct and
important and often decisive role in planning casinos, considering
the social and criminal consequences. To what extent should you
in the Department and the regional planning bodies take into consideration
social factors and apply conditions to the social problems which
could result from significant increases in gambling activities,
or are you mainly concerned, as you indicated in your list, with
the presumed economic gains? If so, are you confident that there
are such gains?
Yvette Cooper: Clearly there is
an economic impact. There is certainly a lot of evidence that
there are potentially very considerable economic gains, and even
for a proposal that has questionable economic gains from an individual
proposal you could certainly argue there was an economic impact
for large proposals. As to the broader question about how you
take into account social problems, what the planning system cannot
be is a substitute for the licensing regime, and it should not
attempt to be. What the planning system can do is to take account
of a broad range of considerations and it does so already in terms
of the social problems and impact there might be on a particular
community, or what difference a location might have in terms of
the size of a particular problem. The decisions about where nightclubs
should be located for example will take account of those sorts
of social problems or consequences or things like that. I think
it is possible for the planning system to take account of these
kinds of things but, equally, we should also recognise that some
of these issues go far wider than the planning system and we should
not expect the planning system to do the jobs that other aspects
of regulation should do. It would therefore be something that
should be considered as part of the development of the regional
spatial strategy and part of local authorities' own development
plan proposals as to where they thought appropriate locations
might be, whether they thought there were any appropriate locations
in their area and so on and they would be able to take account
of those sorts of things.
Q1850 Lord Donoughue of Ashton: Do you
accept that the position taken by your Department or the regional
authorities—not suggesting that they do everything in the
planning process but that they issue guidance or guidelines—is
rather important and if your Department appears to feel that it
is economic impact alone that matters that will filter down? Are
you concerned about perhaps crime elements? There is a difference
between the nature and character of different applicants. We saw
in France that the French casino operators are very regulation-friendly,
tamed by years of that experience, where I gather from a recent
book, although there is no imputation against the appropriate
people, that every major American casino operator has his origins
in organised crime, and these things might matter. Do you think
that your Department or the regional authorities should take a
position on this or you should leave that just to the licensing
authority?
Yvette Cooper: I think, as I said,
there is no point in trying to expect the planning system to do
things that would be more appropriately done through the licensing
system and the planning system will not necessarily have the expertise
to do the things that could more appropriately be done through
the licensing system. What the planning system can take account
of is where things might be worse in particular locations. If
there is evidence from the police, for example, that a development
in a particular place of whatever kind will cause more problems
and have more problems in terms of design having an impact on
crime, or whatever it might be, then they can take account of
social problems in that respect, and health can be a material
consideration. There are a whole lot of things that can be material
considerations but, equally, you would not expect the planning
system to be able to resolve all of the issues. In the same way
that we have environmental health regulations and health and safety
regulations and so on that would apply, you would expect the planning
system to be able to take account of these things as material
considerations, but you do not expect the planning system itself
to also regulate environmental health and everything else. You
have other parallel systems to do this. I think the same is the
case with this. There is a reason why we are introducing a licensing
system. We are not simply having a no-holds barred system that
is just up to the planning system to regulate. There is a reason
why we are choosing a licensing system to do that side of it.
Then we will have a planning system to consider those sorts of
problems that have an impact on location, where there are planning
considerations and we do not expect the planning system to do
everything else as well.
Q1851 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:
Minister, you have been both generous with your time and patient
with your evidence. If I may use a DCMS-oriented metaphor, we
are now in the final straight. Have you considered the implications
of the Scottish Executive taking a different approach to the planning
process for large casinos to that of England and Wales?
Yvette Cooper: They obviously
have their own national planning policy and approach but both
the Scottish Executive and the Government are clearly aware that
consistency of approach is desirable so we are in further discussions
with them about that as well because obviously the Gambling Bill
will apply both sides of the border. The planning approach can
be different in both places but we are in further discussion with
them around the issues about consistency.
Q1852 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:
I will ask a supplementary. You may or may not know that in terms
of higher education, where there are obviously again cross-border
implications, the Scottish arrangements allow, I think, for the
repayment of student loans to go into a trust fund which is intended
for the benefit of Scottish education, a form of hypothecated
tax. Do you think that the temptations for the Scottish Executive
to secure funds which can be spent in Scotland might affect the
combined capacity to reach a mutual and satisfactory solution?
Yvette Cooper: There are consequences
from devolution that may impact and we can take different decisions
in different places and that is inevitable. That is part of the
whole of what devolution means and we have to both support it
and work with that, but all really I suppose I can say at this
stage is on both sides we are clear that consistency of approach
has benefits and can be desirable and we are having further discussions
with them about what their approach is likely to be and how that
will be aligned with ours.
Chairman: Thank you. As Lord Brooke said,
you have been very patient and generous with your time. I think
this has been a longer session than we would have liked it to
be, but I am sure it will have indicated the extent to which we
do feel that the licensing and planning processes are very much
integrated in terms of what the Bill will allow. Can I thank you,
Minister, and also Mrs Thomson and Mr Grant for your answers today.
Thank you for coming.
| 
