RESPONSE TO THE JOINT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
THE GAMBLING BILL
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Business in Sport and Leisure welcomes the opportunity
to give written evidence to the Joint Scrutiny Committee for the
Gambling Bill.
1.2 Business In Sport and Leisure (BISL) is an
umbrella organisation that represents over 100 private sector
companies in the sport and leisure industry. Its members include
most of the major operators of commercial sport and leisure in
the UK and many consultants who specialise in this field. Members
of BISL represent a wide range of interests in the sector and
include operators of casinos, bingo, betting, pools, greyhound
and horse racing, snooker and ten pin bowling centres, pubs and
the suppliers of gaming machines. In fact as far as we are aware
BISL is the only umbrella body representing all major sectors
of the Gambling Industry.
2.0 Response
2.1 As an umbrella organisation, Business In
Sport and Leisure welcomes a replacement for the Gaming Act 1968,
recognising that existing legislation has been in place now for
more than 40 years and that subsequently gambling has now become
part of mainstream leisure. We believe that the current Act is
unworkable as technology moves forward so quickly and there is
a real need for new and better regulation and legislation.
2.2 Business In Sport and Leisure has recently
published research commissioned from Ernst & Young: 'A Winning
Hand: The Modernisation of UK Gambling' which aimed to:
- Assess the current size of the UK gambling market'
- Review and assess the potential implications
of changes proposed in the Gambling Bill; and
- Gauge public understanding of and reaction to
the proposed changes to the gambling legislation.
There is clear support amongst the general public,
with 80% in favour of the proposed changes, so long as the industry
is controlled and seen to be controlled. The public believe
that people have to and should learn to fend for themselves and
be responsible for their own actions.
2.3 The economic information shows that:
94,000 people are now employed in the gaming industry.
Gross stakes have risen from £42 billion in 1998 to £63
billion in 2003. Gross profit for 2003 will stand at £7.9
billion. The Pion report looks further at jobs, investment,
tourism and tax gains under the new legislation.
2.4 Copies of the BISL research will be sent to
all members of the Committee and will be referred to in this response.
2.5 At the highest level, BISL welcomes a replacement
for the Gaming Act 1968, but we remain concerned about some of
the detail in the Bill and some of the policies behind them as
follows:
3.0 Gambling and Regeneration
3.1 BISL supports Resort Casinos as a catalyst
for economic regeneration. The UK's seaside resorts are facing
heavy and increasing pressure from a wide range of attractions
at home and abroad. Investment by casinos in resorts can provide
investment, employment and increased visitors which benefit the
resort as a whole.
4.0 The Gambling Commission
4.1 Business In Sport and Leisure responded
to the review of the Lottery Licence and Regulation through a
consultation paper issues by DCMS. In our response, we supported
the policy that the National Lottery should be protected from
commercial gambling. While the National Lottery Commission is
responsible for vetting and approving the games offered by Camelot
before they can be introduced, the Gambling Commission will have
no responsibility for the commercial outcome of the gambling activities
it regulates. We continue to support this separation.
4.2 It is of utmost importance that the Gambling
Commission is well resourced for its new responsibilities and
completely transparent in its actions. Business In Sport and
Leisure believes that the Codes of Practice and Guidance which
will govern the industry and local authorities, must be published
for consultation while the Scrutiny Committee is considering the
Bill. This does not seem to be the priority for the Gaming Board
and DCMS are raising questions about cost, as the Gambling Commission
cannot become a 'Shadow' organisation until the Second Reading
of the Bill. The industry has already offered to provide expertise
and funding to take this process forward and BISL would urge the
Scrutiny Committee to resolve this issue as soon as possible.
5.0 Local Authority Powers
5.1 Business In Sport and Leisure believe that
clear guidance must be given by the Gambling Commission to local
authorities. Local authorities will become responsible for the
Premises Licence for all gambling premises. Regulation of premises
in a sector which has not caused problems in the past should be
light and it is essential that any conditions on the premises
licence should be proportionate and necessary. BISL believes
that all conditions should be set down in national guidance by
the Gambling Commission.
6.0 Demand versus Need
6.1 The Gambling Bill and all DCMS policy documents
make it clear that the 'Demand Criteria' for all forms of gambling
will be abolished. This however, will be meaningless if local
authorities use their powers under planning legislation to refuse
planning permission for new premises under a heading of 'Need'.
We have already seen these powers used to refuse planning permission
for premises with a liquor licence and these decisions have been
upheld by the Planning Inspectorate and by the Courts. There is
a real need for joined up Government to ensure that that the removal
of the Demand criteria really does work in practice.
7.0 Social Balance
7.1 It is absolutely essential that the Gambling
Bill is balanced to provide protection for the vulnerable in our
society and in particular, protection for children.
7.2 BISL believes that the Bill is more than
adequate to avoid proliferation and goes further than the Budd
Report envisaged. The Government seems clear that machines which
currently have a prize of £25 (currently AWP machines, to
become Category C under the Gambling Bill) and above, should only
be available in premises where access by children is either not
permitted or is controlled. The decision to allow three £250
jackpot machines in clubs (where children are allowed access),
does not however sit well with the restriction of two AWP or Category
C machines in premises with a liquor licence and could restrict
innovation and choice of style of games.
7.3 Business In Sport and Leisure supports the
British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) in their campaign to have
four machines as of right in licensed premises. There is a real
concern that the viability of many pubs will be affected if this
increase is not permitted. It has now been made clear that pubs
and other licensed premises will have 'Grandfather Rights' to
the number of machines they have when the Bill is introduced.
BISL believes that Guidance from the Gambling Commission to local
authorities should make it clear that machines should only be
removed, when the new legislation is implemented, where there
is real evidence that access by children is not being controlled.
7.4 Evidence from the BISL research, who engaged
external market research companies to undertake qualitative and
quantitative research for the E & Y study revealed that:
- 83% of the population have few issues with the
placement of gaming machines in casinos, betting shops and bingo
clubs,
- 76% have few issues with pubs and clubs; but
- only 31% are supportive of machines in takeaways
and cafes
8.0 Social responsibility of Operators
8.1 All members of Business In Sport and Leisure
support the need to behave responsibly as operators of gambling
premises. BISL has supported all members who have made contributions
to the Gambling Industry Charitable Trust, either individually
or through their trade associations.
8.2 BISL believes that clear notices on machines
to prevent under 18 playing on them, training for staff
to deal with problem gamblers and support for GamCare and Gordon
House must be encouraged by the Gambling Commission.
8.3 There is also a need for education on gambling
to be provided for school age children. BISL believes that DCMS
should be working with DfES to include advice on gambling in the
curriculum for PSHE (Personal Social, Health and Safety Education).
9.0 The Australian Experience
9.1 Much has been made of the rise in problem
gamblers as a result of deregulation in Australia. As the Ernst
& Young research points out the Gambling laws in Australia
are regulated by individual states, rather than nationally. The
gaming machines available in hotels and clubs in Australia are
the same machines with high stakes and prizes which only exist
in casinos in the UK, where visitors have to be over the age of
18. BISL believes that the balance of the proposed UK legislation,
which only allows low stake and low prize machines outside premises
for over 18s, will not lead to problem gambling as experienced
in Australia. Machines will of course also only be located in
sites where they are viable.
10.0 Detailed Comments on the Bill
10.1 Business In Sport and Leisure has the following
detailed comments on the Bill:
10.2 Appeals: 'A Safe Bet for Success'
made it clear that the Government accepted the requirement for
there to be a full right of appeal on both issues of law and merits
of the case. The Gambling Bill only provides for appeals to the
Magistrates and an appeal to the High Court, but only on points
of law.
10.3 BISL believes that appeals on both issues
of law and merit should be permitted to the Crown Court. This
helps both the local authority and the Court, as well as the applicant.
The Crown Court brings a degree of objectivity which helps decide
issues without the need to go to the High Court, which is costly,
time consuming and slow. Regularly magistrates are reluctant
to decide on a matter, particularly if it is new or controversial
and therefore refuse an application, knowing that the appeal will
then go the Crown Court for further guidance. Such guidance is
usually gratefully received by the magistrate and often the local
authority and prevents appeals in the future. The appeal process
is generally only used in cases of real need and therefore does
not overburden the court system.
10.4 Orders for Costs: BISL believes
that the Bill should give explicit powers to Magistrates to award
costs against either party, including the local authority. It
would be helpful if the basis on which costs can be ordered could
be the same for the local authority as for other parties (excluding
the police.)
10.5 Oral Representations: BISL believes
that the Gambling Commission should hold an oral hearing at which
the applicant and their representative can appear to make representations.
At the moment there seems to be no compunction on the Commission
to do this, even if the application is refused.
10.6 Capacity: Section 67(b)(ii) provides
powers to the Gambling Commission to put capacity limits on any
gambling premises. This is not a provision which appears in the
current Act. BISL believes that this must be used with great
care. It would be an unnatural restraint if an applicant for
a bingo club was licensed for 500, but not 550 people. BISL would
prefer this provision to be removed.
10.7 Renewal of Licence: Section 91(3)
provides for a window of two months, for an applicant to apply
for a renewal. This seems unnecessarily restrictive. There ought
to be a provision allowing for late renewal to be considered by
the Gambling Commission, if there is a good reason.
10.8 Provisional Statements: Section
116 provides for a provisional statement or provisional licence
to be granted to an operator before he starts investing in the
site. It does however, also allow the application to be refused
on final grant, if for example a local resident could not have
made representation at the time of the original hearing, or there
has been a change of circumstance e.g a similar facility has opened
nearby. BISL believes that this will lead to operators investing
heavily in a new development without any certainty that they will
be allowed to operate this facility when it is completed. This
creates a lack of certainty that is totally unfair on investors
or operators of these sites. These provisions as currently written
are ineffective legislation. BISL believes that a provisional
grant must provide a promise to the successful applicant that
if they complete the premises in accordance with the deposited
plans and are considered a fit and proper person, that they will
be given their final grant.
10.9 Surrender of Operating Licence:
The Bill states that an operating licence is surrendered if the
licences notifies the Commission about it and gives the Commission
either the licence or a statement, saying why it cannot produce
it. This statement is badly worded and could have serious ramifications
for other interested parties e.g. shareholders, holding companies
etc are not notified or have not given their agreement. BISL believes
their should be re-worded.
11.0 Betting Exchanges
11.1 Business In Sport and Leisure supports the
Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) who believe that Betting
Exchanges should be regulated by the new Gambling Commission and
that the 'layer' should pay a 15% Gross Profits Tax on their winnings.
11.0 Conclusion
11.1 As a unique organisation representing companies
in the gambling sector, Business In Sport and Leisure hopes that
the Committee will call us to give oral evidence to discuss these
views and other issues further.
| 
