|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 139 xi HOUSE OF LORDS House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT GAMBLING BILL
Thursday 29 January 2004 CLLR RICHARD GRANT, CLLR CAROLINE SEYMOUR and CLLR GRAHAM BROWN MR NICK GERRARD, MR REG HASLAM and MR ANTHONY JENNENS Evidence heard in Public Questions 1046 - 1148
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill on Thursday 29 January 2004 Members present: Mr John Greenway, in the Chair
Memoranda submitted by The Local Government Association Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Cllr Richard Grant, Chair, Community Safety Panel, a sub-group of the Social Inclusion Executive, (Labour - Warwickshire County Council), Cllr Caroline Seymour, Deputy Chair, Public Protection Executive, (Liberal Democrat - Hambleton District Council), and Cllr Graham Brown, Deputy Chair, Public Protection Executive, (Independent, Powys County Council), the Local Government Association, examined. Q1046 Chairman: Good morning. Can I begin by welcoming Cllr Richard Grant, the Chairman of the Community Safety Panel of the Local Government Association, which is a sub-group of the Social Inclusion Executive, and he is a member of the Warwickshire County Council, Cllr Caroline Seymour, who is the Deputy Chair of the Public Protection Executive from Hambleton District Council, and Cllr Graham Brown, the Deputy Chair of the Public Protection Executive from Powys County Council. You are all very welcome, and it is a particular pleasure to welcome Caroline from North Yorkshire, and we congratulate you for getting here. We will not embarrass the fourth witness who, from a much shorter distance, unfortunately could not make it, and from the look of the attendees in the gallery, it looks like some of our regular attendees have not made it here either. Nevertheless, it does not matter because the transcript of this meeting will be produced and placed on the Internet within about a week. Can I also welcome Colin Perry from the Bill Team, a new member of the team in its formal sense. He is present to speak, on an if-spoken-to basis, should we have any queries. I would ask you to note that a formal declaration of interests was made at the beginning of the first meeting, that the information is public and that a note of those interests is available. Can I also mention the fact that we have three witnesses in this first session, three witnesses in the second, and it is not essential, you are not obliged, to answer every question each, and in fact I suspect you may have already shared who is going to answer which question, but if you have something to add that another witness has not already said, then fine, but you do not all have to answer each one. Can I begin by saying that a number of witnesses in this inquiry, particularly from the industry, have highlighted planning and licensing issues as a major area still of uncertainty in their view of the Bill, but let me ask you all whether you think the existing clauses of the draft Bill and the policy statement give you, the LGA, a clear picture of the proposed regime for the regulation of gambling in the United Kingdom? If not, what are the key pieces of information you are lacking? Cllr Brown: The policy document and the draft Bill are quite detailed and we can see the framework intended by them, but without the detail, it is very hard for us to give a conclusive answer, detail meaning fees, secondary legislation, the guidance, the codes and so on. We, without that information, find it difficult to say the exact manner in which the local authorities will implement the new system. As always, the devil is in the detail, though we hope there are no devils hiding in the detail. We have learnt from the Licensing Act and we are still waiting there for the guidance. Q1047 Chairman: You are still waiting for more detail and guidance? Cllr Brown: Yes. Q1048 Chairman: To what extent does this lack of detail make it difficult for local authorities to have a view, a positive view, of what they are being asked to do or is there a sense that this lack of detail is producing a negative feeling that you are being asked to do something which may be extremely important and could be beyond your ability? Cllr Brown: No, I think the gambling area is a new area, but it is one in which local authorities are keen to become involved with and to learn. I think that local authorities will embrace the new legislation, but it is this uncertainty of what exactly will be asked of them when the regulations come out, particularly the fees aspect, which we will no doubt discuss in more detail later on. Q1049 Chairman: We will indeed. Cllr Brown: That is the main concern, that it is not something we can give a 100 per cent answer to without knowing all 100 per cent of the detail. Q1050 Chairman: So are your councils generally quite enthusiastic about taking on this role? Cllr Brown: With the, I suppose, limited knowledge and information they have at the moment, I think the general impression is positive. Q1051 Chairman: Cllr Grant? Cllr Grant: I think it would be reasonable to say that local government is keen to get involved in issues that affect their local communities as a general principle, but at the current time on this particular issue they will be reserved about their position given the detail that we have talked about and also the financial implications for the authorities, so, on the one hand, they will want to be keen to be involved with the issues that affect their communities, but they will be uncertain of the level of that involvement and what that will require of them to be able to deliver for both ends of the business, as it were, one end being their communities and the other being the gaming and gambling industry. Q1052 Baroness Golding: The industry has expressed concerns to the Committee about the role of the local authorities in the licensing process and they are very apprehensive. How could you reassure them? Cllr Seymour: First of all, could you just actually say what are their major concerns to make sure that we head down the right track? Q1053 Baroness Golding: Well, they are used to it being run by the local magistrates and they see them as non-political for some reason, but they see local authorities as very political and they worry that the political influence will be too great. Cllr Seymour: Well, I think, to reassure them, I would say that this is something that every time we are asked to do something, people on the outside throw that at us, that we are always acting in a political way. I think that anybody who has been on a council will know that some 90 per cent of the work of a council is non-political and certainly we are used to dealing with a lot of issues in a non-political way. Licensing, different forms of licensing which local government does at present is done in a totally non-political way. Obviously there will be policies produced which the industry would have the opportunity to vet and you have to work within policies, so I think it is a charge which really does not stand up and I think that having these duties with the magistrates or the Gambling Board, which at present does a lot of them, it is very removed from local people and very unaccountable to the local communities where the facilities are going to be set up, so I think that by giving them to local councils you are actually strengthening the industry's relationship with the community. We also sometimes get the impression that we are felt or we are seen to be anti-business and that is not true either because local authorities are very much about being concerned with the economic well-being of the area and we all understand the need for jobs and the economic well-being for people to live happy lives, so I do not think that really the charge and their concerns are justified. Cllr Grant: Like this place, local government is, by nature, political, but then that is the electoral process. I think we need to firmly understand that a local authority will be in the business of having the local community make the decisions about who it wants to represent them and the local authority develop policies which are open and transparent and within the legislation through the political process, but once those policies are in place and agreed, then the development of local determinations will be measured against those local policies. The safeguards to those local policies are legal and also the standards committees and procedures within local authorities make sure that everything is carried out correctly and is not under political influence, so there are safeguards. I think the point that Caroline made about local authorities working in partnership with local businesses to further the economic and social success of their areas is an area that local government is becoming more and more practised in and it is one of the tenets of ours which we now fully operate. I feel that obviously we understand business's concerns, but I think we are in a position to reassure them that local government is keen to be engaged with business as a partner as part of that open and transparent process. There is a final point to make on this which is that the Government is encouraging democratic renewal and engagement of local people in the political process. We are all keen to increase participation, particularly in voting, so that local democratic accountability is part of the process of developing policies and putting those policies, designed within communities, into practice. Q1054 Baroness Golding: Do you think that any guidance given to local authorities should be binding on the local authorities or do you think that there should be one binding set of guidelines for all local authorities? Cllr Grant: I think guidance should be guidance and legislation should be legislation. Cllr Brown: Binding guidance is a contradiction in terms to a certain extent. Q1055 Chairman: But how do you get consistency? Cllr Brown: Consistency is achieved by following the legislation and the guidelines, but you cannot have one-size-fits-all legislation. It would be impossible, I think, to produce guidelines which would be equally appropriate to an area such as mine, which is rural Powys, as they would to an active seaside tourist resort or Central London. Cllr Seymour: I think as well that guidance is about putting minimum standards into people's policies and with the policies of local government, we feel there is a duty actually to consult with interested parties, which would obviously be the gambling businesses and so on, so it would be very much up to the industry itself to make sure that the guidance produced by local authorities was appropriate and that there was consistency across the country on that guidance, but it is really about putting in more standards. The Local Government Association, with local communities, actually works very hard to put minimum standards across the country on all sorts of regulatory issues, so we are well practised at doing that, but I think the point that Graham made at the start, that actually we do need local discretion because every area is not the same, the individual guidance needs to reflect that. Cllr Brown: Otherwise it becomes undemocratic and the local authority purely becomes a rubber-stamping exercise. Q1056 Jeff Ennis: Following on from the point that Cllr Grant just made in terms of democratic renewal, that councils are accountable, I totally support and agree with that, but I guess that the charge could be levelled at Cllr Grant because obviously local communities, whenever they are faced with a planning or a licensing issue, never come out in hordes when they support a particular application, but if they are against it, that is when you get a local community getting together views, getting the local media behind them and things like that against a potential contentious application, and I guess the point that the industry is making is that because of that community empowerment, shall we say, quite often the local councillors may be swayed by the weight of that local community feeling, whereas the local magistrates' court might not be taken in, shall we say, by that level of community hostility. How would you answer that? Cllr Grant: I think that is a perfectly understandable position you have described and I think that all of us in elected positions understand that, but I think that the way in which we are able to deal with that situation is that we are measuring applications and decisions against clear defined policies for an area, for a council which have been discussed, consulted on and agreed in the local community, so you are actually measuring up that decision against those policies. I think we all understand the position that local government is in a leadership role where we are encouraged and we take more of a leadership role in communities to balance up the conflicting needs and aspects within the local authority in order to make a balanced judgment. Now, that is always difficult given the pressure, but I think there are at least two sets of things that help us to do that. One is those transparently designed and agreed policies that we are talking about, and the other is the set of principles upon which the electorate make their decision about who will represent them, so you have a consistency there. On the consistency point, I think we are not in favour of a rigid framework and that is not the consistency that we see. The consistency that we see is the designation and the decisions taken in an open and democratic way about those declared policies which have been previously agreed by the community and all the players and partners, of which business will be one, within the local area. Cllr Seymour: Within this Bill there is of course the ability for the industry to go to court and challenge any decision and that is right and proper that people have the right of appeal. Q1057 Chairman: Could I just clarify what you are saying. Are you saying that if, for example, your Council decided that the policy would be not to allow casino development in Warwickshire, that should then be the end of it? Cllr Grant: If that had been the policy development, given all the legislative requirements and the published local plans and those have been discussed and agreed by the councils and discussed and agreed by the Secretary of State, then that would be the position. As Caroline has said, that would be open to challenge and appeal within the legislation, but I think the position, the route I have described, if that was the final Act from that decision, then that would be the policy. Cllr Brown: The Bill has a presumption in favour of granting a licence. Q1058 Chairman: Precisely. Cllr Brown: To answer this point, I think it is important that local authorities gauge any opposition or representations that are made on an application, but, like the magistrates, local authorities will have a legal adviser presumably - I know our authority would - who would advise on whether there are any grants or not on which to refuse an application, so I cannot see that there would be a major problem because councils, I think, on the whole tend to act very responsibly in these situations. Q1059 Viscount Falkland: Can I ask you just a fundamental question. You have told us how you want to get your local communities engaged in the political process and so on. Could you just give an opinion here on this particular proposed legislation, because you are closer than anyone to local communities, as to what demand you see for this kind of change in our country's gambling profile among local communities on a scale of one to ten? Cllr Seymour: I think that is very difficult to assess because, like a lot of things which happen in life, it is only when somebody puts forward a proposal for a gambling establishment, for example, that you can really gauge what the public's view is about it, but I am sure there will be pressure from businesses to introduce small casinos. Q1060 Viscount Falkland: So I take that answer then that you do not see much consumer demand for this? Cllr Seymour: I have not had anybody beating at my door yet asking me to support casinos, but I think you just have to wait for a reaction. I do not think people are very against it. I think when you talk to people, I think they are quite happy to allow for more gambling across the community. Cllr Grant: It is within the context as well. You asked me a direct question about Warwickshire, but the fuller answer would be that it would be in the context of all the economic and social regeneration issues that were being considered by the Council and I think that is the contextual answer to your question. Like Caroline, nobody is beating at my door, but I think we would be viewing the potential to regenerate the areas along with other services to see that gambling may well fit in in the context of the regeneration of an area which is designed around leisure and tourism and the hotel industry and those sorts of activities where, alongside the necessary skills and upskilling, local people would be able to access jobs. It would be much more of a package that you would look at to see whether that would fit in. I do not think we would say that we want to view gambling as one particular issue out of the context of anything else that was going on. Q1061 Lord Mancroft: Could I just push a little bit further on that, and you may say this is rather unfair, but it is hypothetical. If you put the idea that it should be in the context of other leisure activities, and I do not know Warwickshire that well, but the most obvious leisure activity is the theatre in Stratford, so if you had an application for a 10,000 square foot casino in Stratford, how would that be viewed by the local community, do you think? Cllr Grant: How do you think that would be viewed! Q1062 Lord Mancroft: I do not think they would be wild about it, but I do not know, I do not live in Stratford. Cllr Grant: I think it would be an interesting proposal. Q1063 Chairman: It would be up to you and your colleagues to reach a decision. My question to you really was that you seem to be relying on the reason not to have binding guidance or virtually binding guidance on the basis that you will set the policies for your area and those policies then have to be implemented, but Cllr Brown is basically saying that the Bill gives a presumption in favour of certain developments, so I think you are going to find that there is going to be quite a tension between those two schools of thought as this Bill unravels. Cllr Seymour: I am sure that is probably right. I feel I am getting a bit confused between whether we are talking about actually granting the licence or whether we are talking about the wider concept of planning, for example, where obviously the planning concept is going to be altered because we are going to have the regional plans. They are going, for example, to be put in context where you might have a large leisure development and I can certainly see in my area, for example, the coastal area around Scarborough, that probably they would welcome having a big casino in areas like that because there is real potential to regenerate an area like that with a large casino. That is what I thought we were trying to say, that it may not be welcome in Stratford, but it would be welcome in other places. Chairman: It is reported that Scarborough Borough Council has recently granted a number of planning consents and we will actually come on to planning a little later. Q1064 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Were you aware of the demand for supermarkets? Cllr Seymour: Yes. Cllr Brown: Yes, I would have thought so. I was thinking about this question, relating it to my area, and whether there is a demand. I do not think you can answer whether there is a demand because it has never been an option and there has never been anything available locally, but I think with supermarkets, the general population could see what benefits or otherwise were available to other areas. Q1065 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Other areas which had already got them? Cllr Brown: Yes. Cllr Grant: I think that the answer or one of the answers to that is that a local council will be looking at the needs of the local community and, in the context of supermarkets, it would be a wide range of goods readily available at reasonable prices, and if the supermarket offered that to the community, then that would be something that local government would be looking at to provide in that area and would measure up against that set of policies as opposed to saying, "Let's have a supermarket because it is good", per se. Chairman: You are tending to suggest that potentially the development of a casino would be offering a wide range of gambling opportunities also at reasonable prices! Q1066 Lord Wade of Chorlton: You describe the licensing objectives as being limited and you say that they restrict local authorities' ability to deal proactively with public safety or nuisance problems. In the light of that, how would you change the licensing objectives? Cllr Grant: There is quite a lot of legislation around, as you know, but we feel that the existing legislation is insufficient to deal with the noise and nuisance in the street outside premises and that a new licensing objective of prevention of public nuisance should be added to clause 1 of the Bill. We think that is something that needs to be added. The other thing is that in terms of health and safety, the current legislation does not cover aspects of health and safety in welfare relating to members of the public, such as the provision of drinking water and first aid arrangements and we feel that public safety would be an addition to the licensing powers, and we see that to add to the quality of the legislation and to enhance the provision in terms of the public enjoyment of the facility. Q1067 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Do you think that the draft Bill is overly prescriptive and how would it impact on your ability to deliver an efficient and effective service? Cllr Seymour: Yes, we do see it as being over-prescriptive. We think particularly that the presumption in favour of granting an application rather limits the discretion of councils and does not really allow or will not allow councils actually to look at the local conditions and circumstances, so that is particularly one area where we feel it is a bit over-prescriptive. However, councils will have very little local discretion when you consider that we are going to be subject, for example, to the Gambling Commission codes of practice and guidance, the licensing objectives and the local authority gambling statements, so, in other words, there is going to be lots of guidance that we are going to have to deal with which means that we are actually going to be left with very little local discretion. Q1068 Lord Wade of Chorlton: As a general approach then to these matters, do you think it is right that the general availability of casinos for those people who want to gamble or any other gambling activity should be generally available to those who want to do it broadly across the country or do you think that each community should decide amongst themselves as to what kind of services they offer, in which case of course the local authority input would be very much greater? As a general principle, how do you think the services provided by the local authorities ought to be available, either to everybody, and that is a prescriptive policy for the country, or how far do you think they should be different from one community to another? Cllr Grant: I think one answer would be to say that local councils are in a position of balancing the requirements, balancing the positive aspects and the potentially negative aspects in each area, and I think you have to be careful in that balance because in some areas you may be wanting to regenerate an area not just to the economic requirements, but to the social requirements, in terms of depravation and in order to upskill an area and the skills of the people. You need to be very careful that in balancing those, you do not get a conflict where you are trying to tackle depravation issues, to upskill area and to then not put in place activities that might be in conflict with that. It would be possible, for example, just for example, in an area where there was a level of depravation and people have not got much money and there is a great deal of debt, to open up a number of gambling opportunities in that area and that could be seen as a conflict of interests between those two aims, and that is one of the delicate balances that a local council would need to take into account. However, as we have previously said, it needs to be a balance between all those positives and interests within the area and that is why sometimes local decisions are incredibly difficult, particularly if you have got particular pressure groups and that is where councils make those decisions, but, as we have said, it is against the legislative framework which can be challenged through the courts and challenged by government and it is in the context of locally determined policies for an area and those agreed with the partners as well. Cllr Seymour: It is about having the right facility in the right place and that is what local councils are asking for, the ability actually to make sure that these activities go on in the places that the community want them to. Every council has as part of its local plan a leisure section and if the Gambling Bill goes forward, then we would have to put in a policy about gambling. Personally, I am quite comfortable with gambling and so on, although there are other people who do not agree with gambling, but councils are all the time balancing other interests in the community and it is about judging each application on its merits and whether it is the right place actually to put those facilities. Cllr Brown: I think that there seems to be an assumption that local authorities will look negatively on any application and I think that is not the right starting point. The Government is encouraging partnership working, and we have got crime safety partnerships and so on. For an application of a business to be effective from the business point of view rather than from the community's point of view, consultation between all these different partners and a conclusion at the end of it as to what is the right answer is what will make a success for everybody. I just want to curtail this assumption that local authorities will be looking negatively on it; I think quite the opposite, and in a great number of cases they will see it as an opportunity for employment and regeneration and to revitalise communities. Q1069 Baroness Golding: Could I come back to my first point. Cllr Seymour said that you would be looking at minimum standards when looking at licensing and then went on about challenges in court. Surely the whole thing is to keep the whole subject out of the courts if possible, so would it not be better to have firm guidelines from the Gambling Commission so that you could say, the local authorities could say, "We have looked at this and we have been advised by our lawyers and it must go to a higher level to look at these firm guidelines"? Would that not be helpful to local authorities to have that? Cllr Seymour: No, I think it does make it very difficult for local councils actually to then serve the interests of their local communities. I think if you have very firm guidelines, it means that the community feels very shut out of the decision-making and I think if you are in the end to achieve a balance between serving the interests of the whole community and, say, the immediate community, I think you have got to be able to make the community feel that they actually had an impact on the decision which has been made, and I think that is very important so that afterwards you can live in harmony with whatever decision has been taken. Q1070 Lord Mancroft: You mentioned something, I pricked my ears up, a few minutes ago about issues to do with public safety and nuisance. Apart from the obvious thing of access and motorcars late at night in residential areas, which applies to buildings, I must admit I was not aware of public safety or nuisance issues around casinos, so I wondered what you had in mind. Cllr Grant: I think here local authorities and local communities would be concerned with the issues that you mention along with people arriving, waiting for friends, waiting for other people, perhaps arriving after they have been to a public house or something like that or to a club, perhaps potentially being noisy and those sorts of issues, and also that it may be that the entrance may be an attraction as just a general meeting place. I do not think that the local authorities are in the position of saying, "This will be the problem", but it is looking ahead and saying, "Look, here is something that is coming along and we need to make sure that we have covered all the possible sources of difficulty", so that we can address those and so that this can operate smoothly for the good of the business, for the good of the people that are attending the gambling establishment and for the good of the local communities. It is being good, looking ahead and being proactive about potential problems. Chairman: Well, we are going to ask you about locations later. Q1071 Mr Page: I noted very carefully that Cllr Brown said that you cannot have a one-size- fits-all, Cllr Grant said no rigid framework, and Cllr Seymour said rather reluctantly that perhaps there should be some minimum standards. Well, I have to point out delicately to all three of you that perhaps legislation may have an overarching authority which may go above and beyond your particular wishes, so bearing that in mind, can I ask an omnibus question, which is how a national consistency of licensing and planning can be achieved? Local authorities will be dealing with a whole range of applications and I noticed in your[sic] written evidence that you put it very delicately, where you say, "The roles and responsibilities of local authorities and regional development agencies need to be clarified to ensure fairness and consistency of approach". How do you see that working? How are you going to get national standards throughout the country to be fair to the applicants? Cllr Grant: I am concerned with this issue of guidelines and that aspect you are talking about, and I gave an answer which said that guidelines should be guidelines, and I think it is about words. I think if you are calling something "guidelines", it is a guide. I think if you actually want to have something that sets minimum standards or some regulations, that is what it ought to be called, so the basic quality protection for the gambling experience and the consistency about that, I think, should be part of the legislative framework and in there. I think anything beyond that, if it is going to be guidance to local authorities and guidance on good practice, it ought to be guidance. I come back to the point I previously made which is that the consistency will be measured up against the legislation which is laid down, but the consistency will be that decisions will be made and judged against the locally agreed local plans where all the partners in the community, not just the local people, but local businesses and other local statutory bodies have an input to that policy so that there is a consistency there and democratic decisions are made against those measures. Cllr Seymour: I think that, as we have said, we all have our local plans and so on and these take a long, long time to develop and they go through many processes which are open to the public and other interests to come in and make their interests known. At the end of the day, we come up with a plan. We have many plans across local authorities and they all have to interrelate and work together, so that is how you get your local consistency, because all of your plans should interrelate and have a consistent view at the end. Q1072 Mr Page: Can I follow that on and ask you perhaps to elaborate a little bit as to how you can actually see yourselves working with these regional planning bodies and regional development agencies and how they can relate throughout the country? You are arguing that they each should have their local plan, so different regions could have a different approach to this Bill. Cllr Seymour: First of all, can I preface whatever I say or what any of us say by saying that Susie Kemp was going to be here to represent the Planning Executive and she is obviously much better briefed and understands the planning regulations much better than any of us. Q1073 Chairman: Well, maybe you can deal with some of that in a written response. Cllr Seymour: Yes, I think that is right. I was just going to say that it would probably be better and it would give a more authoritative view if you actually had written guidance, but, as I understand it, each region is going to have to develop its own plan and I do not honestly know personally how those will then fit together. Cllr Brown: I think the Government has recently brought forward proposals to require the regional planning boards to seek advice from county councils. I know in Wales that the Welsh Assembly has sent out its spatial plan and asked for comments from the county councils. Q1074 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Mr Page asked a question and the evidence he was quoting was from the operators of adult gaming centres and I have a faint impression that he thought it was evidence submitted by the local authorities themselves. To take Cllr Seymour's recent answer to Mr Page, I had the impression that he was talking about national consistency rather than local consistency because a lot of the organisations which will in fact be making applications will be making applications all over the country. Cllr Seymour: Yes, that is right. Q1075 Chairman: The questions we are asking are about the licensing process and the answers you are giving seem to me to be as much about the planning decisions as the licensing decisions. We have raised this in the Committee as to which comes first, but are you not going to be confronted as local authorities with a view that people think, "We don't want this in our area. Therefore, planning should be refused", but the premises which exist may already have the relevant class use, and a D2 class use would be the use for a casino, so how are you going to cope with that? I appreciate that Cllr Kemp is not here, but how are going to cope with that? Cllr Seymour: Well, it can happen to a degree now in that, for example, a pub might ask for an entertainment licence which then allows different activities than just drinking taking place, so we already have that situation, but certainly in my Authority an application, say, for an entertainment licence is looked at against the criteria for granting an entertainment licence, and the planning permission, which, as you say, is already granted, is already granted, so you cannot do anything about it and you are just looking at it in terms of granting an entertainment licence. I would see it in those terms with regard to gambling, that it would be exactly the same, that you would have to look at the criteria for the premises, and I think that is why it is very important that we do get this local flexibility and also that additional statement about the nuisance aspect of any new development. Cllr Brown: I can foresee a problem here in that if local authorities are not allowed to take on board local factors when considering a licence to be granted, other sectors may feel that the gambling sector is perhaps having special treatment. If somebody wants to open up a public house, they have to get planning permission, but they also have to obtain a licence and various factors are taken into account when considering that. Unless someone can tell me otherwise, I cannot see why local authorities should not be taking into account exactly the same factors for the gambling industry as they do for other businesses. Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Speaking as a veteran of the committee stage of the Licensing Bill in the House of Lords, the local authorities were arguing exactly the same argument against the Licensing Bill, that the guidance which the Government were issuing and the framework within which they had to set the licensing objectives were extremely prescriptive. I said on a previous occasion that I am under no obligation to be supportive of the Government, but it does seem to me that they are being consistent in the approach they are using in this Bill to the approach they used in the Licensing Bill and gambling is not being treated as a special case. Mr Page: I would just thank Lord Brooke for pointing out that I quoted the evidence from a completely different organisation, which actually phrased the same thing, though much more delicately than the Local Government Association, when they said that the proposals might set up a worrying framework which the councils and local residents could veto at the regional level, so I do hope that Cllr Kemp, when she produces the written evidence, could elaborate a bit more on that and how that can be eliminated and how it might be understood to work in practice. Q1076 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I would like to ask a bit more about the practice which should be taken into consideration when considering applications for premises licences, and particularly the question of consumer demand. We have heard a lot of evidence from a number of organisations, particularly from the Methodist Church and I quote from what they say, that, "Local authorities should be able to turn down a premises licence application if there is already judged to be an excessive density of gambling opportunities". Do you agree with that? Cllr Brown: The fact is that what will be taken into consideration on a gambling licence application would be the same as on basically any other application in that we must take into consideration the type of premises, the capacity, the activity offered, opening hours, proximity of sensitive premises, track record, management and so on, and there are high-level issues around local plans in relation to crime, disorder, planning, tourism, regeneration, social inclusion, transport, parking and so on. Those are the factors that we need to take into account. With regard to density, again that comes down to the local development plans, the suitability of communities, et cetera. It is almost as if each case would need to be taken on its own merits. Cllr Seymour: It is not up to local councillors actually to dictate market forces obviously, but we would like to suggest that perhaps cumulative impact would be a useful factor to be considered rather than actually the density of the premises or consumer demand, looking at the actual potential impact on an area of another gambling establishment rather than just saying that it is market forces and it must be allowed to go ahead because they want to do it, and here cumulative impact obviously varies according to the area. Q1077 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: But you presumably would have a view if somebody wanted to open a casino next to a school or even a youth centre? Cllr Seymour: Yes, that is right and I think that those are exactly the considerations one has to hopefully take into account when looking at these applications. Q1078 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Cumulative impact and proliferation were not in the original draft of the Licensing Bill and those conditions were imposed by the House of Lords during the committee stage, so I am bound to say that I wholly agree with Cllr Seymour in what she has just said. Cllr Grant: I think the other thing is that a local council would be looking at the cumulative impact, so if you have got five casinos and there was an application to build a sixth of exactly the same, would that actually provide a range of leisure opportunities for people coming into the area? Would that actually add to the leisure provision or would it just dilute it and actually not make any improvement at all? I think that sort of cumulative impact would be important as well. Q1079 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Are you not getting close to or going back to applying a demand test in that case? If the Government is saying that the legislation should adopt a free-market approach, and a sixth or seventh casino in a town failed, then they would probably take the view that if one or two failed, that is what the market determined. Cllr Seymour: But we are not just talking about casinos though, are we? We are talking about other things and potentially those actually have a greater effect on an area, for example, adult gaming centres or something like that. Again, councils nowadays do have a lot of policies and they do a lot of listening to what the local community wants. In small places, more than one adult gaming centre could have a very detrimental effect on the local community. It is therefore important that this cumulative impact idea comes in. You are going to get evidence from Blackpool where obviously there is a big leisure industry and it is a different scale so it has a different effect. Cllr Grant: That neatly illustrates the balance of judgment that local councillors have to make in their decision making. Does the additional casino add to the variety that is on offer or will it test the market and sort out the weak ones? Is it measured against the regeneration and the development of the area? That is one of those difficult balances that we are faced with. There will be one set of arguments supporting that you increase the number of casinos, another saying that if you do that several will fail and another set of arguments saying that if you want to encourage more people to come in and use the existing casinos you need to develop other sorts of facilities that will support them. It is the balance of those arguments that we all have to make difficult decisions about. Q1080 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Is there not a further argument that if you have a proliferation of particular kinds of facilities you will get cut-throat competition which, in the areas of drinking and in terms of gambling, is likely to lead to problem gambling occurring because it is made so easy? Cllr Seymour: Yes. Q1081 Chairman: I was fascinated by Councillor Seymour's answer about adult gaming centres, because the witnesses we had the other day and previously seemed to indicate that proprietors of adult gaming centres and, for example, betting shops think they are going to be major losers under this Bill if more casinos develop. Do you have a worry that you are going to have to license betting shops and adult gaming centres in parts of your communities which, at the moment, would not satisfy the demand test with serious social consequences? Cllr Seymour: It is certainly a possibility. I have not really thought about it very carefully but, yes, I think there is a distinct possibility that could happen. Q1082 Lord Mancroft: The draft Bill gives you the authority to attach conditions to classes of licence holders and to individual licensees. What conditions do you envisage applying? Cllr Grant: The conditions that will be attached obviously do not want to duplicate existing statutes - for example, in relation to employee safety or food hygiene. The Bill already sets out conditions in relation to the operation of the business - for example, the maximum number of gaming machines to be provided - but matters that could be considered for conditions by the local authority may relate to the opening hours, noise abatement works to contain noise, door supervision and designing out crime, closed circuit television. In terms of designing out crime, I think we are encouraging design to make sure that there are no darkened corners or areas that could provide refuge for somebody wanting to attack somebody else, or an area that is sheltered that would encourage all sorts of people to congregate in a place that would cause problems so that the design is a good design and it does not, by its very nature, produce a lot of problems. There are also points to be included in terms of health and safety relating to members of the public such as the provision of drinking water and first aid and aspects to do with drug control. For example, I understand that in some establishments to discourage intravenous drug users blue lights are used so that you cannot see where the veins are. Those are thought through aspects of design that are in there so that we do not provide opportunities for difficulties to arise. Q1083 Lord Mancroft: Are those not more planning issues? They have nothing to do with gambling, have they? Cllr Grant: It is to do with the design of premises, to set quality standards. You are actually saying, "What is the quality of this experience?" Q1084 Chairman: I would be very interested if the Local Government Association could ask those of its members which have casinos in their area, notwithstanding the fact that these proposals are likely to lead to larger casinos than we are used to, what experience they have of crime and disorder, of drug taking in casinos, because the evidence we have been given is that none of those issues is a concern right now. We would like that clarified. Cllr Seymour: Certainly. Q1085 Jeff Ennis: Do local authorities have staff with the necessary skills and experience to take over responsibility for licensing, in your opinion? Cllr Seymour: Yes. We already do a great deal of licensing of different premises and different activities across local areas. I think most councils do a very good job of granting licences for various things. These are not just small scale licences. For example, we do entertainment licences and things like sports grounds and so on. We have great experience of dealing with all sorts of different licences and therefore I believe local government is capable of picking up anything that is thrown at it, but we need to be given a lead in time that is realistic and also we need to be given money up front to provide training to staff and for recruiting staff and training members in new roles. We are however slightly concerned because of the position of the Licensing Act 2003, when we were given significant new powers. We do not yet have the guidance and yet we are going to be expected to do things shortly. From a local government point of view, it would be nice to feel that we had that system bedded down before we were given something else on top of it. I think local government does have the skills and the people available to do this new licensing. Given the right lead in time and the right amount of funding, we could do a very good job. Q1086 Lord Walpole: You state that you are 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. In the event of there being less than adequate resources, would this affect the administrative, inspection and enforcement roles of local authorities? I suppose I ought to declare something which I have not declared before, which is totally relevant as far as gambling is concerned. I do hold an entertainment licence. Cllr Brown: When comments about fee levels etc., come up, there are probably some elements who might say, "You would say that, wouldn't you?", but local authorities are going through very difficult times at the moment with regard to budget. I think it is important that extra duties do not create further deficits in balancing the budget book. There are 376 licensing authorities in England and Wales. Significant funding would be required for such up front costs as training of members and officers, recruitment, computer software and hardware, office accommodation, producing policies, consultation and so on. Inadequate resources would mean that local authorities would not be in a position to carry out new functions effectively from the date the new regime starts. There is always that difficulty. If you have a duty to do something and you do not have the funding, which budget do you take it from. Information that you have seen, sent to the LGA in October 2003 from member authorities, shows that the costs of developing licensing policies under the Licensing Act will be over £7.5 million. This is just one of the up front costs. Local authorities find themselves in a position today where the Licensing Act is likely to come in in August but there has been no information on what the fee levels will be or what the regulations are. Authorities are very much in the air, not knowing what the situation is. Q1087 Lord Walpole: Presumably the same department is going to run all this licensing, is it not, whether it is what used to be called a magistrates' licence, an entertainment licence or a casino licence? Cllr Brown: Yes, but if fees do not cover the ongoing costs from year to year it will impact on local authority functions across the board. Delays in processing applications and reduced checks could be a result. Resources may be diverted from other work areas. Should our council tax payers have to subsidise this work? If I could refer to the policy document that was produced with regard to the Bill, paragraphs 3.26 and 3.27, 3.26 states, regarding the Gambling Commission fees, that the Commission will seek to recover through licence fees the full costs of the operation and administration. "The amounts to be recouped by the Commission will be the costs of its activities. There will be no element of profit or surplus." Fine; no problem. 3.27: "The Secretary of State will set licence fees following advice from the Commission." Paragraph 3.73: "The costs to local authorities will be met through applications and annual licence fees. These fees will be set and adjusted by the government in secondary legislation." There is no reference there to any consultation with the local authorities. Q1088 Chairman: In paragraph 3.3 of the second memorandum that you sent to the Committee last week, you say that you have made available to DCMS significant information about the expected costs of the new system under the 2003 Act in relation to licensing. What representations have you made about this and with what response? Do you want to write and tell us? Cllr Brown: Yes. Because of certain issues, we would prefer to write. Cllr Seymour: Licensing will be taken on by the same department but obviously it is an add-on and therefore it means you cannot probably achieve more licensing with the same number of staff. You would need to train people, but also we do have a concern about an element in the Bill. It is very prescriptive about the size of the licensing committees. If that is carried forward into this Bill, you could have a problem whereby some members in very busy authorities would have to be almost sitting constantly, dealing with licences. We hope that that is not going to be as prescriptive. Q1089 Lord Walpole: Magistrates did, did they not? Cllr Seymour: Yes, but they did not have to have the same pool of people. I think it was only about ten or twelve people that they were talking about. I think it is unrealistic in a busy authority to expect those people to deal with all the applications and we would like some sort of flexibility about that. Cllr Brown: All local authorities should be treated equitably with the Gambling Commission in making representations with regard to fees and the fees chargeable should reflect the actual costs of the individual authorities. I think it is important that we do look at locally set fee levels. The government has agreed an independent review of the Licensing Act regarding fees and we strongly believe that the fees should be locally set. We are not looking for any back door way of making money to subsidise other services. Q1090 Chairman: How can you justify charging more in Powis than in Herefordshire? Cllr Brown: I do not know whether we would. Chairman: You might have the opportunity if you had your way. That is the point. Q1091 Jeff Ennis: Because of the transfer of existing licensing services from the magistrates to local authorities, do you envisage a need to possibly transfer some of the staff over from magistrates to local authorities? Cllr Seymour: I do not think it has been discussed in great detail. Certainly in some areas it has been quite difficult getting information out of the magistrates about numbers of staff. I would imagine, under existing employment legislation, if it was deemed that people had a right, then local authorities would look at that. In my local area, that has never been suggested. Q1092 Jeff Ennis: Is it something that we could have a note from the Local Government Association on? Cllr Seymour: Yes, certainly. Q1093 Lord Mancroft: Of course, resources are always a problem and if you take on new work it is inevitably difficult. Under the Licensing Bill, we are talking about 60,000 pubs and clubs. If the casino industry was to double, it would mean that one in three authorities had one application. It is not quite on the same scale, is it, the concept of sitting there, endlessly licensing seven days a week? One application a year in a third of all authorities would double the industry? It is not a great deal. That does not take account of adult gaming centres but if the entire industry doubled you would still have fewer than two applications a year per authority. It is not a huge increase in workload, is it? Cllr Seymour: No, but you would still have to train members in issues and so on so that they could sit on licensing committees. I take your point that we are probably not going to be sitting every day of the week but in some authorities people could be a lot busier. Q1094 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Because exactly the same issues arose on the Licensing Bill and the size of the committee, could we have a note about whether, when you look at what was actually said by ministers about the application of the numbers on the licensing committee, you still hold the view that all this is unfair? Cllr Seymour: Yes. Q1095 Viscount Falkland: At this stage, we are all facing the prospect of a complex and in many ways radical piece of legislation which places considerable additional burdens on local authorities. How do you see or would you hope to see your relationship with the Commission developing? Are you doing any work at the moment with the Gaming Board and what is your relationship at present with them? How do you see this whole area developing? Is it developing in the way you want it to? Cllr Seymour: We have started dialogue already with the Gaming Board and the LGA have set up a gambling task group on which myself and Councillor Brown are members. Staff are setting up a meeting with the Gaming Board so that we can discuss issues. We would like to see a very good relationship between local authorities and the Gambling Commission at a strategic and operational level. We would like you to look at the relationship we have with the Health and Safety Commission, where local authorities have an elected member who is a commissioner. We would like to see a commissioner from local authorities appointed to the Gambling Commission so that there could be good liaison between local authorities and the Commission. The commissioner on the Health and Safety Commission provides a lot of feedback to authorities on her role and it does help the liaison between the two bodies to have a sensible relationship. We would very much like to see a place automatically going to a local authority member on the Commission. We believe that local authorities should be consulted on all the guidance and codes applicable to their role. To achieve that, we need a very good working relationship. We recognise that and hope that we can have one. Q1096 Viscount Falkland: Are you concerned about the dangers of crime associated with gambling which can develop if you are not extremely vigilant? Is it a possibility you would have somebody from your local police authority in the way you have suggested as a representative? Cllr Seymour: No. I would have thought we would have somebody more from the licensing side as a representative. I think it is the Health and Safety Commission or government that chooses the representative's name to be put forward. Q1097 Chairman: The Gaming Board has been given the opportunity to appoint additional members now. Have you made any representations about whether one of them should represent local authorities? Cllr Seymour: I do not know, but we can let you know. Q1098 Baroness Golding: Are there any difficulties likely to arise for planning processes from applications which may be processed between 7 August 2003 when the DCMS/ODPM paper on casino policy was published and before the draft Bill becomes law? It sounds as though there are going to be. Cllr Grant: It sounds like there might be but it is too early to say or to give a definitive answer on that. If we are able to give a more detailed answer during the time you are looking at this, we will pass that information to you. Q1099 Dr Pugh: Do you have a view on whether large casinos are best sited outside town centres or inside town centres? Cllr Grant: Current government policy is to direct large developments either to town centres or to the edge of towns rather than on green field sites, but it really is a matter for local policy. Q1100 Dr Pugh: There is no LGA view? Cllr Grant: No. Q1101 Chairman: Do you have any view whether casinos should be sited in and around shopping malls? Cllr Grant: There is a view that it should be determined by local policy but there is not a view of how that local policy should be determined. Q1102 Chairman: Would a shopping mall be a suitable location or not? Cllr Grant: The answer to that would be for local decision. It would depend on the location of the shopping mall, what part of the country, whether it would add to the experience of the shopping or the leisure or whether it would detract from that. It would be subject to those local decisions and the local plan. Q1103 Chairman: If government planning guidance said that they should not be out of town at all but they should be in city centres, what would your reaction be to that? Cllr Grant: It would make sense in the context of other leisure provision and the other aspects to do with tourism and the hotel business and industry. It could make sense in terms of town centre regeneration. Q1104 Jeff Ennis: Blackpool Council have suggested that a separate planning class is introduced for casinos. Is this a view you share? Cllr Brown: This is a new idea that we have just learned about and we have not had time to consult with members to give you the LGA view. The initial response is why create another class? What is so special about casinos that they should have a particular class? Q1105 Jeff Ennis: Possibly Blackpool are thinking about the large casino type development that may need quite a big area, from a regional planning point of view. Cllr Brown: That would be the same for a large hotel, sports club development or leisure development. Q1106 Chairman: The existing location controls under class D2 use are adequate, in your view? I have raised this issue with you before. Cllr Brown: We have not had a chance to consult on this and research it thoroughly. I would like to give a written answer. Q1107 Lord Walpole: In order to open a casino, developers will need a premises licence and could also be required to obtain separate planning consent. How will local authorities work to ensure that this is not overly burdensome for firms? Cllr Brown: The relationship between planning and licensing is very important so that positive and negative impacts on development are recognised. The LGA would encourage parallel policy development and close liaison between officers and applicants. Councils' gambling licensing policy statements should be informed by and coordinated with all related planning policy development. The scenario is not terribly different from applications for new public houses where planning licences have to be obtained by the business. Lord Walpole: I am not sure I agree with you. Q1108 Chairman: The government has said that local authorities should be able to ask for contributions towards any area that has more than a trivial connection the proposed development. How do you see that working in practice, bearing in mind that you seem to have doubts about the regenerative prospects of casinos? Cllr Seymour: We currently work within section 106 agreements with developers on all sorts of projects. It is quite common for developers to pay for all sorts of improvements and knock on effects of building. With a large supermarket, they might be asked to contribute to improving the roads and so on in the local area. We already do have that practice and I would foresee that that would be applied to big casino developments as well. Q1109 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Have you read the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill which is presently going through the House of Lords? Cllr Seymour: No. That was why Councillor Kemp was supposed to be here. Chairman: I do appreciate that your planning expert sadly could not make it. We are grateful however that all three of you did and thank you for answering our questions. Memorandum submitted by the North West Development Agency and Blackpool Borough Council Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Nick Gerrard, North West Development Agency, Mr Reg Haslam, Head of Planning and Transportation, Blackpool Borough Council, and Mr Anthony Jennens, Planning Consultant, examined. Q1110 Chairman: Can we welcome Nick Gerrard from the North West Development Agency and Reg Haslam, head of planning and transportation at Blackpool Borough Council. Some Members of the Committee have fond memories of our visit to Blackpool at the beginning of December and the hospitality and welcome you gave us. We are very glad to see you here again today. Can I also welcome Anthony Jennens, a planning consultant? Can I ask you to note that Colin Perry of the Bill team is present should we need to speak to him. There will be a transcript of the evidence produced and placed on the internet within about a week. A full declaration of all the interests of Members was made at the beginning of our first meeting and that information for the public and for you is available. I am sure you will have observed that it is not necessary for you each to answer every question but do seek to catch my eye as we progress if you want to add something to an answer. The Bill appears to have, it seems to us, a fourth objective of securing regeneration and economic benefits from the development of large casinos. How do you think this objective can be achieved within the regulatory framework set out within the draft Bill? Mr Gerrard: This of course is the prime interest of the Regional Development Agency and the North West Development Agency in this Bill, this ability to secure economic and regenerative benefits. In terms of how we think the objective could be achieved, first of all, it needs to provide a clear context within which investment can take place and provide a context for that investment in casinos, to concentrate that investment in areas where the economic benefits and regeneration can be achieved. Secondly, there is the need to avoid proliferation. In other words, to avoid the possibility of those benefits being dissipated. Thirdly, there has to be the means whereby contributions towards those wider objectives can be met from the private sector towards achieving those objectives on the back of the casino investment. In terms of the first of those, the means of concentrating the investment, the Bill obviously goes a long way but it needs strengthening. The reference in the policy document to the regional planning bodies identifying areas where there are major leisure developments, including casinos, where there they should be located, is a good start. The fact that there is no reference to the only existing statutory document which identifies the tourism and economic development priorities for the region is a weakness and does need to be specifically included. I am referring there to the regional economic strategy which all of the RDAs have, so the whole of England is covered by that. In my evidence, I give detailed reasons as to providing the context for Blackpool but it is a general point. That needs strengthening. In terms of avoiding proliferation, the sizing proposals in the Bill will help to achieve that but the absence of a definition about resort casinos or clear guidance in relation to that within the Bill in terms of the largest with all of the ancillary benefits which, from a regional point of view and from the point of view of achieving economic benefit and regenerative benefits are the prime things we are interested in, is unhelpful for the achievement of those objectives. In terms of making contributions, the existing framework through section 106, as that has been reformed, is a means of achieving that. I do not think any more needs to be done there, but there are areas of concern in the first two headings. Mr Haslam: The fact that we have this regeneration emphasis means it is imperative to use the legislation if possible to bring about regeneration. Behind that there is an acceptance that without it the industry would not naturally direct its investment to regeneration. I believe there has to be a recognition that, through the legislation and supporting legislation, as soon as we talk about regeneration, we are talking about planning and economic legislation and they are bound together in a simple but precise and transparent way. That investment must be guided and directed. Without it, we will not see the regeneration benefits. It is how we guide and direct that is important. Also, that guidance and direction in terms of location, to get the spatial pattern that will favour regeneration, has to influence size and form. There are concerns about the present suggestion of below and above 10,000 square feet which we can come to later. Q1111 Viscount Falkland: Brigid Simmonds of Business in Sport and Leisure has said to the Committee that one of the things that is unclear is whether the Regional Development Agencies are going to look at all casinos which are over 10,000 square feet of gaming area or if they are only going to look at resort casinos, if that concept becomes a reality. Perhaps you could clarify that. As a rider to that, do you consider that the draft Bill or any associated guidance that goes with it should distinguish between large casinos and resort casinos? Does the fact that they are currently covered by the same definition complicate the role of the development agencies? Mr Gerrard: We need to clarify the role of the Regional Development Agencies. They have no planning powers. They have statutory responsibility for the regional economic strategy which provides this framework for identifying the priorities for economic development and regeneration within the region and other things, but those are prime focal points. Recently, last year, Regional Development Agencies were given the responsibility to become statutory consultees on planning applications. I assume this is what Brigid Simmonds was referring to. At the moment, we have only dealt with the regulations governing our statutory consultee status. They have only gone past the first stage. In other words, at the moment, with effect from last September, we can be consulted on major infrastructure development and proposals that have had major employment or investment policies in the statutory regional economic strategy. There is going to be an extension, we believe, to our ability to be consulted to cover a certain development of any nature above a certain threshold but that has not yet been resolved. It is being looked at by the ODPM at the moment. The reason I mention that is because that will provide the context within which the RDAs are obliged or not to be able to look at these developments. In answer to the question, therefore, it obviously depends on what emerges out of this Bill in terms of size differentiation and also whether or not we are given that further statutory responsibility for consultation. What do we want? The reason we wanted statutory consultee status was to ensure that the economic development aspect of major applications within the region were taken into account. We are not interested in small ones. For example, in the status that we already have, we have only identified it applying to major infrastructure developments which are listed and certain major, strategic sites within the region. Within the context of this legislation, if it goes through, we will only be interested in the largest. If there is a definition of resort casinos, which we would advocate, we would be primarily interested in those. We certainly would not be interested in the less than 10,000 square feet. The issue though is complicated, in answer to your second question, because of the lack of definition. At the moment, it is just 10,000 square feet and over and that does complicate matters. What it does not do is help to clarify what we are talking about: major developments of regional significance within which casinos could be a key driver to their delivery. First and foremost, that is what we are interested in from a regional point of view. The lack of clarity at the moment is a problem. I do not know whether it is better to go straight for a division between small, five to ten, and the resort casinos, however they are to be defined, as being much larger than the 10,000, but it is unhelpful. We would only be interested in the largest, definitely resort casinos, possibly the larger ones, however they were defined. Mr Haslam: It is very important to recognise the relationship between regional economic strategies and regional planning guidance as it is now, regional spatial strategy as it will become. There is a close link between policies. One expresses the other. One helps the other occur. The statutory document is the regional spatial strategy and that should reflect the economic priorities of the region and embody and strengthen that statutory consultee role through statute. It is important to recognise the responsible approach of determining a strategy regionally, securing the maximum benefit from this new industry that this piece of legislation will create and great holes could be blown in the regional strategy if casino use does remain within the existing use class order. Large establishments are able to slide out of one entertainment use into casino use. I think the casino use has to be sui generis. It is also important to recognise that permissions granted now by sleight of hand in the hope that a licence will come automatically could also puncture a sensible regional strategy. Perhaps there is a need here to ensure that new licences for casinos emerging from the new legislation should be associated with planning applications considered and granted after that legislation is enacted. Mr Jennens: If I were a casino operator and I were now to purchase the David Lloyd tennis clubs throughout the land of which there are 28, I could turn all of those immediately into casinos and put in 40 tables and whatever the statutory amount is now for machines, wait and get grandfathered in and have 28 very large casinos around the country. I am sure that is not the aim of the Bill and there would be no regenerative benefits at all. Q1112 Chairman: As long as they were in permitted areas. Mr Jennens: We are rather assuming that permitted areas go and most of them are anyway. Q1113 Chairman: I take your point. Mr Jennens: The difference between large and resort is confusing because if you are talking about large you are talking about over 40 tables and therefore unlimited numbers of machines, which is what these casinos are all about because that is where the money comes from. There is no point in that definition and "resort" also confuses because it tends to make people think of the seaside. We are not talking about the seaside; we are talking about resort casinos. It may be the case in Blackpool but many of the resort style casinos are being planned. Yesterday, there was an announcement about a resort style casino at Wimbledon dog track from MGM. Q1114 Chairman: In your submission, in trying to define the definition of resort casino, you suggested 15,000 square feet of gaming area as the minimum entry point for the large, destination casinos. Why did you settle on that figure? Mr Haslam: I do not believe that is precise. We used 15,000 as one of our suggestions but we are talking about lightweights and heavyweights. There is this potential cruiser weight coming in. Our feeling was that one way forward was to raise the limit of 15,000 square without increasing the ratio and then to have clear water in beginning to define what a large casino is. We have sought not to use the words "resort casino" but "destination casino". Mr Jennens: We mean table gaming space. Mr Haslam: Yes, with a three to one ratio for small casinos and clear water for beginning to think of a definition for what we believe a large casino is. Q1115 Lord Wade of Chorlton: In the submissions we received from the North West Development Agency and Blackpool, you note that resort casinos are in effect the only viable means of generating the massive, private sector investment required to turn around the economic decline of Blackpool. How do you intend to harness large casinos in such a way as to provide this economic regeneration? Mr Haslam: At its simplest the common parlance now is the 24/7 economy, 24 hours, seven days a week, associated with our cities. If you look at a coastal resort location over one year, you will not find a plateau of income. You will find something rather like a two humped camel and it is unsustainable. Resort regeneration is a real, genuine opportunity that can be grasped if the resorts can find a way, first of all, to secure a seven day a week, 52 week a year economy, a plateau of income, a stream of income that would support a wide range of complementary investments in other forms of leisure and entertainment. At the heart of our strategy are resort casinos because they bring that even plateau of visitors and income over the whole area. We can build on these real foundations. We know that with that kind of income stream other leisure operators will invest in coastal locations. Over the last 20 years they have drifted away from coastal locations to 52 week a year cities. That is fundamentally what the destination casino is. We have looked at a destination definition of a large casino because it would be differentiated from other casinos in terms of quality, choice and the whole experience. It would create for us an "I must visit Blackpool" experience within a wide market area. That is not just the UK. What is crucially important to recognise is that 73 per cent of Blackpool's visitors live outside the Granada TV region. It is already a UK centre and it has potential to link with northern Europe and Eire. We have an airport and we have the Ryan Air flights making some of these links already. It is the 52 week a year economy that we are searching for. Mr Jennens: In relation to how to capitalise in this area, you need a clear strategic context which we provide through the regional economic strategy. That clear context then provides the basis on which private sector confidence in an area can be attracted because without that the investment will not follow. The challenge that Blackpool faces as opposed to some of the other major centres which will undoubtedly benefit from major casinos is that there is not that opportunity for a whole series of other investment. This is really the only significant opportunity for levering in major private sector investment. That is why we are interested in it specifically to achieve these benefits. If you do not provide a strategic context backed up by serious public investment to deal with matters of the public realm, it is not just a question of plonking these casinos in there; there has to be the infrastructure around them for them to give the private sector confidence to invest. The other critical thing is you have to have other programmes built in place to take advantage of the jobs that are thereby created. Programmes are in place in the north west to help achieve this and in Blackpool specifically for training local people, for encouraging businesses and providing them with support to supply the new industries coming in. It is all of that package that sits around this key driver. Without the major casino investment though you have nothing to gather around. That is the problem. Q1116 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Do you think that all large casinos should have the capacity to create regenerative economic benefits, wherever they may be? Do you see that as part and parcel of the benefits they can bring? Mr Jennens: I do. I think that is what we should be aiming to do. Q1117 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Clearly, the RDAs in Blackpool want to see these large casinos in Blackpool. What is the view of the rest of the north west? Are other communities and other local authorities in the north west prepared to support this as a priority? Mr Gerrard: The priority that Blackpool has in terms of the status of the regional economic strategy, the supporting regional tourism strategy and the coastal resort strategy, is something that has been produced with partners in the region so it already has that status and support. The issue that will challenge the region, as in any region, is this responsibility that has been given to the regional planning body to identify the major areas within it and raise the issue of where else or where not else. That Blackpool has a priority is undoubted but it does not deal with the other issues. Q1118 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Do you think they are going to be big issues? Mr Gerrard: At the moment, we have a number of places which in my view are completely inappropriate for the purposes of casino led regeneration. You have a number of proposals coming up where people are grasping hold of this because they are seeing it as an opportunity. The reason it is relevant to Blackpool is not only because of the broader strategic context but because of the visitors that already go there. There is a clear context there. Casino investment is not a panacea for solving all the north west regeneration problems. Q1119 Chairman: Or all of Blackpool's. Mr Gerrard: Indeed. Mr Jennens: This is turning into a bit of a Blackpool case. Other regions that are sadly not represented here might have different views, as indeed might other parts of the north west. The next question is how one says no to Manchester and what are the effects of a large casino outside Manchester. Mr Haslam: On the second question, how would we harness the benefits, reference has been made earlier to section 106 agreements. If you do take a proactive approach, if you seek to plan for this new industry as we have, a whole range of potential opportunities arise from that planning. For example, the area for which Blackpool has a master plan for resort casinos is in the government's pilot for business improvement district status. Through the business improvement district, substantial revenue income will be won to ensure that we do not build a new Blackpool and then stop the evolution process. Blackpool must change and continue to evolve. There are many other ways we have looked at. We have talked to the industry. We have looked at the possibility of building shells and leasing them to casino operators who would fit out and lease. That would create for the regeneration process a revenue stream that could be directed towards the evolution of the product in Blackpool and conceivably to a wider regional area if the basic funding is a partnership of the region. There are many opportunities to take advantage of this investment if it is planned for and that is what we are seeking to do. Q1120 Viscount Falkland: Budd promoted the idea of the regeneration of seaside resorts which has been the impetus for the preparation of the draft Bill. I am sensing from your remarks - correct me if I am wrong - that there is not absolute certainty about whether gambling should be the leader of regeneration, whether it be in our seaside resorts or anywhere else. We are off to France on a visit shortly where seaside regeneration has taken place very successfully in certain areas, where gambling plays an important part but it is certainly not the leader of this regeneration. What are your views about that? Mr Gerrard: I certainly agree with that. I do not see that gambling is the solution to all of seaside resorts regeneration needs, absolutely not. As we talked about, the status of Blackpool and its background and the assets which it has are different. In the Northwest's view, and we have studied all of our coastal resorts, nothing which is the size of Blackpool, places like Morecambe and Southport, and the only other one where we see casino investment having a particular input, and not to the same degree as Blackpool, is Southport. The report I referred to in my evidence, the Locum Destination Consulting Report, refers to that but it is of a different nature. You have to have regard to the character and the nature of these various resorts, it is not a universal panacea even for coastal resorts.Error! Bookmark not defined. Q1121 Dr Pugh: Can I go back to Mr Haslam, you say that the problem with Blackpool historically is that it does not have a 24 hour, seven day a week, 52 weeks of the year economy, but it has never had that and it has been sustainable for decade after decade after decade. Why do you think we need it now in order to be sustainable? Mr Haslam: The season has shrunk and continues to shrink seriously. The number of people coming is shrinking. Q1122 Dr Pugh: In order to have a sustainable economy you do not need to have a casino all year round, 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Mr Haslam: I was not arguing for 24/7, I was arguing for 52. We would be happy to have 52 bank holiday weekends a year. Q1123 Chairman: Wouldn't we all! Mr Haslam: That is probably not sustainable, the industry would probably let us know lively that they wanted a few week off itself. The season has to be lengthened to give investors the opportunity to invest in Blackpool and to be confident that they will get a return on that investment over a reasonable amount of time. Q1124 Dr Pugh: I think everybody accepts that but you are making a much, much stronger claim than that, you are saying there is only one viable solution for this problem. Would it not have been better to say there is only one currently on the table or are you saying that if this falls through Blackpool is finished? Mr Haslam: I am here presenting a case for a casino‑led regeneration in Blackpool. At this time in Blackpool's history there is a need for a major impetus, for a major drive towards regeneration. Q1125 Dr Pugh: That is a slightly the weaker claim. Mr Haslam: At this time in Blackpool's history I believe it is the only viable solution. I also believe a downward cycle of recline which has resulted in a number of resorts no longer having or deserving that description is a process which is unrelentingly slow, it is death by one thousand knives and critical mass is lost and then decline is very rapid. Our view is that Blackpool's slow decline will increase with rapidity when it loses critical mass, and it is close to that now. At this time in its history this piece of legislation provides a very timely opportunity to secure regeneration when it is still possible. Q1126 Dr Pugh: Okay. Mr Gerrard said earlier on there are many ways seaside resorts can be regenerated. I am clear about your answer, you are not saying that every resort is going to require to be a resort casino destination? Mr Haslam: Absolutely not. Q1127 Dr Pugh: Okay. In which case do you think resort casinos can be successful without their numbers being limited? Mr Gerrard: If there was a free‑for‑all market we would eventually limit them. I do think they have to be limited, the reasons I think they have to be limited are because, as I mentioned before, how we capitalise or would seek to capitalise on the investment resort casinos will provide is you have to have a strategic context that is agreed, which by definition will limit the priorities in any one region which the areas ought to benefit from this investment; secondly, you have to have a major programme of public investment to support that strategic context, again another limiting factor; and thirdly, you obviously have to have other supported programme skills, training and business support, that I have mentioned. With all of those things you have to concentrate your efforts and Blackpool is not the only place that can benefit from this investment. If you have a complete free‑for‑all then I think the market will take that investment, not necessarily to places ‑‑‑ Q1128 Dr Pugh: How do you address this as an argument that might be put by the civic leaders of Manchester or Liverpool even though the per capita income is lower than the per capita income in Blackpool, why should they not have resort casinos too? Mr Gerrard: We are not saying that they should not. What we are saying from the Northwest Development Agency's point of view is that our priorities with this legislation are to secure the regenerative benefits which arise from it and maximise those. Secondly, because of the amount of work that has been done and the unusual status of Blackpool this is the only serious opportunity for turning Blackpool round at the moment, which we wish to take advantage of. If we are calling these destinations resort casinos or whatever that should be clearly one of the top priority locations and other areas in the region which could benefit from this investment in a way that does not undermine Blackpool. Clearly Manchester and Liverpool are going to be attractive locations to the private sector, clearly they are going to be keen to take advantage of that. Our view would be in determining the key areas within the region what one would need to do is undertake a market assessment as to how many of these the region could bear and where the best places would be to allocate them. We cannot do that because we have not done that work. Q1129 Dr Pugh: I think it would be fair to recognise that it could be quite politically contentious, particularly when you are talking about serious public investment. If I may add a parochial note, I have just sent your CEO a letter from the Partnership in Southport complaining they cannot get a penny out of you for regeneration prospects. There is a feeling that the RDA may be becoming mono‑focused on the big projects and maybe missing regeneration projects elsewhere. Mr Gerrard: As I identified in my evidence in terms of regeneration priority areas there are many, there are 25, of which Blackpool is one in that context. There is a supporting context of the Coastal Resorts and the Tourism Strategy which identifies the status. We are putting a huge amount, more than half of our entire budget, which is now £400 million, is going in to regenerative activity across the region. Manchester and Liverpool ‑‑‑ Q1130 Dr Pugh: Does it surprise you that the private and public sector partnership response in relation to my own constituency is that they are seriously worried about regenerateative schemes floundering because of a lack support from the RDA? Mr Gerrard: I am surprised, yes. Mr Jennens: Mr Gerrard said they are not in any way saying no to a large development in Liverpool, I assume that applies to Manchester as well, but you all know that the economics of gambling are such that there is only so much gambling spend to go round. If you have large casinos in Manchester and Liverpool Blackpool will not work, it is that simple. People are not going to drive past a large resort style casino on the outskirts of Manchester to get to Blackpool, they will not make the two hour journey. What I was wondering, from a planning point of view is if NWDA are not going to say no to Liverpool and Manchester who is? Is there going to be a national strategy which says that Blackpool and Blackpool alone in the north-west. Mr Gerrard: May I come back on that? If you are asking me the question now I am not issuing policy on the hoof. What we are clearly saying yes to is the status and importance of Blackpool and others being protected. I will not repeat myself as to the reasons why. We recognise there will be demands in places like Liverpool and Manchester. If when this legislation is passed and the responsibility is on the regional planning body to then identify areas of major investment what I am encouraging is development which needs to be undertaken in a way which directly supports the regional economic strategy then that is where you have to answer that question if it is a simple question, and I was not aware that it was simple, if there were major casinos in Liverpool or Manchester then that is the end of Blackpool's chances. If that is the case then that is going to seriously challenge the designation of these sites. I do not know that.
What we would need to undertake is we would need to have a serious view as to what was viable and sustainable in our region and possibly with other regions as well. Q1131 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: That is exactly what Mr Marc Etches said in evidence to us two weeks ago today, "Blackpool would not achieve its ambition of sustaining resort casino‑led regeneration if there are too many large casinos elsewhere in the region". I then put it to him that if a free market were to apply and the opportunity were given for large casinos to be opened elsewhere in the north-west, particularly in Manchester and Liverpool, would it mean in those circumstances Blackpool would not get its resort casino and Mr Etches replied, "That is what I believe". He may not be the only show in town as far as Blackpool is concerned but he is certainly the principal one. If he is saying to us that that will happen either because the Northwest Development Agency allows it to happen or because a free market is permitted by the Government for casinos to open elsewhere in the north-west, particularly in Manchester and Liverpool, then you can forget about the casino resort in Blackpool. Mr Gerrard: If what he says is true and that does end the chances of Blackpool's regeneration then I would seriously challenge the policy that has been implemented not by us but by the regional planning body. That is what the guidance says. This is where the definition of resort casino may help. At the moment we have three levels of casino investment and if the question is whether there is any scope for one resort casino and major investment of that nature which has yet to be defined, the issue will be where else in the region can you have your large casinos, your 10,000 square foot ones and that could be the solution to this issue about Liverpool and Manchester. Q1132 Mr Page: When we had the various casino operators before us they were not completely unanimous but they did say that if they were going to be asked for a contribution for regeneration they would want some form of time projections. We had the Local Government Association sitting where you are a few moments ago and they were arguing very fiercely that they did not want a one‑size‑fits‑all approach to this, they wanted to have their own input. Is it not a fact that unless you are very careful local authorities will not be able to have that authority, they will not be allowed to "over casino" the area and therefore is it not a fact that the regional planning bodies will have a right of veto over the local authorities' decision? Mr Gerrard: I do not know that the regional planning body will have a veto over the local authorities' decision. Once the Regional Spatial Strategy decision is statutory and the new regional planning bodies are in charge of that the plans and the contents within which local planning authorities will have to make their decisions will be set by that and that is what they will have to have regard to because it will be a statutory document. They will not be able to determine applications that fall outside of that framework. So it is the forming of the framework that provides the constraint to my mind, not the determination of the applications thereafter. Q1133 Mr Page: Mr Gerrard, are you saying that in the formulation of that framework a local authority may want to have something different but can be overruled? Mr Gerrard: Yes. I could illustrate that with an example, if this is helpful, using the Regional Economic Strategy in the north-west. We have identified 26 strategic regional sites. When people were going through the consultation process we asked how many they wanted and I think we had well over 120, which is totally understandable. The whole point is that if you are identifying strategic opportunities from a regional point of view choices have to be made and priorities identified which will not always meet every local authority's aspirations, otherwise what is the point of having a regional level of decision‑making. Having said all of that, all of the ones we have designated are not riding over local wishes, they are all in their plans, it is just that some of them have not been designated because of that overview and it would be the same for the resort casino issue if it is determined by the planning body. Mr Haslam: If regional economic development is to be seen to work hard decisions have to be made at a regional level and these decisions have to be based not just on opportunity but on need. The regional council could decide not to support these aspirations, but Blackpool has sought to provide the regional body with an opportunity as to how that part of the north-west region could develop an economy of regional significance and it is for the region to decide whether or not to support it. Q1134 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Would you not agree that one way in which you could rescue the concept of Blackpool as a resort casino is maybe to suspend the free market certainly for a trial period and perhaps give Blackpool and two or three other resorts around the country a pilot status so that at least we can test whether casino‑led regeneration works or not? Nobody has yet produced evidence that it is cast‑iron sure to work, but it certainly seems to me and some of my colleagues that if you have a completely free market in the growth of casinos then the money is not going to go to Blackpool and we are not going to see the resort regeneration. Mr Haslam: Absolutely. We are looking at an industry that considers itself to be a retailer of entertainment. It will pursue catchment areas, the gravity models that we are all familiar with that resulted in the spatial patterns of retailing and food retailing is probably a good model. We have policies that have interjected and sought to direct investment in food retailing for the wider benefit. The pilot status idea could be pursued through the Bill. Blackpool and its region, seeking to act responsibly, could look at how it could be focused to provide the potential benefits that that focus would bring. If pilot status is something that could potentially arise from these deliberations then clearly Blackpool would support that kind of focus. Mr Jennens: I did not know that pilot status was up for consideration. Q1135 Chairman: It is not, but we are asking the question whether this would be one way of achieving what Blackpool wants. Mr Jennens: Yes, if part of the purpose of the Bill was to achieve the Blackpool aims, but I do not know whether it is or not. Chairman: We are not so clear now either. Q1136 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: This is a question prompted by Mr Jennens' antepenultimate answer, in other words some time back. We are taking evidence from the ODPM on 24 February. Do you think there is any evidence that they have come to a conclusion of how this particular dilemma should be resolved? Mr Jennens: No is the short answer, I do not think they have come to a conclusion. It seems clear that they have to reach a national and regional policy which goes the whole way down. It seems clear, in response to what Mr Page was saying earlier, that RDAs and RPBs, whatever they may be, and the local councils perhaps represented by the LGA are not singing off the same sheet. The LGA are looking, based on what I have been listening to this morning, at the aspect of smaller casinos. I think it is very important to understand how big one of these large casinos is. I am sure many of you have seen them, but if you put one alongside Buckingham Palace they would be the same size. That is not going to fit into most communities. The other aspect of that which I think needs to be looked at is that all the local plans were written in the 1990s when there were UDPs and things, so there is no provision in their local plans for large casinos. There are natural obstacles in the planning system which is going to prevent any of this going through as things stand at the present moment. There are some opportunities to clear that out. RPG6 is being looked at, which is the retail sector, and there are some obstacles in there which would obstruct all this process that everybody is trying to achieve in terms of the liberalisation or deregulation of gambling and those should be looked at and that opportunity exists. I am having lawyers planning a paper on this which I would happily submit if that would be helpful. Q1137 Chairman: This is a very interesting answer. At what size of casino does that obstacle begin to occur? Mr Jennens: It will certainly begin with anything that would be classified as large. Q1138 Chairman: Even on the definition of 10,000 square feet of gaming? Mr Jennens: Yes. Q1139 Chairman: We would be very interested to see your paper, this goes to the heart of that issue. Mr Jennens: Certainly. Q1140 Lord Mancroft: Mr Jennens, could I ask you to turn your attention to London, for example, and away from Blackpool and away from the Manchester and Liverpool issue, which I think we all understand what those issues are, how might this work or not work in somewhere like the London area, whether that be Wembley, Wimbledon, White City or Earls Court, that is not realistic, is it? Mr Jennens: I think the difficulty here is not so much a planning matter but a policy matter. London, as you all know better than I do, is somewhat confused because inside the M25 is Ken Livingstone's domain and some of the London gateway is partially Mr Livingstone's domain and then it goes beyond. There are great plans for the development of casino projects in the London gateway, as there are in places that you have enumerated, including Leicester Square, there is an idea to turn the whole of Leicester Square into one joint casino. We have to decide what the policy is and how can London benefit? It may be that you have four licences which are bid for and can generate a lot of money for London, and that would be a very good thing. At the present moment what you have is a free‑for‑all where all sorts of deals are being done. The problem that is going to occur from that is not that the operators themselves are going to be wounded, those are commercial risks they take, and that is fair enough, but the local councils, be it Wimbledon Council with the dog track or Westminster Borough Council with Leicester Square, are going to be looking at expectations of money coming in and the councils are in many cases greedy and in many cases not that financially shrewd, look at what Hammersmith and Fulham did on the stock market at the time of dot.com boom. We now need to put a lid on all casino applications until such time as this Bill is resolved. This will simply confuse, and chaos looms in the planning system if we do not put a lid on it now. We should also take casinos, all of them, out of the D2 used class and then you can establish some order from the top down. It will have to be from the top down if these regeneration benefits are to be achieved. If you have something like 4.5 billion available to go into the market for casino development of which 1.5 billion could go in community benefits it is worthwhile having and one should look at the structural way to get it. Q1141 Chairman: You were saying earlier that for large casinos we will run into difficulties in existing local and regional planning terms but not presumably if the premises already have an existing class D2 use? Mr Jennens: That is a part of the previous point. I do not think that if there is a national strategy on this it will be relevant any more. If we take casinos out of the D2 class use they will all go according to the ODPM anyway and in most cases there will be a public inquiry for developments of this magnitude, because there always is, and it is quite appropriate there should be when all of the local interests, as represented by our predecessors, will get a chance to have their say. The process must be open and transparent otherwise you are going to have a whole system of appeals and counter‑appeals which are going to clog up the planning systems in courts indefinitely. Q1142 Chairman: This would not apply, in your view, to casinos of maybe 5,000 or 7,000 square feet of gaming areas, of the smaller ones, or do you think even they could get caught? Mr Jennens: The problem with the small ones is that you are risking the proliferation issue. If you have too many small casinos in a city centre it is undesirable for a variety of reasons, yes there is the problem of gambling aspect but the convenience gambling and the question of cut‑throat competition and crime, which you were raising earlier, I think that would be undesirable. Q1143 Baroness Golding: I asked a similar question about this issue to the previous witnesses, the local authorities do not seem to have attached a great amount of importance to this, do you think it is because they do not understand the real issues that could be put forward by this Bill? Mr Jennens: As you will see at this table here there are two people from the North West who are really the only region from my researches who have a policy together. As you all know the North East who are trying to establish a policy are not here today because they have not developed a policy. There are some other areas that do not know what a policy is, that is where we are at. Q1144 Chairman: You will be interested to know Mr Jennens we did ask the North‑East and they declined for the very reason you gave. Mr Gerrard and Mr Haslam are here because they do have a policy. Mr Jennens: They are the only ones. Q1145 Chairman: Indeed they are the only ones. Mr Haslam: Policy omission is important and this whole debate is based on this view that the legislatures should have a regeneration imperative, that is where the necessary complications come in. There is a mechanism that involves the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, that involves regional planning strategies and local planning frameworks, the mechanism is there but the mechanism is there to make it work properly. What makes mechanisms work properly are good policies, and the policy is absent elsewhere in the United Kingdom apart from the North West region Q1146 Chairman: I will just make one other observation to Mr Jennens, our focus is really in relation to this Bill, which is really a Bill about the licensing of premises. You seem to be suggesting to us that whatever regime we finally end up in terms of the licensing of all kinds of gambling premises you seem to indicate there are formidable obstacles in obtaining the planning consent regardless of the licensing consideration for a significant number of casinos to be developed in the country, which by the planning process the number is relatively small. Mr Jennens: To open a casino we have to get Gaming Board permission, and that is the toughest test. Q1147 Chairman: A Gaming Commission licence and a premises licence from the local authority. Mr Jennens: Yes. If you have the Gaming Commission licence and you have planning consent why do you need a third shot at it? There is no suggestion that you are not going to be allowed, that is specified in the Bill, to pick on the people you think are appropriate. It just seems unnecessary. If you are qualified by the Gaming Board, which are pretty tough tests, you have to be a fit person to hold a gaming licence then you are certainly not going to fail any if the tests to hold a liquor licence. If there are local objections it is just another opportunity for more objections and more appeals. Those could be lumped in with the planning process and it would just streamline it. It seems that it is just two committees of the local authority rather than one and unnecessary. Chairman: I am glad I asked you the question. We have one final question on problem gambling. Q1148 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: It has been suggested to us that the development of large and resort casinos could increase the level of problem gambling in the areas in which they exist. Do you agree that the north‑west regional and local agencies have a responsibility to consider these possibilities and developments ‑ unwelcome as they would be ‑ in their planning decisions? What measures would you hope and expect Local Government in conjunction with the Commission to do to prevent problems in your region? Mr Jennens: As to the suggestion that large and resort casinos increase the level of problem gambling in that area, I think one should remember that whoever makes these suggestions is generally doing it either because they object to gambling on some moral or religious ground, which is fine, or it is not the kind of gambling that suits their self‑interest. Mr Gerrard: This question gets to the heart of what we have been talking about. I started by saying that our key focus and interest in this Bill and its consequences is its ability to secure economic and regenerative benefits in our case for the north-west but it applies across the whole country. The reason why we are prepared to support that is because those economic regenerative benefits are there to raise people's quality of life, to provide opportunities for up-skilling and so on and create wealth in the region and improve the lot of people in the area. That is the reason for encouraging economic development and regeneration in the first place. We need the lever in particular areas to secure that investment. Those will contribute to helping to remove a significant number of social ills and that is why it needs to be undertaken in a way that maximises those economic and regenerative benefits. Therefore, if we approach it in that way the issues of problem gambling do need to be addressed in the way that you are discussing this morning in terms of various social programmes and contributions towards those that I know you have been talking about elsewhere. That is what the economic and regenerative benefits are for and that is why we are wholeheartedly in favour of that, that is where the responsibility comes from the regional players and then there are the local issues that you were talking about this morning about the uses and things like that. Mr Haslam: The harmful effects of poverty which prevail at present are seen to be far worse than the potential harmful effects of casino development. We have studied the evidence and the evidence is equivocal. We have taken the view that focused development by large scale resort casinos provides for focused regulation and focused education programmes for staff etcetera that ensure the harmful effects of casinos are minimised. We see many benefits through having that focused regulation. Chairman: Can I thank you all for your attendance today and for your very thoughtful and interesting answers. Thank you. |