Access for children
29. The proposal to allow children into the non-gambling
area has proved to be controversial. We have received evidence
that casinos, whose primary product is gambling, are not suitable
environments for children. Gala argue that:
"The proposals for allowing children access
to non gaming areas within casino premises is wholly misguided.
We believe that children should not be allowed in casinos at all
and the principle is totally contrary to all the sensible protections
in current and proposed gambling legislation. Whatever the eventual
position on this, Gala will not permit children into its gaming
premises".[42]
30. The Transport and General Workers' Union does
not consider that there is "any place for children in casino
establishments; this includes non-gambling areas".[43]
Several submissions have questioned how the proposal to allow
children into the non-gambling area fits with the Government's
objective of "protecting children and other vulnerable persons
from being harmed or exploited by gambling". Leo Management
Ltd ask "why […] allow access to [non-gambling areas]
to under 18-year olds where the main activity will remain gambling?
This is an incentive for the under 18's to visit and wait until
they are allowed to rush to the gaming floor […] hardly a
protection for children".[44]
31. Those in favour of the proposals argue that regional/leisure
destination casinos will be large leisure complexes, offering
a range of facilities, including non-gambling facilities that
will be attractive to families. Mr Eisner, Vice President of Development,
Ameristar Casinos told the Committee "the concept of a non-gambling
area really adds to the flavour of the facility as a destination
leisure offering and not just a casino like a larger version of
existing casinos today".[45]
32. We welcome the Government's intention for regional/leisure
destination casinos to be large leisure complexes with a range
of gambling and non-gambling facilities. The proposals to allow
children access to the non-gambling area must be considered in
this context. We share the concerns expressed by those who do
not wish to see children having access to casinos and agree with
the existing industry that casinos as they operate today are not
appropriate places for children. We endorse the Government's objective
to "protect children and other vulnerable persons from being
harmed or exploited by gambling"[46]
and do not believe, under any circumstances, that children should
have access to or even be able to see the gambling area. However,
provided that our recommendation on the minimum size threshold
is adopted, we believe that regional/leisure destination casinos
should be completely different entities. While the gambling element
of the casino will be a key part, the facilities will be much
wider than this, offering a range of non-gambling activities.
33. We therefore support the Government's proposals
to allow children into the non-gambling area of regional/leisure
destination casinos, provided that there are appropriate barriers
and a suitable distance between the gambling and non-gambling
areas. To do otherwise would limit the potential for regional/leisure
destination casinos to develop as all-round facilities, offering
entertainment and leisure facilities to those who do not wish
to gamble, including families, as well as those who do.
34. We do not believe however that children should
be permitted into the non-gambling areas of small and large
casinos as these will be too small to offer the range of facilities
available in the non-gambling area of a regional/leisure
destination casino and to ensure that a suitable distance
can be maintained from the gambling area.
Enforcing the separation of the gambling and non-gambling
areas
35. The proposal to admit children and "others
who were either not allowed or did not wish to use the casino's
gambling facilities"[47]
to the non-gambling area within a casino places a great importance
on the effectiveness of the separation between the gambling and
non-gambling areas.
36. The Government propose making local authorities
responsible for enforcing the separation between the gambling
and non-gambling areas, in accordance with guidance from the Gambling
Commission. Mr Nathan, Managing Director, Europe, MGM Mirage Development,
told the Committee that it was appropriate that:
"Both [local authorities and the Gambling Commission]
should be involved. I think that local authorities would work
with the casinos to ensure that the applicable planning requirements
are being complied with and I think the Gambling Commission should
ensure that the appropriate licensing conditions are being complied
with".[48]
37. We recommend that the primary responsibility
for enforcing the separation of the gambling and non-gambling
area should rest with the Gambling Commission, in line with the
licensing objective to protect children and the vulnerable. We
expect the Commission to work with local authorities who grant
premises licences and to issue guidance setting out the kinds
of non-gambling areas that are suitable for children. We so recommend.
10 
