Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 299)
TUESDAY 6 JULY 2004
MR LLOYD
NATHAN, MR
PETER BACON,
MR ANDREW
TOTTENHAM, MR
TOBIN PRIOR,
MR STEVEN
EISNER AND
MR RODNEY
BRODY
Q280 Lord Faulkner of Worcester:
Under the new definition which is contained in the Government's
response you intend that these would be regional casinos of a
regional casino size?
Mr Brody: These are regional casinos.
Q281 Dr Pugh: Can I ask a further
question on children before we move off altogether. None of you
would dispute that in having children's areas within casinos if
you do have a gambling problem (however you might define gambling
problem) and you do have children as well, life is made easier
for you by allowing children into the casino? If I am a parent
and I also have a gambling problem, I gamble more than I should,
and you tell me that children are to be debarred from the casino,
life is made a little more awkward for me. If, on the other hand,
children are allowed into the casino, life is made easier for
me. Is that not the case?
Mr Prior: I think there may be
circumstances where what you are describing is true. I think that
has to be balanced with the reality where if you are building
a major destination leisure centre, which we are being encouraged
to do, that there will be a broader family that might want to
visit that, and you have to balance if people do arrive with their
children what are you going to do then; leave them at the front
door, leave them in the car park?
Mr Bacon: On that particular point
I think it would be somewhat inappropriate to inconvenience 97%
of your customers in addressing a concern which is specific to
three per cent who may have an impulsive or compulsive gambling
problem. My own view on this is that children should be allowed
access to casinos if there is a clear demarcation between gaming
and non-gaming areas and children should no be expected to cross
gaming areas to gain access to non gaming areas, the access should
be completely separated. In my experience the supervision of children
on premises is very important. Finally, with regard to the three
per cent or thereabouts of customers who may have a compulsive
gambling problem, through the correct programmes those people
can be identified and they can be assisted. I do not think restricting
children is going to have any significant impact whatsoever. They
are going to be left at home, they are going to be left in cars
and car parks. Rather, we should manage this problem in a different
way.
Q282 Dr Pugh: You talk about inconveniencing
the 97% or 95% or however many it is. Is it a current complaint
amongst current casino users, "We cannot bring the kids"?
Mr Bacon: I would agree with that.
It would be inappropriate because there are no facilities for
families in current casinos. We are talking here about very large
regional entertainment centres with a wide variety of attractions.
Q283 Dr Pugh: I appreciate that.
Mr Bacon: That is a completely
different proposition.
Mr Brody: I think it is important
for everyone to realise that we are talking and looking at entertainment
complexes of which a casino is a part rather than a casino. That
is very important, I think, for everyone to realise.
Q284 Mr Wright: To keep on the question
of non-gambling areas, this is the same question I asked the previous
witnesses. Do you consider that local authorities are the appropriate
bodies to bear responsibility for enforcing the separation of
the gambling and non-gambling areas or do you see this as an area
for the Gambling Commission?
Mr Nathan: I think that both 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, one of which would be the protection of the young and vulnerable
or Codes of Social Responsibility as a licence condition and that
should ensure that gambling and non-gambling are kept separate.
Q285 Mr Wright: Mr Tottenham?
Mr Tottenham: Absolutely.
Chairman: Let's turn to planning. Lord
Brooke?
Q286 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:
My question is to Mr Tottenham. I did ask a question on the last
occasion on which we met. I have no emotional capital tied up
in the question but in his answer he said that he was completely
in the dark as to how the planning system would work in relation
to casinos. Has the joint statement from ODPM and DCMS provided
him with sufficient clarity on this issue or does he have outstanding
concerns?
Mr Tottenham: I am certainly pleased
that the Government has clarified the issue and I think we do
understand the process as to how this is to work. Obviously we
are a little uncertain on the implementation but time will tell.
Outstanding concerns? Yes, and that is that the current casino
user class is D2 and, as I understand it, that is regionally significant
leisure. In other words, the regional planning body would only
be interested and have a broad location for it if it is regionally
significant leisure if it is 50,000 square metres, whereas regionally
significant casinos supposedly would be under the current—if
you take our proposal—10,000 square metres.
Q287 Chairman: That is double what
the Government wants.
Mr Tottenham: We say 10,000 square
metres. What we see as a possibility is that, for example, the
country is crying out for tennis centres so somebody builds an
indoor tennis centre which is 200,000 square feet, a large box.
If they get the planning consent for it, they start to build it
and they sell it on as a casino, it is not regionally significant
leisure and it comes in under the radar screen and is not subject
to the regional spatial strategy, and it could therefore be converted
into to casino with no extra building so does not need to go through
the planning process again. What we would like to see there is
that there is either a separate user class for the casino or they
are sui generis.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I understand
the answer.
Q288 Chairman: Is that a six-nil
as well? You all think this should be done? Is it all your view
therefore that this would help to limit the number of regional
casinos?
Mr Tottenham: Yes.
Q289 Chairman: And avoid the proliferation?
Mr Tottenham: If I might add I
think it is also about putting them into the places that the regional
authorities, in consultation with the local authorities as part
of these strategies, want them to be as opposed to them cropping
up out of control.
Q290 Chairman: Yes, that is clear
and they will all need a regional casino licence.
Mr Tottenham: Correct.
Q291 Jeff Ennis: Do you think regional
planning bodies are the most appropriate bodies to determine the
location of regional casinos?
Mr Nathan: I think Mr Tottenham
just answered that by saying that in consultation with local authorities,
yes. If, as far as location is concerned that is taken to be a
broad area, which is what I believe ODPM and DCMS have said, then
yes I believe it is the most appropriate body in consultation
with the local authorities.
Q292 Jeff Ennis: Can I ask a supplementary.
From evidence we have already heard it appears to me that there
are three general categories of potential sites for regional casinos.
You have got the resort casino location, the potential city centre
location, and the sports complex location. They appear to be the
three broad main categories. From your industry's perspective
do those three different broad categories have the same parity
of esteem or would you see city centre locations having more support
and there being more demand from the industry to provide that
sort of location over and above, say, a resort location or a sports
complex location?
Mr Eisner: I think it is a hard
question to answer in the abstract because every site really does
have its unique characteristics. It would depend on market demand,
roadway infrastructure, access and other competitive conditions.
In order to say generally speaking we prefer city centre sites
or generally speaking we prefer resort destinations I could not
speak to that without looking at specific locations in specific
regions.
Q293 Jeff Ennis: Is that the same
for all witnesses?
Mr Nathan: I would agree with
Mr Eisner, if we look at sites where we have entered into agreements
there are a variety—some city centre, some not, some in
shopping centres, some by football clubs—and it has not
been predetermined by the three categories that you outlined,
far from it. There are many different criteria, some of which
Mr Eisner alluded to, that would determine where the best site
is.
Mr Bacon: I think the overriding
consideration is proximity to the relevant market and ease of
access, public transportation, issues such as that. I would not
personally categorise the different types of regional casinos
in the way in which you have.
Mr Prior: I sense that the location
of regional casinos will be determined more by regeneration priorities
and spatial strategies than any of the categories you have spoken
about. These could be any mix and we need to look at those as
our primary lead. Just getting back to the previous question,
I think regional planning bodies are going to be the right body
to determine where regional casinos go. That really begs the question
of who is the right body to determine where the large casinos
go and if one is going to avoid this proliferation issue that
issue has to be addressed at some stage.
Q294 Chairman: On the regional planning
body role, I think this came across this morning and I do not
know whether any of you heard it, but the impression I had was
that the regional planning body role is to devise the spatial
strategy which may say we think that Blackpool is a good venue,
a good location in which to develop regional casinos or resort
casinos (that is generally what it would be) but the regional
planning body would not be involved in the absolute detail of
exactly which blocks of town and city centre got developed and
that would still be for the local council.
Mr Prior: I understand that. My
concern is whoever is determining the location of those things
also needs to take into account the location and number or proliferation
of large casinos.
Q295 Chairman: Which may also arise?
Mr Prior: Things tend to be spoken
about as if they do not interact with each other but they do.
The dynamics are very important.
Q296 Chairman: So other large casinos
could put a dampener on some regional casinos' investment?
Mr Prior: Absolutely.
Q297 Chairman: That is what you are
trying to say to us?
Mr Prior: Yes.
Chairman: Okay.
Q298 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I
think Mr Prior has probably half answered the question I was going
to ask which is whether you are relaxed about the fact that the
location of the regional casinos may not be your companies' choice
at all?
Mr Prior: The answer is yes.
Q299 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Sorry,
yes, you are not relaxed or yes, you are relaxed?
Mr Prior: Yes, we are relaxed
that it might not be our choice. In other words, we understand
and accept the recommendation of the Regional Planning Bodies'
role. We accept that they will be regeneration focused and I think
that is another reason why, if we are putting big investments
in regeneration areas, there needs to be a distinction between
the product we are offering and what is being offered closer to
the market. Everybody has under-estimated this location, location,
location which is very key in a market like this. If you have
got the parity product in the market with the same machines, etc,
as we are going to be offering with a much lower level of entry
cost, big schemes are going to be less sustainable and probably
less likely to happen. Whatever this level playing field ends
up being, those two dynamics have to be considered together
| 
