March 2007

Legal News

Gambling legislation

operational, Legal News, March 2007, COMMENTS

So the prize went North but not as far up the M6 as most commentators believed or Blackpool Councillors fervently hoped. In case you’ve been too busy playing Roulette on the internet, the City of Manchester was announced as the site of the UK’s first ‘regional casino’: a huge complex involving entertainment facilities, bars, restaurants and a casino with a minimum total customer area of 5,000 m sq. A maximum of 1,250 unlimited Jackpot machines will be available for use by customers. At one stage the odds against Manchester’s victory were 16:1, enough to put off all but the most optimistic punter.

The other winners were the eight large casinos, Great Yarmouth, Hull, Leeds, Middlesbrough, Milton Keynes, London Borough of Newham, Solihull and Southampton. Small casino winners were Bath, Dumfries and Galloway, East Lindsey, Lincoln, Scarborough, Swansea, Torbay and Wolverhampton. The announcement of the winners on 31 January was the end of a process that had really begun in 2001. Still full of reforming zeal the Government decided to turn its ‘modernising’ attentions not only to our outdated licensing laws but to our rigid and archaic gambling laws. Much of gambling legislation (especially betting and gaming) was passed in the 1960s when betting offices were little more than smoke filled darkened rooms and casinos exclusive gentlemen’s clubs in and around the West End of London. By 2001, Gambling was an integral part of many people’s leisure activities and much of the stigma had been removed.

The Government’s approach was to request the Gambling Review Body to produce a report known as the Budd Report. This recommended a much more liberal approach to gambling including in relation to casinos, the removal of the rule preventing a person playing until he had been a member for at least 24 hours (“the 24 hour rule”), the renewal of the restriction limiting casinos to certain areas only and the abolition of the demand test which had prevented proliferation in the permitted areas.

Control would be established only by planning restrictions, commercial pressures and the possibility of casinos having to have a large minimum square footage of the gaming area. There would be no limits set by Parliament.The Government in its response (called “A Safer Bet to Success”) largely accepted these proposals and the prospect of a number of resort style casinos in the United Kingdom became realistic. However, just as the passage of the licensing reform legislation became bogged down in hysterical concerns about ‘binge drinking’ and bars open for 24 hours, the gambling legislation clashed head on with a number of press reports about problem gamblers and the increase in numbers of people spending too long on unregulated internet gaming. As would-be champions of the liberalisation process, the Government’s feet suddenly went very cold!

Just before the Gambling Bill was debated the Government’s position was that eight regional casinos should be allowed but after much ‘horse trading’ this was reduced to one regional casino, eight large and eight small as a last minute compromise. The Government does have the power to seek to increase these figures but only with the approval of Parliament and only after there has been a lengthy review of the existing casinos once they are in operation. Bearing in mind its optimistic start, it is somewhat ironic that Tessa Jowell seeks to draw a distinction between the United Kingdom and Las Vegas and stated recently that “Las Vegas is not coming to Britain... British casinos will be the strictest in the world.” Remarkably, as we saw in the licensing process, what started out as a liberalising piece of legislation has become one of greater regulation and protection of children and the vulnerable as the political climate has changed.

In relation to the siting of new casinos, the Government decided that the fairest way of deciding which areas should be awarded the casino prizes would be to establish the Casino Advisory Panel. In January 2006 the process began with the panel inviting proposals from local authorities who would be interested in having one of the 17 casinos available. A lengthy consultation period then ensued, during which the numbers were reduced to a short-list.

One of the major reasons the panel chose Manchester and indeed the other winners was the benefit that the casino would bring in terms of regeneration to some of the poorest areas in the United Kingdom.

The issue of whether this will happen is still hotly debated with many commentators, amongst them the Archbishop of Canterbury, sceptical that the introduction of gambling facilities without membership rules on such a huge scale and with such a vast number of unlimited slot machines will bring the desired benefits to these areas.

Words: James Anderson

From: March 2007 Issue

Subscribe to NIGHT magazine