Super casino restrictions announced
DCMS Minister Richard Caborn has confirmed that the Government will restrict the number of so-called “super casinos” to eight for an initial period.
Mr Caborn said the move, which was expected following leaks to newspapers, provides “additional reassurance to those who would prefer a more cautious approach”.
This follows criticism from anti-gambling campaigners, church leaders, Labour backbenchers and opposition parties.
Mr Caborn told the Gambling Bill Standing Committee that a decision on increasing the number of super casinos would be taken pending an assessment of their impact after they are introduced – probably in 2007.
“We shall look to the independent Gambling Commission, supported by expert research, to advise on whether the introduction of those casinos has led to an increase in problem gambling or is increasing that risk,” he said. “What happens then will depend on what the assessment tells us and, on a judgment about protection of the public from social harm.”
Under the Government’s plans, super casinos could hold 1,250 slot machines offering unlimited prizes. Mr Caborn said no area of Great Britain would be ruled unsuitable for one or more of the eight super casinos at this stage.
The Government was previously of the opinion that market forces should and would ultimately determine the number of new regional casinos.
Government forecasts suggest the public will spend £12.5 billion per year on gambling in five years time, up on the £8.7 billion spent in 2003-2004.
Shadow Culture Secretary, John Whittingdale, welcomed the “humiliating climb down” by Tessa Jowell, but said it did not go far enough.
He said: “We are glad they have finally agreed to back down over super-casinos, in the face of massive public opposition, although we have yet to see the details of the proposed pilot scheme. We will be pressing the Government to see how the figure of eight has been arrived at, how they intend to determine the location of these casinos, and how long the assessment period will be.”
“We also believe that there is a need for additional safeguards such as a requirement for identification both to protect problem gamblers and to prevent money laundering.”
