Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
16 DECEMBER 2003
LORD MCINTOSH
OF HARINGEY,
MR CHRIS
BONE, MS
ELIZABETH HAMBLEY
AND MR
GREIG CHALMERS
Q20 Chairman: This is why Prevalence
Studies are so important in the future. You gave a very positive
answer to the question from Lord Mancroft about this, could I
tempt you to go further and ask you whether you have plans to
carry out Prevalence Studies in the years ahead, say at five-yearly
intervals, to assess the extent of it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We
will have to. They cost a lot of money but we will have to have
a benchmark before the work starts and we will have to have follow-ups
at intervals after that. I am being slightly cautious about a
benchmark because I have not got the £200,000 that is required.
What I am saying to you is that we will carry out the first stage
of a Prevalence Study which is the identification of the extent
of gambling on each kind of gambling, and on the basis of that
we will decide at what stage we should carry out the full Prevalence
Study.
Q21 Lord Mancroft: You talk, quite rightly,
and I think this group would agree with you, about the importance
of protecting children, it certainly comes top of everyone's list,
and then vulnerable adults. Bearing in mind what you have just
given us as an answer, who are these vulnerable adults?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think
Lucius Falkland started to indicate that. Without attempting a
definition which I would be held to, I think it is people who
persistently spend more money than they could afford on gambling.
Q22 Dr Pugh: You used the expression
"if it ain't broke don't fix it", but would you not
accept that that is by and large the attitude of the general public
and there is no evidence whatsoever that the reforms and liberalisation
are required or wanted by the public? It is an industry-led set
of changes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No,
I do not think so. We did look at this before the introduction
of the National Lottery and we found that there was general public
support for the increase in gambling which was involved in the
National Lottery—
Q23 Dr Pugh: Can I stop you there, Lord
McIntosh. You said earlier in one of your answers that the National
Lottery and general gambling, because the National Lottery is
linked to good causes, are very different things and will be regulated
very differently. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot use
evidence about the National Lottery and then give it as evidence
for a public appetite—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did
not say it was a very different thing. I said that I accepted
what was put to me, that the National Lottery was part of the
range of gambling. I said that in regulatory terms there was a
difference between the need for a Gambling Commission which is
entirely independent of Government and does not have a profit-maximisation
motive, and the National Lottery Commission which has as a subordinate
motivation the maximisation of payments to good causes. That is
not saying that participation in the National Lottery is not gambling
in the same sense as anything else is gambling. If I may proceed
from there, there has been some evidence—there is an Ernst
& Young Report produced for businesses in sport and leisure—which
suggests there is support for change and up-dating of obsolete
laws, and at the same time support for the kind of controls we
have just been talking about to protect the vulnerable. But in
general our view is that unless we take the view that gambling
is wicked and should not be allowed at all, people should be treated
as grown-ups.
Q24 Dr Pugh: So what you are saying is
that there is a modest degree of support on the part of the public
for some of the changes, as a first summary?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We
have not asked that question formally, we would have to put the
question about support for changes when we have a consensus about
what those changes should be, and you are part of that process.
Yes, I undertake we will do public opinion research when we have
something which is clear enough and has your input to it to put
to the public. I do not like very much putting hypothetical questions.
Q25 Dr Pugh: Just on the National Lottery
to conclude, do you disagree with the statement in the Budd Report,
"We do not believe there is any indication in any of the
surveys we have seen the attitude of the public has undergone
radical change since the introduction of the National Lottery."
Do you agree with that statement in the Budd Report?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.
Q26 Chairman: Part of this public attitude
also relates to the licensing structure and in your proposals
you are trying to strike a balance between creating a comprehensive
regulatory regime for a successful gambling industry but also
ensuring the licensing objective which you have referred to, the
Commission's objectives, are met. But how can we or anyone else
ascertain whether that correct balance is being struck when most
of the safeguards will actually be contained in codes of practice,
statutory instruments and licence conditions, which I think we
are unlikely to see before we have finished our inquiry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: You
have identified a real problem, Chairman, which is a problem with
all legislation. If you are going to achieve flexibility you cannot
have the details on the face of the Bill, you have to relegate
them to secondary legislation or guidance or codes of practice.
In our case the difficulty is compounded by the fact that the
Gambling Commission does not exist yet, it will be independent,
it will be producing its own codes of practice and guidance, and
therefore we cannot see them. But I do not think it is as bad
as that. The Gaming Board after all covers a very significant
part of the scope of the Gambling Commission. They already have
codes of practice and guidance, and they will be able to show
them to you and advise you as to how far in their view they will
form the basis of the regulations and codes of practice and guidance
which the Gambling Commission will put forward. I think you are
better off in that sense than is the case when you are creating
a new regulatory body from a number of different regulatory bodies.
Q27 Chairman: It would be helpful to
you presumably if we were to comment on what the content of some
of these codes might be?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It
certainly would, because, as we have said, you are entitled to
know not only what the Bill says but what the Bill means—I
think that was your felicitous phrase some time ago. What the
Bill means is very often contained in Codes of Practice and guidance
rather than in statute.
Q28 Chairman: I have also said, particularly
when we have been touring seaside towns of Britain talking to
people interested in these proposals, we are at liberty as well
to comment on what is not in the Bill. I think this is one area
where we would hope to try to be helpful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I entirely
agree, and you are entitled to ask us, and particularly the Gaming
Board, for assistance in that.
Chairman: We will do that. I want to
move on briefly to the Gambling Industry Charitable Trust.
Q29 Lord Mancroft: Minister, can I ask
you, you have asked the industry to contribute more to the Trust,
have you got any response to that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have
not actually asked the industry to contribute more to the Trust.
With the present voluntary arrangements it is not up to me to
do that. What I have done is write to all the trade associations,
all the people in the industries, who might be expected and are
expected to contribute to the Gambling Industry Charitable Trust,
and say to them, "What have you paid? What do you expect
to pay next year and in future years?" I am not quite leaning
on them, but the implication is very clear that if they do not
produce the money which is the target—I think £2 million
is creditable towards a £3 million target—then we will
have to use the reserve powers in the Bill which provide for a
levy of the industry. I am not certain that £3 million is
necessarily the right figure; it could be considerably more than
that. For example, it seems to me that it could be a proper use
of the Gambling Industry Charitable Trust money to support Prevalence
Studies.
Q30 Lord Mancroft: I was going to mention
that. Do you think there is a danger that a voluntarily funded
Trust creates free-rider problems leaving the most socially responsible
firms footing all the bills?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.
I do not think it is the end of the world if there are a few free-riders.
If there is persistent failure to support a voluntary body then
we will create a compulsory body. It is essential that there should
be a charitable trust. I wish it was not called the Gambling Industry
Charitable Trust, it sounds like it is a benevolent fund for members
of the industry.
Q31 Chairman: You want us to think of
a better name?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Absolutely.
Just take out the word "Industry"!
Q32 Lord Mancroft: Putting my charity
hat on again, given the relationship between the industry and
the Trust, how are you going to be sure that the Trust is completely
independent when it sets its priorities and makes its funding
decisions? I too was going to say something like a Prevalence
Study is a good thing to be doing. How are you going to make sure
they are independent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They
are already doing it. They have appointed an independent chairman,
Sir David Durie, who most recently has been Governor of Gibraltar;
and they are on the way to appointing new trustees, so that independent
trustees, as opposed to industry's trustees, will be in the majority.
That is moving in the right direction. It is not for me to direct
them but I think they are doing the right thing.
Q33 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Minister,
did you include Camelot in the organisations you wrote to asking
whether they should contribute to GICT?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do
not think I did and I probably should have done.
Chairman: That is real progress!
Q34 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Minister,
I appreciate that the Government do not regard £3 million
as a ceiling—they regard it as a floor—in terms of
the amount needed. I also understand that the Canadians have a
much, much larger figure for a much smaller population. Do you
envisage that the figure we end up with here could be a great
deal larger than £3 million?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It
could be. It depends entirely what the Charitable Trust decides
to do. There are all sorts of things which can be done within
a £3 million target, such as publicity, the provision of
help lines and so on. If they were to start to get into the actual
provision of remedial treatment, let us say in clinics, then you
could imagine the amount of money rising very fast. At the moment,
with the objectives which the Trust has set itself, then £3
million is a reasonable target, but I can quite see the argument
for an increase.
Q35 Lord Mancroft: If they are not going
to pay for treatment, and I understand the reasons for that, who
is—bearing in mind the health and local authorities cannot
and will not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have
not said that they should not go in for treatment. I think that
is an issue for the Trust itself.
Q36 Lord Mancroft: But if they do not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I would
not rule out a Trust which actually subsidised treatment.
Q37 Lord Mancroft: But if they did not,
who else would, if the health and local authorities do not and
will not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed,
I think that is a very good question, and that is why I do not
rule it out.
Q38 Chairman: Notwithstanding it is probably
the Gambling Commission's responsibility to carry out Prevalence
Studies, presumably there would be no reason why, if the Trust
had the resource, they could not do so as well?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It
is our policy that the Trust should carry out Prevalence Studies
but they are expensive.[1]
Q39 Chairman: What response have you
had from the industry to your write-around?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am
not aware of any other response other than support from the British
Casino Association. I have not collated the returns yet.
1 Note by Witness: The Government's present
policy is that the Gambling Commission should be responsible for
the conduct of Prevalence Studies. Back
| 
