Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 304)
THURSDAY 8 JANUARY 2004
MS HELENA
CHAMBERS, MRS
JENNIFER HOGG,
MS RACHEL
LAMPARD AND
MR JONATHAN
LOMAX
Q300 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Do
you think industry representatives should have a say in how their
own particular industry is being investigated by the trust and
how treatment is being prescribed for people who have problems
dealing with that branch of the gambling industry?
Ms Lampard: I think it comes back
to this issue of credibility and as soon as you get into areas
where there might be conflicts of interest it will be in the trust's
interest for those members to withdraw or step back so there cannot
be any accusations made. They have to be cleaner than clean in
this sense. So I think it needs to be as arm's length as possible
in every way, particularly around research and around advertising
and services and treatment.
Q301 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: One
of the aspects of deregulation which is contained in the draft
Bill is the probability that the industry will be able to advertise
a great deal more than it has done in the past. It is not inconceivable
that we shall see ads for casinos on television. Do you think
it would be helpful if those carried a health warning possibly
in the form of a subtitle at the bottom of the ad saying that
if you are going to gamble in public you should ring this number?
Ms Lampard: Yes, I think it would
be very valuable having that on every advert and also saying "Stay
in control of your gambling". I think it would have to have
that kind of health warning, that kind of approach along with
the suggestions being made by Professor Orford that you cannot
have the idea of skill being part of advertising, the idea that
it has to be chance, it has to be leisure, it cannot be about
improving your life, the kind of codes that the National Lottery
has been having to abide by over the last few years.
Q302 Chairman: Is
the (£3 million enough in your view for GICT?
Ms Chambers: Absolutely not.
Ms Lampard: We think there has
to be research. It is not based on particular research as far
as we are concerned. Ten pounds per gambler seems to be a figure
that has been slightly plucked out of the air. It is a good start
and it will be nice when they get up to the figure of (£3
million, but there needs to be research and adequate funding.
Q303 Lord Mancroft: In
its submission Quaker Action on Alcohol and Drugs state that you
would prefer a much more cautious approach to the proliferation
of Category A gaming machines. You have already made your concern
about that reasonably clear. How do you envisage a more cautious
approach working?
Ms Chambers: The particular concern
that we have is the fact that in the largest size of casino there
would be unlimited numbers of these and we are not quite sure
how the numbers and ratios were worked out, that process is not
quite clear to us at any rate. It seems to have an unlimited number
straightaway in certain premises where we know that these machines
are likely to cause the most problems and the greatest impact
on adult problem gambling rates which seems to be quite reckless.
What we would be looking for is no premises to have unlimited
numbers and much more cautious numbers perhaps in pilot areas
and again those being very stringently researched so that the
impacts on the local population—taking "local"
as broadly as it needs to be defined—before this very large
scale proliferation is allowed.
Q304 Chairman: Thank
you very much. In the Quaker Action on Alcohol and Drugs submission
you say that dependency problems are far easier to unleash than
to prevent or to reverse. If there is a public backlash because
of a growth in problem gambling, what is your view on what sort
of difficulties the Government would face in re-regulating the
industry?
Mr Lomax: I think there is a real
possibility of a backlash and both the Government and the Committee
should be aware of that. I know this is a figure that people keep
mentioning, but 93 per cent of people say there are enough opportunities
to gamble already. If five or ten years down the line we can see
that there has been any growth in problem gambling as a direct
consequence of what has happened with this Bill given the lack
of public demand, then I think that is going to be a very difficult
political situation for any Government to deal with. That also
ties in to knowing where we have come from and where we are going
to in the sense of research. We will need to be able to stand
in 2010 and look at where we are and where we have come from and
that is where we would all be highlighting the need for continued
research before any of this is done and we would argue for that
five yearly cycle, so another prevalence report before deregulation
so we can see where we are. We have all stated in our submissions
that we are not prepared to accept any rise in problem gamblers.
I think that is even starker if you follow Professor Orford's
view and see it as a public health problem. It is difficult to
imagine a Government legislating on another area whilst knowing
that there is likely to be an increase in the public health problem
directly linked. It is not for me to talk about political difficulties,
but if in 2010 some trigger as yet undefined by the Government
about what they are willing to accept as an increase is triggered
the gambling industry will not portray it as re-regulation, it
will be seen and portrayed as regulation, extra red tape, extra
bureaucracy, an extra burden and I am sure governments and politicians
will be wary of that. We think there could be a problem and that
is why we are calling for incredibly slow and careful and deliberate
deregulation.
Ms Chambers: I want to bring us
back to the note that the last witness ended on which was what
we were thinking when we framed "our submissions", which
is really the human cost of all this, the problems for individuals.
There are statutory and policy difficulties that might accrue
even to Government, but the other concern is really with the communities
and the people in them and what difficulties will have been experienced
on the way, knowing the difficulties that there are in gaining
access to effective help and quick help. That is the overwhelming
feeling that I would like to end with.
Chairman: Thank you very much for that.
Can I thank all four of you for coming this morning and for giving
your evidence clearly and for the memorandum that you have sent
to us. All I can say is that we will think very carefully about
what you have said.
| 
