Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill Minutes of Evidence


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.




 
previous page contents

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 7 April 2004