Examination of Witnesses (Questions 980
- 985)
TUESDAY 27 JANUARY 2004
MR NICK
HARDING, MR
ANTHONY BRENNER
AND DR
MARTIN RAWLINGS
Q980 Mr Page: Something like 40 per
cent do not contribute?
Dr Rawlings: They do not pay us
a fee. That is not to say they do not contribute to the trust.
Some outside our membership have, as equally some have not. I
think it is an important principle that it is voluntary. We ask
our members to pay up voluntarily and that is what they do.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: This
is really a question for you, Chairman. When the Minister gave
evidence to us and we were discussing prevalence studies, he at
a later stage in his evidence suggested that the charitable trust
might finance such studies. Have we had any information from DCMS?
Chairman: Yes. He has subsequently written
to me confirming that he did not mean that. The prevalence studies
are for the government to pay for.
Q981 Lord Mancroft: Do you think
the relationship between the industry and the trust is somewhat
incestuous?
Mr Harding: Now that we have an
independent chairman, I think that is not the case. I think it
could have been said to have been incestuous when it was chaired
by Lady Cole, with no disrespect to her of course.
Q982 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: If
the government were to decide that the trust should be entirely
independent of the government, financed presumably by statutory
levy rather than voluntary levy, would you shed many tears about
leaving it in those sorts of hands?
Mr Harding: No.
Q983 Chairman: Could I summarise
what I think you are saying? We have a draft Bill, not complete,
although we have policy statements which are fairly complete.
It has been trumpeted as modernisation or even deregulation of
the industry but what all three of you have just told us in the
last hour or so is that you fear that you will have more regulation,
not less, because other people will be able to open up gambling
opportunities and not only will you have more regulation; you
will have less business.
Dr Rawlings: We would certainly
agree with that, yes. We agree that there are some changes that
need to be made. I do not think anybody would dispute that internet
gambling needs some regulation. We are not against casinos looking
at expansion, provided it is done in a way that is cautious that
could be reversed if it was seen to go too far. We want under
18s regulation in our pubs. Beyond that, is there any real need
to go and fix a 1998 Bill that we do not think is very broken
and has worked well? It is respected around the world and we are
particularly concerned that with this Bill—the government
acknowledges it will increase problem gambling—we would
suffer the backlash. We will have to pay for it and we will get
more regulation to try and hide up the effects of it.
Mr Brenner: We would very much
like the 1968 Gaming Act to stay as it is with some slight modifications.
Question seven is about problem gambling with children. We consider
that with our environment children can learn about handling gambling
with a responsible attitude to the playing of machines in an environment
with their parents. If that is taken away, I think it would be
equal to closing the classroom if you want to educate somebody,
because they will get out on the main streets at the age of 18
and be allowed to go into LBOs and anywhere else and they will
not know anything about the pitfalls of gambling. They will be
cannon fodder.
Q984 Lord Wade of Chorlton: If on
the one hand you are concerned that the change in the law is going
to open up other opportunities, I do not see why that is against
the interests of your members because your members can take advantage
of that just the same as anybody else. Just because they are a
member of your organisation does not mean that is only what they
can do, does it?
Dr Rawlings: I think it does if
you are running a pub. There is nothing in this Bill that says
we will have any increased opportunities for gaming whatsoever.
We will end up with codes of practice and regulations which we
think are unnecessary, binding us into something in a declining
market. It is not an attractive prospect.
Q985 Lord Wade of Chorlton: I own
a pub but it does not stop me worrying about what else I might
own.
Dr Rawlings: As far as gambling
is concerned, that income is set because it is constrained by
regulation. We are not arguing that it should not be constrained,
but if you open up all the competition around you it is bound
to have an effect.
Chairman: We will resist the temptation
of going down the road of who owns a pub and where all the alcohol
comes from for your casino hotels. Thank you three gentlemen,
very much, for coming here today and for answering all our questions.
| 
