Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1220
- 1239)
TUESDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2004
MS MOIRA
BLACK CBE AND
MR MARK
HARRIS
Q1220 Lord Donoughue of Ashton: We
understand that it is not up to you, but it is interesting if
you have a view?
Mr Harris: We have commissioned
some major pieces of research on playing of the Lottery and similar
products by under 16s through very extensive questionnaires carried
out by research agencies who specialise in these areas, and looking
at the behaviour of 12-15s, for example. One of the things which
came out of the most recent piece of research we have commissioned
is that the incidence of problem-gambling on scratch cards in
12-15s is much lower than that of gaming machines.
Q1221 Lord Donoughue of Ashton: You
are aware of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report and you reject
that, or do you feel the other research is more impressive?
Mr Harris: All I can say is, that
is research we have carried out. At the time of that research
there was a difference. That does not mean we accept for the Lottery
that even a relatively lower incidence is acceptable. This is
why, for example, we required the operator to carry out test-purchasing
under the licence. Under the latest licence we doubled the degree
of test-purchasing the operator was required to carry out, because
we think it is a very serious issue if under 16s are playing the
Lottery illegally.
Q1222 Lord Donoughue of Ashton: Who
did that research?
Mr Harris: The research for us
was carried out initially by Sue Fisher of the University of Plymouth;
and the subsequent research, using a similar methodology, was
carried out by an organisation called BMRB, and they carry out
social research.
Q1223 Chairman: By volume and value,
how many Lottery tickets were bought by 16 and 17 years olds?
If we were to bring the age of ticket sales and the ability to
play the Lottery up to 18 what sort of impact would it have on
Lottery turnover?
Mr Harris: I am afraid, Chairman,
I do not have that figure to hand. My suspicion would be the same
as yours, that it would not be a large amount. I think our position
would be that if the Government wished to raise the age we are
certainly not taking the stance that we would object to that,
or we would wish to see it kept at 16. It is just an issue where
the Commission has always focussed on making sure that every effort
is made to stop under-16s playing, rather than to take a view
on where the age should lie in policy terms.
Q1224 Baroness Golding: You said
earlier that everything to do with this is through your economic
adviser, not a gambling adviser. Surely the big thing is to prevent
children getting into a state where they need GamCare. I just
cannot understand your laidback attitude towards gambling and
the proliferation of gambling and the effects it might have on
younger children?
Mr Harris: I do not believe we
do have a laidback view about gambling; I think we take it very
seriously. This work was not carried out by our economic advisers,
we used a range of advisers, and these are advisers who were specialists
in social research. They are specialists in the area of how you
find out from under 16s whether they are playing or not playing.
Q1225 Baroness Golding: I do understand
that, but that is finding out whether they are playing under 16;
but 16-18 can obviously be vulnerable and you do not seem to have
anybody on board or any view about it at all.
Ms Black: GamCare have done work
on that suggesting that particularly scratch cards are very much
at the end where there is less problem-gambling.
Mr Harris: What we have done is
look very closely, for example, at the prevalence study that was
carried out a number of years ago now by GamCare which was an
independent study. That showed there was a 0.8 per cent incidence
of problem-gambling from scratch cards. GamCare's own hotline
shows that about 1 per cent of calls it receives are from scratch
card players. I am not sitting here saying that is entirely acceptable
and we will not do anything about it. What we are saying is we
continue to take what research we can, and continue to do our
own research and we consider very carefully the types of game
Camelot is offering before we license them.
Q1226 Mr Wright: Do you think the
National Lottery operator should contribute to the Gambling Industry
Charitable Trust (which is now re-named The Responsibility in
Gambling Trust) as a matter of principle?
Ms Black: We can certainly see
the benefits in this as we anticipate that the Trust will carry
out work that will be of relevance to us and of benefit to the
National Lottery. There are specific considerations that apply
to the National Lottery. We are under direction from the Secretary
of State that we are not allowed to license games that, in our
opinion, would encourage people to play excessively—in other
words, problem-gambling; or which did not have sufficient controls,
in our view, to prevent the under-16s gambling. We, therefore,
expect Camelot, and indeed ourselves, to carry out work to ensure
that these requirements are met specifically for the National
Lottery. Clearly, that work takes on board work in other areas
and may well be informed by the work of the Trust. My slight concern
at the moment, as we have said, is that it appears there is relatively
little incidence of problem-gambling amongst National Lottery
products; and I would expect the Trust to carry out its work to
look at what it was going to do on the basis of risk. We might
be rather low down on their list of priorities. Having said that,
they may well do other relevant work. We cannot require Camelot
to contribute at the moment under the terms of its licence; but,
clearly, come the next licence, or licences, that is something
we need to consider. We do need to make sure that the work we
need to do gets done.
Q1227 Mr Wright: With everything
you have said, do you think in principle it would be right and
proper for the operator to actually contribute to the Gambling
Industry Charitable Trust?
Ms Black: I do not have a problem
with that at all. It is gambling, we agree with that, so therefore
logically it should be right that the costs ought to be proportionate
to the benefits that people who play the Lottery, the Commission
and the operators get out of it, I suggest.
Q1228 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Having
listened to what you have said this morning, could you remind
me of your budget and the size of your organisation, and what
you might expect it to become if the various suggested changes
come about?
Mr Harris: Our gross budget at
the moment is around £4 million; some of that is recovered
but not paid into our budget through licence fees and so on. We
currently employ just over 40 people. We would clearly envisage,
firstly, that there will be growth in our budget, not so much
the numbers of staff but the numbers of advisers, to carry out
the next licence competition; in any case that is a very resource-intensive
piece of work and one that absolutely needs to be got right. That
will be one contribution. The second contribution, which I think
you are alluding to, maybe the increased complexity of regulation.
That depends very much on the number of licences if the multiple
licence path is authorised and that is the path the Commission
goes down. I am really not in a position to give you a clear figure.
We would not expect it to increase, very significantly from the
existing budget; but clearly there may need to be a degree of
extra resource within the Commission to cope with that.
Q1229 Lord Wade of Chorlton: You
mentioned the public's perception of gambling. What do you think
the public's perception of the Commission is?
Ms Black: Limited. Whenever I
say I am involved with the National Lottery Commission people
always assume I hand out the money. I think that is a very general
perception.
Q1230 Chairman: That you hand out
the money?
Ms Black: Yes, for good causes.
I think generally the public does not understand there are a variety
of bodies that hand out monies to good causes and that there is
a regulator.
Q1231 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Is that
a good or a bad thing, that the perception is limited?
Ms Black: I do not think that
is terribly important, to be honest. If we had a very high profile
I think I might start to get worried because it might be an implication
that something was going seriously wrong.
Q1232 Viscount Falkland: Could you
tell us how the Commission decides what is excessive play and
what steps they take before they take a decision that a game does
lead to excessive play?
Mr Harris: We have considered
but not been able to adopt a straightforward definition, a straightforward
legal test if you like, of what excessive play amounts to.
Q1233 Viscount Falkland: I think
we all understand what it is.
Mr Harris: In terms of the general
proposition, we would look at the design of the game, the way
it was likely to be marketed, what the proposition to the players
was, and how clear that proposition to players was. If we had
concerns about that game we would then seek specialised advice,
where we considered that appropriate, in order to inform the Commission
on whether or not the game was, in its judgment, likely to encourage
excessive play.
Q1234 Viscount Falkland: You would
have to go to a gambling consultant for that, would you not?
Mr Harris: We would have to go
to specialist advisers. I am not entirely clear what is mean by
a "gambling consultant" because there is a wide range
of different consultants, and many consultancies offer advice
that covers gambling. What we would be particularly keen to see
is advice from people who have knowledge of the gambling market
clearly, but also knowledge of a games likelihood to encourage
excessive play, knowledge about addition and knowledge about social
studies and social research.
Q1235 Viscount Falkland: Would you
go to GamCare?
Mr Harris: GamCare would certainly
be someone we would talk to early on. We have a regular relationship
with GamCare. If we had a particular case where we had an issue
we might well talk to GamCare about who are the best people, and
the independent people, to seek further advice from to help us
understand what the game is likely to do.
Q1236 Viscount Falkland: Have you
any documented steps that you have taken in particular cases?
Mr Harris: I do not think we have
a procedure which lays down, "This is how we will deal with
individual cases". Game licences are relatively infrequent,
in the sense that for main games and high risk games, as opposed
to games that replicate existing games, we probably deal with
a couple of applications a year, and we tend to deal with those
as the case progresses and as the issues arise. The issues may
fall within problem-gambling; they may fall within other aspects
of player protection, such as the nature of the rules of the game
or the way the game works or something like that.
Q1237 Viscount Falkland: This documentation,
would you not agree, would be what most people looking at this
objective would expect from the Gambling Commission, if it were
in a position to be regulated?
Mr Harris: Yes. I am not saying
to you I do not believe there is any need for such documentation;
certainly it is something we will look at.
Q1238 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Would
you agree that it would not be impossible for the regulatory role
for the National Lottery Commission to be transferred to the Gambling
Commission, as it were, a National Lottery subdivision of that
organisation?
Ms Black: We still have the conflicts
of interest within the Gambling Commission and we have talked
about that.
Q1239 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Specifically
a regulatory role.
Ms Black: We find it very difficult
to separate everything out, because everything really does inform
everything else, whether it is the granting of licences or amendments
to the licences. Compliance work, regulatory work and player protection
is all linked in together.
| 
