Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1360
- 1373)
TUESDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2004
SIR DAVID
DURIE AND
PROFESSOR JONATHAN
WOLFF
Q1360 Mr Meale: Do you think that
budget of .001 per cent is sufficient to deliver that?
Sir David Durie: I think it should
be.
Q1361 Janet Anderson: You said earlier,
Professor Wolff, that you did not think it would be appropriate
for the Trust to do a prevalence study, but I wonder if I could
put to you and Sir David, would the Trust be willing to commit
itself to raising awareness of problem gambling, even if this
inflated the impression of the extent of the problem and potentially
had a negative impact on the industry's profits?
Sir David Durie: The Trust strategy
already permits the Trust to doing so, and I would expect the
Trust always to be ready to act in ways which supported its aim.
Q1362 Janet Anderson: So you would
be willing to do more to raise the awareness of problem gambling?
Sir David Durie: Indeed. Awareness
of problem gambling and awareness of the pitfalls that accompany
problem gambling must in itself be a way of diminishing the phenomenon.
We want to make it less likely that people will become problem
gamblers, and if awareness is part of that then awareness we will
promote.
Q1363 Janet Anderson: Do you think
you could devote more funding to raising awareness of problem
gambling if you had additional funding? Could you do more?
Sir David Durie: I am sure we
could, but I think we need to be careful that what we are doing
is effective.
Chairman: It is early days. We need to
ask you a couple of questions about existing service providers.
Q1364 Jeff Ennis: If the Trust becomes
the sole provider of funds to organisations like GamCare and Gordon
House (which will be giving evidence shortly), is there a danger
that the Trust would control and possibly even restrict their
activities, thus affecting the independence of service providers?
Is there also a risk that they could obtain less from you than
they do at the present time?
Sir David Durie: This is an interesting
area. I am not aware that we have sought to restrict either of
the providers who we currently fund from pursuing other activities
funded elsewhere, nor can I envisage that we would do so. It is,
however, important to secure value for the money we provide and
that we ensure that the activities which we do fund are effective
in securing the Trust's aim. That is what we are trying to do.
As to whether these organisations will have less money than in
the past, the advent of the Trust has resulted in quite large
increases in the funds available to both the organisations which
we fund, and provided that the Trust is satisfied that we are
getting value for money I would expect the Trust to want to continue
to work with our current service providers, in which case I would
expect the funds available to them to continue to increase if
this is appropriate. The Trust is committed to using its funds
in the most cost-effective way and that will continue to be a
priority for us.
Q1365 Jeff Ennis: It has been suggested
that three-year rolling funding should be made available for service
providers, and I understand that this is not available for the
existing service providers. Can you therefore explain how you
can ensure continuity of current service provision?
Sir David Durie: The Trust itself
does not have an absolute assurance that we have got three years'
funding. I am confident that we will have but it is one thing
being confident and it is another thing to contract on that basis.
The other thing is that we need to have continued confidence in
our service providers to provide the service that we want. I am
not against three-year rolling contracts, in principle; whether
it is appropriate and whether it is something we can move to fast
I could not tell you.
Q1366 Jeff Ennis: You have touched
on my last question today. Given the importance of providing effective
treatment and education, do you think grants should be based on
the lowest tender or on providing value for money?
Sir David Durie: Value for money.
Q1367 Lord Mancroft: I wonder if
I could ask you to go a bit further. Earlier on in your evidence
you told us that you expected treatment for people with gambling
problems to be rather less expensive than treatment for people
with drug and alcohol problems. I am not an expert but I happen
to have an interest in providing drug and alcohol treatment, and
I could not help but notice—and I said this when we visited
GamCare—that GamCare's unit costs are very much higher than
the treatment provided in my sector. I also noticed in the evidence
submitted that the cost of treatment at Gordon House over the
length of time is very much higher than we would provide in our
sector. It is not a criticism of anybody because it is a different
attitude entirely, but how are you going to achieve that? How
are you going to know you are being effective? How will you compare
with other potential providers? It is an important thing to do
but I am not quite clear how you achieve it.
Sir David Durie: I am sure you
appreciate that is the $64,000 question. I did not mean to convey
the impression that the treatment of individual problem gamblers
is less expensive than the treatment of an individual alcoholic
or drug addict; I was talking in aggregate because this is certainly
a smaller-scale problem than alcohol and probably a smaller-scale
problem than drug addiction. The Trust is seeking value for money
and will always continue to seek value for money. We have, as
our written evidence described, certain concerns at the moment.
We have discussed the concerns which we have with GamCare and
I am satisfied that GamCare is taking steps to address them. It
is right for the Trust to raise those concerns with the provider
and for the provider to address them, and it is right also for
the Trust to consider, from time to time, whether to go to alternative
service providers, either on the grounds of effectiveness or on
grounds of cost. It is not an easy balance to strike, and we certainly
do not want to undermine in any way any of the existing service
providers. I think our preference would be to ensure that they
are providing the service we want, if that is at all possible.
Q1368 Lord Walpole: You explained
in your submission that you "arranged for the delivery of
services to be provided by GamCare and the Gordon House Association
to be independently audited quarterly". Why are those audits
necessary?
Sir David Durie: This was fairly
early in our association with both these bodies and we wanted
to be satisfied that the services which the organisations were
providing, or had agreed to provide, were actually being delivered.
The audit is of service delivery and we asked for it for that
purpose.
Q1369 Lord Walpole: Your submission
makes it clear that the last quarter audit of service providers
has identified room for improvement. What can be done to help
the existing providers address areas of weakness? Who should do
that? Incidentally, what you do not say in your written evidence
(you as a body), do you in fact have paid staff, or do you have
nobody at all other than the trustees and the secretary?
Sir David Durie: In effect, we
have trustees, a secretary and a small amount of administrative
assistance.
Q1370 Lord Walpole: So you are not
capable of doing things?
Sir David Durie: We are not currently
set up to do that. That was deliberate and it remains the Trust's
policy.
Q1371 Lord Walpole: I am sure it
is one we strongly approve of. Who addresses weaknesses?
Sir David Durie: I think it is
for the body concerned to address the weaknesses. We are very
happy to discuss approaches with them, but I think it is for the
body to decide.
Q1372 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: On
a scale of 1 to 10 how would you describe the relationship between
yourselves and GamCare and Gordon House, where 10 is warm and
friendly and 1 is ice cold?
Sir David Durie: I would certainly
answer that somewhere in the region of 9 or 10. I will be listening
to the answer from my colleagues from GamCare.
Q1373 Chairman: That would be interesting
if we were to ask them the same question. Can I thank you, Sir
David and Professor Wolff, for your attendance today and for the
answers. I think it is just worth noting, in fact, that the Trust
did not exist before the Budd Report, and there is a lot to do
in implementing the Budd Report through legislation. I think what
you have told us today and what we have observed ourselves is
that this is one part of what Budd recommended where progress
has been made. As to the point about the number of staff, a lot
of people have given a lot of time voluntarily to get you where
you are, and I would certainly want the Committee to make a note
of that. Thank you for your attendance.
Sir David Durie: Thank you Chairman.
| 
