Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1700
- 1719)
MONDAY 1 MARCH 2004
RT HON
TESSA JOWELL
MP, RT HON
LORD MCINTOSH
OF HARINGEY
AND MR
ELLIOT GRANT
Q1700 Chairman: You said earlier,
Secretary of State, that rapid play machines cause addiction.
You have already made clear that you are interested in what we
have to say about machines, but this same document, which was
published only recently by the Henley Centre for BACTA, indicates
that the number of machines in casinos in the United Kingdom,
if the Bill went ahead as proposed, would increase from just under
900 now to 81,000 by 2010 and, as these would be mostly rapid
play machines, one assumes, you will understand our nervousness
at what is proposed.
Tessa Jowell: Before we finalised
the instructions on this I went to watch one of these fixed odds
betting machines. I played it myself, actually. What appears to
be the driver of addiction is very rapid play; a pound stake and
very rapid play. That is when people spend fistfuls of money.
Under the code of practice that has been restrained. What I would
like to offer you, Chairman, and I know Lord Donoughue's and indeed
the whole committee's concern arising from the Henley Centre's
forecast on the growth of problem gambling, is perhaps a supplementary
submission on a more considered basis.
Chairman: That would be very helpful.
If I can just say to you and to the committee, we have informal
contacts with the Department of Health but in the light of your
answer, which I think is extremely encouraging, I will formally
on behalf of the committee send a letter to the Secretary of State
about that. You have mentioned the Trust in one of your answers.
Q1701 Lord Mancroft: You have mentioned
the Trust previously, Secretary of State. Can I ask you whether
you think that there may not be at least difficulties or perhaps
risks in having one single body, the Trust in this case, acting
as collector and at the same time allocator of funds for research
into problem gambling, for raising awareness of problem gambling
and also for treating it? Is that not going to be a difficulty,
do you think?
Tessa Jowell: I do not think so.
The new Chairman, Sir David Durie, I think is satisfied with the
range of responsibilities that the trust will have and I am confident
that they can discharge those responsibilities. As with all these
new structures, you have to be prepared to be vigilant and to
make sure that very good intention and carefully considered policy
translates in practice in the way you intend. If there appear
to be unintended consequences then you intervene and try to put
that right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I see
the work of the trust as not excluding any other work that goes
on either here or abroad. There will still be academic work, there
will still be medical research on pathological gambling, but what
the Trust can do is pull it together. I think it is a positive
advantage having a single concentration.
Q1702 Lord Mancroft: I accept that
there are advantages and disadvantages. How will you tell an independent
charity what to do? Surely, if you do that, it will not be independent,
will it?
Tessa Jowell: They are established
with terms of reference and the functions that you have just outlined
and a very clear specification as to what they are expected to
do, and then they are expected to get on with it
Q1703 Lord Mancroft: Do you think
it should be a requirement to contribute to the alleviation of
problem gambling either to be considered by the Commission as
part of the "fit and proper" test or included as a condition
of operating licences?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We
do not have a "fit and proper" test any more. That was
what proved so unsatisfactory. There will be criteria for personal
licences but we are not using the phrase "fit and proper"
in the way we used to because it was so indefinite. The Trust
is a voluntary body. I do not see how you can make contributions
to a voluntary trust a condition of licensing.
Q1704 Chairman: I was going to intervene
in the Secretary of State's answer to the previous question and
say that I cannot expect you to have had drawn to your attention
everything this committee has been told in the last two or three
months, but one thing which deeply concerned us was the fact that
some of the organisations that are helping problem gamblers now
feel that their stream of funding has been disrupted by the creation
of the Trust, particularly GamCare, which has been very well supported
by a number of businesses within the industry. The money now goes
to the Trust rather than direct to GamCare. It is something we
will try and address in the report.
Tessa Jowell: Although, as I understand
it, GamCare has received an increase in its funding from the Trust
with a telephone helpline and counselling as a priority for that.
Q1705 Chairman: Lord McIntosh, I
think, has caused a number of eyebrows to be raised around the
committee in saying that there is no longer a "fit and proper"
test. The phrase does not appear in the Bill but would you both
not accept that the meaning of clause 58(1)(a), "In considering
an application under section 57 the Commission shall have regard
to the licensing objectives, one of which is to protect children
and the vulnerable", is that the contributions that licensees
make to the Trust ought properly to be a consideration for the
Commission?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There
are two different issues there, are there not? One is that we
used to have a "fit and proper" test, which was a Humpty
Dumpty word; it can mean anything you want it to mean, and it
did not have much meaning except in case law, and now we are being
much more precise and much more specific. We are setting out the
three licensing objectives and yes, of course, the consideration
in granting licences is the pursuit of the three licensing objectives.
I do not see how you can make, as a matter of law, a contribution
to a voluntary body a condition of licensing.
Chairman: Okay. We hear your answer.
Q1706 Janet Anderson: Secretary of
State, you have seen the evidence we have received about the dangers
of allowing gambling to continue in unsupervised premises like,
for example, fish and chip shops, petrol stations, minicab offices
and so on. One witness made the point to us, "In a free society,
it is obviously highly appropriate that if people want to gamble
they should be allowed to do so. What is tending to happen and
will undoubtedly happen much more post-legislation is that people
will stumble on it". In other words, if you have these machines
in a fish and chip shop, if you go to buy your cod and chips you
do not go there with the intention of gambling but you will, to
use the words of that witness, "stumble on it". Is that
something that concerns you?
Tessa Jowell: I acknowledge that
there are concerns about this and what might be regarded as ambient
gambling in what are essentially unlicensed premises. I think
it is important to remember that what we are talking about here
is machines with maximum prizes of only five pounds, and these
are machines which have been in these premises for more than 35
years. In that time we have not seen any significant increase
in problem gambling which we perhaps might have expected to had
these been a dangerous gateway to gambling. There are undoubtedly
periodic problems with unlicensed machines and we are absolutely
clear that it is the category D machines that are available and
will continue to be available in unlicensed premises. If the category
C machine were to be there, as people from time to time will say,
they are there unlawfully and we would look in that case to the
local authority and the Gambling Commission to assist authorities
in dealing with illegal machines.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We
have given local authorities two extra powers. One is to say,
"No, you cannot have category D machines in unlicensed premises
at all", if that is what you want to do, and the other thing
is that we have given them enforcement powers which they do not
have at the moment.
Q1707 Chairman: This is a very important
point. In the supplementary memorandum submitted to us only last
week by BACTA they discuss at some length the possibility that
other than category D machines may be in single sites, and their
remedy is to ensure that within the proposed legislation single
sites can be supplied only with category D amusement machines
and that such machines can only be supplied by section 27 licence
holders. That I think is effectively what you have said you believe
the policy to be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes,
I think so. I have not personally seen that submission and I would
like to look at it and think about it.
Q1708 Chairman: But that is your
intention, that there should only be category D machines in single
sites?
Tessa Jowell: Yes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Absolutely.
Chairman: That is very helpful. Thank
you.
Q1709 Jeff Ennis: The committee has
heard evidence from a number of sources about the risks of gambling
by under-18s. Do you accept this evidence?
Tessa Jowell: There is always
a risk but I believe that the structure that we have, the requirement
for licensees to meet the terms of the licensing objectives, which
include protection of children and the vulnerable, do provide
adequate protection. This is where we have to look beyond just
the resources of the Gambling Bill to deal with this problem,
because by and large this will be a problem of children who find
their way into arcades which are for adults rather than for children
when they should be at school, children who are out and about
and not where they should be. There are other measures that we
would look to in order to strengthen the hand on the collar to
get these kids back to where they ought to be. I hope that you
are clear as a committee and you accept our absolute determination
to do everything that we can to make sure that children and gambling
are kept quite separate one from the other. The only access that
children will have legitimately is to the category D machine which
they may play with—a 10p stake—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It
is 30p now; 10p under the Bill.
Tessa Jowell: — while they
are waiting to buy fish and chips, but that is the limit of it.
As with all these things, enforcement will be as good as the capacity
of the Gambling Commission, the behaviour of licensees and the
vigilance of local authorities.
Q1710 Jeff Ennis: If there is not
enough evidence to ban gambling by under-18s, should the government
commission further research into whether this is damaging and
undertake to review its position on the basis of this research?
Tessa Jowell: If we were presented
with very clear evidence of a problem, of course we would undertake
further investigation of it in order to judge whether or not other
action was necessary. Again, if you would find it helpful, Chairman,
I would be very happy to let you have a note of the meeting that
I will have shortly with the children's charities where I intend
to put exactly these questions to them because, believe me, I
share all of your concern about making sure that through this
legislation we extend proper protection to children.
Chairman: That would be extremely helpful.
Q1711 Jeff Ennis: We have also taken
evidence, Secretary of State, from the National Lottery and the
society lotteries in terms of the fact that currently youngsters
can buy lottery cards at 16. We have raised the issue with them
of what impact it would have and if they are against raising that
age to 18, and neither of them seemed to object too greatly to
raising the age to 18 from the present 16. Have you any comment
to make about that piece of evidence we have received?
Tessa Jowell: We have no plans
to raise the age to 18. There are all sorts of anomalies as young
people make the transition from 15 to 19 in what they can and
cannot do. Playing the lottery is the only form of gambling that
they are able to undertake. Were there evidence of harm then obviously
we would want to look at the case for reform. I am not aware that
there is evidence of harm for young people during that particular
period of 16-18 which should lead us to do that.
Mr Wright: Following on from that line
of questioning, Secretary of State, I represent a seaside constituency
where young children are allowed in accompanied by an adult, for
instance, and it has been policed by BACTA.
Chairman: The committee paid a visit
as well to Great Yarmouth.
Q1712 Mr Wright: Has there been any
evidence to suggest that that could lead to problem gambling?
Tessa Jowell: Again, there is
no evidence. Had we seen evidence to that effect then we would
have cast the proposals in a slightly different way. The law can
reach so far. Beyond that you rely on parental responsibility,
you rely on the responsibility of the licensee and I think that,
as we have said in relation to alcohol licensing, we have to demonstrate
very early on in the life of this legislation and the Gambling
Commission how seriously the Commission takes the proper discharge
of the responsibilities of the licensees.
Mr Wright: Thanks for that, because certainly
I am of the opinion that there should be an element of parental
control and parental responsibility as well as regulation in terms
of that section.
Q1713 Chairman: There was some disagreement
in Great Yarmouth between the police and one or two of the churches
as to how big a problem it was, but we will comment on that in
what I hope will be a helpful way. Can we now move on to casinos?
We have received evidence from a number of sources suggesting
that the 7 August joint position paper from your department and
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on casinos effectively
introduced a fourth licensing objective of securing regeneration
for the development of so-called resort or destination casinos.
Do you agree that this is the case and, if so, should this extra
objective be included on the face of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No,
it certainly is not the fourth objective and, even if it were,
it should not be on the face of the Bill. It is far too important
that we maintain the three principal objectives as licensing objectives
as we set them out. When we talk about the regeneration benefits
of very large casinos we are talking about a minority of a minority.
About three per cent of the people of this country anyway go to
casinos. There are no resort casinos. It is expected that, even
if they start up, there will be a minority of casinos. The research
you have been referring to suggests that there might be only five
in this country. I have no idea whether that is valid or not but
it certainly would not be a justification for putting it on the
face of a Bill as a fourth objective, thereby weakening the other
three objectives.
Q1714 Chairman: But do you accept
the general argument that casinos, certainly those which have
a significant number of machines, are likely to generate substantial
profits for the operators, and some of that will be subsumed in
taxation and you will know, Minister, that we do not yet know
quite what taxation regime the Treasury and Customs & Excise
will want to put in place? The little travelling that we have
been able to do in this inquiry has demonstrated the extent to
which the income from casinos and these machines is being harnessed
for all kinds of other benefits. Do you regard that as a good
thing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Nobody
is going to do it unless they can make money. Having said that,
clearly, if we can get benefits for the local communities, and
particularly for deprived communities, that is a bonus and planning
law will use the powers that it has in order to achieve that.
What we published on 7 August was a paper for consultation. The
consultation period finished on 31 October and although there
were disagreements from all sorts of people about all sorts of
things, there was no consensus against the proposals that we put
forward.
Q1715 Mr Wright: Following on from
that line, Chairman, what is the government strategy for the siting
of the large casinos and do you believe that it is necessary to
have a national or a regional plan?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do
not think we have ever thought about a national plan. Yes, the
suggestion is that there should be regional planning bodies, which
will be established under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act, which is up on the red screen there at the moment, and that
they should take region-wide decisions about such matters as casinos,
so a regional objective certainly is legitimate and is in accordance
with our thinking.
Q1716 Mr Wright: Bearing in mind,
of course, that the planning is the remit of the ODPM, has there
been any consultation with the ODPM with regard to this aspect?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes,
there has. We have been talking to Keith Hill, the Minister for
Planning. You have got Yvette Cooper, the Minister for Regeneration,
coming before you tomorrow and you can pursue that matter with
her, of course, but we have been talking about the relationship
between regional significance and our definitions of large casinos.
Q1717 Mr Wright: And is there unanimity
between the two departments?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Not
yet. I do not think there is disagreement, but we have not reached
a formula yet.
Q1718 Chairman: This is an important
distinction, is it not, because what this Bill does is create
a framework for the licensing of casinos and that is where your
responsibility rests? Where these casinos should be sited in planning
terms is not for your department but for ODPM?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That
is why I say it is not a national consideration.
The Committee suspended from 4.01 pm to
4.14 pm for a division in the House of Lords
Chairman: May we continue?
Q1719 Dr Pugh: As the only North
West MP here, can I ask you about the role of the Regional Development
Agency? When we went to Blackpool, there appeared a willingness
by the Agency to help fund the Blackpool development, if I can
put it like that. When I went to France, I was interested to learn
for most of the development there it is the other way round, the
private sector do things and invest massively in the public sector.
Would you accept that the involvement of public funds in promoting
essentially American casinos could be a contentious issue?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot
answer for the North West Development Agency. My understanding
was that when we said regeneration benefits we meant a number
of things. First of all, that there would be jobs, presumably
in construction and then on-going jobs in running the operation,
but I did not think that ruled out the possibility of private
investment contributing to the infrastructure which would be involved.
| 
