Memorandum from Mr John Wainwright (DGB
162)
As a member of the public I wish to comment
on the draft Gambling Bill and make representations. I would be
grateful therefore for these comments to be shared with the members
of your Committee and look forward to their response. Having worked
for many years as a Humanities and PHSE teacher in Secondary education
my interest is particularly in regard to the welfare of children
and young people and the kind of society they will inherit.
You may feel I am being unfair but my immediate reaction
is that in essence the proposals are more on the side of deregulation
than on the side of protecting children, the gullible and the
weak. That may suit those who promote the gaming industry but
surely it is not in the longer-term interests of society! It therefore
comes as no surprise to me that in a recent poll commissioned
by the Salvation Army 90% of those questioned were opposed to
further deregulation, so one would hope that if the Government
really is "a Government that listens to ordinary people,"
which the Secretary of State has recently said it should be, then
a lot of attention will be paid to the sentiments expressed.
I feel that in the drafting stage too little consideration
has been given to the harmful social consequences that can ensue
from big time gambling. In particular is it just that some people
can gain huge sums, sometimes millions, without any serious work
or effort but largely on the basis of chance? Does this not encourage
a wrong sense of values whereby a few gain at the expense of others
and, rather than promoting the value of service, instead promotes
greed and "a something for nothing" culture?
In bringing forward this Bill how much research has
preceded it regarding the social costs of more deregulation? Evidence
from the USA has suggested that the social costs of deregulation
have been three times more than the income generated, and similarly
evidence from other countries has shown that increased opportunities
for gambling has increased the number of addicts. As the number
of addicts increases so does the amount of crime, family breakdown
and debt, and this in turn produces more work for hospitals, social
workers, schools and the police force. Opponents here may argue
that these problems only apply to a small number of people, but
time and money spent treating this minority inevitably reduces
the resources for everyone else and obviously where people are
damaged that damage spreads out to others within families and
communities.
Again from a social perspective is it not more likely
to be the poorest and weakest who will suffer from further deregulation?
Excuse my use of American figures again for as yet there seems
to be a dearth of British data, however a study in Connecticut
demonstrated that people with incomes below $5,000 spent fourteen
times as much on gambling as those with incomes over $25,000.
In Maryland it was 21 times higher. Why is the Government, normally
so interested in statistics, proposing changes before similar
statistical research has been done in this country? Furthermore,
why is there currently no provision for monitoring the social
costs relating to the policies that it is proposed to unleash?
Enough said!
Turning from general observations to more specific
recommendations I am sure that a majority of parents and teachers
would feel the law needs strengthening to stop minors from using
the so-called "fruit machines." Personally I feel TV
programmes promoting the National Lottery or any other gambling
should be shown outside the watershed period and playing it should
not be open to those under the age of 18. Inevitably children
are influenced by what they see and if their young minds are influenced
at this stage by very questionable values are they not more likely
to be open to big time gaming when they are older?
Many people are concerned that currently the law
does not allow new developments or change of usage relating to
existing developments to be challenged on moral, social or public
order grounds. Clearly the law needs amending in this area, not
only in regard to gaming establishments but also, though not related
to the current Bill, to sex shops. I would support the formal
inclusion of social agencies within local communities such as
social and probation services, primary care trusts, hospitals
and addiction treatment agencies and community workers as well
as police forces in the list of "statutory consultees."
Is it right both morally and democratically that those with the
most money should be given the most clout when planning decisions
are made and so be able to override local communities, which are
going to be most directly affected by those decisions?
I understand that various bodies concerned with the
problem of debt have noted the dangers inherent in the use of
credit cards for gambling, especially with regard to internet
gambling and I hope the Committee will take note of this. A submission
from the Evangelical Alliance in July 2000 was very pertinent
that stated "if money is to be gambled it should be money
possessed rather than borrowed." Apparently many US credit
card companies refuse debits from online gaming websites and this
should be emulated in Britain with formal legislation.
I was astonished by the proposal for the relaxation
of alcohol rules in gaming establishments and cannot believe that
any responsible Committee would not question the sense in this.
Is it not obvious that it would be grossly irresponsible to encourage
people to gamble when their ability to assess risk might be impaired
by alcohol? Of course there should be a total ban on the sale
of alcohol in gaming establishments! In similar vein it is common
sense that the 24-hour membership rule for playing in casinos
should be retained to avoid the dangers of people walking in off
the street to gamble in a highly vulnerable state.
One of the positive features of the Bill is the proposed
Gambling Industry Charitable Trust. This would indeed reduce the
damage caused by other aspects of the Bill but I suspect only
to a marginal degree. I would be interested to know what guarantee
is there that the Trust will be independent of the gaming industry
or have sufficient funding if there is no compulsory levy?
Rather than deregulate, and then have a huge amount
of work to do subsequently in trying to clear up the mess resulting
from so many damaged lives, is it not common sense to try and
avoid the pitfalls in the first place? Surely the whole purpose
behind immunisation, seat belts and sale of fireworks regulations
to give but three examples is to try to prevent harm, rather than
wait till the damage has been done! Why then does reason appear
to be being ignored in this instance?
Please will you tell me what proportion of the Committee
members have had significant experience relating to the social
consequences of gambling such as hospital, probation, church,
and community workers? Perhaps a good many, but without this assurance
how can one be sure of the Committee's independence from political
and financial pressure which on matters of conscience it should
be?
I understand there has been some limited consultation
with various religious bodies but from my enquiries and observations
it would seem very little notice has been taken of what they have
said! (In spite of the large number of people claiming a religious
adherence in the 2001 census, which I thought was meant to be
a guide to public policy makers.) As in life generally there seems
little point in consulting others unless we are open to the possibility
of change. Merely to go through the motions when we have already
decided the substance of what we are going to do anyway is surely
a waste of everyone's time! Hopefully these suspicions will be
removed in the coming days and at future meetings so that the
review may be seen to be one "in which the public can have
the fullest confidence."
In conclusion I would appeal to the Committee not
just to consider what might be of short-term benefit to the few
but also to consider the potential damage that could be inflicted
on the many by a liberalising of the law and refusal to introduce
more safeguards to protect the vulnerable than those currently
envisaged. I would, of course, be more than ready to give oral
evidence if invited to do so.
February 2004
| 
