The Methodist Church - Written evidence
to the Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill
1. Executive Summary
1.1 The Methodist Church's primary concern is that
deregulation should not be achieved at the cost of an increase
in problem gambling.
1.2 Effective and stringent Codes of Social Responsibility
must be at the heart of the Bill in order to prevent the harm
that gambling can cause to children and some adults
1.3 The Gambling Industry Charitable Trust must be
independent, better funded and supported by all parts of the gambling
industry if the industry is to avoid a levy.
1.4 An operator's demonstrable commitment to social
responsibility should be incorporated into the Bill as one of
the Gambling Commission tests of suitability.
1.5 The Social Responsibility Codes should include:
i. measures to prevent of children's access to
gambling
ii. measures to ensure the customer is knowledgeable
about the risks of gambling
iii. measures to reduce the danger of particular
gambling activities
iv. measures to protect those vulnerable to problem
gambling
v. responsibilities towards local communities
1.6 If the Government is unwilling to impose a moratorium
on children's access to Category D slot-machines, the shadow Gambling
Commission should, as a priority, commission research into the
impact of Category D gambling on children.
1.7 A ban on children's access to areas where gambling
is taking place should be seriously considered.
1.8 Bringing gambling to the attention of children
through the medium of emails or text messages should be an offence
1.9 "Mega-casinos" should not be permitted
an unlimited number of high-value slot-machines. A limit should
be imposed, which should only be lifted after research over a
number of years.
1.10 High-value machines should be sited away from
food, drink and access to cash/credit machines.
1.11 The maximum stakes for Fixed Odds Betting Machines
should be brought in line with other Category B machines, or a
special Betting Category B machine class should introduced to
limit them to licensed betting offices.
1.12 Membership schemes should be retained at casinos
and bingo halls, even if the 24 hour rule is abolished, as way
of delaying impulsive gambling and enforcing self-ban schemes
1.13 Local people's views should be properly taken
into account in formulating licensing policies.
1.14 Local residents, businesses, faith communities,
schools, statutory bodies and organisations working to counter
addictions should be notified of applications and consulted.
1.15 Regional planning authorities should be given
the responsibility to take into account the dangers of proliferation
through mega-casinos as well as regional regeneration potential.
1.16 Research into the prevalence of problem gambling
should be commissioned by DCMS before the deregulation occurs,
and then carried out by the Gambling Commission at regular biennial
intervals, so that the impact of the legislation on problem gambling
can be monitored and any corrective action taken.
2. Preface
2.1 The Methodist Church is grateful for this opportunity
to comment on the proposals contained in the Draft Gambling Bill.[1]
2.2 The Methodist Church has had a long-standing
interest in the social impact of gambling. The Methodist Church
was part of a Churches Together in Britain and Ireland delegation
to give evidence to the Budd Review; it gave written and oral
evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in June
2003; and it has been a member of the DCMS social impact of gambling
liaison group.
2.3 The Methodist Church has traditionally taken
the lead for member denominations of Churches Together in Britain
and Ireland in commenting on and working with Government over
gambling policy. The Community and Public Affairs Department of
the Church of England, Churches Together in Britain
and Ireland, the Baptist Union of Great Britain, Quaker
Action of Alcohol and Drugs, the Salvation Army (who
are making their own response) and the United Reformed Church
support this submission.
2.4 Whilst a number of Methodists refuse to take
part in gambling, the Church as a whole is concerned not with
general prohibition but effective regulation to minimise the harm
that gambling can cause to some people. It is with this concern
in mind that we make this submission.
2.5 The Methodist Church has recognised that modernisation
of the gambling industry is necessary, particularly to keep pace
with technological change. However the corollary of deregulation
must be increased levels of social responsibility from the gambling
industry. It is wholly unacceptable that the cost of deregulation
should be an increase in the number of problem gamblers. Therefore
the challenge is whether an increase in gambling opportunities
can really occur without a consequential increase in problem gambling.
Therefore, whilst we welcome the increased protections that are
likely to be offered through legislation, we are concerned that
the potential increase in problem gambling and the need to prevent
proliferation should remain at the forefront of the Committee's
deliberations.
3. Social Responsibility
3.1 We are delighted to see that the Government has
introduced the concept of social responsibility into gambling
policy. Research evidence shows that gambling damages the mental
and physical health, employment, relationships, and family lives
of those whose gambling gets out of control (and are customarily
called "problem gamblers") and it can leave them with
massive debts. Social responsibility is about gambling operators
taking responsibility for the harmful impact that gambling has
on some people. It involves contributing towards the treatment
and support of problem gamblers, but also encompasses the business
practices, research and education necessary to prevent an increase
in problem gambling.
3.2 Gambling Industry Charitable Trust
3.2.1 It has been encouraging to see the efforts
of the Gambling Industry Charitable Trust to raise money from
sections of the gambling industry. The Trust must be, and be seen
to be, independent of the industry, or its labours, and particularly
its research, will be discredited. Whilst the figure of £3
million represents a starting point, we would remind the Committee
that this denotes only £10 per problem gambler, according
to the British Gambling Prevalence Survey, and is a tiny proportion
of gambling profits. We support the Government's decision to establish
whether sufficient funds can be raised through a voluntary trust,
but to hold the threat of a levy in reserve. However the gambling
operators who refuse to contribute, and ride on the backs of those
who do, are clearly already creating a problem. The Joint Committee
may wish to suggest that adequate contributions to the Trust,
or another organisation supporting problem gamblers, could be
taken as evidence towards compliance with the social responsibility
conditions on an operating licence.
3.3 Codes of Social Responsibility
3.3.1 However if social responsibility is to be about
more than corporate giving, the content of the promised codes
of social responsibility to be issued by the Gambling Commission
are crucial. Whilst the content of these Codes will be determined
by the Gambling Commission and not included in the Bill, it is
important that the Government's intentions are apparent. People
who fear a gambling "free-for-all" will look for evidence
that new responsibilities are to be placed on operators. The Bill
will only receive support on the basis that the deregulation is
to be balanced by stricter demands on operators with regard to
social responsibility.
3.3.2 We would therefore strongly recommend that
a reference to the Social Responsibility Codes should be included
in the Bill itself. Whilst we recognise that there will be a number
of codes, the concept of social responsibility is so central to
the new regime that it merits a specific reference in legislation.
This could be achieved through clause 56.2 which lists
the issues to which the Commission might have regard in forming
an opinion of the applicant's suitability. So in addition to integrity,
competence and financial circumstances, the Commission should
also have regard to whether the applicant has a demonstrable commitment
to operating in a socially responsible way. For existing operators
this commitment could be demonstrated by a voluntary audited code
and ways in which social responsibility was embedded through the
company through training and management. New operators might have
to demonstrate their implementation of social responsibility codes
in other jurisdictions, or how they had worked with organisations
concerned with the social impact of gambling in drawing up their
operational plans and offering training to staff.
3.3.3 The content of the Codes would clearly be for
the Gambling Commission to consider, but if the Government made
its intentions known throughout the passage of the Bill, the Commission
would be compelled to have regard to these. Different codes would
need to be developed for the various sectors, but they would need
to cover these kinds of areas:
i. Measures for preventing children's access
to relevant gambling premises or products - eg measures which
required positive ID checks at entrances to age restricted gambling
premises. Such measures, rigorously applied, could provide a defence
of "all reasonable steps" if an operator were charged
with the offence of allowing a child to gamble.
ii. Measures which make the customer aware
of the terms under which they are gambling - eg displaying probabilities
of particular games
iii. Measures which tackle particularly problematic
forms of play - some forms of gambling are shown to be more
likely to encourage problem gambling than others, especially when
the play involves rapid re-staking and allows participants to
lose track of the time. Codes for machine gaming, for example,
could therefore stipulate the amount of time before re-staking
was allowed, or require clocks, reminders of losses or other "reality-checks"
to be displayed.
iv. Measures to help those at risk of losing
control of their gambling - eg facilities for customers to
"self-ban" from premises or remote games; access to
information about sources of help; trained staff of site to prompt
customers to seek such help
v. The codes could also be widened to include
the social responsibility of operators to local residents
- eg from agreements over environmental impact to support for
local education projects
3.3.4 The three licensing objectives of the Gambling
Commission include "protecting children and other vulnerable
persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling".
The proposed legislation majors on statutory offences involving
children (although comments below suggest that this should go
further). The effective protection of people who are vulnerable
to losing control of their gambling will have to be done through
Codes of social responsibility. These Codes will need to be demanding
and applied across the board, with the Gambling Commission being
rigorous in its enforcement and firm in imposing fines or revoking
licences if they are breached.
4. Children
4.1 The Government has stated that gambling is an
adult activity and that children and gambling do not mix. We would
support this view, and welcome some of the proposed measures to
protect children and young people from the harm that gambling
can cause. However there are a number of holes in the draft legislation,
which still leave children vulnerable.
4.2 Category D Machines
4.2.1 Slot-machines have been shown to be a very
addictive form of gambling. They are highly interactive and solitary,
they involve rapid re-staking and there is a temptation to chase
losses. GamCare, which runs a gambling helpline, states that half
of their calls come from people whose problems relate to gambling
on slot-machines.[2]
Yet Britain is the only western jurisdiction which allows children
- of any age - to play on slot-machines.
4.2.2 Research by Sue Fisher, formerly of the University
of Plymouth, has suggested that a worrying number of 12-15 year
olds - around 1 in 20 - already demonstrate behaviour which classifies
them as "problem gamblers" on slot-machines.[3]
Their behaviour - which includes lying and stealing, disrupted
relationships at home, and distracted behaviour at school - impacts
on the children, their families and those around them.
4.2.3 The Government has made a distinction between
"gambling" machines (Categories A-C) and "amusement"
machines (Category D, with 10p stake and £5 prizes), arguing
that the lower value machines are suitable - even "safe"
- for children. We believe that this is an erroneous, even dangerous
distinction. Even with a 10p stake a child can spend £6 in
10 minutes.[4]
And for a child of say ten years old, with a few pounds pocket
money a week, £5 is an appealing prize. Amounts that may
be "trivial" for adults may make gambling attractive
for children. The Gambling Review Report specifically rejected
the argument used by the Government saying "The stake
and the prize may affect the degree of financial harm caused to
the player, but the game is the same as gambling for bigger stakes
and prizes, and for some children it will be addictive."[5]
4.2.4 The concern over Category D machines is increased
because of the decision that these machines may remain in unlicensed
premises, such as fish and chip shops. It does not appear that
such premises will be covered by any codes of social responsibility,
and children are likely to be left unprotected.
4.2.5 Despite having accepted in A Safe Bet for
Success that gaming machines and children should not mix,
the Government has created its own definition of what constitutes
a "safe" gaming machines without basing this decision
on any evidence. We are concerned that the positive measures proposed
by the Government in other areas will be undermined by the disingenuous
attempt to present small-scale gambling as safe for children.
This will confuse children and parents, and, evidence suggests,
that children who are addicted to slot-machines begin gambling
significantly earlier than those who are not addicted. Other studies
suggest that there is a significant association between problem
gamblers and those who start gambling before the age of 14.[6]
4.2.6 Gambling is an adult activity. As Dr Sue Fisher
wrote: "Controlling one's response to gambling requires
certain life skills which are likely to be under-developed in
children and young people."[7]
4.3 Access to illegal gambling opportunities
4.3.1 The Government has created new offences of
permitting a child or young person to gamble. This is to be welcomed.
However there are potential loopholes.
4.3.2 Children and young people are to continue to
be allowed access to bingo clubs. How will such clubs prevent
older-looking children from gaming? Will employees be required
to ask for ID from each person before they play a game? Venues
from which children are totally prohibited, eg casinos, can seek
positive ID on the door, and then each croupier can be confident
they will not be breaking the law by inadvertently permitting
a child or young person to gamble at their table. This will not
be so reassuring for employees of bingo clubs.
4.3.3 We would also raise a small question under
clause 35(5)c: children and young people are prohibited
from entering premises where "a Category C gaming machine
is available for use". We hope that this will not be taken
to mean that a machine is unoccupied, otherwise children would
be able to be present provided that the machines were in use.
4.3.4 Clause 34(5)b prohibits people from
bringing information about gambling to the attention to a child
or young person, unless this was done "as an incident
of the information being brought to the attention of adults and
without a view to encouraging the child or young person to gamble".
Given the number of invitations to bet or game which are sent
via email or mobile phone "spam" without any effort
to find out whether the phone or email account is owned by a child,
we hope that such contact will not be covered by this exclusion.
This should particularly apply to any "special offer"
inducements, such as emailed "free bets".
4.3.5 Clause 204 exempts people without a
machine permit from committing an offence if the machine is for
free use. A number of organisations, including GamCare and ourselves,
have expressed concern in the past about the "free trial"
option on internet gambling sites. These often allow anyone to
have access to a free version of the game without first having
to register their personal and credit card details. This clearly
raises concerns for children's exposure gambling. To avoid similar
concerns around "free use" machines, such machines should
only be exempted from permit requirements if they are:
i. permanently for free use (ie are not being
used as an inducement to full play later on at Category C or above)
and
ii. (b) not a version of a full play Category
C or above machine available elsewhere.
Otherwise our concern is that they could be used
by children to get a taste for gambling, and perhaps a distorted
view of potential winnings, increasing the incentive evade the
prohibition.
5. High Value Gaming Machines
5.1 The issue which will receive greatest media attention
is the deregulation and inevitable expansion of casinos. Whilst
most people's images of casinos have been formed by James Bond
films, the growth in casinos is likely to be spurred by the availability
of the new "jackpot" unlimited stake/prize machines.
One of our biggest concerns is the new accessibility of these
machines in vast numbers.
5.2 It has already been stated that fruit-machines
are highly addictive. The available research suggests that the
proposed Category A machines will be the most addictive yet.[8]
This is also demonstrated by the efforts to bring Fixed Odds Betting
Terminals under control necessitated by a rise in problem gambling
associated with FOBTs.
5.3 Slower pace of deregulation
5.3.1 Under the current proposals, the largest casinos,
so long as they have more than 40 tables, can have an unlimited
number of machines. This is a potentially reckless move, and does
not fit with the Government's commitment to "make haste slowly".
In order to prevent proliferation and to monitor the impact of
deregulation on the prevalence of problem gambling, there should
be a limit on the number of machines. If sufficiently tough codes
of social responsibility are devised and after a few years there
is no rise in problem gambling, then this limit could be eased
upwards. It is more effective to deregulate slowly, than to try
to re-regulate after the event.
5.3.2 The rapid, high value, interactive nature of
machine gambling can lead to a gambler losing a sense of judgement
and entering a trance-like state during a gambling episode. We
have concerns about the ways in which casinos may reinforce these
behaviours. Firstly we retain our concerns about mixing alcohol
and gambling, as were expressed in our response to the Gambling
Review Report and to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.
Alcohol makes people gamble more and less wisely. Enabling people
to drink whilst gambling is not likely to encourage wiser gambling
or more responsible drinking.
5.3.3 Secondly the ability to sit in front of the
high value gaming machines with drink and food on hand, an ATM
or machine for "reloading" smartcards nearby, as is
seen in the United States, is only likely to increase problem
gambling, as people lose a track of time and do not need to take
"reality breaks" away from the machine. Food, drink
and access to more money should be situated well away from gaming
machines and tables.
5.4 Fixed Odds Betting Terminals
5.4.1 The recent agreement over Fixed Odds Betting
Terminals (FOBT) will hopefully reduce the impact that these machines
have had on the prevalence of problem gambling. The maximum prize
has been brought into line with Category B machines, the speed
of play reduced, and limits placed on the numbers of machines,
although the size of the stake (at 6 x £15 per play) remains
105 times greater than the maximum for other Category B machine.
However it is not clear from the proposals whether under the new
legislation FOBTs will be brought into line with the limits imposed
by the Category A-D definitions, or whether they will form a "special"
Category B with far higher stakes. This would undermine the Government's
intentions, as FOBTs would not be limited to licensed betting
offices but be available also in bingo clubs, registered clubs
and adult gaming centres.
5.4.2 We would recommend that the opportunity of
legislation is used either to bring FOBTs into line with other
Category B machines, or to create a special betting class of Category
B machine which is only available with a betting licence.
6. Membership
6.1 "Self-banning" is understood to be
an effective way of helping problem gamblers to overcome their
addiction. A gambler can ask a casino, bingo club or website to
prevent them from accessing the premises or games for a set period
of, for example, six months. A gambler cannot later change their
minds when the impulse to gamble over-takes them again. However
if the requirements for membership are to be removed for casinos
and bingo clubs, this will make the implementation of a self-banning
system virtually impossible for the establishments which decide
not to run their own membership schemes. Even instant access membership,
which required positive ID and a record of members, would enable
staff to check against a self-ban register. It would also require
a pause before gambling and so prevent some impulse gambling,
although the 24-hour membership requirement would be more effective
in this.
6.2 We would recommend that membership schemes (albeit
"instant" ones) could in fact be a good way of applying
codes of social responsibility and increasing education about
gambling: for example with smart technology customers could set
their own daily/weekly limits for gambling or receive a receipt
of the amount gambled, won and lost.
7. Local people, planning and licensing issues
7.1 There is a lot of uncertainty amongst some local
communities, especially those such as Blackpool which expect to
be the early target of gambling expansion, about the impact that
the deregulation of gambling will have on their areas.
7.2 Clause 124 states that, in drawing up
their licensing policy, local authorities will have to consult
with those who "represent the interests of persons who
are likely to be affected by the exercise of the [licensing] authority's
functions". Local authorities will be issued with guidance
on exercising of their new responsibilities, and it is crucial
that this guidance emphasises the need to seek the breadth of
opinion in their locality and not only the voices who see new
gambling opportunities as a driver for regeneration. Authorities
should take into account the specific concerns of their electorate.
We would recommend that local authorities are encouraged to under-take
wide-ranging community consultations before drawing up their licensing
policies, along the lines of master-planning consultations.
7.3 Clause 129 defines "interested
parties" (who may object to premises licence applications)
as a person who "lives sufficiently close to the premises
to be likely to be affected by the authorised activities".
We would recommend that in considering planning and licensing
applications, local authorities are required to take into account
the views, not just of those who live in physical proximity to
the premises, but of a wide range of individuals and bodies concerned
with the well-being of the community. This would include residents
within a generous radius, schools, community groups (including
faith groups), any local groups which support problem gamblers
or others with addictive behaviours, as well as statutory bodies
such as social services. These groups should also be considered
when regulations are drawn up concerning giving notice of applications.
7.4 The 2003 Licensing Act does not give local licensing
authorities the flexibility to turn down applications on the basis
that an area is already saturated with licensed premises. We hope
that the Gambling Bill will not follow the same line. Local authorities
should be able to turn down a premises licence application if
there is already judged to be an excessive density of gambling
opportunities. In addition significant public opposition to new
gambling establishments and the proposed location of premises
in the vicinity of children (eg schools or care homes) or vulnerable
groups (addiction treatment centres) should be valid reasons for
rejecting proposals.
7.5 Regional planning authorities will be given a
say in where the new "mega-casinos" will be sited. But
RPA objectives are focused solely around increasing tourism and
regeneration potential. As the mega-casinos will contain large
numbers of high-value machines which are most likely to contribute
to an increase in problem gambling, we are concerned that regional
planning authorities will not be required to have a regard to
the dangers of proliferation in making their decisions. Local
and regional planning authorities should be required to have regard
to the social impact of gambling when considering applications.
8. Research
8.1 The last gambling prevalence survey was carried
out in 2000. It is vital that a new baseline survey is commissioned
by DCMS prior to deregulation, so that the impact of legislative
change on problem gambling can be accurately judged. Further biennial
surveys should be carried out by the Gambling Commission, so the
effect of deregulation can be monitored and any corrective action
taken. Given the lead-in time required for such research, this
is a matter of urgency.
We wish the Joint Committee well in its work, and
would be happy to give oral evidence should we be called to do
so.
Rachel Lampard
Secretary for Parliamentary and Political Affairs
The Methodist Church
December 2003
1 The Methodist Church has around 330,000 members and
6,100 churches across Britain. Back
2
45.7% of first time callers to the GamCare helpline had problems
with fruitmachines, and fruitmachines remain the major issue for
players in the under 18, 18-25, and 26-35 age groups. GamCare
Care Services Report 2002 Back
3
Gambling and problem gambling among young people in England
and Wales, Dr Sue Fisher, 1998 Back
4
23.24 Gambling Review Report Back
5
23.22 Gambling Review Report Back
6
Addiction to fruit-machines a preliminary study among young males,
M Griffiths, Journal of Gambling Studies 6 (1990); Gambling
and problem gambling among casino patrons, S Fisher (1996),
both cited in Gambling and Problem Gambling in Britain,
Orford et al (2003) Back
7
Gambling and problem gambling among young people in England
and Wales, Dr Sue Fisher, 1998 Back
8
Eg Gambling Liberalisation and Problem Gambling, NERA (2003) Back
| 
