Problem Gambling
Debate between Philip Davies and David LammyWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.
The gambling sector is a highly successful industry in this country, employing more than 100,000 people and contributing more than £1.4 billion to the Exchequer in betting and gambling duty alone. A large majority of the British public enjoy gambling as a leisure activity, with 73% of the UK population participating last year alone, which is an increase of 5% from 2007. In his excellent book, “Gambling: A Healthy Bet”, Patrick Basham finds that gamblers tend to participate more in community and social activities than non-gamblers and donate more to charity. However, for a small proportion—0.9%, according to the latest prevalent study—gambling can develop into a problem that negatively affects their lives.
What we must bear in mind, however, is that 0.9% is a very small amount. Many experts in the field have concluded that the small rise in the number of those with problem gambling in the latest prevalent study may not be a true representation of an increase in problem gambling; it may well be that problem gambling is both better reported and more socially acceptable today and that its true extent is now, therefore, becoming more apparent. Nevertheless, it is difficult to think of any other policy area in which 0.9% of the population affects Government policy as markedly as seems to be the case with gambling.
As with all other forms of addiction, there will always be a proportion of the population who are addicted to gambling. It is impossible to eliminate addiction, no matter how much money, how many programmes or how much treatment is provided. The blame for an addiction should not be placed at the industry’s door, because it is not the industry itself that makes people addicts—it merely offers a service—but the individuals themselves. We should therefore treat the problem, which is the person concerned, and stop attacking the product.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that bookmakers in particular are saturating many of our high streets, particularly in London? Although a few shops might satisfy demand, a proliferation of them and an increase to nine or 10 shops on one stretch of high road can, frankly, only promote gambling and addictive behaviour among the poorest.
Philip Davies
No, I am not. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a bee in his bonnet about this issue, but I do not share his concern. I believe in the free market and the market of supply and demand. If there is not enough demand to meet the supply of those shops, they will close down. I am sure that he would prefer high streets to have betting shops rather than shops that have been boarded over and are ripe for vandalism. I certainly welcome betting shops moving on to the high street when other shops will not.
It is for the reason that I have outlined that I disagree with the premise that the gambling industry should be compelled to fund the treatment of problem gambling. It seems absurd, especially as fast-food companies such as Burger King and Krispy Kreme do not fund research into and the treatment of obesity. I used to work for Asda and I cannot remember anybody saying that Asda was expected to fund treatment of obesity just because we happened to sell cream cakes down one of our aisles. It seems that gambling is treated on a completely different basis from those other industries.
Discussion of the issue also strikes me as disproportionate. The gambling industry’s funding target is set at £6 million for 2011 and £7 million for 2012. In contrast, the Portman Group, another highly regarded organisation, raised £6.3 million between 2007 and 2009 for their trust’s education and campaigning work. Given that the UK alcoholic drinks industry is valued at more than £30 billion, the demands on the gambling sector seem less than fair or consistent, to say the least.
Nevertheless, we are where we are for the time being. Given that the industry is pouring so much money into the issue, and given that it has the greatest vested interest of all in the money being spent wisely and in being successful in reducing problem gambling, does the Minister not agree that it would be fairer and make more sense if it had a greater role in how the money that it gives is spent?
In October 2008, the Gambling Commission recommended the establishment of a new structure to raise and distribute funding for gambling research, education and treatment. The previous Labour Government insisted that if a voluntary agreement was not reached, they would intervene and ensure that a statutory levy was installed. I am interested to hear the Minister’s definition of “voluntary”, because that certainly is not what I understand the term to mean.
As a result, new bodies were created. The GREaT Foundation—Gambling Research, Education and Treatment —raises funds for research, education and treatment of problem gambling by collecting voluntary donations from the gambling industry. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board advises Ministers and the Gambling Commission on priorities of funding, and the Responsible Gambling Fund is an independent charity that was set up to distribute the money raised. In addition, there are three expert advisory panels. Can the Minister explain why we need all of those? Why can the body that raises the money not be trusted also to allocate it? In short, we appear to have a bureaucratic nightmare—not to mention the cost. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board costs about £250,000 a year just to run, which does not give any benefit to those suffering from problem gambling.
Almost half the funding last year was given to a charity called GamCare, which is the leading provider of information, advice, support and free counselling for the prevention and treatment of problem gambling. GamCare has established a responsible gambling code of practice and certification process that have been adopted by many of the successful betting companies. The 11-point code consists of an age verification-parental supervision process, encourages a balanced advertising and promotional message for gambling companies, and allows customers to set a daily, weekly or monthly deposit limit on their gambling accounts.
Other initiatives include a self-exclusion policy whereby customers can close their accounts for six months, after which they must present a written case for why they should be allowed to use their accounts again. Customers can also limit their session times for games or events that have no natural end, which provides them with greater control over their gambling. Employees in gambling companies also receive responsible gambling awareness training, which assists them in identifying the triggers and causes of problem gambling and raises awareness of the relevant support agencies and the policies, processes and regulatory requirements that surround the gambling industry.
Localism Bill
Debate between Philip Davies and David Lammy
Philip Davies
I am surprised at the lack of faith that the right hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) have in their own constituents, because betting shops of course go where there is a demand for them. If there was no demand for them on the high streets in Lewisham and Tottenham, presumably some of them would close down.
Philip Davies
No, because I do not have enough time.
The fact that these betting shops have not closed down indicates that the right hon. Member’s constituents want to use them, which makes them viable. I commend the right hon. Gentleman in particular for leading with his chin on this issue, because of course it was the Gambling Act 2005 that removed the unstipulated demand test. He was not only a member of the Government at the time, but in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which introduced the Act which he now finds so offensive. I hope that the Minister will resist the siren voices from the Opposition Benches calling on him to do something about the general principle of supply and demand, which I hope he, as a staunch supporter of the free market, will stick to.
I want to touch on new clause 7, which I have tabled, which relates to casinos. It would give all 600 local authorities fairly and equally the power to decide whether to allow the licensing of casino premises in their areas. The location of casinos was determined by legislation back in 1972, which identified 53 permitted areas on the basis of population data as it stood at the time and added a number of seaside towns. That information is now woefully outdated and denies many local authorities access to investment and jobs and unfairly constrains and confines legitimate and licensed businesses. Despite the emergence of new towns and new centres of population, there have been no changes at all to those permitted areas in almost 40 years. A casino licensed in an existing permitted area can move premises only within the same permitted area in which it was licensed; it may not even transfer to another permitted area, even if a local authority wants it. Those anachronistic and ridiculous constraints have enabled casinos, ironically given our previous discussion, to be crowded into outdated permitted areas. Through my new clause I do not seek to allow any more casinos in this country, even though I probably would not object to that in principle; the same limit would apply to casinos throughout the country. All my new clause would mean was that casinos were able to apply to be outside the existing 53 permitted areas, if local authorities wanted them. We would be giving every local authority the chance to have a casino in their area, if they want it, rather than sticking to outdated rules from more than 40 years ago.