Is the new Gambling Bill a good thing?

Yes......says Ryedale MP John Greenway, head of the House of Commons joint committee on the new Gambling Bill.

THE scare stories in some sections of the press have focused on the suggestion that as a result of the changes proposed in the bill Britain will become the Las Vegas of Europe. That is not going to happen.

The fact is that the gambling laws in this country are more than 40 years old and, unless we do something, the less reputable parts of the gambling industry are going to continually think up new ways for people to lose money.

There has been a massive expansion in gambling turnover in recent years that relates mainly to gambling on the internet. This is completely unregulated and there is evidence that children and vulnerable people are losing money that they can ill afford to lose.

The fact that this problem is hidden does not make it less serious. If anything, it makes it more serious.

The Bill will aim to create a framework for the UK gambling authorities to better regulate gambling sites. There is a sense in which you cannot regulate the internet, but there are a lot of bona fide sites that are prepared to be subject to a strict code of practice which, for example, will ensure that the people gambling are not under 18.

There is also concern about the regulation of gambling machines - so-called 'slot machines'. At the moment, you can find these in cafes, fish and chip shops, mini-cab offices. There has to be greater supervision and enforcement on access to these machines by people under 18.

The Bill creates a new offence of enabling children to gamble in places where the law says they should not. The Bill says children will only be allowed to play amusement with prizes machines in licensed premises or family entertainment centres.

There are other areas where the Bill will tighten the rules on gambling, in the case of lotteries, for example. Lotteries will only be permissible where they are for 'good causes', such as hospices.

To enforce these new laws and regulations, the Bill creates a new gambling commission with stronger powers of enforcement to ensure that children and vulnerable people are protected, and powers to clamp down on illegal advertising.

The Bill also acknowledges that there are people who do have gambling problems. It therefore creates a Responsibility In Gambling Trust, to which the gambling industry is contributing £3m, and to which the Government can require it to contribute more. The Trust will support gambling charities, provide support and help for people who may have gambling problems, and carry out research into gambling.

These are all good, sensible measures. Where concern has been expressed is about the so-called liberalisation of rules on casinos - so that there will be new 'super casinos' with 24-hour, immediate access and unlimited jackpots.

At the moment, casinos are only permitted in areas prescribed by law - in Scarborough for example, but not in York. That will not be the case under the provisions of the Bill. However, the idea that there could be a casino in every high street is palpable nonsense.

Firstly, under the provisions of the Bill, it will be local authorities that will issue licenses. Any local authority will have an absolute, cast-iron, unappealable right not to issue licenses to casinos if it does not wish to.

So Ryedale, for example, could resolve to say we don't want casinos in Ryedale. That will be their right.

Secondly, the bigger casinos will need to get a regional licence before they can open. To get this, they will need to be of a minimum size, conform to regional planning strategy in terms of their location, and demonstrate that they will contribute to the economic regeneration of the region.

It is envisaged that these casinos will be part of major leisure developments with sports facilities, swimming pools, theatres and so on. This is the justification for allowing them. But local authorities will still have the absolute right to refuse to issue licenses.

In my view, more work needs to be done on the gambling Bill. But there has been a rapid expansion of gambling in areas where it is not regulated by existing laws, and it is very important that we bring the law up to date otherwise the less reputable operators will continue to think up ways of exploiting the present law's inadequacies.

No......says the Rev Keith Himsworth, Methodist superintendent minister of the York South Circuit.

THE problem the Methodist Church has with gambling is that there are winners and losers. Those who win, win at somebody else's expense. Those who lose are encouraged to believe they will win next time.

For this reason, gambling can be addictive. It can creep up on you, so that you start off with low-level stakes and it grows from there. I think the belief that gambling is also somehow immoral, that you should earn your bread by the sweat of your brow, is perhaps secondary to this worry.

Personally, I don't understand why people gamble. I assume there is the belief that you could win a great deal for very little; and also I think it is something to do with excitement, with taking a risk, in the same way as when young men drive very fast, or middle-aged, grey-haired men buy big, powerful motorcycles.

The problem with the new Gambling Bill as I understand it is that there is a real risk it could lead to an increase in gambling, particularly of the addictive sort.

The Methodist Church has made its position on this very clear. Rachel Lampard, the Methodist Church's secretary for political and Parliamentary affairs, has said that what the church is particularly concerned by is the potential eruption of "mega casinos", within easy reach in every major town, offering up to 1,250 slot-machines with limitless stakes and prizes.

Unless the numbers are tightly controlled, she said, this measure threatens to increase the number of people who are damaged by gambling exponentially.

The Government has repeatedly said that the proposed Gambling Bill is about providing protection for the vulnerable and preventing a rise in problem gambling. Yet the Methodist church believes the proposals threaten an explosion in the most addictive forms of gambling.

In this country there has always been something a little amateurish about gambling. The worry would be if big, professional organisations such as those in the US, where gambling is almost a science, were to set up here. We will have to wait and see, but could we end up for example with a situation where you have a hi-tech, portable casino, next door to the racecourse? You could lose your shirt on the horses, then cross the road and lose your trousers in the casino.

The Bill makes great play of the fact that it would make possible greater regulation of slot machines in chip shops and so forth. But why can't they do that anyway, without the sop of allowing big new casinos? Why does it have to be one or the other?

The Salvation Army has made this point.

"The problem is that one half of the Gambling Bill claims to offer protection against problems that will be created by the other half," its public affairs officer Jonathan Lomax said.

The Salvation Army also points to an NOP poll it commissioned which showed that 93 per cent of the British public think there are already enough opportunities to gamble.

"There are only two real winners that will benefit from the liberalisation of gambling laws - the gaming industry through massively increased profits, and the Government through increased taxation," Mr Lomax said. "The big losers will be the vulnerable people whose lives are ruined by gambling addiction."

The final word should go to our own president, the Rev Will Morrey.

"We the Methodist Church fear that the valuable protections offered in the Gambling Bill will be undermined by the likelihood that it will increase the hardest or most addictive forms of gambling," he said. "We urge the Government to proceed much more cautiously to prevent an explosion in the number of problem gamblers in Britain."

Updated: 10:57 Thursday, October 21, 2004