News
Salford Seminar
7 May 2008
Minimising the Distress caused by Excessive Gambling, is the title that has been assigned to this address. I shall of course, in deference to the politicians present here today, endeavour to answer the question which I wish you had asked and to which I have carefully prepared the answer. Sadly, I suspect that the Gambling Act 2005 has failed to live up to the optimistic expectations of almost every sector of the industry. At various times during the Bill process differing parts of the industry thought that their star was in the ascendant only to be disappointed a few days later. Today, the smoking ban, together with increased taxes and licence fees, the removal of some categories of machine and the general economic gloom have caused wide spread depression in the Gambling Industry. In this climate, the demands for funding of the problem gambling charities are even more unpopular than usual. When times are good, many operators positively welcome the opportunity to give generously to an organisation such as GamCare, as it helps, among other things, to mitigate the adverse press that gambling often receives, but when cutbacks need to be made, expenditure of this nature can often be either curtailed or resented. The resentment is entirely understandable. What does the operator get for his donation to the problem gambling charities? Not a lot: in many cases the operators are not even thanked. So why do they have to go on giving? There are three answers. − Operators have to demonstrate social responsibility and a donation to a gambling charity, or an organisation such as Salford which sponsors serious research, ticks the box. − Donating to a charity which deals in the treatment of problem gambling can also give you that warm glow that comes from knowing that you have contributed to the betterment of the lot of mankind, though this may not be the thought that is uppermost in the mind of operators as they reach for their cheque book. − Thirdly, and more seriously, only the most short sighted of operators wants to take large quantities of money off a problem gambler. He brings down the wrath of the already hostile press on every section of the industry. Spotting a problem gambler before he gets in too deep is beneficial to everyone. It is highly commendable that so many operators put their staff through proper GamCare training as an integral part of their social responsibility programme. A number of gamblers will always slip through the prevention net and for them there must be treatment available and, most importantly, it must be known to be available. There is no point in having fine treatment facilities for anything unless everybody who may ever need them is aware of their existence and how to access them.
Does treatment work? Unequivocally, yes. A number of problem gamblers, as with other addicts, heal themselves. Those who seek help have already done a great deal of the counsellor’s work for him simply by acknowledging the existence of the problem. Thereafter our counsellors have a very good record of success, as year-on follow-ups show. The recent and much acclaimed Harvard co-morbidity study (much acclaimed, because it appears to be an extensive piece of genuinely independent research with findings that are of use) tells us that 60% of problem gamblers are relatively easily curable by early intervention and treatment and that the remaining 40% are pretty tough nuts to crack. If we managed to cure the 60% in the UK we would be down to 120k problem gamblers by the time of the next Prevalence Study, which would be a magnificent result. Sadly the 60% stock constantly replenishes with new arrivals and some of them, of course, replenish the 40% stock. Realistically, the best we can hope for is for the problem gambling stock to remain roughly constant. This pattern has been demonstrated in many other jurisdictions, but in order to remain stationary you have to paddle like hell. By the way, such good quality research has been sadly lacking in the UK. There has been research: the Henley report, the Hall Aitken report, the Abb report to name a few, but as Professor Collins frequently reminds us, it always important, when evaluating a piece of research, to know who paid for it. Without belabouring the point, we have not seen any truly significant, independent research in the last five years in this country. We must make the best possible use of the resources we have available, and cooperation amongst all the interested parties is essential. As an example, a study is now in progress which is a joint venture between Manchester Metropolitan University, the Salvation Army, National Debtline and GamCare. The purpose of the study is to evaluate what proportion of serious debt problems are caused by gambling, how to spot it and how to stop it. We all decided that this piece of research was important and went ahead together despite funding having been refused from other sources. These interested parties represent only a part of the community that needs to be involved. The intelligent members of the gambling industry are acutely aware of the necessity to keep gambling healthy and perceived as entertainment and not danger. To attain this, problem gambling must be kept to as low a level as possible and the industry itself must be seen as a vital part of the campaign to keep gambling safe. It is very easy for the public mood to turn. On a related subject, last week the Chief Constable of Northumbria advocated a total ban on booze advertising and a price hike to levels which would make getting drunk unaffordable. The Gambling industry has only just acquired the right to advertise, but we should not forget that 1960 turned into 1968 and I am absolutely sure that the industry has no desire to see that kind of reversal again.1 1 A reference to the liberalisation of gambling in the UK in 1960, through the Betting and Gaming Act. Around 1000 casinos were established in the first five years following the Act, but many were linked to criminal activity. Consequently, more restrictive legislation was introduced by the Gaming Act 1968. This was then repealed by the Gambling Act 2005.
I will be looking for proposals which are crystal clear about the roles and responsibilities of all players in the system, whether Government, regulator, fundraiser, distributor, provider. Experience has shown that without this we get misunderstanding, duplication and omission. I believe very strongly that the way forward here is to separate roles: distinguish strategy from fundraising, from distribution and from service provision, and respect those dividing lines. We then need proposals which − have very clear lines of accountability; − minimise bureaucracy and overheads; − are overseen and run by well-informed people respected for their knowledge, expertise and authority, who are above sectoral and political factionalism; − guarantee funding at the right level and the right time, so that service providers can plan with confidence for the long term. I will be interested to see the Commission’s assessment of the right level of funding: it clearly needs to be much more than is currently coming through; − draw that funding from the wide range of businesses which benefit from gambling; − assess effectiveness by looking at outputs, not inputs; − encourage co-operation rather than competition between providers: expertise and resource are scarce; let’s not waste effort on unnecessary competition and bureaucracy. I am confident that the Commission has grasped these issues and will come forward with ideas to make it work. Yes, I know we are committed to more consultation. But the more that Jenny and her team can do to bring certainty and urgency to this process of reform, the more chance I believe we have of delivering for problem gamblers and their families. The longer uncertainty continues, the more we are all letting these people down. Therefore, I believe there is a great responsibility on the Commission, and the Minister, to seize this opportunity. There is also a clear responsibility on the industry as well. One way to guarantee funding is to introduce the levy. The industry clearly does not want that, we at GamCare prefer the voluntary route, and I believe the Commission and Ministers do too. But it is in the industry’s hands to deliver an alternative. I believe that the challenge is for them to show how they will guarantee – and I mean a cast-iron guarantee – that they will deliver whatever is needed, every year, on time. If they want equity between businesses, they need to say how they would deliver that. If they want to get funds in from non-licence holders, then they need to have a professional approach to fundraising.
How do we minimise harm, and maintain a deservedly good reputation for the gambling industry? I am delighted to say that the Gambling Commission has started an extensive consultation process and review to find how we can together best achieve this. I am looking forward to hearing what Jenny says about the next stage of the review. GamCare welcomed the review when it was announced. It is timely and gives us a real opportunity to learn from the experience of the last few years, and to put in place a system that really works. I say that, because it is clear to me that the system at present isn’t working. For example, an announcement was made last week that the fund raising target of £3.6m had been reached thanks to the last minute intervention of the “big three”. This worries me on several fronts, not least that it appears to fall short of the original target. This style of fundraising is both inefficient and inequitable, and impacts on both perceived integrity and accountability and practical forward planning. Why should the ‘big three’ repeatedly have to perform a bail out? Is it healthy that the ‘big three’ might appear to have influence proportionate to the size of their donation? Should two thirds of the industry be permitted not to contribute? How can the organisations in research, treatment, prevention and education, who have been told that adequate funding will be provided, plan their business when there is no certainty at all of any funding? Despite the generosity of the ‘big three’, for which we at GamCare are of course grateful (we assume we shall benefit through funds allocated to us), the overall sum is relatively modest when compared either as a percentage of GGR or the situation that obtains in other jurisdictions. New Zealand for example has an £18m budget for a population of just over 4.25m. We must do better. Similarly, I think there is a real lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities in the current system. Who is accountable to whom? Where is the lead on strategy from Government? All of this creates a situation which fosters tension and duplication. Again, we must do better. In our response to the first round of the Commission’s consultation, we in GamCare did our best to go back to a blank piece of paper and to think the thing through from first principles. I hope that this has helped Jenny and her team. We certainly found that our thoughts seemed to resonate with many others when we discussed our ideas with them. So, I hope you will find it useful if I set out, briefly, the criteria GamCare will be using to judge the Commission’s proposals when they come out next week. First, I think the objectives of the system are quite clear. We need a system which delivers a sufficient and dependable flow of funding from the industry and professional, efficient and effective services of consistent quality, available across the whole country, and easily accessible to all who may need them.
Fundraising is not that difficult if it is done properly. We have talked about widening the net in order that others who benefit financially from gambling may be encouraged to contribute, Our chief executive, Geoffrey Godbold, has already separated one of the major banks from a five figure sum, I do not intend to reveal the name of the bank nor the precise sum at the moment. My point is that, capable and persuasive as Geoffrey is, he did not have to work too hard to obtain these funds. It can and should be done. Given sufficient and dependable funding, what will GamCare deliver? The first point of contact for GamCare clients traditionally has been the telephone Helpline, and this remains the case, but an increasing number of, particularly online, gamblers now seek help online. The Helpline is of great importance. It provides information and direction of every kind. Only a small percentage of our callers end up in GamCare face-to-face counselling, but we help each and every one of them in some way or another. The national Helpline is a contentious issue and I do not propose to use this day as a platform for my views on this subject. But, however and by whomever the Helpline is run, it is vital that the person answering the telephone can advise properly any problem gambler, or their family or friend, in distress. It takes a lot for an addict of any kind to summon the nerve to seek help, so we must not let them down when they do. GamCare does now and will continue to deliver a professional and comprehensive service. We will continue to supply face-to-face counselling, telephone counselling, online counselling, and staff training. Addressing specific groups, we are running projects in the Chinese Community, and in prisons, and we have debt counselling groups. We will shortly commence our Certification Programme, a project organised jointly with Salford and with the NHS, represented by Dr Henrietta Bowden Jones, head of addiction at the Royal College of Psychiatry. We are also involved in a number of research and education projects. The wealth of knowledge that we accumulate on a daily basis from our clients all goes toward improving the quality of the service we provide and helping to make gambling safe and enjoyable. As Chairman of GamCare I am justly proud of the service we offer. The wisdom and expertise of our Trustees – two of whom, Peter Collins and Andrew McIntosh, are sharing this platform with me today – and the experience and professionalism of the executive team, led by Geoffrey Godbold, is, I believe, second to none in the world. Through all of our difficulties, we strive to remember that people in trouble turn to us and rely on us. We must not let them down. I hope everyone here will help us deliver on this pledge.