Gambling Proliferation
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-03812, in the name of John Mason, on gambling proliferation. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the recent comments made by the former Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman MP, when she said that the previous UK administration had made a mistake by allowing an increase in the number of betting shops on the UK’s High Streets; further notes the study by Professor Jim Orford of the University of Birmingham, which suggests that, on average, richer areas have around five betting shops for every 100,000 people, whereas less well-off areas have up to twelve; believes that many forms of gambling are effectively a tax on the poor; understands that money spent on buying lottery tickets in poorer areas is considerably higher than that being invested back into these communities, and would welcome a review of the legislation on gambling in order to protect vulnerable people in Glasgow Shettleston and the rest of Scotland.
17:05
I thank all the members who signed the motion to enable the debate to take place.
A few years ago, a guy I knew came round to see me late on a Friday night. His partner had been saving up money for a while so that she and the kids could go on holiday—I suspect that they did not do that very often—but he had taken all the money, put it on one horse and lost the lot. He came round to see whether I would lend him the money so that he could put it back before his partner found out.
That is the kind of problem that we are here to discuss. Most of us are quite comfortable putting a few pounds on the grand national or another big event. Bingo and raffles, for example, are quite acceptable to most of us these days, and having a little bit of a gamble as part of social activities can be good fun. However, there is a darker side to gambling, when it moves from fun to addiction, as in the case of my friend.
The Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme in early August was one of the reasons why I lodged my motion. Professor Jim Orford of the University of Birmingham and Harriet Harman contributed to that programme. As a former minister at Westminster, Harriet Harman commented on the clustering of betting shops following the Gambling Act 2005. Among other things, she said:
“If we had known then what we know now, we wouldn’t have allowed this, because it’s not just ruining the High Street it’s ruining people’s lives”.
Many of us will remember that, a few years ago, betting shops were much more closed places. Only adults could go into them, and the doors and windows could not be seen through. Nowadays, betting shops are much more transparent and open. In one sense, that appears to be a positive move. If betting is legal, why should it not be out in the open? The other side of the argument is that gambling has been given much more of an air of respectability. In addition, the national lottery has drawn more people into regular gambling than used to be the case. For many, that is no more of a problem than buying chocolate or some other pleasure in life, but for others it has led to addiction problems that were not previously given such an opportunity.
We must ask why people gamble. It is a bit of fun for some, but others gamble because their life seems hopeless. They think that, if only they could get a big win, it would take the pressure off their life. The topic is therefore linked to the economy, the gap between rich and poor, unemployment and poor wages. Many ordinary people struggle to make ends meet and dream of a magical win that would really change their life.
The national lottery has to shoulder some of the blame for that change. We read stories about ordinary people who have won huge sums of money, but we hear less often that those winnings can ruin lives. We are told how many good causes benefit from their share, but it seems that the net effect is to extract more money from poorer areas, where it appears that more tickets are bought. It also appears that more of the good causes tend to be in the richer areas, where there is the expertise to apply for the grants.
Professor Orford’s study suggested that there would be around five betting shops for every 100,000 people in the average affluent area. I understand from colleagues in Aberdeenshire West—which is, allegedly, one of those affluent areas—that that is approximately the number of betting shops there. The study also suggested that poorer areas would have around 12 betting shops. That intrigued me, as I had the gut feeling that there were more than 12 betting shops in my constituency, so I thought that I would count them over the summer. My constituency does not even have a population of 100,000—its population is probably more like 70,000. There were 31 betting shops for those 70,000 people. Our constituency also has the largest bingo club in Europe.
I am grateful to those who have made an input to the debate, especially Gamblers Anonymous and the Church of Scotland’s church and society council, which gave us comments. Gamblers Anonymous tells us that its membership has increased significantly recently, particularly among young, low-income men who have become addicted to fixed-odds betting terminals. FOBTs, as they are known, were introduced in 2001 and the most common game is roulette. I understand that four machines can make about £2,000 a week, that £123 million is wagered each day in the United Kingdom and that the profit for the gambling companies is some £3.3 million a day. I was struck by a quote that sums up the problem with FOBTs. David Armstrong, a former gambling addict, said:
“You lose your sense of money when you’re on the machines - it means nothing. It’s so quick, you’re thinking just one more spin, just one more - until you walk out and you’ve lost it all.”
Although we are mainly focusing on bookmakers in today’s debate, I want to mention in passing some other, modern forms of gambling that can be a problem. Smart phones now have applications for folk to gamble, and online gambling via the internet is also a huge issue. In a recent constituency case that I had, a guy had won some £10,000 online and the company, which is well known but is based in Gibraltar, made it difficult for him to withdraw his winnings. Temptation proved too much and he gambled the £10,000 and lost the lot. I am not saying that the individual does not shoulder some of the responsibility, but I question whether the balance between the gambling organisations and the individuals who take part has swung too far in favour of the former.
I was somewhat disappointed by some of the things that I read in the briefing that we received from the Association of British Bookmakers. For example, it claims to be part of the retail sector. That is stretching things a bit. Wikipedia’s definition of retail is
“the sale of goods and services from individuals or businesses to the end-user.”
I do not think that bookies quite fit in there. The association also claims that bookmakers contribute £352 million to the Scottish economy. Come on! If that £352 million was not going to the betting shops, it would still be in the economy. It might be paying for food and heating for families that really need those things.
I am conscious that gambling is a reserved matter, but I would be grateful if the minister could comment on a few issues. For example, schools rightly teach pupils about sex, drugs and alcohol, but does the minister agree that schools also have a role in teaching them about the dangers of gambling? Does she agree with Harriet Harman that the Gambling Act 2005 relaxed things too much? Will the minister make representations to the UK Government about possible amendments to the legislation, for as long as it is under Westminster control? Finally, will she press for better regulation of the betting companies, especially those that are based in places such as Gibraltar?
17:12
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the topic of gambling as I agree with John Mason in this instance. There are far too many betting shops in Glasgow and it is clear to me that betting shops are indeed preying on the vulnerable in our society. I am seriously concerned about the number of betting shops that exist and their locations near pubs and ATMs. They are luring new customers, particularly young people, off our high streets and through their doors.
Although I acknowledge that the majority of those who choose to gamble do so responsibly, gambling addiction is a problem, albeit one that is not often discussed. I commend the excellent work that organisations such as Gamblers Anonymous and the RCA Trust do in working with those who are affected by gambling addiction. I am pleased that a question on gambling was included in the latest Scottish health survey and I look forward to seeing the findings when the report is published later this year.
A number of issues need to be raised regarding betting shops, including the safety of their staff. Changes in working practices have meant that lone staffing is now commonplace. Worryingly, workers can be left to work alone in betting shops for hours at a time, often early in the morning or late at night. More than 55 per cent of betting shop workers are women, so there are concerns about how appropriate lone working is for betting shops, particularly as stores that are staffed by one person are more vulnerable to attack. No one should feel frightened to go to their place of work.
In 2008, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Community, the only union that represents betting workers in all the major and independent betting shop chains in Scotland, launched a fantastic poster campaign that was geared towards eliminating violence against betting shop workers and which was highlighted in a motion lodged by my colleague John Park. The campaign achieved cross-party support and did an excellent job in raising awareness of what betting shop staff are subjected to every day.
Community members’ experience suggests a direct link between increasing levels of violence and abuse in betting shops and the proliferation of FOBTs, which make up a rapidly increasing share of the profits generated by high-street bookmakers. Although official police figures suggest that violence and criminal damage in betting shops are falling, that does not reflect the daily experience of Community members and I want to share with the chamber two concerns that the union has raised.
First, Community believes that police authorities are neither gathering data effectively nor recognising that betting shops form a particular usage group that ought to be monitored more closely. Secondly, we know that some major betting shop operators are systematically discouraging the reporting of incidents involving FOBT machines to the police. Two members from two of the major betting chains in Scotland have noted:
“Company don’t want police involved unless staff are hurt”
and
“Company policy not to involve police, apparently due to low conviction rate”.
Betting shop chains provide limited support for staff who have been victims of a violent robbery and many have to return to work after they are threatened with loss of sick pay. Many betting shop workers are subject to regular verbal and physical attacks. That is wholly unacceptable.
We must put more pressure on betting shops operating in Scotland to provide safe environments for their workers and I believe that ending lone working in such shops is a step in the right direction.
17:17
Let me begin with a confession: I placed my first bet before the age of 16. Given that I turn 50 next month, I feel secure about making such a confession, given that the statute of limitations on that misdemeanour has probably come into play. I was able to gamble underage at a particular bookies in Aberdeen because my friend’s mum worked there; from that, I developed a keen interest in horse-racing, as a result of which I spent the August before I turned 18 in Yorkshire taking in the Ebor meeting at York and enjoying a very productive day at Beverley races.
The fact that all these years later I still remember backing six of the eight winners at Beverley is testament to the joy that people derive from successful punting. However, although problem gamblers always tell people when they win big, no one ever hears about the losses. I never became a problem gambler—some might say that I was helped in that regard by being an Aberdonian and therefore too tight to part with too much of my cash—but I retained my interest for many years, especially after moving to Dundee and becoming a regular at Perth races.
Nevertheless, I hardly bet any more. I cannot remember the last time that I placed a wager; upbringing, common sense and other interests probably kept me off gambling’s slippery slope. However, had I been born in this day and age—and especially into a poorer household—I might not have been so fortunate. As John Mason noted, well-off areas in the UK have an average of five bookmakers per 100,000 people, whereas the average in less-affluent areas is 12 per 100,000. Why is there such a discrepancy if there is no underlying drive to exploit the most vulnerable in our society? We are told that less than 1 per cent of society has a gambling problem. However, if we strip out from the statistics the non-gamblers and those who have only a once-a-year flutter on the grand national, we find a sizeable number of people whose lives and the lives of those around them are being impacted on.
Back in the late 1970s, when I was sneaking into the bookies of a Saturday, betting shops were pretty unappealing places. Coverage of the racing was via an often crackling audio-only service and the prices were conveyed over the Tannoy and marked up manually on paper sheets on the boards. As there was not even a toilet in the shop I tended to frequent, only pretty hardened gamblers could stay there for hours on end.
If we fast forward 30 years, we find that the betting shop environment has changed completely. Bookies have become far more adept at getting money out of our pockets. The Association of British Bookmakers states that over the past decade the number of betting shops has remained constant at around 950. Perhaps so—but there has been a sea change in the nature of bookmaking. The wee backstreet bookies have largely gone, swallowed up by chains that now ply their wares on high streets where the clustering phenomenon is all too apparent.
Prior to 2005, bookmakers were generally not allowed to open in close proximity to rivals but, if members have a wander down Leith Walk, they will find two of the majors operating within a shop’s width of each other and, 500m further on, located directly opposite each other. On Easter Road, those same chains have shops no more than 25m apart. The change in the environment within the shops has been just as striking. There are comfy seats and sofa-type seating in some. The shops sell snacks, and one major chain even offers the equivalent of a loyalty card.
The range of gambling opportunities is amazing. If there is no horse-racing on in the UK or Ireland, the shops beam in racing from South Africa or even tempt people to bet on online virtual racing. Banks of screens offer early prices on races and, as somebody mentioned, there are now roulette games on which up to £500 can be won on a spin. It is not only betting shops that entice Joe Public to part with their cash: there are telephone betting accounts, betting in running and spread betting—the possibilities are endless and potentially dangerous to the vulnerable.
On that last point, I welcome the inclusion in the motion of a reference to the buying of lottery tickets, which I take it also covers scratchcards. I confess to being repeatedly disquieted when queueing in newsagents and supermarkets by the sight of elderly folk who have spent relatively little on food buying up to £10 of scratchcards at a time.
It is difficult to tackle the issue. The genie is out of the bottle and, realistically, we cannot go back by reducing the number of shops. I note some of Anne McTaggart’s concerns, but I suggest that, whatever else happens and whoever drives our approach, we need to develop a far more extensive body of research on current betting practices and their impact on the vulnerable.
17:21
I, too, commend John Mason for bringing this important issue to the chamber. As others do, I recognise that problem gambling can be every bit as addictive as smoking or drinking alcohol. It is right for us to acknowledge that it is, in many respects, an illness that is often ignored.
As John Mason said, the social side effects of gambling are often to be seen in our poorest areas and communities, where families sometimes go without basic food and clothing because an individual has an addiction to gambling. His motion draws attention to the comments that were made last month by Labour’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman, who admitted that the previous Government at Westminster had made a mistake in relaxing the gambling laws. That view is also shared by the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett.
That is why I was pleased to read press reports that the coalition Government intends to impose restrictions on the high-stakes gambling machines that allow people to bet more than £15,000 an hour. Those casino-style machines, which are found in hundreds of betting shops throughout the country, have been described as the crack cocaine of gambling, because they are so addictive.
Although I acknowledge that gambling is a reserved matter, I look to the minister to tell us what discussions she has had with her counterparts down south regarding those fixed-odds betting terminals, which often allow users to accrue huge debts because they can stake as much as £100—Graeme Dey said £500—a time on roulette, blackjack or poker.
We would all accept that gambling in small measures is not, in itself, necessarily harmful. Indeed, I am an occasional national lottery player and freely admit that it is a form of gambling. I look back with great fondness to my late aunt, whose devotion to one-armed bandits was said to keep the local golf club afloat—although she would turn in her grave if she were classed as a gambler.
Mr Mason’s considered motion is summed up by its title—“Gambling Proliferation”. He is perhaps right to say that the east end of Glasgow is saturated with bookmakers shops. The fact that there are more than 30 of them in his constituency of Shettleston should be seen in the context of its being, I believe, only 6 miles in length.
If it is true that, as has been suggested, gambling companies are targeting vulnerable people by siting betting shops next to pubs, bank machines and post offices in some of our poorest areas, that is obviously of concern. However, as with most matters, a measured response to a difficult situation is required. We must remember that the gambling industry employs 40,000 people throughout the UK, including 7,000 in Scotland, and contributes around £350 million to the Scottish economy.
I do not think that anyone would want us to return to the old days, when illegal gambling was underground and, therefore, impossible to police. By and large, the industry is responsible. It is regulated locally through the need to have licenses, which can be revoked at any time.
I fully understand the concerns that are being expressed by individuals such as John Mason, many of whom are opposed to gambling for moral, religious or ethical reasons. However, it is a legal activity, although I would not be inclined to argue, as one of my colleagues did, that that it falls within the sport element of my brief.
I believe that the industry is working hard to combat problem gambling through initiatives such as staff training, whereby workers behind the counter are taught how to recognise potential problem gambling behaviour. I also believe that the trade organisation, the Association of British Bookmakers, takes its role seriously.
The debate will continue, but I reiterate that although I understand the concerns that have been expressed by John Mason and the need to keep a very close eye on the situation, co-operation and compromise with the industry represent the best way forward.
17:25
I thank John Mason for securing a debate on an extremely important issue. Although I believe that the occasional flutter is okay, there is a fine balance to be struck between allowing people the freedom to place a bet or have a go at the bingo and protecting vulnerable people in our society from what can, as we have heard, be a damaging addiction.
I grew up surrounded by gambling: the football pools, the horses, cards and—of course—the one-armed bandit, which Nanette Milne mentioned and which is aptly named. When I was a boy—I admit that that was not yesterday—I took bets on the horses down to the bookies for my dad. I am not sure that that was altogether legal. In those days the bookies was up an outside stair above a paper shop. The bet and the money, along with a nom de plume, were handed to a man through a wee window, so at least there was a bit of culture in it. My dad’s nom de plume was “Black Jet” after our jet black cross Labrador-Alsatian, who was my best friend. I therefore know a bit about gambling.
Of course, gambling gives people hope, especially those who are without a faith. Winston in George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-four” was always hoping that his lottery ticket would come up and lift him out of his despair, but it never did. It is a trick that is played on us by Government and big business.
There is nothing wrong with a bit of hope, however someone gets it, but gambling can become a real problem for many people, and it can get a grip before they know it. Bookmakers know that and so do Governments. Recent research has highlighted the staggering proportion of bookies’ profits that are derived from people who have a serious gambling problem. Addiction to gambling not only affects the addict but has, as with addiction to drugs and alcohol, detrimental effects on the people closest to them. We must therefore recognise the damaging effects of gambling addiction on families and move to minimise it.
Research by the Theos think tank suggests that lower-income gamblers spend proportionately more on the lottery than the rest of the population and, I believe, benefit least from it.
As John Mason said, Professor Jim Orford highlights the fact that there are significantly more betting shops by population in poorer areas than there are in more affluent areas. That demonstrates that the poorest areas of our society are, in effect, paying a voluntary tax with a low level of return.
I highlight a new form of lottery that I think is particularly distasteful—the People’s Postcode Lottery. Members might find that strange, but in that model of gambling everyone in the country is entered by default, but must pay to be eligible for a share of the prize if their postcode wins.
Psychologically, that puts people in a similar position to a regular lottery player who uses the same numbers each week and is afraid to miss a week lest their numbers be drawn. The crucial difference, of course, is that in the postcode lottery the pressure to participate and not miss out on the prize exists regardless of whether someone has played before or not. Look at the newspaper headlines: “Get in! We’ve won £10,000 just in time for Christmas!” and “If you don’t enter, you won’t win it!” That puts pressure on people. It is an insidious pressure that works subconsciously and is a step too far. It is past time for another look at how Government and big business are exploiting our communities through gambling. We must tackle the issue. I hope that the minister agrees.
17:29
I thank John Mason for securing the debate. As many members have said, gambling is a reserved matter and the Parliament does not have the power to regulate betting shops. However, as a former councillor in Glasgow, I am aware of local authority licensing boards’ responsibilities in granting gambling premises licences under section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005. There is a strong case for giving local authorities increased powers and more flexibility to limit the number of betting shops in their areas. Gambling might not be a direct responsibility of the Parliament or the Scottish Government, but we are right to discuss it, because it affects our people and their quality of life, particularly when people develop a gambling problem.
The most recent gambling prevalence survey pointed to a number of facts that increase a person’s risk of developing a gambling problem. Of particular interest to me was the fact that people from an Asian ethnic background are three times more likely to have a gambling problem than is someone from a white ethnic background.
The issue is also one of social justice. People who are in poor health are four times more likely to have a gambling problem, as are unemployed people. Those with severe money problems are 12 times more likely to have a gambling problem than are those with no money worries.
The motion refers to Harriet Harman’s acknowledgement that the pendulum has swung too far in respect of the number of gambling premises. Her main concern is about the growth in high-stake rapid-play B2 machines, and I support her call for lower limits on stakes for those machines and on prize pay-outs.
We must take all possible steps to safeguard our communities against the dangers of gambling. As I come from Glasgow, a major issue for me is that some areas have so many gambling shops that social activity is limited and so people feel obliged to gamble.
John Mason referred to the frightening way in which gambling shops encourage customers—especially younger people—to gamble. More and more machines are being used to attract young people, who sometimes mislead themselves into thinking that they are playing a game, although real money is used. They do not have enough resources to start with.
I press the minister to share with Westminster our fears and concerns about the legislation and to ask for the issues that we face in Scotland—and, I am sure, throughout the country—to be addressed. I would very much welcome hearing the minister’s comments and how she can support us.
17:33
Like other members, my instinct is not to come over authoritarian and judgmental about gambling. I have been known to play the odd hand of poker—badly. I have been known to lose the odd few quid on political betting websites. However, I thank John Mason for bringing the motion to the chamber, because the impact of gambling and of the gambling industry—the impact of not a recreation but an industry—has become unacceptable because of its scale, the lack of responsibility that participants in the industry show and the promotion and, as the motion says, “proliferation” of the industry.
The industry is supposed to be regulated under the 2005 act, so I looked back at the debate when we considered the Sewel motion on what was the Gambling Bill and at the reasons why the Greens voted against that motion. In my speech, I pointed out that the first part of the bill set out to facilitate an expansion of the gambling industry and that the second part set out to deal with or ameliorate the problems that would arise from that expansion. The bill was deeply contradictory. I described it as
“a pay-off to the gambling industry for the introduction of better regulation”.—[Official Report, 12 January 2005; c 13405.]
That is exactly what it was.
That fact is borne out by the briefing from the Association of British Bookmakers, to which John Mason referred and by which I was disappointed. The briefing talks about the early history of the “liberalisation” of gambling. The phrase that struck me was this:
“In return”—
for that process of liberalisation—
“our industry submitted itself to increased regulation.”
Well, how magnanimous of it. Government has a responsibility, duty and right to regulate industries that cause social harm. We do not do that in exchange for anything from industry. We do not regulate the alcohol industry or other industries that can cause social harm in exchange for things; we do it because we think that it is right.
Other aspects of the briefing are equally disappointing. It states:
“Betting shops are generally places of community with high regulatory standards enforced by well trained staff.”
What a different picture that paints from the evidence shown by the “Dispatches” programme to which John Mason referred, which is backed up anecdotally by a friend working in our parliamentary group. A friend of his had a summer job working in a bookmaker’s not long ago and could not stomach it for more than two weeks because of the clear impact that its work was having on problem gamblers.
The final point in the briefing that I will highlight is this statement:
“Shop staff is also fully trained to recognise potential problem gambling behaviour, and they also have self-exclusion programmes, where a customer who believes they are developing a problem can bar themselves”.
Would we expect that kind of approach in relation to any other addictive behaviour? We are talking not about a retail leisure industry, but about an industry that is promoting something that creates addictive behaviour. Instead of requiring a pub to decline to serve someone who was clearly intoxicated at the bar, would we say that that that person could sign up to a self-exclusion programme if they thought that they were developing a problem? We simply would not accept that.
The last point that I will address is the comparison with sex shops. The local power exists for a limit to be placed on the number of sex shops in an area—I have much less of a problem with sex shops than I have with the gambling industry—and I see no reason why we could not apply the same power at the local level to place a limit on the number of gambling establishments that are allowed in a community. I welcome Harriet Harman’s comments and urge the minister to put that case to the Government.
I disagree with Nanette Milne’s remark that co-operation with the industry is the best way forward. There is a difference between what she described as illegal and uncontrolled gambling and free-market and uncontrolled gambling. We do not have to think of it as a dichotomy between those two—there is the option of proper regulation in the middle, and that is what I hope the minister will put to the UK Government.
17:38
I am rather astonished by the intimate knowledge of gambling shared by colleagues in this chamber. I have a confession to make: I know next to nothing about the practice of gambling. I know nothing about even the alleged trap of the People’s Postcode Lottery, to which Dave Thompson referred. Gambling is something that I do not get, and I guess that there must be others in the chamber who have not spoken in the debate who are in the same position.
I congratulate John Mason on securing the debate, which is a valuable attempt to draw attention to an important problem. As most members have recognised, gambling is reserved to Westminster and the levers of control lie there. However, the consequences of problem gambling are manifest right here in Scotland—up to and including broken families, suicides and criminality. Both Graeme Dey and Anne McTaggart reminded us of those very negative impacts.
I welcome Hanzala Malik’s comments, which informed us about a differential impact of gambling on different ethnic groups. I was not aware of that. That was an important contribution.
The Government cannot be complacent about the consequences of problem gambling. In March, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice spoke at a conference that was organised by Money Advice Scotland at which those who see the effects of gambling problems every day and those who can make a difference came together with the intention of ensuring that help gets to those who need it.
Constitutional constraints mean that the Government cannot do as much as we would like, but it is important that we at least do what we can to ensure that there is a more widespread acknowledgement of the problem. Scarcely enough effort has been made to quantify and research the scale and nature of problem gambling, never mind to deal with its consequences, particularly given the changes to the industry in recent years.
Although there is anecdotal evidence—as a number of members have mentioned—of problems that are related to fixed-odds betting terminals, it is currently unsupported by detailed research in the UK. I am not saying that the anecdotal evidence is wrong—just that it is not substantiated by research. My impression is that other countries have benefited from far more comprehensive studies that go further in exploring problem gambling, which may offer a response to some of Nanette Milne’s comments.
Will the minister give way?
Yes.
I am sorry—I have taken my card out.
The member is lost for words.
I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer.
I accept entirely what the minister says about the reserved nature of the regulatory powers, but is it within the Scottish Government’s power to commission some of the research that she says is lacking at present?
I suppose that it is possible for any Government to commission research, but one of the difficulties would lie in knowing what we would do with the research if we did not have the powers to act on it. That is a hurdle that cannot be overcome, although I do not doubt that we need more information.
Britain’s gambling industry contributes voluntarily to gambling research, education and treatment, so there is a wider research context, but the UK Government’s decision that it will no longer fund the highly comprehensive prevalence survey is regrettable.
I am concerned about other recent developments south of the border. I find it extraordinary, for example, that the recent House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee report called for relaxation to allow more rather than fewer betting terminals in betting shops. There are some contradictory voices out there.
The 2010 prevalence survey provided data by specific area for the first time, and what it revealed about Scotland is interesting. Scotland had the highest levels of gambling participation in no fewer than seven categories: football pools, slot machines, bingo, fixed-odds betting terminals, sports betting, betting on non-sports events and online betting. There must be concern that that will translate into higher levels of problem gambling.
The wider picture of gambling liberalisation over the past twenty years has been significant. It was right that the 2005 act addressed developments that were simply unimaginable to previous legislators who did not have to consider internet and mobile phone betting, and I fully accept that the act could not put genies back into their bottles. The difficulty of regulating gambling internet sites that are based offshore is not to be underestimated.
I recognise that, as gambling is a widely enjoyed activity—although, as I indicated, I cannot say that I have ever seen the attraction—there is no inherent reason that people should not place their bets using modern methods of delivery. However, I wonder whether the act fully recognised the potential consequences of the all-pervasive nature of gambling in the 21st century, including the advent of 24-hour gambling. People can bet from their mobile while they watch football in the pub, and come back from the pub and power up the computer for a session of poker or switch on a late-night interactive bingo channel. Internet sites are available 24/7, and there are 24-hour casinos available as well as many other options. Graeme Dey’s comments were certainly an eye-opener in that regard.
I have mentioned our limited scope for action in Scotland, but we are determined to do what we can. John Mason asked about teaching in schools. As he will appreciate, I cannot make commitments for the education portfolio, but I will communicate his inquiry to those who are working in that area.
I can confirm that the Scottish Government has already called on the UK Government to fund research, examine specifics such as the clustering of shops and take any necessary action. I am happy to provide an assurance that we will work with the Gambling Commission and others on those occasions where we do have a locus or simply to ensure that agencies work together to ensure better enforcement. As I indicated, the cabinet secretary has already written to John Penrose, the Minister for Tourism and Heritage—who is apparently the relevant minister for this policy area south of the border—in respect of research on fixed-odds betting terminals.
John Mason’s speech reminded me that we should acknowledge the tremendous work that Gamblers Anonymous has done in helping to pick up the pieces.
A wider debate on gambling is certainly worth having, as there are questions to be answered. Are there greater concentrations of betting shops in particular localities? Are those localities in areas of deprivation? Is there an association between the number and location of licensed gambling premises and problem gambling? I certainly welcome the fact that the debate has been opened up. There is no complacency on my part, and I fully recognise that problem gambling is a serious issue that can blight lives. We need to begin a debate on what an independent Scotland can do differently to balance the economic benefits and the enjoyment that gambling undoubtedly brings with a new approach that better mitigates the harm that problem gambling can bring.
Those two things—the good and the harm—must be recognised together. We must consider what we can do now, and what we would be able to do if we had the powers in future.
Meeting closed at 17:45.