| GAMBLING was debated on Tuesday afternoon, when a private member’s motion came from Thomas Benyon (Oxford), calling on church leaders to redouble their opposition to the Government’s “astonishing promotion of the opening of casinos”.
Gambling had progressed from being a sin, to a vice, to a pastime to be encouraged, he said, citing a spend of £50 billion on gaming, and government approval for a further 16 pilot schemes for regional casinos. Lottery money had not come back to the poor, he suggested, questioning why the Government had embraced gambling in such an extraordinary way.
A national opinion poll suggested 59 per cent of adults were against an increase in gambling, and against the building of further casinos. It was not just a religious issue, but concerned damage to families, crime, and rising debt. The Government was blind to all but the £2.4 billion it received in tax breaks.
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford) spoke to two amendments aiming to maximise support for the motion. He wanted to change the wording that Synod was “appalled” at the total national spend on gambling to “gravely concerned”, calling the notion of getting something for nothing as “seductive” and the results “catastrophic”. “We must keep at the task of keeping the issue in front of society.”
Dr Giddings wanted to see four clauses added to the motion: endorsing the public opposition expressed by church leaders to the introduction of regional and large casinos, and encouraging churches to participate in local-authority consultations; declaring its support for education and research programmes, and requesting the Secretary of State to introduce a statutory levy on the gambling industry to fund them; calling on the Government to monitor the addictive effects of fixed-odds betting terminals; and calling on the Mission and Public Affairs Council to report back in a year.
The Archbishop of Canterbury was delighted at the opportunity to debate the issues, and was very sympathetic to the amendments. The good will of co-belligerents could be built on, he suggested. Members of the House of Lords had privately acknowledged being ashamed of the Government’s stance.
Stewardship was the foundation of Christian objection to gambling, he suggested. Claims for gambling as a means of regeneration were “utterly ridiculous”: the costs of all factors had to be built in. There was a connection to be made with a paper on mental health, which was to come before Synod.
James Humphery (Salisbury) confessed that his legal firm acted for some casino operators. The majority of adults gambled — that should be openly acknowledged, and an accommodation reached. The majority of those who came to casinos enjoyed the ambience and social aspect. Casinos were subject to tight controls.
He identified confusion in the motion and the supporting paper, most of which was not about casinos. It muddled an abhorrence of gambling with an attack on the modern casino industry. The National Centre for Social Research had reported that 68 per cent of the adult population gambled (down from 72 per cent in 1999), and only four per cent went to casinos. They were a small part of a much wider industry. The survey had also suggested that problem gambling had not increased between 1999 and 2007. The motion failed to consider the moral dimension of how to ensure freedom of choice while respecting the vulnerable.
The Revd Dr Jane Craske (Methodist Church) reminded the Synod that the Methodists had spearheaded the work. The strategy continued to be one of critical engagement with the Government.
The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said that a submission from the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) had suggested that the number and type of gambling facilities had led to excessive and addictive gambling. If religious leaders had said that, they would have been labelled moralists or puritans.
The new restrictions on advertising that aimed to stimulate participation in gambling would be revealed as “toothless and unenforceable”, he said. Sponsorship by gambling companies should not be allowed.
The RCP was also sceptical about warning messages, which had been shown to have had little effect on drinking and smoking. Evidence suggested that gambling took millions away from poor families, and supported the cultural pursuits of the well-off. The Bishop called for churches, professional bodies, and community workers to contribute to an independent review. Piecemeal legislation must be resisted.
Canon Alma Servant (Manchester) had worked in casinos. They were strictly run according to the Gaming Act, but were buildings “dedicated to money” and dehumanising of the “punters”. People diced with family life, even to the point of suicide.
John Davies (Winchester) said that repetitive solo play was addictive, and the number of machines would increase. It was important that gambling trends were carefully monitored. Serious levels were emerging. Only 100 casinos contributed to the existing voluntary levy scheme.
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Nicholas Reade, had originally supported the siting of the supercasino in Blackpool, a development that had promised 2500 jobs that would have relieved “aching poverty” in the town. That was now history, and he was glad that the Government had stepped back from the supercasino concept.
He expressed concern over the increase in internet gambling. The RCP had branded advertising a “recipe for disaster”. He urged support for the motion, with the caveat that “we need to be cautious — rather than giving out the big stick, congratulating the Government for going back on supercasinos”.
Philip French (Rochester) said fewer than ten per cent of gamblers visited casinos, although it was a six-per-cent increase. Three per cent used fixed-odds betting terminals, but the level was rising each year. There were 250,000 problem gamblers, so the concentration should be on the risks to compulsive gamblers.
Mr Humphery intervened to ask whether the debate should be restricted to casinos.
The Revd Jonathan Lloyd (Bath & Wells) said that casinos per se were not the problem, but they way they were operated. He endorsed the call for the Government to make the voluntary levy a statutory requirement. Britain was the only country where children were allowed to use Category D pier machines. He urged churches to engage with local consultations.
Dr Giddings’s first amendment was carried. Speaking to the second amendment, the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Revd Stephen Lowe, said that the Manchester supercasino would have re-sited 1250 machines within 100 yards of the local Asda. It would have “sucked the poor dry”.
The regeneration argument was nonsense: money was taken out of the local community rather than being put in. He warned that the location of bigger regional casinos in place of the supercasino ought to be a matter of concern to all, as it would make the poor poorer.
Janet Atkinson (Durham) could not believe that what Middlesbrough needed — as a town which had improved from being deemed one of the worst places to live — was a proposed “huge casino by the docks”.
Timothy Cox (Blackburn) was not personally persuaded by casinos, but defended the good that a supercasino would have brought to Blackpool. If locals wished to gamble, they already had countless opportunities. It would have been a destination casino, attracting 90 per cent of its visitors from outside the town, and thus paying for regeneration.
The amendment was carried; debate was resumed on the motion as amended.
The Revd Jan McFarlane (Norwich) reflected that the C of E might be being a little hypocritical in objecting to gambling when so many churches were taking advantage of the Lottery fund.
The Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham, the Rt Revd George Cassidy, opposed the expansion of casinos. The original gambling Bill would have left them open to market forces, but was defeated in the House of Lords by 143-140 (there were three bishops in the Lords that day). This had followed a personal and powerful speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and had led to a decision not to proceed with supercasinos.
While opponents were admittedly swimming against the tide, there was plenty of scope for campaigning. Don’t sit back and let unwelcome developments happen, he warned. The ecumenical paper Against the Odds advised churches what they could do. “The trumpet we are trying to sound will encourage other Christians to resist accepting ‘unstoppable’ schemes.”
Canon Kathryn Fitzsimons (Ripon & Leeds) had opposed the supercasino in Leeds, but discovered that her Oxford undergraduate son had been subsidising his student loan by internet gambling. Be careful of taking the moral high ground, she warned. Allies came from unexpected places, she suggested. Working together with bodies such as trade unions brought close relations with casino owners. She would like to see that dialogue extended, so that ways could be found to respond to the evil.
The motion as amended was carried by 258 to 4, with 9 abstentions. It read:
That this Synod, gravely concerned that the total national spend on gaming has risen in each year over the past four years from £4 to £40 billion:
(a) endorse the public opposition expressed by church leaders to the introduction of regional and large casinos, and encourage local churches to participate in local authority consultations on plans for new casino applications;
(b) declare its support for programmes of education, research and treatment undertaken with the aim of checking the growth in problem gaming, and request the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to invoke the powers granted by the Gambling Act 2005 to introduce a statutory levy on the gambling industry to fund such programmes;
(c) call upon HM Government to monitor the addictive effects of fixed-odds betting terminals and to seek an international framework for a code of conduct on internet gambling;
and
(d) call upon the Mission and Public Affairs Council to report back to Synod by February 2009 on measures being taken by the churches to combat the detrimental effects of gambling in various forms. |
back to Synod reports
previous story
|
next story 
.gif "New, nearly new, and used cars for church and charity © site")
