Watch Out

The internet drove a coach and horses through this prim arrangement. Unregulated offshore operators could bypass the restrictions by offering online gambling in people’s homes. By depositing, say, £100 by credit card, people could play virtual roulette, poker and blackjack, with little guarantee that winnings would be paid.

The government had to do something: the offshore operators were not only flouting the rules but escaping tax. The whole issue of gambling disappeared into the alimentary canal of an independent inquiry by Sir Alan Budd, the chairman of the gambling review body, which reported in 2001, and then a joint scrutiny committee, which put forward 139 recommendations. The impartiality of this parliamentary body came under scrutiny last week after it was revealed that all but two of its 16 members had links to the betting industry.

One option for the government was to emulate America and ban internet gambling, which in Britain has been largely responsible for the threefold increase in addiction during the past five years. Yet the government could take action only against British-based operators, which account for only two of the top five websites.

Instead, it has chosen to liberalise online gambling in the hope that offshore operators will join a regulated system that offers gamblers the reassurance of proper controls.

But the fiercest passions have been aroused by the prospect of super-casinos, which critics say will cause an explosion in problem gambling.

These “regional casinos” will be allowed to operate £1m slot machines, restaurants, live entertainment and the full panoply of table games. They will be open for 24 hours, permitted to advertise and offer immediate access to the public.

The government’s mantra of justification is regeneration: Las Vegas-style casinos will attract significant British and overseas investment to seaside towns and inland cities. A briefing document for Labour MPs says pointedly: “Many of these towns and cities are Labour heartlands or Labour marginals that want new investment and jobs for their communities.”

In addition, a host of smaller casinos will operate slot machines offering £2,000 prizes. Establishments such as bowling alleys and motorway service stations will be able to class themselves as “family entertainment centres” and run licensed slot machines.

Many observers are sceptical of Labour assertions that the bill will be “revenue neutral for the Treasury” and the tax benefit is “emphatically not” an objective. There are also doubts over the government’s insistence that no more than 20-40 more casinos will probably be built. The Times recently revealed proposals for 96 across Britain.

The lack of a ceiling on casino numbers worries Bacta, which represents the British gaming industry and fears damage will be caused to the existing multi-billion industry. Tim Batstone, Bacta’s president, said the government was “perverse” to ignore the lessons of unfettered gaming in Australia, where gambling addicts now account for 2% of the adult population and on average lose £4,800 a year. More than 80% of the population gamble at least once a year, losing on average £400.

Nobody is more aware of the effects that compulsive gambling can have on families than Michael Winner, the film director, whose mother lost £8m at the Cannes casino in the 1970s. “To pay for it she sold all the furniture and antiques left to me, and then stole the apartment that was left to me,” he says.

“I was brought up in casinos and would see people ruined. They would enter the room as millionaires and a few years later they would be paupers. When they get into these glamorous surroundings, a large number of people will be sucked in and destroyed with their families.”

Jowell maintains that for the past three years she has listened to faith groups, children’s charities and others to ensure that protections are built into the bill. One vaunted safeguard is to remove gaming machines from 6,000 unlicensed and unsupervised places such as takeaways and minicab offices, thus reducing children’s exposure.

In addition, bingo will be banned in small casinos, which will have compulsory non-gambling areas or “chill-out rooms”. A Gambling Commission, which will replace the Gaming Board, will have powers to freeze, investigate and void bets that seem suspicious, as well as launching its own prosecutions.

Field, however, believes the government has made two cardinal errors. The first was to propose mega-casinos without gauging their effects through pilot schemes. “None of us can know what the consequences in this country are of opening the floodgates to huge gambling casinos,” he says. “If they had said we’re going to have pilots, I think they would have got their bill.”

The second mistake, Field asserts, is the government’s curious timing of the bill, intending to have it on the statute book by the next election. Since Jowell does not expect the first super-casinos to be operational before 2008, the bill will not bring electoral benefits in terms of jobs in stricken seaside communities, but only “raise hostility”, he says.

“There will be a lot of opposition in the constituencies from decent-minded people not enamoured of the big boys of American gambling. I’d be pretty worried if I were in a marginal seat.”

The government will just have to hope this is a punt it wins.