The Gambling Commission has published its latest update to the Licensing Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP), which are the regulatory parameters and guidance under which gambling providers can operate. The Commission now claims to be “raising the bar on social responsibility” and states that Britain's gambling industry can do much more to make gambling safe.
The concept of social responsibility as applied by the Commission relates specifically to a licensing objective of the 2005 Gambling Act: the prevention of harm to young and vulnerable persons, rather than to the wider concept of social responsibility from an ethical perspective.
The Commission and licensing objective came into force with enactment of the 2005 Gambling Act in 2007. For the Commission to say it is only now raising the bar seems a tacit admission that it has to date failed to adequately regulate operators and makes a mockery of their motto - “keeping gambling fair and safe for all."
Very relevant to Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) – the Commission has called for a public debate on the extent to which anonymous cash-based machine gambling should be allowed to continue, which leads to the wider debate about mandatory card based play on all Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs)
The latest
Commission statistics for 2014show EGMs in casinos, bingo halls, adult gaming centres and family entertainment centres amount to 131,012 with a total revenue of £838 million; an annual profit per machine of £11,000. By contrast, betting shops had 34,436 FOBTs (not including
Northern Ireland) which won a total of £1,565 million, or an annual profit of £45,000 per machine. That’s four times greater than all other Commission regulated EGMs.
It is clear that the primary concern about anonymous staking is within the £2 to £100 bracket permitted only on FOBTs rather than the 25p to £2 allowed on other machines. FOBTs are the gambling industry’s most attractive product for
money-laundersto wash cash. However, FOBT data can easily reveal the extent of money laundering, but has the Commission considered requesting the data to determine the extent of the problem?
The high level of
criminal damageto machines in betting shops is unique to that sector and FOBTs. Other sectors do not experience such high levels of criminal damage to machines on their premises. This is because of the degree of
problem gamblerfrustration with the addictive, sped up roulette content on FOBTs. The numbers of machines and extent of damage can easily be obtained from the two main suppliers by the Commission and this should be published as part of their annual statistics.
The Commission says operators’ employees must be able to “supervise customers effectively on gambling premises” and “have arrangements for identifying customers who are at risk of gambling-related harm, even if they are not displaying obvious signs”. But the Commission gives no strong steer on how operators should comply with this nor how it can be effectively measured especially in betting shops which are now, predominantly lone staffed.
However, the Campaign believes that the new conditions have not “lifted the bar” on “Think 21”, despite calls to raise it to age 25. Nor does it look like the Commission has the stomach for a fight with the bookmakers on mandatory pre commitment on FOBTs. Instead they have bought in to the bookmakers’ proposal for a mandatory choice on whether to pre commit.
It must be very disconcerting for the other sectors, which do not operate FOBTs, do not engage in lone staffing of premises, do not see high levels of
Police call outsto their premises and are rarely the victim of
high level money laundering, to see the Commission’s new proposals resulting in tougher conditions on them and the potential for widespread introduction of mandatory card based play at £2 and under per spin! Does the Commission plan to extend its regulatory arm to pubs and social club machines as well?
The other sectors are no longer just privately concerned at the toxicity of the betting sector and its impact on them; they are now publically condemning the “
corporate mafia” that defends one of the country’s most addictive gambling products.
Yet the Commission is still refusing to acknowledge that stake reduction on FOBTs from £100 to £2 will have a greater impact on reducing harm to young and vulnerable persons than any other single measure, other than an outright ban.
It is all very well proposing future debates that will take years to resolve. There needs to be an urgent public debate about FOBT stakes today and politicians of all political parties and from all regions should make clear where they stand in the run up to the General Election.