FOBT self-exclusion and DCMS self-delusion
Campaign for Fairer Gambling
The Campaign for Fairer Gambling calls into question the concept of self-exclusion of gamblers from betting shops and doesn't believe it is as effective as cognitive behavioural therapy offered by the NHS, which it believes now must be properly funded.
Self-exclusions are unique contact opportunities between operators and gamblers. Usually, the gamblers have already experienced harm to such a degree that they have been able to admit it to themselves and admit it to others. Provision of treatment at this point is the most valuable outcome.
However, as the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board (RGSB) recently admitted in a consultation paper:
"The adequacy of available treatment and its consistency across the country therefore remain unresolved questions."
This is a toned-down assessment of comments in the report “Gambling: the Hidden Addiction”.
And again quoting from the RGSB consultation:
" ...gambling-related harm should be regarded as a public health issue..."
The treatment offered by Gamblers Anonymous and Gamcare is understood to be relatively ineffective compared to the cognitive behavioural therapy that is offered by the UK’s sole NHS Clinic.
Therefore, the onus is on operators and the gambling establishment to be lobbying the NHS for treatment provision. Sadly, the focus to date has been on the PR exercise of promoting the notion of "responsible gambling", which actually reduces the likelihood of NHS involvement. The first casualty of that failure fell last week with the resignation of Ron Finlay as Chief Executive of the Senet Group.
The nationwide casino SENSE method that uses facial recognition technology has set the gold standard for self-exclusion in the UK, and a similar digital model is being trialled by amusement arcades. The bookies, with the highest record of self-exclusions, breaches and unidentified breaches have not been willing to do enough and are the only sector holding on to a paper based system that has been found wanting since it was introduced.
Their proposed roll-out of area-wide self-exclusions will face the same familiar challenges with single staff relying on memory and poor photographs. The eight out of ten failures in the BBC testing of the Medway pilot scheme proved this conclusively.
DCMS relies on the Gambling Commission to introduce measures through Licensing Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCPs), but the track record is that the breach of LCCPs never results in dismissal of staff or meaningful fines.
The LCCPs could have required nationwide electronic self-exclusion, but even though the schemes are national, they only have to be locality based. However, the Commission is not willing to advise operators of the definition of “locality” or what kind of radius it should have.
The electronic method that includes face recognition, works for any size of area but paper based systems are more likely to fail as the larger the area is, the more photos of faces there are for staff to recognise, making breaches more likely. The only real benefit of self-exclusion as it currently functions, is where subsequent breaches are prevented. The bookies have opted for the method that is most likely to result in breaches.
One laughable aspect of the current responsible gambling agenda, is that according to Gambling Commission Chief Executive Sarah Harrison, trying something new and failing should not be criticised, as at least it involves trying. The reality is that each minor step is used as an excuse for “re-evaluation”. The DCMS £50 threshold evaluation is a perfect example of an ineffectual measure being used to delay appropriate action.
Another beneficial aspect of an electronic self-exclusion scheme is that it can be joined to marketing to prevent email and text messages that encourage gambling. In fact, electronic self-exclusion from betting shops could easily be linked to self-exclusion from remote gambling and vice versa. As evidenced in the recent Paddy Power case, the bookies have much experience in chasing problem gamblers and there is justifiable suspicion that the bookies are just paying lip service to the new LCCPs.
Prevention of harm to the young and vulnerable is one of three 2005 Gambling Act objectives. So it is time that DCMS and the Commission make this the priority, rather than prevention of harm to the reputation of gambling.
Furthermore, single staff in shops may also be put in personal jeopardy when trying to ban a breaching self-excluder. Staff are also not incentivised to recognise self-excluders. Once the FOBT maximum stakes per spin are reduced to £2 though, there will be far fewer betting shop self-exclusions. DCMS must be delusional if it thinks that the Gambling Commission sticking plasters on the problem, can cure the FOBT cancer.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
