Fiona MacTaggart, the Labour MP for Slough, last week landed the following Parliamentary punch on Minister for Sport and Gambling, Helen Grant:
"When research by the Responsible Gambling Trust reveals that a third of FOBT users have a problem with gambling, isn't it time to end the £100 maximum stake, which means that someone in my constituency could spend his whole income in four spins?"
The minister replied:
"The report by the Responsible Gambling Trust endorsed the cautionary approach the Government took in April with the reforms that were proportionate, measured and gave local authorities more power. I will also be meeting with all chief execs of the betting industry in a few weeks to see what more they are prepared to do."
The civil service prepared response was text book “avoiding the question”. Unfortunately for the Minister, she is an elected representative, not a civil servant and gambling policy is not a matter of national security, so there should be absolute transparency and no attempt by government to obfuscate.
The Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT) research did not evaluate the government approach. If the RGT has endorsed the government approach then it has done so without an evidence base.
As Professor
Rebecca Cassidy of Goldsmiths Universitywrites regarding the RGT research launch in December 2014:
"The result of the partnership between the RGT and the industry was a triumph of mutual satisfaction over critical attention. The conflicted, flawed and incomplete was wrapped in pseudo academic trappings and pedaled, virtually unchallenged, to a compromised audience dominated by industry and industry dependent organisations."
The Campaign could not have phrased it better. The government claimed it was relying on this research. Or was that claim a red herring?
The DCMS has provided an
Impact Assessment to the EUof its proposed change, which will require either staff interaction or user account based play for those accessing stakes above £50 per spin. The Statutory Instrument to enable this still to be laid before Parliament.
The Impact Assessment text states:
"....in October 2013, the Government decided not to make any changes to stakes and prize limits for B2 machines and concluded that the future of the machine was unresolved pending further work to explore ‘what precautionary measures might be needed and when.’ In April 2014 the Government concluded this work and announced it would introduce new regulations on a precautionary basis to strengthen player protection."
So whilst the Minister implied in parliament that the government was relying on the research, that she would listen to problem gamblers and that a live terminal would be included in the research, some undisclosed government work was being conducted.
This work did not involve consulting either the Campaign or problem gamblers. It also did not result in a live terminal being used in the research. Maybe the work involved listening to the "stakeholders" – i.e. the bookies’ chief execs - rather than consulting with other affected parties?
This includes organisations such as local authorities, the health service, social services, police services and other bodies closest to the issue of FOBTs and affected by the negative economic and social impact of FOBT problem gambling.
With the Impact Assessment showing the estimated annual negative impact to bookies’ revenues of just 1% of FOBT revenue, but with over
40% of FOBT revenue estimated to be from at-risk gamblers, it is very obvious how inconsequential the £50 proposal is.
It should always be remembered that correspondence between the Gambling Commission and DCMS
related to FOBT stakes in excess of £50was first made public in summer 2013. It is so easy to imagine an ill-informed “Yes, Minister” conversation as follows.
"What is the minimum we could get away with doing?"
"Well minister, £50 sounds good provided it isn’t a real stake reduction.”
"How do we do that?"
"We’ll keep stakes at £100, but add some smoke and mirrors so people think we’ve cut the stakes to £50. Nobody will understand it, not even you Minister.”
The Campaign feels that both DCMS and Ms Grant have not done enough, as the bookie execs are being called in yet again. A few non-stake related proposals that DCMS should insist on, which are not yet in effect are:
- Bookmakers to fully comply with the forthcoming EU money laundering directives
- FOBT research data to be used to identify money laundering behavior
- No single staffing of betting shops
- All damage to FOBT incidents to be collated and made public
With the bookies wanting to claim through their Senet Group that they are socially responsible, how could they possibly object to any of these proposals?