The four corporate bookmakers: William Hill, Ladbrokes, Coral and Paddy Power, claim to be acting on behalf of the gambling industry to promote responsible gambling. But social responsibility extends to far more than just how gaming is conducted.
The corporate bookmakers have been lobbying to prevent betting shops being included in the EU's 4th Money Laundering Directive, having already been excluded from the 3rd Directive. The 4th Directive would require customers who are wagering more than £1,500 in one day to be identified. The bookmakers claim the average FOBT gambler only loses £7 per session - so why would this be a problem for them?
As identified to DCMS and the Gambling Commission, the actual FOBT transaction data can be used to identify shops where money laundering is prevalent. The Campaign looks forward to learning if any research has been conducted on this, in order to inform the Prime Minister's "proper look" at FOBTs, when the research is released in December.
A far more serious issue is the lack of reporting of criminal damage to FOBTs. The bookmakers deter staff from notifying the police, so local authorities are unable to identify the level of crime in betting shops. This helps to protect premise licenses.
It would be very easy for the Gambling Commission to collate and publish all damage to FOBTs, as there are only two suppliers licensed by the Gambling Commission that service the machines. Yet the Gambling Commission asserts that this is just property crime - and their role is to be concerned with gambling crime.
It is certain, however, that the vast majority of machine damage is caused by problem gamblers frustrated because they have fallen into the trap of FOBT addiction. With FOBT damage providing strong evidence of FOBT problem gambling, the bookmakers’ willingness to hide this evidence is the strongest sign of an irresponsible sector, weakly regulated by the Gambling Commission. At present, it seems the Gambling Commission is failing to enforce the licensing objective of prevention of harm to the young and vulnerable.
Another aspect of social irresponsibility is a desire by the remote (online) gambling operators to avoid paying the point of consumption tax on gambling. Historically, they have got away with this by locating offshore in jurisdictions such as Gibraltar. The Government recently passed the Remote Gambling Act, relating to advertising and licensing, in conjunction with a move by the Treasury to apply the 15% point of consumption tax.
Although a judicial review has failed, the Gibraltar trade association had been able to file a High Court action against the Government; claiming that the measures to control the licensing and advertising of operators doing business in Britain is not focused enough on player protection and is primarily concerned with raising taxes. A second High Court action against the tax itself has now been filed.
If the Act had been more strongly constructed to protect players, these loophole actions against Government could not have any merit. It is a black eye for the Government that the parasitical offshore sector has been able to delay implementation of the Act to control advertising and licensing by one month already.
With new UK licensing requirements wanting to restrict UK licensees obtaining funds from “grey” markets, there have recently been a few changes in the remote gambling world, including Senet member Ladbrokes pulling out of Hungary, Norway, Switzerland and Canada. A Ladbrokes spokesman reportedly claimed that “There are a lot of markets that are a grey area on a legal basis.” Of course no one ever forced Ladbrokes to enter those markets.
Senet Group member William Hill is supporting the proposal that there is no pre-watershed advertising of remote gambling offers. At the same time William Hill recently became the official betting partner for soccer teams Aston Villa, Crystal Palace, Southampton and Swansea City. Does William Hill really think that pre-watershed and in-match brand advertising does not have any impact on young or vulnerable persons?
Maybe the Senet Group is not about social responsibility at all, but just about creating the illusion that if a body claims to be a responsible gambling body, somehow gambling will also become socially responsible.
We hope that the persons being interviewed for the Senet Group understand that they are not being asked to fulfil social responsibility positions. They are being asked to help the bookmakers convey the impression that they are in favour of individuals “gambling responsibly”.