Reviewing the Gambling Review - Part Five - Politics
Campaign for Fairer Gambling
Derek Webb, Founder of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, rounds off his review of the DCMS review into gaming machines.
The title, "Review of Gaming Machines and Social Responsibility Measures - Call for Evidence", is brilliant. It implies that all actions will be evidence based and it gives equal prominence to social responsibility as it does to gaming machines.
The structure requires operators to supply data-based evidence to support their positions. The old Triennial Review was full of DCMS proposals presented as if they were based on facts, whereas this review really is an open consultation.
As DCMS minister Tracey Crouch wanted to do this in 2015, but could not get it past former Chancellor George Osborne, there is a very political background. In the first week after the details of the Review were announced, there was no detrimental impact on bookie share price. Is this because investors have been persuaded by the bookies that they have got the politics angle covered?
The ultimate outcome of the Review will likely have a negative impact on bookie share prices, but no-one should feel sorry for investors losing money on shares in gambling businesses. However, if shareholders have been misled by bookmaker executives regarding the integrity of their socially responsible efforts, then this is a different matter, which could even result in litigation!
There are those who think that Mrs May could call a May 2017 election. Taking care of relatively minor outstanding matters in a way that appeals to her potential voter base is a sensible preparation and last week’s clampdown on estate agent letting fees doesn’t bode well for the bookies.
Party activists and loyalists will be delighted if there is meaningful action, such as an outright ban on all TV gambling advertising. It will be very difficult for any opposition party to oppose this measure, but easy for them to oppose any measure that only has limited effect, such as a pre-watershed ban, which could be perceived as not going far enough.
Similarly, a stake reduction to £2 on FOBTs would not be opposed by opposition parties, but a stake reduction to £10 for example, would be opposed as inadequate and allow claims that government was weak in dealing with the bookies. Furthermore, there is an obligation on DCMS to reach agreement with the Newham originated proposal for a £2 maximum stake under the Sustainable Communities Act.
Labour liberalised gambling as DCMS points out in the consultation, but the focus of that liberalisation was on casinos. This has proved an abject failure with no super-casinos and only a handful of new, small or large casinos. There was never any logic to allowing different classes of casinos with privileges related to slot numbers, whilst at the same time not allowing an increase in the areas permitted to offer casinos through licensing portability. The areas that needed to be fully addressed, FOBTs and remote gambling, were waived through by Labour with minimal oversight and some would say negligent oversight.
It appears that the Prime Minister, Karen Bradley and Tracey Crouch at DCMS all genuinely want to see the best outcome. The appointment of Kate Lampard as head of GambleAware, previously the Responsible Gambling Trust, is also telling, as are her comments in the FT show. Her commendable record would be well known to both Karen Bradley and the Prime Minister.
Whilst one bookie advocate called the review a "stitch-up" as soon as it was announced, it should in fact be called an "un-stitch" - a removal of the corrupting stitched-up influence that bookies have had over parliamentarians for years.
So, does the Campaign see any danger that DCMS will not deliver? Yes - there is a perception that this first review could lead to DCMS proposals, which could be subject to another consultation. But, if this actually happens, how can there be any confidence in the ability of this government to handle Brexit before 2020? Do we really need a Review of the Review?
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.
