The Campaign for Fairer Gambling explains self-exclusion
Campaign for Fairer Gambling
Self-exclusions are unique contact opportunities between operators and gamblers. For it to work the gamblers will 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." The RGSB then go on to say," ...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 cognitive behavioural therapy as offered by the UK’s sole NHS Clinic.
Therefore, the onus is on operators and the gambling establishment to be calling upon 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 using 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 lacking 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.
The DCMS relies on the Gambling Commission to introduce measures through Licensing Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCPs). But the track record is that breach of LCCPs never results in dismissal of staff or meaningful fines.
The LCCPs could have required nation-wide electronic self-exclusion but even though the schemes are national, they only have to be locality based. But the Commission is not willing to advise operators of the definition of “locality” or what kind of radius it should have.
The electronic method including face recognition works for any size of area, however, 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.
According to the Gambling Commission Chief Executive, Sarah Harrison, trying something new and failing should not be criticised, as at least it involves trying, however, 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. With the bookies being experienced at chasing problem gamblers, as in the recent Paddy Power case, there is justifiable suspicion that the bookies are just paying lip service to the new LCCPs.
Furthermore, single staff in shops may be put in personal jeopardy when trying to ban a breaching self-excluder and 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 less betting shop self-exclusions.
For further information about the Campaign for Fairer Gambling and its Stop the FOBTs campaign, please visit www.fairergambling.org / www.stopthefobts.org
