The text of last week’s DCMS annual review highlights clearly the “head in sand” approach of this government towards Fixed Odds Betting Terminals.
In recent weeks, Labour MPs Steve Rotheram, Paul Farrelly and Jim Sheridan have all sought answers from the government as to how exactly the issue is being tackled. Mr. Rotheram drew particular attention to the
93 local authorities that have signed up under the Sustainable Communities Act to demand a FOBT stake reduction to £2 per spin.
Answering on behalf of DCMS was the Secretary of State Sajid Javid, who has been very quiet so far on the subject of gambling. During the course of the questions, Mr Javid kept repeating the word "evidence”. However, he was unable to cite the exact evidence DCMS relied on to support the proposals for staff intervention or user account play to gamble. Nor was the logic for this approach only being implemented on spins at £50 or above mentioned. Despite these interventions, it will remain exceptionally easy to bet up to £100 every 20 seconds.
Where is the evidence that this would have any meaningful impact on the quantity of harm to vulnerable FOBT gamblers? His department’s Impact Assessment of the £50 threshold,
as we wrote earlier this week, the Campaign believes the research lacks a thorough evidence base. We find the evidence it does contain, is contradictory to say the least.
Labour MP Gerry Sutcliffe mentioned his role as trustee of the Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT) and implied that FOBT changes could have a negative impact on jobs. The former Labour DCMS minister, who also did nothing to deal with the FOBT issue when in power, does not appear to have read
NERA’s comprehensive assessment of potential job losses and shop closures.
FOBTs are
job destroyers not job creators. Whilst bookies are promoting FOBT gambling to the detriment of horserace gambling, FOBT numbers and profits are growing as betting shop staff numbers steadily decline. Far more jobs would be created in the wider economy if FOBT losses were restricted by a stake reduction to £2.
Lib Dem MP John Leech asked the most relevant questions. He mentioned the RGT research, which DCMS originally claimed it was relying on. This research indicates that four in five of those who bet an average of £13.40 or more per spin are problem or at risk gamblers. But Mr Javid now wants to delay acting on that research evidence, preferring to assess the impact of the new £50 threshold, which will not come into effect until April at the earliest.
Mr Leech asked how many local authorities it would take before DCMS would think there was an issue which warranted a more thorough review. The best Mr Javid could offer was: "We are always listening. If more local authorities want to contact us with their views that would be a very positive step." 93 Councils have already contacted the Secretary of State calling for a £2 cap. It’s already the most widely supported Sustainable Communities Act initiative. How many more does he need?
As ever, on any issue that might hurt the bookies, the "noisy man" of the Conservative Party, Philip Davies MP, rose to their defence. Mr Davies, who
has a history of taking hospitality from the bookmakers, asked the most and longest questions compared to other MPs.
Mr Davies used the term "evidence" as frequently as Mr Javid and referred to the DCMS committee, which took a non-evidence based recommendation to allow more FOBTs onto our High Streets in 2012.
Enough FOBT evidence has been compiled by
the Campaign: document after document substantiates our call for a £2 cap and it is all publically available on
our Evidence page. Of course, some of the documents were
Campaigncommissioned, but parties doing this work cannot expect on-going funding relationships, unlike gambling researchers doing work for the RGT. Also,
the Campaignhas no commercial motive, contrary to the bookies’ desire to protect their £1.5 billion annual FOBT revenue.
With a quiet man in charge of Helen Grant and a noisy man shouting out for the bookies, DCMS and the Tories are as solid as melting ice-cream when it comes to dealing with FOBTs. The Iron Lady would not recognise these people. The Tory Party of today is a pro-FOBT Party, a Fob-Tory Party.