“There is no doubt that Fixed Odds Betting Terminals cause harm and hardship in communities across Scotland,” read the SNP manifesto, published on Monday this week. Their proposal is to “control the growth and impact of these machines.” This was preceded by Scottish Labour promising to use the powers offered by the Smith Commission to “stop the spread of FOBTs.”
Both the leading political parties in Scotland now recognise the harm and social damage caused by the £100 a spin high street casino machines. But it is not clear from their respective manifesto proposals whether they understand that it is the high stakes that are the problem, not the quantity of machines.
According to the
Gambling Commissionbetting shops house 34,436 FOBTs operating at £100 per spin, whilst amusement arcades (Adult Gaming and Family Entertainment Centres) house 80,107 machines of various categories, all capped at £2 per spin or less. Yet Gamcare, a counselling and support service for problem gamblers, reports that
43% of all contacts they receive come from betting shops– with just 3% from arcades. The Campaign believes that it is no coincidence FOBTs are only found in betting shops on the high street and are cited by a third of all callers as problematic.
_______________________________________________________________________________
RELATED CONTENT
International news from the FOBT suppliers
Support for action on FOBTs across the political spectrum in party manifestos
_______________________________________________________________________________
So it isn’t the quantity of machines that is the problem, it is the high staking capacity combined with the apparent targeting of
poorer communitiesand
immigrant communitiesby the bookmakers. So even if Scottish Labour and the SNP achieve their aim to “control the growth” and “stop the spread” of FOBTs, Scotland will still have over 4,000 FOBTs contributing to the negative Gamcare statistics. Attempting to curb the proliferation of FOBTs was the aim of the last Labour government when negotiating a Code of Practice with the bookmakers. We had less than 16,000 across the UK then.
The leader of Scottish Labour has already expressed his opinion on FOBTs in an interview with the
Scottish Sunday Mail, in which he said: “I want to see a change in the maximum stake. People betting a couple of pounds a time would be a lot more sensible, rather than blowing all they have in a gambling spree lasting a few minutes.” Yet a couple of months later the Scottish Labour manifesto has failed to make this call, or one for the regulatory power over stakes on gaming machines to be devolved.
Roulette, the most popular game played on these high speed, high stake machines, is a numbers game and the two main parties in Scotland look set to play a numbers game with the quantity of FOBTs, rather than the volume of social and economic harm caused by even a single machine. As our latest FOBT estimates published last month show, there are an average of nine problem gamblers per machine.
The SNP has gone a step further than their opponents and are calling for “full responsibility for the regulation of gambling”. If their aim is to establish Scotland’s own regulator, it would not be wise to look to the current UK Gambling Commission as a model to base it on. We have written extensively on the failings of the UK gambling regulator recently, pointing out their “
tacit admissionthat they have to date failed to adequately regulate operators and this makes a mockery of their motto - keeping gambling fair and safe for all.”
With all the party manifestos now published, we have commitments from the Liberal Democrats and UKIP to reduce the stakes on FOBTs. Westminster Labour has given the bookmakers a warning note that local empowerment could see FOBTs removed from betting shops and the Conservatives have, as expected, said nothing.
Helen Grant, the DCMS minister responsible for gambling, is at risk of
losing her Maidstone and the Weald seatto Liberal Democrat and Stop the FOBTs supporter Jasper Gerard.
Will the next government retain DCMS, and if so retain gambling under DCMS? Will it continue to rely on advice from the Gambling Commission? How can there be any justification for not granting Scotland control of gambling when Northern Ireland already has that? How can the 93 local authorities, with their responsibility to enforce the 2005 Gambling Act objectives, be denied the FOBT stake reduction to £2 that they are demanding?
Rumour has it that Sajid Javid has already appointed the successor to Jenny Williams, the Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission. Has news of the announcement been delayed until after the general election because the appointment may be controversial? The FOBT debate is about to get even more interesting.