Tobacco tactics and the FOBT responsible gambling strategy
Campaign for Fairer Gambling
The Campaign for Fairer Gambling questions some of the research that has gone into the upcoming DCMS triennial review of stakes and prizes.
The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board (RGSB) recently published their new three-year strategy. Whilst on the surface this represents an idealistic departure from previous strategies in terms of rhetoric, for it to have credibility, it must be incorporated into the RGSB’s terms of reference. If not, it is simply another document with the right words but little substance.
The RSGB is appointed by the Gambling Commission, which is in turn appointed by the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS). The RGSB advises the Commission, which in turn advises DCMS. Unfortunately, the RGSB has relied on research by the Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT). As DCMS claims to trust the Commission and the RGSB, then in effect, DCMS is trusting the RGT – which remains the subject of an inquiry by the Charity Commission after its Chair was found to have lobbied for the bookmakers whilst the RGT commissioned key FOBT research.
The new strategy rightly implies that innovation may lead to increased levels of harm. However, to investigate the impact of new products, any research that is commissioned must focus on the products. There also needs to be a comparative benchmark of the levels of harm of current products that future products can be measured against.
The RGSB failed to provide adequate oversight of the RGT when research into FOBTs was commissioned. So the new strategy is to a large extent trying to close the stable door after the FOBT research has bolted.
The RGSB appears to admit the failure of that research with their latest proposal related to product characteristics and environment, for which they plan to convene a meeting of relevant stakeholders to discuss the “precise research questions which such a programme could most effectively address”.
When looking at the international evidence base, maybe the RGSB should start with the evidence showing that FOBTs have a fourfold correlation with problem gambling. This robust independent Harvard research by itself should be enough to justify a FOBT stake reduction under the precautionary principle. The RGSB has yet to explain why it does not agree.
The Commission also needs to explain why despite being aware of this evidence in 2010, it did not advise the RGSB of its existence until after the Campaign for Fairer Gambling brought it into the public glare in early 2013. The Commission also needs to explain why it did not advise a CMS Committee looking into gambling in 2012 about this evidence – a committee that went on to recommend lifting the cap of four FOBTs per betting shop before one key MP was discredited for his contribution.
It is worrying that the RGSB is placing so much emphasis on the development of algorithms, particularly in respect of FOBTs. There is no evidence of their effectiveness other than for marketing purposes, and the RGSB even acknowledges “possible limitations”. The RGSB still appears determined to delve into every possible alternative to that which would be immediately effective – reducing the FOBT stake.
Amusingly, the new strategy claims it will address the issue of FOBTs separately. The Campaign has heard rumours that RGSB advice to the Commission and to DCMS regarding FOBTs was drafted a few months ago, but with an April date.
Another Commission document that is rumoured to have been drafted a few months ago relates to money laundering risk analysis across different sectors. Are the red high-risk warnings on betting shop money laundering preventing the green light on that document?
There has been no indication yet from either government or the Local Government Association (LGA) that there has been any progress under the Sustainable Communities Act (SCA) negotiations to reduce the FOBT maximum stake to £2 a spin. There has also been no progress on a date for publication of the DCMS triennial review of stakes and prizes. Government cannot claim a delayed triennial review of their own creation is a valid excuse to progress their negotiations with the LGA, on what was the best-supported submission ever under the SCA.
The RGT research on FOBTs was published in 2014. Neil Goulden, ex-Chair and ex-Chair of the bookies’ trade body, the ABB, claimed it would “put an end to the myths” around FOBTs. Marc Etches CEO of the RGT said: “Our understanding of these machines and the way people use them is now greatly enhanced”.
But the bookies’ voluntary measures have been found to have been ineffective. No evidence was found from an evaluation of the government’s £50 threshold measure that it helped players stay in control, and bookmakers have been found severely lacking in their approach to social responsibility.
The bookies are using "tobacco tactics" to deny FOBT evidence and delay the inevitable stake reduction. The "responsible gambling community" including the bookie-funded Senet Group, the RGSB, the RGT and the Commission all seem happy with a strategy that helps the bookies delay action.
Meanwhile, the number of FOBT related suicides is rising. When will this "responsible community" find a conscience and try to wash the blood off its hands?
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.
