The Lib Dem peer, Lord Clement-Jones, enjoyed a second reading debate on his Gambling (Categorisation and Use of B2 Gaming Machines) Bill recently. The intention of the Bill is to reduce the maximum stake on B2 machines (FOBTs) from £100 to £2 per spin. Opposing the Bill on the behalf of the Government, was the Conservative peer, Earl of Courtown.
Interestingly, the Earl has an elected hereditary status from the family line of centuries of peerages in Ireland. Irish bloodstock, horseracing, bookmakers and betting shops are all surviving, despite the Irish Government’s refusal to allow FOBTs. In fact, Britain is the only country in the world that allows £100 per spin roulette in betting shops.
Paddy Power, based on the strength of its Irish business, was able to make successful inroads into the UK and online gambling, leading to a recent merger with Betfair. A genuine and honourable former Paddy Power executive, Fintan Drury, recently
came out against FOBTs and the damage they are causing not just to individuals and communities but to the reputation of the bookmaking sector.
Paddy Power had recently been exposed by a
Gambling Commission investigation , and profiting from the
proceeds of crime , failing to investigate FOBT money laundering and
exploiting a FOBT addict until he became homeless, were the noted infractions.
Investigative research by the Campaign, which was
reported in the Guardian , revealed that Paddy Power shops in the UK are targeting areas of high ethnic mix. Young males of minority ethnic origins have been identified as one of the most vulnerable gambling groups.
Lord Lipsey tried to explain this away by claiming that bookies target deprived areas and that those areas will have high rates of minority ethnicity. However, the percentage of Paddy Power shops that are in the high minority ethnicity areas is nearly three times greater than that of Coral.
All shops historically targeted working-class areas, but since the advent of FOBTs, it is the FOBT demographic that drives shop location. Paddy Power, being the newest UK entrant has been more able to target the FOBT demographic. That is precisely why
Paddy Power has the highest profit per FOBT .
The Earl claimed that the Government was "open-minded" about FOBT stakes, but was unable to provide the date for the overdue Triennial Review of Stakes and Prizes. He also claimed that exchanges are ongoing in respect of the Newham Sustainable Communities Act submission to reduce the FOBT stake to £2. However, he failed to advise the House that government is duty bound under the Act to try to accommodate this submission.
He claimed it was prudent to consider the findings of the DCMS Evaluation of the £50 threshold measure. However, the Evaluation details the government’s position on their policy, so unless DCMS is waiting for the Campaign’s analysis of the Evaluation, the Government has already made its position clear.
He even referenced the bookies’ 2014 Code,
the failings of which have been well documented . The updated 2015 Code has hardly changed from the discredited 2014 Code, and the Association of British Bookmakers has refused to provide a document explaining the changes.
The Earl ended his litany of excuses for doing nothing about FOBTs with the following astounding comment:
"Making changes to B2 stakes now would tie the Government's hands when trying to produce a comprehensive strategy"
The Earl offered no evidence to justify this statement, no description of what the comprehensive strategy was and no proposed date for the introduction of the strategy.
The anomaly of stakes over £2 on the high street arose because the unregulated bookies introduced FOBTs illegally. The 2005 Gambling Act’s legitimatisation of FOBTs as “B2s” was probationary on the condition that there was no evidence of harm, with the provision to reduce the stake to £2 if there was such evidence.
Research has shown that reducing the stake on gambling machines is the only effective measure for reducing harm. Bringing FOBTs into line with gaming machines in arcades and bingo halls at the £2 maximum, could form part of a comprehensive strategy, but the Earl did not advocate such a measure. Instead, it was government FOBT waffle as usual.