Will Chris Evans MP catch FOBT toxicity?
Campaign for Fairer Gambling
The Campaign for Fairer Gambling writes that Chris Evans MP needs to fully grasp the impact which Fixed Odds Betting Terminals are having on vulnerable gamblers and how this can be reduced by better regulation.
Chris Evans MP was recently invited to speak at the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) Annual General Meeting (AGM). He subsequently wrote an article on PoliticsHome's Central Lobby entitled, "We must now change the terms of the gambling debate", which the ABB also re-tweeted. So this means that the bookies must like what Mr. Evans is saying.
As Private Eye reported recently, lawyers, Schillings, acting for the ABB, wrote a legal notice to media editors and legal departments which included the following text:
"Further, any suggestion that our client is encouraging problem gambling or not taking all the necessary steps to protect gamblers against falling into gambling addiction would be wholly untrue and highly defamatory, such that publication of those allegations would be likely to cause our client and its constituent members harm."
Could anyone make this up, other than the bookies and their lawyers? The bookies want a debate so long as anyone saying anything to criticise them faces the threat of legal action!
Mr Evans says it is unfortunate that FOBTs dominate the gambling debate and claims that there are some who argue that if these machines were banned, then problem gambling would come to an end. The Campaign is not aware of anyone who would ever make such a statement. Mr Evans - who are these "some"? As FOBTs are the most harmful gambling product, FOBT stake reduction from £100 to £2, which the Campaign advocates, will not eliminate problem gambling, but it would significantly reduce harm.
Therefore, focusing on FOBTs does not do problem gamblers a disservice, as Mr Evans claims. FOBTs are the most addictive form of gambling and create higher total losses by problem gamblers than all other licensed bricks-and-mortar gambling activities combined. Furthermore, the government has the immediate power to reduce FOBT stakes, without new legislation, so it is essential to focus on FOBTs. If the government is unwilling to tackle FOBTs, then it will never tackle the bigger picture, which would require new primary legislation.
Mr Evans uses the old chestnut that problem gamblers are "likely to use as many as eight different gambling activities" as if this is an excuse to do nothing about FOBTs. It is the degree of use and harm per activity that is relevant. Campaign consultant, Matt Zarb-Cousin, gambled at various activities but was only addicted to FOBTs. Relapsing FOBT addicts always relapse with FOBTs. Saying we should do nothing about crack cocaine because some users also use marijuana is laughable.
Mr Evans states he wants a debate including gambling sectors other than bookmakers, the NHS and the anti-gambling lobby. There is no purpose in having any anti-gambling representation at a gambling regulation debate, just as there is no purpose in having libertarian anti-regulation representation. The Campaign for Fairer Gambling could take part as it is not anti-gambling.
The bookies made it clear at their AGM that they want other gambling sectors to come to their rescue and join the debate on their side, which would delay any action on FOBTs. In respect of arcades, bingo halls and casinos, that is not going to happen. The only sector that might make the mistake of siding with bookies is the remote gambling sector, based on bookie influence over it. The remote sector has its own issues though, so why would it want to volunteer to be in the firing line?
Yes, the NHS must get involved. Gambling addiction is a mental health issue. There should be adequate GP awareness, provision of cognitive behavioural therapy, supported by appropriate drugs such as naltrexone and where needed, residential treatment. When Jeremy Hunt (who is now in charge of the NHS) was Shadow DCMS Secretary in opposition, he identified the dangers of FOBTs but did nothing when in power at DCMS. He should address this now by arguing for dedicated NHS funding for gambling addiction. Maybe Mr Evans should also contact Luciana Berger MP, Shadow Minister for Mental Health, to get this moving.
Mr Evans spoke at the bookies’ AGM extolling the virtues of sector employment and the tradition of bookmaking. He seems to forget that FOBTs actually destroy jobs. As FOBT revenues rise, betting shop staff numbers decrease. Neither are FOBTs part of the betting shop tradition – in fact, they are destroying that tradition.
Mr Evans did not mention the proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act (SCA) for a FOBT stake reduction from £100 to £2 per spin. Local authorities have a legal duty to enforce all three licensing objectives, not just prevention of harm to the young and vulnerable. They are concerned about all FOBT related issues, including money-laundering and crime on premises, and abuse and violence towards staff. The Government has a legal duty under the SCA to come to an agreement with this proposal.
Local authorities have been relatively quiet on FOBT issues recently as they are trusting the Government will act in good faith. But if the Government denies this proposal, FOBT toxicity levels will increase dramatically. As Mr Evans has chosen to lie down with the bookmakers, he could easily catch a dose of toxicity himself.
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.
