Are we gambling with our nation’s well-being?

A supplement published this week in the New Statesman gathered a collection of contributors to look at the government’s announcement on gambling regulation, player protection measures and what needs to happen for 33,000 plus fixed odds betting terminals (FOBTs) to be considered anything less than a high street menace.

With 70% of the publicwanting restrictions on high stake gambling machines that generate over £1.5bn each year, the facts and figures that have given FOBTs a bad reputation were met with a predictable government position, penned by Helen Grant. Stating that: “The government message couldn’t be clearer: it’s time to put player protection and social responsibility at the heart of the industry” and going on to say: “A successful gambling industry mustn’t be at the price of public protection”, the responsible minister set out the government’s bland response to the problem of FOBTs.

In opposition, Labour MP Clive Efford suggested that the government’s sentiments were “too little, too late” and recommended “the machines should be removed until they are proven to be safe”. This is in more in line with the thinking of the Campaign for Fairer Gamblingwhich is struggling to see how much more evidence the government needs to be presented with to act definitively. A stake reduction to £2 rather than the £100 max would curb usage and minimise the detrimental social and economic impacts of FOBTs, as 40% of FOBT revenue comes from “at-risk” gamblers.

The Salvation Army’s Gareth Wallace spells out the cost to Britain’s High Streets, providing real life examples of lives destroyed by the increase in betting shops and payday lenders - and challenges politicians to stand up and empower local communities.

An academic view point is provided by Linda Hancock and Jim Orford, who question whether FOBTs are beyond regulation and spell out major problems resulting from four FOBTs being permitted per shop. These include failing local authority powers, associated crime and money laundering activity and not least, risk of harm to those who can least afford it. Paul Bendat further strengthens this argument from an international perspective, providing a warning to bookmakers to learn from Australia’s “Pokie” problem.

Local councils are starting to fight back and Nick Small tells his story from Liverpool, where a motion to ban FOBTs has been passed in Merseyside. However it’s not then clear where the responsibility lies to enforce the solution. Even the casinos are now on the case with the Hippodrome’s Simon Thomas telling us to “stop pretending there’s no problem” and urging the bookmakers to address the theoretical, empirical and experiential evidence against the machines and stop relying on the pro-smoking lobby line of “no causal link”.

So are we gambling with our nation’s well-being by allowing FOBTs to remain on high streets in their current form? Read the full supplement on our website for more information.