“The policy objective is to assist people who use category B2 gaming machines to stay in control of their gambling behaviour” writes Helen Grant MP, Minister responsible for gambling, when trying to convince Europe that her only action so far against FOBTs is going to achieve this.
So long as FOBT gamblers keep losing (the average annual estimated loss per FOBT gambler is now over £1,500 per year) and so long as the gamblers think they are in control; is the minister is happy?
An Impact Assessment was recently published by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) assessing secondary legislation. This proposed a £50 staking threshold on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs). Any amount above this £50 limit will require users to interact with staff or sign up for loyalty card tracked play. The assessment states that a positive outcome of this measure is “that higher staking customers will benefit from more conscious decision making”.
Yet of the 85% of current £50+ FOBT gamblers that DCMS predict will continue to stake at those levels, the document states: “While the intention of the policy is that customers will make better informed decisions about their gambling as a result of increased interaction and access to better information, it is not possible to accurately predict what impact this will have due to uncertainties in predicting player behaviour”. As a result DCMS decided “not to attempt to quantify these impacts in the analysis”.
DCMS predicts a £17 million per year decline in FOBT revenues (about 1%) as a result of the measure. The DCMS proposal, one they have been
developing since 2013when they sought data from the industry, is to encourage high staking players (£50 or above) to sign up for “account based play” or be forced to “remote load” their cash or card deposit via the service counter. This means an “interaction” is required. DCMS says: “there is evidence which indicates that regular interactions can give players a reality check”.
In betting shops, remote loaded credit has been in operation since 2004. It was devised to speed up the process of getting cash into the machine, rather than having to load note after note into a mechanical note reader. Consequently, players are predisposed to lose their money faster. A second benefit for the bookies is that it facilitates the use of debit cards to load cash onto FOBTs.
The evidence that DCMS refer to in support of the use of remote loading also says: “Some research has suggested an association between problem gambling and remote loading” and suggests further research to “clarify the potential relationship”.
But what remote loaded credit does help to prevent is money laundering. Could this be the principle driver behind this measure, not the protection of the vulnerable? A £50 threshold combined with staff interaction and the loading of money remotely, rather than discreetly into the machine, would have helped to prevent the
biggest ever incident of money launderinguncovered last year. However, it probably won’t change attitudes within the betting operators themselves, who have been known to hide the
relationship with criminality that these machines have brought into betting shops.
The Campaignbelieves DCMS should be supporting the inclusion of betting shops in the European 4th Money Laundering Directive. Protecting the vulnerable should be an objective in its own right rather than doubling up as a tactic to prevent money laundering.
Yet DCMS wants to push through this measure and force players to remote load because it will help them make “better informed decisions”. How does a gambler become better informed or more conscious by having to go through a minor extra motion to bet over £50? And once they have the user account set up, will there be any meaningful interaction?
The £50 threshold also overlooks the recent Responsible Gambling Trust analysis of regular betting shop customers and FOBT players – the backbone of betting industry land based revenue.
Based on regular players who had already signed up to loyalty cards, the research revealed that
one in three exhibited signs of problematic gamblingand that four out of five staking at £13.40 or above exhibited the same characteristics. That is £37 under the proposed threshold. These players will not be subject to card sign up, remote loading requirements or staff interactions.
The Campaignhas
responded to the obvious weaknesses in the DCMS proposalpreviously, but the Impact Assessment has brought more concerns to the fore. DCMS is gently stroking the bookies with a light touch measure and refusing to consider the enormous negative impact the social and economic consequences FOBTs have on society. Helen Grant, Sajid Javid and the Tory Party will be going into the General Election with no credibility or competence when it comes to dealing with gambling.