Bell Pottinger recently issued a press release entitled “Survey finds gambling industry acknowledge need for strong exclusion standards for problem gamblers”.
The release was sent on behalf of the Responsible Gambling Trust, based on a survey document entitled “
Self-Exclusion as a Gambling Harm Minimisation Measure in Great Britain”. It was conducted by the Self-Exclusion Group of the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board (RGSB) and the Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT).
The release featured a statement by Marc Etches, CEO of the RGT, which included the following text: “This project shows that the gambling industry has the appetite to look at itself and ask what more it can do to improve the way it looks after problem gamblers.”
The reality is that the most significant change in the way the gambling industry could improve the way it “looks after” problem gamblers would be through significantly increasing funding for treatment. The current minimal voluntary funding level, advised by the RGT as being acceptable at 0.01% of revenue, has resulted in treatment services being “underdeveloped, geographically patchy or simply non–existent” as explained in
Gambling: the Hidden Addiction.
The most telling response in the survey related to the principle of imposing penalties on operators in the event of a breach of self-exclusion. Responses from 20 of the 22 operators surveyed were divided:
• Three responded that penalties already applied in the licensing conditions
• Four responded that penalties were unfair as appropriate technology is not available
• Five responded that penalties should apply for willful disregard only
• Eight believed that no penalties should apply
This clearly shows a very weak operator appetite for compliance with a stringent self-exclusion regime.
The 88 page survey document has a glaring omission. It does not include, reference or append the self-exclusion statistics as
published by the Gambling Commission.
Betting shops are the source of around 67% of all self-exclusions, with the remaining 33% coming from casinos, arcades and bingo combined. Comparing 2012/13 with 2008/09, betting shop self-exclusions have doubled and known breaches have quadrupled. The ratio of known breaches to self-exclusions in betting shops is now at a staggering 74%. All these facts are missing from the RGT survey.
These same facts are also missing from a related document from the RSGB also just published entitled “
RGSB
advice to Gambling Commission on self-exclusion". This might as well be titled "Gambling Commission advice to Government", as the Commission appoints the RGSB and relies heavily upon its advice in order to advise the DCMS.
Neither of the RGT or RGSB documents give any details of public concerns over self-exclusion policies, or the many pieces of anecdotal evidence showing its failures. Alex Woolliscroft from Stockport had to
plead to be excludedand went to the extreme length of appealing to the newspapers. Failures in corporate responsibilities toward customers under the current
self-exclusion programme were being voiced in court within two years of its introductionand an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism declared self-exclusion was not the solution. One FOBT problem gambler said: “
they’re impossible to police, these self-exclusions – the forms just get put in a cupboard and left to gather dust.”
If the dismal betting shop statistics had been considered, then the following concepts could have been discussed regarding betting shops:
• Are betting shop activities more addictive than activities at other venues?
• Is the betting shop demographic more vulnerable than in other venues?
The RGSB document explains that the Self-Exclusion Group has "fulfilled its remit" and been disbanded after creating a document that omits the pertinent facts and ignores explaining the details of public concerns.
Chris Bell, ex Ladbrokes,
a company found lacking in social responsibility controls, is an RGSB member. Another RGSB member and a member of the Self Exclusion Group is Russell Hoyle, a special partner at Vitruvian, which owns Inspired, one of the two FOBT betting shop machine suppliers. The Campaign invites these individuals to self-exclude from the RGSB.
A few questions that arise from this are:-
• Why does the RGT need Bell Pottinger, not known for representing charities, to run its PR operation?
• Why did both the RGT and the RGSB documents not contain the current facts about self-exclusion?
• When will the Gambling Commission start imposing meaningful penalties for breaches of the licensing objective of
preventionof harm to young and vulnerable persons, which must surely include breaches of self-exclusion?