In January an Early Day Motion (EDM) was proposed by Laurence Roberson, Conservative MP for Tewkesbury, and seconded by two Conservative MPs – Philip Davies (Shipley), and Bob Blackman, (Harrow East) – and the Democratic Unionist MP for Antrim, Ian Paisley. The subject matter of the motion is that the House is concerned by the “campaign against FOBTs”. As the motion does not mention the
Campaign for Fairer Gamblingor
Stop the FOBTs campaignby name, these politicians are expressing concern about all negative comments and activity relating to FOBTs.
This “concern” encompasses an EDM by Tom Watson MP to reduce the maximum stake to £2; an EDM by David Lammy MP calling for an end to lone staffing and better working conditions for those who work in betting shops; FOBT questions raised in parliament; actions by local authorities who have a duty to enforce the licensing objectives but are declaring they are unable to do so in respect of betting shops; the faith groups that have continually expressed concern over FOBTs; the health professionals referring to FOBTs; the FOBT problem gamblers who are coming forward with their stories and the investigative media reporting of the FOBT issues.
Do these four far-right MPs think that it is "concerning" to see all these democratic activities taking place? These four horsemen are apocalyptically claiming that "any reduction in bookmakers’ profits would have a serious knock-on effect on horseracing". If they genuinely believe that, then they are in effect asking that losing FOBT gamblers should subsidize one of their pet interests, the "sport of kings". Surely no genuine free-market libertarian could possibly support such a position?
As we explain in a letter to politicians who signed a letter to government in 2011 about horserace funding, the decline in horserace betting and the subsequent levy payment is accompanied by an increase in FOBT gambling. The explanation is simple; the bookmakers are converting over-the-counter race and sports bettors to gambling on FOBTs through free tournaments, how-to-play lessons and credits. Why is no similar aggressive marketing being pursued in respect of horse or greyhound racing?
Restrictions on FOBTs would result in some crossover to other gambling activities, with the most likely crossover being back to over-the-counter betting, so enabling growth in the horseracing levy!
The bookmakers did a great job in securing the British Horseracing Authority’s support for the FOBT status quo, by agreeing a deal to give an extra £4.5 million per year. This is not much less than the amount donated to problem gambling research, education and treatment by all gambling sectors, so it's easy to see where the bookmakers’ priorities are.
The proposer of the motion, Mr Robertson, is Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Racing and Bloodstock Industries Group. At Conservative conference last year he disclosed to the Campaign that losing FOBT gamblers are "stupid". It is the disgraceful prevalence of this attitude that contributes to evidence being hidden.
Recent research from Australia showed persons willing to admit drug or alcohol addiction were still unwilling to admit gambling addiction, precisely because they would probably be perceived as "stupid". With problem gambling now internationally recognized as a mental health issue, bigoted out-of-date views and their proponents should be ignored.
Also at Conservative conference, Mr Robertson was invited to a dinner by Ladbrokes - hospitality which he did not need to declare. This is how the bookmakers work, getting politicians to accept irrational arguments whilst they enjoy the bookmakers’ hospitality.
It is certain that bookmakers and their PR firms will to continue to offer fine and vintage experiences to willing politicians. What is the purpose of legislation to control lobbying, if covert lobbying and below threshold reporting of hospitality from commercial interests is allowed to continue?