We need a sensible approach to gambling policy whatever the makeup of the next Parliament.
Everyone agrees that gambling is a morally and socially contentious issue. It is also fertile ground for campaigning local and national politicians to work with. Witness Parliamentary exchanges where it has to be said that the debate is relatively fact free, but big on anecdote and righteous indignation.
In 1961, farsighted politicians such as the then Home Secretary “RAB” Butler determined that gambling was better provided by licensed and regulated operators; as opposed to illegal suppliers. Such thinking gave rise to legalisation of betting shops. These principles hold good today.
When a betting shop, which services a local estate closes, it is not long before an illegal bookmaker is to be found in the local pub. Just take a look at what happens in Northern Ireland on a Sunday where there is a strong sporting calendar, but betting shops are closed!
Even in areas where some politicians argue that there are “too many” betting shops there are still illegal gaming machines in the back rooms of cafes and social clubs. The provision of illegal poker games (above stake and prize limits) remains a real issue as the line between the regulated and non regulated sector has been blurred.
I have never had any faith in the doctrine which suggests that limiting regulated supply stops demand. That is pure theory and not a reality in inner city areas.
Betting shops profits have been relatively flat for a number of years. What has changed over the last decade or more is that greater revenues have come from gaming machines and football betting as interest in horserace and dog race betting has declined. Betting shops have had to remain relevant for customers; many of whom are part of a technology generation. Even the likes of the National Lottery in its monopoly position has had to adopt; with its growth now being provided by scratch card sales and online “instant” games.
Land based gambling demand will always be there. Indeed it provides significant central taxation (for social allocation) and in the case of the National Lottery indirect funding for grass roots sport.
The commercial gambling industry understands that whilst the level of problem gambling in the UK is low by international standards (and probably falling) that there will be a relatively higher percentage of problem gamblers accessing all gambling services. In fact research shows that most problem gamblers use multiple products. That is why, rather than driving gambling underground, it is important for politicians to create a framework which reflects reality and allows for licensed and regulated operators to meet demand. At the same time operators should be identifying and interacting with addictive, problem and at risk gamblers and signposting them into counselling and treatment services.
The other important element is to provide clear customer information about gambling products and the provision of tools to allow gamblers to control their own behaviour such as “set limits” functions on gaming machines and “self-exclusion”.
The betting industry have now made a strong commitment to promoting responsible gambling, providing data for independent research and being part of the solution. This includes a commitment to setting self regulatory standards through the Senet Group. This is a complex issue which could be made worse- not better- by a sweeping political gesture.
Of course there will be some who will maintain that limiting supply, limiting stakes per se or closing betting shops is the answer. However when on applies logic, historical experience and objective analysis to the issue then solutions, which are tantamount to a return to prohibition, are not the answer.
There are no votes in liberalising gambling, but there is also major downside risk in over regulating or prohibiting it.
Andrew Lyman, Head of Public Affairs and UK Compliance, William Hill plc