The Gambling Commission’s fetish for the status quo on fixed odds betting terminals – or “FOBTs” – was prescient at a recent Westminster Briefing event, during which questions about the Responsible Gambling Trust’s research were raised.
The
Campaignput questions to a panel consisting of Matthew Hill from the Gambling Commission and Richard Orpin, Head of UK Gambling Policy at the Department for Culture Media and Sport. It has emerged that the Responsible Gambling Trust’s research will not look at the impact of the £100 maximum stake on FOBTs, nor will it use a live terminal. So an explanation of exactly what the research constitutes was requested from Hill and Orpin, as well as their view of whether the research was “oversold” at the time of the last review of stakes and prizes, in order to kick the issue into the long grass.
Matthew Hill explained that the research – far from it answering all of the questions about FOBTs, as had been implied for some time – will only “let a bit of light into the room” and subsequent research will need to be carried out. The Responsible Gambling Trust’s remit is to use data to determine what patterns of play are harmful and to build a harm minimisation model based on that. This is very distinct from what was promised around the time it was decided FOBTs were to be included in the triennial review, which was instead – as the Responsible Gambling Trust briefed -
a “crack cocaine test”.
Dirk Vennix, from the Association of British Bookmakers, stated at the time the research was announced “..we would welcome independent research that will deal, once and for all, with some of the myths and more outrageous claims.” So the ABB must have known what the research was designed to say!
Also singing exactly the same song of “dealing with myths” was law firm Bond Dickerson, which represents bookmakers. Event organisers should understand that nothing worthwhile can be learnt about FOBTs from invitees that have commercial relationships with bookmakers.
A question was put to Richard Orpin about the player protection measures that are to be introduced by the Government relating to FOBTs. The measures will require players to seek staff permission to stake above £50 a spin, or alternatively they can sign up to a membership card. The
Campaignreferenced Minister Helen Grant’s desire to “link players with play”, but questioned the efficacy of such a policy which will not, in itself, protect players.
Orpin explained that “the data will be used to provide players with statements, and by Government to inform further research”, although this was later contradicted by Hill who said “the industry will hold the data”. It is clear that the Gambling Commission believes that the operators want to deliver on the licensing objective of prevention of harm to the young and vulnerable, but this is incredibly naïve when so much of their revenue comes from problem gamblers. Andrew Lyman from William Hill, who also spoke at the event, voiced his opposition to introducing a “Think 25” policy, which is now standard across other licensed sectors, such as for cigarettes and alcohol.
Orpin also explained that both the £50 limit before interaction and the data will inform interventions. But staff working alone will also be put at risk by carrying out such interventions, and neither the Gambling Commission nor the Government are inclined to be prescriptive on the number of staff in each premises. Those interventions are unlikely to be effective anyway, as Professor Robert Williams has argued that staff training is the most commonly tried means of ensuring player protection but the least effective. Increasing interactions will not increase player protection.
What will protect a player from harm is reducing their potential losses per hour, by reducing the maximum bet per spin to £2. It is disappointing the Gambling Commission’s fetish for the £100 maximum stake means that is not being considered, and the Responsible Gambling Trust do not consider it within their harm minimisation framework.