Last week, the Campaign attended a Public Policy Exchange event in Westminster, which provided some insight into how the Government is responding to the public pressure to restrict fixed odds betting terminals – or FOBTs.
Whilst the Campaign was not invited to speak, Dirk Vennix, the Chief Executive of the Association of British Bookmakers, was included - and used the opportunity to promote its “Code of Conduct” for responsible gambling.
The Campaign criticised this Code as being weak, starting with an analysis undertaken by Professor Mark Griffiths. This showed the “limit setting” measures were only taken up in 11,000 sessions in the first week, out of a total of 4 million. In addition, whilst 85% of those reaching their limits stopped playing or inserting cash, the average limit was set between £350 and £450.
The Campaign also brought to his attention a UK Gambling Data report from November 2012, carried out by JP Morgan on behalf of Ladbrokes and William Hill. This showed that 70% of FOBT gamblers were from the poorest C2DE demographic, while the average loss by a regular FOBT gambler was £1,200 per year.
And Mr. Vennix’s response? He said he “did not want to debate statistics as they are complex for the uninitiated”, that the take up in only “11,000 sessions was in the first week and that dropped, it could be better”, and that “problem gambling rates are low therefore take up is expected to be low”.
However, the opportunity to set limits as high as £350 and £450 does not imply that an adequate level of player protection is being afforded to problem gamblers. Instead, it assumes that they are using these voluntary measures, which do not prevent the player from carrying on after their limit has been reached.
Heather Wardle, who is leading the research into FOBTs that is being carried out by the Responsible Gambling Trust, offered some insight into the analysis that is being carried out by NatCen. She conceded that very little can be derived from the data held by the suppliers, as it is only transactional data - i.e. money in, money out.
However, the loyalty card scheme has enabled NatCen to survey over 5,000 customers and link that back to the transactional data to ascertain whether any patterns in the transactional data determine problem gambling behaviour.
She said the research will not be definitive as it is in its early stages, but it will provide an insight into whether regulating at an individual level is possible. If not, it may be more effective to regulate at the macro level through stakes and prizes.
Richard Orpin, Head of Gambling Policy at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, explained the Government’s proposals. He said that the Government was uncertain about the maximum stake, as there was no clear evidence that suggested the stake should be at a certain level. Therefore, the Government took what he described as a “precautionary approach” by proposing that those who wish to stake more than £50 a spin either sign up to a membership card or request staff permission.
However, as Clive Efford, shadow gambling minister, has said: “…surely precaution dictates that, in the absence of any conclusive evidence that locating B2 [FOBT] machines on our high streets is not harmful, the machines should be removed until they are proven to be safe.”
Mr Orpin said the measures were designed to “link players with play”, which would presumably inform further research. However, there is already enough evidence to show FOBTs are harmful and the stake should be reduced.
The proposals will go before Parliament this year, with a view to implementation in April 2015. It will be a “Negative Resolution”, which is a Statutory Instrument which will pass without debate if the Opposition does not object to it.
But as these measures do not go far enough, especially given Clive Efford’s definition of the precautionary principle, it is not unreasonable to envisage a Labour objection to the Government’s measures - leading to a debate in the House before the year end.