The bookmakers' new code of misconduct

The Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) is advocating a new code for its members, particularly in respect of FOBTs, betting shop roulette machines. Adrian Parkinson provides a detailed view of what the ABBis up to in his latest blog.

What is being ignored is that there is already a code in the current legislation, the 2005 Gambling Act, and FOBTs are in breach of the licensing objectives. Also forgotten is that the bookmakers devised a previous code to get FOBTs legitimised in the Act, which was designed to have minimal impact on profits and parts of which were skirted around within months of its introduction.

The new code claims to focus on harm minimisation, but the Act objective is the prevention of harm to the vulnerable. People in poorer areas are seven times more likely to be problem gamblers than in wealthier areas, according to the recent Scottish Health Survey. The new code does nothing to address how to protect these vulnerable people.

Furthermore, the ABB has so far been in denial that FOBTs are harmful. How can harm minimisation work unless there is an admittance of harm and qualification and quantification of that harm?

There is no empirical evidence basis to suggest that the code will have any meaningful impact and the code fails to acknowledge that the most effective harm minimisation method would be to reduce the FOBT maximum stake per spin from £100 to £2, which is within the remit of DCMS to enact without primary legislation.

If Government was to sensibly apply the precautionary principle, it would enact the stake reduction to £2 regardless of the new code, or further research, to bring FOBTs in line with all other British gaming machines.

The level that the ABB is suggesting as appropriate to inform a player of losses is £250 per session. By comparison, the British Gambling Prevalence Survey identified losses of £210 per month as being the mean for an at-risk gambler. How could a £250 warning be of any help to a daily FOBT gambler?

The code also refers to the Safe Bet Alliance. But as we recently explained by a letter to Theresa May, copied to Yvette Cooper, there are still multiple associations with criminality and FOBTs that are not being adequately addressed, in defiance of the licensing objective.

In summary, this is just another move by the ABB to perpetuate the bookmakers’ protected market monopoly on FOBTs, which they should never have been granted in the first place. Surely intelligent politicians will not allow the FOBT debate to be twisted by this latest ABB manoeuvre?