In a recent Central Lobby article the Campaign reported on the
Labour Mayoral hustingsand the FOBT debate that ensued. Dame Tessa Jowell was responsible for the 2005 Gambling Act and the legitimization of FOBTs. Her rivals, particularly David Lammy, Sadiq Khan and Diane Abbott have attacked FOBTs. In doing so they have joined other senior Labour figures, such as Harriet Harman and Tom Watson, who have admitted that Labour got gambling wrong.
However Dame Tessa has still yet to own up to the failings of the Act, or take responsibility for those failings. New Labour was in awe of the free market and of London as the global centre of finance. It bought into the absurd notion that gambling was “just another financial service” and that London should be at the centre of remote gambling.
The early movers in remote gambling were controlled by individuals who wanted to minimise tax and regulation. They wanted to venture offshore and do business everywhere, often regardless of the legality of doing so. This resulted in paying no tax in the jurisdictions they were profiting from - and making no contribution towards problem gambling treatment.
They used paid legal opinion to explain that the gambling was where the server was, not where the gambler was. Britain weakly allowed operators in white-listed offshore locations to access British gamblers.
Meanwhile, land based bookies, who also had offshore sites, presented exactly the opposite opinion in order to justify FOBTs in their shops. At a time when gaming was not permitted in betting shops (other than two low stake fruit machines per premises), bookmakers argued that FOBTs did not constitute gaming as the bet was placed in the shop via the FOBT and the event took place on a random number generator located on an out-of-shop server - so therefore it was legal! These contrary opinions should have been the catalyst for Labour to take stronger action, but Dame Tessa didn’t.
However she did say that FOBTs were "on probation" and granted DCMS the power to reduce the maximum stake from £100 to £2 without primary legislation, if there were suspicions of FOBT related harm. So the Campaign and over 90 councils supporting this stake reduction are grateful that at least that opportunity is available. Of course it is now entirely in the Conservatives’ hands to recognise FOBT harm and pull the stake reduction trigger.
Dame Tessa, in her defence, criticised the failings of the Gambling Commission - the very commission her 2005 Act set up, with what the Campaign believes to be a weak remit and lack of strong oversight by DCMS. So Dame Tessa is in-part responsible for the regulator’s failings.
Dame Tessa referred to two of the objectives of the Act at the hustings, but seemed to have forgotten the third one - that gambling should be "fair and open".
This objective is being breached by bookies refusing bets at advertised prices – especially in remote gambling offers where terms and conditions prevent the consumer from understanding the value of the offer. Of course, the objective is also breached by FOBTs themselves.
FOBT roulette is far faster than casino roulette so FOBT gamblers will lose quicker. However, they are not informed of this fact. Neither are they informed that the payout in cash terms is closer to 80%, not the 97% that the industry continually claims.
Most famously, Dame Tessa was photographed behind a roulette wheel at a Gala casino dressed like a croupier, saying: "There is nothing wrong with a harmless flutter." This photo-op was arranged by the man with many hats, Neil Goulden, ex-Chief Executive of Coral, self-proclaimed Chairman Emeritus of Coral (Coral state there is no such title), ex-Chair of the Association of British Bookmakers and Chair of the Responsible Gambling Trust.
But chaos theory teaches that a flutter here today can create a disaster somewhere tomorrow. FOBTs are not harmless fluttering devices, they are the most addictive form of gambling.
Back when the Act was originally drafted Dame Tessa cited Salvation Army and Methodist Church support. Their support was won through the reduction in the number of super-casinos, not the other aspects of the Act. They have each
signed a letter to the Timessupporting
Lord Tim Clement-Jones’ Billto reduce FOBT stakes to £2 maximum per spin.
The worst flaw of the Act is the lack of joined-up-government to improve the provision of health treatment for gambling addiction. As the report
Gambling the Hidden Addiction explains.
Tessa: please publicly identify all of the failings of the 2005 Act and support your colleagues and all of London’s Labour councils who support our Campaign aim to reduce the FOBT stake maximum to £2 per spin. If you win the Labour nomination, but fail to strongly address the FOBT issue, you will be giving an open goal to Zac Goldsmith.