Westminster eForum on Gambling - An informed debate or a lobbying exercise?

Gerry Sutcliffe MP, chairing the first panel at this recent event, pointed out that there are inconsistencies in the 2005 Gambling Act. The Campaign for Fairer Gambling agrees and advocates removal of the most glaring inconsistency by reducing the maximum stake on betting shop FOBTs to £2, on parity with other high street machines. Mr. Sutcliffe also stated that actions should be based on evidence. Again, the Campaign entirely agrees, which is why we have amassed multiple independent sources of information and evidence.

By contrast, the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) "Back Your Local Bookie" site offers no evidence, but instead offers misleading PR spin and half-truths. Panelist and CEO of the ABB Dirk Vennix, again tried to argue that " money laundering is hardly happening in UK betting shops." This is despite the Gambling Commission telling him the complete opposite.

Gambling Commission investigations have repeatedly shown that bookmakers are lacking in anti-money laundering controls. Can the ABB identify any cash sector that has an inferior anti-money laundering record relative to bookmakers?

Mr Vennix claimed that 400 family-owned bookmakers closed in the last 18 months because of the switch to Machine Gaming Duty on FOBTs. Yet he failed to point out, that over the same period the big five corporate operators had opened in excess of 250 shops. It is his corporate members who are using the 2007 relaxation in planning laws to drive those family owned independents out of business and proliferate the clustering of betting shops.

The big five now hold 92% of betting shop licenses across the UK. The ABB should think carefully about using the independents as a shield for their corporate members; they may not be very happy about it.

Another panelist touting ABB statistics was the bookmakers’ Parliamentary mascot, Philip Davies MP. He claimed that FOBTs are only a political issue because of the Campaign "agitating" about them. Clearly he prefers to ignore the general public, of which three quarters want stake reduction and 60% want it reduced to £2 per spin.

Asserting that "one man with a lot of money can employ two very capable people and potentially change the law of the land", the MP for Shipley conveniently forgets that the bookmakers with far more money and far more people already deceived legislators into legitimising FOBTs in the first place. They introduced them illegally, agreed to an ineffective “code of practice” and offered predictable and worthless research to enable FOBT legalisation.

His position ignores the fact that the whole basis of the Campaign is not to change the law, but to ensure that the 2005 Gambling Act is adequately enforced. Those who are in favour of the FOBT status quo are in denial of the breaches of the licensing objectives related to FOBTs. Also the law of the land has already granted the power to the responsible Minister to reduce the maximum stake on FOBTs from £100 to £2 per spin. The Campaign is just asking that this power is exercised.

The event was, by design, industry biased and although the Campaign was mentioned numerous times, the Campaign had not been invited to speak, despite having a consultant with direct industry experience. With biased panels, biased panelists and a lack of real debate, was this forum more of a lobbying exercise?