The Guardian recently revealed that the Chair of the Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT), Neil Goulden,
devised lobbying strategies for the bookmakers a few months after his charity commissioned key research into Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs). Mr Goulden has, since the story appeared in the Guardian,
announced his resignationas Chair of the charity.
The leaked document was co-authored by Mr Goulden and the then Chief Executive of Ladbrokes, Richard Glynn. It suggested that bookmakers needed to learn from the car industry which “is not blamed for road accidents or for building cars that exceed the maximum speed limit”.
This might explain why the research on FOBTs, commissioned by the RGT, avoided asking questions about the product. Instead of asking whether the £100 stake, the speed of play, or the addictive roulette content cause gambling related harm, it attempted to “identify harmful patterns of play”.
This led to the Association of British Bookmakers’ (ABB) recently announced “Player Awareness System”, which amounts to nothing more than sending a suspected problem gambler, who would have already experienced significant harm, a text message.
Mr Goulden convinced the government to await the outcome of the RGT’s research before making a decision on reducing the £100 maximum stake on FOBTs. Following the triennial review of stakes and prizes, the government said it “would retain the current stake and prize limits for FOBT machines as part of this review and await the conclusion of longer term research.”
Shortly after the RGT’s research was announced, concerns were raised by Professor Jim Orford, who accused Mr Goulden of ‘bias’ towards the industry, as he also held the position of Chair of the ABB. Mr Orford said this “
calls into question the objectivity” of the RGT and “undermines the credibility of the research”. Professor Orford went on to call for his resignation, but Mr Goulden dismissed the claims as “vindictive” and “disreputable”.
Meanwhile, the Chief Executive of the ABB – an organisation Mr Goulden also Chaired – went on the record saying: “This research will deal, once and for all, with some of the myths and more outrageous claims” about FOBTs. One could be forgiven for thinking that the outcome of this research was somewhat pre-determined.
At the very least, it succeeded in kicking the issue into the long grass for more than 18 months. The bookmakers have the luxury of controlling the research agenda due to the Gambling Commission’s failure to maintain the structure it put in place in 2009 to prevent precisely that.
There used to be an independent commissioning body, the Responsible Gambling Fund (RGF). However, the industry fundraising body, GREaT, which was also Chaired by Mr Goulden, took over commissioning after threatening not to fund RGF if they continued to commission research that did not meet their approval. Whilst Mr. Goulden was also Chief Executive of Gala Coral, the bookmakers denied RGF researchers access to their premises for a study which would have looked at gamblers on FOBTs in betting shops.
After Philip Davies MP steered a 2012 Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) committee towards foolishly recommending more FOBTs per betting shop, this was immediately rejected by the Coalition government. Former Lib Dem MP Don Foster then proposed a FOBT stake reduction to £2 per spin, based upon power DCMS already had. Mr Goulden then sprung into action, wearing both his bookie ABB Chair and “non-bookie” RGT Chair hats, approaching DCMS to fight against stake reduction.
A long term study was agreed with the acquiescent Gambling Commission and the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board. This research attempted to shift government policy away from stake and prize controls, and convince policy makers that the bookmakers were capable of reducing gambling related harm themselves, even if the conflict of interest inherent in doing so was clear to everyone.
By attempting to shift government away from reducing the maximum stake on FOBTs, the RGT has contributed to increased levels of gambling related harm, whilst protecting the private interests of the bookmakers who fund it and are or have been on its board of trustees.
The RGT ignored a paper by former chief economist and head of research at the DCMS, Dr Stephen Creigh-Tyte, who argued: “...binding limitations on wagers can limit the maximum session losses suffered by punters. The effect tends to be greater the higher the prize and the larger the probability of winning and the lower the time taken by each game.”
Instead, the majority of the RGT’s research focused on predictive algorithms. Commissioned to do this were Featurespace, a commercial company with a vested interest in maintaining the £100 stake as this protected their future commercial relationship with the bookmakers. However, the Gambling Commission noted that the predictive algorithm fell short of being effective.
Detecting problem gamblers and sending them a text message would not amount to harm prevention, as problem gamblers have already experienced a great deal of harm. They do not need a text message but treatment, provision of which remains chronically underfunded by the RGT. How much longer can the RGT be taken seriously by government? The evidence is already there: reducing the maximum stake would reduce the harm FOBTs cause, and it must be enacted now to prevent more harm.