FOBTs and MPs over the recess
Derek Webb
| Campaign for Fairer Gambling
Derek Webb, founder of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling comments on recent fixed odds betting terminal (FOBT) news.
Prior to the Christmas recess there was a Commons debate on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill in which the topic of FOBTs was raised. The majority of MPs speaking on the subject were well informed and recognized that the status quo is no longer sustainable. Then along came Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley.
Amidst his FOBT waffle, he made numerous false statements about me personally and my campaign. But if he is making false statements about FOBTs anyway why should I expect preferential treatment?
I wrote to him rebutting his assertions, asking him to provide documentary proof to substantiate them but his reply must be lost in the post! I explained in my letter that he was bringing the House and his Party into disrepute, copying the Speaker, John Bercow, and the Chairman of the Conservative Party, Sir Patrick McLoughlin.
A Times article recently explained that the Parliamentary Standards Office had denied a complaint against Mr Davies. There was not enough evidence that Mr Davies enjoyed a favourable betting account at Ladbrokes but the source of evidence was not willing to make a full disclosure.
As a recent Private Eye article titled, ‘Bog Standards’, explained, 2016 has been a very light touch year for the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. Mr Davies wants his critics to play the ball, not the man but the man plays by his own rules by lying about me and my Campaign in the House to help protect bookies’ FOBTs.
As a Guardian article explained, 2016 was a good year for MPs to enjoy hospitality from the bookies with strong increases in numbers of MPs and amounts of payments since 2015. I believe this is because the bookies now need all the help they can get? Mr Davies ran second in that race getting less than £5,000, whilst his colleague, Laurence Robertson, Tory MP for Tewkesbury, got over £5,000.
It is not just the odd Tory that is a big advocate of the bookies though, there are also some odd Labour members. The Sun reported that Michael Dugher, Labour MP for Barnsley East, was very critical of the Prime Minister, accusing her of "bookie-bashing". He thinks that because more problem gamblers gamble on the National Lottery than on FOBTs, the DCMS has got its Gambling Review all wrong.
Mr Dugher seems to be taking the same line as his old boss, the CEO of the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) Malcolm George. The ABB abuses the fact that problem gamblers often gamble at more than one activity. This does not mean that every addict is addicted to every activity that they gamble at.
It is very difficult to get addicted to the National Lottery Draw at two events per week compared to £300 per minute on FOBT roulette. You just don't see people buy tickets and then go and re-join the line to buy more tickets. There have not been stories of money-laundering on the Draw, violence or abuse to staff selling Draw tickets or damage to premises where Draw tickets are sold.
One FOBT story that is still below the radar is the question of the legality of FOBTs in Northern Ireland. A Belfast Live article quoted a spokesman for the Northern Ireland Department for Communities who stated:
"The Minister Shares the concerns that have been raised with regards to FOBTs and looks forward to reading the Review .... by DCMS ...." adding "In Northern Ireland, the definition of a gaming machine is set out in the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusement (NI) Order 1985; the Order predates the development of electronic betting machines such as FOBTs and therefore the legality of these machines can only be definitively determined by the Courts."
The Campaign view is that if FOBT operation is not legal, which by definition it cannot be, then it is illegal until proven otherwise. The Gambling Commission and DCMS so far would rather defer to inaction by the NI Police Service, NI Public Prosecution Service and NI Department of Communities.
One of the licensing objectives of the 2005 Gambling Act is that there should be no association of gambling and crime. How can UK licensees be allowed to profit from operating gambling anywhere that is not definitely legal?
Interpreting the objective narrowly, rather than rationally, is the only theoretical justification. This does not appear to bode well for a broad and rational interpretation of the other two objectives; that gambling should be fair and open and that harm to the young and vulnerable should be prevented. The pending outcome of the DCMS Review will be very telling.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
