The Government is too slow act on FOBTs

The Guardian reported this week that the Government is to announce a ‘crackdown’ on Fixed odds Betting Terminals. As with so many issues, the Government has been slow to act. At the time of Cameron’s knee-jerk call for an in-house DCMS review of FOBTs, there were 6 other reviews underway across Government.

Policies for FOBTs need to understand the psychology of these machines and those individuals who become addicted to them. The figures don’t reflect how people actually play – what does a flash-screen that tells someone they have lost £250 do other than remind them that you have lost £250? That represents a significant portion of a low income household’s income. The 2CV study of FOBT gamblers highlighted that two thirds of players chased their losses, more than three quarters spend more than they had planned and 62% gambled until all their money was gone. These voluntary measures were drawn up by the industry – that’s why they do not reflect how people actually play or reduce the money put into the machines.

Cameron is paying lip service when he shows concern over ABB’s Code of Conduct on voluntary limits which end a session once a player has lost £250 or after 30 minutes of continuous play; especially given that leaked Ladbrokes documents state that the average 60 minute loss is £93 – well below the limit. It would be far more useful to have flash screens that warn you when you have staked £250 (or less), not when it has been lost. To lose £250 a player needs to have bet many thousands of pounds, which is why 92% of players would not trigger the limits. The industry claims a 97% payout – a punter would have to stake £8,333 to lose £250 – and that limit is only for one session and on one machine.

Mandating a Code of Conduct which is ineffective, will be an ineffective response to the problems of FOBTs. Moreover, the Gambling Commission told me that they could not endorse the ABB’s Code of Conduct because they have not been provided with the evidential basis for any of the measures included in it.

The reports also state that David Cameron has decided to follow Ed Miliband’s lead in calling for local authorities to be given more powers to deal with clustering in poorer areas. But I asked Eric Pickles in the Commons well over a year ago to allow local authorities greater licence power discretion to deal with the social cost of FOBTs, in a letter to me he politely dismissed the idea – however now, David Cameron is suggesting that we make the ABB Code of Conduct part of the operating licence – which will require licence fee hikes in order to police it. What has changed?

The Government have also used the defence of Article 4 use by local authorities; this requires a legally robust evidential basis involving many months of hard work by Councils. Article 4 is simply a notification to bookies to get in quick and why its use is counterproductive and does nothing to solve existing problems.

There also seems a naive reliance that safer gambling can be policed by low paid, part time, untrained staff single staffing bookmakers. The Guardian video over the weekend had managers of bookmakers laughing at such a suggestion.

The Prime Minister’s response has been lacklustre, addressing political pressures rather than the problems these pernicious machines cause. Clive Efford hit the nail on the head when he said the proposals were the “minimum” that should be done and that “It’s time for the Government to recognise the day of the fixed odds betting terminal are numbered.”

The evidence base which shows the prevalence of gambling addiction that shows the shops cluster in poorer areas, and shows how much money is going through these machines all exists. On this, as with so many other issues (such as plain packaging of cigarettes), the Government is just being bounced along by the argument instead of taking the initiative on important issues.