QAAD

As regards adults, we have been pressing for a precautionary approach to those forms of gambling that are most strongly associated with ‘problem play,’ particularly slot machines.

We are concerned that since the 2005 Gambling Act, the gambling industry has been allowed to expand the numbers of slot machines or increase the value of stakes and prizes on the basis of an economic case. At present, the Coalition government is consulting on increasing the stakes of ‘Category B’ machines and allowing more in venues such as bingo halls. We believe this carries more risk, and are making representations against it.

We have also been pressing for more effective action on fast electronic gaming machines known as Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs).  FOBTs are of concern both in themselves and because they exemplify wider issues.

Slot machines generally are associated with repetitive play, but FOBTs alone are involved in a quarter of the calls to the national helping agency Gamcare. The scale of problems associated with FOBTs is disproportionate to their numbers, but not to their distribution. Four FOBTs are allowed in every betting shop, which means they are one of the most widely dispersed and easily accessible forms of high-stake high-prize machine gambling.  Under the Gambling Act of 2005, Local Authorities are not allowed to limit the numbers of betting shops (or any other gambling outlet except casinos) – no matter how many there already are in any location.  This is particularly of concern in areas of social deprivation where gambling problems tend to be more prevalent, and gambling outlets, particularly betting shops, are often denser.

We believe these harm indicators should lead to a precautionary approach, whereas numbers of FOBTs increased by 500 in 2008-9, during the time the government and the Gambling Commission were reviewing high-stakes high-prize machines.

The Labour government promised at the time of the Gambling Act 2005 that if problem gambling were to increase, action would be taken.  They ordered that a Prevalence Study be undertaken regularly in order to check whether any increase in problem gambling occurs.  The next one is due to report in February 2011.  However, the new Coalition government has cut the grant that funds the Prevalence Study. We are concerned that problem gambling continues to be monitored and reported on, so that a robust response can be given if an increase is shown.

We share concerns that internet gambling provides the conditions in which problem gambling can readily occur.  We appreciate that this is a difficult area to regulate effectively, but feed in concerns and information to review processes.

The new Coalition government has shown a commitment to localism, and we believe a logical expression of this is for Local Authorities to be given the power to decide to limit the numbers of gambling outlets.

We are pressing for:

• Limits on further proliferation of FOBTs while research is conducted, and a more precautionary approach to risk in general.
• The ability of Local Authorities to limit gambling premises on grounds of density, levels of problem gambling, or the character of neighbourhoods and the wishes of residents.
• The use of information from gambling helping agencies to trigger research and regulatory responses.

The development of explicit, research-based, criteria that will be used to assess levels of individual and community harm, and to inform regulation and government action on problem gambling.