© Provided by The Telegraph Gamblers at a race course
An open letter to Lucy Frazer, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Dear Lucy,
Well, that must have been embarrassing. After 16,000 contributions to the consultation period leading up to the publication of your Gambling Act Review White Paper, it is clear no one was listening or concentrating. Why else would you need to re-open 60-odd areas of further consultation?
You assured us in Parliament that “today we are bringing our pre-smartphone regulations into the present day with a gambling White Paper for the digital age”. But you did not. What you actually delivered was a morally bankrupt, confused fudge that kicks pretty well every issue into the long grass.
On the basis that I understand that everything in your White Paper is subject to further consultation, in spite of all of the consultations which took place during the past three years, let us start with the most insidious cop-out.
Given you have stated that “online slots have been shown to be a particularly high-risk product, associated with large losses, long sessions and binge play”, it would have been fair to have hoped that this was an area you could crack down on right now, without further consultation.
In 2018 someone actually made the decision – without further consultation – to lower the maximum stake on the addictive, mindless casino slot games in betting shops to £2. A decision taken for all the reasons you agree with.
But people playing the same games on their phones are much more at risk of either losing too much money, or becoming addicted, than gamblers who have had to leave their homes and enter a betting shop. Because they can do it at any time of the day and night, in any location.
So the logical change for a “digital age transformed by smartphones” would be to make the maximum stake lower than in betting shops, not higher. But that is not where your proposed consultation is heading, is it?
No, you are keeping the door open for a £15 maximum bet for anyone hooked on these games which are the crack cocaine of gambling. All of which makes me wonder who has been lobbying you and your predecessors during the initial consultation process, and who will be in the subsequent consultation process.
Perversely the confused aspect of your White Paper – or shall we call it a consultation proposal document? – involves the prospect of actual intervention, albeit after a period of further consultation.
The frictionless affordability checks (an oxymoron if ever I have heard one) that you are putting forward for consultation are guaranteed to be an abject failure. On the one hand they will cost racing between £14 million and £40 million, depending on whose numbers you believe, but they will do nothing to protect problem gamblers. They are also unenforceable unless you intend to make it illegal for individuals to have multiple betting accounts.
The best judge of what level of betting activity is affordable is the individual. Only they know not only how much they can afford to lose, but just as importantly how much they are prepared to lose. So allowing gamblers to set their own limits would be the best way to stop people chasing losses in a reckless fashion and subsequently ruining their lives.
As a sop to racing, you are also proposing to hold a consultation on reforming the way bookmakers pay a levy back to racing. This review was promised to the racing industry in 2018, but surprise, surprise that got kicked into the long grass too.
There are obvious reasons why the Levy should be based on turnover, and not profit. It is also evident why bets on foreign races, which compete for turnover on races in this country, should be included.
But if I could only have one bet this year, it would be that there is no chance whatsoever that this review will be completed and implemented during 2024, as is stated in the White Paper.
It is also disgraceful that the government is going to use the £29 million reserve currently at the Levy Board to plug the gap which you have created. That reserve is not there for this purpose, and this sleight of hand will damage the funding of human and horse welfare in the industry.