Yesterday the Government announced that it will reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) from £100 to £2.
It follows a consultation and compelling arguments from both sides. On one side, there have been representations made on behalf of charities and former gambling addicts who say that these machines make it too easy for people to keep betting more money without enough time to think properly about what they are doing. There have been powerful stories about people’s lives which have been ruined as a consequence of their gambling. This is why the Government has said its decision is in order to protect the most vulnerable in society from gambling-related harm.
On the other side of the argument, the bookmakers say that FOBTs generate £1.8 billion in revenue a year for the industry which goes back into jobs and investment, whilst £400 million is raised through taxes for public spending. Bookmakers have said that the decision to reduce the stake will result in unintended consequences including losing bookmakers on the High Street and job losses. There are also millions of people who enjoy gambling responsibly - whether it’s the odd flutter or an evening at the bingo hall – some of whom say this decision will adversely affect them through no fault of their own.
Both sides make valid points. And it all goes back to the question - at what point does the state intervene in these matters? At what point should the Government intervene to stop an increase in something detrimental – in this case an increase in gambling addiction since the 2005 Gambling Act which liberalised gambling machines and increased maximum stakes. And to what extent should this intervention restrict the freedom of others in making their own choices – in this case, the choice to place bets and gamble responsibly. I’ve had many people write to ask the Government to stop making decisions which lead us to what they call a ‘nanny state,’ whilst others write to ask for increased protections against certain practises or products which can have a harmful impact when used excessively.
Another topical example of this is the legislation on the minimum pricing of alcohol, something which the Scottish Government has introduced with the aim to ‘cut consumption and save lives.’ Many in the medical profession have welcomed the news and suggested that England follows suit. Those who enjoy drinking responsibly have questioned why they will now have to pay more for their alcohol.
For me what all of these issues have in common, regardless of where people stand on the debate, is the need for clear information. Those using FOBTs should be clearly informed of the implications of betting any amount of money with clear signs on the screens explaining how much could be lost. It is the same principle with food and drink labelling. I was part of the successful campaign to introduce the traffic light system for food labels which now allows consumers to see if a product has lots of calories, fat or sugar (red) and if there is a small amount of either (green). It’s also the same reason why I pushed for a change in the law on how charges on loans & mortgages are displayed.
These sorts of debates will continue to divide opinion but one thing should always be guaranteed – consumers have a right to be fully informed before making an individual choice.
