I thank the members from across the parties who have supported my motion and allowed this debate to take place. I also thank the campaign for fairer gambling, which I met last week. Many of the statistics that I will quote on fixed-odds betting terminals have come from research reports that it has supplied, which I would be happy to forward to any member who would like them.
What is a fixed-odds betting terminal? An FOBT is a casino-style gaming machine that is found in our communities’ betting shops. Seventy per cent of the players of those machines say that they would potentially stop playing them if roulette games were removed, so it is clear that casino-style roulette is the main feature, or certainly the main attraction, of FOBTs.
FOBTs started to appear in betting shops only at the turn of the millennium, but their number has grown: the Gambling Commission reports that there are now more than 33,000 FOBTs in Britain’s betting shops, and in 2011-12 FOBTs overtook traditional over-the-counter betting on sports such as horse racing and football as the main source of revenue for high street bookmakers.
FOBTs are unique because, unlike slot machines—or fruit machines or puggies, as they are more commonly known—on which players are restricted to a £2 maximum bet per play, FOBTs allow players to stake up to £100 per spin every 20 seconds. The machines are a cash cow for bookmakers, with the top companies making more than £900 per week profit from each machine that they operate. Unlike over-the-counter bets, that is completely risk-free profit for the company.
It is important to highlight that I am not against betting shops, betting or having a flutter and nor am I on a crusade to bring the betting industry to its knees. What I am fundamentally against is bookmakers targeting areas of deprivation and high unemployment and keeping shops open solely for the purpose of operating FOBTs.
The betting industry might deny that it targets areas, but the facts speak for themselves. Inverclyde, which is mentioned in the motion and has a population of just over 82,000, has 70 FOBTs spread across 19 betting shops. Meanwhile, in Aberdeenshire, which has a population three times that of Inverclyde, there are 78 FOBTs spread across 21 betting shops—just two more shops in an area that has three times the population. Why is the number of FOBTs per head of population in Inverclyde three times higher than it is in Aberdeenshire? What is the difference between Inverclyde and Aberdeenshire? I suggest that it is the unemployment rate. Inverclyde’s unemployment rate is currently above the Scottish national average, whereas Aberdeenshire has the lowest unemployment rate in Scotland. Surely the betting industry cannot claim that that is sheer coincidence.
There are further examples of what I am describing. In West Dunbartonshire there are 89 FOBTs, which is 11 more than there are in Aberdeenshire, despite its population being, again, a third of Aberdeenshire’s. In East Renfrewshire, whose population is similar to those of West Dunbartonshire and Inverclyde, there are only 56 FOBTs. A comparison of the unemployment levels might reveal the reasons for that.
Betting shop opening hours now stretch from 7 o’clock in the morning to 10 o’clock at night. The shops beam in horse racing from Argentina and show animated races. I do not believe for a minute that shops stay open because customers want to have lots of punts on Argentinian horses or to study the form in cartoon dog racing. It is clear to me that the sole purpose of staying open so late and opening so early is to operate FOBTs.
That is also the firm opinion of many reformed gamblers. Last week I met a former gambler from Inverclyde. His life was turned upside down by FOBTs and he lost everything, but with the help of Gamblers Anonymous he has come through to the other side. I take this opportunity to record my admiration for the work that organisations such as GA carry out and to commend the bravery of the individuals who seek such organisations’ help.
From my conversation with that former gambler, and from reading reports on the issue, I have been alarmed to discover that FOBT users are increasingly likely to be young males and that females are increasingly getting hooked. I have learned that young apprentices have lost their jobs and that a football club in the Scottish Professional Football League has contacted GA for help for young trainees.
I have now written to the chief executives of Scotland’s 32 local authorities, asking them to consider inviting representatives from GA to speak to pupils in secondary 3, S4 and S5 in their areas about the dangers of FOBTs and the effect that gambling can have on people’s lives.
The personal human impact of FOBTs and the damage that any form of addiction to them can do to individuals and families are frightening. Some 62 per cent of FOBT players say that they have gambled until all their money has gone, 68 per cent say that if they lose they will chase their losses, 69 per cent say that when they win they want to keep on gambling, and 59 per cent say that they will put whatever they win back in the machine.
It is not just about the impact on individuals. FOBTs also have a damaging effect on the local economy, given that each pound that is spent in such a machine is a pound that is not spent elsewhere in that economy.
In its briefing for today’s debate, the Association of British Bookmakers said that regulation of FOBTs would lead to job losses in the industry. However, expenditure on FOBTs supports little employment, compared with consumer spending elsewhere in the economy. In a report by Howard Reed, who is the director of Landman Economics, it is claimed that £1 billion of expenditure on FOBT machines supports 7,000 jobs in the United Kingdom. In comparison, £1 billion of average consumer spending supports 20,000 jobs. Therefore, I contend that FOBTs are costing more jobs than they are creating.
How do we tackle FOBTs? Campaigners would like the maximum bet on machines to be reduced from £100 to £2, in line with other gaming machines in the UK. Some 53 per cent of players say that they would potentially stop playing the machines if the maximum stake was only £2, so the approach seems to be logical. I certainly back such an approach.
Increasing the time between bets from the current 20 seconds might also help to reduce the amount that is wagered on FOBTs. I back that approach, too; it would give players more time to consider what they are doing.
Regulation of gambling is reserved to Westminster, as is regulation of FOBTs. Therefore, last week I wrote to the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport asking him to consider seriously regulation of FOBTs. Reducing the maximum bet on the machines is something that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could do right now. I also kindly ask members on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat benches to speak to their colleagues at Westminster on the matter.
In Scotland, we must consider all the options. Today, I attended a summit that was organised by the Minister for Local Government and Planning on gambling in our town centres. Although gambling is a reserved matter, licensing and planning are not.
Since I started speaking, someone somewhere in Scotland will have been able to gamble up to £2,200 on one of these terminals—a large sum, I am sure that members will agree. I hope that the Parliament can play its part in helping our communities to deal with the machines.
17:15