Getting the Balance Right in Gambling

I wasn't able to attend Philip Graf's interesting RSA talk but I watched it later. I am posting a response to his talk on the Gambling Watch UK website. I thought you might be interested to see it.

 

Gambling Commission’s former Chairtalks at the Royal Society of Arts (RSA)

Following his five years as Chair of the GamblingCommission, Philip Graf was invited to speak to an audience at the RSA on 19July. His title was, Getting the BalanceRight in Gambling. Now retired from his key position at the Commission,this was an opportunity for him to speak some truths about gambling in Britaintoday.

Indeed, he did make a number of admissions. I particularlypricked up my ears when he admitted that the Responsible Gambling StrategyBoard (RGSB), Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT), Gambling Commission structure,which in many people’s view does not guarantee independence of research,prevention and treatment from the gambling industry, was ‘frankly not ideal’.Furthermore, he was clear that the Commission has a responsibility to adviseGovernment on whether this structure works. That is the clearest statement Ihave heard which acknowledges that the Gambling Commission should be tellingGovernment that the structure needs changing.

He voiced some criticisms of Government. He expresseddisappointment that a recent DCMS report devoted only a single line togambling. He wanted to see more debate about gambling policy across differentparts of DCMS. I was particularly pleased to hear him urging a public healthperspective on the subject and the engagement of the Department of Health. Thelatter is something I have been advocating for several years. But so have many peopleand it is not clear what progress can be expected on that front. Heacknowledged that lack of funding was a real problem and that the voluntaryindustry levy, contributing about £6.5 million a year, was inadequate.

It was also good to hear him be appropriately cautious aboutthe officially accepted summary of gambling problem prevalence figures, said toshow that prevalence is ‘static’. He admitted the limitations in the research,and pointed out that we should be concerned about gambling-related harmgenerally, and about risk, not just about the minority identified as havinggambling problems. We should be especially concerned, he said, about thefigures suggesting worrying rates of gambling harm amongst younger people.

But, at the end of the day, Philip Graf was for five yearsat the centre of what I call the British Gambling Establishment and it would besurprising if he was suddenly to change his position. It was clear as his talkwent on that he sees the general direction of travel of gambling regulation inBritain to be essentially sound, which I and many others believe it is not. Thegambling industry had changed a great deal, he said, and it was a question ofcontinuing to work with operators, to get them to be ever more sociallyresponsible. He mentioned as particularly important the new annual assurancestatement which gambling companies are now required to make regarding theirsocial responsibility. He saw this as a way of engaging the owners and boardsof gambling companies, not just company staff at the compliance managementlevel which has tended to be the level at which companies have engaged with theCommission to date. He wanted the Commission to be seen as the chief authorityon gambling: he cited the recent example of a two-page spread in The Timeswhich he said had been based on Campaign for Fairer Gambling (CFG) material,with the Commission being phoned only at 5 pm the evening before publication.

On the subject of the FOBTs (the fixed odds bettingterminals), which have been so controversial and which CFG have been vigorouslycampaigning about for some years now, he was, predictably, disappointing. Hetrotted out the well worn statement that there was a lack of evidence about theharmfulness of FOBTs. In answer to a questioner from the audience, who askedwhy machines with £100 maximum stake in the relatively unregulated environment ofa high street betting shop should continue to be allowed, he did acknowledgethat this was an anomaly, and had been the result of ‘a deal’. But in hisopinion there was still a question whether reducing the maximum stake wouldresult in decreased harm.

Following his talk, Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of theRSA, engaged Philip Graf in conversation, asking him a number of very pointedquestions. One was how he would respond to the critical idea that therelationship between the modern commercial gambling promoter and the punter wasin effect ‘one of psychological manipulation’: whereas in the case of smokingand drinking what we now say is, okay enjoy it if that’s what you choose to dobut be in no doubt that it is harmful and not a good lifestyle choice, we seemto be saying that gambling is good other than for a small minority of peoplewho are exceptional because they have gambling problems. Time was running outby that stage and it seemed that the occasion was not one for dealing with suchbasic matters. But this is exactly the sort of bigger issue that society shouldbe discussing.

You can listen to Philip Graf’s talk, and see Matthew Taylor’scritical Blog on the subject of commercial gambling, on the RSA website.

Jim Orford, Gambling Watch UK (www.gamblingwatchuk.org)/EmeritusProfessor of Clinical and Community Psychology, University of Birmingham. July2016.