Taking aim at the gambling industry once again, Tom Watson, Labour Deputy Leader, MP for West Bromwich East and Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, recently wrote: “It is obvious to anyone the system is in a mess.” But exactly what system is he talking about? In an article published on Politics Home, the UK Parliament’s magazine, Watson once again re-emphasised his desire for online operators to reapply for their licenses and “undergo proper scrutiny.” He mentioned the speed at which technology has outpaced legislation, referenced four Gambling Commission fines from last week and took a stance on an “African child betting epidemic.”
That’s quite a range of systems up for discussion, and while there are of course issues to iron out, they would be best done separately and wholeheartedly. Addressing them in what appears to be a recycled statement will not help anyone with a detrimental relationship with gambling. Let’s look at a recent example of how a specified approach better suited those looking to make a difference, and more importantly, those who need help. The fixed-odds betting terminal (FOBT) saga dominated headlines and caused frustration, but the decrease of maximum stakes from £100 ($126.94) to £2 was eventually brought in. Whichever side of the argument companies, politicians or campaigners find themselves, it is clear a singular, focused approach is the most proactive way to arrive at a solution.
In February, Watson promised his party would limit online betting stakes if it gained power. He argued Labour’s proposed rules would help tackle “Britain’s hidden epidemic” and in the same statement said gambling should be treated as a “public health emergency.” Looking back at Watson’s recent article, a lot of the phrases are the same. He talks about epidemics and a public-health emergency. These serious terms should be dealt with individually and not grouped under the usual anti-gambling umbrella. There’s an argument he must return to the same points to draw attention and change them. But they also appear more and more like publicity statements, drafted in and out of use when needed. Watson said gambling reform has been a policy priority of his since his early days as an MP.
He was government whip when Labour introduced the Gambling Act in 2005. He wrote: “Little did we know at the time this piece of analogue legislation would almost immediately be overtaken by the pace of digital change.” Have the last two decades seen rapid changes in the capabilities online industries can deliver? Yes, of course they have. But the question should be: Was this predictable? Again, yes; legislators should have seen it coming. Admittedly, it would have been difficult to put a scale on the growth. But the trend of business moving online is clear across any industry. Watson rounds off his article by discussing advertising and missing a crucial point.
If he wants to see an overhaul of online operator application systems to help prevent problem gambling in Africa, surely he should also demand a rethink of how advertising works in the UK. Less than 24 hours after publishing his article on Politics Home, Watson threw another issue into the media’s crosshairs. He announced Labour would set up a new gambling ombudsman to protect vulnerable players if elected. He said the new ombudsman would work alongside the Gambling Commission (doing exactly the same job) as well as the NHS, investing in research for education and treatment of problem gambling. The Gambling Commission said it would “consider the case for an ombudsman” when contacted by Gambling Insider. But the industry’s problems need resolving by focused, singular approaches, not the mass grouping that appeases mainstream media.
