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: \u201cIt is obvious to anyone the system is in a mess.\u201d But exactly what system is he talking about? In an article published on Politics Home, the UK Parliament\u2019s magazine, Watson once again re-emphasised his desire for online operators to reapply for their licenses and \u201cundergo proper scrutiny.\u201d He mentioned the speed at which technology has outpaced legislation, referenced four Gambling Commission fines from last week and took a stance on an \u201cAfrican child betting epidemic.\u201d<\/p>\n
That\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u00a3100 ($126.94) to \u00a32 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.<\/p>\n
In February, Watson promised his party would limit online betting stakes if it gained power. He argued Labour\u2019s proposed rules would help tackle \u201cBritain\u2019s hidden epidemic\u201d and in the same statement said gambling should be treated as a \u201cpublic health emergency.\u201d Looking back at Watson\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
He was government whip when Labour introduced the Gambling Act in 2005. He wrote: \u201cLittle did we know at the time this piece of analogue legislation would almost immediately be overtaken by the pace of digital change.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s 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 \u201cconsider the case for an ombudsman\u201d when contacted by Gambling Insider. But the industry\u2019s problems need resolving by focused, singular approaches, not the mass grouping that appeases mainstream media.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n