The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-09263, in the name of Stuart McMillan, on fixed-odds betting terminals. The debate will be concluded with no question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament expresses concern at recent reports that £4.4 billion was wagered in Scotland on fixed odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in 2013, and also at reports in the Greenock Telegraph that £77 million was gambled in the year to September 2012 on FOBTs in Inverclyde; understands that the machines, usually found in bookmakers, allow gamblers to spend hundreds of pounds every 20 seconds on games such as roulette or simulated racing; further understands that many former gamblers have described FOBTs as the “crack cocaine of gambling” due to the speed at which large sums of money can be lost and because of their highly-addictive qualities, and acknowledges the work of Gamblers Anonymous and other organisations across West Scotland and the rest of the country in raising the awareness of the dangers of FOBTs and giving support to those who seek help.
17:07
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
I offer my congratulations to Stuart McMillan on securing the debate. The subject is of particular concern to the communities that I represent as well as to those in Inverclyde, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this evening.
The statistics show that the proliferation of bookmakers and the impact of fixed-odds betting terminals are endemic in poorer communities—Stuart McMillan is right to highlight that fact. A recent study by the campaign for fairer gambling demonstrated that people in the poorest parts of Scotland staked almost double the amount on addictive gambling machines that was staked by those in wealthier areas. The communities of Possilpark and Keppochhill in my constituency rank second and third in the most deprived data zones in Scotland but they have no shortage of fixed-odds betting terminals. Saracen Street alone is estimated to have 31 of them.
That the terminals are addictive gambling machines cannot be in question. As the motion acknowledges, they have been described as the “crack cocaine” of gambling addiction. Evidence shows that for every 1 per cent increase in unemployment in an area, there is a 20 per cent increase in the number of bookmakers, and by 2012 the profit that was generated for bookmakers from the terminals had reached more than £1.4 billion. It is abhorrent that that profit is being made on the backs of the poorest people in our communities right across the country.
In Glasgow, the Labour-controlled council is working hard to tackle poverty through a range of measures including apprenticeships, support for the living wage, improvements in childcare and the establishment of Glasgow’s poverty leadership panel. Through those actions, the problems that are caused by debt, income inequality, payday lenders, addiction and fixed-odds betting terminals can be addressed, but there is only so much that the city council can do on its own. It needs the support of the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments, which must act too.
The summit that is being convened by the minister to look at the twin issues of payday lenders and gambling outlets is very welcome and I look forward to hearing more about the summit, perhaps this evening in the cabinet secretary’s speech. I hope that it will lead to local authorities being given the power to use planning and licensing laws to address the proliferation of those predatory industries in our communities. Recently, my council colleagues Chris Kelly and Helen Stephen and I successfully lobbied Glasgow City Council to have its new licensing statement recognise Possilpark as an area of concern because of the disproportionate number of alcohol-selling outlets that it has. We must take a similarly focused approach to fixed-odds betting.
We must also look to the UK Government to take action. In its most recent budget, it acted to increase the tax take from such terminals, but that does nothing to reduce the impact of the terminals in our communities; it merely increases their importance as a cash cow for the Government and perhaps makes it less likely that the Government will act to reduce the misery that they cause. Unfortunately, we have not seen any signs from the Tory-led Government that it is likely to direct a single penny of that additional revenue to tackling poverty or to addressing addiction.
We must, however, keep the Government under pressure to take action, as Stuart McMillan rightly said, to reduce the maximum stake, which is currently £100, to £2; to increase the time between plays; and to allow flexibility in the four-terminal limit to enable a greater restriction on the number of machines that there can be in any one outlet. A reduction in the maximum stake could be achieved right now—it would not even need primary legislation.
I mentioned that fixed-odds betting terminals are the crack cocaine of gambling addiction. If there were to be a crack cocaine addiction explosion, Governments would quite rightly act. The explosion in the use of fixed-odds betting terminals in communities such as mine deserves a similarly robust approach. It is incumbent on government at all levels to act to address that growing problem. I very much hope that our debate helps momentum to be gained in that direction.
17:20
I congratulate Stuart McMillan on securing the debate, because it is an extremely important issue. I confess that I knew very little about it, so I had to stop and think about it. While I did so, Brechin community council approached me to ask what could be done because it was concerned about such gambling in my home town.
I want to slightly widen out the issue that Stuart McMillan has raised. We seem to be living in a country where gambling has become normalised. Gambling and betting organisations seem to sponsor an awful lot of sport to the point that, when I was recently using my iPhone because I was interested in seeing the world snooker championship results, I found that, in the simple process of moving my finger across the image on my screen, I touched a button that took me straight to an online gambling site. It was just there—I had not even tried to find it.
Perhaps I am a heretic, a puritan or a strange guy or something, but it seems to me that gambling is a rather silly thing to do, unless those gambling know something that the bookies do not. If gamblers know that the machine will give back only 97 per cent of what they have put into it and, as Stuart McMillan has mentioned, most people will keep on putting in the money until it no longer comes out, then banging their heads against a brick wall and throwing their money into a river might at least give people the joy of banging their heads against a brick wall. It is a crazy occupation.
People gamble because they think that they might gain something, because there is an adrenalin rush or perhaps because other people do it, so they think that it is cool to do it, too. However, the only possible result is debt. Citizens Advice Scotland provided a very interesting brief, which explains some of the very sad cases related to gambling. Of course, CAS deals with debt arising from other situations as well.
Why on earth would we as a society want to have machines that take the money out of the pockets of people who are not being very sensible and who therefore need a bit of help and advice? Why are we letting that happen? The gambling industry is similar to the tobacco industry. There is no safe way to use a cigarette. If a person derives a short-term benefit from it, so be it. Some people smoke for a very long time and it does not kill them but, by and large, we know that smoking is an extremely bad idea. I can think of no earthly reason why gambling is a good idea. If someone can advise me otherwise, I ask that they please do so.
When we look at the particular issue of fixed-odds betting machines, there are some specific suggestions. As other members have mentioned them, I will not rehearse the same points. However, if we see such machines as the biggest problem with gambling—I think that is what the statistics say—and we can find ways to reduce the problem by decreasing the size of the bet and by increasing the cycle time, I think that those would be good ideas to progress.
I recognise that gambling is a reserved matter, so I do not want to be too pointed in my remarks. However, I encourage the Government to consider, particularly if we ever do get the powers to deal with the issue, which I hope we do, how we could make gambling as a whole less attractive and more difficult. How do we get folk to understand that gambling is a daft idea? The bookies are in business because they set the odds in their favour. We see that in spades in fixed-odds betting machines—people are bound to lose. We really should not be doing it, should we? We really should not be allowing it. Therefore, it is a challenge to Government to ask how on earth we are going to stop it. I am not pretending that this is an easy matter. However, the suggestion that such gambling is perfectly legal is a very good reason for ensuring that it is not legal.
17:24
I too thank Stuart McMillan for securing the debate. I am clear that there remains a serious case to answer about the potential harm caused by fixed-odds betting terminals, but it is important to ensure balance in any discussion.
Naturally, we are all concerned about the figures that have been mentioned. Last year in Scotland, an astonishing £4.4 billion was wagered using such machines, and considerable amounts of money can be spent in relatively short periods of time. However, any action that is taken in response must be based on evidence.
The gambling industry is an industry that provides jobs and pays taxes—indeed, it will pay more taxes under measures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced recently. It is an industry that, if run responsibly, can provide a safe and enjoyable leisure activity. After all, gambling is legal. Although I understand Mr Don’s apprehension about it as an activity, in a free society it is something that we permit.
That is why, although I support the intention behind the motion—indeed, I have signed it—I have some observations to make. The suggestion that it is possible to gamble
“hundreds of pounds every 20 seconds”
invites question. Can machines be loaded that quickly? I do not know. Is there evidence to that effect? If so, let us see it.
It is clear that it is possible to gamble considerable amounts of money in relatively short periods of time in other ways—for example, at traditional casinos, at horse races or online—but I accept that there is particular concern about fixed-odds machines. I also accept and sympathise with Mr McMillan’s concern about the prevalence of such machines in Inverclyde. It is important that robust player protections are put in place.
The amount of money that is spent at FOBTs, the fact that relatively high stakes can be bet relatively quickly and easily, and the disproportionate contribution that money from such machines appears to make to high street bookmakers’ takings should provoke thought and discussion. Although the number of betting shops is not rising significantly, there is a feeling that they are becoming a more obvious feature of our towns and cities and they are handling greater and greater sums of money. I was interested in Mr McMillan’s analysis of the geographical spread of such premises.
That is why, last year, the UK Government launched a consultation to shed some light on the use of fixed-odds machines. That was important, because we must ensure that any action that is taken is proportionate, effective and evidence based. The consultation did not provide clear evidence for a way forward. In particular, evidence was not forthcoming that there was a direct link between FOBTs and problem gambling. It appears that problem gambling is not higher among those people who play fixed-odds machines. It was found that the vast majority of users played them occasionally and spent relatively modest sums. Research confirms that those who have a gambling problem—we should be quite clear that that is serious—use a variety of products.
The UK Government has taken steps, including the implementing of a voluntary code, and I understand that it is looking closely at whether other measures should be introduced. I accept that the regulation of gambling is a reserved matter, but action can be taken in Scotland to promote responsible gambling. The Scottish ministers and, through them, licensing boards have the power to set fees and licence conditions for all gambling premises, and it is within their power to refuse licences on the basis of risk to vulnerable groups. Local authorities also have the power to grant a licence that includes additional conditions.
As the motion notes, there is a need to increase awareness of problem gambling and to improve support to those who have a problem. It is good that the Scottish health survey now collects information on the issue, which is available, and I commend the work of organisations such as Gamblers Anonymous, with which a number of us have engaged. They do excellent work in educating people about the potential dangers of gambling and providing support to those who have a problem. That work is every bit as important as any restrictions that might be contemplated for betting shops in our high streets.
17:28
Good evening, Presiding Officer.
I thank Stuart McMillan for securing the debate on a topic that is a major issue for my constituents in Glasgow. As has been mentioned, £4.4 billion was wagered in Scotland in 2013 through the use of fixed-odds betting terminals. I am worried about that statistic and believe that FOBTs are a scourge on Scotland. They are sometimes referred to as the crack cocaine of gambling because of the speed at which large sums of money can be lost and their highly addictive roulette content, which mean that they make a higher contribution to problem gambling than any other form of gambling.
FOBT gambling is the main source of revenue for betting shops, so no wonder the bookmakers defend it so vigorously. The Association of British Bookmakers states that betting shops do not target deprived areas, but that is clearly untrue, as there are more than twice the number of betting shops in poorer areas of Scotland than there are in the most affluent areas.
For every additional £1 billion that is spent on FOBTs, an estimated 7,000 jobs are created in the betting sector. The ABB’s submission to a Government consultation claimed that 7,800 betting shops and 39,000 jobs would be at risk if there was a reduction in the FOBT maximum stake from £100 to £2 per spin to bring FOBTs in line with all the other high street gaming machines. However, each pound that is spent on FOBTs, net of winnings, is, by definition, a pound that is not spent elsewhere in the economy. For every £1 billion that is spent on FOBTs, consumer spending on other goods and services falls by £1 billion, which reduces employment in other industries by around 20,000. Increases in spending on FOBTs are likely to destroy jobs in the British economy rather than create them.
The Government must reduce the maximum stake on those machines from £100 to £2 per spin and reduce the number of machines from four per shop to one per shop.
A spokesperson from the campaign for fairer gambling said:
“The bookmakers manipulate data and make it seem like these machines are benefiting”
the community. That is far from the truth. The betting shops are real and are devastating our communities. Something needs to be done to stop them. Therefore, I support the motion.
17:32
Like other members, I will start by thanking Stuart McMillan for raising the issue. I thank him in particular, but I also thank other members around the chamber, who have made very thoughtful and pointed comments.
Stuart McMillan’s speech was thoughtful and well researched. He pointed out the correlation between fixed-odds betting terminals and areas of poverty and deprivation. That was echoed by Hanzala Malik and Patricia Ferguson. There seems to be something stark there, whether we are talking about the Inverclyde-Aberdeenshire divide or the point that Patricia Ferguson made about Keppochhill and Possil. That is an issue, and we have to tackle it.
As has been said, the matter is reserved, but there are actions that can and doubtless will be taken, whether by local authorities or by us. I welcome the support that has been given to the summit that my ministerial colleague held. I can confirm to Patricia Ferguson that I have no doubt that Derek Mackay will be happy to keep her in the loop.
The problem is not one that only we in Scotland face. I think that Nigel Don showed that the issue is global. It is not simply a matter of what we get on the internet; we can hardly watch a sporting event without seeing the portrayal of gambling. That is certainly the case with professional football.
As Annabel Goldie said, it is a matter of balance to some extent. The Scottish Government is not anti-gambling. We acknowledge that gambling provides harmless entertainment to many people and is a significant provider of both employment and taxes, as Annabel Goldie mentioned. There are people in my and Stuart McMillan’s party who are known to enjoy a flutter. Good luck to them. I do not participate in that but, as I said, it is a matter of balance.
We also recognise that the activity can have a significant negative impact on individuals and the wider community, so it needs to be appropriately regulated. The ultimate focus of our concern is problem gambling, not gambling itself. I think that there is a clear view in the chamber that it is a matter of concern, certainly in areas that are blighted by social and economic deprivation.
On the impact of compulsive gambling, the Scottish Government is aware of the efforts of all the organisations and agencies on the front line. I am glad that Stuart McMillan put on record his gratitude to those agencies, which work so hard, and I echo that. They are the people who pick up the pieces after addiction has set in. We acknowledge and are grateful for the valuable work of Gamblers Anonymous and other organisations across Scotland that raise awareness of the dangers that are associated with gambling and give support to those who seek help.
The issue is not restricted to areas of socioeconomic deprivation. As Patricia Ferguson and Stuart McMillan said, more recently it also seems to have jumped across the gender divide. Some sections of the population gamble in different ways, but the issue remains fundamentally the same. Those organisations cannot fight the battle on their own. They need considered engagement from the Government and the Parliament and they need effective legislation although, as many members have said, the matter is reserved.
The consequences of problem gambling can be seen in Scotland. The 2012 Scottish health survey identified that about 31,000 adults in Scotland were problem gamblers. We recognise the harm that can flow from compulsive gambling. Although the numbers of problem gamblers may seem relatively small, their addiction can have a devastating impact on them and those close to them. We can see the cost in broken families, suicides and criminality.
Scotland should be able to deal with this problem, but we simply do not have the powers that we need to do so at present, as the regulation of gambling is reserved to Westminster. Our view is that the UK Government has not done enough to address problem gambling. I am grateful to the members who have written to the UK Government to raise their concerns. When Westminster significantly liberalised the regulation of gambling in 2005, I doubt that it fully recognised the impact that technology would have. The Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill is a step in the right direction, but it is a very limited step. However, we welcome some particular aspects, some of which Annabel Goldie mentioned. The offshoring issue must be addressed.
Stuart McMillan’s motion asks that we express concern about the stakes that are wagered on fixed-odds betting terminals and that we understand the possibly addictive nature of those machines. Many members commented on that point. As the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs said earlier this month, the Scottish Government shares Stuart McMillan’s concern about the impact of new technologies in gambling, particularly fixed-odds betting terminals, and the previous liberalisation of gambling laws.
The first step in addressing the concern is to ensure that we fully understand the impacts, so we need more detailed research. We are grateful for and welcome the steps that the Responsible Gambling Trust has taken to explore the issue. Despite the limited scope that we have for taking the action that is needed in Scotland, we will do what we can. It is incumbent on the Scottish and UK Governments and local authorities to do so. I have written to UK ministers and we will continue to work with the Gambling Commission to raise our concerns.
We have also taken steps to initiate a wider discussion about gambling. As Patricia Ferguson mentioned, today, the Minister for Local Government and Planning hosted a summit on town centres to explore the impact of betting shops and payday loan companies on our communities. Most members commented on that. There is a clear correlation and something almost site specific regarding areas of multiple deprivation. I am glad that we have shared concerns across the Parliament on that issue. We recognise that the Scottish Government has a job of work to do, and we will seek to do it. I have no doubt that Derek Mackay will happily engage with and give feedback to those who attended and those who were not able to attend today’s summit to see what action we can take.
There will be a role for local government. Patricia Ferguson talked about the action that Glasgow City Council has sought to take, which is welcome. It is also welcome that we have an opportunity to put on record our concern that, although we welcome the action that Westminster is taking, further action is needed, because it appears to me that the issue will only grow.
I again thank Stuart McMillan for raising the issue. I express my gratitude to members for recognising the problem. Whether in London, Edinburgh or our local authorities, we will work together to try to reach a shared solution.
Meeting closed at 17:39.Previous
Decision Time