A scheme to help gambling machine addicts will not properly protect at-risk individuals without significant changes such as the introduction of an electronic ID system, according to new research. <\/p>\n
People who feel their gambling is out of control can register to exclude themselves from specified bookmakers, meaning they should be barred, but flaws in the system mean some individuals are able to continue placing bets, new research for leading charity GambleAware has found. <\/p>\n
The report said the multiple operator self-exclusion scheme (MOSES) has been a positive step, but a minority of customers had dodged self-imposed bans which rely on staff recognising gamblers who have registered. <\/p>\n
Managers said the system is not always effective because employees don't spot people who have registered andself-service machinesare often sited out of view. <\/p>\n
More than half of the bookmakermanagers questioned said the biggest issues was the volume of gambling addicts staff had to keep tabs on. This is a particular problem for shops with large numbers of customers or a high turnover of staff, the report said. <\/p>\n
Controversial fixed-odds betting terminalspresent by far the biggest danger, staff said. The machines allow customers to wager up to 100 every 20 seconds and have come under fire for their addictive potential. <\/p>\n
One manager questioned told researchers: The volume of exclusions, all of which seem to be FOBT, makes the situation more difficult to manage due to the location of most FOBT zones in our shops. <\/p>\n
The scheme began in April 2016 and around 2,800 problem gamblers have now registered. There are plans to expand it, meaning identification issues could get worse as staff have to recognise more customers. <\/p>\n
There are challenges in upholding 100 per cent of exclusions in the current scheme format, which cannot be overcome unless there are significant changes to the systems used by operators, the report stated. It said there was appetite to introduce membership cards or an electronic ID requirement. <\/p>\n
A spokersperson for gambling charity GamCare said there would \"always be problems with a self-exclusion system, but these are much less common in casinos than bookmakers because most have membership schemes in place\". <\/p>\n
Louise Duffy, lead researcher at Chrysalis Research, which carried out the analysis, told The Independentthat membership cards were a common suggestion from staff she interviewed. <\/p>\n
She said: \"The idea is that all customers are given an ID or membership card that will need to be used in order to use the machines. Customers who have self-excluded would not be able to use the machines because their card would be registered as having self-excluded.\" However, Ms Duffy acknowledged that this would require \"significant investment\". <\/p>\n
Gambling addicts also reported that they wanted to ban themselves from all betting shops in an area but under the scheme they must specify particular shops, allowing the potential for gaps to emerge. <\/p>\n
\"[You] should be able to just say all betting shops in a 30 mile radius of your address, instead of trying to explain to someone on the phone various addresses when they don't live in your area,\" one customer told researchers. <\/p>\n
Iain Corby, deputy chief executive of GambleAware told The Independent: As the industry expands self-exclusion to protect more vulnerable people, we encourage them to find ways to make it work on a larger scale, which will involve addressing issues like anonymous play, staffing levels and machines being out of sight of staff. <\/p>\n
This takes us one step closer to a universal self-exclusion scheme, which should strengthen the protections available for at risk individuals wherever they gamble. We encourage the industry to tackle some of the areas identified in this research, including the potential to notify all shops in their local area rather than a shop at a time. <\/p>\n
Mr Corby added: For those most at risk of gambling related harm, the report shows that linking self-exclusion to treatment makes the greatest difference.\" <\/p>\n
The Senet Group, the industry body that runs the scheme and is backed by bookmakers including Ladbrokes Coral, William Hill and Paddy Power, agreed that a more joined up approach is needed to protect those with addictions. <\/p>\n
\"Establishing a fully integrated system would enable customers to exclude from any form of gambling with a single click or call. This should surely be our long term goal,\" said Wanda Goldwag, chair of the group. <\/p>\n
\"The same companies who fund MOSES are amongst those investing in an equivalent scheme for online gambling. It must make sense to look at how far we can go in delivering these schemes in as joined up a way as possible. <\/p>\n
Trade body, the Association of British Bookmakers, hailed the self-exclusion scheme as a success, pointing out that more than four in five customers surveyed said it had helped them reduce their gambling and 71 per cent had not used the betting shops from which they had banned themselves. <\/p>\n
Malcolm George, ABB chief executive, said it was \"a highly encouraging result and another example of why betting shops offer gamblers the safest and most responsible place to have a bet.\" <\/p>\n
Bookmakers have come under increasing pressure to crack down on problem gambling, particularly on FOBTs, as the Government undertakes a review of the machines. In January MPs on the the All-Party Parliamentary Group on FOBTs recommended far stricter controls, including cutting the maximum stake per spin from 100 to 2 and increasing the time between bets. <\/p>\n
Carolyn Harris, APPG chair, said in January: The time for prevaricating is over. These machines are easily accessed in the most deprived areas, sucking money out of the pockets of families. I support a responsible gambling industry, but there is nothing responsible about how FOBTs are currently being operated. I urge the Government to take action now. <\/p>\n
Bookmakers have been accused of being slow to take action because the machines are so lucrative. The UK's biggest bookmaker, Ladbrokes Coral, today announced full-year revenues for 2016 of 2.3bn, up 11 per cent on a year earlier. Fully 36 per cent of group sales and 56 per cent of UK retail sales, came from FOBTs. <\/p>\n
Nicholas Hyett, equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown said the Government's upcoming review was \"concerning\". He added: \"Reforms that undermine profitability, such as significantly reducing the amounts that can be staked at any one time, would have serious consequences for the group.\" <\/p>\n
Graham Jones, MP for Hyndbournaccused the gambling industryof \"behaving like the tobacco industry\". <\/p>\n
\"Its aim is to hoodwink the public, he told The Independent. \"It claims it is taking measures but in reality its main toxic product, FOBTs are now generating the majority of their profits.\" <\/p>\n
People who feel they might have a problem with gambling should visit the GambleAware website, or alternatively call the national gambling helpline on 0808 8020 133 <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See original here: <\/p>\n
Betting machines should require ID cards to protect vulnerable gambling addicts, report says - The Independent<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A scheme to help gambling machine addicts will not properly protect at-risk individuals without significant changes such as the introduction of an electronic ID system, according to new research. People who feel their gambling is out of control can register to exclude themselves from specified bookmakers, meaning they should be barred, but flaws in the system mean some individuals are able to continue placing bets, new research for leading charity GambleAware has found. The report said the multiple operator self-exclusion scheme (MOSES) has been a positive step, but a minority of customers had dodged self-imposed bans which rely on staff recognising gamblers who have registered Continue reading