Betting shops are a fixture of English high streets. They generate millions in revenue and provide countless hours of leisure and entertainment for bettors. If a campaign by a collection of local British authorities proves successful, however, these shops will face a radically uncertain future.
Some 93 council authorities have banded together to demand that government ministers institute harsh new restrictions and regulations on fixed-odds betting terminals. The demands include reducing maximum stakes on betting terminals by a staggering 98% — all the way down to two pounds.
These pro-regulation authorities are drawing support from across the political spectrum, as Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat-controlled councils are all involved.
The councils, which are urging ministers to pursue these changes under the Sustainable Communities Act, have criticized betting shops for being associated with criminal elements and bad behaviour.
Some local council leaders have even called terminals at betting shops the “crack cocaine” of gaming, alleging that the rapidity of the bets (a wager may be made several times per minute) leads to impulsive behaviour.
The Association of British Bookmakers has dismissed these allegations as unfounded, pointing out that there is zero evidence that lowering stakes by 98-percent would positively affect problem gaming. They also point out that there is high demand for such betting options in large commercial centres, and that the vast majority of wagerers do not have issues. The industry is also taking steps to self-regulate such as introducing options allowing for additional pauses in play.
Some British politicians are unimpressed by the idea of new regulations as well. A spokesman from the Department of Culture, Media & Sport has been quoted as saying measures currently in place are sufficient to address problem gaming.
While the efforts of local councils may be well-intentioned, draconian restrictions on popular betting terminals are likely to meet with an icy reception from the public. Given the utter lack of scientific backing for these restrictions, it seems unwise to radically change the nature of terminal betting on such flimsy evidence.
