The UK government has reportedly agreed to delay imposition of a cut in the maximum bet allowed at fixed odds betting terminals until 2020, which has drawn criticism from the country’s Labor Party.
The government announced it would cut the maximum bet allowed at FOBTs from £100 to £2, but the change was not expected to happen until 2019 as the regulation requires Parliamentary approval.
Now, British reports say the government’s Treasury Department has agreed to wait until 2020 to institute the cuts as bookmakers in the country lobbied for more time to adopt to the change. UK bookmakers have said the cut could result in the closing of hundreds of betting shops and cost thousands of jobs.
That led the Labor Party to call the government “fundamentally weak” for bowing to pressure from bookmakers. The party said gamblers will lose an extra £4 billion in the intervening period, based on the average £1.8 billion a year in revenues taken by the machines.
FOBTs have been under attack in the UK for some time with critics saying they are a highly addictive form of gambling that preys on problem gamblers. Since the machines can accept a new bet every 20 seconds, players could lose thousands of pounds within minutes under the £100 limit, critics charge.
“Capitulating to a two-year delay is a pathetic move from a fundamentally weak government,” said Tom Watson, labor’s deputy leader in a press statement. “Those who praised the government when the announcement was made will feel badly let down. They are already rolling back on their promises and allowing these machines to ruin more lives.”
Britain’s Guardian newspaper also reported that sources in the FOBT manufacturing industry have said it should take only six to eight weeks to alter software to implement a new maximum stake.
However, a new release from the Treasury Department said “We are changing the rules so they balance the needs of vulnerable people, those who gamble responsibly and people who work in this sector. But we must get this right and are engaging with the industry to ensure it has sufficient time to implement these technological changes.”
Though not confirmed, a target date of April 2020 is expected for the cuts to go into effect, according to local reports. The change had no set date for going into effect, since the measure must be approved by Parliament, but it was expected the cuts would begin in 2019.
Also, the UK Treasury department had planned to offset a loss of revenue from taxes collected on FOBTs by introducing a higher rate of tax on online gambling. That increase could now be put in place before the FOBT stakes are actually cut, the paper reported.
The UK currently charges a 15 percent point of consumption tax on online gaming.
In another UK story, the British Horseracing Authority confirmed the structure of a new Racing Authority. The new authority will take control of the functions currently performed by the Levy Board starting in April 2019.
The structure was agreed to by the three main bodies who represent horse-racing in the UK: the BHA, the Horsemen’s Group, and the Racecourse Association. Each have agreed to each appoint two members to the board. These will be accompanied by two independent appointees, including former Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson.
The key duties of the Racing Authority will include making sure that funds are used appropriately, fairly and transparently, as well as developing further funding sources. They will also be in charge of implementing overall strategy for future funding and future growth of the industry as a whole, the authority said in a press release.
Also, the UK Advertising Standards Authority has reprimanded Coral Interactive for three ads it ruled would have a particular appeal to children. The ads were for the games Rainbow Riches, Fishin’ Frenzy and Lucky Wizard titles, which feature animated images in all three games including that of a leprechaun, pot of gold, fish in the ocean and a wizard.
Coral Interactive, a division of the GVC owned Ladbrokes Coral Group, said it conducted an extensive review of the ads and felt they did not violate advertising standards, but the authority ruled the ads must be removed and can no longer run.
