Published on Monday by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, The Gambling Act 2005: A bet worth taking? is a look into the gambling industry in light of the 2005 Gambling Act. One of the stated aims of the Gambling Act is the 'protection of children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling'.

However, the report recommends scrapping the upper limit of four high-risk B2 machines that betting shops can have on their premises, to deal with 'unintended consequence' of clustering of betting shops in high streets. It then expects local authorities to enforce that limit but doesn't give it power to stop the number of betting shops on the high street.

‘This is a one-way street towards more addictive gambling machines in our communities,’ said Gareth Wallace from the Salvation Army. ‘Betting shops are making more and more profit from virtual games rather than from real horses.
‘We’re perplexed that the committee would recommend a further liberalisation of gambling machines when they heard evidence that problem gambling is on the rise.’

Church groups gave evidence to the committee last year calling for more to be done to protect those with gambling problems and to regulate the industry effectively.

Daniel Webster, of the Evangelical Alliance, said, ‘The committee completely ignored the risks posed by B2 gaming machines. You can lose thousands of pounds an hour on these machines, but if the committee gets its way casinos will be granted more B2 machines, betting shops will be subject to no compulsory limit, and, for the first time, gaming arcades will be allowed to operate them.

‘They didn’t listen to the 29 per cent of callers to the gambling helpline citing these machines as problems, but backed an industry wanting to make a profit out of the pockets of the poorest.’

James North, of the Methodist Church, said, ‘We believe the Select Committee has missed an important opportunity to halt the normalisation of hard gambling on our high streets. Category B2 gaming machines are strongly implicated in problem gambling. The Committee should have focused on reducing the availability of these dangerous machines.’

Helena Chambers, of Quaker Action on Alcohol and Drugs, noted, ‘The Select Committee has not given the increase in problem gambling the priority it deserves. Around 100,000 more individuals and their families have suffered from problem gambling since the Gambling Act of 2005. The committee recommends more local powers, but does not give local authorities the central power they need - to limit gambling outlets if they feel they already have too many.’

The churches welcomed calls by the committee for further comparable research on problem gambling rates and the introduction of a national system of self-exclusion regulated by the Gambling Commission. However, their recommendations did not mention this proposal in relation to remote gambling.

Dr. Daniel Boucher, Director of Parliamentary Affairs for CARE said, ‘It is very welcome that the committee recommended a national system for self-exclusion which would be of great benefit for people dealing with an addiction, however it is odd and rather inconsistent that they do not mention this proposal in relation to remote gambling which is as important if not more so due to the easy access to numerous gambling websites.’