Question: Is 2007 shaping up to be the worst year in living memory for bingo? 

Sir Peter Fry: It certainly looks that’s way!

Question: Why is this?

Sir Peter Fry: There are a number of issues facing the industry, driven by government policy and spearheaded by the continuing issue of double taxation, closely followed by two new factors to contend with.

One is the increasing cost of regulation and licences that is on its way through the Gambling commission, which will see licence fees increase by about 75 per cent for some clubs and new legislation that sees the industry disadvantaged.

On top of this there is the smoking ban, the negative impact of which the industry has already experienced in Scotland and will shortly do so in England and Wales, where the effect will be amplified. The impact in Scotland has been alarming, with some clubs experiencing drops in profit of 119 per cent, putting them in a loss making position and already having forced 12 clubs to close.

The problem the industry faces is trying to sustain business in the face of a repeated legislative onslaught. We can find no one in government who is prepared to do anything to help the industry, there is a lot of buck passing going on.

Frankly without some revision of their approach toward bingo at this time, the combined effect of these government policies could cause up to 200 bingo clubs to close.

Question: What is bingo's future looking like post the new Gambling Act?

Sir Peter Fry: When the Gambling Bill was first put forward we had hoped that there would be some very useful elements to it and were told that no sector of the gambling industry would have less under new legislation than it did under old.  In reality there has been very little benefit.

What we are finding is that where we were told we wouldn’t loose anything, in fact we actually will.

Up until now we haven’t been able to persuade the DCMS to put in alternative games, which might provide some level of assistance.

Question: Why will the industry's expectations not be delivered upon under this Act?

Sir Peter Fry: There are many people in the industry who wish there wasn’t going to be an Act at all. And I think on the whole they have been proved right.

One of the problems was that the Bill was rushed through parliament, many parts of it weren’t properly discussed and what we are now finding out in the regulations that are being issued is that far from there being a lighter regulatory hand, the Gambling Commission is creating an intolerable burden.

What it has done, which is why we were so disappointed, is that where the new Act was supposed to liberate the gaming industry and at the same time put a visible social responsibility on it, we are finding that we are getting no benefit.

Questions: Did the Budd report ever suggest that anything different should be the case?

Sir Peter Fry: The Budd report made recommendations about how the gambling industry should be legislated for, many of which were appropriate in light of how the industry has evolved since 1968.  However, the way it these recommendations have been interpreted is a different story. And it is this that has caused the problem. The basic difficulty is that the government started off facing to ways at the same time and I don’t think that Budd did this.

On the one hand the government is saying that they want to free up some of the restrictions on the gaming industry and allow it to grow in a properly regulated environment.

On the other, they have said that they want to increase social responsibility with specific regards to problem gamblers.

Neither of these points seem unreasonable, particularly that of social responsibility, an issue that bingo fully supports, until you consider how they have been translated.  Far greater freedoms have been offered to harder forms of gambling, than to bingo, which is very much at the soft, social end of the spectrum.

Yet social responsibility requirements have been applied in a very blunt manner, having no regard for the existing sector behaviour or occurrence of the problem within each sector. Harder forms of gambling tend to have a greater occurrence of problem gambling, which bingo does not due to the social aspect of the activity and the environment in which it takes place.

In addition to this, the government has not done anything to keep in check the gambling problems that are going to arise from online gambling.

Government has been loading on more and more conditions on our industry and other parts of the gamming sector, when frankly the situation for bingo does not warrant it. 

The last prevalence study showed that this country has a low level of problem gambling. I am willing to bet in two to three years time with the increase of online gambling and casinos, with enormous numbers of machines, then you will see problem gambling figures rise. 

Then the government, of course, will expect bingo and all the other parts of the industry to cough up all the money to deal with the increase in gambling addictions that they themselves have lead.

Question: What approaches has the industry made to government to highlight the plight of the industry?

Sir Peter Fry: Well, we have been in constant discussion with Customs and Excise and the Treasury to try and get a fairer way of treating VAT.

Question: Why does the industry pay VAT?

Sir Peter Fry: A good question and one which we have repeatedly asked.

Question: What does the industry need in order to be in a position that would enable it to benefit greatly from the new laws and enter a period of growth?

Sir Peter Fry: There are three areas that are key to the future success of the UK bingo industry. Creating an equitable tax regime has to be the starting point, as this touches every operator and every club, regardless of size.  The removal of the unfair application of VAT is a just and readily applicable solution, that needs to be addressed now.

Moving forward the implications of the Gambling Act need to be re-appraised before it is too late for bingo. The changes required here are not substantial in respect of the overarching aim of the legislation, but pivotal to the future success of bingo in communities and as an industry.

The direct cost of licences and the indirect cost for clubs of administrative burden needs to be revised and the freedoms afforded to other aspects of the gambling industry also offered to bingo.  

Machines aren’t popular with the media, but are popular with those who like a flutter. We’ve got no more under the new Act, bookmakers have seen FOTB legalised and higher stakes allowed.  New casinos have got more machines, while we’ve lost Section 21 games. 

A fairer deal is needed that enables us to play new games. Under the new Act we can have them, but the DCMS have made no agreement on what they might be. Such an opportunity could help address the loss of income arising directly from the smoking ban, but I can’t see we’ll get that on a certain date.

Question: To what extent do you feel that the Gambling Act will also impact on the issue of problem gambling?

Sir Peter Fry: The new Act has been creating a new level of bureaucracy, which is a heavy burden for clubs to bear. However, we have a good record of supporting problem gamblers, with staff trained on these sensitive issues. 

It’s a difficult area as the Gambling Commission has given no final details on what we have to do or how we are to cope with a problem gambler. If a customer has money to spend and they are choosing to spend it at bingo, for us to intervene my provoke a rather direct and hostile response from players, who may feel that it is no one else’s business but their own. Until the Gambling Commission come out with final criteria we can’t give a definitive answer.

Question: Why should politicians and the public care particularly about bingo specifically - gambling is gambling isn’t it?

Sir Peter Fry: The campaign we’re running with members and players from March  5 highlights that bingo is different; politicians are sympathetic, they recognise the social context of bingo. 

Our customers are predominantly women, for who bingo is a key part of their social activity and very much a key part of their life. Bingo is not an expensive leisure activity and provides a safe, warm environment, with food and entertainment. 

Despite the huge range of leisure activities available today, bingo remains popular, with over three million regular players, proving that it is still very relevant to modern society, in fact as many other traditional components of local communities disappear the significance of a local bingo club becomes more, rather than less. They are part of the fabric of local communities and in many instance the closure of a club would be felt deeply.

While bingo is gambling, it is a game where you can’t chase losses. The government says it does not want to create problem gamblers, but has angled legislation that favours harder gambling, while penalising bingo and its players.

We’re facing a series of problems arising from government policies, that sees no department taking account of the impact of its decisions or those of other departments.  There is a very real need to look at and understand the raft of policies that are impacting bingo, rather than making decisions in isolation. The Treasury says the basis of the problem isn’t tax, but the set of circumstances means no one wants to take responsibility. Government must take steps and quickly to ensure it that further businesses, jobs and social facilities are not lost – forever.

'Stop destroying my bingo' is a national campaign launched by the Bingo Association on March 5, 2007.  For further details of the campaign visit www.backbingo.co.uk