Passing the baton: Neil McArthur’s legacy as UKGC CEO

The evolution of gambling regulation in the UK over the last decade has been dramatic and will undoubtedly continue to be so in the future with the Gambling Act 2005 review. At the heart of that journey are the people shaping it, from regulators to operators. When one of those stakeholders leaves the playing field, there is a temptation to look at their influence over the sector. This is especially true in the case of Gambling Commission (UKGC) CEO Neil McArthur, whose departure was announced less than 24 hours ago. As the head of the UKGC, McArthur’s influence has been wide-ranging, from shaping licensing codes of practice to actively levying pressure on operators to improve standards. At the same time, he has had to deal with a political and highly politicised UK betting market. Does he leave the UKGC with an “unacceptably weak grasp of gambling-related harm” as the government’s public accounts committee said in June 2020? Or does he leave the regulator in a stronger and more resilient position than at any other point in its history? Clifton Davies director David Clifton Neil McArthur’s path as UKGC CEO was laid down in advance by his immediate predecessor, Sarah Harrison. She departed from the Commission in 2018, having played a significant part in setting its strategy for the next three years. That strategy required the industry “to move farther and faster” to address “changing and evolving” risks to achieve a gambling market that is “fairer and safer for consumers”. No-one can doubt that McArthur followed that strategy with zeal, albeit in the process appearing to distance the Commission yet further away from its original approach to regulation, succinctly summed up by its first CEO, Jenny Williams, as aiming “to impose the minimum of regulation consistent with achieving the licensing objectives”. In the eyes of some, McArthur will have gone even further than Harrison in “placing the consumer at the heart of gambling regulation”, raising the question whether the careful balance required between (a) giving individuals the freedom to choose how they spend their own money and (b) protecting vulnerable people and their families from gambling-related harm has shifted too far in favour of the latter to the detriment of the former. The current ‘affordability’ debate is a case in point. There is no doubt in my mind that, from the word go, McArthur genuinely wanted to make gambling fairer and safer for all by achieving increased collaboration between the Commission and its licence-holders (as well as between licence-holders themselves). He famously said to an audience of industry board members in November 2018: “I want consumers in Britain to be able to enjoy the fairest and safest gambling in the world and to achieve my aims I need your support: I need you to work together to make sure you are the best – the fairest, safest – gambling operators in the world.” Sadly, given his undoubted good intentions, in terms of a legacy McArthur may instead be most remembered for leading the Commission at a time when it has come under more intense negative public, media and parliamentary criticism than at any other time in its history. By way of example, the regulatory body was slammed – unjustly in my view – by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee last year for being “a torpid, toothless regulator that doesn’t seem terribly interested in either the harms it exists to reduce or the means it might use to achieve that”. Those of us who have come to know McArthur over his many years at the Gambling Commission appreciate that he was driven by a genuine desire to reduce gambling-related harm. That would be a kinder way for him to be remembered. Keystone Law partner Richard Williams I wouldn’t be surprised if Neil McArthur turns up at the helm of a regulator in another field in the not-too-distant future. He’s certainly shown that as the CEO of a small regulator, the Gambling Commission has sharp teeth and is by no means a rollover. We perhaps need him more in another field, such as regulating financial services. However, the increasingly adversarial approach presided over by Neil McArthur at the Commission might not be the only way to promote the licensing objectives. I worry that relations between the Gambling Commission and the industry are currently at an all-time low. I hope that whoever replaces him will attempt to build bridges with the gambling industry and to recognise that whatever the outcome of the of the review, gambling has been and always will be a part of British life. Northridge Law LLP partner Melanie Ellis Since taking the helm, McArthur has had to navigate a precarious course between criticism from the industry on one side and attacks from politicians and the media on the other. The stricter controls on online gambling which have come into force during his tenure are well known and have, I believe, genuinely raised regulatory standards and served to protect some of those at risk from harm. However, as a legal advisor to the industry, what has been noticeable during this time is the change in the relationship between the gambling industry and its regulator. There remains some areas of collaboration between operators and the Commission (such as work on the game design code), but this has been put onto a much more formal footing, with a frustrating lack of opportunity for open dialogue. Despite his best endeavours, McArthur’s legacy is a Gambling Commission entering a period of review with little support from either the industry it regulates, or the public it aims to protect.