Industry reaction to suggestion UKGC and DCMS have “unacceptably weak” grasp of gambling-harm impact  

Over the past year, the state of gambling regulation and gambling-related harm reduction efforts in the UK have been scrutinised like never before, born partly out of a need to bring the 2005 UK Gambling Act into “the digital age” but also the need to make lasting progress in reducing harm.

The first volley from government was fired earlier this year with the National Audit Office report into the Gambling Commission and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which highlighted severe funding deficiencies and limited regulatory impact of commission efforts.

Within the last month, the Gambling Related Harm All Party Parliamentary Group delivered its scathing attack on industry and regulatory efforts in a 30-point salvo, which rattled more than a few cages across the sector.

With the publication of this latest Public Accounts Committee report firing shots in the direction of the regulator and the DCMS by accusing them of having an “unacceptably weak understanding” on the impact of gambling harms in a 21-page report, is it time for the industry to be prepared for a raft of tougher regulations?

Below, the Betting and Gaming Council, DCMS, GBGC’s Warwick Bartlett and Clifton Davies’ David Clifton all share their views with EGR on the latest report to hit the industry.

Betting and Gaming Council

The Betting and Gaming Council was established last year to drive up standards across our industry, and we are determined that this is a race to the top.

The industry is working hard to raise standards to help problem gamblers and those at risk, though we note that both the regulator and the government have made it clear that there is no evidence that problem gambling has increased.

Our industry is already heavily regulated. We mustn’t drive customers to offshore, black market, illegal operators that don’t have any of our safeguards, and we do want to see more action taken against the unregulated industry.

We are committed to making more voluntary changes and driving up safer gambling standards. We will work with the Gambling Commission and the government to achieve this, particularly on the forthcoming review of the Gambling Act.

Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

We are absolutely committed to protecting people from the risks of gambling-related harm and recognise there is more to do. We have been clear that we will review the Gambling Act to ensure it is fit for the digital age.

We have also worked closely with the Gambling Commission over the past 18 months to introduce a wave of tough measures – cutting the maximum stake on fixed odds betting terminals, introducing tighter age and identifying checks for online gambling, and banning gambling using credit cards, and this month the Commission launched the first of a series of consultations to strengthen protections further.

GBGC CEO Warwick Bartlett

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee is one of the most important select committees in parliament and, to be frank, one would expect a report that was not merely a cut and paste from the utterances of the APPG.  The level of addictive gambling in the UK as a percentage of either the population or total gamblers is minuscule. So much so that in our ‘woke’ world, the Gambling Commission has had to come up with data for those that may be considered at risk. It suited their purpose at the time to impose regulation on the industry, but nowadays this estimate based on pure guess work has become cast in stone as though it is fact, which it is not. It is incredulous that future policy should be based on this premise and even more so that PAC, one of the most prestigious House of Commons committees, should have been sucked into it.

This report is a slap in the face for the Gambling Commission. I don’t know of any other jurisdiction in the world that has done so much to bring forward the harm that addictive gambling can have. I know of no other jurisdiction that levies fines so horrendously high that most new operators choose not to license in the UK. The report states that the Gambling Commission recommended a stake per spin on FOBTs of £30. This is not true, they suggested a rate between £2 and £30 with the knowledge that it was not they that had to set the limit but the DCMS. Readers will recall at the time that the Treasury itself was unconvinced of the merits of a £2 spin limit.

Parliament can solve the problem of gambling-related harm quickly. Of the £3bn collected in tax, give 10% to the NHS to treat problem gamblers. If the problem is so serious as the Public Accounts Committee maintains, this seems like a logical thing to do. But perhaps the problem is not as great as is maintained. In that respect, the KPIs suggested in the report will prove so. But what if the KPIs prove what the industry has been telling the Gambling Commission? Will the Gambling Commission continue to produce those KPIs?

It is estimated that there are 395,000 problem gamblers with 1.8 million at risk. These are estimates and let’s be frank, if you wish to pillory an industry the temptation is great to move the needle in the direction to suit your cause. The way forward is to deal in facts, that way the authorities will have no problem bringing the industry with them.

Clifton Davies Consultancy’s David Clifton

The report states that “under the current regime, consolidation within the industry results in a reduction in the Gambling Commission’s budget regardless of the impact on the gambling yield. The Gambling Commission told the Committee that a recent merger could result in a reduction of £400,000 in the Commission’s budget”.

This would represent a considerable reduction in the Commission’s budget, bearing in mind that it only receives £19m in licence fee income each year. However, it is the DCMS, not the Gambling Commission, that sets the Commission’s fees. The DCMS says it’s expecting evidence from the Commission on future funding requirements, but now this has been flagged up in the PAC report, I suspect it will turn into a major issue for debate, as and when the review of the Gambling Act commences, particularly bearing in mind the Commission’s comment that the current funding arrangements do not provide it with the flexibility it needs to respond to changing risks within the sector. Ultimately, one thing is for certain: we know where the increased cost burden is likely to fall!