![\"\"](\"https:\/\/gaming-awards.com\/NEWS\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/UK-Parliament-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\nBy Christina Thakor-Rankin<\/p>\n
For many in the industry this sums up perfectly the recent report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry entitled: \u201cGambling Harm – Time for Action\u201d.<\/p>\n
Over a year in the making, this is a no holds barred report that portrays neither the industry nor the regulator in a particularly flattering light and concludes with over 60 individual recommendations designed to address a lack of sufficient governance, accountability and oversight of the industry.<\/p>\n
Whilst the contents of the report do not make for comfortable reading, they do not come as a complete surprise. Much of the report is simply an affirmation of the many discussions and rhetoric linked to a shift in political and public attitude towards betting and gambling over the last few years, or a reminder to the government to honour historic commitments and promises such as an assessment of casino regulations which was scheduled to take place in 2014, which a recommendation that the regulator \u2018work with bookmakers to create a protocol to ensure adequate supervision and staffing during opening hours, taking into consideration the size, lay-out and turnover of individual premises\u2019, just comes across as advocating basic good common sense.<\/p>\n
Five recommendations for online gambling look at categorising games in accordance with a scale of addictiveness or harm, and treating each product or game type I the same way irrespective of the location or context in which it is offered or consumed \u2018so that no game can be played quicker online than in a casino, betting shop or bingo hall\u2019 again just seems like good basic common sense. If a product is harmful in one setting it is probably likely to be just as harmful (maybe even more harmful) in an alternate setting.<\/p>\n
Off and online recommendations are following by a chunky section on meaty section next section of the depending on the accessibility and perceptions moving it to and one audience the laws of probability would suggest it would be just as harmful served in a different setting to a but equally accessible environment?<\/p>\n
Eight of the recommendations relate to affordability checks, VIP players and self-exclusion. None of this new, and all of it forms the basis of research and recommendations from expert groups or Gambling Commission consultations. On one point in particular, the report seeks to address one of the biggest operator gripes – principle based regulation that relies on interpretation and leaves them open to being \u2018damned if they do damned if they don\u2019t\u2019 depending on the interpretation of the regulatory inspector or auditor. The Select Committee\u2019s recommendation is clear \u2018the Gambling<\/p>\n
Commission must amend its Formal Guidance for Remote Gambling Operators to define the minimum steps which operators should take when considering customer affordability, and to make clear that it is for the operator to take those steps, and any necessary additional steps, which will enable them to identify customers who are betting more than they can afford\u2019. Not great for those operators that apply a broad-brush approach to the concept of risk, but immeasurably helpful to those who want to do the right thing but have struggled to compete with those who have deep pockets and view fines as a cost of doing business.
\nA further eight recommendations focus on advertising and marketing – from the effect of advertising on children, to shirt sponsorship, bet to view offers and direct marketing. Again, none of this is new, much of it having been discussed and debated at length both in and around the industry and in keeping with the approach taken by other countries around the world such as Italy and Australia.<\/p>\n
Ten of the recommendations focus on public health and seek to evaluate and address levels and impact of gambling related harm. This is entirely in keeping with the title, purpose and scope of the Select Committee\u2019s investigation.<\/p>\n
So far, none of this is unexpected or at any great variance to the changing political and public sentiment towards gambling over the last few years. What is surprising, perhaps is how far the report goes in its recommendations for change in less expected areas.<\/p>\n
Firstly, regarding regulation. Following swiftly on the heels of the Common\u2019s Select Committee labelling what some consider to be the gambling world\u2019s most proactive enforcer \u2018toothless\u2019 comes this report from the upper chamber recommending changes to primary legislation that would substantially strengthen the scope and enforcement capabilities of the Gambling Commission and local authorities. The recommendations including measures that would \u2018provide it with more flexibility and allow it to react and adapt to fast changing regulatory requirements\u2019 and address something that has long been a bone of contention with the smaller operators trying to do the right thing – large operators who might view regulatory sanctions as just a cost of doing business. The recommendation is clear. \u2018Fines currently imposed, and penalties agreed by the Gambling Commission do not make a sufficient impact on large corporations. They should reflect not just the seriousness of the offence but the size of the offender. In the case of repeat offences or other extreme circumstances the Commission should demonstrate much greater willingness to exercise its power to withdraw an operator\u2019s licence.\u2019<\/p>\n
What is worrying for the sector is that against a background of being labelled ineffectual and being presented with greater powers and the final recommendation in this section \u2018The Government should conduct a triennial review of the work of the Gambling Commission, taking evidence from a wide range of interested persons and bodies, and prepare a report to Parliament on the past performance of the Commission, on lessons to be learned for the future, and on any changes which may be needed to its constitution or to the law governing it\u2019 – the Gambling Commission will need to be seen to act – that can only mean one thing for operators.![\"\"](\"https:\/\/gaming-awards.com\/NEWS\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/Gambling-Commission-reception-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Secondly the recommendation that \u2018The minimum age at which an individual can buy any National Lottery product should be raised to 18\u2019 (from 16) – finally bringing the UK and one of the most accessible and arguably most addictive products of all, instant win lottery scratch-cards in line with the rest of the world and higher risk products.<\/p>\n
There are a few other recommendations not mentioned so far, such as loot boxes and the introduction of an Ombudsman, but all still in keeping with a strategy designed to take a firmer approach to social responsibility, protecting the young and harm minimisation. Whilst the contents may have come as a disappointment to some in the industry, there is nothing particularly unexpected or surprising in it.<\/p>\n
The report is also cognisant of the impact of the recommendations and includes a caveat \u2018To ensure that the implementation of online stake limits does not lead to increased unregulated offshore gambling, the Government and Gambling Commission must work with payment providers and banks to establish a scheme to block payments to such operators.\u2019 Pretty comprehensive expect for one thing.<\/p>\n
What the report does not take into account is the fact that the gambling genii is well and truly out of the bag. Customers that like playing higher stakes are not just going to stop, they are going to actively seek and find alternative ways of being able to continue. If the recommendations in the report are implemented then in the current climate of travel restrictions this can only mean one thing – a return to the vicious world of underground and illegal gambling dens of old – and the reason gambling regulation was introduced in the first place.<\/p>\n
Without doubt the report (and the industry) is driven by the best of intentions – we just need to be careful that the road of good intentions does not result in a new version of gambling hell.<\/p>\n