Was the Gambling Act worthwhile
June 13, 2006

The Government’s mishandling of the Gambling Act has in many ways undermined the rationale for the legislation in the first place. The need for new legislation, highlighted by the Budd Review, was something we supported. Gambling law had to be brought into the 21^st Century. But there have been two key issues – is the new regulation better than what preceded it and does it contain adequate protections for children and the vulnerable?

We accept that new platforms such as online gambling needed addressing but again, we have serious doubts about the Government’s approach.

Underlining our approach has been the twin issues of effective regulation and protecting the vulnerable. We make no apology for adopting a cautious, consistent approach and for challenging the Government. It is our job to oppose bad legislation and to stand up for the vulnerable.

We are not anti-business or anti-gambling, but we believe that an expansion in gambling opportunities needs to be very carefully managed because of the risks of an increase in problem gambling.

We have highlighted the inconsistencies in the Government’s approach and the absence of clearly definable criteria with which the casino pilot scheme will be assessed.

Problems with the Act

• Scrutiny errors: the Joint Scrutiny Committee received the Bill in bits rather than as whole (separate proposals for new casinos were brought forward later).
• Controversy over super casinos: Government kept changing its mind as to their purpose and potential location – regeneration, ‘resort style’ etc
• Doubts over regenerative benefits. ODPM and Hall Aitken reports have both undermined the idea that casino will be a panacea for urban problems. The former says that proliferation of regional casinos ‘may result in enhanced socio-economic problems in terms of crime, anti-social behaviour and potentially alcohol’. It also says that the ‘initial proliferation [of casinos] could be dramatic and negative for many locations’ (ODPM, The Use Classes Order, Causes and the Gambling Bill, January 2006, Paragraphs 4.62 and 4.63).
• Risks of ‘ambient gambling’ by placing new casinos in town centres.
• Flawed competition process could leave local authorities open to legal challenge by operators.
• Betting industry concerns about bringing betting and gaming under one regulator: Gambling Commission’s lack of knowledge about betting industry.

Government inconsistencies

• Undermining the pilot: we now have the extraordinary sight of Tessa Jowell encouraging Geoffrey Robinson and the Coventry casino bid to lobby Government through EDMs and 10 minute Rule Bills to alter the shortlist and even to get the Government to change the numbers. This undermines the fact that the numbers have been set by Parliament, and that the assessment of bids is supposed to be done by an independent panel. We need clear, objective criteria for the pilot scheme, not gerrymandering by Jowell.
• Problem gambling figures: ODPM and DCMS have used different figures. Caborn and Jowell quote 6 year old figures and are only now conducting a new prevalence study, after the passage of the Bill. Concerns about lessons from Australia.
• Stakes and prizes: Government’s failure to act in line with triennial review.
• 1968 Act problems: Loophole of allowing new casinos under 1968 legislation.
• Online gambling: Caborn has focussed heavily on the new regulatory regime for online operators justifying the Gambling Act itself. But Government has failed to take a stand with the powers it has under the 1968 Act on illegal internet casino advertisements. Doubts remain about whether offshore operators will relocate onshore – what is the Government doing on this?

Ø      John Healey, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, has admitted that ‘There may not be a tax solution to the aspiration of bringing remote gambling operators onshore into the United Kingdom and therefore under UK jurisdiction for social regulation purposes’ (Hansard, Standing Committee A – Finance (No.2) Bill 2006, 12 May 2006).

Our approach

• Protecting the vulnerable. We make no apology for proceeding with caution, it is a socially responsible approach. We applaud good practice in the industry with regard to support for problem gambling counselling services and other practical measures to limit problem gambling but it is our job to make sure appropriate regulation and protections are in place in case of ‘bad apples’.
• Level playing field for domestic operators
• Stakes and prizes – action overdue
• Online proposals. Tessa Jowell said that there has been ‘an explosion in online gambling and as things stand it’s an explosion over which we have very little control’ (Today Programme, 24 May 2006). But the Government failed to act on advertising and still has a long way to go to bring offshore operators onshore. We have suggested revisiting the legislation to look the feasibility of requiring all companies that advertise in the UK to sign up to a code of practice (eg. Leading to a kite mark that people can trust). And health/wealth warnings on advertisements, which been allowed to depict fast cars, glamorous models, inducements etc.
• Tote and Levy: bottom line that racing must not lose out. Beyond that there should not be a constraint on the model of sale. Retain the levy.