Gambling Act a ‘white elephant’ Politics Urgent review
Mark Davies, who has recently joined the board of mobile operator Probability, has described the Gambling Act as ‘a white elephant’ in terms of remote gambling, although he believes that the legislation had ‘the right core objectives’. Onerous taxation means that most operators are not bound by the Act as they now ply their wares from offshore jurisdictions. He added: “Unless the government creates a fiscal framework that dovetails with it, it will end up with good legislation which effectively exists in a parallel universe.”
POLITICSBRIEFS
needed of Gambling Commission fees
The Association of British Bookmakers believes that the Gambling Commission needs to revisit the way it charges for its licences in order to remove the burden on smaller businesses.
ABB T
he Association of British Book- makers (ABB) has told Parlia- ment that the
Gambling Commission should ‘urgently’ review its licensing framework. In a document submitted to the Culture Media Sport Select Committee, which is about to start an inquiry into gam- bling in the UK, the ABB argued that the regulatory burden and associated costs with the Gambling Commis- sion are clearly still too high, especially as far as smaller operators are concerned. The ABB said: “The new dual licensing system is more expensive and not a lot better. For example, the cost of betting licences has now become a major issue. Under the previous legisla- tion, licences and permits were granted by local mag- istrates for three years, priced at about £150 with £25 being paid to renew it. Under the Act a single shop operator might now have to pay the GC £1,600 plus a further £600 to the local
council annually. “The GC’s fee structure is particularly onerous for our smaller operators. For example, it discourages operators from expanding their businesses above the ‘50 shop limit’. One of our members could have saved £22,000 by staying under this threshold. We recommend that the GC urgently reviews the licensing compliance framework. As part of this review the GC should con- sider allocating shop visits on an intelligence-led basis and pass on any savings to licence fee payers.”
The ABB is also critical of the role played by local authorities, many of which charge the maximum per- mitted premise licence fees, generating extra income rather than merely covering costs. It said: “The fees appear to be charged on the basis of probable costs involved for local authori- ties irrespective of whether annual compliance visits are carried out. We have evi- dence that some authorities do not carry out these visits
ANALYSIS
Despite the criticism that the ABB has made of the Gambling Commission, it is the regulator’s strength and performance that has allowed the association to be bold enough to suggest ‘a reasonable measure of liberalisation in the maximum permitted number of gaming machines in LBOs as well as maximum stakes and prizes, which will enable our businesses to continue to compete and prosper in a responsible manner’. There has recent been some liberalisation in the upper limits of B3 machines allowed in adult gaming centres and bingo halls which reflect the size of the individual
establishments, so a change along those lines might not be too fanciful.
ADVERTISING COMPLIANCE
THE ABB IS ASKING FOR FLEXIBILITY ON THE B2 GAMING MACHINE REGULATIONS
at all and suggest that their fees be reduced accordingly. “Part of the costs incurred by local authorities is the preparation of a Statement of Gambling Licensing Policy. Rather than have a single national Statement issued by the relevant authority the Act has multiplied costs enor- mously by requiring each local authority to prepare their own local statements. In practice most of these state- ments are identical to each other. It would have involved less bureaucracy for national operators if a single national policy document had been implemented.”
The ABB also high- lighted the fact that the per- sonal licensing system is
Offshore operators no risk for UK T
RGA
he Remote Gambling Association (RGA) has told MPs that offshore operators hold little risk for UK consumers, despite the fact that they are not based within the UK. Writing to the Culture Select Committee, the RGA said operators are ‘without exception’ operat- ing out of jurisdictions such as Gibraltar, Alderney & the Isle of Man for fiscal reasons rather than to avoid regula- tion.
The association added: “There is no hard evidence that the development of this sector outside of the UK has been to the detriment of the wider UK gambling sector. While there may be some overlap between online and land-based gamblers there is nothing to indicate a wide- spread cannibalisation of
THE OFFSHORE INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTES TO SPORTS THROUGH ADVERTISING AND SPONSORSHIPS
the market that existed pre- 2005. With regard to this, HMRC figures for receipts from betting, gaming and lottery duties, show that in 2006/7 they collected £1.39bn and in 2009/10 they collected £1.44bn.
“There is also no evidence of harm to UK consumers (this was acknowledged in
18 BettingBusinessInteractive • SEPTEMBER 2011
the DCMS consultation paper in 2010 about the reg- ulation of remote gambling, which referred instead to ‘potential’ risk). The so- called offshore sector, which is predominantly made up of companies that have a substantial UK base anyway, is still responsible for the creation of thou-
sands of jobs, contributes to the economy through a whole range of commercial arrangements, for example advertising and sports’ sponsorships, and is a major contributor to the GREaT Foundation.” To make the point, the RGA highlighted the fact that the costs of licensing and compliance have increased significantly under the Gambling Act, including both direct licence fees to the Gambling Commission (£13.3m in 2009/10) and the internal compliance costs for each company. While these costs have gone up, HMRC returns show that revenues have remained almost static. It said: “There are other factors that may have affected this, but overall the
Act has had little positive financial impact. This is dis- appointing as there had been a reasonable expecta- tion that increased levels of regulation and the establish- ment of a sizeable new regu- lator would provide sufficient assurance that new commercial opportuni- ties might be offered, but they have not.”
The RGA added that the Commission has been wel- comed, but may not have been necessary. “It took over what was already a gen- erally well regulated and responsible industry and, consequently, it is difficult to argue that it has led to a widespread improvement in standards or even that there was much room to make such an improve- ment,” it said.
also unwieldy in some cir- cumstances. “The process of selling a betting shop is very onerous unless the buyer is already licenced. The fact that a new entrant has to have a wide range of policy documents in place is obviously discouraging for new entrepreneurs, to the detriment of both the industry and consumers. When a single trader dies the business must close until an alternative person can obtain GC approval. This can take three to six months in which time the business might not recover and, as this is a very com- petitive market, finds that customers have gone else- where.”
The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has seen the number of complaints about gambling advertise- ments drop in the past three years. In 2008 the ASA received 262 com- plaints about gambling ads, in 2009 it received 211 and in 2010 it received 210. To put these numbers into context, in 2010 the ASA received 25,562 com- plaints about approxi- mately 13,000 discrete ads. The ASA said: “Given the apparent increase in the volume of gambling ads since the introduction of the Gambling Act, these numbers suggest that advertisers are aware of the gambling rules and working hard to ensure compliance with those rules.”
JERSEY WANTS WHITE LISTING
The Jersey Gambling Commission has claimed the current inability of Jersey-based businesses to access the UK market because of white listing restrictions is seriously damaging the Island’s rep- utation and economy. The white list has been put on hold while the UK govern- ment reviews its online gambling regulations, and Jersey says its omission from the list poses a risk for the Island as an inter- nationally well-regarded regulatory centre.
It said: “Given that the other Crown Dependen- cies have been accepted, if Jersey is not even allowed to apply for white listing, there is a growing risk that Jersey standards of governance and regula- tion will be perceived as inadequate.”
DCMS SHOULD SUPPORT INDUSTRY
Business in Sport & Leisure (BISL) has sug- gested that the responsi- bility for the gambling industry should be passed onto the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills if the DCMS contin- ues ‘not to provide the eco- nomic sponsorship the industry requires’. BISL argues that the DCMS and the Gambling Commission should do more to ‘counter the ongoing economic malaise and to help relieve the genuine concerns of the industry’. It argued: “DCMS should work far more closely with the Treasury in developing policies which affect the gambling industry and for either the Department or the Commission - or both - to act as a supportive sponsor for the industry.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48