COMMENT
LAs facing Orwellian ‘doublespeak’ We
Derek Webb of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling continues to challenge the claims of bookmakers and the Gambling Commission and speaks out in support of local authorities (LAs).
hear so much from the Government about its
localism agenda and yet, despite this, we are seeing the sorry sight of LAs being hampered in performing their duties in respect of Licensed Betting Offices (LBO). Indeed, it seems that the very body that should be working with them, the Gambling Commission, is using manipulative Orwellian doublespeak to preserve its influence at the expense of democracy and localism.
LBOs have betting licences on the basis that betting is the primary activity,
but there is concrete
evidence to show that gaming on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) is now the primary activity in LBOs by turnover. The over- the-counter turnover is now only 20% with FOBT turnover being the remaining 80%.
We believe that the Gambling Commission Licensing Conditions and Codes of Practice December 2011
regarding primary activity
does nothing towards achieving the three 2005 Gambling Act licensing objectives.
The thorny issue of ‘primary activity’ has resulted in correspondence and comment between the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, the Gambling Commission and LA
licensing
officers and has had some media coverage, including an article in a previous issue of this magazine.
The most recent letter from Jenny Williams,
commissioner and
chief executive of the GC dated 25 September 2012 to the Campaign for Fairer Gambling includes the following text:-
“The Commission arranged for the publication of this article [Coinslot] because of our concern that some
18 | public sector executive Sep/Oct 12
licensing authorities may have been acting, on what seemed to us to be the erroneous advice of campaign groups, including yours, in a way that might have left them at significant risk of challenge.”
So, the Gambling Commission advises LAs that if they decline an LBO licence on the primary activity basis and, if the bookmaker takes legal action, then the LA might lose. It is surely inconceivable that a rational court would not regard FOBTs as the primary activity and therefore the LA would prevail, but for the Gambling Commission’s very interpretation of the primary activity.
Therefore, it is the Gambling Commission itself that will place the LA at significant risk of a challenge, based on its own interpretation of primary activity. With this in mind, how can the Gambling Commission protect the young, the vulnerable, the problem gamblers or the local authorities that it should be proactively engaged with. Instead, we say that the Gambling Commission is protecting the vested interests of the bookmakers, their friends in politics, its career employees and, ultimately, itself.
We know we are not alone when we say we are dissatisfied with this situation. For those of you who feel as we do, we would urge you to contact Eric Pickles to request that action is taken to diminish the Gambling Commission’s influence and broaden LA powers. It’s time to let Eric Pickles know you want democracy and localism to work for the benefit of society. Let him know you do not want an unelected quango controlling you.
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
opinion@publicsectorexecutive.com
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 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76