Subscribe

The Gambling Act 2005: A bet worth taking?

The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee has today published a report which says that the Gambling Act 2005 “resulted in numerous inconsistencies and is not sufficiently evidence based”. The Committee says “more power should be devolved to local authorities—which have the local knowledge to assess their impact—with central regulation existing to ensure high standards of protection for the vulnerable, particularly children.”

A full copy of the report can be found here: "The Gambling Act 2005: A bet worth taking?".

The main recommendations of the Committee are as follows:

• Where there are clusters of betting shops, as each of them is allowed only four B2 gaming machines, Local Authorities should be able to increase the machine allowance if they think this will reduce or solve the ‘clustering’ problem.
• Casinos, which are highly regulated and have strictly restricted access, should be allowed to operate up to twenty B2-type gaming machines with a maximum stake of £100 (instead of the current four (which is the same limit as for high street betting shops).
• An independent review of Gambling Commission expenditure should be carried out as soon as possible after a new system for remote licensing is in place, with a view to reducing costs and the regulatory and fees burden imposed on the industry.
• Any Local Authority should be able to make the decision as to whether or not they want a casino.
• The Gambling Commission should introduce a new licence fee structure which reduces the current anomaly where small, independent bookmakers pay much higher fees per shop than large chains. Small independent operators should certainly be paying less than they are now and the Commission should also be looking to charge all operators less than they currently are.
• The Gambling Commission should provide the gambling industry with a clear and easily accessible summary of where the fees it charges are spent as a part of its Annual Report. This would improve the relationship between the Commission and the industry, as well as highlighting areas where value for money is not currently being achieved. This requirement should also help to reduce well intentioned mission creep by the Commission into areas such as sports integrity, which is—and should continue to be—the responsibility of the sports’ governing bodies.
• Following the decision to regulate the online industry on a point-of-consumption basis, the Government should look to set the tax rate at a level which discourages the formation of a grey market and should look to encourage operators to base themselves in the UK.
• The Department for Culture, Media and Sport should develop an information campaign on problem gambling, to be made available outside gambling premises and to encourage the relatives of problem gamblers to seek help.
• The hard evidence basis for decisions and regulation needs to be improved: the Government must ensure that high-quality, independent research, comparable over time, is available to be able to assess the scale of problem gambling and the impact—if any—of changes in regulation. The Committee is also keen that there should be specific research on problem gambling and children, and a greater emphasis on discovering the most effective ways of educating children about probability and the risks of gambling.

If you have any queries in relation to the impact of the report an in particular in relation to the Category B2 gaming machines (FOBTs), please contact one of the solicitors in our gaming department.