Britain’s betting industry is out of control. A new gambling act must curb it
James Noyes
Scandals over abuses in the gambling industry have created cross-party consensus for change. Here’s how it should work
Not a day goes by without another horror story about gambling. A familiar theme now dominates the front pages: for too long, the betting industry has encouraged excessive spending, exploited vulnerable people, and failed to tackle money laundering or protect its customers.
Gambling has become a canary in the coalmine of our economy. It is now embedded in every aspect of our lives: our banks, high streets, television screens and football teams. When we talk about gambling, we enter a vast world that spans questions from addiction and isolation to market failure and machine learning. It is a world that stretches the limits of the relationship between freedom and the protection of the state. And, in the breakdown of that relationship, many people have been harmed.
Research suggests that there are just under half a million problem gamblers who have their lives damaged by debt, depression, family breakdown and, in the worst cases, suicide.
The stories stack up. The Guardian recently showed how one operator profits from a company that treats gambling addicts. Similar scandals have highlighted the industry use of VIP schemes, and the fact that some FA Cup games have been exclusively streamed via betting giants such as Bet365.
These stories have led to outrage. Figures from John Simpson to Gary Lineker have joined the condemnation, with Lineker calling the Bet365 story “all kinds of wrong”.
Politically, the outrage has led to a cross-party consensus that it is time for change. Early voices in parliament for reform, such as Tom Watson, Tracey Crouch and Carolyn Harris, have been joined by a coterie of support from all sides, including the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, the prime minister’s trade envoy Richard Graham and the SNP’s Ronnie Cowan. There has also been a Lords inquiry into gambling, an all-party parliamentary group inquiry into gambling-related harm, and material published by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee. Echoing both the Labour party and campaigners, the government has just committed to a review of the 2005 Gambling Act.
The last major gambling review was conducted in 2001 by Alan Budd, a founding member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee. Budd worked on the premise that a balance could be struck between economic freedom and social protection. This was the right question to ask at the time, but since 2001 the world has experienced technological change that Budd could not have foreseen.
A review of the 2005 act will require a Budd report fit for the digital age. It will face four big challenges.
First is the question of its premise. Budd sought a balance between the freedom to gamble and protection from harm. Technological change is mentioned, but the report could not have foreseen the rise of smartphones and social media – let alone recent developments in data analytics and algorithmic intelligence. A new review must be based on a premise that incorporates the reality of machines as well as humans and the market. Today’s gambling landscape is less about casinos and seaside piers and more about computer random number generators, in-play betting and hybrid, often predatory, online forms of product and marketing.
Second is the question of scope. The 2005 act reads like a Victorian novel. It categorises and it promulgates, it espouses key concepts in subclauses. It is a hefty tome. There is an argument that new legislation should be leaner and agile enough to respond to innovation and change. In other words, a new review should be more novella than novel.
Third is the question of time. The Budd report took over a year to write and was published in 2001. The act became law in 2005 and was fully implemented in 2007. The whole process took the best part of a decade. If the same happens now, then by the time a new act comes into effect, in 2027, the industry will have changed beyond recognition, with new products, new markets and new types of currency. It is important that a new review does not create a similar delay.
Fourth is the question of scale. Because of the risks of scope and time, there is an argument that instead of One Single Big Act, a series of smaller interventions could be drafted around specific questions – not dissimilar to the approach taken in the shorter 2014 act on online gambling. The advantage to this approach would be that it ensures leanness and agility. The disadvantage would be that it risks being piecemeal.
None of these four challenges will be easy to resolve. A new review will require someone of the stature and integrity of Alan Budd to lead it, and its success will depend on the quality of the relationship between the Department of Health, the Treasury and – if the rumours in Whitehall are true – whatever is about to replace DCMS.
But if the government does get this balance right, then there is no reason why the horror stories of recent years cannot be transformed into a foundation for positive change, turn Britain’s regulation of gambling into an example to the world – and allow us to redefine what we mean by gambling in the 21st century.
• James Noyes is a former adviser to Tom Watson and fellow of the Social Market Foundation
• Free help and advice about problem gambling is available online at BeGambleAware.org or by calling the National Gambling Helpline on 0808 8020 133
James Noyes
Scandals over abuses in the gambling industry have created cross-party consensus for change. Here’s how it should work
Not a day goes by without another horror story about gambling. A familiar theme now dominates the front pages: for too long, the betting industry has encouraged excessive spending, exploited vulnerable people, and failed to tackle money laundering or protect its customers.
Gambling has become a canary in the coalmine of our economy. It is now embedded in every aspect of our lives: our banks, high streets, television screens and football teams. When we talk about gambling, we enter a vast world that spans questions from addiction and isolation to market failure and machine learning. It is a world that stretches the limits of the relationship between freedom and the protection of the state. And, in the breakdown of that relationship, many people have been harmed.
Research suggests that there are just under half a million problem gamblers who have their lives damaged by debt, depression, family breakdown and, in the worst cases, suicide.
The stories stack up. The Guardian recently showed how one operator profits from a company that treats gambling addicts. Similar scandals have highlighted the industry use of VIP schemes, and the fact that some FA Cup games have been exclusively streamed via betting giants such as Bet365.
These stories have led to outrage. Figures from John Simpson to Gary Lineker have joined the condemnation, with Lineker calling the Bet365 story “all kinds of wrong”.
Politically, the outrage has led to a cross-party consensus that it is time for change. Early voices in parliament for reform, such as Tom Watson, Tracey Crouch and Carolyn Harris, have been joined by a coterie of support from all sides, including the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, the prime minister’s trade envoy Richard Graham and the SNP’s Ronnie Cowan. There has also been a Lords inquiry into gambling, an all-party parliamentary group inquiry into gambling-related harm, and material published by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee. Echoing both the Labour party and campaigners, the government has just committed to a review of the 2005 Gambling Act.
The last major gambling review was conducted in 2001 by Alan Budd, a founding member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee. Budd worked on the premise that a balance could be struck between economic freedom and social protection. This was the right question to ask at the time, but since 2001 the world has experienced technological change that Budd could not have foreseen.
A review of the 2005 act will require a Budd report fit for the digital age. It will face four big challenges.
First is the question of its premise. Budd sought a balance between the freedom to gamble and protection from harm. Technological change is mentioned, but the report could not have foreseen the rise of smartphones and social media – let alone recent developments in data analytics and algorithmic intelligence. A new review must be based on a premise that incorporates the reality of machines as well as humans and the market. Today’s gambling landscape is less about casinos and seaside piers and more about computer random number generators, in-play betting and hybrid, often predatory, online forms of product and marketing.
Second is the question of scope. The 2005 act reads like a Victorian novel. It categorises and it promulgates, it espouses key concepts in subclauses. It is a hefty tome. There is an argument that new legislation should be leaner and agile enough to respond to innovation and change. In other words, a new review should be more novella than novel.
Third is the question of time. The Budd report took over a year to write and was published in 2001. The act became law in 2005 and was fully implemented in 2007. The whole process took the best part of a decade. If the same happens now, then by the time a new act comes into effect, in 2027, the industry will have changed beyond recognition, with new products, new markets and new types of currency. It is important that a new review does not create a similar delay.
Fourth is the question of scale. Because of the risks of scope and time, there is an argument that instead of One Single Big Act, a series of smaller interventions could be drafted around specific questions – not dissimilar to the approach taken in the shorter 2014 act on online gambling. The advantage to this approach would be that it ensures leanness and agility. The disadvantage would be that it risks being piecemeal.
None of these four challenges will be easy to resolve. A new review will require someone of the stature and integrity of Alan Budd to lead it, and its success will depend on the quality of the relationship between the Department of Health, the Treasury and – if the rumours in Whitehall are true – whatever is about to replace DCMS.
But if the government does get this balance right, then there is no reason why the horror stories of recent years cannot be transformed into a foundation for positive change, turn Britain’s regulation of gambling into an example to the world – and allow us to redefine what we mean by gambling in the 21st century.
• James Noyes is a former adviser to Tom Watson and fellow of the Social Market Foundation
• Free help and advice about problem gambling is available online at BeGambleAware.org or by calling the National Gambling Helpline on 0808 8020 133
