FEATURES
WIGGIN
THE MORAL ISSUES Jason Chess, Gambling Insider contributor and Founding Partner at law firm Wiggin, discusses two consultations being carried out in the UK market; the first on affordability by the Gambling Commission, the second on the Gambling Act 2005 by the DCMS
Gambling Insider always carries extensive coverage of the regulatory and legal issues affecting the industry but at the present time the major issues are not so much regulatory as political. Gambling has always been an industry that has attracted the attention of the authorities. It is one of those annoying activities where ordinary folks exercise the personal freedom to do something of which the elite disapproves. The first significant statute dealing with gambling was enacted in 1541, albeit that convictions for using loaded dice are recorded as far back as 1311. Other major instruments were passed by Parliament in the form of the Gaming Act 1710 and the Gaming Act 1845. The rhythm or pattern of the relationship between the legislature and the gambling industry takes the form of Parliament re-evaluating its attitude to gambling about every generation or so. The Gaming Act 1968 was replaced in 2005 and now, some 19 years or so after the Budd Report 2003, the debate is being had once more.
58
GAMBLINGINSIDER.COM
At the present time the debate takes the ‘official’ form of two major public ‘consultations’ which are currently in progress relating to gambling. The first of these was launched by the Gambling Commission in November of 2020 in relation to the subject of ‘affordability.’ In simple terms, this is the extent to which a gambling business should assume responsibility for deciding what each of its customers can afford to gamble, and stopping them from gambling once this limit is reached. The second consultation is much broader and of a more strategic nature – launched by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). In broad terms this consultation is taking a look at the present system of regulation and the work of the regulator, based on the 2003 Budd Report, the consequent Government White Paper ‘A Safe Bet for Success’ and their child, the Gambling Act 2005. This regime – the current one under which all participants in the British market must operate – is based on the need to achieve a
balance between two imperatives. The first is the imperative to permit and encourage gambling for the purposes of economic growth, and to allow persons who wish to gamble the freedom of choice to do so in a lawful and well-regulated environment. The second imperative is the need to ensure the protection of children and ‘the vulnerable’ (in the words of statute), i.e. persons who may be at risk of developing harmful patterns of gambling. Whether this balance is broadly being achieved and whether the regulator is doing a proper job is the more strategic matter being investigated by the Government. The Commission’s November 2020 Consultation is, however, much more significant than many other routine regulatory consultations. It is significant because of its potential to harm the economic interests of the nation (in the shape not only of the gambling industry but media, horseracing and the Exchequer) and curtail freedom of choice on the part of the overwhelming majority of persons who gamble without suffering harm. All this is
