The Social Market Foundation released a report ahead of the Govt’s review of the Gambling Act
T
he Social Market Foundation (SMF) cross-party think-tank calls for changes in the UK gambling industry that prevent online gamblers from losing more than £100 a month without proving they can afford it, and it also calls for offshore gambling companies to face stiffer taxes, according to a report released Wednesday.
Proposals from the SMF also include tax breaks for firms that move onshore; limits on how much can be staked online; a regulatory shake-up, including a new ombudsman; a kitemarking system for firms that uphold standards; a clearer sanctions regime for those that don’t.
The new report recommends online gambling should be regulated much more like land-based bets, include a stake limit of between £1 and £5 on online slot machines, echoing similar proposals from a group of UK MPs, The Guardian reports. The maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) was cut from £100 to £2 from 2019 but at present there are no stake limits online.
“Remote gambling is on the rise, yet remains outside the same controls applied to its land-based equivalents,” the SMF said. “It makes no sense that the same ‘obligation’ to reduce harm through limits to stake and speed should not be applied to an online sector which provides the most accessible content of all.”
Thread: how to update gambling policy and oversight to protect vulnerable players and taxpayers while ensuring people can still enjoy a flutter if they choose to. https://t.co/O1pRRwez5D
— James Kirkup (@jameskirkup) August 5, 2020
One of the main proposals is a £100 “soft cap” on monthly losses, with customers who want to spend more subjected to strict affordability checks by an independent gambling ombudsman. The SMF said the cap was well within average gambling spend and would help limit the number of addicts who experience financial difficulty, or who turn to crime to fund their habit.
In a statement in response to the report, the UK Betting & Gaming Council (BGC) said its members already carry out affordability checks in some cases. “We disagree with the suggestion of an arbitrary and random low cap on spending and can think of no other area of the economy where the government determines how much an individual can spend,” the BGC said. “Measures must be proportionate, evidence-led and fully thought through so as not to jeopardise the 100,000 jobs the industry supports or the over £3bn in tax revenues it generates for the Exchequer.”
However, the BGC said it supports the concept of a British gambling kite mark and many of the measures contained in the report, ahead of the UK Government’s Review of the Gambling Act.
We welcome this thoughtful report ahead of the Govt’s Review, a review we fully support. We share the desire for big changes, but reforms must be evidence based and avoid players drifting off to unregulated illegal online sites that don’t adhere to the BGC’s high standards. https://t.co/j1sP1RY8Be
— Betting and Gaming Council (@BetGameCouncil) August 5, 2020
The report found that more than half of the remote gambling services used by UK-based customers are provided by firms based in Gibraltar, a tax haven. The government levies a duty on online bets to ensure at least some tax is collected from firms that base themselves in offshore centres such as Malta and Gibraltar. But the SMF proposed tax incentives for companies that have a minimum “footprint” in the UK, to boost corporation tax receipts. The report’s authors said this would also create jobs and promote compliance with British gambling licence conditions, including the protection of vulnerable people and addicts.
A similar proposal would bring an end to so-called “white label” agreements, where foreign firms with little incentive to protect UK consumers can buy access to the British market via an existing gambling licence holder. The SMF added its voice to calls for an overhaul of the 2005 Gambling Act, citing changes in technology that “could not have been foreseen when the legislation underpinning that regulatory framework was first drafted”.
The report also proposes a more strictly defined framework of sanctions available to the regulator, the UK Gambling Commission, which has admitted it is underfunded and has come in for criticism in two parliamentary reports.
