SMF Proposes Big Changes Prior to UK Gambling Overhaul

The Social Market Foundation (SMF), who considers themselves to be Britain’s leading cross-party think tank has enthusiastically proposed extreme changes in the run up to the UK’s review of their gambling policies.  

Including suggestions like affordability checks for gamblers who want to spend more than £100 per month and limiting the maximum amount that can be staked on each play, the SMF would like to see momentous changes to the current policy. 

 Kitemark of Quality 

Authors James Noyes and Jake Shepherd believe that the integrity of British gambling licenses and, by extension the licensing objectives enshrined in the 2005 Gambling Act has been eroded by regulatory failure and industry malpractice. As a result, public confidence in the objectives of fair and safe gambling with special protection for vulnerable people has taken a nosedive. 

In order to regain that confidence, the SMF recommends a mandatory kitemark for licensed operators which will indicate a satisfactory level of quality in the product they provide, together with a transparent system of regulatory sanctions aligned to international best practices. 

 Affordability Checks 

The SMF proposes a “soft-cap” limit of £100 that, reflects the reality of what gamblers spend, as well as caters to a ‘socially acceptable’ threshold of leisure spending. It would also ensure that money spent on gambling does not exceed poverty thresholds for lower income households. 

In response to this, the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) is understandably outraged and said: 

“Some 30 million people enjoy an occasional bet, whether that’s on the Lottery, bingo or sports and gaming, and the overwhelming majority of them do so perfectly safely. We already carry out robust and improved affordability checks, and regularly intervene on customers to ensure they gamble within their means. 

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.” 

In response to this, Dr Noyes of the SMF said, that the proposed threshold would set the bar low enough for everyone to be protected. This would include those in low income households. However, the cap would be enough to reflect the gambling activity taking place across the general population in the country. He continued that gamblers should be able to spend more than this soft cap per month, ‘but only after they show that their gambling is neither unaffordable nor harmful.’ 

The BCG shared their fears of players being pushed to ‘unregulated, offshore, illegal black market operators online’ and away from safe regulated betting. Those who operate illegally are not held to the same standards as those under the law and therefore cannot be held accountable by the BGC. It was also pointed out that measures such as those proposed by SMF could jeopardise more than 100,000 jobs the gambling industry creates and supports, as well as the more than £3 billion in tax revenues it generates for the Exchequer. 

This is especially true in the light of looming job losses due to the novel Coronavirus lockdown and an already shaky gambling market. 

 Regulatory Ombudsman 

The SMF also recommends the creation of a regulatory ombudsman to manage the suggested affordability checks together with licensing and monitoring of operators.  

The report released by SMF proposes the following: 

“Department of Health and Social Care; the existing tripartite arrangement should be replaced with a new cross-departmental ‘Gambling Quartet’ consisting of: a Gambling Licensing Authority (to replace the Gambling Commission), a new Gambling Ombudsman, the funding and commissioning of Research, Education and Treatment channelled via a statutory levy through the NHS and UK Research Councils, and the oversight of advertising, the Lottery, and sporting and cultural events relating to gambling retained under the sponsorship of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.” 

In addition, the SMF would like to see reductions in taxes for companies based in the UK and an increase in operating costs for companies based offshore.