The United Kingdom’s long-awaited White Paper on gaming pleases few, irks many by David McKee
“Gambling is an adult activity and it should remain an adult activity.” With those words, Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer rolled out the Conservative government’s White Paper on gaming. Two and a half years in the making, it was awaited with a mixture of anticipation and trepidation within the U.K. industry. Both emotions appear to have been justified.
Frazer had only weeks in her post to get up to speed on the White Paper, the twelfth minister through whose portfolio it had passed (and, said one irreverent, purple-rinsed member of Parliament, her own tenth hair coloring). “It is game-changing and it is, of course, right,” Frazer told a thinly attended House of Commons session. "A flutter is one thing, unchecked addiction is another. So today we are bringing our pre-smartphone regulations into the present day with a gambling White Paper for the digital age.”
The White Paper’s purpose is to update the Gaming Act of 2005, which is widely viewed as obsolete. The main objection is that it has failed to anticipate the technological innovations upheaving the industry, particularly in the form of online play and the ubiquity of smartphones.
What’s inside?
To this end, the White Paper seeks several substantive changes. These are at least a year off, following a lengthy consultation period with stakeholders in the issue.
Affordability checks. If a player were to lose £125 a month or £500 across the course of a year, operators would be required to conduct “low-level” checks that would include searching for a personal bankruptcy. Losses of £1,000 a day or £2,000 over three months would trigger more serious, but largely unspecified, investigations. “Some bettors can spend that much on a single bet,” observed Casino.org. “This makes it unclear how the [Culture Ministry] plans on effectively and efficiently overseeing the activity.”
Age Limits. Players between 18 and 24 years of age would be subject to even more stringent limits on losses. Frazer contends that such checks would be imperceptible to players, of whom the administration says only three percent would be affected. “But,” contends The Guardian, “customers may be asked for information such as payslips if the check raises concerns. The gambling lobby has fought furiously against such ‘intrusive’ checks as standard” policy.
Loss limits. Adverse results at slot machines would be capped along a sliding scale between £2 and £15 per spin, depending on player variables. Again, the rules would be more severe for Generation Z. The specifics have to be hashed out by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport. Mandatory online-deposit caps are also being mulled.
Mandatory new taxes. Instead of making voluntary contributions to combat problem gambling, an inescapable impost would be levied on gaming operators. The monies thus gathered would go to fund gambling addiction research, education and treatment. Although early guesstimates place the levy at one percent of revenue per year, it’s not been set by the ministry and will be subject to debate.
Less messaging. The industry would be stripped of promoting responsible gaming, a remit which would now go to the Department of Health & Social Care. More baleful anti-gambling messaging is expected to follow. The amount and content of gaming advertising is expecting to suffer no change. However, certain language may be off-limits such as promotional bonuses and “free” play. (This is also becoming a bone of contention in the United States: see our Editor’s Note.) Offers of “free” bets may end up being prohibited, particularly those that make the “free” bet contingent upon anywhere from one to 50 more paid wagers. Direct marketing will likely come under intense scrutiny.
New regulatory powers. In addition to a brand-new gambling ombudsman, who will act as an arbitrator of player/operator disputes involving alleged player harm. U.K. regulators are to receive greater funding and a wider remit. Regulators will be empowered to crack down further on illegal operations (via blocking ISPs) or ones that are straying from the rules, by imposing reimbursements. Data about at-risk players will have to be shared between operators. Underage play of non-casino slot machines is to be monitored more closely. Regulatory fees will be inflation-adjustable and are expected to be higher, whatever the case.
The land-based casino industry was thrown a few crumbs by the Rishi Sunak administration. The severe limitation on casino slot machines will be relaxed and high rollers will be allowed to receive gambling credit. While operators like Les Ambassadeurs Group had cause to rejoice, at least moderately, the online industry received no such concessions.
Mixed reactions
Still, gaming stocks reacted to the news favorably, on the whole. The consensus seemed to be ‘It could have been worse.’ As Flutter Entertainment CEO Peter Jackson said, “We welcome the publication of the White Paper, which marks a significant moment for the UK gambling sector. Whilst we will need to review the detail of the proposals once published, we believe proactive change will lead to a better future for our industry.” Rival firm Entain uttered similar sentiments, saying that it (like Flutter) has initiated bet limits and other proactive curbs on problematic play.
As can be seen, the White Paper is less a final product than a work in progress. That did not prevent MPs from—by and large—praising it with faint damns. The prevailing sentiment was distilled by Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who said, “I welcome this because this is at least a start, I think it’s a positive start. On advertising and children, I simply want to say—not far enough.” Labour’s general feeling was that the White Paper was good (as far as it went) but its changes needed to legislated in three months’ time, not 15.
And the hits kept on coming …
Christian Action Research & Education: “After years of disappointment relating to this white paper it is galling to learn of more dither and delay from the government.”
Gambling with Lives: “It needs to go much further to reduce gambling suicides without lengthy delays … [we] had called for an end to all gambling advertising, affordability checks at £100 monthly losses, and an end to free bets and other inducements, which were not included in this white paper.”
Charles Ritchie: "We now need to push further for an end to all gambling advertising, we need preventative [sic] affordability checks when losses reach £100 a month and we need to do more to make the most dangerous products safer, further reducing stake sizes and play speeds.”
Will Prochaska: "We welcome the government finally acting but nothing has changed yet. We desperately need the Gambling Commission to enact these reforms and not drag their feet.”
Lucy Powell, Labour shadow Culture Minister: "While Labour has called for change, ministers have dragged their feet with the chaos we've seen in government meaning many false starts. We've had 10 different ministers in charge of gambling policy since a white paper was first promised in December 2020.”
Gareth [last name withheld by the BBC]: “They shouldn't be able to advertise gambling at all on TV. You can't advertise cocaine or heroin. I love going to the races, knowing I'll go in for six races, put a fiver on each and lose £30. That’s the majority of people. But for the minority … it's not the races, it's online slots, casinos, online bingo. It's an addiction. They need protection.”
… and so forth.
In summation
The only outspoken person who thought the White Paper went too far was a Tory MP, Philip Davies. "The Conservative party used to believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility, but that seems to have gone out of the window with these affordability check proposals,” he fumed. "Do the punters themselves get any say at all over how they can afford to spend their own hard-earned money?”
The release of the White Paper starts the clock on the consultation period, in which both the industry and problem-gambling activists will get their say. Judging by recent parliamentary debate, both sides are keeping the ball in Frazer’s court. Conservatives are supportive, Labour cautiously so.
Whether the Sunak government can last 15 months until the White Paper becomes legislation is an open question. A change in tenancy at 10 Downing Street would restart the entire gaming-regulation review, in all probability. And no one seems to want that outcome.
Preview Image: Shutterstock
