Derek Webb’s submission to the consultation is published below

The UK Government has recently announced a consultation on the introduction of a new levy on the gambling sector to fund research, prevention of harm and the treatment of gambling-related harm. In principle the levy proposal itself is generally positive. However, there are important issues related to the proposal which fall outside the scope of the specific consultation questions, and which need to be addressed.

While the levy tends to be associated with the funding of research and treatment services, it is often forgotten that according to the 2005 Gambling Act it may be used to support any of the licensing objectives. The current consultation proposals relate to the prevention of harm objective and do not consider the “fair and open gambling” or “no association of gambling with crime” objectives.

There should not be any diversion of proposed levy funds away from the prevention of harm objective to the other objectives. However, the delivery of the other objectives must still be considered by the Government.

Profiting from offering illegal gambling is the association of gambling with crime. Many Gambling Commission licensees, through their corporate structures, have previously or are currently engaged in such activity.

Such activity includes the operation of B3 gaming machines in Northern Ireland at stakes, prizes and quantity per premises in excess of the legal permissions under the 1985 Order. The provision of these machines may involve use of intranet content provided by British-situated servers under Gambling Commission license.

Such activity also includes operating remote gambling in jurisdictions where those jurisdictions have not authorized that activity, known as black market gambling. Such operators do not make any tax contributions in those jurisdictions and do not make any contribution to harm prevention in those jurisdictions.

One major example of an operator prolific in such activity in both Asia and Africa is Bet365. This company and others are harming a generation of young men in countries with deprivation far worse than any areas in Britain, resulting in increased criminality in those countries. The global popularity of British sport is being exploited to satisfy corporate greed, to the detriment to Britain’s reputation and, by extension, its soft power.

The willingness of such entities to engage in such activities and not offer any contribution towards the consequential harms of the exploitation is all one needs to know about “voluntary” funds related to harm. Everything must be seen through the prism of reality, that voluntary funding in Britain has always been based on political expediency.

With this background, irrespective of the lack of legal enforcement, it can be judged that Bet365 and others are not conducting their business morally, ethically and with integrity. It is rational to expect that British consumers would be unhappy to learn about this background. The “fair and open gambling” objective is not being delivered if the true behaviour of licensees is concealed from the public.

The perception that gambling is associated with crime and that gambling is not fair and open has not diminished since the 2014 Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act. In fact, polling shows that it has deteriorated further. Remote gambling differs from land-based gambling by using offers, marketing and personal data abuse. Whilst the White Paper is overall beneficial it has not done enough on offers or marketing or data protection. The analogue Act of 2005 is not fit for purpose for this digital age.

This month, from November 13th to 19th, is Safer Gambling Week in Britain. But Safer Gambling Week does not involve a pause to marketing or offers. It does not involve customer data not being shared to build profiles without their consent. It does not provide for customers to be informed of their risk level. However, it does involve MPs taking part in a photo opportunity in Westminster, or placing a “free” bet in a betting shop with winnings going to charity.

The week will be used by the trade body acting on behalf of the commercial interest of the sector, the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) to continue with their misrepresentations. The week will also be endorsed by GambleAware, previously known as the Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT), being the primary official approved distributor of voluntary funding. If GambleAware has any independent research to show a causal link between Safer Gambling Week and harm reduction, this research should be made public immediately.

Safer Gambling Campaigns are another form of pretence that the sector cares. While some of these seem to be temporary in nature, the longest running ones are messages in media advertising with 20% of ad space dedicated to the message.

GambleAware endorsed the ineffective and no longer utilised message of “When the Fun Stops – Stop”. This message was created by the Senet Group acting for the big bookies, which leaked documents show was formed to be a “political firebreak” based on a proposal from the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) to the Remote Gambling Association (RGA). None of the ABB, the RGA or the Senet Group still exist.

The perverse theme of 80% of a media ad asking someone to gamble combined with 20% of the same ad positioned as if not supporting the ask, continues with the “Take Time To Think” message, again endorsed by GambleAware, with no viable independent verification of effectiveness or value.

With the gambling media ad spend estimated at £1 billion per year, and with 20% of this content being on the Take Time To Think messaging, an estimated £200 million per year is being spent on politically expedient and potentially ineffective messaging.

The BGC regularly proclaims that members voluntarily contributed over £100 million over several years. It never mentions that over a similar period, the equivalent of £800 million has been spent on “political firebreak” messaging that amounts to a PR exercise. If the £800 million messaging spend was actually causally proven to reduce harm, it would be shouted from the rooftops by the BGC.

The proposed levy will allow for funding of around £100 million per year. During the transition period the Gambling Commission expects that licensees will continue their voluntary contributions. GambleAware already holds significant funds for distribution under the current system.

With the Gambling Commission holding settlement funds from operator breaches, ready for appropriate distribution, it seems inexplicable that an additional £30 million was handed over to GambleAware by the Gambling Commission.

One historical aspect of Gambling Commission funding from settlements was contributions to entities on a Research, Education and Treatment list (the “RET list”). The relevant Government department (DCMS) now explains that there might be no need for an RET list under the proposed levy. The BGC asserts that the existing RET list be used to determine the recipients of GambleAware and levy funding, without a re-evaluation of the efficiency or value of these recipients, which rationally should be a priority for a new levy administration body.

DCMS explained that the new levy will remove sector influence over funding, whereas the BGC claims that it never had influence, whilst still now appearing to attempt to dictate which entities should receive funding. This needs to stop. Entities that the BGC wishes to exclude from funding should be given priority and entities that the BGC wishes to promote for funding should be carefully screened.

The era of RGT intellectually corrupt research being used to oppose the FOBT betting shop machine stake reduction, and the era that led to GambleAware failing to advocate for the FOBT stake reduction to £2, must end. The clean break in funding must be accompanied by a clean break in accountability and transparency.

New independent third sector entities, not on the RET list, have developed advances in understanding the totality of gambling harm and improved approaches in addressing gambling harm. The capacity of these entities must be nurtured under the new system. They should not be required to rely on charitable donations and support from philanthropists such as myself.