In a report released today (24 January), the APBGG criticized the Commission for being “incompetent” following an inquiry that began in September last year. The investigation was launched after the APBGG became aware of complaints about the Commission’s performance. To facilitate the complaints process, the APBGG established an anonymous platform for operators to submit their grievances, which received a significant number of submissions. The evidence submitted was considered damning, highlighting the urgent need for modifications within the Commission to ensure consumers continue gambling through regulated outlets and not turn to black market offerings.
The APBGG specifically identified elements suggesting that the regulator overreached its authority. It pointed out that Covid-19 restrictions were imposed on the industry excessively, disproportionately, and inconsistently following the lifting of lockdowns. Furthermore, the regulator was accused of breaching GDPR and disregarding its own Statement of Principles. The APBGG also claimed that the Commission failed to fulfill its statutory duty to permit gambling. Other examples of alleged incompetence include significant delays in license applications and administrative errors leading to application rejection. One complaint even suggested that a Judicial Review was considered due to the Commission’s outrageous actions.
In response to the report, Scott Benton MP, co-chair of the APBGG, expressed shock at the evidence of the Gambling Commission’s bad practices over the years. He emphasized that ignoring the contents of the report would doom the British gambling industry and force thousands of people into the black market. Many of the operators who submitted complaints stated that they had no other recourse besides the Commission.
The report also outlined instances where the Commission had allegedly failed to adhere to governmental reviews and reports, such as the 2008 Hampton Implementation Review of the Gambling Commission. The APBGG argued that the Commission could still improve its assessments of regulatory activity and the quality of data requests. It called on the Commission CEO, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and all stakeholders to take action in improving the Commission’s operations. One key aspect would be determining whether the regulator’s core duty is to reduce the number of problem gamblers and developing a strategy with specific targets and scientific evidence to support its approaches.
The report recommended that there should be an impact assessment of how these measures would affect the financial position of the regulated gambling industry and the potential growth of the unregulated sector. The analysis of each intervention’s implementation and results should be conducted in parliament, which should ultimately bear the responsibility of balancing the benefits of decreased problem gambling numbers against economic decline and increased illegal gambling. The APBGG also called for an assessment of the Commission by the Better Regulation Executive, as well as an independent evaluation of its enforcement policies by a Queen’s Counsel. In addition, the report suggested that the DCMS take over the complaints process from the regulator, as the industry was too fearful to raise grievances.
Regarding changes to the 2005 Gambling Act, the APBGG proposed differentiation between high and low-risk operators, with appropriate restrictions based on the potential harms they may cause. This recommendation aligns with the reform-focused Gambling Related Harm APPG recommendations, suggesting that the Commission often assesses risks more strictly and interprets regulations more severely than the operators, disregarding the actual risk of harm. The APBGG argued that if low-risk operators were designated as such and regulations were proportionate, it would discourage the regulator’s inclination to penalize them.
Finally, the APBGG recommended that the Commission be placed in special measures to foster a change in its culture and strategic direction. It expressed belief that the Commission, with a new chair and soon-to-be CEO, has an ideal opportunity to improve and regain its status as a proper regulator.
