Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill

Written evidence submitted by Mike Winney (GB 10)

 

 

Summary: To ensure that the benefits of the Bill are achieved the Gambling Commission should consult upon centralised self exclusion and verical self exclusion as soon as possible.

 

I have entered into a dialogue with the Gambling Commission and the Department regarding the way that this Bill for the first time makes a centralised self exclusion database feasible. It also introduces the option to consider so called "vertical" self exclusion.

 

The department has said

 

" The proposed changes in online gambling regulation through The Gambling (Licensing &

Advertising) Bill would make a centralised self-exclusion scheme in Great Britain feasible

in a way it is not at the moment as the requirement to offer self-exclusion will apply to all

customers of Gambling Commission licensees. While there remain considerable practical

and data protection issues to consider before a common self-exclusion data base could

be set up, the Government has made clear that it expects the industry to make progress

in overcoming these challenges."

 

Unfortunately this "feasibility" is not being followed through upon. The Gambling Commission consultation on the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice (LCCP) asks no questions regarding self exclusion. I would ask that the committee recommend that a consultation on centralised and vertical self exclusion takes place as soon as practicable.

 

This Bill opens up the opportunity to have self exclusion requested at one site extended to all UK providers within a single request if that person wants this. Details of the person requesting self exclusion could easily be shared with all other UK licensed providers via a central information system/provider.

There are data protection issues, especially as this is a sensitive health (addiction) matter, but the self excluder can be asked for permission for their data to be shared and the Data Protection Act covers such sensitive data well.

There are also cost issues. Someone would have to pay for centralised self exclusion, and consultation on these costs would be required, but the obvious answer is that all UK license holders should share this cost, just as they share the cost of regulation. The way costs are allocated/shared fairly would need to be consulted upon but there is still time for this to occur before the new legislation comes into force.

The centralised self exclusion also offers for the first time a practicable way to offer so called "vertical" self exclusion. This form of self exclusion is about allowing people to exclude themselves from specific types of gambling. For example someone who has issues with managing their slot machine use but has no problem managing their betting on sports might choose to self exclude from all slot type games but not sports bookmaking products.

This vertical self exclusion is a complex issue. Some believe that Problem Gambling is best tackled by stopping all forms of gambling. Vertical self exclusion is unlikely to appeal to such people , most prominent of which in terms of organisations is Gamblers Anonymous. For me though it has potential advantages as it might help some choose self exclusion who would otherwise not. One group might be professional poker players who want to continue to be able to play poker but exclude themselves from all other forms of gambling. Another group might be those who want to self exclude but wish to be able to continue with the lottery online as they run their workplace lottery syndicate or place their partner's weekly lottery bet. Being able to self exclude but without excluding access to the lottery may help such people maintain confidentiality about their self exclusion.

Consultation upon vertical self exclusion would be a bit more complicated than that for central self exclusion for all UK Remote Operators (adding options regarding vertical self exclusion has disadvantages such as confusion and complexity as well as potential benefits) but the new licensing arrangements make vertical self exclusion possible for the first time and the option should be explored prior to implementation of the new licensing arrangements.

 

New Jersey has recently announced that they will implement a centralised self exclusion database for their licenced online providers. If New Jersey can do this why should UK consumers not have the same protection?

 

Centralised self exclusion would be a huge benefit of this Bill. When faced with allegations by MPs such as Phillip Davies and the Gibraltar based RGA that the bill does not improve consumer protection facilitating centralised self exclusion is the obvious riposte. I would also like to highlight that the current LCCP conditions require that remote operators providing slot style games reveal to the consumer the Return To Player (RTP) of that game to the consumer. Gibraltar and other regulators do not have this requirement and so games are routinely offered where the player ha no indication of how likely they are to win or what the house "edge" is. This is also a significant additional consumer protection that has not been commented upon when it is in fact of significance.

 

The departmental response raised concerns about the impact of centralised self exclusion in the remote sector upon non remote operators such as bookmakers who via a quirk in the regulations also have a remote gambling licence for machine gambling. In my view this is not a barrier to centralised self exclusion it is a potential additional advantage of such a system.

 

There are various options for non remote operators with regard to FOBTs and other remote gambling offers within a non remote operation. The new ABB social protection policy makes clear that they considered the use of loyalty card technology but had one large retail chain that did not have the suitable technology yet. The options are

 

1) To provide remote gambling from non remote premises an exemption from centralised self exclusion for cash placed bets.

2) Make a requirement for FOBTs that debit card transactions to credit the machines be included within the self exclusion regime but not cash transactions

3) Make the requirement for FOBTs that debit card transactions to credit the machines be included within the self exclusion regime but not cash transactions but set a sensible deadline for loyalty card based self exclusion to be implemented (2-3 years would allow the firms time to deal with the technology change).

4) Require remote gambling offerings in non remote premises to meet the centralised self exclusion requirements.

 

Again this is an area that should be consulted upon now prior to the introduction of the new licensing regime.

 

I hope that you find this input helpful. Whilst I strongly believe that centralised self exclusion is an important area that can benefit consumers and I agree that the "playing safe" agenda evidenced to the committee shows the complexity of this area this just demonstrates that the Gambling Commission should consult on this complex area as soon as possible.

 

November 2013