Scrutiny of the Draft Public Bodies (Merger of the Gambling Commission and the National Lottery Commission) Order 2013

Written evidence submitted by Business in Sport and Leisure (BISL) [GLC 002]

Thank you for giving Business in Sport and Leisure the opportunity to contribute to the extended consultation into the proposed merger of the Gambling and Lottery Commissions.

We appreciate the concern shown through the issues raised in your correspondence, three of which we raised in our original submission which for reference purposes you will find attached.

We have reviewed our position in the light of your extended consultation and respond to your issues as follows:

· The merits or otherwise of the merger of these two bodies; BISL is of the view that in this time of austerity and Government Department spending reductions the merger and rationalisation of these two organisations is perfectly logical, as long as appropriate changes are made to prevent detrimental consequences. Furthermore, from a Gambling Regulation perspective the best elements of both organisations can be brought into the merged organisation to create a higher calibre and more effective unit.

· Any potential conflict of interests which might arise as result of a merger and the governance structures which might overcome these; BISL raised concerns on this issue in our original submission and after listening to the Gambling Commissions views on the matter, our position unfortunately has not changed. Our comments were; "……However, for a merged commission to adopt the NLC’s secondary role which is to "maximise the amount of money available to good causes", without taking a similar ‘growth’ role with the rest of the Gambling Industry is at best compromising and arguably in direct conflict with balanced or even handed regulation." We would expect at least to see some form of compartmentalised structure that separates the ‘governance’ functions from the ‘revenue maximisation’ function. A more equitable solution would be that the revenue maximisation responsibility be transferred elsewhere.

· The readiness of the Gambling Commission to integrate the National Lottery Commission into its own structure; BISL is not familiar enough with the internal workings and communications of the Gambling Commission to have an objective view on this issue.

· The accuracy of the projected savings which would result following a merger. Again, BiSL raised this matter in its original submission. It still appears to be wrong that an over-engineered regulator is not able to show synergistic cost savings through merging with another regulator and we remain unconvinced that this has been processed in an efficient manner. In the private sector this simply would not be allowed to happen. We would recommend an independent review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the new merged regulator as sensible and responsible follow up.

May 2013