‘Bizarre’ commission faces lobbying questions and industry backlash

The launch of a new Gambling Policy Commission (GPC) has been labeled as “bizarre” by the industry, prompting questions around funding, purpose and its timing.

The commission, established on Monday, said it will examine gambling policy in Great Britain.

It has been established outside the statutory regulatory framework, at a time when measures set out in the government’s 2023 gambling white paper, including changes intended to strengthen consumer protections and update sector regulation, are still being put into effect.

Questions over Webb’s role

Dan Waugh, a consultant at Regulus Partners, questioned the commission’s funding and its links to other organisations involved in gambling reform. “The whole thing is pretty bizarre,” Waugh told iGB.

The GPC’s website states that its seed funding has been “philanthropically provided by Derek Webb”, the former professional poker player and founder of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. Webb hit headlines in 2018 when he steered the UK campaign to decrease the maximum bet on gaming machines from £100 to £2.

iGB has reached out for a comment to Webb, but at the time of publishing this article he had yet to respond.

“A question has to be asked about how many lobbying bodies one US resident requires to change Britain’s gambling laws,” Regulus’ Waugh said.

“The same person who is funding the commission has also funded at least two parliamentary groups (the Gambling Reform APPG and Peers for Gambling Reform), at least two think tanks (the SMF and Bright Blue) and myriad activist groups (including Gambling with Lives and the Coalition to End Gambling Advertising),” he added.

A Budd-ing comparison

Waugh also questioned the commission’s comparison with the Gambling Review Body, chaired by Sir Alan Budd, which examined gambling laws in 2000–01.

Budd and his colleagues had been asked by the government to conduct their review, Waugh said, whereas the new commission had no equivalent mandate.

“The Gambling Policy Committee by contrast (to Budd’s review) has no such mandate and appears to be a group of people with little prior knowledge of gambling who have decided that they should decide how betting should be regulated in Great Britain.”

Helen Walton, chief commercial officer and founder of G Gaming, made a similar point about accountability. “A government-commissioned review or a select committee comes with accountability built in,” she said. “A self-appointed parallel commission adds pressure and confusion, not evidence.”

No gambling industry representation

The make-up of the commission also drew comment from Gibraltar’s regulator. Andrew Lyman, the gambling commissioner for the government of Gibraltar, wondered how the GPC could assess evidence fairly. “There appears to be no gambling industry representation and therefore how will any evidence taken be objectively weighted?” he questioned on LinkedIn.

The Commission is chaired by Professor Jagjit Chadha OBE, an economist at the University of Cambridge and former adviser at the Bank of England, with University of Reading professor James Reade serving as chief economist. They are joined by an eight-member panel drawn from economics, law, public policy, health, academia and sport, including Social Market Foundation senior fellow James Noyes and Gambling with Lives trustee Professor Janet O’Sullivan.

iGB has approached Chadha for comment, but has not received a response.

Must recognise competing considerations

Waugh said the Budd review’s value lay in its attempt to balance personal freedom and enjoyment against protection from harm, a tension described in the report as the “central dilemma” of gambling policy. He said the review recommended changes in both directions rather than simply advocating a more liberal approach.

For the new commission to be taken seriously, Waugh argued, it would need to show that it recognised those competing considerations and was prepared to make nuanced recommendations.

“There seems little point in the commission simply aggregating the lists of demands from other Derek Webb-funded enterprises.”

Walton said any credible review would also need to weigh the impact of recent policy on licensed operators. “It should also look honestly at what tax and affordability changes have done to the regulated market,” she said.

Heat turns on the Gambling Commission?

Waugh also questioned whether another review of gambling legislation was needed so soon after the 2020-23 review. The white paper reforms were still being implemented, he said, and existing powers held by the Gambling Commission and the secretary of state might allow further changes without a new Gambling Act.

Waugh suggested that the regulator’s own fitness and propriety could be a more pressing subject for scrutiny.

“It is questionable whether a new Gambling Act is actually required given the breadth of Gambling Commission powers to control the licensed market through regulation and for the secretary of state to enact changes through secondary legislation.

“For this reason, perhaps the most pressing area for review is the fitness and propriety of the Gambling Commission itself”.

Existential threat to the industry

Gambling consultant Steve Donoughue echoed this sentiment, brandishing the Gambling Commission as an “anti-gambling lobby” and urged that “one bit of study can be on how they have failed at being a regulator”.

Not all industry voices share that view of the regulator. Walton said: “We have a regulator in the Gambling Commission that is working with industry, not just against it – and already looks at ‘innovation products’.”

Donoughue also offered a different challenge to the industry, arguing that operators should do more to make their case publicly and support independent research.

“The industry is in existential threat of being destroyed,” he said, urging companies to fund research and lobbying rather than rely on favourable media coverage.

Donoughue suggested the commission might be an attempt to revive opposition to gambling reform. He said the sector should establish an industry committee and commission research, while arguing that the government was unlikely to launch further inquiries because it had other priorities.

A priority to bed in the white paper

Lyman also questioned the GPC’s status. “The word ‘Commission’ implies some degree of official status – is that the case?” he wrote. “If this is a lobby group then there should be some transparency around that.” The GPC’s own website uses both “Commission” and “Committee” to describe the group.

When approached for comment by iGB, the Gambling Commission said it had not been informed that the group was being established and emphasised that it had no formal connection to the regulator.

“It is not a statutory body and it plays no role in regulating gambling in Great Britain,” the regulator said.

It added that its priority was to complete and evaluate the white paper reforms, with that work informed by evidence from industry, consumers and other sources.

The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), also called for the reforms to be given time to take effect.

“It is important these measures are given time to bed in and their impact properly evaluated,” a spokesperson said. The council said it was focused on implementing the changes effectively while protecting consumers and maintaining a safe, well-regulated industry.

The government’s white paper followed a lengthy examination of the sector, but its reforms have yet to be fully implemented.

iGB put Donoughue’s comments to the Gambling Commission but had not received a response by the time of publication.