Britain’s gambling laws didn’t anticipate smartphones – rewrite them now| Matt Zarb-Cousin

In an increasingly divided country, opinions on the issue of gambling reform are slowly reaching a consensus. This should come as little surprise given how outdated the current laws are: the 2005 Gambling Act was based on a review by the economist Sir Alan Budd way back in 2001, when Nokia 3210s were the pinnacle of technology and smartphones were the stuff of science fiction.

When Budd appeared at a recent House of Lords inquiry, he conceded that when he wrote his review “no one had even thought about the possibility that someone might be holding something in his or her hand and be allowed to gamble freely”. Today a huge proportion of online gambling is carried out on smartphones.

Our current laws were designed to put the most harmful products with the highest stakes in the least accessible, most tightly regulated places. Yet online gambling has brought the most addictive products to the pocket of everyone with a smartphone. Unlike physical machines, such as fixed-odds betting terminals in betting shops, the content online has no limits to the stake.

That’s why online slots alone generated £2.2bn last year, more than FOBTs at their peak, with data from the Gambling Commission indicating that that figure is set to rise as a result of the lockdown. This risks making a difficult economic situation even worse. The House of Lords inquiry found that 60% of online profits are coming from 5% of gamblers, who are losing more than they can afford.

Thankfully the government has committed to reviewing the Gambling Act so that our laws are “fit for the digital age”. The public appears to back robust regulation. Polling by Survation found more than two-thirds back limiting stakes to under £5 on slots and casino games online, while more than three-quarters support a cap on the amount that can be deposited into a gambling account.

Despite the growing consensus among gambling firms, campaigners and the government on the abstract principle of “affordability”, the Social Market Foundation’s recently published report is the first time a workable model has been proposed. Authored by our generation’s Alan Budd, Dr James Noyes – previously an adviser to former deputy Labour leader Tom Watson, and a former head of policy at the thinktank ResPublica – his report proposes a £100 a month “soft cap” on deposits, mandating an affordability check before this threshold is breached.

Crucially, the SMF has noted the conflict of interest in gambling operators doing affordability checks, given that the majority of their profits are coming from people experiencing harm. So they propose outsourcing this process to a public agency, a new gambling ombudsman. This agency would also be handed responsibility for investigating consumer complaints and providing redress, which at present involves burdening victims of unfair treatment with legal fees. This is an insurmountable barrier for many who have fallen victim to the ruthless tactics of gambling firms: to either get them hooked or to refuse to pay winnings, where obscure terms and conditions are cited as justification.

The SMF also recommends limiting stakes on slots to between £1 and £5 and argues for a minimum time between spins for online casino content such as roulette. There are currently no restrictions on speed, meaning it’s possible to place a new bet within seconds. Survation found the majority are most receptive to a break of at least a minute between bets.

The public is also hugely supportive of bringing gambling firms back onshore, with more than three-quarters agreeing that in order to operate in Britain the firms should be based here and pay all their taxes here. To deter offshoring, the report proposes online gambling taxes should be calculated based on a firm’s capital, human, social, digital and legal “footprint” in Britain, which the government should consider as the principles underpinning our post-Brexit economy begin to take shape.

Public attitudes to gambling reform are consistent across all demographics. All ages, social grades and political persuasions are in favour of substantial reform, in particular Tory leave voters. It has also cut across party political lines. Labour MP Carolyn Harris chairs the all-party group on gambling-related harm, vice chaired by Ronnie Cowan of the SNP and former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith.

Earlier this year the influential cross-party group, which has grown to more than 60 MPs and peers, called for a ban on all gambling advertising as well as a stake cap of £2 on slots, alongside further recommendations such as the creation of an ombudsman and mandatory affordability checks. These were echoed by Lord Grade’s House of Lords select committee inquiry – again a cross-party endeavour.

While much of the government’s agenda has been paused by the pandemic, the gambling review presents an opportunity to rewrite the rules of a sector that has for too long profited at the expense of harm to the public. The public is increasingly supportive of more regulation: hopefully on this issue, at least, the self-described “people’s government” will live up to its name.

• Matt Zarb-Cousin is director of Clean Up Gambling, and is former spokesperson for the Campaign for Fairer Gambling