Cross-party MPs to initiate Gambling Act review

Almost everything has changed since the stage when bookmaking operations were liberalized in England in 2005. A stage came when punters became familiar with the Internet and electronic devices, the gambling market boomed, and the constant pressure from regulators came.

No doubt these configurations contributed to the formation of a sophisticated British horse racing industry.

As the government continues its review of the 2005 Gambling Act, this blog answers these important questions for the jump, such as accessibility testing, sponsorship, and advertising, while also looking at how the industry has used the state as a major vote in the gambling debate.

Brief Situation

After the government passed the Fixed Coefficient Terminals (FOBT) Act in 2018, it became clear that politicians would embark on subsequent reforms to the growing gambling market.

In the 2019 open-ended election, each fixed party's manifesto included a pledge on the review of gambling legislation, starting with a review of the 2005 Gambling Act, reviewing gambling regulation, the introduction of non-associated levies to fund prevention and treatment proposals, or even banning gambling advertising on sporting events. In the case of the Labour Party, all four directions promised politicians.

Although the limiting parties had the largest vote share, the cross-party consensus agreed that gambling reform was necessary.

In late 2020, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) launched a review of gambling legislation and launched a major slogan to provide evidence proposing to implement a comprehensive reform of gambling law in six specific areas:

• Player and Internet Protection Products
• Advertising, Sponsorship and Branding
• Gaming Commission Powers and Resources
• Protection of Customer Rights
• Age Restrictions and Verification
• Gambling

However, in March 2021, the deadline for the submission of materials ended, however political action, leading to a two-year delay with the publication of the Snow Book by the government.

The DCMS did not set specific conditions, but it was not enough that we had the opportunity to introduce, in fact, we will live until 2024 when the education program will be far from the end. And the gambling bill was not included in November's King's Speech, raising doubts about whether it will be accepted before this year's general election.

Original

Since the FOBT reform, the debate over gambling has not been harmful to most people who do gambling (and the right of individuals to choose how to use disposable income), and a harm that can cause gambling to a minority. It is polarized among people who think that it should be suppressed.

Horse racing agrees to protect people (or have the danger of experiencing) gambling, and recognizes that this can happen when betting on horse racing. At the same time, millions of people are betting on horse racing with responsibilities without experiencing harm, and horse racing is relatively low risk in comparison with other bets, pure coincidance. It is clear that it is different from other gambling in that it is a game of skill.

The relationship between horse racing and bookmaking is unique to sports. The symbiotic relationship between the two sports indicates that horse racing is the only sport that is subject to legal taxation. The fact that the government is currently reviewing the price structure so that horse racing is currently not affected by the gambling method is emphasized on the strength of this relationship.

This relationship has hundreds of years of history and is the most important revenue of horse racing. Includes not only taxes on horse racing betting, but also media rights, sponsorship fees, and advertising fees, a total of about £ 350 million has contributed to horse racing finances each year.

59 racetracks, more than 500 trainers managing more than 18, 000 thoroughbred horses, and have 85, 000 employment supporting the rural economy.

However, such a clear mutual dependence means that horse racing is financially vulnerable in response to changes in gambling regulations.

The government understands this, and we believe that Chris Philup, the minister in charge of gambling at the time, promised in 2021 that the change in gambling regulations would have to praise the impact on British horse racing. Unfortunately, as a result of the amendment of the Gambling Law, the estimation of the white paper, which loses the income of £ 8. 4 million a year, seems to be understood the actual cost significantly. We cooperate with DCMS to get more accurate numbers. < SPAN> Since FOBT reform, discussions over gambling may be a minority of those who think that there is no harm to most people who do gambling (and the right of individuals to use disposable income) and minority. It is polarized among those who think that certain harm should be suppressed.

Horse racing agrees to protect people (or have the danger of experiencing) gambling, and recognizes that this can happen when betting on horse racing. At the same time, millions of people are betting on horse racing with responsibilities without experiencing harm, and horse racing is relatively low risk in comparison with other bets, pure coincidance. It is clear that it is different from other gambling in that it is a game of skill.

The relationship between horse racing and bookmaking is unique to sports. The symbiotic relationship between the two sports indicates that horse racing is the only sport that is subject to legal taxation. The fact that the government is currently reviewing the price structure so that horse racing is currently not affected by the gambling method is emphasized on the strength of this relationship.

This relationship has hundreds of years of history and is the most important revenue of horse racing. Includes not only taxes on horse racing betting, but also media rights, sponsorship fees, and advertising fees, a total of about £ 350 million has contributed to horse racing finances each year.

59 racetracks, more than 500 trainers managing more than 18, 000 thoroughbred horses, and have 85, 000 employment supporting the rural economy.

However, such a clear mutual dependence means that horse racing is financially vulnerable in response to changes in gambling regulations.

The government understands this, and we believe that Chris Philup, the minister in charge of gambling at the time, promised in 2021 that the change in gambling regulations would have to praise the impact on British horse racing. Unfortunately, as a result of the amendment of the Gambling Law, the estimation of the white paper, which loses the income of £ 8. 4 million a year, seems to be understood the actual cost significantly. We cooperate with DCMS to get more accurate numbers. Since the FOBT reform, the debate over gambling has not been harmful to most people who do gambling (and the right of individuals to choose how to use disposable income), and a harm that can cause gambling to a minority. It is polarized among people who think that it should be suppressed.

Horse racing agrees to protect people (or have the danger of experiencing) gambling, and recognizes that this can happen when betting on horse racing. At the same time, millions of people are betting on horse racing with responsibilities without experiencing harm, and horse racing is relatively low risk in comparison with other bets, pure coincidance. It is clear that it is different from other gambling in that it is a game of skill.

The relationship between horse racing and bookmaking is unique to sports. The symbiotic relationship between the two sports indicates that horse racing is the only sport that is subject to legal taxation. The fact that the government is currently reviewing the price structure so that horse racing is currently not affected by the gambling method is emphasized on the strength of this relationship.

This relationship has hundreds of years of history and is the most important revenue of horse racing. Includes not only taxes on horse racing betting, but also media rights, sponsorship fees, and advertising fees, a total of about £ 350 million has contributed to horse racing finances each year.

59 racetracks, more than 500 trainers managing more than 18, 000 thoroughbred horses, and have 85, 000 employment supporting the rural economy.

However, such a clear mutual dependence means that horse racing is financially vulnerable in response to changes in gambling regulations.

The government understands this, and we believe that Chris Philup, the minister in charge of gambling at the time, promised in 2021 that the change in gambling regulations would have to praise the impact on British horse racing. Unfortunately, as a result of the amendment of the Gambling Law, the estimation of the white paper, which loses the income of £ 8. 4 million a year, seems to be understood the actual cost significantly. We cooperate with DCMS to get more accurate numbers.

The White Paper has revealed that British horse racing requires "appropriate levels of funding" through horse racing gambling taxes to alleviate the influence of new gambling methods. We hope that future tax agreements will be revealed immediately.

Availability check

Availability check (currently officially called "financial risk check") is the first proposal by the Gambling Committee (GC) in 2020 in a remote customer engagement consultation, which is a top 100 pound per month. You must submit a salary statement that proves that you can withstand spending and p60 to the operator.

The opposition to this unrealistic proposal was quick. The effective letter campaign conducted by 2021 racing has been pointed out with the potential economic impact of 100 million pounds a year and the effects of Cavid 19, which has to be abandoned. However, the delay in the review has enabled a scenario for gambling operators to introduce their own affordability control.

Depending on who you talk, the reason is to protect customers, avoid further fines from regulatory authorities, or to make management decisions in the form of customer safety measures.

Since these regulations are not unified between businesses, they restrict and frustrate the horse racing backter's customer experience. These have already made great profits from horse racing: According to the GK statistics from 2022 to 2023, the betting revenue of horse racing has decreased by £ 900 million a year.

In response to major requests from consumer organizations such as horse racing and HBF (Horseeracing Bettors Forum), the government is working with GC and Betting Operators to provide a consistent and provisional approach with lacebetters.

The government has also issued a unique proposal to protect online players, and the White Paper has an overview of two "financial risk cleaning". Unlimited "financial vulnerability check" starts with a net loss of £ 125 in 30 days and 500 pounds per year, and checks are known to customers using publicly available bankruptcy records and crime records. It will be implemented without anyway.

If a net damage of £ 2. 000 within 24 hours and a £ 2. 000 will be conducted, a more thorough “financial risk evaluation” will be conducted. In this case, customers will have to provide more personal information, not only in the position and postal code, but also on the credit history.

The BHA believes that any system that regulates gambling has a duty to accept what is unique between jumps and bets and to ensure a balance between freedom and customer defence.

We do not doubt that extraordinary access to funds tests are not appropriate, and all types of measures must be proportionate and target the individual and their specific conditions, taking into account the risks of recognition, without such a growing illegal market.

It also raised the legitimate question of why gambling alone, as a legitimate form of leisure, should be different and require certain spending limits.

Up until the first time we looked, the government also agreed with us. Councillor Lucy Fraser, Municipal Secretary, stated in her personal submission to the Snow White Book:

"Millions of people gamble every year and most of them feel almost no adverse consequences, so state intervention should focus on accommodating and preventing malicious gambling. Those who like to spend their money on gambling have every chance of creating this fluently, and we are under no obligation to disrupt the development of a stable, re-regulated industry that pays taxes and pays jobs to ask."

We will not be a fluctuation in the plans of those who have worked on these services in government or civil law, but the organizations working on the leap are only in their own worldview, and the current proposals for accessibility are incompatible with the data of ambition, since the test begins with the value of one, 37 pounds sterling, not better than one of unsuccessful losses in one day.