The United Kingdom has shattered temperature records this week, and you might begin to notice certain occurrences.
For instance, iGB believes the industry ought to press the UK administration to release the Gambling Act white paper promptly.
The call to “release the white paper” has become a rallying point for those who desire a review that closely resembles a total prohibition on gambling. Therefore, it’s easy to presume that those who endorse a thriving industry would want the government to postpone matters as much as feasible.
In actuality, that appears to be the case generally. Reformers have explicitly stated their desire to advocate for a review, while the industry has found itself on the opposing side of the discussion – the unpopular side of the political dispute, which has hampered the government’s capacity to address a variety of challenges.
However, it might not always be prudent to passively adopt a stance based on the opposing viewpoint. In this particular instance, the industry may need to advance the Gambling Act review to the next phase and strive to enhance it.
## A Starting Point, Not the End
It’s undeniable that a few of the proposed measures, such as affordability checks set at just £125, could be enhanced in their present form.
Nevertheless, it’s worthwhile to contemplate what the white paper represents, and what it doesn’t.
Just this past weekend, the DCMS released its “alternative” white paper: on loot boxes. The document offers ample guidance on change, but it’s a considerable distance from concrete legislation.
The gambling version of the white paper is purported to be more precise, but the loot box version is noteworthy because there’s still a significant journey ahead before the white paper becomes law.
The sector will have numerous opportunities to express their views on future developments, but this is where the genuine legislative process in Westminster might be, rather than behind closed doors in Whitehall.
In the end, this is the area – where in-depth discussions are required – where the industry can genuinely contemplate speaking out.
## We Need More Experts
Advocates for change can call for general measures to address areas they perceive as high risk, but only those with industry experience can truly grasp what new legislation should resemble. This is where the industry can offer its expertise on the customer journey to help shape affordability checks, prevent harmful gambling, without directing customers towards less protected sites.
This can all be carried out in a relatively transparent manner, and ultimately, the individuals who hold the power to make the final decision will be directly responsible to their constituents. Conversely, when discussions occur behind closed doors, businesses face a lack of clarity, which can be just as detrimental as the scrutiny itself. Numerous operators have attempted to anticipate the future, but it remains unclear what they are preparing for. This ambiguity has undoubtedly unsettled the financial sector, as banks grapple with selling the debt owed by 888 without understanding how the GB market, now their largest, will evolve. Within the present financing environment, there are numerous other obstacles, and the additional reason for investor doubt is not favorable. While the uncertainty persists, the potential extent of reform is also unusually wide-ranging, and whenever that occurs, those who are given a platform to discuss change are primarily those advocating for the most stringent measures. Continuing to lend credibility to concepts like a complete marketing prohibition does not benefit the industry.
In the meantime, certain news sources are circulating conspiracy theories, relying on weak past connections, suggesting that the gambling and gaming sector is covertly influencing the Cabinet Office.
With each postponement, the industry appears to be exerting more power to achieve its goals, encouraging the extreme voices in the reformist discussion, who gain media attention whenever the deadlines are extended.
These radical voices primarily maintain that the industry will not accept any changes that could potentially harm short-term profits.
However, the majority of the industry acknowledges that some reform is reasonable, and only express reservations about specific proposals that would be detrimental.
The industry can demonstrate its commitment to sensible reform by embracing the next stage of examination and taking steps to ensure that the final legislation is truly based on evidence.
Daniel O’Boyle is the Deputy Editor of the B2B brand of Clarion Gaming.
Sign up for the iGaming newsletter.