Is it time to raise the status of the Gambling Commission’s Industry Forum and actually make the industry-regulator engagement matter? That’s what some are saying. After two years, the Forum’s got its feet under the table, albeit shackled by the regulator’s inertia. But there are many that want the Forum to be given the freedom to walk the talk – now, the Commission needs to deliver on its Forum’s promise.

There is a growing sentiment around industry circles that want the remit of the Gambling Commission’s Industry Forum to be widened to deliver a more progressive and proactive discourse between the industry and regulator. 

It’s a bold movement: many want the industry to choose its own representation on the Forum, rather than the Commission itself, and it wants the Forum to have a far greater role to play in the regulatory discourse.

The move would, the progressives say, inject a greater energy in the work of the Forum and identify areas of concern and opportunity far quicker than the current format allows.

The timing of the suggestion is opportune: Nick Rust, the inaugural chair, recently announced his decision to step down in November. 

One of the progressives told Coinslot this week that this is the perfect opportunity to take the next step and drive the Forum on.

One of the key starters for what could be considered the next-gen stage of the Industry Forum would be the selection process. 

“The chairman of the Forum should be chosen by the industry rather than the regulator, as should the Forum members,” another industry figure noted. “The selection of the people representing the industry on the Forum should be made by the industry. That would ensure a more representative voice of our wide and varied sectors,” he added.

While the progressives are clearly focused on the Forum’s progressive development and future, it has to be said – the Forum has been undervalued, underplayed and, arguably, undermined by indifference from the Commission.

In its defence – if this could be considered a defence at all – it’s more disinterest rather than destructive intent, but the Commission has not paid much interest or respect to the Forum. The minutes are more heavily redacted than the Epstein Files, the action points are non existent, and it is still not known which Commission figures are involved with the Forum.

In fact, there have only been three sets of minutes in two years and the last set was from a year ago. And there is no record of attendance.

The Forum isn’t impacting as it should; and if it is, no-one knows about it.

Pressed on the matter, another reformer Coinslot contacted was pretty clear on what he wanted from the Forum.  

 “The Industry Forum by its very nature should be there to discuss the issues from both the industry and the regulator. It’s there to develop ideas and address concerns. It needs to be transparent and open; it needs proper engagement from the Commission at both the highest level and operational level; and it needs to be seen to engage, and not just paying lip service.”

None of which seems to be cutting through. Especially when compared to the GC’s successful Lived Experience programme which the regulator lauds at every and any opportunity it gets.

The point that seems to be lost in this entire ‘experience’ capture project is that there is no-one with more lived-experience in gambling than the five-generation families that operate arcades on the high street, the innovators that are manufacturing the machines and content, and the national and international businesses that have been investing their money by the millions into the UK high streets and economy.

The progressives seem to have an exciting prospect for the next wave of engagement: an industry-regulator forum exploring change and correction – and actually doing something about it. 

Our Forum reformer was very clear about the need for a new-look structure. “We’re not hearing anything progressive on growth and modernisation – in fact, we only ever hear about the opposite. We’re seeing too much misinformation being served up as fact – and far too much messaging that doesn’t stand up to challenge. The Industry Forum is exactly the place where this kind of stuff needs to be discussed – but we don’t know because we don’t see the minutes. And if it is, nothing is being done about it.”

Which makes the reformers vision all the more important. “This is a massive opportunity for both the industry and the Commission,” Coinslot was told. “We simply cannot afford to miss this chance in making the most of our engagement.”

But, no one’s put their head above the parapet, just yet. There are conversations and a little bit of kite flying on ideas. 

And yet the progressive call is undoubtedly compelling.

The Industry Forum is a great opportunity for effective and progressive dialogue. Unfortunately the talents of the industry are currently being wasted both by the Commision  and on the Commission.

It has already made the first step with the formation of the Industry Forum. Now, it needs to make it meaningful enough to achieve things – not just an initiative that pays lip-service to a dialogue process.

The regulator is savvy enough to create the forum: and it’s strategic enough to know it can achieve far more from it, and that keeping it low key just doesn’t bring any benefit. 

The Commission is under pressure externally: it needs and wants to deliver – and a revamped Industry Forum, surely, can play a vital role in that process.