The Gambling Business Group has a wide reach amongst its ranks – multinationals to smaller high street operators, everyone in between, and through all the key sectors of the industry. When asked about the delay recently, it answered very simply: “When  you don’t know what machines you can operate in which venues; when you can only take 20th century payment options in the 21st century; and your business is working under archaic legislation that was already ten years behind the times when it rolled out in 2005 – do you think that’s a message of confidence that will encourage businesses to invest?” And that seems to be  the impact on the industry as a result of the Gambling Review delay. There’s no more time, the GBG says, for further delays.

Coinslot: What impact is the delay in the Gambling Review having on your members and the industry in general?

Peter Hannibal: Everything seems to be in a state of flux.

 The delays are certainly having an impact on confidence and investment in the industry. And that will filter through to the high streets and the thousands of jobs associated with them.

It’s important, also, to look at the Review in its entirety: it was based on the promise of modernising the framework of the industry and playing a pivotal role in revitalising the sector, particularly the land based businesses which are the lifeline of the high street and seasides.

It’s difficult enough as it is for Government to keep pace with developments and technology, but this self-inflicted bureaucratic delay in the modernisation process means that the industry is even further away from being “fit for the digital age”. 

More than five years into this review, many are suggesting that the digital wave is already passing us by and we have AI bearing down upon us.

While the review stagnates, technology in everyday life is moving even further out of the industry’s reach; investment is slowing down for many of our operations and those in the broader hospitality arena; and more worryingly, those massive losses incurred during Covid have simply not been recouped yet. Far too many businesses have simply not recovered from the lockdowns. 

I wish the picture could be painted in more vibrant and exciting colours, but the delay in the Gambling Review continues to be a huge missed opportunity. It has pushed the industry back many years.

Coinslot: Four plus years of talk and consultation and still no definitive date for implementation: how would you rate the mood and confidence levels around the industry as a result of the delay?

Peter Hannibal: I would definitely say that it’s better than it was after the General Election was called. Step back to May when the DCMS had published its response to the land based changes, all stakeholders were preparing for the final push towards a new landscape for legislation and regulation.

However, six months on, even though we understand there was cross party agreement pre-General Election, the appointment of a new Minister who has a very limited gambling background has meant further delay than if the shadow gambling minister had been appointed – or perhaps cynically, it has given the Government an excuse to kick the can down the road for a little longer. 

That said, the new minister has been honest about her commitments and there continues to be a very good working relationship with the DCMS team. But that doesn’t change the urgent need for speedy action. 

Under a prospect of a significant increase in business rates, corporation tax and employers NI contributions  – and who knows what else – you can get a sense that confidence is not high for land based businesses in our sector, our supply chain and our local business communities on the high street. 

I do worry that this Government is not going to help address the decline of our High Streets – I hope I am wrong.

And we mustn’t forget, it’s not just the gambling businesses that are worried, other stakeholders in the sector are also fearful due to the delay. The impact the delay is having on the third sector is very concerning as  it’s causing huge uncertainty on funding, many of the charities have no funding visibility beyond April 2025. 

This not only creates critical governance issues for the charities themselves, it is not fair on those employed in important roles providing treatment and support to the vulnerable. 

Neither is it fair on the vulnerable.

Coinslot: Can you highlight some of the practical implications your members have faced because of the delay – notably on investment, technological development, employment and growth prospects?

Peter Hannibal: There is a noticeable hold on investment at this stage, given the unknowns. That is a dramatic shift from the beginning of the year when businesses were in the proverbial ‘starting blocks’ ready for the changes to happen in 2024. Ten months in, and they’re wondering whether they should skip a year and plan for 2026. 

That could really hit hard on the regeneration of our high streets and town centres.

And then there’s the impact on smaller businesses, the family run operations who are waiting on the decision from the Gambling Commission regarding the GMTS proposals. This could have a huge and varied impact on investments and growth – both positive and negative.  

For many, a vast amount of investment and technological development will be required; yet for others it could be the death knell for their business.

It’s noticeable that the implications emerging from the White Paper put forward by the DCMS are well balanced, providing better protections whilst allowing the industry to develop and move on. 

Conversely, the proposals emerging from the Gambling Commission all seem to be about increasing regulations that have the potential to damage or even close businesses, and which are not supported with evidence. 

We continue to push for those changes that will strengthen safeguards to protect the vulnerable through the adoption of innovative new technologies, such as cashless payment systems, whilst allowing the vast majority of players who gamble recreationally and without harm to continue to do so freely. 

But at the same time, though, the Gambling Review must allow for these innovations to develop and evolve with some sense of liberality. Changes such as debit card usage requires close working with the banking sector and changes to technology, but all of this is on pause whilst we wait for a government decision.

Coinslot: What about the customer. What affect do you think this is having on the player offerings and entertainment value?

Peter Hannibal: If you shift the question around, you’d probably get the more appropriate answer. The changes that we are looking for will enable businesses to provide products that meet consumer choice and requirements rather than just fulfilling outdated quotas such as the 80:20 machine requirements.

These concepts are archaic. Customers insist on – and deserve – the best quality entertainment available. The current Gambling Act gives them 2005 entertainment, and most stakeholders believe the last Act was already a decade out of date when it was implemented. 

We have a history of gambling legislation chasing twenty years behind modern day standards – and those that lose out most are our customers and players.  

And that is also reflected in the creation of an Ombudsman. Much progress has been made on the Draft Code of Conduct – led by BGC, and with input from our members and other trade bodies. 

The White Paper proposed it would not be statutory and therefore doesn’t require legislation change, and yet even this is on pause whilst the government considers the GAR overall.

Coinslot: From your members’ perspective what are the most pressing issues that still need be addressed in the Gambling Review?

Peter Hannibal: It’s Impossible to rank them – all are equally important across our varied membership. Everything was consulted upon before the general election and agreed across the political parties. Nothing should have changed in this regard, therefore we want to see all of the DCMS’s proposals pushed through Parliament ASAP. 

The most pressing issue is to see a clear timetable from DCMS about when to expect the changes announced last May to be implemented and when to expect progress on other aspects of the White Paper that have yet to be consulted on.