Prohibitionist charter the latest warning sign for betting and racing

Dan Waugh of Regulus Partners, a strategic advisory business, looks at a recent study which would have wide-ranging repercussions for the gambling industry and racing

This month, we have been afforded a glimpse of what lies in store for British betting consumers and for racing if – as some campaigners demand – responsibility for our gambling laws is moved from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport to the Department for Health and Social Care.

A DHSC-sponsored (and taxpayer-funded) Delphi study, intended to "guide future policy" on gambling, has been published in The Lancet Public Health. It proposes a raft of legislative reforms that would all but destroy the licensed betting industry in Britain – in the process taking a catastrophic toll on racing.

The paper contains 81 proposals from a clandestine group of 34 public health researchers and practitioners and reads like a prohibitionist charter. The nameless ‘experts’ voted to ban the following (among other things): all gambling advertising and sponsorships; brands, colours, imagery, corporate logos and trademarks on gambling products; price promotions; in-play betting; spread betting on sports; and the sale of alcohol in gambling venues.

They also called for gambling taxes to increase every year at a rate above inflation (with a return to tax on stakes); for curfews to be imposed to restrict the operating hours of websites; and for all new customers to be required to provide bank statements and pass intrusive ‘source of funds’ checks in order to open a betting account.

The researchers did not provide any justifications for these measures (or any suggestion that they considered justification necessary) and resisted the idea that it might be sensible to conduct small-scale trials before implementation.

The identities of the ‘experts’ who voted on the proposals will not be made public but their natural sympathies may be guessed at. Any researcher who had received funding from the gambling industry in the prior decade was excluded – but there was no such provision where membership of (or receipt of funds from) anti-gambling lobby groups was concerned.

In short, a group of people who probably didn’t like betting very much were asked their opinions on how the market should be controlled. This is what constitutes state-backed evidence in a review of our gambling laws that is in danger of becoming more about moralisation than modernisation.

The Delphi study was commissioned as a follow-up to the fatally flawed Public Health England review of gambling harms and conducted by the same research team. In recent weeks, the wheels have started to come off PHE’s claim that gambling harms cost society £1.27 billion a year.

First, the DHSC admitted that it had made a fundamental “mistake” in estimating the number of suicides in England “associated with problem gambling only”, incorrectly extrapolating a Swedish study without realising it had used a wholly different method of identifying problem gamblers.

A few days later, health minister Maggie Throup announced her department would review the evidence published in the PHE report. It was then revealed (in response to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act) that PHE and other 'health leaders' had agreed last year to take "a public health approach to gambling" that would be, they wrote, “similar to how we tackle tobacco consumption”.

This was a clear expression of prohibitionist intent (the government plans to eliminate smoking by the end of this decade) that seems certain to have coloured the PHE team’s proposals – most notably the demands for a total advertising ban and ‘plain packaging’ for betting.

The Gambling Commission has admitted it undertook no checks to establish the veracity of the PHE claims and that it agreed to endorse the report without having first read it. Despite the DHSC’s admission of error, the commission has no plans to review a report that it was “keen to take into account” when providing advice to the government on the Gambling Act review.

The commission’s Advisory Board for Safer Gambling therefore faces an interesting question as to why it publicly endorsed the PHE cost estimates in April this year (more than six months after publication) despite the fact the commission knew by then of grave concerns with regard to the report’s reliability.

We have arrived at a point where a state-sponsored panel of public health experts has published a set of draconian recommendations for reform of Britain’s regulated gambling market in response to a mistaken calculation of social and economic costs.

The fact the DHSC has committed to review the PHE estimates represents progress of a sort – but it would surely have been better if this had been undertaken before their publication (and not ten months later). We must ask whether the DHSC can be trusted to conduct the review.

Chris Philp: former gambling minister consistently endorsed PHE estimates

Given that Gillian Keegan, the minister for care and mental health, has personally endorsed the PHE estimates (as indeed did the former gambling minister, Chris Philp, on a repeated basis), the DHSC has skin in the game and may be tempted to fudge.

What is required now is a transparent and honest assessment of what has been going on. First, a rigorous, open review of the PHE estimates should be conducted, independent from the DHSC.

Second, an examination of the conduct of the state agencies involved should be undertaken in order to determine how such a critical report was permitted to be published unverified – and whether any attempts were made to cover up the PHE “mistakes”. Without this, we run the risk of our gambling laws being made fit, not for the digital age, but for the illiberal age.

Hills go carbon-neutral

William Hill have announced they are now a carbon neutral organisation, and are believed to be the first gambling operator to do so.

The bookmaker said they had reduced their waste and energy consumption as well as improving their carbon footprint in transportation as part of their environmental policy.

Hills said their emissions had been "significantly reduced" with the amount remaining having been offset by investment in accredited wind and solar initiatives.

In addition, Hills said they had sourced 100 per cent renewable electricity across all their UK sites, meaning all the electricity used to power their shops and UK offices now comes entirely from solar, wind and hydro sources.

They claimed that by next year that switch alone would have saved almost 61,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

Gersh heading Stateside

Former Paddy Power Betfair chief financial officer Alex Gersh is stepping down from the same position at sports technology operator Sportradar. Gersh is leaving the company to accept another position in the US.

Sportradar, which describes itself as the "world’s leading provider of technology solutions to the sports betting industry", last week reported revenue in the second quarter of 2022 had increased by 23 per cent to €177.2 million ($186m) compared with the second quarter of 2021.

The company said there had been strong growth across the business, especially the US where revenue grew by 66 per cent to €29.1m.

Mr Green closes in UK

The sportsbook of William Hill subsidiary Mr Green is to close on September 8, it was announced last week.

The decision only affects UK customers, with the Mr Green Ireland sportsbook remaining open.

Customers were told that any bets due for settlement after September 8 would be honoured, with payments made when the respective market was settled.

This month Itai Pazner, the chief executive of 888 Holdings which recently completed the acquisition of William Hill, told analysts that "brand choices" were being made and would lead to rationalisation.

Read this next:

'Alarm bells should be ringing for punters' as gambling review details emerge

Ultimate Daily – our daily newsletters from Racing Post's experts, exclusive to the inbox of Ultimate Members' Club subscribers. To receive the newsletter subscribe here