Gambling Legislation

Consultation Analysis

Gambling Legislation Consultation

Analysis

Contents Page

1.Introduction3

2.Consultation Response3

  1. Consultation Analysis - The Industry in Other Jurisdictions5
  2. Consultation Analysis - Sector Specific Issues (Betting)7
  3. Consultation Analysis - Sector Specific Issues (Bingo)8
  4. Consultation Analysis - Sector Specific Issues

(Gaming Machines)9

  1. Consultation Analysis - Sector Specific Issues

(Societies Lotteries)10

  1. Consultation Analysis - Licensing Objectives11
  2. Consultation Analysis - Regulation & Enforcement12
  3. Impact Assessments14
  4. Other Issues14

Further comments:

Appendix A - The Industry in Other Jurisdictions15

Appendix B - Betting16

Appendix C- Bingo17

Appendix D - Gaming Machines18

Appendix E - Societies Lotteries19

AppendixF - Licensing Objectives20

Appendix G - Regulation & Enforcement21

  1. Introduction
  2. Analytical Services Unit (ASU) was appointed by the Department for Social Development’s Social Policy Unit (SPU) to conduct a survey as part of the consultation on the proposals for changes to gambling legislation in Northern Ireland.

1.2The consultation document was made available on the Department’s website and the survey was available for completion for twelve weeks from 24 February 2011 to 31 May 2011.

1.3To encourage feedback, the survey was made available in electronic and hard copy formats. The number of responses to the public consultation is detailed below.

  1. Consultation Response
  2. The survey gathered 239 started returns. However, of this 239, only 201 surveys were fully completed.

2.2Of the 237 who answered the specific question, 169 described themselves as answering as an individual and 68 stated they were answering on behalf of an organisation.

2.3Many hard-copy responses were provided in an open-ended format and not through the survey that had been designed and published online. In these instances, statisticians from ASU extracted the relevant content and placed it into the survey format to ensure consistency in analysis.

2.4One point that should be noted is that an organised response was received from local bookmakers. Many individuals submitted responses that were identical, word-for-word, in their content and delivered in envelopes that were similarly marked and labelled. These responses were all received in hard-copy format. In total, 83 identical responses were received. This is 41% of the total fully completed responses. Given this organised response, the results could be said to be skewed by the weight of the bookmakers opinions. However, as this was an open consultation, the analysis and results are presented as per the responses received. Some comment has been made on the effects of this organised response.

2.5Of those who responded on behalf of an organisation, the following is a selection of those that were included in the responses:

  • MCE Public Relations
  • Betfair
  • Dunlewey Gambling Advice Service
  • PSNI
  • AIME
  • Salvation Army
  • Paddy Power
  • Institute of Public Health
  • ASA
  • National Lottery Commission
  • McLeans Bookmakers
  • NI Turf Guardians Association
  • Camelot
  • Advice NI
  • NICVA
  • Caleb Foundation
  • Advertising Association
  • Evangelical Presbyterian Church
  • The Lotteries Council
  • Institute of Fundraising NI Committee
  • Ladbrooks
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Oasis
  • NIACTA
  • Free Presbyterian Church
  • Channel 4
  • Sean Graham Bookmakers
  • The British Red Cross Society
  • Hughes Bookmakers
  • Toals Bookmakers
  • Coleraine Borough Council
  • NI On-course Bookmakers Association
  • Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland
  • MethodistChurch in Ireland
  • CBI
  • Ballymena Borough Council
  • Independent Loyal Orange Institution
  1. Consultation Analysis – The Industry in Other Jurisdictions
  2. The first section of the consultation put forward proposals which would bring Northern Ireland in line with other jurisdictions. There were 224 responses to each of these proposals and the response distribution was as follows.

Strongly Agree / Agree / Neither Agree/Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
permit licensed commercial gaming clubs (casinos) / 8.0% (18) / 7.6% (17) / 65.6% (147) / 5.4% (12) / 13.4% (30)
allow premises licensed to sell alcohol and registered clubs to offer poker, bingo and other equal chance gaming, subject to limits on stakes and prizes / 8.0% (18) / 7.1% (16) / 16.5% (37) / 5.4% (12) / 62.9% (141)
allow providers of online gambling products to establish their operations in Northern Ireland / 58.0% (130) / 7.6% (17) / 23.2% (52) / 1.3% (3) / 9.8% (22)
permit Sunday opening of bookmaking offices and commercial bingo clubs / 64.3% (144) / 8.0% (18) / 10.3% (23) / 5.4% (12) / 12.1% (27)
remove the ‘demand test’ for new bookmaking offices and commercial bingo clubs / 8.5% (19) / 1.8% (4) / 21.9% (49) / 6.3% (14) / 61.6% (138)
abolish the residency and incorporation conditions for those wishing to enter the Northern Ireland gambling market / 54.9% (123) / 7.6% (17) / 24.1% (54) / 3.6% (8) / 9.8% (22)
reduce the lower age limit for holders of a bookmakers’ licence, bingo club licence, gaming machine certificate or permit or lottery certificate to 18 / 6.7% (15) / 4.9% (11) / 71.0% (159) / 7.1% (16) / 10.3% (23)
bring the Northern Ireland law on advertising of gambling more into line with the law in GB, particularly in terms of broadcast advertising / 63.4% (142) / 8.0% (18) / 18.3% (41) / 3.6% (8) / 6.7% (15)
to enable people in Northern Ireland to participate in prize competitions and free draws on the same basis as those in the rest of the UK / 15.6% (35) / 12.5% (28) / 64.3% (144) / 1.3% (3) / 6.3% (14)

Figure 1: Responses to ‘The Industry in Other Jurisdiction’ Section

3.2Four proposals were met with strong agreement. The strongest response was to ‘permit Sunday opening of bookmaking offices and commercial bingo clubs’, which had 64.3% in strong agreement. Two proposals showed strong disagreement, these were ‘allowing premises to sell alcohol’ and ‘removal of the demand test’. Both had just over 60% in strong disagreement.

3.3It should be noted, however, that in the results shown above the dominant responses exactly match those that were provided in the 83 repeat responses submitted by local bookmakers. However, even completing a simple exercise such as removing these responses from the sample would still leave the most common response for most proposals unchanged.

3.4This section also allowed respondents to provide further comments if they saw fit, particularly if they disagreed with proposals. This was one of the areas where there were multiple identical responses from local bookmakers. However, full responses are included in Appendix A (although not all identical responses have been included).

3.5The main responses received expressed concern at the potential mix of alcohol and gambling and also the increased exposure to gambling that changes might provide. Sunday opening was mentioned as further increasing access. The removal of the demand test concerned some, reasoning that independent businesses could be harmed and clustering in high streets could occur.

  1. Consultation Analysis – Sector Specific Issues (Betting)
  2. The next section put forward proposals specifically aimed towards the betting industry. 216 responses were collected for each proposal and the distribution was as follows:

Strongly Agree / Agree / Neither Agree / Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
permit the transfer of a bookmaking office licence from one premises to another, subject to the introduction of suitable safeguards / 7.4% (16) / 10.6% (23) / 22.2% (48) / 4.2% (9) / 55.6% (120)
introduce a bookmaker’s (personal) licence which would be valid in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; / 9.3% (20) / 12.0% (26) / 72.2% (156) / 2.8% (6) / 3.7% (8)
classify FOBTs as gaming machines and ban their use here / 9.3% (20) / 3.2% (7) / 23.6% (51) / 5.6% (12) / 58.3% (126)
put the operation of Tote Direct in bookmaking offices on a firm legal footing / 58.8% (127) / 15.3% (33) / 22.7% (49) / 0.9% (2) / 2.3% (5)
enable people in Northern Ireland to participate in pools competitions on the same basis as those in the rest of the UK / 12.5% (27) / 13.9% (30) / 68.5% (148) / 0.9% (2) / 4.2% (9)
make certain changes to the track betting licence scheme for the protection of all interests and having regard to best practice elsewhere / 61.6% (133) / 13.0% (28) / 22.2% (48) / 0.9% (2) / 2.3% (5)

Figure 2: Responses to ‘Sector Specific Issues (Betting)’ Section

4.2Two proposals each met with strong agreement, no opinion and strong disagreement. The operation of Tote Direct being put on a firm legal footing in bookmaking offices and making changes to the track betting licence scheme were strongly agreed with. The transfer of licences and banning of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) were met with strong disagreement.

4.3Again it should be noted, however, that in the results shown above the dominant responses exactly match those that were provided in the 83 repeat responses submitted by local bookmakers.

4.4This section also allowed respondents to provide further comments if they saw fit, particularly if they disagreed with proposals. This was also one of the areas where there were multiple identical responses from local bookmakers. However, full responses are included in Appendix B (although not all identical responses have been included).

4.5Common remarks in this section were that the ability to transfer licences would undermine the demand test. FOBTs were repeatedly cited as an important source of income, both for bookmakers and for HMRC.

  1. Consultation Analysis – Sector Specific Issues (Bingo)

5.1The next section put forward proposals specifically aimed towards the bingo industry. 216 responses were collected for each proposal and the distribution was as follows:

Strongly Agree / Agree / Neither Agree / Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
restrict prize gaming to ‘equal chance’ gaming only / 55.6% (120) / 12.5% (27) / 25.5% (55) / 3.2% (7) / 3.2% (7)
increase the prize gaming monetary limits in line with GB / 59.7% (129) / 13.9% (30) / 20.4% (44) / 1.9% (4) / 4.2% (9)
remove the money controls on bingo games and permit ‘rollovers’ / 58.3% (126) / 11.6% (25) / 22.7% (49) / 2.8% (6) / 4.6% (10)
abolish the 24-hour membership requirement / 59.3% (128) / 8.8% (19) / 25.0% (54) / 1.9% (4) / 5.1% (11)

Figure 3: Responses to ‘Sector Specific Issues (Bingo)’ Section

5.2All four proposals were met with strong agreement. The two most favoured were ’increasing prize gaming limits in line with GB’ and ‘abolishing the 24-hour membership rule’. However, all responses were in the ranges of 55-60% in strong agreement.

5.3As in the previous two sections it should be noted, however, that in the results shown above the dominant responses exactly match those that were provided in the 83 repeat responses submitted by local bookmakers. In this instance, three of the proposals most common response would change to ‘Neither Agree/Disagree’ had this response only been received once.

5.4This section also allowed respondents to provide further comments if they saw fit, particularly if they disagreed with proposals. This was not one of the areas where there were multiple identical additional comment responses from local bookmakers. Full responses are included in Appendix C

5.5Comments did err on the negative side, despite the results above. Mention was made of increased prizes leading to increased gambling and the law being too biased on the providers’ side.

  1. Consultation Analysis – Sector Specific Issues (Gaming Machines)

6.1The next section put forward proposals specifically aimed towards gaming machines. 216 responses were collected for each proposal and the distribution was as follows:

Strongly Agree / Agree / Neither Agree / Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
clarify that Automated Roulette Machines, Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs), crane grabs, penny pushers and machines with similar characteristics are gaming machines for the purpose of regulation / 66.2% (143) / 11.6% (25) / 19.4% (42) / 0.9% (2) / 1.9% (4)
increase gaming machine stakes and prize limits (for permitted classes) in line with changes to the corresponding limits in GB / 63.9% (138) / 9.3% (20) / 19.0% (41) / 2.3% (5) / 5.6% (12)
increase the number of permitted £250 jackpot machines in a registered club to a maximum of five machines / 59.3% (128) / 9.3% (20) / 22.7% (49) / 3.2% (7) / 5.6% (12)
permit the operation of £500 prize gaming machines in adult only gaming centres, bookmaking offices, bingo clubs and registered clubs, subject to the conditions and limitations that exist in GB / 64.4% (139) / 7.9% (17) / 19.9% (43) / 2.8% (6) / 5.1% (11)
allow gaming machines to accept stakes and payout prizes in the form of banknotes or in non-cash forms (eg smartcards) as well as coins, subject to the introduction of necessary safeguards / 61.6% (133) / 8.3% (18) / 20.8% (45) / 2.3% (5) / 6.9% (15)

Figure 4: Responses to ‘Sector Specific Issues (Gaming Machines)’ Section

6.2As with the previous section on bingo, all responses were met with strong agreement. The response was slightly stronger in this section, strong agreement was between 59 and 67%.

6.3As in the previous two sections it should be noted, however, that in the results shown above the dominant responses exactly match those that were provided in the 83 repeat responses submitted by local bookmakers. However, as the response was towards stronger agreement, the majority of proposals would have met with strong agreement overall, regardless of the bookmakers input.

6.4Again, further comments were welcomed, particularly if they disagreed with proposals, and the full response for this section is included in Appendix D.

6.5Respondents felt that keeping to cash only would help prevent increased gambling on machines as temptation and ease of use would be reduced. Several respondents thought it time NI was brought in line with GB on this issue. Problem gambling with these types of machines was also raised several times.

  1. Consultation Analysis – Sector Specific Issues (Societies Lotteries)
  2. The next section put forward proposals specifically aimed towards societies lotteries. 216 responses were collected for each proposal and the distribution was as follows:

Strongly Agree / Agree / Neither Agree / Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
remove the £1 stake limit, subject to the overriding principle that the price of every chance in the same lottery must be the same / 7.4% (16) / 8.3% (18) / 78.2% (169) / 1.4% (3) / 4.6% (10)
double the current limits on proceeds (ticket sales) from an individual lottery and the aggregate amount per society in any year / 6.0% (13) / 6.5% (14) / 81.5% (176) / 0.9% (2) / 5.1% (11)
simplify the rules on deduction of expenses / 6.0% (13) / 12.5% (27) / 79.6% (172) / 0.0% (0) / 1.9% (4)
remove the restrictions on the sale of GB-based society’s lottery tickets by a person in Northern Ireland and tickets in a Northern Ireland society’s lottery by a person in Great Britain / 7.9% (17) / 8.8% (19) / 77.8% (168) / 0.9% (2) / 4.6% (10)

Figure 5: Responses to ‘Sector Specific Issues (Societies Lotteries)’ Section

7.2All proposals in this section most commonly rated ‘Neither Agree/Disagree’ and again, this reflected the common, repeated responses from local bookmakers. This response was strong however, ranging across the proposals from 77-82% and even without the organised response, the majority would still have provided a ‘Neither Agree/Disagree’ response.

7.3Further responses were welcomed. This section only provoked twelve additional comments in total and these can be found in Appendix E. Most comments were either around increasing limits in line with GB or keeping them as they currently stand.

  1. Consultation Analysis – Licensing Objectives
  2. The next section of the survey put forward various proposals regarding the licensing of gambling in Northern Ireland. This section received 213 responses and the distribution was as follows:

Strongly Agree / Agree / Neither Agree / Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
specific measures (beyond the current regulatory controls) should be introduced to help keep crime out of gambling / 74.6% (159) / 12.2% (26) / 13.1% (28) / 0.0% (0) / 0.0% (0)
the gambling law in Northern Ireland should be underpinned by formal objectives aimed at keeping crime out, protecting the vulnerable and promoting fairness / 76.1% (162) / 13.1% (28) / 10.8% (23) / 0.0% (0) / 0.0% (0)
statutory codes of social responsibility, linked to the core objectives mentioned above, should be introduced / 18.8% (40) / 13.1% (28) / 67.6% (144) / 0.0% (0) / 0.5% (1)
specific offences should be created in relation to the use of gaming machines by under-18s / 16.9% (36) / 8.9% (19) / 73.7% (157) / 0.5% (1) / 0.0% (0)
the gaming machine technical standards that exist in GB should be replicated in Northern Ireland / 12.7% (27) / 9.9% (21) / 75.6% (161) / 1.4% (3) / 0.5% (1)
other specific measures should be introduced to help protect children and the vulnerable / 71.8% (153) / 13.1% (28) / 14.1% (30) / 0.9% (2) / 0.0% (0)
the Northern Ireland industry should be expected to help fund research, education and treatment of problem gamblers and whether a power should be taken to impose a statutory levy / 13.6% (29) / 12.7% (27) / 20.2% (43) / 50.7% (108) / 2.8% (6)
there is a need, from a Northern Ireland perspective, for further investment in terms of research, prevention and treatment of problem gamblers / 12.7% (27) / 14.1% (30) / 22.1% (47) / 49.3% (105) / 1.9% (4)
debts that arise from gambling should be capable of enforcement in the same way as any other personal or business debts / 61.5% (131) / 11.3% (24) / 22.1% (47) / 2.3% (5) / 2.8% (6)

Figure 6: Responses to ‘Licensing Objectives’ Section

8.2Proposals that put forward measures to ensure gambling was kept crime free, protecting the vulnerable and ensuring fairness received the most positive responses in the entire survey, with three statements having over 70% in strong agreement. There was also agreement that gambling debts should be treated like any other personal or business debt.

8.3Two proposals received negative responses (although this can be attributed to the organised bookmakers’ response, indeed the overall response again matched the standard local bookmaker response pattern). These proposals were those that related to a statutory levy and the need for further research. Removing the bookmakers’ efforts from the sample would have produced a stronger tendency towards agreement on these proposals.

8.4This section also produced a large number of additional comments, the large majority of which were word-for-word repeat comments from bookmakers’. The most commonly repeated comment was that a voluntary levy is already in place and that a statutory levy is not in place. Doubts were also cast on GB research into problem gambling. Comments from other respondents also referenced an existing voluntary levy and several made reference to GB regulations being overly complicated. A full copy of comments is attached in Appendix F.

  1. Consultation Analysis – Regulation & Enforcement
  2. The final section of the survey put forward various proposals regarding the regulation and enforcement of gambling in Northern Ireland. This section received 209 responses and the distribution was as overleaf.

9.2Five of the seven proposals were met with strong acceptance and only one (the need for a single licensing body) was met with overall strong disagreement. The proposal that had most strong agreement was ‘the desirability of introducing a flexible legislative framework to enable regulation to keep pace with technological advances and customer expectations’ and ‘whether the general offences and penalties available to the courts under the 1985 Order should be reviewed with the intention of bringing those more into line with the law in GB’.

Strongly Agree / Agree / Neither Agree / Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
the effectiveness of the current licensing and enforcement arrangements / 61.7% (129) / 7.7% (16) / 24.9% (52) / 2.9% (6) / 2.9% (6)
the need for a single licensing body / 11.5% (24) / 8.6% (18) / 22.0% (46) / 5.7% (12) / 52.2% (109)
the most appropriate agency to lead on enforcement / 63.6% (133) / 11.5% (24) / 23.4% (49) / 1.0% (2) / 0.5% (1)
the desirability of introducing a flexible legislative framework to enable regulation to keep pace with technological advances and customer expectations / 68.4% (143) / 10.0% (21) / 20.1% (42) / 0.5% (1) / 1.0% (2)
whether the general offences and penalties available to the courts under the 1985 Order should be reviewed with the intention of bringing those more into line with the law in GB / 68.4% (143) / 12.0% (25) / 18.2% (38) / 1.0% (2) / 0.5% (1)
the principle that licensing fees and charges should be calculated on a cost recovery basis only / 6.7% (14) / 9.6% (20) / 83.3% (174) / 0.5% (1) / 0.0% (0)
extending the duration of a licence to a period of up to five years / 67.0% (140) / 8.1% (17) / 21.1% (44) / 1.9% (4) / 1.9% (4)

Figure 7: Responses to ‘Regulation & Enforcement’ Section