Industry Forum minutes for 25 October 2024

Minutes of the meeting of the Industry Forum, 25 October 2024.

Board room at VSH and via Microsoft Teams.

Members:

• Nick Rust (Chair)
• Kirsty Caldwell
• Charles Cohen
• Ashley Padgett
• Mark Pearson
• Nigel Roddis
• Leo Walker
• Helen Walton
• David Williams.

In attendance: REDACTED.

Apologies: Tony Boulton.

1. Welcome, apologies and declarations of interest

The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting and noted apologies.

There were no new declarations of interest.

2. Minutes of last meeting for approval

An forum member said that they would send tweaks to the wording of the 25 July 2024 minutes relating to items 4.1.1, 4.5 and 5.2, but otherwise members were happy to approve them.

REDACTED

2 members noted that they had been asked about the publication of Industry Forum (IF) minutes on the Gambling Commission website.

The forum were advised that all expert groups have minutes that are awaiting publication to the Commission website. This is being progressed and it is expected that all minutes will be published in due course.

3. Commission Tone of Voice (version 2)

A summary was provided on the work that has been undertaken around the Commission Tone of Voice since the initial thinking that was shared with the Forum in May:

The Commission has not had a tone of voice in the past. The document shared with the Forum is now much closer to the original aim of the work.

It is intended that that the Commission Tone of Voice will have multiple strands which will allow teams to flex the language used as and where appropriate. The feedback received from initial internal recipients has been varied. Enforcement would like to see the tone of voice they use to be on the more robust spectrum, whereas other teams have a completely different voice and approach. It has been a challenge to find a line between these, but the Commission executive felt that the current version of the document managed to do this.

The plan is to publish the document on the Commission intranet in January and follow this up with a programme of engagement and training to enable Commission colleagues to understand what it means to them and how to use it in their work.

The document has also been shared with other Commission Expert Groups for feedback (for example with the Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) earlier this week).

Commission executives expressed their willingness to receive feedback on the document, noting that it remained in draft form and open to amendments.

Industry Forum members gave their feedback and views:

When considering how an ‘authoritative’ tone is used it is important that the Commission does not sound like it is there to punish the industry, as this will not garner trust with operators. Forum members were keen to see consistency across the Commission. They would like to see the messaging around tone given by senior Commission staff being reflected throughout the organisation. The cultural behaviours from the very top of the organisation need to be in place to ensure the aims of this document can be delivered.

Commission Executives noted that they expected that the tone of voice will be adopted by a good percentage of colleagues quite easily, but acknowledged there will be other colleagues who will find it more challenging, so it is going to be important to work with those.

It was suggested that the document include information on who the different audiences of the Commission are alongside the ways that they might respond to the tone of voice being used. The tone should be tailored to operators depending on the interaction the Commission is having with them. For example, a strong tone would be understandable for an operator displaying signs of non-compliance, but this would not be necessary for an operator who is not showing any signs of non-compliance, so a more conciliatory and/or collaborative tone would be welcome from the Commission.

Operators would like to understand whether this work has been informed by the Commissions Statement of Principles (statement-of-principles-for-licensing-and-regulation) as these have been in place for a considerable period of time. Assurance was sought that the language used in the Tone of Voice document would align with this statement of principles.

It was recommended that Commission executive consider how implementation of the Tone of Voice would be measured. For example, it would be good to be able to see what has been accomplished in 12 months time after the programme of training has taken place. Forum members also asked what would happen if a document went out that did not uphold these guidelines.

It was noted that the document will be owned by the Executive and that as yet there are no plans yet for policing or what that would look like.

The spirit of the document is a manifesto for change: at the top it says, ‘We want to be recognised for who we are and what we stand for’, but the language in the rest of the document feels more like a communication style guide. The document needs to be bolder – recognising that this is the Commissions aspiration, but that it is not there yet. It will require a cultural shift that needs to be owned and led so that it can challenge fixed mindsets and deliver meaningful change at all levels.

The Commission executive agreed that it was about changing mindsets and bringing in a new ethos and new ways of thinking. The Commission is an organisation of 300 to 400 people who have a spectrum of experience of what they do and how they deliver which may need to be challenged.

Forum members agreed that this was an important piece of work and that they were keen for it to be successful, The Chair wanted to ensure that the document had the appropriate internal backing. It was agreed that the Chair would have a follow up conversation with the Director of Communications to facilitate this.

REDACTED

4. Evidence Roadmaps

An overview of the evidence roadmap was presented, highlighting the 6 priority themes and the planned approach. The work aims to gather evidence to support the Commission’s regulatory remit, rather than addressing all inquiries related to gambling. She asked for feedback from forum members on the approach, the target respondents within operators for the survey, and their interest in participating in the industry stakeholder workshop.

REDACTED

Forum members gave their feedback and views:

Forum members asked how far away the team was from the amount of evidence needed?

Commission executive explained that different themes have different starting points. Some have more evidence already in place than others. What the team is looking for are where people think the Commission needs to go next and is expecting to get this kind of feedback from the survey. Trying to keep it open at this stage. It is the views of stakeholders that is particularly important – looking to discuss with stakeholders where the priorities should be.

Forum members requested clarification on how the relative contributions of the 4 stakeholder groups would be assessed. Concerns were raised that the view of industry is not weighed the same as researchers, for example, in the case of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB). Members emphasised the importance of clearly establishing the parameters, noting that overly broad criteria could lead to disproportionate influence by highly motivated individuals and lobbying efforts.

Commission executive noted that there will be other touch points to use this Forum and other groups to help address and balance these issues.

One of the prime sources of information is industry due to the detailed customer data that they hold. However, it is critical that the industry can be confident in the way that data would be used. Currently the trust is not there - the misuse of data published in the GSGB is a key example of this. Operators frequently collaborate with academics, but there are commercial interests that need to be considered and there is apprehension about providing data that might be misrepresented and portrayed negatively. There is no easy solution to this.

The Commission could potentially serve as the custodian of data sets, ensuring they are shared appropriately with the right stakeholders. However, if the process becomes politicised or influenced by other interests, it will further erode trust and hinder opportunities for data sharing by operators.

A question was raised about whether data from the Regular Feed of Operator Core Data (ROCD) could help fill some of the evidence gaps. However, Commission executive explained that stringent regulations restrict the use of this data, making it unfeasible. Members also inquired about the number of operators who signed up or declined to participate in ROCD, as understanding this could provide insights into operators’ willingness to contribute data for the evidence roadmaps work.

REDACTED

It was noted that significant relevant data is also held by other agencies, such as banks, in addition to operators.

A member inquired whether survey questions were being framed as a technical question of ‘how do we do this,’ or as a qualitative discussion.

Commission executive indicated it was more the former, focusing on what is needed. The workshops would address more of the ‘how,’ with discussions about the ‘why’ potentially arising then. The survey is intended to identify the ‘what’ and emerging priorities. Referring back to an earlier point, consideration will be needed on how to weigh these factors."

The work is likely to identify gaps the Commission is not aware of and as such it needs to be an ongoing piece of work.

Commission executive confirmed that they view the evidence gaps and priorities work as a living document, adaptable to changes, new evidence, and emerging perspectives.

A concern was raised about the potential lack of speed to address the priorities identified around some very significant issues that are pressing for the industry – a notable example is unlicenced gambling which is listed as priority number 6 on the slides. If the industry has to wait until 2027 for an update that is far too late.

Commission executive confirmed that the evidence roadmap work will not slow or hinder ongoing efforts in these areas. Issues like illegal gambling are considered priorities and are currently being addressed by the Commission. The evidence roadmaps work will enhance future evidence gathering without impeding current activities.

Members noted that reviewing the survey would have been an ideal task for this group, highlighting this as a missed opportunity. They emphasised that the forum’s purpose is to assist Commission executive, and this needs to be addressed to ensure the group’s objectives are met. Members expressed their willingness to help and support the Commission.

Online operator workshops are not likely to work well for industry participants. As the workshops will be covering incredibly complex topics, better value would be gained from participants if they were held in person with smaller group sizes. Forum members said that they would be happy to help facilitate the workshops if that would be useful.

Commission executive had originally set out for workshops to be in-person, but then had been encouraged to move them online due to accessibility and geographical reasons. Commission executive are open for the workshop with industry stakeholders to be in-person. Commission executive welcomed the forum’s support in joining and promoting these workshops to operators.

REDACTED

Members asked what the next steps were and how they could best engage.

Members were encouraged to get involved with the industry workshop and feedback was welcomed from forum members on the survey. Due to time constraints, feedback is needed by Monday next week.

REDACTED

5. Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB)

The Chair introduced the topic by informing forum members that he had written to the Commission Chair and the Executive Director of Research and Policy, sharing his personal views on the GSGB.

In the correspondence it was highlighted that, as predicted by the industry, the survey had been being misused by anti-gambling groups and politicians to claim that problem gambling rates have dramatically increased. Concerns were also raised that this could lead to a breakdown in trust in the Commission from the industry.

The Commission responded to confirm that the Commission is actively addressing instances of statistical misuse as they arise. Examples were provided with examples of the freedom of information responses to demonstrate how the Commission is managing the issue.

The Chair then opened the floor to forum members to share their views.

The group expressed frustration over the lack of official communication regarding how the misuse of GBSG statistics is being addressed by the Commission. The industry would like to see greater transparency on this matter and wants to see evidence that the misuse of statistics is being appropriately challenged, as they currently perceive a lack of pushback.

The Commission needs to be aware of the implications of not being seen to be acting where data is being misused as this will have a damaging effect on the trust that operators have with the Commission. It needs to be made clearer what is happening with those that are mis-using the data.

Forum members recommended that the published guidance on using GSGB data be reviewed to incorporate more explicit and robust guidelines, making it clearer and more user-friendly. They referenced Professor Sturgess’s report, which highlighted a non-negligible risk that GSGB substantially overstates the true level of gambling and gambling harm in the population. Members suggested that the Commission should carefully consider how this information is communicated in the published guidance on the use of GSGB statistics.

Forum members expressed a desire for the Commission to be perceived by the industry as an unbiased collector and official source of credible data. They suggested that this perception would be enhanced if the GSGB data appeared accurate and included figures that the industry recognises and supports. Currently, the industry feels that there are too many disparities in GSGB statistics for this to be achieved.

Members noted that misuse of GSGB statistics are being used by activists to push for legislative changes. Recent reports by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and the Social Market Foundation have contributed to demands for seismic tax increases. The publication of these reports subsequently led to a market share loss across the industry of around £3 billion less than 2 weeks ago.

Forum members also noted the recent speech by the Prime Minister, which emphasises the need for regulators to prioritise the growth agenda as seriously as businesses do. They highlighted the disparity between this objective and the impact on the industry caused by the misuse of GSGB data published by the Commission. Members again referred to the Commission’s responsibilities as outlined in their Statement of Principles and the Regulators’ Code, particularly regarding the promotion of economic growth.

Members advised the Commission to consider whether there is any conflict of interest amongst the people they are using to advise on the GSGB. The following quote from a Guardian article dated 24 October 2024 was shared:

“Wardle, a specialist in gambling research, policy and practice from the University of Glasgow, added: “The global growth trajectory of this industry is phenomenal; collectively we need to wake up and take action. If we delay, gambling and gambling harms will become even more widely embedded as a global phenomenon and much harder to tackle.”

REDACTED

Members acknowledged the merits of the GSGB but emphasised that the industry needs to see it being used appropriately. They expressed a desire for the Commission to take a more active role in addressing instances of misuse.

REDACTED

6. Industry Forum: A Look Ahead and Ways of Working

An overview of forthcoming activities for the Forum was provided:

A joint meeting with the Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) is proposed to take place on Tuesday 26 November.

The Commission Chair will be dialling in and currently waiting to see if the Chief Executive Officer can join too – but due to his very full diary, his is unknown at this point

First agenda item will be illegal gambling, led by Commission executives who will provide an update on where we are up to, what our aims are and how IF and LEAP can help.

This will be followed by a joint lunch between IF and LEAP members

Not finalised yet, but the plan is for the second agenda item to be GamProtect where Commission executives will provide updates on this work, information on the next stage of consultation and how IF and LEAP can input into the work.

REDACTED

Forum members were happy in principle for this joint meeting, but due to diary conflicts of some members it was queried if there was any opportunity to move the date of the meeting.

REDACTED

No meeting in December, as previously agreed, due to the proximity of Christmas.

Main item in January is likely to be Fair and Open. The strategic assessment has been drafted and will go before the Commission board next month. The team are likely to be keen to get IF thoughts on how best to implement the assessment.

GSGB will also be coming back to IF and this is also likely to be part of the January meeting.

The land-based gaming machine lead on the pre-consultation work has been contacted but he is currently on annual leave. The forum is on his list to engage with. An update will be provided to the forum on the timing of this once more information is available.

Forum members said that the timing of this item is important. Members were keen to provide advice on this and to look at drafts before they are sent out to operators.

It was noted that Commission colleague engagement across all expert groups, not just the IF, can be unpredictable.

The IF Chair reminded Commission executive that the forum would welcome engagement from Commission executive, even if they do not think they are quite ready with their items. Earlier is always better, even if it is just a chat. Working with the forum does not need to be restricted to formal meetings. IF members would be happy to meet for just an hour, even if not all members can make it. Forum members are just keen to help.

7. AOB

A forum member highlighted that the industry compliance data published on the Commission’s website contains some concerning statistics, notably that 40 percent of operators are failing to meet Anti-Money Laundering (AML) provisions. Members inquired whether these figures are preliminary findings and sought clarification on the specific timeframe they represent.

REDACTED

The Forum wanted to know how to add agenda items, and a couple of members put forward some suggestions that could be added to future agendas:

Finding a way of coming to agreed working principles on how evaluation is undertaken. This is a growing area of importance that should be added to the roadmap.

Evaluation of Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (RTS) changes (at the appropriate point)

The IF Chair noted that this is already happening and that some items raised by forum members have already been added or are due to happen soon.

The Chair thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting.

REDACTED