Consultation response
Summer 2023 consultation – Proposed changes to LCCP and RTS: Consultation Response
This response sets out our position in relation to the consultation on the proposed changes to LCCP and Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards.
Contents
- Executive summary
- Summary of topics
- Topic 1 - Improving customer choice on direct marketing: Consultation Response
- Topic 2 - Strengthening age verification in premises: Consultation Response
- Topic 3 - Game design: Consultation Response
- Topic 4 - Financial vulnerability checks: Consultation Response and Financial risk assessments pilot: Consultation Response
- Topic 5 - Personal Management Licence: Consultation Response
- Topic 6 - Changes to Regulatory Panels: Consultation Response
- Evaluating the impact of relevant changes
- Annex
Proposal 1: Quorum and composition of Regulatory Panels, and the Adjudicator role
Proposals
We proposed to change the current quorum (currently two Commissioners) and composition to a legally-qualified Adjudicator chairing a Panel comprising of another senior member of Gambling Commission (Commission) staff and a Commissioner.
Adjudicators would also sit alone to decide on the personal licensing matters that are delegated to Director’s Hearings and any Case Management Hearings of the Panel.
This proposal entailed employing between two and four Adjudicators, who are legally-qualified persons employed solely for the purposes of chairing Panels and Directors Hearings. In light of the legal qualifications of the Adjudicators, there would be no requirement to have an independent legal adviser to the Panel. By legally-qualified we mean a Solicitor, Practising Barrister, Chartered Legal Executive or CILEx practitioner with an entitlement to practise and a minimum of five years post qualification experience.
In relation to the proposal to include senior Commission staff as members of the Panel, we define a senior member of staff as a member of Commission staff at Grade 12 or higher (equivalent to Civil Service G7). We propose to exclude staff from the Operations Directorate and Legal team. We also propose to exclude on a case by case basis anyone who has had previous involvement in a particular case before the Panel.
Consultation questions
To what extent do you agree with the proposed change to the quorum and composition of Regulatory Panels?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that an Adjudicator should decide on personal licence matters, replacing a Director’s hearing?
Does the draft Adjudicator Governance Framework address concerns about impartiality?
Respondents’ views
The main theme from respondents to these questions were concerns on the impartiality and/or bias of an Adjudicator as they will be an employee of the Commission. Respondents commented that an Adjudicator should be independent and have support from an independent team. Comments also included concerns around the knowledge and level of experience an Adjudicator may have in regard to the gambling industry.
Although comments recognised that the updates to the Adjudicator Governance Framework aimed to address concerns around impartiality, respondents felt it did not go far enough. Respondents were of the opinion that it has not addressed section 1 of the Regulatory Decisions: Procedures and guidance for regulatory hearings guidance and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (opens in new tab).
Points were also made on the induction process for Adjudicators and how performance appraisals would be managed.
Many respondents supported the proposal in principle but felt that the independence of the Adjudicator was the biggest issue of the proposal. Responses also asked for reconsideration of the Panel composition to exclude Commission staff members due to bias and to introduce a lay person on to the panel.
Where respondents agreed with the questions asked, either strongly agreed, agreed, or agreed in part, they thought that the changes seemed proportionate and would provide Panels with balance and expertise. Respondents also felt that matters being heard by a Panel (including an Adjudicator) or Adjudicator alone would help hearings to be conducted quickly, fairly and independently.
Our position
After consideration of the consultation responses, we have concluded that we will not be implementing this proposal at this time. We remain committed to maintaining robust, cost-effective, and timely regulatory decision-making processes. Having considered the feedback we understand concerns about the role and status of an Adjudicator and want to re-examine options for our decision-making framework. We continue to keep our processes under review and may consult again at a future date.
Last updated: 1 May 2024
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.