18.Section 1(2) extends the category of remote gambling operators who will need a licence from the Gambling Commission. An operator will need a licence from the Gambling Commission if their gambling facilities are used in Great Britain (even if no equipment is located here) and the operator knows, or should know, that the facilities are being used or are likely to be used in Great Britain. If the operator does not obtain a remote gambling licence, they will be committing an offence under section 33 of the 2005 Act.
19.For example, an overseas-based operator who makes remote gambling facilities available on the internet will need to obtain an operating licence from the Commission if their website is used in Great Britain and the operator knows, or should know, that the facilities are being used or are likely to be used in Great Britain. If the overseas operator wants to avoid having to obtain a licence, they will need to take action to prevent consumers using their website here.
20.Section 1(3) repeals paragraph (a) of section 26B of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981. Section 26B makes provision for remote gambling duty. Under that section, duty is charged on the provision of facilities for remote gambling in two cases. The first case is where the facilities are provided in reliance on a remote operating licence (section 26B(a)). The second case is where at least one piece of remote gambling equipment used in the provision of the facilities is situated in the United Kingdom (section 26B(b)). At present, under the 2005 Act, an operator is only required to hold a remote operating licence if they have at least one piece of remote gambling equipment in Great Britain. Therefore a remote gambling operator who needs a licence will always also fall within section 26B(b) of the 1981 Act. As above, section 1(2) of the Act extends the category of operators who will have to hold a remote gaming licence. The government do not intend to use this Act to extend the remote gambling duty to this new category of operators. The repeal of section 26B(a) ensures that they will not be liable for remote gambling duty, whilst not affecting the liability of those who are currently required to hold a remote operating licence.
21.Section 2 gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations to secure that the liability for payment of the horserace betting levy under section 27 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 includes all bookmakers who are required to hold a remote operating licence under the Gambling Act 2005.
22.The horserace betting levy was established by the Betting Levy Act 1961. The levy was subsequently consolidated into the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. The current horserace betting levy is assessed and collected by the Horserace Betting Levy Board in accordance with the 1963 Act.
23.Liability to pay the levy is imposed on bookmakers under section 27 of the 1963 Act. Currently, liability to pay the levy under section 27 does not extend to bookmakers who are based outside of Great Britain. It applies only to those who are based within Great Britain. Section 2(1) gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations to extend the category of bookmakers liable to pay the levy to include all bookmakers required to obtain a remote operating licence from the Gambling Commission. This will include bookmakers based overseas who will be required to obtain a remote operating licence from the Gambling Commission as a result of this Act.
24.Section 2(2) sets out a non-exhaustive list of the types of provision that could be included in any regulations made under subsection (1). It makes it clear that the power in subsection (1) is a broad power, including power to make changes to the existing levy system to secure its extension to all bookmakers required to obtain a remote operating licence.
25.Any regulations made under subsection (1) would have to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before they could be brought into force (section 2(3)).
26.Section 2(4) clarifies that nothing in section 2 is to be read as preventing the Secretary of State bringing Part 2 of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 into force, or exercising any power under that Part. Part 2 of the 2004 Act enables the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument to make provision for the abolition of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the levy system, and make transfer schemes to transfer any property, rights and liabilities of the Levy Board to specified persons at specified times.
27.Section 3(1) repeals the offence of advertising foreign gambling in section 331 of the 2005 Act. The effect of this amendment is to abolish the White List (for further discussion about the White List see paragraph 12, above).
28.Section 3(2) makes minor consequential amendments to sections 332, 333 and 361 of the 2005 Act.
29.Section 4 amends section 333 of the 2005 Act. Section 333 sets out the territorial application of the advertising provisions in the case of advertising which is done by remote communication (called ‘remote advertising’ in the 2005 Act).
30.Section 3(2) repeals section 333(2)(b) which relates to advertising broadcast by television. Currently television broadcasters established in another EEA state can advertise gambling in the United Kingdom that they would otherwise be prohibited from doing by section 330 of the 2005 Act. The amendment changes this, and ensures that television advertising is subject to the same rules regardless of where the broadcaster is based.
31.Section 3(3) amends section 333(9)(b). Section 333(9)(b) limits the extent of the offence of advertising unlawful gambling, in the case of remote gambling, to operators who have at least one piece of equipment in Great Britain, i.e. those operators who currently require a remote operating licence from the Gambling Commission. Section 3(3) extends the offence to operators whose remote gambling facilities are capable of being used in Great Britain, to bring it in line with the point of consumption licensing requirement being enacted by this Act. The effect is that a remote gambling operator will commit an offence under section 330 if their remote gambling facilities are capable of being used in Great Britain and a remote operating licence is required for the gambling to taken place as advertised, but the operator does not have a licence.
32.The amendment of section 333(9)(b) will also extend to any regulations made under section 328 in relation to remote advertising.
33.Section 5 creates an offence of advertising unlicensed remote gambling which will only apply in Northern Ireland. The effect of this amendment is that a remote gambling operator who does not hold the required Gambling Commission licence will not be able to advertise remote gambling in Northern Ireland.
34.Section 331 of the 2005 Act also applies in Northern Ireland. The repeal of section 331 in Northern Ireland would therefore mean that remote gambling operators could advertise remote gambling in Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they were regulated in Great Britain (or in any country). The new offence will ensure that remote gambling operators will not be able to advertise remote gambling in Northern Ireland unless they hold a remote operating licence from the Gambling Commission.
35.Section 5(3) replicates the same protections that currently apply in relation to remote advertising in the 2005 Act (see section 333(4)). A person guilty of an offence of advertising unlicensed remote gambling is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.