Is now the time to act?

What are your thoughts on the review and the need to start from the ground up again?

I think the industry was well aware that this was coming down the road. Obviously we've had the House of Lords report, we've had the Betting and Gaming Council, we've had the parliamentary groups who have criticised the Gambling Act, and we've had a number of politicians who have very strongly opposed the deregulation of gambling, so I suppose everyone was prepared for it.

I'm not minimising the very negative aspects of certain elements of gambling, and the harm and the addiction and so on. Some of the horror stories you hear are extremely unpleasant, so I'm not minimising that in any way. But in terms of whether the Gambling Act itself needs a complete overhaul, whether it needs to be replaced with a complete new piece of legislation, I'm not sure that's actually required. The Gambling Act only came into force in 2007. It was legislation in 2005, but 13 years is actually a very short period to have a piece of legislation like that, so it seems strange to be replacing a piece of legislation now.

Do you think problem gambling is a major issue in the UK?

I think all the statistics seem to indicate that there is actually a static amount of problem gambling; it's certainly not something that's massively on the increase. I'm not able to delve further into those figures to say whether that's just the tip of the iceberg and actually the statistics don't represent the true cost, but most commentators seem to agree that the levels of serious problem gambling are static. But that doesn't mean to say that you just then ignore the people that are in those very bad places who are addicted to gambling.

There will always be people who have an addictive behaviour by their very nature. So whether it's alcohol, whether it's gambling, whether it's buying handbags or shoes or supercars, there will always be people who are in that category. And it's those people we have to protect. I find it difficult to sometimes square the fact that gambling is so tightly regulated, when in my view people have to be given some of their own responsibility to manage their own affairs. The state only steps in when there's a really serious harm.

What are the positives that the review can bring?

I think if I was a land-based casino operator, I would see this review as a chink of light. They are probably the only aspect of the gambling industry that will see this as being a positive. It's well known that for the last 15 years, as remote gambling has got bigger and bigger, land-based casinos are the people who have been really hit.

So I think there's an opportunity now for land-based casinos to start to be able to compete with online operators for that gambling spend. So whether it's through sports betting, entertainment, or just part of the overall entertainment and night out package, I think there are some positive signs for the land-based casino industry.

What do you think will be the outcome of this review for the industry?

Well, it can't be good news financially for the remote gambling industry on the whole. Any sort of restriction like this on consumer spending is going to hit their bottom line basically. It will depend on what sanction of the gambling industry you're in. I think as you go into the higher risk products, the people who are very much focused on, for instance, VIP activity in the remote casino, the slots end of the market, are going to find there will be some pretty dramatic restrictions on the amount consumers can spend with those operators, and it's bound to affect their bottom line. It's a bit like looking back at around ten or 15 years ago when Formula One decided to do away with tobacco advertising. It's a long process, and when you're reliant on that money for your advertising revenue, it's certainly very difficult to turn that off overnight. But I would imagine we're going to see some advertising restrictions coming in sport at the very least.