BGC Responds to SMF Call for Machine Games Duty Increase

The Betting and Gaming Council issued a statement that addresses a report from the Social Market Foundation, which had proposed doubling Machine Games Duty across the regulated sector. Observers note that the council rejected the recommendation outright, pointing out that the analysis overlooks several key areas including employment figures, community effects, and the operational realities of venues on high streets throughout the United Kingdom. According to the council the report does not deliver a full evaluation of how an increased duty rate would affect jobs and local economies. The statement highlights that the betting and gaming sector currently supports around 109,000 positions, yet the SMF document stops short of calculating potential job losses or venue closures that could follow from the proposed tax change. Researchers who track industry data often find that shifts in taxation by venue type versus machine category require careful modelling, and the council argues the report relies on assumptions about harm levels and prevalence statistics that warrant closer scrutiny.

Key Points in the BGC Statement

The council emphasised several specific shortcomings in the approach taken by the Social Market Foundation. First, the analysis groups taxation considerations by venue rather than by individual machine category, which the BGC maintains distorts the picture of revenue flows and compliance burdens. Second, the report draws on certain prevalence data without addressing how those figures translate into actual policy outcomes when duty rates change. Those who've examined similar tax proposals in the past know that incomplete modelling can lead to unintended consequences for both operators and the communities they serve.

And yet the statement stops at identifying these gaps, noting that the SMF work provides no quantitative assessment of how many venues might close or how many roles could disappear under a doubled duty rate. This absence of projected figures leaves local authorities and workforce planners without the concrete numbers they typically require when evaluating tax policy changes. Data released by industry bodies shows that regulated betting premises contribute to footfall on high streets, yet the report does not factor those secondary economic effects into its recommendations.

Employment and Economic Role Highlighted

The Betting and Gaming Council drew attention to the sector's established contribution to employment, stating that the 109,000 jobs figure represents direct roles in betting shops, arcades, and related facilities across the country. People who work in these venues often live in the same communities where the premises operate, creating a direct link between regulatory decisions and household incomes. The statement points out that any duty increase capable of triggering closures would therefore affect both employment totals and the ancillary spending that supports nearby retail and service businesses.

Figures from the regulated sector indicate that machine gaming forms a significant portion of revenue for many venues, which means alterations to Machine Games Duty carry immediate implications for cash flow and staffing decisions. The council's response underscores that the SMF report does not model these relationships, leaving open questions about the scale of adjustment operators would face. Those who've studied tax incidence in gambling markets understand that the location of the duty burden, whether on operators or passed through to players, determines how quickly behavioural changes occur.

Criticism of Assumptions and Data Sources

The BGC statement takes issue with the report's treatment of harm assumptions, arguing that these require more granular evidence before they can support a doubling of duty. Prevalence statistics cited in the document come under review as well, with the council noting that reliance on particular datasets without sensitivity testing can skew results. Experts who review gambling policy documents frequently observe that different data sources produce varying estimates of participation and risk, which in turn affects the projected revenue from any tax adjustment.

Because the report stops short of quantifying venue closures or job losses, the council concludes that policymakers lack the full information needed to weigh the proposal. The statement presents this as a methodological gap rather than a difference of opinion, focusing on the absence of concrete projections that would normally accompany recommendations for major tax changes. Observers note that similar reports in other sectors routinely include scenario modelling to illustrate ranges of possible outcomes.

Context for the Response

The exchange occurs at a time when taxation of gaming machines remains a live topic for both industry representatives and policy analysts. The Betting and Gaming Council positions its response as a call for more complete impact assessments before any duty rate adjustments move forward. By highlighting the 109,000 jobs figure alongside the lack of closure projections, the statement draws attention to the scale of activity that could be affected. The regulated sector continues to operate under existing duty structures while these discussions continue.

Conclusion

The Betting and Gaming Council has set out its concerns with the Social Market Foundation report in a public statement that focuses on gaps in assessment and missing quantitative analysis. The document identifies issues around taxation methodology, harm assumptions, prevalence data, and the absence of projected effects on employment and venues. As the sector maintains its reported contribution of around 109,000 jobs, the council's response leaves the question of further modelling open for those who will review the proposal. The statement appears on the council's website and provides the primary source for details of the position taken.