So, let’s get started. Jason, when we look back, from a regulator’s perspective, how have things changed? Maybe you can give us some examples of how professional practices were different two decades ago. JL: Thanks very much, Simon. As you said, I started off in regulation in 2000-2001. Having been involved in government before that, and policing before that, regulation in the gaming sector for us was very much hands on. I knew absolutely nothing about gambling when I started. I spoke to the then Gaming Board of Great Britain and asked them if they’d give me an idea of what gaming regulation was about. They were very kind, and we spent two weeks going around Great Britain, visiting machine manufacturers, going to various different casinos, going to racetracks, not to betting shops incidentally because the British didn’t consider that betting was worthy of regulation before the 2005 Gaming Act. It was very much hands on, and I think one of the big changes is the fact that, for the industry and its regulator to work together, we had to physically be in the same room. We had to go and look at the machines and look at the hoppers and check the meters. This may mean nothing to some of the younger ones in the audience. But you know, you had to physically look at what was happening. And you had a very basic back-office system and a very complicated spreadsheet that most of us couldn’t understand. But you understood the mechanics, and it was all mechanical. And I think that is the big change in regulation from then to now. SP: How about information exchange? Nowadays, when you ring up a regulator, of course the communication channels have changed. So maybe you could tell us how it worked back then compared to what you encounter nowadays? JL: You’re making me nostalgic. I mean, one of the great, great things about the late 90s and early 2000s was the fact that we did not have GDPR, we did not have freedom of information, we barely had data protection. And what we had a lot more of was trust, relationship trust. So, when I wanted to find out something about one of our prospective licensees, or frankly, about anything at all, about individuals, we were able to approach police officers, other regulators, meet them in person, have an in-depth discussion, be given information, which you absolutely would not be given now, under any circumstances whatsoever. It was a lot freer for a regulator, it was perhaps a bit more Wild West, both in terms of how the industry operated, but also in terms of how regulators did as well. It would be naive of me to suggest that, to an extent, that doesn’t still happen. But it’s much, much less than it used to be. And everything is governed by MOUs. Everything is governed by proper channels of interagency cooperation and discussion. And of course, it’s all within a properly defined legal framework. And that’s clearly a good thing. But it’s different. SP: Coming to your side, Emmanuel, in the private sector, when you look back not just two decades, but even three decades. You certainly have some stories as well to share about how things were different. EM: 30 years ago, even 25 years ago, we had weekly meetings with tax administration officials to open the slot machines together and empty the bucket of coins in every machine. So, we had to close every arcade or casino slot department to make the accounts. It has changed a lot since then. I think information technology has certainly changed the way that the business is organized today. But also the way that regulators had to adapt to this development was a tremendous change for everyone. SP: So nowadays, we are in a more transparent world as Jason mentioned, for the good and the bad. What is your assessment of what technology has brought in these two to three decades? The positive aspects as well as things that you might not see as very positive. EM: Very simply, I would say everything with digital information technology comes down to data. Data has changed everything for the good and for the bad. It can be very good, when you can profile your customers, if you want to protect them, because you can anticipate gambling behavior, you can anticipate deviations and you can communicate. But then, if you use exactly the same tool to take maximum profit from the gambler, you’re going to put him in danger. So that’s why it’s very important to have regulators that understand the business. And then I would say, to set up collaboration with the legal sector, because they are the only ones who will support regulation and will help apply the rules to protect the gambling behavior. In a way, to actively use the actual knowhow in the private sector because there’s a lot of knowhow to be to be used by regulators. On top of that, we could talk about what a regulator should be. Regulators are not equal, they
8
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker