Key facts
- A thinktank proposes doubling the tax on slot machines in adult gaming centres (AGCs) and casinos from 20% to 40%.
- This tax increase could raise between £275m and £458m annually, adding to the current £600m paid by Category B machines.
- Andy Burnham, a potential future prime minister, has expressed concerns about the gambling industry's impact on vulnerable communities.
- Public support for increased taxes on AGCs stands at 43%, according to a poll.
- The proposal aims to address the rapid growth of AGCs, which disproportionately target economically deprived areas.
High-street slot machine shops and casinos could face a significant tax increase of up to £460 million if Andy Burnham, widely tipped to become prime minister, acts on concerns about the gambling industry. A report by the Social Market Foundation (SMF) thinktank found that 43% of the public would support higher taxes on adult gaming centres (AGCs), which have rapidly expanded on UK high streets, often in deprived areas.
While online casinos saw a tax hike in a recent budget, the duty on physical slot machines in AGCs remained untouched. Burnham has previously condemned the industry for exploiting vulnerable people and supported proposals to increase gambling taxes to fund social policies. The SMF suggests doubling the machine games duty (MGD) from 20% to 40%, potentially raising between £275 million and £458 million annually on top of the £600 million currently paid by Category B machines.
This proposed increase would affect casinos and major AGC operators, but lower-stakes machines in pubs would be spared to support the hospitality sector. The gambling industry, represented by Bacta and the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), has strongly opposed the proposal, warning of devastating impacts on high streets, job losses, and a potential shift towards the illegal market. They argue that betting shops contribute positively to communities.
Burnham has previously called for greater local authority powers to control the spread of gambling premises and supported efforts to reform the 2005 Gambling Act's 'aim to permit' rule, which has made it difficult for councils to refuse new venues. While the government introduced 'gambling impact assessments,' some campaigns, like one in Enfield opposing a new 24-hour venue, feel these measures have arrived too late.