short, there is a need to act quickly if a valuable commercial opportunity is not to be missed for ever. Such a missed opportunity would conflict with the Government's stated aim of making Britain a leader in e-commerce. Apart from the industry, Gamcare (the national problem gambling charity) also believes there to be some urgency as they have started to receive one or two calls from people who say they have developed an Internet gambling problem.

Whilst the Board acknowledges the strength of such arguments, it does not presently believe they are so overwhelming as to suggest that the Government needs to act in advance of obtaining the views of the recently established Gambling Review Body. There are some difficult issues to be resolved, as discussed later in this paper, and these need proper consideration. It is also noteworthy that few major jurisdictions appear to believe that there is a pressing need to act rapidly. Most are adopting a measured approach. Many of the jurisdictions specifically granting Internet gambling licences are small and typically motivated by the belief that such licences will provide a boost in difficult economic circumstances. Nonetheless, the Board suggests that the Review Body should give the subject appropriate priority in its deliberations.

One of the long-standing social policy objectives of legislation has been to prevent the proliferation of commercial gambling and particularly extensive gambling on credit. Measures to prevent offshore Internet gambling by British residents would be consistent with that approach. But it can be argued that this objective need no longer be strictly applied and has in any case already been weakened by the advent of the National Lottery, with its widespread television coverage and estimated regular participation by around 70 per cent of the adult population, and telephone credit betting.

Superficially, the simplest way to attempt to prevent such gambling would be by making it illegal for persons to gamble on the Internet, including from their own homes. But the Board does not believe such legislation would be either desirable or enforceable. It would be unlikely to command widespread acceptance or support and could only be enforced by time consuming and unattractive investigations in which >>