Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review
gambling legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport () (Con)
My Lords, yesterday, we launched the first part of our
comprehensive review of the Gambling Act with a call for
evidence. This is an opportunity to take stock of the significant
changes in gambling over the last 15 years. We want to make sure
we have the right protections and balance between protecting
freedom of choice and preventing harm. I take this opportunity to
thank all of your Lordships who served on the Select Committee
for your work.
(DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the reply from the Minister. She will be well
aware of the significant concern in this House and wider society
about the extent of gambling advertising. As was pointed out by
the excellent Select Committee report on the social and economic
impact of the gambling industry, the industry currently spends
around £1.5 billion a year on advertising. This budget has
substantially increased since 2014. Will the Minister first
confirm that, in the review promised by the Government, strong
consideration will be given to implementing restrictions on
gambling advertising to protect individuals who are vulnerable to
gambling-related harm? Secondly, will the noble Baroness confirm
that the needs of Northern Ireland will be considered, as many
forms of advertising are UK-wide rather than solely regional?
Finally, can I ask the noble Baroness—
Noble Lords
No!
(Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that progress is being made on
advertising. We are calling for evidence on gambling advertising
but obviously, we cannot prejudge the findings. The Advertising
Standards Authority’s strict rules on gambling advertising apply
across the UK.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the review, but have concerns about the
process. The overreliance on written evidence will inevitably
favour gambling companies and marginalise their victims. I urge
the Government to establish a truth commission or Leveson-type
inquiry, so that victims of the industry and their families can
speak and corporate executives who have failed to honour their
promises can be examined under oath.
(Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point: that the voices of
those who have been harmed by gambling should be heard. My right
honourable friend the Secretary of State’s first meeting on this
issue was with a group of experts with lived experience of
gambling harm. I encourage the noble Lord to submit evidence to
this review.
[V]
My Lords, I am disappointed that significant parts of this
statement read as if they were written by the gambling industry.
They pointedly ignore the facts with which we began the Select
Committee report: there are nearly 400,000 problem gamblers, plus
60,000 teenage gamblers, materially affecting the lives of 2
million people. Just last night, I spent an hour with yet another
family who had lost their 25 year-old son to gambling. As most of
the recommendations in the Select Committee report do not require
legislation, why will Her Majesty’s Government not implement them
now to save lives? Why will they not make this a public health
issue?
(Con)
I am genuinely surprised and disappointed that the right reverend
Prelate reads the response in that light, because we felt that
the report of the committee on which he sat was extremely helpful
and constructive, and it has informed much of our thinking. There
is no way that we are waiting for the outcome of the review to
make gambling safer, and we have announced significant progress
in the last 12 months, in particular the ban on gambling with
credit cards.
(Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register.
Does the Minister agree that part of this welcome review should
consider the benefits of the gambling industry in terms of
employment, revenue to the Exchequer and social cohesion—for
example, racecourses and lotteries? A measured, regulated
industry, as proposed in recommendations by the Lords Select
Committee, would avoid the increase in black market activity that
has been so prevalent in, for example, Sweden.
(Con)
The Government absolutely recognise the contribution of the
industry, both in fiscal terms and in employing some 100,000
people in this country. We also acknowledge that a gap exists
between what the industry says it is doing and what some people
experience, and we are keen to close that.
(LD)
My Lords, it is well established that loot boxes are a form of
gambling disguised within innocent online games played by
children. This is a huge concern to parents and child protection
organisations, including the Children’s Commissioner, who want
loot boxes to be defined by gambling legislation as a form of
gambling. What plans do the Government have to regulate loot
boxes within any new legislation?
(Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We are delivering on
our manifesto commitment to tackle issues around loot boxes. We
had a bespoke call for evidence, which closed on 22 November. We
plan to publish our response early in 2021.
(Con)
My Lords, I share the late Lady Thatcher’s discomfort with
gambling, which encourages addictive behaviour. I am keen to know
what key issues the Government intend to focus on in the
forthcoming review of gambling legislation.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The scope of the review
is intentionally very broad, because we aim for it to be as
comprehensive as possible. The three big priorities are the
safety of children and whether we are doing everything we can to
keep them safe; whether advertising and promotion are carried out
responsibly; and whether the regulatory framework is working.
Within that, are the voices of those with lived experience being
heard?
(CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, , for
his dogged and unwavering determination, which led to the
creation of GAMSTOP and 173,000 people availing themselves of
online exclusion. But this does not extend to unlicensed
websites. Will the Government therefore consider further action
to deal with this, specifically IP blocking, which would protect
British people from unlicensed illegal sites? They could at least
include this in the review the Minister mentioned.
(Con)
I reassure the noble Lord and my noble friend that
unlicensed sites are within the scope of the review. Again, we
very much encourage your Lordships and those in your networks to
submit evidence.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, following up on the question of the noble Lord, Lord
Alton, I welcome the review, although we point out that it is
much delayed. I particularly like the Secretary of State’s
description of it as a review of
“analogue law in a digital age”.
As has been said, most of the egregious behaviour is caused by
companies that, in this digital age, operate outwith our
boundaries and so evade UK statute. We will surely need digital
solutions in a digital world. Will the review really consider
this issue?
(Con)
I am slightly puzzled by the noble Lord’s question, because the
location of the gambler is where our laws prevail, irrespective
of the location of the operator.
(LD)
[V]
My Lords, what further evidence do the Government need to
establish a gambling ombudsman?
(Con)
The Government continue to have an open mind about the role of an
ombudsman. We are gathering evidence on the effectiveness of the
regulatory regime and whether the Gambling Commission needs
additional powers. We are already considering commission
proposals for a fees uplift.
(CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my role as chair of the Commission on Alcohol
Harm. Do the Government recognise the link across addictions,
which means that we need an alcohol strategy linked to a gambling
strategy? Almost a quarter of gamblers drink as a coping
mechanism while gambling, but the incidence is much higher among
veterans. When they drink they also use gambling to enhance the
adrenaline buzz, which fuels both addictions.
(Con)
The Government absolutely understand that different addictions
are interrelated and interconnected. The Department of Health is
leading on a cross-issue addiction strategy.
