Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report produced
by NERA Economic Consulting for the Peers for Gambling Reform
group Economic Assessment of Selected House of Lords Gambling
Reforms, published on 26 May, what assessment they have made of
the positive economic effects of implementing the recommendations
of the Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the
Gambling Industry (HL Paper 79, Session 2019–21).
[V]
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order
Paper and declare my interest as a vice-chair of Peers for
Gambling Reform.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport () (Con)
My Lords, we are carefully considering the report by NERA
Economic Consulting, along with the large amount of evidence we
have received in connection with our review. There are clearly
difficulties in making precise predictions, but we welcome this
analysis. We aim to publish a White Paper by the end of the year,
setting out our conclusions and the next steps for the gambling
review.
[V]
[Inaudible]—the IPPR estimates for the cost of problem gambling
are between £270 million and £1.17 billion per annum, but there
is evidence to suggest these are underestimates. Extrapolating
problem gambling costs from studies in other jurisdictions
suggests it could be as much as £6.5 billion—far beyond the £3
billion in annual tax contributions provided by the gambling
industry. Will the Government commit to researching the costs of
problem gambling, so we can determine whether the contributions
from the gambling industry are offset by the damage caused by it?
(Con)
I apologise; we slightly missed the beginning of the right
reverend Prelate’s comments, in the Chamber. If I have missed
anything, I will write to him, but I think I got the essence of
his question. We are of course looking at the economic costs. I
do not recognise the £6.5 billion figure that the right reverend
Prelate cites, but he is aware that one of the complexities of
looking at this is the comorbidity between gambling and other
forms of harm, which we need to take into consideration.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests, as set out in the register. Can
my noble friend the Minister assure me that, when her department
develops these crucial reforms to the gambling industry, she will
ensure that this review is not just evidence-based but grounded
on a wide range of opinion that takes into account both the NERA
report and the most recent research from a variety of
organisations and groups, including the industry itself?
(Con)
I reassure my noble friend that we are considering a very wide
range of evidence. Our call for evidence received over 16,000
submissions from a wide range of organisations—from charities,
academics and the gambling industry, but also broadcasters, local
government and sports organisations. We are considering it all
carefully.
(CB)
My Lords, in their response to the Select Committee report, the
Government said,
“The Committee is also right to say that further progress to make
gambling safer does not need to wait for the outcome of the Act
Review.”
Can the noble Baroness update the House on what action has been
taken so far?
(Con)
I would be breaching the Lord Speaker’s guidance if I were to
give the noble Lord the full list, but his point is important. We
have not waited for the end of the review to take action where it
is needed. To give a couple of examples, in the past 18 months,
we have banned gambling on credit cards and introduced new rules
to limit the intensity of online slot games.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, the public health policies applied to tobacco and
alcohol addiction are not being applied to gambling. The
Government can easily modify Section 328 of the Gambling Act 2005
to control gambling advertising. Can the Minister please explain
why the gambling industry and addiction are treated differently?
(Con)
We cannot prejudge the outcome of the Gambling Act review, but
the essence of a public health response, which looks at the
products, players and environment, are included within it.
(LD)
[V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for Gambling
Reform. The NERA report shows that measures to reduce gambling
harm, such as banning gambling sponsorship of football, would
also help the UK economy. Such sponsorship links football and
gambling in the minds of children. Just one edition of the BBC’s
Match of the Day magazine, advertised as for “footy-mad
youngsters”, had 52 gambling logos. Does the Minister think this
is acceptable?
(Con)
The noble Lord is right to raise these issues. As he knows, we
are looking at this as part of the review of the Act. We have
seen the conclusions from the NERA report on sports sponsorship,
but we need to test them with sports bodies themselves.
(Lab) [V]
Reform is needed sooner rather than later, if we are to get to
grips with gambling-related harms. Can the Minister tell us when
the Government expect to publish the review findings and
associated legislation, and also whether loot boxes, which are
currently unregulated, will be drawn into a system of regulation?
(Con)
On the noble Lord’s second point, he will be aware that our call
for evidence on loot boxes closed on 22 November. We had over
30,000 responses; we are reviewing that evidence and will set out
our response in the coming months. I cannot give the noble Lord
an idea of timing for legislation, but we will be publishing our
response to the Gambling Act consultation later this year, and we
also intend to publish a White Paper.
(Con)
I refer to my interest on the register, as the chair of the Proof
of Age Standards Scheme board. My noble friend will be aware that
there are positive economic benefits from betting shops in market
towns and on high streets. Are the Government looking
particularly at how to balance the contribution that these shops
make, in employing local people and to the local economy, while
safeguarding the health and welfare of those who gamble?
(Con)
My noble friend puts it very well. We are trying to balance the
harm that gambling can cause in certain instances, while looking
also at the economic impact—including in market towns.
(Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the problems of juvenile gambling are changing. Seaside
arcades are being overtaken by online gambling, and there is a
threat it can soon become an addiction that destroys lives. The
Government have a duty to protect young people from destroying
their future, particularly during lockdown. Does the Minister
agree with me that targeted advertising to vulnerable people is
one of the main drivers? Will the Government make this one of the
priorities for reform?
(Con)
The noble Lord is right, and we have made it a priority. He will
be pleased to know that the biggest category of responses to the
consultation was in relation to protecting children. He will be
aware that we recently held consultations on the appeal of
gambling adverts to children and vulnerable people in particular.
(LD) [V]
When my noble friend Lord Foster and I were elected to another
place on the same night in 1992, I suspect neither of us imagined
we would come across so many lives devastated by gambling. I
switched on the TV today at 9.30 am, not to a programme but to a
betting advert. Can we have a watershed, so those adverts are not
shown on TV before, say, 9 pm?
(Con)
The aim of the current regulation around gambling advertising
focuses particularly on making sure that adverts are not
attractive to children and vulnerable people, but, as I mentioned
in answer to an earlier question, that is being consulted on at
the moment.
(Non-Afl)
[V]
Does the Minister agree that gambling destroys families, both
their income and their lives?
(Con)
Gambling can destroy families. Our aim with the Gambling Act
review is to make sure that the majority of gamblers, whose lives
are not destroyed as a result, can continue to gamble safely, but
we protect vulnerable people from the harm the noble Lord talks
about.
