Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) I beg to move, That this House
has considered proposals for a statutory gambling levy. Today, we
will consider the introduction of a statutory gambling levy to
replace the inadequate voluntary model, and it is a pleasure to do
so under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I draw the House’s attention
to the fact that at the back of the room we have bereaved families
of people who gave their lives up to gambling addiction. I thought
it...Request free trial
(Swansea East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered proposals for a statutory gambling
levy.
Today, we will consider the introduction of a statutory gambling
levy to replace the inadequate voluntary model, and it is a
pleasure to do so under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I draw the
House’s attention to the fact that at the back of the room we
have bereaved families of people who gave their lives up to
gambling addiction. I thought it only fair to highlight that at
the start.
As we all know, the gambling review was launched over 18 months
ago, and most of us thought that by now we would be discussing
the detail of the White Paper in the Chamber, but unfortunately,
that is not the case. I am hoping that good things come to those
who wait. With just a couple of weeks to go until the highly
anticipated publication of the long overdue Government reform of
our gambling legislation, I am pleased by the shift in direction
towards reform that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media
and Sport has signalled. Press reports over the past few weeks of
the Government’s plan to introduce limits to online stakes and to
pioneer an affordability system to prevent people from gambling
beyond their means are welcome indeed.
Stake limits online should be comparable to those for land-based
venues, and to be effective, any system of affordability must be
run independently of the industry and have a single customer
view. This is not the time to take half measures, and only
banning front-of-shirt sponsorship without tackling the dozens of
other ways in which gambling firms advertise would represent a
missed opportunity. That would not address the harm that
advertising can lead to, nor would it reduce children’s exposure
to advertising as they watch sport on their screens.
Given that the previous gambling legislation review took place
well over 15 years ago, the White Paper needs to make meaningful,
robust and significant proposals. However, we are here today to
discuss a specific proposal that I believe is vital to the
success of the gambling review and which must be at the centre of
the Government’s plan: a statutory levy on gambling operators to
provide long-term funding for research, education and, most
importantly, treatment of gambling-related harm.
Gambling is leading to significant harm in this country, and more
than 55,000 children aged between 11 and 16 are gambling addicts.
The gambling industry spends more than £1.5 billion a year on
advertising, and 60% of its profits come from the 5% who are
already problem gamblers or at risk of becoming so. On average,
one problem gambler commits suicide every single day, and we have
families here today who have experienced such loss.
Funding for research, education and treatment with respect to
gambling-related harm in the UK is facilitated through a system
of voluntary contributions from gambling operators, which should
be 0.1% of their gross gambling yield. That goes to GambleAware,
and each year, at current levels, that equates to donations
totalling around £10 million. From there, funding is allocated by
GambleAware to a range of third-sector organisations, academic
institutions and two NHS providers. That might sound like a
sensible amount of money and a seemingly sensible system, but if
we consider the scale of the cost of gambling harm and how poorly
the voluntary levy is operated, it soon becomes clear why this is
a woefully inadequate method of providing funding for research,
education and treatment.
Because of the voluntary nature of the contributions, operators
can vary the size of donation that they send to GambleAware,
which means there is a lack of consistency in the amount donated
each year. Operators even have discretion over how much they
contribute, with some operators giving as little as a few pounds.
Alongside that ridiculous situation, operators are able to decide
when donations are made. As a result, there is a complete lack of
stability in the voluntary funding model. Recipients cannot plan
budgets effectively, or ensure that long-term research projects
or education programmes are properly funded, when they have no
idea whether there will be enough money to continue them.
To make things worse, operators are able to determine who their
contribution goes to, meaning that the voluntary system allows
the gambling industry to retain a sense of control over the
funding. That damages the independence of the service providers,
academic institutions and other third-party recipients of
funding, as well as the effectiveness of the levy in reducing
wider gambling harms in the UK.
(Warley) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
I will make some progress, because I have a long speech and a lot
of people want to speak.
Earlier this year, NHS clinicians announced that they would stop
taking money from the gambling industry to treat people with
addiction. While I agree with the sentiment, I worry that that
will only hurt treatment services in the long run. We need to
find a better long-term solution to allow the NHS to access
funding that comes from the industry but is not controlled by
it.
The all-party parliamentary group for gambling related harm and
Peers for Gambling Reform have recognised and commented on the
limitations and failings of the current voluntary system. That
view is shared elsewhere. Back in March, , chair of Peers for
Gambling Reform, received a reply to a letter, from Andrew
Rhodes, chief executive of the Gambling Commission. In his reply,
Mr Rhodes stated that
“the current voluntary system does not provide long-term
certainty of funding to support planning and commissioning, it
does not impact on all operators fairly, and it is perceived as
allowing gambling operators too much control over the
availability and destination of funds.”
(Calder Valley) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
I am not giving way. Even GambleAware, the charity that receives
voluntary donations, commented recently on the woefully
inadequate nature of the voluntary levy. Its chief executive, Zoë
Osmond, said in April that the industry has never reached its
target of achieving 0.1% of GGY—gross gambling yield—from the
voluntary industry levy. The vast majority of the industry
continues to donate in support of research, education and
treatment at extremely low levels.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I refer to my entry in the
Register of Members’ Financial Interests. She referred to
expenditure being tied to donors, but the industry puts billions
into the Treasury through taxation, so should that not be
properly done through the national health service? Also, will she
say what she actually wants for the industry? Does she want to
close down gambling, or does she acknowledge that millions of
people enjoy gambling perfectly safely and that abuse is going
down?
If my right hon. Friend listened to the rest of my speech, he
might hear some information about where that is not the case. As
for me being anti-gambling, I am certainly not. I spent last
Thursday night at Ffos Las racecourse having a thoroughly good
time placing bets on horses.
Clearly, the voluntary levy is not fit for purpose. It lacks
consistency, transparency and, crucially, accountability. So,
what is the solution?
What the hon. Lady is trying to achieve is admirable, and she
will find that she has a lot more support than she realises. My
big concern, which I expressed in the previous debate on this
subject as well, is the black market—the offline, unregulated
areas. Black market gambling is growing at a huge pace,
including, believe it or not, over WhatsApp, which is highly
encrypted and hard to tackle. If we are to have a levy, how does
she propose that we tackle this area? I fear that it will, sadly,
push people into the black market.
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the comments of Peers
for Gambling Reform and the Gambling Commission about the
industry’s expression of concern about the black market being
extremely over-exaggerated.
That is such a scary comment to make. I point the hon. Lady to
the report “The State of Illegal Betting” produced by the Asian
Racing Federation, which includes Australia, Japan and Hong Kong
among its 17 members. It states that 61% of online gambling is
unregulated, illegal and on the black market. Would she like to
refute that evidence?
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention, again, to the Gambling
Commission’s own words that the scare around the black market has
been grossly overestimated. That is from the Gambling Commission,
not from me.
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab)
I was involved in the campaign to regulate the payday lending
industry. Does my hon. Friend recognise that in order to protect
its profits, the sector’s big argument was, “Don’t touch us,
because the threat is the black market”?
I agree entirely, and I will talk about exactly that later. It is
clear to see that the voluntary levy is not fit for purpose. What
is the solution? Well, a solution is already in place and
available: it is set out in the Gambling Act 2005. There are
already provisions in legislation for the Government to place the
collection of levy donations on a statutory footing should the
voluntary arrangement be shown not to work, which clearly it does
not. DCMS should use existing powers to require operators to pay
an annual levy to the Gambling Commission. A joint advisory levy
board should then be given oversight of the levy paid. That would
be a formal cross-Government working group led by the Department
of Health and Social Care. The levy board should oversee a
comprehensive assessment of the evidence base of gambling-related
harm and the limitations of the current voluntary system.
It is also crucial that the levy is graduated or smart. By that I
mean that when considering the options for calculating the
statutory levy, officials have devised a formula that requires
companies offering potentially more harmful gambling products to
pay a correspondingly higher proportion of the levy—more simply
known as a “polluter pays” principle. This has precedent in New
Zealand, where the gambling problem levy is set by an Order in
Council and reviewed every three years. A lottery provider, bingo
hall or high street bookie or casino will pay far less than a
giant monopolised online gambling operator. There is also
precedent in the UK: the Financial Conduct Authority already
operates a similar system for financial services organisations,
where a statutory levy is imposed on firms to fund free-to-client
debt advice according to the “polluter pays” principle.
(Blackpool South) (Con)
The problem with having a statutory levy is that it would hit
land-based gambling companies—casinos, bingo halls and the high
street shops—when they are just emerging from the pandemic. I
appreciate that the hon. Lady suggested they would be levied at a
slightly different rate, but the problem is that if those
businesses go out of business, we could see a huge cost to the
Exchequer from loss of taxation revenue, lost jobs in communities
and an economic hit on the high street. Does she not consider
that to be a likely outcome of a statutory levy?
I certainly do, but I just stated that the statutory levy would
be graduated so that land-based high street bookies, on-street
casinos and bingo halls would not pay the same levy as online
companies who make a lot more profit than the individual
companies, who will also have overheads of staffing costs and
business rates. I acknowledge all that, but the proposal is aimed
at making sure that the polluters pay the most.
If it was brought in by the DCMS, a 1% levy on industry revenue
would provide £130 million of funding for research, education and
treatment. That would massively improve the disparity between
other nations’ spending and that of the UK. Australia spends £368
per gambler, Canada spends £329 per gambler and New Zealand
spends £413 per gambler. The UK spends £19 per gambler. If we had
funding for research, what could we do? We would finally be able
to hold a proper prevalence survey, not wholly inadequate
telephone surveys of a few hundred people, to ascertain exactly
how many people in the UK are suffering gambling-related harm, so
that we can get them the help they need. There would be
improvements in research and data for clinical outcomes, along
with the quality of data collection, to ascertain how gambling
treatment clinics are performing and what more could be done to
improve treatments.
With better and more certain funding for education, we can
prevent people falling into the hands of gambling operators in
the first place. We can highlight ways to set up banking blocks,
deposit limiters, advice services and many more tools, not only
to teach people about the dangers of some gambling products, but
to signpost those who are already addicted towards help.
Finally, and probably most importantly, we come to treatment.
Treatment for gambling addiction in the UK is completely
inadequate. Chronic underinvestment in the gambling treatment
system, as a result of the current voluntary levy, has led to a
scenario in which treatment is unregulated, unaccountable and
fails to use the evidence base in its strategies. Only between 2%
and 3% of people with gambling problems enter the treatment
system, all of whom are self-referrals. With a statutory levy,
that can change.
It is clear that the statutory levy is vital to the success of
the gambling review, but the industry would disagree. It would
say that the largest companies have donated £100 million already,
with more to follow, and it would label as anti-gambling those of
us who call for this levy. I would call the industry anti-reform.
That £100 million is well under what would have been collected by
a statutory levy, and there is no continuity or certainty in that
funding. Clinicians, the Gambling Commission and GambleAware all
say that current funding levels are insufficient.
The industry claims that the introduction of a flat- rate levy
would be unfair to some land-based sectors, such as casinos,
bingo and high street bookies, because those sectors might
contribute to less harm but would be disproportionately affected
by a levy as a result of the potential impact on jobs. That is a
deliberate misinterpretation of the position. The whole point of
a levy is that the less harm that is caused, the less need there
is to pay for the consequences of that harm. If some sectors harm
less than others, it makes perfect sense for them to pay less.
That is what is meant by a smart levy, based on the “polluter
pays” principle.
(Shipley) (Con)
I should refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’
Financial Interests. As the hon. Lady knows, because we have
spoken about this, I do not particularly disagree with her about
the principle. The one thing that does worry me is that she and
some of her colleagues might never be satisfied with the rate at
which the statutory levy is set. If it was set at 1%, they might
say it should be 2%; if it was 2%, they might say it should be
3%; if it was 3%, they might say it should be 4%. We would have a
never- ending arms race.
Because I do not disagree with the principle, could the hon. Lady
give me some reassurance that she would support a fixed,
unamendable figure for a statutory levy, for example 1%, with a
lower rate for land-based sales—I agree with her about that—to
prevent the arms race I am worried about?
I find myself in the position of matriarch of the anti-gambling
brigade, which I am not. I have no interest in persecuting the
industry; I merely want it to pay for the damage that it has
caused. I have no intention of forcing any argument that the levy
should increase. I am just asking for common sense, and for the
worst polluters to give 1%. I will then walk away from this
argument, quite satisfied that my job is done.
The truth is that the most toxic forms of gambling, which cause
extensive harm, have the means to pay for the harm they cause.
The industry will say that levels of problematic gambling are
low. Tell that to the families at the back in the Gallery who
have lost children. Tell them that problem gambling rates are
low. We are having this debate because of the industry’s
reluctance to do the right thing. It reacts to our reform
recommendations with petty name-calling and offers feeble
attempts at self-regulation. For a cash-rich industry, its
commitment to repairing the damage that it causes or to
preventing it from happening in the first place is both pathetic
and insulting. If a statutory levy is introduced alongside
tackling the question of affordability, ensuring that people are
not gambling more than they can afford, we can stop the vast
exploitation that we have seen in recent years. If that is
brought in alongside stake limits for online gambling, to give
parity with land-based venues, we can ensure that people do not
fall into the depths of addiction. If it is introduced with
meaningful reform of gambling advertising, sponsorship and direct
marketing, along with the ending of inducements to gamble, we can
prevent the poisonous hold that operators have on people through
their addictive products. It is clear to me that, without a
statutory levy at the heart of the White Paper, this Government
will have missed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring
analogue legislation into a digital era, to radicalise a toxic
environment and—without a shadow of a doubt—to save lives.
Several hon. Members rose—
(in the Chair)
I am just observing how many hon. Members want to speak in the
debate. There are five. That means a guideline of about seven
minutes for each Member before we come to the winding-up
speeches.
9.51am
(Blackpool South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I
refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’
Financial Interests and thank the hon. Member for Swansea East
() for securing the
debate.
With the current review of the Gambling Act 2005 drawing to its
long-awaited close—hopefully; we have been here many times before
over the last 18 months—this is certainly an opportune moment to
be debating this subject. Far too often, emotion, instead of
evidence, drives the debate about betting and gaming in this
country. Nowhere is that felt more keenly than in the discussion
about how problem gambling is tackled through research, education
and treatment—RET.
Some 22.5 million British adults enjoy a bet every single month.
According to the independent regulator, the rates of problem
gambling in the UK are falling, having reduced to 0.2% now from
0.6% just 18 months ago. Although of course one problem gambler
is one too many, those figures are positive compared with other
European countries. The rate is 2.4% in Italy, 1.4% in Norway and
1.3% in France. One could therefore conclude that the regulated
market in Britain is relatively successful in keeping rates of
problem gambling fairly low.
For the past few decades, the industry has rightly shouldered the
financial responsibility for that work by paying a voluntary levy
to fund independent charities tackling problem gambling. Despite
that, anti-gambling campaigners are demanding a new, statutory
levy on the industry—a tax by another name—to fund RET. That
poses one obvious question: would funds generated through a
statutory levy and given to the Department of Health and Social
Care really make a tangible difference to the delivery of RET and
to problem gambling in the UK? The clear answer is no.
The current system is making good progress, and in any event, a
blanket levy would not raise materially more money for RET than
is raised at present, but it would disproportionately hammer
casinos and bingo halls, where just a 1% hit on turnover equates
to a 10% hit on profit. That could put many bingo halls, casinos
and other land-based operators in places such as Blackpool out of
business, costing thousands of jobs and the Exchequer vital
revenue, as I alluded to previously.
The hon. Gentleman says that the current system is making good
progress, but the latest National Gambling Treatment Service
statistics from GambleAware show that 49% of users have a risk
level that indicates that they remain at risk at the end of their
treatment. Does he think that that is good progress?
There is clearly more work that we can do in this area, but it
would help if the NHS had a long-term strategy for dealing with
the issue, which it lacks at present. I will say more on that
point in a few moments.
Under current arrangements, all companies regulated by the
Gambling Commission are expected to make a voluntary contribution
of 0.1% of turnover. To put that in context, in 2019-20 that
figure was £10 million. Most of the funding goes to GambleAware,
which is a totally independent charity. The industry has no say
whatever on how that money is spent. In its five-year strategy
published last year, the charity says that it expects to see that
income increase to £39 million by the year ending 2024. As the
hon. Member for Swansea East alluded to, the four largest gaming
companies—Entain, William Hill, Flutter and Bet365—have agreed to
increase their contributions to 1% of turnover. That is an
additional £100 million over a four-year period to tackle the
issue, with all of that funding going towards tackling and
preventing the causes of problem gambling.
As I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member
for Sheffield Central (), the NHS still does not
have a long-term strategy to tackle problem gambling. It was only
in 2019 that the Department of Health announced it would open 15
new NHS clinics for addicts. Despite that, only five are open so
far, with three more supposedly coming online later this year.
Meanwhile, it is the industry and charities that have spent the
last two decades trying to tackle the issue. Currently, charities
use about 160 locations for face-to-face counselling
services—part of an already mature network of clinics, treatment
centres and outreach programmes that are making a real difference
right now.
A statutory levy would risk charities’ existing funding models by
taking cash out of their coffers and putting it into the NHS,
which, sadly, is not yet set up to delivering those services.
(Inverclyde) (SNP)
Has it crossed the hon. Member’s mind that the difficulty for the
NHS in rolling out its plan for 15 clinics is the lack of
guaranteed funding, which is exactly the strategy that a smart
statutory levy would cover?
The issue has been around for decades. Obviously, the gambling
review is long awaited. Hopefully, that will help to address the
issue, but it is unmistakable that the industry has taken
voluntary steps over the years to try to tackle the problem. What
we need is a consensus on the most appropriate way forward. For
the reasons outlined, I do not think that a statutory levy is the
answer, but I am open to hearing all Members’ views, so I am
attending the debate to hear both sides of the argument.
A clumsy one-size-fits-all approach would have a disproportionate
effect on land-based operators, which are only just recovering
from the pandemic. In truth, it would be catastrophic on those
businesses, because, like the rest of the hospitality sector,
they have many fixed costs to fund, including staff, business
rates, tax and licences. A tiered system would take that into
account and better protect jobs.
If the hon. Gentleman refers to Hansard to read the comments I
made earlier, he will see that I reiterated everything that he
has just said, so I do not quite understand his comments.
I suspect the hon. Lady is referring to her opening remarks. I
appreciate that she spoke about the differential system between
online operators, which she suggested were the worst polluters,
and land-based operators. The problem is that many land-based
operators run on a very small profit margin, so even a very small
statutory levy could put them out of business. The high street is
already struggling, and I am afraid it would be a double whammy
when we simply do not require it.
The one area where we already have a levy is the horse-racing
sector, which has a strong link with gambling and betting. What
does my hon. Friend feel that an additional levy on that sector
will do to those jobs and on horse-racing?
(in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that seven minutes was the
guideline.
Time is short, so I will not directly respond to the points made
by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (), but I suspect he knows my
feelings about an additional statutory levy, which is essentially
a tax. It could create problems for horse-racing at a time when
we are already considering other prohibitive measures that would
affect sponsorship, and other elements of the debate that could
have a further impact on horse-racing and, indeed, all
sports.
Third sector charities are already effective and are making real
progress. In contrast, a statutory levy looks like a
retrospective solution to a problem that simply does not exist at
the level that anti-gamblers want policymakers to believe. Is it
really designed to help research, education and treatment, and
the wider public as a whole, or is it a punitive measure to
placate the anti-gambling lobby? A statutory levy will not boost
funding for RET. The money is already in the system, and there is
a bigger, broader commitment for the future. The Government need
to tread carefully if they are to avoid hurting businesses and
putting thousands of jobs at risk.
10.01am
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab)
It is a real delight to contribute to a debate under your
chairmanship for the first time, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend
the Member for Swansea East () for her comprehensive and
powerful statement of the case, to which it is difficult to add
anything.
I simply want to draw on the experience of my constituents, Liz
and Charles Ritchie. I am delighted that Liz has been able to
join us this morning. Their son, Jack, was one of the more than
400 people estimated each year to take their life due to gambling
addiction, but he was never diagnosed with a gambling disorder;
he was told by health professionals that he had an addictive
personality that he would have to learn to live with. During the
inquest into his death, the coroner described gambling warnings,
information and treatment as “woefully inadequate”. The coroner’s
“Prevention of future deaths” report states:
“The treatment available and received by Jack was insufficient to
cure his addiction—this in part was due to a lack of training for
medical professionals around…diagnosis and treatment”.
Jack took his life in 2017, but unfortunately things have not
changed enough since then. As I said to the hon. Member for
Blackpool South (), according to the latest
data from GambleAware, National Gambling Treatment Service
statistics show that 49% of users still have a risk level of 3+,
indicating that they remain at risk when their treatment has
finished. We need to acknowledge, as the gambling review does in
a sense, that we need to do more and much better.
Despite the wholly unfortunate characterisation of those of us
making this argument as an anti-gambling lobby, I thought the
hon. Member for Blackpool South helped our argument considerably
when he talked about the inadequacy of provision in the NHS. He
is right; that is at the core of our argument. Treatment, public
messaging and prevention of harm are not sufficient in the UK to
combat the severe harm experienced by gamblers exposed to
dangerous products.
The Advisory Board for Safer Gambling explained the problems with
the current voluntary system: a lack of transparency, a lack of
equity across operators, a record of insufficient funding, and
unpredictable voluntary funding that creates barriers to
distributing money where it can have the most impact, such as the
NHS. We have begun to hear the arguments this morning. The
Betting and Gaming Council often boasts about how its leading
members volunteered to boost their joint funding of education and
treatment services to £100 million during the 2019-23 period.
That figure of £100 million—plucked from the air—over four years
is not generous; it is a tiny proportion of the extraordinary
profits those members make from other people’s difficulties. Most
importantly, it does not come close to tackling the scale of the
task we face.
As the hon. Member for Blackpool South pointed out, there are
only five gambling treatment centres in the UK, with two further
centres planned to be opened this year. That is against a
background in which research published by Public Health England
last September estimated that about 0.5% of the adult
population—about a quarter of a million people—are likely to have
some form of gambling addiction, with some 2.2 million either
problem gamblers or at risk of addiction.
According to research by the University of Bristol—this is a
figure that we really need to stop and think about—55,000
children under the age of 15 have a gambling addiction. Jack’s
addiction started while he was at school. A statutory levy is
vital to ensure we have the sufficient funds to meet the
challenge presented by gambling as it operates now. The levy must
be independently collected and channelled into the NHS, so that
the industry does not have undue influence over its allocation;
my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East made that point
powerfully.
There is a recent proposal from the Social Market Foundation to
administer the levy through an independent levy board, which
would allocate resource and ensure that the NHS services required
are sufficiently funded. Existing organisations funded by the
industry have an obvious conflict of interest and cannot fulfil
that function. We are beginning to move away from the individual
responsibility model and attitude to gambling problems towards a
public health approach. As we do that, we need to change the
Gambling Commission’s third objective, so that it has a clear
responsibility to minimise gambling harm by protecting the whole
population.
Will my hon. Friend reflect on the statement made by my hon.
Friend the Member for Swansea East (), who argued that the black
market is greatly overestimated? I caution that that is always
the response of the bureaucrats who provide the figures. It was
true on cigarette smuggling, red diesel fraud and self-employment
fraud, as well as many other areas. There is always a tendency to
underestimate what goes on in the sub-economy. Is there not a
danger that this issue will also be underestimated, if we
over-regulate?
As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for
Swansea East, from my experience of tackling the payday lending
industry on a cross-party basis, the argument that it came up
with to defend its own profits was, “Be afraid of illegal loan
sharks, so do nothing about us and the misery that we are
causing, because there is that threat out there.” We need to
tackle both. That strategy needs to be developed and funded by a
statutory levy.
Let me return to Jack’s case and the conclusions that were raised
at his inquest by the coroner, who insisted that, despite small
changes in regulation and treatment since Jack’s death,
significantly more needs to be done by the state to protect
people. Crucially, Jack did not know his addiction was not his
fault. Liz and Charles think that if his addiction had been
recognised as a health problem and treated more effectively—if he
had been given the correct information and the doctors had been
better informed—he could still be alive today, and so would many
others.
Medical experts agree. Dr Matt Gaskell, who leads the NHS
Northern Gambling Clinic, explained to the inquest that the
treatment Jack received was insufficient, and he spoke about the
impact gambling has on the brain, causing major changes as
addiction develops quickly. He underlined that the whole public
are at risk, not just a vulnerable few, and I know that that is
also the view of the Minister responsible, the Under-Secretary of
State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for
Croydon South (), who has previously said that
gambling harm could affect any of us.
Obviously, a new approach is needed—one that promotes harm
prevention and information about risk, as well as treatment and
provision for early diagnosis. We have the skills and knowledge
in our NHS, but we need the investment to make those services
available to all who might need them. The hon. Member for
Blackpool South said the NHS should be doing much more, and he is
right, but the big flaw in his argument is that that should not
be at the cost of other NHS services. It should be based on the
“polluter pays” principle: those who do the harm should cover the
cost of addressing it.
On the intervention made by the hon. Member for Shipley (), the levy should be set at
the rate necessary to cover the costs of mitigating the harm and
providing the treatment. If the problem gets worse, the levy may
have to go higher; if it is reduced as a consequence of effective
treatment, the levy may go lower. The levy should be responsive
and based on the “polluter pays” principle. However, I am
conscious of the time and of the fact that you are glaring at me,
Mr Betts, so I will finish on that point. I hope that the
Government recognise the power of these arguments.
(in the Chair)
The guideline is now that speeches should be six minutes. Can we
try to stick to that, to make sure all colleagues get in?
10.11am
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
It is always a privilege to serve under your suzerainty in these
matters, Mr Betts. I am sorry that there is not a whole bank of
media here to report this important debate. Something else seems
to be going on in the House that has taken them away, although I
cannot think what that is or was.
We do not have a lot of time, so I will keep this short. I say to
some of my colleagues who have interests—I have nothing against
that; it is important in helping them to keep in contact with
what goes on outside—that I wish they would not keep repeating
the idea that anybody who wants to deal with the harms that occur
as a result of gambling, much as we would if we were talking
about alcohol or illegal drugs, is somehow completely and utterly
opposed to things that are legal.
The reality is that I, for one, happily bet when I go
horse-racing, as I do occasionally. I like to go to the ring,
because it is the most free market area of all, and I love it—I
love walking around looking for the best odds. That, for me, is
fine. I do not, therefore, have any problem with gambling, and I
defend it endlessly. Some of my constituents have businesses in
the ring, although many lost their businesses when the National
Joint Pitch Council was formed, which was a travesty.
I simply say to my colleagues: please stop this nonsense that
people such as Mr Dugher and others go on about! It is nonsense
to suggest that someone who is in favour of some kind of help,
support or assistance for those who have serious difficulties—as
the families present are—is opposed to the whole idea of
gambling. We could not stop gambling tomorrow if we tried,
because people like to bet on things. That is the nature of it.
However, the case for the statutory levy being debated today
makes absolute sense. The argument that having a levy will
somehow drive everybody into the black market is silly. I have
always found that when one makes extreme arguments in this place,
one loses the case.
I say honestly to some of my colleagues—those who have
interests—that it would be a good idea to say to the gambling
industry that things have to change. We did all of this in
relation to fixed odds betting terminals, and we were given the
same arguments then: it would be a disaster, it was terrible, it
would end up with gambling collapsing and people going into the
black market, and all the rest of it. Those extreme arguments do
not work, because they lessen the point.
I come back to my genuinely hon. Friend the Member for Shipley
(), for whom I have huge
regard, as he knows. I agree with him on pretty much everything,
and I agree with him today. He is taking the right course, which
is to look at how this issue can be resolved, rather than simply
saying, “If you do anything, you are going to destroy gambling.”
The gambling industry will destroy itself if it spends its whole
time opposing everything with these doom-and-gloom scenarios.
That will just make people think that it has something to
hide.
I will not repeat my arguments on the statutory levy, because I
do not have a lot of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea
East ()—in this case, I will call
her my hon. Friend—made her arguments well, so I will stand on
those. It is true that all the reports show that we have to have
a statutory levy. Not to have one would be unfair to many of
those responsible companies that wish to do something but that
find that others—some of which have a lot of money but are
irresponsible—do less than they should. The way to do this is to
find a way to pay a proportion back to help those who have
problems and to improve things.
I agree with the comments that have been made about the health
service. Every time money is put into it, that money goes into
all sorts of places, but not necessarily where we might want it
to go, so a statutory gambling levy must be ringfenced to tackle
the harms that are created. In a way, ringfencing would limit the
amount we need, because as we put more money in, we hopefully
reduce the harms. In terms of some of the other reforms, if
things such as the abuse of VIP rooms are taken out of the
equation, I sense that the level of harm would be reduced to a
manageable level—I doubt it will ever be eradicated, but we would
get it to a manageable level.
I just want a bit of common sense in this debate. Let us engage
with the idea of a levy. Personally, I would be happy to look at
the case for saying that we do not shift it for a set period of
years. Perhaps we can look later at varying it in degrees if
there is a reduction in the level of harm, but that is a debate
to be had. What we should be debating is how that levy comes in
and is managed, and how we can give some guarantees to companies
that this is not simply a rolling tax increase. I accept that
that is where we should be with this debate.
In a previous debate, three hon. Friends, who are not here today,
read out speeches written by Bet365, and I did not think that
that did this place any good at all. In truth, we are here for
our judgment, not for somebody else’s judgment. I have no
objection to Members standing up for the gambling industry and
defending it; that is absolutely right and exactly what this
place is all about. However, I do object to the fact that we
sometimes think that we have to just say what the industry wants
us to say—we do not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is right that we should
recognise that there is a problem and that there may be a way of
dealing with it. We must come together, across parties, to
resolve that problem. I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to
tell his colleagues in Downing Street, “Just think about how we
could do this, not whether we should do it.” If we can get to
that point, the White Paper will make sense. We should make sure
it is a proper paper that deals with the problems and recognises
that the industry will not simply go away.
If the harms can be dealt with, we can have a reasonable, decent
industry that recognises and faces up to its issues and problems
without running away from them. We will then have fewer people,
and their families, being destroyed by addictions that have come
about because of the pressures that have mounted up on them. If
we can do all that, we will have done a service in this place. On
that basis, I would be happy to discuss with anybody how we get
this done.
10.17am
(Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I
thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East () and congratulate her on
securing the debate and on the passionate way she outlined the
case for the Government to act faster to introduce a statutory
levy.
Gambling-related harm is an issue that many, including myself,
care deeply about, not least because of the detrimental impact it
has on society as a whole, but also because it is far closer to
home. Gambling-related harm runs through my constituency. Its
impact is felt by people with lived experience of gambling harm
and their family and friends. Faced with the real-life stories of
my constituents, I simply cannot understand how anyone does not
support reform. The mere fact that gambling harm is happening
every day is proof enough that our current gambling regulatory
system is failing us.
The voluntary system, which relies on the goodwill of the
industry, has been woefully inadequate. The current system has no
integration of NHS services, as we have heard, and also no
consistency on funding decisions and no co-ordinated oversight of
research into harms. What is more, there are serious questions to
be asked about the independence of the voluntary system from the
influence of the gambling industry.
We can see that the scale of the problem is huge, and yet there
is so much to uncover. A mandatory levy in statute is an
essential step for generating funding towards research,
prevention and treatment services. Researching and growing our
knowledge base will allow us to better understand the extent of
the issue and, importantly, tackle it effectively, driving
support and funds towards NHS treatment and support networks.
Most importantly, that would be free from the influence of the
industry that is perpetuating the harm that we are trying to
treat.
The time has come for the onus to be placed on the betting
industry to address gambling harms. It must be held to account
for the damage it has inflicted through dangerous marketing and
customer practices. The asks that myself and my colleagues have
outlined today are rooted in a desire to help build a society
where the risk of real harm from gambling is no longer accepted.
The time for that is now long overdue, and the Government must
take action. With the publishing of the White Paper, and
everything that comes with it, there is an opportunity to take
action. To keep to your time limit, Mr Betts, I will conclude by
saying that I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope he
can reassure us that the Government are listening and will take
the appropriate action.
(in the Chair)
Last but not least, I call . If the hon. Member can finish before half-past 10,
that will allow time for the winding-up speeches.
10.20am
(Strangford) (DUP)
I will keep to your timeframe, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon.
Friend—she certainly is my hon. Friend—the Member for Swansea
East () on securing the debate.
There are very few debates that she secures that I am not here to
support, but this one is of particular interest to me, and I will
explain why. I should also declare an interest as a member of the
all-party parliamentary group for gambling related harm.
There have been some incredible speeches from Opposition Members,
and also from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford
Green ( ), who put forward in a
very succinct and helpful way what is very much my own line of
thought. This is not about being anti-gambling; it is about how
we can use the levy in a way that addresses the issue of
addiction, while hopefully giving some of the money to the NHS,
as the hon. Member for Swansea East said.
It is clear that gambling addiction is a significant public
health issue: it ruins families, marriages and communities, and
in extreme circumstances it can lead to suicide. The hon. Member
for Sheffield Central () referred to one of his
constituents who had been affected, and there are families in the
Public Gallery today who have also been affected. I am ever
mindful of Peter and Sadie Keogh from County Fermanagh—they are
not my constituents, but they came to my attention some time ago
because of the issue of addiction and gambling. I have examples
from my constituency of people who have been addicted to
gambling, and although it did not lead to suicide, they found
themselves under incredible pressure that affected their
families. Gambling can lead to financial pressures in the house,
arguments and ultimately the break-up of marriages.
Peter and Sadie Keogh lost their son Lewis. Their story is
mirrored by the stories of those who are here today and by the
stories of addiction told by others. Lewis found himself gambling
and did not realise how deep the problem was getting. His mum and
dad were probably not aware of everything that was happening, but
they were when Lewis unfortunately took his own life. That came
about because his debts had overcome him. His ability to respond
and to discuss matters in their totality with his parents and
friends led him to think there was only one way out. I am here
today for Lewis, Peter and Sadie Keogh from Fermanagh in Northern
Ireland, and for all the others in Northern Ireland who have
succumbed to suicide because of gambling addiction.
The harms of gambling addiction are an indisputable fact, and yet
we have limited protections in place to support the most
vulnerable in society. Chronic under-investment in the gambling
treatment system has led to a situation where treatment is
unregulated and lacks consistency, transparency and
accountability. Between only 2% and 3% of people with gambling
problems enter the treatment system, and nearly all of them enter
through self-referral—we need to look at that. The gambling
industry is hugely well resourced, and it could and should be
doing so much more to identify and protect vulnerable people.
A 1% smart levy on the industry’s revenues would provide £130
million—an increase of over £100 million on what we currently
receive. What the hon. Member for Swansea East and most of us
here today are saying is that that is not a big amount for the
sector, but it will make a big difference. If the DCMS introduces
a smart statutory levy on the gambling industry—that is already
within the power of the Secretary of State—it can take control of
the funding for research, education and, ultimately, treatment
back from the bookies, set up a long-term funding commitment,
allow clinicians and academics to commit to projects and
programmes properly and safeguard the independence of research
and education to ensure that the gambling industry can no longer
mark its own homework. If such a levy were based on the “polluter
pays” principle, it would not punish the bingo halls and the high
street arcades that support local high street communities across
the UK, but instead would force gambling operators who are all
too often based offshore to pay for the harm that they
undoubtedly fuel.
Compared with the other regions of the United Kingdom, the level
of participation in gambling in Northern Ireland is higher. In
England, the rate is 62%, and in Wales, it is 61.3%, but the rate
in Northern Ireland, which is similar to the most recent recorded
participation rate in Scotland, is 67.8%. Compared with the other
regions of the United Kingdom, the proportion of the population
in Northern Ireland found to be problem gamblers is also higher,
at 2.3%. In Wales, it is 1.1%, in Scotland, it is 0.7%, and in
England, it is 0.5%. We have a serious gambling problem in
Northern Ireland, and our numbers outstrip those in the other
three countries put together.
I always look forward to seeing the Minister, who is always
incredibly helpful. He looks to help and reassure. I ask him what
discussions he has had with his counterpart in Northern Ireland
about gambling addiction and the fact that the rate in Northern
Ireland are higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom put
together. What steps can be taken to assist, help or advise the
Northern Ireland Assembly Ministers?
The report on participation in gambling identified the four most
common types of gambling in Northern Ireland as the national
lottery; scratchcards or instant win; betting on an event or
sport; and other lotteries, raffles and ballots. Sometimes, when
I am in the garages back home getting petrol or diesel, I see
people buying scratchcards, and I sometimes feel quite moved.
That scratchcard is their hope of getting money to help with
whatever it may be—to pay the bills—but that scratchcard is a
gambler’s chance. It is very unusual for it to lead to any
income.
Some types of gambling cannot be regulated in a meaningful way,
but some can, and I believe that the levy is an essential tool in
regulation. I encourage the Government and the Minister to see
where the problem lies and to tackle it at the root. The purpose
of a gambling statutory levy is to generate moneys to help those
with addictions and to assist their families, and to help the
NHS. It is right that the gambling sector should pay more. In my
opinion, and that of many others, the publication of a White
Paper cannot come soon enough. I urge the Minister and his
colleagues in Government to take the opportunity to deliver
meaningful change where the industry quite clearly has not yet
done so.
(in the Chair)
We move on to the Front Bench spokespeople, who have 10 minutes
each. After that, there will be a short time for the mover to
wind up at the end. I call for the SNP.
10.28am
(Inverclyde) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Mr Betts. It is a pleasure to be here this
morning. I thank the hon. Member for Swansea East () for bringing forward this
debate.
Gambling legislation is reserved to Westminster. The UK
Government must publish the gambling review White Paper and that
must include a smart levy on the gambling industry. In December
2020, Westminster announced a review of the Gambling Act 2005,
which generated some 16,000 responses to a call for evidence.
Yet, in June 2022, we are still no further forward from where we
were in December 2020.
I have been told that the White Paper is “imminent”, “very
imminent” and even “very, very imminent”, but there is still no
date. Once the paper is published, there is still quite a journey
before it becomes law and no doubt there will be an
implementation period, too. While we dither, gambling-related
harms impact vulnerable people in an unabated manner, so we must
act, and act now.
We are rapidly approaching the summer recess. Minister, we need
the paper now, so that it can be scrutinised and debated. We need
to make substantial progress before the summer recess. We are
here today, of course, to debate a statutory levy. However, I
confess to being slightly confused after reading the Library
briefing on this issue. Excellent as such briefings always are,
this one informed me that the Gambling Act 2005 regulates
gambling in Great Britain. The Act has three licensing
objectives: preventing gambling from being a source of crime or
disorder; ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open
way; and protecting children and other vulnerable persons from
being harmed or exploited by gambling.
The 2005 Act is overseen and enforced by the Gambling Commission
and that is where I got confused. Under section 123 of the Act,
the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport can
make regulations requiring gambling companies to pay an annual
levy to the Gambling Commission. Section 123 clearly states:
“The regulations shall, in particular, make provision for—
(a) the amount of the levy;
(b) timing of payment of the levy.
(3) The regulations shall, in particular, make provision for—
(a) determining the amount of the levy by reference to a
percentage of specified receipts of an operating licence
holder,
(b) determining the amount of the levy by reference to a
percentage of specified profits of an operating licence
holder”.
And more points are set out. Reading this section, it looks to me
and reads to me as a smart statutory levy. Minister, why has
section 123 of the 2005 Act never been commenced? Why are the
Government not implementing a statutory levy now?
Currently, the Gambling Commission requires all licensed
operators to make a voluntary contribution of 0.1% of net revenue
towards the research, prevention and treatment of
gambling-related harm. Most operators donate to GambleAware, a
charity that commissions support for problem gamblers as well as
research and awareness-raising about gambling-related harm.
In July 2019, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth
and Southam (Sir ), who was then the Secretary
of State, announced that five of the largest operators would
increase their donations from 0.1% to 1% over the following four
years. However, the current funding arrangement does not generate
enough money to prevent and treat gambling-related harm. In a
September 2020 paper for the Gambling Commission, the Advisory
Board for Safer Gambling said the current funding system was
“no longer fit for purpose”.
That is nearly two years ago now.
A statutory levy would address issues of transparency,
independence, equity. sustainability and public confidence. It
would also have the potential to raise
“significantly greater levels of funding”
and it would also guarantee funding, so that service providers
can confidently plan to recruit and train into the future. And it
is not just me who is saying this. In April 2022, GambleAware
called on the Government to introduce a mandatory levy of 1% of
gross gambling yield. According to GambleAware, this would raise
£140 million annually and would
“enable better longer-term planning and commissioning for
services to prevent gambling harms”.
Unfortunately, the Betting and Gaming Council is part of the
problem. In a May 2022 blog, Brigid Simmonds, Chair of the
Betting and Gaming Council, claimed that a statutory levy would
not make a “tangible difference” to research, education and
treatment or to problem gambling rates. She said that the current
funding system was “making good progress” and warned that the
“clumsy one-size-fits-all approach” of a statutory levy would
have a “disproportionate effect” on land-based operators that
were just recovering from the covid-19 pandemic.
“Making good progress”—where is the evidence for that? The clock
is ticking, people are being harmed and people are dying. And
nobody is talking about a “clumsy one-size-fits-all approach”. We
have identified that we require a smart levy—the polluter pays.
It is callous remarks like those from the Chair of the Betting
and Gaming Council that clearly show that the funds raised by a
levy must be ring-fenced and allocated to NHS-commissioned work.
The expenditure should be identified and allocated by medical
experts, and not by the gambling industry, their appointees or
politicians.
More often than not, the debate about this issue has come down to
money. How do we pay for the outcomes that we seek? Where does
that money come from? However, we must acknowledge here today
that behind the call for money, the reality is that people are
being harmed and people are dying. We need appropriate, timely
action and the time for it is now.
10.34am
(Manchester, Withington)
(Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I pass
on the apologies of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the
Member for Pontypridd (), who is in Committee,
as indeed is the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture,
Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Croydon South () —although it is always a
pleasure to see the Minister across the Chamber.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East () on securing this debate
and on her, as always, excellent and comprehensive speech. I
congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part, including my
hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (). My hon. Friend the Member
for Sheffield Central () spoke powerfully about his
constituent Jack, and importantly identified the shortfall in
diagnosis and treatment, and the lack of specialist gambling
support across the country. I have had a number of meetings with
former gambling addicts, and they have often identified that it
is really hard to get treatment where they want, as there is a
bit of a postcode lottery. Anybody who suggests that an increase
in funding is not necessary for the support and treatment of
gambling addicts is completely wrong. We have a decided lack of
specialist treatment, and we really need to get extra funding
into it. That is the heart of the issue.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green ( ) was absolutely correct
when he said that the people speaking in this debate are not
anti-gambling; we are anti-gambling harm. We need to make that
important distinction.
As I said when we most recently debated gambling in this place,
reform is long overdue and the Government have been dragging
their feet. Many forms of gambling are a pastime that lots of
people enjoy. They are a source of employment and economic
activity for communities in towns and cities across the country.
Nobody sensible wants to send gambling to the underground or the
black market, but we have to recognise that it can also be a
highly addictive activity that damages families and communities.
That is why we need action, not more words, from the Government.
Time and time again, as we have heard, we have been promised
legislation only for it not to materialise.
As we have heard from a number of hon. Members— I have heard this
graphically from the relatives of people who have died by suicide
and from former gambling addicts—the business models of some
gambling companies, and some gambling products, add to
significant harms, leading to high levels of problem gambling,
mental health issues and, sadly, suicides. Regulation is long
overdue, particularly since the huge growth in online and mobile
gambling. Smartphones give opportunities to gamble pretty much
anywhere, anytime, and the unregulated online spaces fail to
protect users.
As we have heard, the Gambling Act 2005 is the basis for the
regulation of gambling in Great Britain, but it has not been
updated since it was passed and it is not fit for the digital
age. The key Conservative manifesto pledge in 2019 was to review
gambling laws in response to mounting concerns about how this £14
billion-a-year industry is regulated. The White Paper was
originally due to be published before the end of 2021. Labour has
been calling on the Government to bring forward gambling
legislation for a long time. In 2019, we also committed to
introducing a gambling Act.
The delay in tackling this issue is costing money as well as
lives. The Public Health England review found that the annual
economic burden of harmful gambling is £1.27 billion. That is
£647 million in direct costs to the Government and £619 million
of wider societal costs associated with suicides. It is about not
just lives but money, and we need to address that issue.
Will the Minister confirm when exactly we will see the White
Paper? We definitely need to see it in the coming weeks. I agree
with the hon. Member for Inverclyde () that we need to see it long
before the summer so we can start discussing these issues. It
needs to build on the consensus across the House that we need to
bring this regulation into the digital age.
The all-party parliamentary group for gambling related harm,
chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, who has
campaigned magnificently on this issue, recommended a mandatory
levy on the gambling industry to fund research, protection,
treatment and education, and address gambling-related harms,
including to consider the links between gambling and suicide. At
the moment, as we have heard, gambling firms have no mandatory
requirement to fund addiction research and treatment services.
Many do so through the voluntary scheme, but it is variable and
uncertain. That uncertainty makes it difficult to plan long-term
projects.
The five big gambling companies have committed to paying 1% of
their gross yields towards safer gambling initiatives by 2023,
but the variation between online products and their donations is
a real issue. The legal power to impose a levy on the gambling
industry has existed since 2005, but it has never been used due
to the Government’s insistence that the industry should support
harm-reduction work on a voluntary basis. I think that the
highest figure was last year, with £35 million coming through
voluntary donations. It has been estimated that a statutory levy
would increase that to around £140 million, but we must put that
in perspective: the gambling industry spends £1.5 billion a year
just on advertising. That is the scale of the issue. The
Government must take this proposal seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East made the important
point that a levy should be smart or differentiated to tackle the
most dangerous forms of gambling without harming, for example,
bingo halls. I should be grateful if the Minister would outline
what consideration the Government have given the proposal. We
need clarity about what will be in the White Paper and how a
statutory levy might work. We absolutely need to tackle gambling
harm across the board, so that the families of those who have
been immeasurably harmed by gambling can have confidence that
what has happened to their loved ones will not happen to
others.
(in the Chair)
May I ask the Minister to ensure that there are a couple of
minutes left for the mover to reply?
10.41am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture,
Media and Sport ()
Thank you, Mr Betts. It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under
your chairmanship and I will ensure that there is time at the end
for the hon. Member for Swansea East () to reply. I thank her for
securing the debate and thank all those who have contributed
today, articulating a variety of views in a genuinely
constructive manner. She has been a staunch campaigner for
gambling reform for a very long time and I thank her and other
parliamentarians for the many meetings that they have had with
DCMS Ministers over recent months and years. As has been
mentioned, I am not the responsible Minister for gambling: the
Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,
my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (), is unavoidably detained in a
Bill Committee but I will ensure that he gets a full read-out of
today’s debate.
It has been 17 years since the Gambling Act 2005 was passed and
it is clear that the risks around harm and the opportunities to
prevent it are different now from when that legislation was
introduced. We must act to recognise that our regulatory
framework needs to change. In recent years, the Government and
the Gambling Commission have introduced a wide range of reforms
to help protect, support and treat people who are experiencing
gambling harms. The protections include the ban on credit card
gambling, the fixed odds betting terminal stake reduction and
reform to VIP schemes, as well as ongoing work to improve and
expand treatment provision through the NHS and third sector. The
review is an opportunity to build on those changes and ensure
that we have the right protections in place to prevent harm.
As the hon. Member for Swansea East will appreciate, I cannot
pre-announce what will be published in the White Paper, which we
are finalising, nor can I comment on speculation in the media and
elsewhere about its contents. However, I can say that I
absolutely recognise the importance of sufficient and transparent
funding for research to strengthen our evidence base, as well as
for treatment to help those who need support. As part of the
wide-ranging scope of the review––it is widely recognised as
being wide-ranging––we called for evidence on the best way to
recoup the regulatory and societal costs of gambling. We have
been clear for several years that, should the existing system of
taxation and voluntary contributions fail to deliver what is
needed, we would look at a number of options for reform
including, but not limited to, a statutory levy.
As hon. Members know, when the Gambling Act was introduced, the
gambling industry agreed to provide financial support for
tackling problem gambling, and the Gambling Commission requires
operators to make an annual contribution to approved
organisations, which deliver or support research on the
prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms, as a licence
condition. We considered that issue closely in 2018 as part of
the previous gambling review, when much of the debate centred on
the quantity of funding provided by the industry. Since then,
there have been a number of changes to how much is given and how
it is managed.
Since 2018 the Gambling Commission has improved transparency
around the amount given by the industry to research, education
and treatment, and which bodies it is paid to, and required
operators to donate to organisations approved by the commission.
Most donate to GambleAware, an independent charity with no
industry involvement in commissioning decisions, and the funding
in the system has also increased substantially. In 2019, the four
largest operators committed themselves to increasing their
contributions tenfold, including £100 million for treatment over
the following four years. I think the hon. Member for Manchester,
Withington () mentioned that contributions
under the voluntary system were indeed £34 million last year, and
they are due to reach £70 million by 2024. By way of context, £34
million is about 0.3% of GGY, which is about £10.2 billion.
Alongside that, the Department of Health and Social Care and the
NHS are taking forward work to improve and expand treatment
provision. The 2019 NHS long-term plan gave a commitment to
expand the coverage of NHS services for people with serious
gambling problems and announced the creation of 15 specialist
gambling clinics by 2023-24, with £15 million of funding over the
same period.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South () and others have commented,
there are five NHS specialist clinics in operation, with a
further three due to become operational by the end of this month.
The Department of Health and Social Care is working with the NHS
and GambleAware to help to improve the join-up between NHS and
third-sector services, and to develop a clear treatment pathway
for people seeking help.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central () again raised the tragic
case of Jack Ritchie. In March, the hon. Gentleman secured an
Adjournment debate on the coroner’s finding that gambling
contributed to Jack’s tragic death. As the Under-Secretary of
State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the
Member for Croydon South, said then, the findings are an
important call to action for our Department, the Department of
Health and Social Care and the Department for Education.
As we said in our response to the coroner, the Government are
committed to building on the reforms made since 2017 and
addressing the concerns identified in the prevention of future
deaths report. The coroner’s report and lessons arising from
Jack’s tragic death are important inputs to our considerations
and the review of the Gambling Act. I can assure hon. Members
that, overall, the voice of people with personal or lived
experience of harm was thoroughly represented among the
submissions to our call for evidence, and I and my successors
leading the review have met a number of people who have suffered
because of their addictions or those of the people they love. I
thank them for their contribution to the debate and the evidence
gathering.
As part of the review, we are looking closely at the barriers to
high-quality research, which were mentioned by many hon. Members,
and how we can overcome those barriers. Building the evidence
base to deepen our understanding of gambling can involve the
input of a range of groups, including the Gambling Commission,
researchers and the third sector. A good example is the research
commissioned by GambleAware on the impacts of marketing and
advertising on children and young people.
The research showed the impact that certain aspects of gambling
advertising can have on young people, including depictions of the
association between football and gambling, which I know is a hot
topic. That pointed to the need for change to ensure that the UK
advertising codes continue to provide effective protection from
gambling advertising-related harms. The research has led to the
Committee of Advertising Practice announcing stronger
protections, which will be backed by the enforcement powers of
the Gambling Commission. Those include banning content with
strong appeal to children from gambling advertisements, as well
as further changes to protect vulnerable people. Research on
gambling, like any other subject, is funded by the research
councils, and we want to encourage more researchers from a wide
variety of disciplines to work in this area. We will say more
about that in the White Paper.
I will briefly mention a few other points raised by hon. Members
during the debate. The Gambling Commission has piloted a new
methodology to measure problem gambling, and that is being worked
on. The hon. Member for Strangford () mentioned gambling in Northern Ireland. Gambling is
a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but I believe new
legislation is being brought forward there. I can confirm that
officials have met to share experiences regarding the Great
British legislation and regulations, so the conversations are
ongoing.
On the effectiveness of GambleAware services, 70% of people who
started treatment as problem gamblers were no longer defined as
such on the problem gambling severity index at the end of
treatment, and 92% saw their score reduced, so there is evidence
of some impact.
Several Members raised the important role of the gambling
sector’s tax contribution to the economy and the fact that those
tax revenues are then used to fund our public services, including
the NHS. Everybody has recognised, today or previously, that
gambling can be performed safely by millions of people every
year. Again, a very clear message from Members today is that
nobody is advocating a complete ban on gambling. Of course, any
changes must be proportionate and evidence- based, and where
possible they must avoid unintended consequences.
The Government have an important responsibility to get reform
right. We will build on the many strong aspects of our existing
gambling regulatory system to make sure it is right for the
digital age and the future. The White Paper is a priority for the
Department and we will publish it in the coming weeks, which is
precisely the wording that the hon. Member for Manchester,
Withington asked for.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to today’s
debate.
Will my hon. Friend define what “coming weeks” means? When is a
coming week no longer a coming week? Is it two or three weeks
ahead, or four or five? A little definition would help.
I can say no more than that we will be publishing in the coming
weeks. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon
South is currently detained elsewhere, so the coming weeks is all
I can say today.
I asked the Minister a question about section 123 of the Gambling
Act. I do not understand why it has not been enacted.
The answer lies in the evidence given in the debate today. As I
have said, we are looking at the Gambling Act review and
considering the options and the arguments made today, but there
is not 100% support for that at the moment. We committed to
looking at that as part of the review, and I am afraid the hon.
Gentleman will have to wait for the report to come out in the
coming weeks.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I
will make sure that the Minister responsible gets a full report
of today’s debate.
10.53am
I thank the Minister for his response. I thank all right hon. and
hon. Members for their contributions today. I even thank
adversaries; I hope we can find common ground on this issue.
Every reform that the gambling industry has endured—it has been
an endurance for it—has not been done voluntarily; it has come
kicking and screaming. There are people here who are providing a
voice for the industry. My motivation and that of others here is
to provide a voice for those people at the back who have paid the
greatest sacrifice. The status quo can no longer be allowed to
continue. We have to ensure that the White Paper protects
everyone in future from the same tragedy that those families have
had to experience.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered proposals for a statutory gambling
levy.
|
