Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the Gambling Commission’s finding against William Hill concerning
breaches of player protection, and their imposition of a £19.2
million penalty.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given
private notice. I declare my interest as a former chairman of the
ad hoc Lords Select Committee which published Gambling Harm in
July 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Culture, Media and Sport ( of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, this action was taken by the independent regulator as
part of its duty to uphold standards. The Government do not
comment on individual enforcement cases; we have, however,
continued to see too many cases of operators failing adequately
to protect their customers. The Gambling Act review will include
a range of policies to strengthen protections further, and we
will publish a White Paper in the coming weeks.
(Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that response. The Select Committee
report on gambling harms made more than 60 recommendations to
avoid the worst excesses at the toxic end of the gambling
industry. Of those 60-odd recommendations, only five or six, from
memory, required primary legislation. In that time, what have the
Government done to implement some of the things that might have
stopped William Hill, kept it honest and saved some lives in the
process?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I had the pleasure of serving on that committee under my noble
friend and, as I am sure he knows, all its recommendations are
being considered as part of our review of the 2005 Act. Both the
Government and the Gambling Commission have been taking action in
the meantime, including in line with more than a dozen of the
committee’s recommendations. That includes: tough new
requirements about online VIP schemes; developing a new approach
to collecting data on gambling participation and harm prevalence;
reforming online slot games so that their speed of play is the
same as land-based equivalents; introducing new rules on
advertising, including banning the creation of undue urgency to
bet and content with a strong appeal to children; raising the age
to participate in the National Lottery to 18; and strengthening
online self-exclusion, with robust requirements about stopping
marketing to people who have excluded themselves from gambling.
So we continue to take action while also reviewing the 2005
Act.
(LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling
Reform. These and other egregious breaches of current player
protection arrangements show all too clearly that these
arrangements simply do not work. Given that, as the noble Lord,
Lord Grade, pointed out, no new legislation is required, should
we not be immediately introducing a single, independently
overseen system of light-touch affordability checks to which all
gambling companies must adhere?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I think the imposition of this record penalty shows that the
Gambling Commission is taking all these issues seriously. Indeed,
since the start of 2022, operators have been required to pay more
than £76 million because of regulatory failures discovered by the
commission. So the commission is doing its work and the
Government are doing our work in reviewing an Act that is coming
up to two decades old and certainly needs looking at again to
make sure we have the regulation and laws in place to ensure that
we have a proportionate regulation of this undertaking.
(Con)
My Lords, as chairman of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme, I ask
whether this is not a good argument for having proof of age
verification in the online harms Bill.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I look forward to debating that and other matters with my noble
friend in the course of our deliberations on the Online Safety
Bill. Of course, in relation to gambling, we are looking at all
sorts of matters as part of our review of the 2005 Act.
(Lab)
Do not the large fines imposed demonstrate the failure of the
system? We do not want people to receive large fines; we want
them to be stopped gambling when they cannot meet their debts. Do
the Government not need to step up and introduce legislation to
deal with this real problem?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the Gambling Commission made clear, the failings it discovered
were so widespread and alarming that it gave serious
consideration to suspending the licence in this case. However,
because the operator admitted its failings, the commission opted
instead to impose the largest enforcement payment in its history.
It is taking action, and the companies are taking action in light
of the regulation undertaken by the commission. We look at the
Acts to make sure that we have the regulation we need in
place.
The Lord
My Lords, given this further evidence of companies serially
failing to take care of their customers, what steps are the
Government taking to ensure that individuals can hold companies
to account for gambling harms?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
We have ensured that people who have excluded themselves from
gambling are protected. Individuals are rightly taking action,
and we want to ensure that they can do so. Individuals can draw
their cases to the attention of the Gambling Commission, in
addition to its work in monitoring the sector.
(CB)
My Lords, does not the very small proportion that monetary fines
constitute of gambling companies’ profits indicate that they are
not working? Should the Gambling Commission not take more
effective powers, which are already within its remit?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The fines and penalties imposed by the commission are increasing.
In the 2016-17 financial year, it issued penalties of just £1.7
million. As I said a moment ago, since the start of 2022
operators have paid more than £76 million. The financial
penalties are increasing, and the commission has revoked 14
operator licences and 66 personal licences since 2016. There are
a range of sanctions which it can and does undertake.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former Minister for the
gambling industry. I have great concern as we approach the White
Paper. Many of us regularly hear concerns from people about the
way in which gambling has been allowed to extend itself through
advertising, particularly to vulnerable groups and broadly
through sporting industries. Although many gambling companies act
entirely responsibly—the best ones certainly do—does my noble
friend agree that we must now look carefully at the permissive
situation that we have allowed to develop over the last few
years?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
As part of our review of the 2005 Act, we want to make sure that
we get the right balance between respecting people’s freedom of
choice, preventing harm and effective and proportionate
protections. As part of that review, we have called for evidence
on the impacts of advertising, including sports sponsorship. We
will be led by the evidence and take appropriate and
proportionate action where necessary.
(Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests in the register.
Given the seriousness of the complaints that led to the
imposition, it is not good enough just to recognise that the
Gambling Commission has done its job, because individuals were
seriously harmed. It shows that what the industry has said to the
Government is simply not true; it allowed people to gamble
outside what it had already committed to not allowing to happen.
The Government need to think very carefully about the commitments
the industry is making to them on the White Paper so that they
understand the real harm done to some individuals.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
We respect the independence of the Gambling Commission. As I have
already quoted, its chief executive Andrew Rhodes said that in
this case it found widespread and alarming failings. The
Government are certainly not minimising its findings in this
case. Separately, we are looking at the statutory framework under
which it operates to make sure that our gambling laws are fit for
an age in which people carry a super-casino on their smartphone
in their pocket. It is right that we look at those laws again. We
have been doing so, speaking to the industry and campaigners, and
have been mindful of reports such as that of your Lordships’
committee.
(Lab)
My Lords, I heard the Minister say that the White Paper would be
published in a few weeks. Every time your Lordships’ House has
asked about the date, we have found it shelved repeatedly,
leaving ever more people being sucked in without appropriate
protections being in place. After a decade of broken promises and
giving in to vested interests when things get tough, does the
Minister accept that many people have been left unnecessarily
exposed by the Government’s failure to act? And when the White
Paper is published, will it have real teeth or will it be
severely watered down, as is widely predicted?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is the most significant examination of gambling law since the
2005 Act was brought into force, and a lot has changed in the
intervening years. We have received over 16,000 responses to our
call for evidence, and we are looking at these carefully. There
is a new Secretary of State and a new Minister responsible, who
obviously want to make sure they give it the attention it
deserves. We want to get the balance right between protecting
people’s freedom and giving protections that people need. In the
meantime, we have been taking action, including banning gambling
on credit cards, new rules to make online slot games safer by
design, and changing advertising to make sure that content cannot
be of strong appeal to children, so we are acting as well as
looking at the law in a sensible way.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, can I ask what actions the Government are taking with
regard to online gambling sites based in our overseas
territories?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
From memory, I think the operators that operate in the UK are
covered by law, but I will clarify the point in writing to the
noble Lord. It is certainly a point that we are cognisant of, as
we look at the 2005 Act.
(Lab)
My Lords, listening to the progress of this Question, I wonder if
the Minister would agree that a Government which have a general
disposition to remove or weaken regulation wherever possible—I do
not comment on whether that is right or wrong; I simply say that
is, broadly speaking, the direction of travel of this Government
and some of their predecessors—does he not think that any
regulator faced with a very powerful industry, such as gambling
and others, will feel itself to be somewhat at a disadvantage?
Although these fines are very heavy, I refer him to the points
made by my noble friend Lady Armstrong about the quite egregious
failure of the industry to stand by the obligations to which it
has already committed itself.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
Nearly half of adults in this country choose to gamble. This is a
legal activity which many people do without any harm, but we know
that when people get into gambling-related harm, the consequences
can be very serious. That is why successive Governments have
tried to look at this in a balanced way. We are looking at laws
which do not adequately reflect the way that people gamble online
nowadays. We are grateful to the many people who have provided
evidence, from the industry, campaign groups and people who
gamble. We want to make sure that we get the right balance
between protecting people’s freedom to carry out a legal activity
and preventing them from falling into harm.
(GP)
My Lords, the Minister has described the penalty for William Hill
as a record penalty set at a very high level. It is four days’
revenue for the parent company, which last year won £1.8 billion
from punters. Should not the fine be a percentage of its total
revenue, and what does the Minister think a company like William
Hill would have to do to get suspended, given that among the many
horrendous cases, we have 331 gamblers who chose to use the
self-exclusion mechanism and were then able to gamble on the
site?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the commission made clear, it looked at tougher sanctions.
However, because the operator in this instance admitted its fault
and has started to take steps to address it, the commission chose
to impose the regulatory penalty that it did. It is making
financial penalties available. In relation to this case, it is
also requiring the company to undergo a third-party audit to
assess how it is implementing its anti-money laundering and safer
gambling policies, procedures and controls. The commission is
using the powers that it has at its fingertips.
(Con)
My Lords, one of the major concerns is about the effect this is
having on children. Headmasters and heads of major schools I have
spoken to of late have said that the impact this is having on
children between the ages of 10 and 15 or 16, and on how their
parents and others are gambling, is going to have a very adverse
effect in the future, particularly because of the point made on
advertising.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right to highlight the importance of ensuring
that children are not encouraged to gamble or to do so in a
problematic way. That is why we have raised the age for
participating in the National Lottery to 18 and introduced new
rules on advertising to make sure that adverts with a strong
appeal to children are not allowed. We will look at the wider
issues as we consider our review of the 2005 Act.
