The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Thursday 27 April. “With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would
like to make a Statement about the Government’s proposals for
gambling reform. Gambling is a hugely popular pastime, which has
been part of our British life for centuries. Ours has always been a
freedom-loving democracy where people are entitled to spend their
money how they please and where they please, and millions choose to
spend some of...Request free trial
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Thursday 27 April.
“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a
Statement about the Government’s proposals for gambling
reform.
Gambling is a hugely popular pastime, which has been part of our
British life for centuries. Ours has always been a freedom-loving
democracy where people are entitled to spend their money how they
please and where they please, and millions choose to spend some
of their hard-earned money on the odd bet on a match or a race
without any problems. This popularity has seen our betting
companies balloon in size and become big contributors to both our
economy and, in the taxes they provide, to our public
services.
But, with the advent of the smartphone, gambling has been
transformed: it is positively unrecognisable today, in 2023, from
when the Gambling Act was introduced in 2005. Temptation to
gamble is now everywhere in society, and while the overwhelming
majority is done safely and within people’s means, for some the
ever-present temptation can lead them to a dangerous path. When
gambling becomes addiction, it can wreck lives: shattered
families; lost jobs; foreclosed homes; jail time; suicide. These
are all the most extreme scenarios, but it is important to
acknowledge that, for some families, those worst fears for their
loved ones have materialised: parents like Liz and Charles
Ritchie, whose son, Jack, took his own life while travelling in
Hanoi after years of on/off addiction. Gambling problems in
adults have always been measured in terms of money lost, but we
cannot put a cost on the loss of dignity, the loss of identity
and in some cases the loss of life it can cause.
We need a new approach that recognises that a flutter is one
thing, but unchecked addiction is another. Today we are bringing
our pre-smartphone regulations into the present day with a
gambling White Paper for the digital age.
Before I go into the details of how we remove some of the blind
spots in the system, I pay tribute to my right honourable friends
the Members for Croydon South () and for Maldon (Sir ) and my honourable
friends the Members for Mid Worcestershire (), for Folkestone and Hythe
() and for Sutton and Cheam
(), as well as my predecessors my
right honourable friends the Members for Hertsmere (), for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms
Dorries) and for Chippenham (), who have all led the
work at various stages, and in particular the Minister for sport,
gambling and civil society, my right honourable friend the Member
for Pudsey (), who has driven this work in
government over recent months. There have also been some
outstanding contributions to the debate from individual Members
of this House, including my right honourable friend the Member
for Chingford and Woodford Green ( ), my honourable friends
the Members for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for Shipley (), for Stoke-on-Trent North
(), for Stoke-on-Trent South
() and for Stoke-on-Trent
Central (), and the honourable Members for Swansea East (), for Inverclyde () and for Sheffield Central
(), and from the other
place.
The proposals encapsulated in our blueprint draw on that
knowledge and combine it with the best available evidence and
insights in the 16,000 submissions received in response to our
call for evidence. That is what this White Paper will deliver,
with proposals for reform that cover six key areas. These
proposals build on our strong track record of acting in punters’
interests through measures such as: cutting stakes on fixed-odds
betting terminals in 2019; banning credit card gambling and
reforming online VIP schemes in 2020; introducing new limits to
make online slots safer in 2021; and upgrading rules on
identifying and intervening to protect people showing signs of
harm in 2022.
First, we want to tackle some of the challenges unique to online
gambling. Campaigners have told me that one element that
differentiates problem gambling from many other forms of
addiction is that it often takes place in secret, so we will
force companies to step up their checks on when losses are likely
to be unaffordable or harmful for punters. Companies must already
intervene when they know that a customer is spending vast sums,
but this change will better protect those least able to afford
even small losses. We also plan to bring online slots games more
into line with bricks-and-mortar equivalents by introducing a
stake limit on online slots of between £2 and £15, subject to
consultation.
Secondly, we know that many addicts find that each time they
break free from the temptation to gamble, they are drawn back
into the orbit of online companies with the offer of a free bet
or some free spins. To help to stop problem gamblers being
bombarded, the Gambling Commission has beefed up its rules on
online VIP schemes—which has already resulted in a 90% reduction
in the number of those schemes—and will now consult on ensuring
that bonus offers are not being deployed in ways that only
exacerbate harm.
That brings me to the third item, which is our regulator. We can
all agree that we need a robust, data-savvy and proactive
regulator that can stand up to the giant companies that it
regulates, so my department will ensure that the Gambling
Commission has the appropriate resources to support this work and
deliver the commitments in the White Paper. No one should be
denied an innocent flutter, but the public should not have to
bear the cost of treatment when a punter becomes an addict. One
important element that will be introduced—backed by campaigners
and also by many in the House—is a statutory levy to turn the
tables on problem gambling, requiring gambling companies to fund
more ground-breaking research, education and treatment.
Fourthly, we need to redress the power imbalance between punters
and gambling companies when things go wrong. People who find that
they have lost out owing to operator failures need to know that
all is not lost. We will work with industry and the Gambling
Commission to create a non-statutory ombudsman who will give
customers a single point of contact.
I know that the fifth element—doing more to protect
children—unites the whole House. Gambling is an adult activity,
and it must remain an adult activity. That is one of the main
reasons why I applauded the decision taken by the Premier League
a fortnight ago to remove gambling sponsorships from players’
shirt fronts in the coming seasons, and it is the reason why we
are ensuring children cannot engage in any form of gambling
either online or on widely accessible scratchcards.
Finally, we know that the status quo disadvantages casinos, bingo
halls and other traditional premises in comparison with their
online equivalents. A number of assumptions that prevailed at the
time of the 2005 Act now appear increasingly outdated, so we plan
to rebalance regulation and remove restrictions that disadvantage
the land-based sector.
Nearly every Member of Parliament will have met constituents
whose lives have been blighted by gambling harm. The online world
has transformed so many parts of life, and gambling is no
exception. It is our responsibility to ensure that our rules and
regulations keep up with the real world so that we can protect
the most vulnerable while also allowing everyone else to enjoy
gambling without harm. I look forward to working with every
Member of the House to bring our gambling rules into the digital
age, and I commend this Statement to the House.”
16:15:00
(Lab)
My Lords, colleagues will know that I hail from Brighton—for film
noir buffs, the home of “Brighton Rock”, with its famous
racecourse scenes. My city has excellent amusement arcades, two
casinos, a Premier League football team—rather good this year—, a
horserace track, a dog track and a variety of other activities
and sports that have strong links to the gambling sector.
We all like a flutter, and a night at the bingo or a weekend at
the races are traditional British pastimes. Clearly, none of us
want to change that. However, the publication of this important
White Paper comes in part because of the relentless efforts of
those with personal experiences of problem gambling. As gambling
has moved into the digital age, far too many people have suffered
from outdated regulation which has left them or their loved ones,
friends and family exposed to significant and sustained
gambling-related risk. People will have lost many thousands of
pounds because existing safer gambling initiatives were not
properly implemented or enforced, sometimes over several years.
Many will have fallen into desperate debt, not just for
themselves but, of course, impacting on family life. Tragically,
some have paid an even bigger price. We should reflect on the
fact that lives have been lost completely and unnecessarily.
While this White Paper may not contain all that campaigners hoped
for, I pay tribute to them today for their tenacity. We have
waited a significant amount of time for this Statement. The
Government launched their review of the Gambling Act 2005 back in
December 2020. Yes, these matters are complex; yes, the
department received a significant number of responses, and yes,
there is a balance to be struck, as many people enjoy gambling in
moderation. Of course, the sector itself supports in excess of
100,000 jobs. But why has it taken so long for the Government to
bring these proposals forward? We have seen multiple Ministers
with responsibility for the review; at my last count, six
Gambling Ministers and four Secretaries of State for Culture,
Media and Sport have promised this White Paper imminently. We
have had only a marginally smaller number of Prime Ministers:
three, possibly four. So, can the Minister blame those who feel
that their suffering has not been a priority for the Government?
Can he understand the concerns of some in the sector that
uncertainty has been allowed to last for such a long time?
Despite the delays, we welcome the fact that various measures
been announced, with many being things that we have long called
for and campaigned for. We are glad that the White Paper
recognises the significant difference between bricks-and-mortar
bingo halls and low-risk gambling and gaming centres, and the
unique dangers of the online world. We welcome proposals relating
to how online gambling sites will operate, the introduction of a
levy and the expansion in the remit of the Gambling Commission.
If properly implemented, these changes can make a significant
difference to the amount of gambling-related harm people
encounter, and improve the services available to those who have
been affected by it.
However, and as ever, we need to see some more detail. While it
is important that some measures are subject to further
consultation, we hope it will not take another three and a half
years for further decisions to be made. In another place, the
Minister said that many of the changes in the White Paper will be
brought forward via statutory instruments to speed up
implementation. That is welcome, but is the Minister able to
comment on how many SIs will be required and when we are likely
to see them?
For matters that require primary legislation, can we expect to
see a Bill in the next Session? The White Paper contains no fewer
than 30 references to “when parliamentary time allows”—hardly an
indication that these matters are being prioritised.
While I am asking questions, could the Minister have a go at
answering some which were not addressed by his Commons colleague
last week? Will the Gambling Commission be given additional
resources? The National Audit Office previously raised concerns
about the body’s capacity. If its remit is being extended without
appropriate resourcing, that problem can only get worse. Who will
set rules in relation to new affordability checks? Will they be
set independently of the sector or will it be up to providers?
What other initiatives, if any, are the Government looking at for
under-18s who encounter loot boxes and other in-game features,
which may not qualify as gambling but exhibit or promote similar
qualities and behaviours?
Once again, we welcome this important White Paper. Reducing the
harm caused by gambling is vital. We are glad that this will
seemingly be done in a way that does not disadvantage the
lower-risk premises that sustain communities across the country,
especially in rural and coastal towns. Far too much time has
already been wasted, so we hope that the Government and the
Gambling Commission will now move quickly to implement the key
reforms and consult smartly on the rest.
(LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling
Reform. We have known since the advent of the smartphone, giving
everyone a casino in their pocket, that gambling legislation and
regulation were out of date. Online gambling and wall-to-wall TV
and radio advertising, coupled with online marketing—not least
inducements such as a free bets and VIP offers—have led to
thousands of lives being ruined.
For too long the Government have failed to hold big gambling
companies to account—companies that, as we saw from the recent
William Hill case, prioritise their annual £14 billion profits
over customer care and that get the majority of those profits
from problem gamblers. We have at least 350,000 such problem
gamblers, including almost 60,000 children. This has, in turn,
ruined the lives of around 2 million other people. Tragically,
over 400 people a year take their own life because of gambling.
Of course, it has also cost the nation billions of pounds.
The Government promised reforms back in 2019, but this White
Paper has been constantly delayed by chaos, infighting and—as we
have just heard—six gambling Ministers since the review was
launched. So hundreds of people in that time have tragically
taken their own life and thousands more have seen theirs
devastated. None the less, the proposals in the White Paper are
important and welcome steps in the right direction. At last, they
are based on the recognition that gambling should be treated as a
public health issue.
They respond directly to the key measures proposed by Peers for
Gambling Reform and other campaign groups. Measures recommended
by your Lordships’ Select Committee on gambling some three years
ago included light-touch affordability checks, stake limits
online, a statutory levy—so that all gambling companies
contribute fairly and adequately to research, education and
treatment—more effective redress mechanisms for individual
gamblers and further limits on advertising and marketing. Online
gambling products are designed to be addictive, with features
such as high stakes and prizes, fast speed of play and the
illusion of player control. We strongly welcome proposals to
address these issues.
Does the Minister agree there should be parity online with, for
instance, stakes in land-based venues, so that casino slot limits
are set at £2? It has already taken too long, as we have heard.
We should be implementing these and other proposals. What is the
timeframe for consultation on these measures and when will they
actually be in place?
In relation to affordability checks, given that the average
household disposable income is £500 a month and the industry
itself classifies gambling more than £75 a month as high spend,
can the Minister explain why the White Paper’s proposed
unsustainable loss trigger is 10 times that amount?
Given that the White Paper acknowledges that online gamblers use
accounts with several different companies, why do the proposals
consider only the “possibility” of a single, cross-company
approach? Should there not be a single, independently run system
of affordability checks?
We strongly welcome the proposals for a statutory levy. However,
the White Paper is silent on the detail. Does the Minister at
least agree that it should be a smart levy, based on the polluter
pays principle, so that those that cause the most harm pay the
most? How much money do the Government want to see raised?
We understand that primary legislation is needed to introduce a
fully-fledged ombudsman, so we welcome the proposals for interim
improved player redress. Will the Minister commit to introducing
the necessary legislation to go even further as soon as
possible?
We also welcome proposals to address some of the gambling
companies’ marketing activities, such as free spins, free bets
and bonuses. However, we are extremely disappointed that very
little is being done to reduce the way in which we are all
bombarded by gambling advertising. The Premier League’s voluntary
decision to phase out gambling logos on shirt fronts is surely an
acknowledgement that advertising is harmful—although, of course,
you will still see gambling advertisements around the grounds, in
matchday programmes and even on players’ shirtsleeves. There is
clear research showing that advertising leads to people starting
to gamble, leads existing gamblers to gamble more and leads those
who have stopped to start again. Why would the industry spent
£1.5 billion a year on marketing if it was not to boost its
profits? Other countries are taking action to ban or restrict
gambling advertising. The majority of the British public want us
to do the same. Why is more not being proposed in this
country?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I say that my biggest concern
is the delay in implementation. Can the Minister confirm that
there are to be at least 12 separate consultations requiring the
Gambling Commission to have no fewer than 30 workstreams? How
long must we wait for the outcome of all this work? The review of
the Gambling Commission’s funding is not planned until next year:
will this not further delay the commission recruiting extra staff
to do the necessary work, causing further delay?
Overall, while there are some welcome proposals, it is absurd
that so many are subject to further consultation, given that
there is already a wealth of information and research evidence
and there has been plenty of time to look at the details of these
measures. Further delay will lead to more lives, families and
communities being ruined. Surely the Government should stop
dithering and implement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Culture, Media and Sport ( of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the broad welcome in both noble
Lords’ remarks for this work. I am conscious that I have stood at
this Dispatch Box many times and promised that it will be coming
soon, so it is a relief for me to be able to change the script
and talk now on some of the detail—and I know it will be a
delight to your Lordships’ House as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, began by talking about the
importance of the industry to seaside towns and communities. As I
am from a seaside town, I share his sentiments on that. We are
conscious, in taking the action that we have, that we are talking
about an industry that provides many jobs and contributes to the
UK economy, and in which millions of people participate with no
harm.
We are conscious too of the huge changes we have seen in gambling
since the 2005 Act, not least with the advent of the smartphone
and the availability of gambling opportunities for people in
their pocket, as well as the changed nature of the advertising
and exhortations to play. That is why the consultation we held
deserved careful thought, and why many people fed into it. We are
very grateful to all who did. It is why it is right that gambling
Ministers and Secretaries of State—there has been more than one
during the process—have had time to interrogate that information
and bring it forward. I am grateful to your Lordships’ Select
Committee and to Peers for Gambling Reform, who I met earlier
with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and to others who have fed into
that process and who continue to do so.
The noble Lord asked why further consultation is needed. The
White Paper sets a clear strategic direction, based on the call
for evidence and the consultation we held, but the Government
have a duty to follow due process and to consult on detailed
proposals, including their impact. There is a difference between
the consultation that led to the White Paper, on what to do and
whether to do it, and the consultation now on how to do it. That
will make sure that we get the details right in complex areas
such as the levy, and minimise the risk of legal challenge, which
would only cause further delay and frustration to people such as
the noble Lord.
We will work with the Gambling Commission, the industry and
others to implement these proposals as swiftly as possible. We
will ensure that the consultations have timeframes that are no
longer than needed for fair consultation. The consultations will
be published by the summer, and we intend all the main measures
to be in force by next summer. We expect to make announcements on
some measures within weeks.
I turn to the questions about the Gambling Commission. As I said
when last speaking on this topic at the Dispatch Box, the
Gambling Commission has shown that it can regulate the industry
effectively and stand up to the biggest operators when
required—it is taking more direct action. Of course, we work with
the commission regularly: Ministers meet its chairman and chief
executive on a regular basis. The review took a close look at the
commission’s powers and resources, and the White Paper sets out a
range of actions that will be taken.
On resources, the Secretary of State’s Oral Statement in another
place addressed the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam.
She said that
“my Department will ensure that the Gambling Commission has the
appropriate resources to support this work and deliver the
commitments in the White Paper”,—[Official Report, Commons,
27/4/23; col. 942.]
but we will continue to discuss that with the Gambling
Commission.
On stake limits, anyone can walk into a betting shop and play
anonymously, but all online gambling is account based. Operators
have a detailed understanding of the person playing and whether
they are at risk of suffering harm. We will consult on a limit
between £2 and £15 and on options including a lower limit for
people under 25, who the evidence suggests can be at a higher
risk of harm. We look forward to the information that will be fed
in there.
On affordability checks, we considered a range of data and the
Gambling Commission’s advice in deciding the proposed thresholds
for consultation. This included the current levels of harm,
estimates of disposable income and current spending patterns.
Light-touch checks start at £125 net loss per month, to help
protect people for whom even relatively modest losses could be
harmful. They escalate to more detailed checks at a higher level.
But these proposals are subject to consultation by the Gambling
Commission. I know that will frustrate noble Lords who want to
see swift action, but we want to make sure that we get this right
and take into account the challenges here. We are mindful of the
impacts that this has on people and their families.
As noble Lords have heard me say, while doing that work we have
not delayed taking the action we can take in the meantime: we
have cut the stakes on fixed- odds betting terminals, banned
gambling on credit cards, brought in reforms to online VIP
schemes, introduced new limits to make online slots safer, and
upgraded rules on identifying and intervening to protect people
who show signs of harm online. We want to tackle some of the
challenges that are unique to online gambling. I look forward to
continuing to work with noble Lords, with more to get our teeth
stuck into now. I am grateful to them for their work so far.
16:33:00
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome unequivocally the direction of travel of this
White Paper. How could I do otherwise, when all the Government’s
recommendations were among those of your Lordships’ Select
Committee on gambling harms, which I had the privilege of serving
as chairman?
I heard what the Minister said about consultation. This reminds
me of the great saying in the film industry, “Hurry up and wait”,
when you get to the location and everybody is standing around,
ready, but nothing happens. We are ready to go with this. None of
the recommendations I saw in the White Paper requires primary
legislation; they can be got on with. I heard what the Minister
said about the need for consultation, but there were 60,000
responses to the consultation that led to the White Paper. How
long will it take to have more consultations? That is a
concern.
My overriding concern is that the track record of the Gambling
Commission hitherto has been very dilatory. A lot of the toxicity
in the gambling sector was due to the Gambling Commission being
asleep on the job in those days. It has certainly improved its
performance, but I seek assurances from the Minister that its
feet will be held to the fire in a way that they have not been
hitherto, given the need to reduce harm as soon as possible. I am
sure that the message from the House at the end of this session
will be: please get on with it now.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I had the pleasure of serving on your Lordships’ committee that
looked into this matter, under the chairmanship of my noble
friend. I am pleased to say that the more than 50 recommendations
of its report have been taken forward in this work. We want new
protections to be in force quickly. As your Lordships’ committee,
and my noble friend, pointed out, many of these new protections
do not require waiting for primary legislation. We will bring
forward changes through Gambling Commission licence conditions
for operators and through secondary legislation. For measures
that require primary legislation, that will be when parliamentary
time allows.
The commission has taken a more interventionist and aggressive
stance. In 2022-23, operators were required to pay more than £60
million in penalties, with William Hill recently paying a record
£19.2 million because of its failings. The commission is taking
the action we need, and Ministers meet its chief exec and
chairman regularly to continue to discuss that.
(Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests: I am a trustee of
GambleAware, I am on the advisory group of the Behavioural
Insights Team, I am a vice-chair of Peers for Gambling Reform and
I also served on the Select Committee. There is lots to welcome.
I do not want to go through every issue, but one that I am
concerned about is the position of young people who are tempted
into gambling through some sports, particularly football. There
is simply not enough in the White Paper that deals with that.
From research, we know that nearly half of 11 to 17 year-olds
report seeing gambling adverts on social media at least weekly.
We know that half of children’s sections in football matchday
programmes feature gambling sponsors. Anybody who goes to
football on a regular basis knows that the whole game has been
almost taken over by the gambling industry: you cannot go to a
match without having it in your face. What the Premier League
will do, welcome as it is, is far too partial and small, and it
is not for all of football. We need to do this so that many young
people are not led into things that they then cannot control.
Nothing in the White Paper helps us with that.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness—we had the opportunity
briefly to discuss this with some officials earlier, and I know
that she will continue to take the opportunities to do that as we
implement this. She is right to point to the importance of
sponsorship in sport and its impact on children. With the reforms
we have made to advertising that has the greatest appeal to
children, we have taken action in this area.
The most prominent branding on players’ kits is of course on the
front of their shirts. It is not just what people see on the
television; it is on the shirts that young supporters buy and
wear. So we welcome the action taken to remove that; it is the
most effective restriction to break the association. The White
Paper sets out further detail: sports bodies are working together
to design and implement a cross-sport code of conduct to raise
standards for gambling sponsorship across the sector. There is
detail in the White Paper and more work to be done.
(Con)
My Lords, I have two questions for my noble friend the Minister.
I congratulate him on finally producing the White Paper, which
has 256 pages. However, there are two bits missing, so to speak,
the first of which is about how these policies will be subject to
parliamentary oversight. It is not clear how the Gambling
Commission will receive policy decisions from the Government and
how it will be accountable to DCMS and Parliament. Secondly,
careful reading of the White Paper reveals that, “when
parliamentary time allows”, the Government will replace the
requirement for the Gambling Commission’s fees to be subject
either to the Secretary of State’s approval or to secondary
legislation. Does that mean that the Gambling Commission will be
able to set any fee it wishes without any oversight from
Parliament? The Gambling Commission has not covered itself in
glory in the last few years, and it will have to raise its game
if it is to take on these significant responsibilities. I declare
that I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Racing and
Bloodstock Industries Group and that I own a horse, which I hope
to put a bet on when it runs next month.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The precise design of the levy will be decided by consultation,
following which we will introduce the levy by secondary
legislation, affording an opportunity for debate in your
Lordships’ House and in another place. The Act is clear that all
spending on the levy must be approved by DCMS and His Majesty’s
Treasury. We do not direct the Gambling Commission on its
regulation of gambling more widely—it is an independent
regulator—but we work closely together on matters pertaining to
this review, and DCMS Ministers will continue to be involved as
financial risk checks are developed.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to Betway, as
declared in the register. I join in welcoming the White Paper. At
a time when over 22 million people enjoy a bet each month and
when problem gambling has fallen to 0.2% from 0.3% the previous
year, can the Minister elaborate on the measures being taken to
promote a level playing field for the betting and gambling
industry? More specifically, what measures are being taken to
reduce the unregulated black market, where there are no
protections for young children, no affordability checks, no
ombudsman and no tax levied?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right and, as my right honourable friend the
Secretary of State set out in her Statement in another place, we
are conscious that this is something that millions of people do
for enjoyment with their own money and without harm. We are also
conscious of the significant changes to gambling since Parliament
last legislated on this matter in a substantial way through the
2005 Act. That is why we held the consultation, have taken action
and are carrying on with that work in the meantime. The noble
Lord is also right to point to the dangers of the black market.
We are very mindful of where people will turn if we do not get
this right.
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the executive of
Peers for Gambling Reform. I welcome the contents of the White
Paper on gambling, which, at last, takes us forward in helping
those trapped by addiction to gambling. However, I was extremely
disappointed to see that gambling advertising continues unabated;
it is virtually impossible to avoid. TV advert breaks all include
the dubious benefits and enjoyment of gambling. Similarly, radio
stations are peppered with adverts for the large sums of money
that can be claimed for the price of a £2 phone call. Can the
Minister say why that invidious advertising has not been tackled
in the White Paper?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
We have been led by a close assessment of the latest evidence on
the impact of advertising, which suggests that there is little
evidence to show that exposure to advertising leads directly to
harmful gambling. However, we recognise that it can have a
disproportionate impact on those already suffering harm, and our
aim therefore is to tackle aggressive practices. Robust rules are
already in place to ensure that advertising is socially
responsible and that it cannot be targeted at children, as I
mentioned earlier. New rules were introduced recently to
strengthen protections for children and vulnerable adults.
Targeted restrictions on advertising are just one part of our
wider approach to protections, which also includes making
products safer and introducing financial risk checks.
(Lab)
My Lords, there is much to be welcomed in the White Paper, but I
share the concerns expressed by the previous speakers, including,
in particular, the timetable. What I welcome in the White
Paper—and, in doing so, I declare my interest as a member of the
advisory committee of the Money and Mental Health Policy
Institute—is that it recognises that the harm caused by gambling
is psychological as well as financial. We need to understand
better the relationship between gambling and poor mental health.
It is bidirectional: gambling leads to mental health problems;
people with mental health problems have problems with
gambling.
The White Paper identifies the need for better research,
particularly longitudinal research and research into the causal
relationships involved. It is a shame that the Secretary of State
did not include a reference to the psychology of gambling in the
original Statement, so can the Minister say something about that?
There is also the issue of treatment. If we establish the
principle that the polluter pays, there must be an important role
for the gambling industry to fund the development of a treatment,
which is so clearly needed to help those caught in its grasp.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I mentioned some of the work which has already been taken forward
to help vulnerable people. The noble Lord is right to point to
people with mental health difficulties and the differential
impact that gambling can have on them. Through some of the action
we have taken on VIP schemes and other schemes, we know that when
addicted people break free from the temptation to gamble, they
are drawn back into the orbit of online companies with offers of
free bets or free spins, so that is another area in which we are
taking action. The research continues, and it will continue to
inform the approach we take. The latest evidence available was
fed into the review we have concluded, but, as further research
is conducted, we look forward to analysing it too.
(Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as the chair of GambleAware.
Like many others, I too welcome the publication of the White
Paper and the greater provision of protections from harms caused
by gambling. People in the most deprived neighbourhoods are more
than twice as likely to experience gambling harm than those in
the least deprived; and, despite being less likely to gamble,
those from minority communities are far more likely to experience
gambling harm than those from white British majority groups.
These disparities of harm show how important it is to ensure that
gambling harm prevention and treatment are treated as a serious
public health issue. However, tackling this effectively as a
public health issue requires collaborative working across central
and local government, the NHS and the third sector. It also
requires long-term strategic planning and secure, long-term
funding, including, for instance, the training and recruitment of
specialist staff. The current unfairness and uncertainty—as well
as the distractions and, frankly, the jockeying for position
associated with the current voluntary funding arrangements—have
been obvious and have persisted for too long. So, while I welcome
the Minister’s assurance that the consultations will be concluded
as swiftly as possible, I ask that thought be given to whether
the statutory levy, which will allow for the certainty required
to tackle gambling harms, might be one of the provisions
introduced prior to next summer. We simply cannot wait that
long.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I pay tribute to the work my noble friend does with GambleAware
in this important area. We welcome the efforts we have seen from
the industry to increase contributions to research, education and
treatment, but it is vital, as she says, that the system provides
long-term funding certainty for organisations that are delivering
crucial services, and that the money is completely trusted. We
know that the NHS and some researchers will not take money from
the voluntary levy, for fear of being compromised by the
industry. So, we will consult on how the levy is constructed and
how the funding might be directed. As the Gambling Act requires,
it will be collected by the Gambling Commission, with spending
signed off by the Treasury and DCMS. As I said earlier, we will
launch a detailed consultation this summer on the details of the
statutory levy, and our priority is that sufficient funding is
available and being used effectively where it is needed most.
The Lord
My Lords, I echo the concerns that have been expressed about
advertising, particularly the susceptibility of youngsters to it,
but I want to raise a different question. Can the Minister
explain the rationale for increasing the number of gambling
machines, which are already deeply unpopular with local
authorities, require more policing due to the antisocial
behaviour associated with them, and often, as was said by the
previous speaker, are targeted at poorer areas?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
Submissions to our call for evidence were clear that online slots
are likely to be the highest risk products, hence the work
outlined in the White Paper addressing the risks of those and
other products. Restrictive regulations on the number of gaming
machines in a venue no longer make sense when it is possible to
use a smartphone to gamble anywhere, 24/7. In fact, they can
increase harm by making players reluctant to take breaks. What is
important is the quality of supervision and monitoring that
customers receive in land-based venues. We are maintaining and
strengthening the protections for customers that are required in
these venues, and we are still requiring operators to offer
customers different types of gambling opportunities.
(CB)
I refer the House to my entries in the register of interests,
including concerning analysis of the sector’s economic impact on
communities across the UK. What will be the Government’s criteria
for the success of the single customer view pilot, and how long
does the Minister expect that analysis to run?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
I cannot give the noble Lord precise answers to that, but I will
write to him with the details I am able to furnish at this
point.
(Con)
My Lords, while I welcome most of the White Paper, why was there
only scant and brief reference in it to the National Lottery and
society lotteries, which are an incredibly important part of
raising money for charity, particularly society lotteries, which
raise a great deal of money for good causes in local areas? They
face a major disadvantage compared to the National Lottery
because of the limits placed on them: for example, the current
legal limit for society lotteries is a maximum prize of £25,000
or 10% of the draw proceeds, plus a strict annual limit. There
are even tighter limits on smaller society lotteries. Why can we
not bring society lotteries in line with the National Lottery, so
as to encourage more local people to support these really good
local causes?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right to point to the importance of society
lotteries for fundraising, and indeed of the National Lottery. As
Minister for Heritage, I have the privilege of working with the
National Lottery Heritage Fund, which distributes many millions
to excellent causes across the United Kingdom. The National
Lottery is unique and has its own regulatory framework, with
player protection at its heart. There are bespoke levers for
player protection purposes, licence conditions, the Gambling
Commission’s duties and powers and conditions of approval for
individual National Lottery games. Evidence shows that National
Lottery games are associated with the lowest risks of problem
gambling of all gambling products considered, but we have still
raised the age for taking part in the National Lottery to 18, to
make sure that we continue to afford the protections to the
youngest players which all noble Lords want to see.
|
