The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture,
Media and Sport ()
Mr Speaker, I hope you will accept my apologies for any offence
caused by some of the information already being out there. I can
assure you that the full details and the call for evidence
document are only just now being released and made available on
the gov.uk website, precisely to coincide with this statement,
but I understand and accept what you said.
The Gambling Act has been the basis of virtually all gambling
regulation in the UK since 2005, but a huge amount has changed
since then. The internet and the prevalence of smartphones have
transformed the way we work, play, shop and gamble. We can now
gamble anywhere at any time. It is time to take stock of the
significant changes of the last 15 years and to pull our legal
and regulatory framework into the digital age, so today, we are
launching the first part of our comprehensive review of the
Gambling Act. It will be a wide-ranging and evidence-led look at
the industry, and it will consider the many issues that have been
raised by parliamentarians and many other stakeholders. We want
to listen, gather the evidence and think deeply about what we
need for the next decade and beyond.
Nearly half the adult population gambles each month and, for the
majority of people, gambling is a fun and carefree leisure
activity. It is also a sector that supports 100,000 jobs and pays
nearly £3 billion a year in taxes. However, we know that, in some
cases, gambling can cause significant damage to people’s lives,
including mental health problems, relationship breakdown, debt
and, in extreme cases, suicide. We must ensure that our
regulatory and legislative framework delivers on a core aim of
the 2005 Act: the protection of children and vulnerable people in
a fair, open and crime-free gambling economy.
This review will seek to strike a careful balance between giving
individuals the freedom to choose how they spend their own money,
while protecting vulnerable people and their families from
gambling-related harm. We will look at whether we should
introduce new protections on online products and consumer
accounts, including stake and prize limits, and how we can ensure
that children and young people are protected. We will also
consider gambling advertising, including sports sponsorship,
while taking into account the extremely difficult financial
situation that many sports organisations and broadcasters find
themselves in as a result of covid. We will look at redress
arrangements for consumers where, for example, an operator has
failed to step in to help a problem gambler. We will consider
barriers to effective research on the causes and impact of
problem gambling, and we will consider whether the Gambling
Commission is keeping pace with the licensed sector and can
effectively deal with unlicensed operators. We will also ensure
that we have a fair playing field for online and offline
gambling.
Many of those areas were highlighted in a thought-provoking
report by the House of Lords Select Committee. That report and
others have helped to inform our thinking and our desire to
ensure that the review is wide in scope, and we are publishing
our response to the Lords report alongside the review. I also
know that Members across the House have seen evidence from their
constituents about the harm that gambling can do to individuals
and their families. We want to hear from the people whose lives
have been affected by gambling, as well as from academics and the
gambling industry, so that we have the evidence to deliver real
and lasting change. We are therefore starting the review with a
call for evidence, which will run for 16 weeks and is now
available on the gov.uk website.
While this review is an opportunity to consider changes for the
future, we are also taking action now to protect people from
gambling harm. The Gambling Commission will continue to build on
recent progress to strengthen protections as the industry
regulator. Our ban on gambling with credit cards came into force
in April, and new tighter rules on VIP schemes were implemented
at the end of October. Further work is also in progress on the
design of online slot games, as well as on how operators identify
and intervene to protect customers who may be at risk, including
through affordability checks. We have also just closed a call for
evidence on loot boxes, and the Department of Health and Social
Care will keep working to improve and expand treatment for
problem gambling.
A key priority is ensuring that we have the right protections for
children and young people and, again, that cannot wait. To that
end, we are also today publishing a response to the consultation
on the minimum age to play national lottery games. Since its
launch in 1994, the national lottery has been a tremendous
success, raising more than £42 billion for good causes. Since
1994, its games portfolio has evolved significantly, while
consumers have shifted towards online play and instant win games
such as scratchcards. While evidence shows that most 16 and
17-year-olds do not experience gambling-related harm from playing
the national lottery, some recent studies point to a possible
correlation between national lottery play at 16 and 17 and
problem gambling in later life. Moreover, few other countries
allow 16 and 17-year-olds to purchase their national lottery
products.
Protecting young people from the risk of gambling-related harm is
of paramount importance. We have therefore decided to increase
the minimum age of the sale of all national lottery games to the
age of 18. We are keen to make this change at pace while being
acutely aware of the need to give retailers and the operator time
to ensure a smooth transition. The legislative change will
therefore come into force in October 2021, but we have asked
that, where it can be done sooner, it is—for example, online. So
under current plans, national lottery sales to 16 and
17-year-olds will stop online in April 2021.
The review we are starting today will be an opportunity to look
at the wider rules on children and gambling, and to make sure
they are suitably protected across all forms of gambling. I know
many colleagues will welcome the launch of this review today and
will be pleased to see us living up to our commitments in the
2019 manifesto. We intend to be broad, thorough and evidence led,
so that we can ensure our gambling laws are fit for purpose in
the 2020s and beyond. I commend this statement to the House.
13:57:00
(Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement. On behalf
of the Opposition, I welcome the main measures that the
Government have announced today, and I certainly welcome the
beginning of this process of review and reform. Many Members
across the House and in the other place have worked very hard
indeed to get us to this place. I will not mention individuals
specifically, not least because I am sure they will speak for
themselves shortly, but we owe them a debt for bringing this
issue to the fore. I thank all of them, because when people work
across the House and across party political barriers in pursuit
of the public interest, it is Parliament at its best.
This is only the beginning of the process to get the reforms that
we need on gambling, so it is disappointing that the Government
have taken more than a year to launch this review, during which
time we know there are still people who may be suffering.
Gambling addiction is highly serious, and we know that we have
not got the right support in place. So the delay has a cost,
which is why we need to move forward together and swiftly now.
What we need is fit-for-purpose regulation which can keep up with
the changing nature of gambling online, both on the smartphones
that we all carry and in the environment around us all the time.
We believe that the law in this area should be approached from a
public health perspective to protect the vulnerable and
particularly children and young people—I think the Minister would
accept that—but to allow others who choose to do so to gamble
safely. The Minister mentioned that UK gambling legislation is
some 15 years old and it is hard to quantify the technological
change that we have all experienced during that time. If somebody
had told me in 2005 precisely what the phone in my pocket would
have the capacity to do by this point, even I would have been
shocked. We need to bring the legislation up to date. There is
not a moment to lose.
Millions of people enjoy gambling in a safe way, but, as I have
said, given the speed of change, vulnerable people should be
protected. Age verification must be taken seriously.
The pace of technological change has wider ramifications. Apps,
games and online advertising within apps have shown the dangers
when we are not able to future-proof legislation. Will the
Minister confirm that the review will address not just problems
that we know of now, but that we will use the opportunity to try
to anticipate future changes? That will not always be possible,
but we should at least attempt to do so.
In the review, we would like the Government to adopt the
following approach, particularly in considering the legislation
that we need. We know from the pandemic that public health must
come first, and that is my first question to the Minister. Will
he confirm that we will be taking a public health approach in the
review?
Secondly, of course people are free to choose what they wish to
do in a free country, but will the Minister confirm that the
Government take their responsibility to protect people from harm
seriously and that the review will attempt to quantify that harm
so that we can target the right measures effectively to reduce it
over time?
Thirdly, the legislation must be evidence-based. I do not think
anyone in this House is any longer a sceptic of experts, but just
to make sure, could the Minister confirm that public health
experts will be able to contribute fully and transparently, so
that people will be able to understand the evidence that the
Government rest on?
Fourthly, all towns across the country should be able to enjoy
the benefit of having a sports club at the heart of their
community. Many rugby league clubs, football clubs and other
sports have long-standing relationships with gambling companies.
Will the Minister take those relationships into consideration? We
are expecting another review—a fan-led review of football—and I
do not think it makes a lot of sense to commence the gambling
review without that football review alongside it. Where the
issues interconnect, we can handle them both together. Will the
Minister bring forward the fan-led review of football to start
without further delay?
Finally, on consumer protection, companies operating for
financial gain should not be able to exploit anybody,
particularly the young and vulnerable, so will he make sure that
consumers have better rights in this area? Will people have
access to their own data—I am thinking of where people are
targeted online with adverts and so on? Will the review also look
at the unlicensed operators, who are one of the most worrying
aspects in this area?
We welcome the review. We want to see it happen in a way that is
collaborative across both sides of the House and among all
stakeholders in the country, because that is the best way to make
sure that it is a success. Many people in this country enjoy
gambling. Everybody has the right to spend their own money
enjoying themselves. However, where a harm is clear, the
Government have a duty and responsibility to tackle it.
I thank the hon. Lady for the tone of her response and for
welcoming the review. She is absolutely right that the measures
in the review and the scope of the review have been supported by
hon. Members on both sides of this Chamber and many individuals
have campaigned on these issues for a long period of time.
On timing, it is important to recognise that we do not wait for
the periodic reviews. We are not waiting for necessary future
legislation. We have acted and will continue to act as and when
necessary. Just this year, for example, we banned the use of
gambling with credit cards. We have made further restrictions on
VIP schemes. There is the mandatory participation in GamStop, for
example, and the announcement today about the changes with
national lottery is testament to the fact that the Government are
willing and able to take action. There was also action just last
year on fixed-odds betting terminals.
In terms of future-proofing, no Government can guarantee to
future proof, but certainly the intent is for the scope to be
broad and wide, recognising, for example, changes in technology
and what that could mean for using information intelligently to
identify potential problem gamblers, as well as looking at the
scope of the Gambling Commission itself.
In terms of evidence, we are looking for evidence from all
sources, including all those that the hon. Lady suggested—from
health and from academics. We welcome the participation of
anybody willing and able to participate in this review with
evidence.
The hon. Lady made an important point on sport. As sports
Minister—we both cover sport—I know the challenges that the
sporting sector faces, so we need to make sure that any changes
are proportionate. Indeed, as she knows, we intend formally to
kick off the football governance review as soon as possible.
Informally, it has already begun. Other areas such as redress and
the black market will absolutely form part of the review.
(Solihull) (Con)
No longer is gambling a case of just nipping down the bookies. We
now live in a world dominated online with sophisticated
algorithms and increasing artificial intelligence. Will the
Minister assure the House and me that the review will place at
its centre the oversight of algorithms in push marketing and
fairness in bet exchanges, and that that will dovetail with
robust age verification on social media platforms? In addition,
when will we see the legislation to curb the menace of loot
boxes? As a side point, on the banning of national lottery sales
online, why do we have to wait until April next year? Surely,
that is something that could be actioned relatively quickly.
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture,
Media and Sport for, as always, valuable comments. On using
technology intelligently, I absolutely agree with him—it is vital
that we do so to identify problem gambling and issues of
affordability, and that that forms part of the future-proofing of
the sector.
The loot-box issue is being addressed. We have issued a call for
evidence, which concluded on 22 November, and we will introduce
recommendations shortly. On the lottery changes, as I say, we
have had conversations with key stakeholders. We want to move as
soon as possible. The target date of 1 October is the latest date
for changes. We want to bring the online changes forward as soon
as possible, but there are notifications, technology changes and
logistical considerations, as well as training considerations. It
is not the kind of thing that can occur overnight, but we have
had productive conversations with the operators to make sure that
we can implement the measures as soon as possible.
(Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Minister for prior sight of the statement. I welcome
the overall messages in it, as they touch on many of the issues
that have blighted the industry and caused great harm to many
people for far too long. There is a great deal to discuss, and I
shall keep a beady eye on the process and progress of the review.
In the time allotted to me, may I thank the Minister for making
it clear that the evidence-led inquiry will include those who
have been harmed and the families of those who have lost someone
to suicide as a result of gambling addiction? Lived experience is
crucial to inform the review. However, I am concerned that the
Minister has caveated his concerns about advertising with the
financial difficulties faced by sports organisations and
broadcasters. The reduction of harm must be front and centre in
the review, and must not be undermined by the eye-watering
financial demands of premier-league football teams.
On the national lottery, there is no excuse for delaying the
enforcement of the increased age limitation offline for 10
months. May I ask that the timescale is revisited or at least
justified? I did not read anything in the statement about the
voluntary levy. We need a statutory levy that funds research,
education and support. That money should be paid to the UK and
devolved Parliaments before being channelled to the appropriate
service providers. Research into gambling harm must not be funded
by voluntary contributions from the industry that causes the
harm.
Finally, many people, including members of the all-party
parliamentary group on gambling-related harm, will scrutinise the
outcome of the review. May I offer a friendly warning to the
Minister? We will not be fobbed off with a partial review, and we
will not accept second-best.
I can confirm that the experience of those with lived experience
will form part of the review. In fact, the Secretary of State and
I have met many victims and their families, and we will continue
to do so. On sport, if there is evidence of harm from sponsorship
and advertising, we will act. On the other considerations that
the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I can assure him that if people
have evidence, for example, that a levy is an alternative model,
we would welcome those submissions in the review. I welcome the
scrutiny that he and others will give to the review as it
progresses.
(Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, which marks the
beginning of a real sea change in our attitude towards the
gambling abuses that have taken place. On that point, I pay
tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (), whose chairing of the all-party parliamentary group
on gambling related harm has been phenomenal, and to the vice
chair, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (). We have worked very hard together to try to drive
this moment. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we
want all the evidence we have taken over the last couple of years
to be part of the inquiry. I would also like the all-party
parliamentary group to appear in front of it.
May I press my hon. Friend on one particular point? He knows
about the abuse of VIP schemes and about the behaviour of the
gambling companies, which have been appalling in the way they
have used people. Is it not now time, instead of looking only at
the powers of the Gambling Commission, to get rid of the Gambling
Commission altogether and institute a body as powerful as, say,
Ofcom or all the other bodies that monitor and regulate these
industries? Now is the time to make bold moves, to make sure we
get proper control and that the abuses and the addiction end.
I thank my right hon. Friend for all his work in this important
area, and the people he mentioned who have also campaigned for
such a long time. We know that there have been problems with VIP
schemes. We have acted on them already, but that does not mean
that further action is not necessary. I am confident that the
evidence-led review may reveal further options and avenues. I
welcome his input into all areas under consideration. As I said,
the Gambling Commission’s scope and resources are part of that
review. I welcome his further comments.
(Swansea East) (Lab)
The architects of the Gambling Act 2005 could never have
anticipated that by 2020 technology would allow phones, tablets
and computers to become 24/7 limitless gambling hubs. For far too
many, this has led to devastation, demoralisation and, at worst,
death. Can the Government assure the House that the voices of
bereaved families, those with lived experience, campaign groups
and colleagues and friends from right across the House will be
given the same consideration when feeding into this review as the
well-resourced, confrontational and relentless gambling lobby,
whose sole motivation is profit, not people?
I thank the hon. Lady for her ongoing campaign in this important
area. We have had many conversations on this, and I know her
passion for change. I can confirm that those with lived
experience and the families of those impacted will absolutely
play a key role in the review. We welcome their evidence. As has
already been suggested, some evidence has been brought forward in
various other reviews and reports that we have seen in the House,
and we welcome re-submissions of some of that data. The role of
those people is vital. We all know, through experiences and
interactions with our constituents, how devastating problem
gambling can be. I think the whole House recognises the need for
further action.
(North West Durham) (Con)
I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friends from the
all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm. I also
thank the Minister for his statement. I know that he has done a
lot of work in this area. It is good to hear that the review will
be broad and wide. However, can he clarify that, when he
mentioned parity between high street and online, he is not saying
that high-street casino gambling will be the same as online
casinos? Quite frankly, there should be one place where the
highest-stakes gambling can take place, and that is not in
people’s homes and bedrooms.
I also urge my hon. Friend to reflect on the Public Accounts
Committee’s report around an ombudsman service. Some points that
we raised were recommendations from the Public Accounts
Committee, particularly around redress for people who have
suffered real harm, and are really worth noting. I hope he will
take note of those considerations.
As I said, the role and scope of the Gambling Commission and
other areas will be under consideration. The point about the
land-based system versus the online world is that, as many have
mentioned, the world has changed considerably, and we want to
ensure that there is an even playing field in gambling. We need
to make sure that all forms of gambling are as safe as they
possibly can be. The goal of this review is to tackle harms as
much as possible, but also to make sure that the legitimate
gambling industry is on a safe footing for a sustainable future.
(Denton
and Reddish) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, but the Minister will understand that
the online harms Bill, when we get it, will have a crucial role
to play in this area. Big tech firms are allowing unregulated
black market gambling companies to promote on their websites, and
they are advertising to the under-18s. What does he think about
that, and what is he going to do about it?
The hon. Gentleman raises legitimate concerns about the black
market—the unlicensed industry, which does exist. This will form
part of the review. Part of it will include the scope,
responsibilities, powers and resources of the Gambling Commission
and regulatory bodies to deal with the black market. It is a very
important issue.
(Calder
Valley) (Con) [V]
As with all Government reviews, sectors and people fear that
Government do not take into account their concerns and often
adopt a “do to” rather than a “do with” attitude. What
discussions has my hon. Friend had with sporting bodies,
particularly in horse-racing and football, on the financial
implications that the review could have for their members?
We have had very few discussions so far about the specifics of
this review because we are only announcing its scope and the call
for evidence today. We certainly intend to have conversations
about the possible impact of some of the potential options on the
sports sector. I encourage all stakeholders, including all sports
bodies, to contribute to the review in the call for evidence that
we are announcing. We will be happy to have further discussions
about this with my hon. Friend and others.
(Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I welcome this review, and there is clearly a need for robust
action. The Minister will be aware that there have been claims
from the online gambling industry that regulation should be
moderated or it risks driving gamblers to the black market. Does
the Minister agree with the Gambling Commission that there is
absolutely no evidence for this? Does he also agree that if we
want to prevent the growth of the black market, regulation to
prevent harm is the solution, not the cause?
The hon. Gentleman expresses some legitimate concerns. One of the
great problems, of course, is that, by definition, it is almost
impossible to assess the size, scope and scale of the black
market, but where evidence does exist we will welcome it as part
of this review. We do recognise the problem, and that is why we
explicitly include the unlicensed market—the black market—in the
review. We need more work and more information, and we need to
decide what action needs to be taken to tackle it. It is a very
serious issue.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I welcome this review and the opportunity it presents to update
our regulations in the gambling and gaming sector. I know from my
time in the industry that some firms have gone above and beyond
in developing tools to help to prevent and identify problem
gambling. I hope that this review will be an opportunity to
formalise and spread best practice. As the Minister said, over
100,000 people are employed in the sector, including nearly 4,000
in north Staffordshire, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent
at my former employer, Bet365. Can my hon. Friend assure me, and
them, that the review will look to strike a balance,
acknowledging the enjoyment that millions of people from gambling
in a responsible manner and how important it is that people are
not driven to unlicensed operators where they would have neither
basic consumer protection nor the regulatory supervision that we
all want to see?
My hon. Friend is right to point out the dangers of the
unlicensed market and to point out that gambling is a legitimate
business in the UK, paying £3 billion in taxes and employing
about 100,000 people. However, the industry itself acknowledges
that harms can happen. It has played, and I expect it to continue
to play, an important role in identifying harms and what we can
do to minimise them. Its voice will be heard in this review, but
we all have a shared goal of making sure that we do everything we
can to minimise gambling harms.
(Glasgow East) (SNP)
I understand that today there is perhaps a focus on some of the
online gambling, but can I ask the Minister not to forget those
communities, such as in Glasgow East, where digital exclusion is
still a massive issue? In that vein, when are we going to
confront the fact that many of these working-class communities
where lottery ticket sales are higher do not actually see a lot
of the funding follow through? In my experience, it tends to go
to more middle class areas with professional fundraisers.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Again, the review is
very broad in scope for exactly this purpose. Comments,
information, data and evidence can be brought in to raise all
these issues, and they will be looked at carefully.
(Tewkesbury) (Con)
I welcome this review and also the Minister’s determination that
it should be evidence-based, consistent and balanced, but can I
join my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley () in
reminding him of the enormous contribution that betting companies
make to horse-racing? It is to the tune of about £350 million a
year, which is a very large amount to that sport, even in
ordinary times. At the moment, like other sports, it is going
through very difficult times, and without that contribution
horse-racing would not survive.
Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Horse-racing is
of course a vital industry in the UK. I can confirm that the levy
on horse-racing is not actually due for review till 2021; it is
not explicitly part of this review. However, on the role that
gambling has and the link with sport, we recognise that there are
some challenges, but also many upsides, and we will consider
those as part of this review.
(Barnsley
East) (Lab)
Following my question in April, I welcome today’s news that the
Government will extend the ban on under-18s gambling to the
national lottery, but the Minister will be aware that the recent
online ban on gambling with a credit card does not apply to the
lottery. If a betting shop in Barnsley rightly does not accept
gambling on a credit card, then why should it be allowed on the
national lottery?
I thank the hon. Lady. I am well aware of her campaigning on this
issue over a long period of time, and I thank her for that input.
There is a difference between lottery-based games and other forms
of gambling. There is evidence to suggest, for example, that the
gambling harm is lower in the lottery than in other forms of
gambling, and therefore there is a difference between the types.
As I say, however, this move is an important one today, and I
appreciate that she welcomes it.
(North
West Leicestershire) (Con)
Given that the recent Public Accounts Committee report on
gambling regulation declared that the Gambling Commission
“do not know what impact they are having on problem gambling, or
what measures would demonstrate whether regulation is working”,
will the Minister use the opportunity of the review to assess
whether the Gambling Commission itself is fit for purpose, or
needs to be replaced by a new body to provide the real leadership
needed on the issue of gambling regulation?
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am aware of the
comments made in the Public Accounts Committee report. I
appreciate the work that it and, indeed, many others have done in
providing input on this issue for a long period. As I have said,
I do not wish to pre-empt any of the conclusions of the review.
This is a call for evidence at this stage, and therefore
recommendations and suggestions for future regulation will be
welcome.
(Ogmore)
(Lab)
The Minister will be aware of some the work I do on social media,
and I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social
media. One of the key areas where we are seeing huge increases in
people taking up and partaking of gambling is through
influencers. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish
() asked a
question about the online harms Bill, so I would like to
understand from the Minister what work he is doing now on
tackling influencers who are able to target particularly children
and young people and try to encourage them to gamble. That really
does need to be addressed long before this review is concluded.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are
considering action on the broader issue of online harms and the
role that social media companies play in that. That work will be
undertaken alongside this review, as well, and we will certainly
work together. I will work with colleagues in the rest of the
Department to make sure that we are very much aligned.
(Blackpool South) (Con) [V]
Some 200,000 customers used an unlicensed gambling operator last
year, resulting in an estimated £1.4 billion in turnover. What
discussions has my hon. Friend had with online platforms to
tackle this black market in gambling?
Like several other Members, my hon. Friend raises the important
issue of the black market. As I have said, that will be
considered as part of the review. We welcome evidence and
suggestions from all stakeholders, in helping to scope not only
the size and scale of the black market, but what further actions
could be taken to tackle it.
(Blaydon) (Lab)
We know that too many people have a problematic relationship with
gambling, which has a really bad effect on their wellbeing and
mental health, even leading to suicidal thoughts and feelings. I
welcome the recognition of that in the Minister’s statement. How
will the review consider that issue in the next period?
The hon. Lady will be aware that we work closely with the
Department of Health and Social Care, which is working on clinics
particularly relating to the treatment of gambling. Three are
already up and running, and we have an ambition to open far more.
The industry is contributing towards the financial costs of some
of this treatment, as well as to research and education overall;
we have a commitment over the next four years of £100 million. Of
course, this review will be an opportunity to assess whether that
model is appropriate or whether other alternatives should perhaps
be considered.
(North Cornwall) (Con)
It is estimated that 37 million people in the UK enjoy playing
video games on a daily basis—this includes random content through
loot boxes, which they use to enjoy their gameplay. Done right,
free-to-play games with additional purchase elements can be a
good model. So does the Minister agree with the Gambling
Commission that where in-game items obtained via loot boxes are
confined to those games and cannot be cashed out, they fall
outside the Gambling Act 2005?
My hon. Friend makes the important point that, without wishing to
be pedantic, there is often a debate about whether loot boxes and
games of chance, or those where there is not a financial benefit
at the end, are actually “gambling” or “gambling-like
behaviours”. However we wish to define them, we are taking
action. That is why it was important that we had the call for
evidence on loot boxes, which was completed recently, and further
action will be taken, on recommendations, by the Government.
(Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
Every year, the gambling industry spends £1.5 billion on
advertising to encourage us all to gamble more, which is 25 times
more than we spend giving help to people with a problem with
their gambling and 80 times more than it is required to give to
the Gambling Commission, which is supposed to regulate it. The
commission will never be able to regulate the industry properly
when it relies for its funding on these tiny scraps that fall
from the industry’s table. Will the Minister therefore agree to
look seriously at having the Gambling Commission adequately and
directly funded from the public purse, so that it is independent
and, more importantly, can be seen to be independent of the
industry it is attempting to regulate?
The Gambling Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority
both currently have a role in reviewing advertising relating to
gambling, and they have significant powers. However, many
legitimate concerns have been raised on this issue, so both the
advertising and the scope and resources of the Gambling
Commission will be part of this review.
(Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the Minister say that loot boxes fall within
his remit of work at the moment, because they encourage people to
spend more on in-game purchases than they otherwise would do if
this were turned into a game of chance where there were no
published odds. Will he also say something about social media
targeted advertising by gambling companies? I am aware that
social media companies are allowing online betting companies to
target known problem gamblers with incentives to bet, which is
completely unethical. It should be outside the rules and it
should be part of the review.
My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about this area as well, and
I thank him for his comments. Let me be clear: the call for
evidence relating to loot boxes is separate from this review; it
is a separate activity being undertaken by the Department. I
should also be clear that any advertising that is deliberately
targeting children or vulnerable groups should not be happening,
and therefore it is a major concern. The questions raised in this
review and the call for evidence seek to ask how effective the
current rules are, and those will be major considerations as part
of the call for evidence.
(Edinburgh
West) (LD)
Liberal Democrats welcome this review very much, as issues such
as online gambling have needed to be addressed for some time.
Given the impact of gambling and the damage it causes, and given
that the work that needs to be done to rectify it stretches
across a number of Departments, what consultations has the
Minister had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Department
of Health and Social Care and other Ministries about the review?
The hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that DCMS constantly
engages with the Treasury on a range of issues, and certainly the
Department for Health and Social Care has a very strong interest.
The Health Secretary—a former DCMS Secretary of State—is very
knowledgeable about the gambling sector and the harms, and we are
working closely on treatment. The Department of Health and Social
Care is looking to expand the number of treatment centres, and we
will continue that dialogue and work across the Departments.
(Kensington)
(Con)
I have several leading casinos in my constituency, and they have
worked hard to deal with problem gambling. Does my hon. Friend
agree that casinos are important for our international tourist
economy?
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Casinos form an important
part of the attractions. They are why many people come into the
country, and they are important for in-bound tourism. I
understand exactly what she is saying. Casinos play an important
part, and the whole point of the review is to ensure a legitimate
gambling industry that is on a sound footing for future growth. I
look forward to working with the casino sector to ensure that
that happens.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement about the review of the
gambling industry, and I put on record my thanks to the hon.
Member for Swansea East () for her leadership on the all-party group. Time is of
the essence, so will the Minister assure the House that reform
will happen quickly? Will reform happen outside the formal
review, for example on loot boxes and the video games that others
have referred to? Could such reforms be implemented with a faster
time frame?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Northern Ireland regulation
on gambling is separate from that of Great Britain. He raises an
important point, and we will work with the devolved
Administrations. Loot boxes fall under a separate review. The
call for evidence has just ended, and we wish to consider the
feedback from that as soon as possible. The other aspects that he
raised will form part of that review. We completely understand
the need for action, and as I said in my statement, we have taken
action where necessary, with legislative and non-legislative
measures from loot boxes to changing the rules on credit card
use, as well as today’s announcement on the national lottery. We
are willing and able to move quickly.
(Redcar) (Con)
I fully welcome this review, which will surely protect my
constituents in Redcar and Cleveland from gambling harm in the
long term. However, the Minister will know—we have had a number
of conversations about this—about the issues regarding the
horse-race betting levy, and the urgent need for reform to
support racecourses such as the one in Redcar. Will he update the
House on any steps he has taken to fix that situation, so that
Redcar can keep on racing?
I know what a horse-racing fan my hon. Friend is, and we have had
many conversations about that issue. The horserace betting levy
is not part of this review, but we are having ongoing
conversations with the horse-racing industry. I look forward to
further conversations with my hon. Friend.
(Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
I broadly welcome today’s announcement, but given this
Government’s unforgivable delay to the online harms Bill, many
questions are left unanswered. It is vital that young people are
protected in their online space, so what considerations have the
Government made to include age verification requirements for
gambling providers as part of the online harms agenda? When will
the Bill finally be brought to Parliament?
The issues of age verification, product, and the way such things
are marketed will be part of this review, and they are also
ongoing considerations of the Gambling Commission. This will be a
16-week review. We recognise that in these challenging times of
covid, responders may need a little more time to respond to the
call for evidence, and therefore the review is slightly longer
than normal. We will then produce a White Paper with Government
recommendations. As I said, the review is deliberately broad, and
the issues raised by the hon. Lady will be part of it.
(Bracknell) (Con)
I am clear that online harms are increasing risks to our
children, and I note that families have spent much of the past
nine months in lockdown. As a parent, I am worried by addiction
to games such as Fortnite, when our children could be outside
playing. Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department will
consider an outright ban on gambling incentives such as loot
boxes, as well as better educating parents, carers and teachers
about the dangers of online gaming?
The issues around loot boxes that my hon. Friend articulates are
legitimate; hence the call for evidence on loot boxes. That call
for evidence ended on 22 November. The Government are currently
considering the evidence that has been brought forward, and we
will respond in due course. My hon. Friend raises legitimate
concerns that have been raised by the Digital, Culture, Media and
Sport Committee and many others over many years.
(Nottingham
North) (Lab/Co-op)
The bookies form a key part of our high streets and provide a
supervised environment for responsible gambling. In contrast, the
online gambling space is like the wild west. We have heard so
much about black market operators that have caused extraordinary
levels of harm, so it is right the Government are looking at this
issue. However, that will only be effective alongside good online
harms legislation, which we have been promised for three years
now. When will we see it?
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the online harms
legislation was a commitment. It is absolutely a commitment. I
know that it gets support on both sides of the Chamber, and we
will be hearing more in due course.
(Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement as a vital step in
bringing up to date the provisions of the Gambling Act 2005, but
may I ask him for some reassurance about how any test of balance
will be weighted so that prevention of harm can rightly take
centre stage, while we ensure at the same time that the millions
of people who gamble responsibly are not in some way stigmatised,
and, as others have said, that activities are not driven
underground?
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the absolute necessity in
this review for a balanced, evidence-led approach. I assure him
that we will strike the right balance between giving individuals
the freedom to choose how they spend their own money, and
protecting vulnerable people and their families from
gambling-related harm. It is a balancing act, and we take that
responsibility very seriously.
(Midlothian) (SNP)
Last year, the vice president of EA described loot boxes as
“ethical”, “fun” and akin to buying “Kinder eggs”. However,
research has linked some loot boxes with problem gambling in
older adolescents, so we clearly need to take action. I hear what
the Minister is saying about the call for evidence just finishing
and that that is part of a separate review, but how will that
review feed into this wider review of the Gambling Act overall?
Yes, I can confirm that the call for evidence has concluded, and
we will be responding to that soon. Legal definitions were one of
the reasons that it was a separate review from the one on
gambling, but that should aid the process, rather than hinder it.
(Bolsover)
(Con)
I warmly welcome this review and today’s announcement. As the
Minister has said, the way that people gamble in 2020 is
completely different from how the majority of gambling took place
when the Gambling Act was passed in 2005. Does the Minister agree
that, in line with these changes, the Government should be
considering boosting the powers and resources of the Gambling
Commission to ensure that it can keep pace with the licence
sector and tackle the black market?
Indeed; the scope, roles, responsibilities and resources of the
Gambling Commission will form part of the review. It is right
that we consider the structure of governance and regulation for
the industry, and any recommendations and suggestions that my
hon. Friend has would be welcome as part of the call for
evidence.
(Rutherglen
and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the review.
However, it is believed that, in the UK alone, members of the
armed forces are eight times more likely to develop gambling
addictions, especially if they have experienced past traumatic
events. Given this distressing statistic, will the Minister
confirm whether he has had any discussions with Defence Ministers
about measures to prevent the spread of problem gambling among
our armed forces personnel?
The hon. Lady is right to point out that certain demographics and
roles are more susceptible to problem gambling than others. I
have not had specific conversations with the Ministry of Defence
yet, but we would welcome input on this issue as part of the
evidence process. She raises the important point that different
segments of the population are impacted and targeted differently,
and the scope of this review includes looking at targeting and
the prevalence of gambling among different demographics.
(Peterborough) (Con)
I fully appreciate that the focus of this review will be on the
technological advances in recent years, but I still have major
concerns about the number of gaming centres and venues for
gambling in Peterborough, particularly in the Millfield area of
my city, and the subsequent risk of gambling-related harm to some
of the most vulnerable local people. I welcome this review, but
will my hon. Friend consider giving local councils such as
Peterborough City Council further powers to close problem high
street gambling venues and restrict the number of venues in any
one particular area?
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. There are already
regulations and rules if there are problems, and social and
behavioural challenges, in terms of the powers that local
government has. He raises important points, though; as I said, in
terms of responsible gambling across the board, we intend to
ensure that this review is evidence-led and looks at a whole
variety of issues, including the ones he raises.
(Chesterfield) (Lab)
I very much welcome this review. As the statement has exposed, a
huge breadth of issues need to be considered. Will the Minister
say something about the extent to which the amount of gambling
that now takes place online creates opportunities to gain much
better information about who is gambling and for ensuring that
issues that are raised by the review are targeted at those who
are problem gamblers? Will he ensure that that information is
more widely available?
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Just last
year, for the first time, gross gambling yield was greater online
than offline, so we have now reached that cusp where more
gambling in the UK is online. We should therefore be able to use
technology, and emerging technology, in a far more sophisticated
way, as he suggests, to make sure that we identify problem
gambling and potential problem gambling. I would expect
information on that to be part of this review.
(Eltham) (Lab) [V]
In my experience, in the past the gambling industry has been able
to exert a great deal of influence over the Minister’s
Department. I welcome his commitment to an evidence-based review,
but if the review is to be effective, it will need access to data
from the industry and to up-to-date research. Will he commit to
ensuring that this wealthy industry pays for fully independent
research to be carried out, which we are all going to need if we
are going to carry out this review effectively?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the
historically poor level of information, data and research in this
sector. It is improving, and we hope that this evidence-led
review will add to the base of information. His characterisation
of the Department, though, is wrong, as evidenced by the obvious
and significant changes we have made to gambling over the last
few years, with FOBTs last year, the changes to credit cards, VIP
schemes, mandatory participation in GAMSTOP and the changes that
we are announcing to the national lottery today, as well as a
whole host of other issues. This Government have shown that we
are willing to act when necessary.
(Dudley North) (Con)
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. Clearly, having
consumer protection at the heart of any new regulation is key, so
will he describe what sort of action my constituents in Dudley
North can take if they believe that an operator is in breach of
social responsibility requirements?
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. He is absolutely right
that legitimate concerns have been raised by many, including in
this place, about redress in the gambling sector. That is why the
call for evidence will specifically ask for information and
evidence on potential future redress procedures, and all options
are open at the moment.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to take my first
opportunity in the Chamber to pay tribute to one of my
predecessors, Maria Fyfe, who served in this place as Member for
Glasgow Maryhill between 1987 and 2001 and who sadly passed away
on Friday. She was hugely respected during her time in this House
and in the constituency, and our condolences, thoughts and
prayers are with her family, friends and comrades at this time.
One of Maria Fyfe’s enduring legacies is the Community Central
Hall on Maryhill Road, which is an incredibly important focal
point, providing a wide range of services for local residents.
Over the years—many years—it has benefited from lottery funding.
What steps will the Minister take to ensure, especially in these
difficult times and in the context of the announcement that he
has made today, that such organisations are able to continue to
get the funding they need, whether through the lottery or perhaps
other, more sustainable sources?
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Maria Fyfe on
behalf of the whole House; I know I can do so because the shadow
Minister and I had a conversation about Maria before we came into
the Chamber. She is a great loss. I know she was an incredible
champion for women’s rights in particular and made a great impact
on the British political landscape.
In terms of the lottery and the changes we are announcing today,
the estimate is that the impact of 16 and 17-year-olds’ not being
able to play the lottery will likely be something in the region
of a £6 million potential loss to good causes. That is out of a
total distribution of around £1.8 billion, so it is a relatively
small amount.
I would like to say thank you to all those who have played the
lottery and continued to play the lottery this year. Lottery
revenue, and therefore distributions to good causes, has stayed
up remarkably well, partly because it has been made very clear
that much of the money has gone to institutions, bodies and
groups in desperate need during coronavirus. I encourage people
to continue to play the lottery safely, in the full knowledge
that the money is well spent and well targeted.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
May I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North () and the Minister, , for their kind words about the late Maria Fyfe?
She was a popular Member, who was well respected in all parts of
the House and remained active in her local party after leaving
this place. She will be missed by her family and all who knew her
in Parliament and beyond. One of the best features of this place
is how hon. Members appreciate and acknowledge the qualities and
achievements of their predecessors, irrespective and regardless
of party.
(Amber Valley)
(Con) [V]
I hope the review will recognise the important role that high
street gambling venues play in employing local people, and the
Minister will recognise that it would be rather strange if the
review had the damaging impact of moving gamblers from the
relatively safe, supervised gambling premises on the high streets
into the unregulated, unsupervised online world. I hope the
review will look to bolster gambling on the high street, rather
than on the internet.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that many
gambling entities take their responsibilities for safe gambling
incredibly seriously and do a very good job. It is important,
therefore, that we strike the right balance between enabling
people to gamble safely and protecting those who are at risk.
There is nothing wrong with legitimate gambling that is well
regulated and enacted in accordance with minimising harm.
(Cardiff West) (Lab)
We all know that the gambling industry got it very wrong on the
campaign on fixed-odds betting terminals. Does the Minister agree
that this review is an opportunity for the British gambling
industry to get it right and produce an outcome that maximises
the fun for people who want to gamble, but minimises the harm? We
all know that prohibition does not work; what we need is
effective reform.
The hon. Gentleman, who I know is well versed in the industry and
is very knowledgeable, is absolutely right. We must get the right
balance here, and we expect the stakeholders, the key gambling
operators, to play a role in providing evidence in this review.
They have contributed already and made some voluntary changes,
but I think we would all like to see further changes. They can
make those voluntarily; there is always the option of legal
regulation at the end of this review, but we do not necessarily
need to wait for legislation for the gambling industry to do the
right thing. We have seen some positive moves in the right
direction and I welcome that constructive contribution. If we
need to regulate and implement laws we will, but I would also
like to see further changes voluntarily conducted by the
industry, as I am sure he would too.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Last but never least, .
(Barrow and
Furness) (Con)
Thank you for battling to the end of the call list, Mr Deputy
Speaker; I appreciate it. I warmly welcome this statement. A few
months ago, I met Furness Gamblers Anonymous, which does
incredible work to support those who suffer most from addiction.
I welcome the fact that such organisations will be able to feed
into this review—that is right and proper—but what consideration
has my hon. Friend given to the fact that many of those who have
the most powerful stories might want to feed in anonymously?
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I have a great
deal of confidence that many of the charities and third-party
organisations working in this sector—many of the key
stakeholders—are very articulate and knowledgeable, and they have
done a very good job of feeding in information already. We
encourage them to do so, and I hope they will be able to provide
further information, while recognising that some of this is
extremely sensitive and therefore may need to be confidential. We
recognise that information from all sources is valid, and I
encourage all stakeholders to do what they can to get involved in
the review.
