Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish their
response to the Review of the Gambling Act 2005.
(LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper and draw attention to my interest as the chairman
of Peers for Gambling Reform.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport ( of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, as the Gambling Minister made clear in his speech at
the GambleAware annual conference in December, our review is
looking at a very wide range of issues and our call for evidence
received 16,000 submissions, which we are considering carefully.
We will publish a White Paper setting out our vision for the
sector in the coming months.
(LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but with more than one
gambling-relating suicide every day, delaying reforming our
outdated gambling regulations is putting lives at risk. We do not
have to wait for the White Paper to make changes, as we have
seen, for example, in banning the use of credit cards for
gambling. Given that strict stake and prize limits apply to
land-based gambling but bizarrely not to online gambling, will
the Government fix this harmful omission now and commit to a
regular review of limits in years to come? Frankly, chaos in
Downing Street should not be an excuse for delay in protecting
lives.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Lord rightly notes, we have made significant
progress in recent years to make online gambling safer, including
a ban on gambling with credit cards as well as new rules to
reduce the intensity of online slot games. But we recognise that
more can be done to protect people who gamble online. Our review
is looking closely at the case for greater protections for online
gamblers, including protections on products and for individuals.
We called for evidence on protections including the pros and cons
of stake limits as part of our review, and of course, we are
considering all the evidence carefully.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Government have had the House of Lords report,
which is an excellent report, led by the noble Lord, Lord Grade,
that made strong recommendations on a system that would protect
the vulnerable as well as give some certainty to the industry.
Given that unlicensed sites have now grown, according to
PricewaterhouseCoopers, from £1.4 billion to £2.8 billion, when
are the Government going to do something to safeguard the
vulnerable and give some certainty to the racing and sporting
industries?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right; it is an excellent report. I had the
pleasure of serving on that committee before joining Her
Majesty’s Government. The recommendations and evidence contained
in it, as well as the 16,000 submissions we have had to our call
for evidence, are all forming part of our careful review of the
Gambling Act. We will come back with our proposals in due
course.
(Con)
My Lords, I must ask—
(Con)
My Lords—
Noble Lords
Grade!
(Con)
I have never been so popular.
(Lab)
It could all change.
(Con)
More ships!
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that response. One of
the lessons of the implications of the outdated nature of the
2005 Gambling Act, which the Government are addressing, is that
there was a serious lack of accountability on the Gambling
Commission. It had many powers to stop many of the abuses that
have led to such tragedies as we have heard and as we read about
in the newspapers almost every day. We are very interested to
know what the Government can do to increase the accountability of
the regulator in this sector.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Gambling Act review is looking at the Gambling Commission’s
powers and resources, and how it uses them. The Commission has a
new chairman and chief executive, who will be working closely
with DCMS as they implement their vision for the organisation,
but between April 2020 and March 2021 the commission imposed more
than £30 million in financial penalties for breaches of its
licensing conditions.
My Lords, I declare my interests as a member of Peers for
Gambling Reform. The British Medical Journal said:
“We do not allow tobacco companies to design tobacco control
policies, yet the gambling industry, through the organisations it
funds, shapes our responses to … harms”.
Does the Minister agree that the system of voluntary levies is
part of the problem, because the industry is controlling the
messaging, and that what we need are statutory, smart levies to
give total independence to research, treatment and education if
we are really to tackle gambling-related harms?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government have always been clear that they will look at the
case for alternative funding mechanisms if there is a funding
gap. All options remain on the table, including a statutory levy
such as the right reverend Prelate suggests. The Department for
Health and Social Care is working to improve care and treatment
pathways to support the 15 clinics that were committed to in the
NHS long-term plan. NHS England has also worked with GambleAware
to design effective treatment.
(Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the campaign by GambleAware, which highlights
that up to 1 million women are at risk of harm through gambling,
while stigma and shame prevents two in five women experiencing
such harm seeking help. What help is being given to spot the
early warning signs of harmful gambling, focusing on women aged
25 to 55 who gamble online? Can the Minister confirm that the
review and the ensuing White Paper will consider and refer to the
impact of gambling on women, as well as those who are close to
them?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. We have seen
already, through the evidence gathered by Public Health England,
the way that there are differential impacts on certain groups of
people, whether by geography, sex or age. We want to improve the
evidence base in the research so that we can ensure our policies
are based on good and concrete evidence. That is part of the
review of the Act that we are undertaking.
(CB)
My Lords, in the speech to the GambleAware conference to which
the Minister referred, the Gambling Minister recognised that
affordability checks were key to reducing gambling harm. Are the
Government aware of the research by the Social Market Foundation
showing that £100 spent per month was the right threshold above
which gambling operators should be obliged to make affordability
checks?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
That research by the Social Market Foundation was, I know, noted
in the letter sent to my honourable friend the Gambling Minister.
We see a clear role for considering an individual’s financial
circumstances to help stop devastating losses, but to be workable
and to prevent harm, checks need to be proportionate and done in
a way that is acceptable to customers, too. We continue to work
with the Gambling Commission on this issue in the run-up to our
White Paper.
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
My Lords, further to the answer the Minister gave to the right
reverend Prelate, can he give a categoric undertaking that the
gambling industry will have no influence whatever in how the levy
is allocated to research, harm prevention, education and the
treatment of those affected by gambling addiction?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government have always been clear, as I said, that we will
look at the case for alternative funding mechanisms and all
options remain on the table. Of course, we are taking views from
industry, as we are from everybody with an interest in this area.
We will take all those views into account as we prepare the White
Paper.
(GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as a member of Peers for Gambling
Reform. In Washwood Heath Road in Ward End, Birmingham, there are
three bookmakers next to each other and another a few metres
away. It is known to the locals as the bookie belt. We know from
studies last year that bookmakers are 10 times more likely to be
in the poorest areas of the country than the richest. This takes
away choice in food and other essential shops. Should not the
Government’s levelling-up White Paper have dealt with this issue
of place-based gambling dominance?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is also important to remember that a great number of
people gamble legally and enjoy doing so without harm. We want to
strike the right balance to make sure that people can conduct
this legal activity, while addressing questions of regional
disparities. That is why we have put out our call for evidence.
We are glad to have received so many submissions and are
considering them carefully.
(Con)
My Lords, when does the Minister expect the Government to respond
to the review of the Gambling Act 2005? We all dislike the
involvement of children in gambling, and bringing that to an end
is well overdue.
of Whitley Bay (Con)
As my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for
gambling has made clear, we will respond to the review in the
coming months. My noble friend makes an important point about the
role of children. We have looked at the impact of gambling on
children as part of our review, and protections are already in
place—for instance, to limit children’s exposure to
advertising—so we are not waiting for the review to take action
where it is needed.
(DUP)
My Lords, gambling addiction can lead to poverty and
homelessness. Does the Minister agree that local councils should
ensure that front-line staff are provided with training on
harmful gambling so that they can recognise potential cases and
are given the opportunity to help those in the greatest need?
of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, there is an important part for local authorities to play,
just as there is for the NHS. It is right that the industry
contributes to treatment costs, and the largest operators have
committed to provide £100 million for treatment over four years.
As I say, these are all areas that we are considering as part of
the review of the Act.
