Asked by Lord Foster of Bath To ask Her Majesty’s Government what
assessment they have made of the link between gambling advertising
and gambling-related harm. Lord Foster of Bath (LD) My Lords, I
declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform. Since
gambling advertising and gambling itself were liberalised by the
Gambling Act 2005, the promotion of gambling products has grown
exponentially, with an annual spend now in excess of £1.5
billion...Request free trial
Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the link between gambling advertising and gambling-related
harm.
(LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling
Reform. Since gambling advertising and gambling itself were
liberalised by the Gambling Act 2005, the promotion of gambling
products has grown exponentially, with an annual spend now in
excess of £1.5 billion and a growing amount of that happening
online. It is worth noting that one in six adults follows
gambling companies on social media, as do a surprising number of
children.
Also growing has been the level of public concern about gambling
companies using ever more sophisticated means to attract new
customers and persuade existing ones to spend more, using a range
of techniques to keep customers hooked, from disguising losses as
wins and celebrating near-misses, to offering so-called free
money and free spins. Writing in the Guardian recently, Annie
Ashton describes the predatory actions of gambling companies and
how her husband Luke committed suicide after relapsing into his
gambling addiction. She wrote that
“the pattern of his gambling was obviously harmful. He took
advantage of a free bet offer, deposited money, lost money, was
immediately advertised another free bet offer, and the cycle
would begin again.”
Luke found that being “bombarded with ads” on his mobile
“made it a problem that became impossible to escape.”
It is hardly surprising, then, that earlier this month a group of
50 academics called for “badly needed” restrictions on the
promotion of gambling products. They wrote:
“In our opinion it has become quite clear that the gambling
products being offered and the ways in which they are promoted
are harmful to individual and family health and damaging to
national life”,
adding that protecting young people should be a “top priority”,
with unprecedented numbers being exposed to gambling
advertisements via the internet and television. Their concerns
include advertisements on TV, radio, online and elsewhere,
gambling company logos on sports kits and in sporting venues,
increasingly sophisticated direct marketing to individual
customers and the use of sporting celebrities in gambling ads who
become role models for vulnerable children.
These academics are not alone. There is a growing clamour for
major reform among the public. A YouGov poll last year found that
almost two-thirds of adults favour a complete ban on gambling ads
and a ban on gambling sponsorship of sporting events and teams.
In your Lordships’ House, the 150-plus members of Peers for
Gambling Reform want change; just a few weeks ago, the noble
Lord, , speaking in a personal capacity
but while at the Dispatch Box, said that as a sports fan he
was
“sick and tired of gambling advertising being thrust down
viewers’ throats.”—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 446.]
Some changes have been made. The Advertising Standards Authority
has tightened some rules and, possibly to ward off a tougher
crackdown, the gambling industry itself has taken action. The
Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising,
which is in addition to the ASA’s codes, has been strengthened
and includes a whistle-to-whistle ban on gambling ads during
televised football games.
Although these moves are welcome, they only chip away at the
barrage of messages adults and children see on a daily basis.
After all, gambling logos can still appear more than 700 times in
a single televised football game, despite the ban, because logos
on shirts do not count as advertising. The industry and, at least
until recently, Ministers, have used a variety of arguments
against further restrictions: loss of income to commercial public
service broadcasters and sports clubs, likely growth in black
market gambling, and an absence, they claim, of evidence linking
gambling advertising and gambling harm.
However, I believe that there are answers to each of these. For
example, a ban on sponsoring sporting bodies could be phased in
and the loss offset by offering sports rights, where gambling
companies pay for the right to offer betting on sporting events.
Working with banks, tougher measures against black market
gambling could be introduced, although it should be noted that
the Gambling Commission has said that the industry’s concerns
about black market gambling are overstated.
I want to concentrate on the claim that there is no evidence of a
causal relationship between gambling advertising and harm. To
make this claim, the industry has frequently called in aid—as did
when he was Gambling
Minister—the very limited survey of relevant research carried out
by Per Binde in 2014, from which he concluded that none showed a
causal link between gambling ads and harm. Yet the operators fail
to mention that, more recently, in 2019, Per Binde produced a
further study that concluded:
“Gambling advertising may contribute to problem gambling, and
problem gamblers are more sensitive to advertising impact than
non-problem gamblers.”
Here, and around the world, there is a growing body of evidence
to support that more recent conclusion by Per Binde. Following a
review of evidence, the ASA, for example, said:
“Several studies … have found associations between advertising
exposure and the behaviour of problem and at-risk gamblers.”
It said that some studies produced evidence that was
“robust enough to support the existence of an association between
exposure and gambling behaviour”.
A study published in December 2021 in the Journal of Gambling
Studies shows that advertising is a predictor of at-risk and
problem gambling in secondary school children. A recent Gambling
Commission survey found that 34% of British bettors admitted to
being influenced by advertising, noting that 16% claimed that ads
caused them to increase their gambling. Some 13% said that ads
led them to initially take up gambling, and nearly 15% said that
viewing ads resulted in them taking up gambling again after
taking a break. Earlier this year, researchers at Ipsos MORI and
the University of Stirling found that 96% of young people aged 11
to 24 had seen gambling marketing messages in the last month and
were more likely to bet as a result.
Under the heading:
“Gambling Advertising has no public benefit and contributes to
harm”
the Coalition Against Gambling Ads cites multiple examples of
recent research evidence and concludes:
“There is good evidence that, for a considerable number of
people, gambling advertising substantially contributes to
disordered gambling”.
These are just a few examples of the compelling body of evidence
that has built up. It is undoubtably true that more research is
needed, but there is now sufficient to suggest that we should be
seriously concerned, and that industry claims that there is no
link between gambling advertising and gambling harm should be
dismissed. I was heartened that, in recent correspondence with
me, the Minister, wrote that, “the government remains absolutely
alive to the differential impacts and risks that gambling
advertising may pose, especially to certain groups such as
children and those already experiencing problems with their
gambling.”
I am also heartened that, although it took some persuading, the
Government now intend that the outcome of their gambling review
will be based on a public health approach, just as we already
have in relation to drugs, alcohol and tobacco. For gambling, a
public health approach should lead to significant curbs on
advertising, a ban on direct marketing, an end to inducements
such as so-called free bets and the phasing out of sports
sponsorship.
With around a third of a million problem gamblers, including more
than 60,000 children, 2 million people impacted by it and more
than one gambling-related suicide every day, we simply cannot
continue as we are. Major reform of gambling advertising and
other marketing measures are urgently needed and, despite what
the industry says, are justified by the evidence. I hope the
Minister agrees.
8.05pm
(Con)
My Lords, if a child or young person has a close friend or carer
who gambles, that individual is six times more likely to be a
current gambler than those without a connection. We think of
gambling as an adult activity but in the UK, 55,000 children aged
11 to 16 are classified as problem gamblers. Gambling has been
normalised to such an extent that young people grow up thinking
that it is a harmless activity. Clearly, social media has
increased the ways in which children can be exposed to gambling,
but a study has shown that TV remains the most common source of
exposure; and almost all the 11 to 24 year-olds taking part in
that study had been exposed to gambling marketing in the previous
month. We know that the problem has been exacerbated due to
lockdown and the visibility of gambling on social media.
The advertising code forbids the advertising of gambling to
under-18s. Almost all forms of gambling are illegal for this age
group, so they should not be a targeted audience, but gambling
ads are not reaching children accidentally. Advertisers and
platforms have access to sophisticated screening tools and
accurately target children who are gambling. These ads should not
be designed to appeal to children, with an emphasis on fun,
cartoons, escapism and winning. E-sports gambling adverts appear
to be more appealing to children and young people than adults—the
figure is forecast to exceed $1 billion this year with an
audience of 500 million, most of whom are children and young
people.
The Young Gamers and Gamblers Education Trust, which works with
many schools and youth practitioners, has stated that all
gambling advertising should be designed and displayed in a way
that is appropriate for adults and avoids marketing techniques
that appeal to children. Clearly, the advertisers and platforms
which host adverts should use technology and data to do more to
protect children. We are now seeing a new and complex way of
advertising contributing to the normalisation of gambling, as
well as attracting young and vulnerable people to its
audience.
The Gambling Act needs to consider these new techniques and be
able to protect the young and vulnerable from the adverse effects
of this new style of advertising. There needs to be far better
education and awareness for parents and children, and a better
use of age-screening tools. This problem is not going away and
arguably, it is a public health issue with serious implications
for mental health.
8.08pm
of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, our minds are filled with the terrible things which are
happening in Ukraine, so much so that it would be easy to push
other essential issues out of focus, but we must not allow
ourselves to do that. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord,
Lord Foster, for giving us this opportunity to look again at the
question of gambling, and especially the way it affects our
children. Despite repeated attempts to stir, prod, dynamite those
with power into taking action, we seem to have to go on making
the same case again and again.
I am sure many of us share the same feeling of horror when told
that there are 450,000 gamblers aged 11 to 16, of whom more than
60,000 are deemed addicts—figures cited by those who have
preceded me in this debate. This is not the inadvertent
repetition of an old man losing his marbles; it is a statement
that needs repeating as many times as it takes to sink into the
heads of those with power to act.
As a nation, we are now opening clinics offering advice and
support to children and young people suffering from an addiction
to gambling. This is, as has been said, a health crisis. We must
find the will and fashion the tools to flatten the curve, and a
ban on gambling advertising during sports matches is, as has been
said, as good a place as any to begin and is long overdue. There
is no reason for this not to happen—except, I suppose, for the
shedloads of money that the gambling industry pours into the
Exchequer every year.
If we know that children and at-risk gamblers are likely to watch
sports games, why knowingly put them in harm’s way? An
endorsement of gambling by someone’s favourite football team or
player must surely influence the opinion of young fans. Legal it
may be, at least for the moment; harmful it certainly is. As
such, it fits easily among the legal but harmful issues currently
being set forth in the online safety Bill.
This is indeed a health crisis: an epidemic. So, I ask the
Minister a simple question. If we have the vaccine, the
capability drastically to reduce the number of child problem
gamblers and the experts begging us to do it, will the Government
be part of the mission—or will they content themselves with being
anti-vaxxers?
8.12pm
(Con)
My Lords, I am a champion of innovation, and I pay tribute to the
gambling industry for the remarkable innovations it has made. I
am not a big gambler—I enjoy the odd flutter—but I have seen a
massive change in the level of entertainment that people get out
of gambling. The industry has driven gambling to new audiences,
and the way in which you can now gamble on sports is incredibly
impressive. It uses advertising to reach audiences it has never
reached before, and the image of the old bookie by the racecourse
has been replaced by a high-tech company using the latest
algorithms and behavioural techniques.
I must warn the industry, however, that with this immense
power—the power of innovation, computers and psychological and
behavioural science—comes responsibility. I am extremely
concerned that it is in a state of denial about the impact of its
innovation, particularly on the most vulnerable. We cannot
continue to subsidise the industry for the £1.27 billion-worth of
harms that is calculated to be affecting our society. We cannot
have the NHS helping to look after tens of thousands or hundreds
of thousands of patients with acute gambling addiction. Some
246,000 people are estimated to have severe gambling harm-related
illnesses. That is too heavy a load for our society to be
carrying.
I ask the industry and the Minister to consider measures to
protect two groups in particular. My noble friend Lady Chisholm
talked about children, an area that concerns me in particular.
With four small children, I know how much access they have to
digital communications, and with a strong interest in sport, they
are very easily lured into gambling of all kinds. Digital
companies, which is what gambling companies have become, owe it
to themselves and to society to make sure that our children are
protected.
Secondly, the gambling industry has shown a long-standing
generational lack of responsibility to those with severe mental
illness when it comes to gambling. Time and again, casinos, and
now the digital companies, have not stepped up to their
responsibilities by cutting off those who cannot afford their own
addiction. They should be using innovation and their digital
insight to make sure that those who cannot afford to gamble are
not allowed to gamble. The fines given to 888, which were in the
papers this morning, are disgraceful. An NHS worker who was paid
£1,400 a month was given a gambling gap of £1,300. That is not
reasonable.
The industry owes it to itself to step up to these
responsibilities, and I urge the Minister to look at ways in
which the Government can help it do that.
8.15pm
(Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend , with whom I am in broad
agreement. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on
bringing this to the Floor of the House, and for the work that he
does in this area.
I find myself in broad agreement with the points that have been
made. Obviously, an awful lot is encompassed by the concept of
gambling; it would include premium bonds as well as raffles and
the National Lottery. Cases can certainly be made out for the
good that they do, although admittedly with some hazards.
Broadly, one can talk about a pleasure concept, which is all to
the good, although with dangers to some people. Although I align
myself with the Cavaliers rather than the Roundheads on the
principle of pleasure, there is a broader public health danger
that has been alluded to—and that is the point that we have to
address.
I will home in one area that concerns me particularly, which is
online gambling, particularly in the context of young people, as
alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm. It is done on an
industrial scale. Many of these companies are not even paying UK
tax, although of course they are causing UK misery and causing
the UK massive costs in dealing with these issues—although it is
the misery that is clearly of most concern to us. It is high time
that these companies were brought to heel. There may be other
things that need doing, too—I am sure there are—but, as a
first-off, the most important issue is to do something on that
front. It is particularly dangerous and pernicious and it is done
on an industrial scale. When I google “online gambling controls”,
up springs not things that are controlling it but adverts for all
these companies, often with names such as “Big Win UK Ltd”, and
things like that. So there are great dangers, and I hope that the
Government are going to address this sooner rather than later. We
so often seem to be playing catch-up where there is broad
agreement, and certainly broad support from the public, to do
something in this arena.
As has been said, misery is caused—there are illnesses and
suicides, and damage to the home environment and to business. I
just cannot understand why we are dragging our heels on this,
when there is broad agreement and a massive need to do something,
and I hope that the Government come forward with something in
this area in particular before it becomes even more serious. It
is something that it seems to me we all agree on, but it is the
sort of thing that gets overlooked, and I cannot understand
why—so I do hope that the Government will press on and do
something in this regard.
8.18pm
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as sitting on the advisory board
of Sisal, as part of its National Lottery bid—but also,
amazingly, I am part of the Behavioural Insights Team advisory
panel, looking at problem gambling. I come here not to defend the
gambling industry but to defend public service broadcasters—and
my noble friend the Minister will know that I am a stuck record
on this issue.
Bizarrely, I have had a long association, on and off, with the
gambling industry—I say “bizarrely” because I do not gamble at
all. But long before I became an MP I worked with Rank, when the
Labour Government were proposing super-casinos, and indeed with
Victor Chandler when he went offshore to Gibraltar. So,
amazingly, I know a bit about it—but not as much as noble Lords
who have already spoken.
The point that I want to make as simply as I can is the same
point I made when we debated junk food adverts—that I wish the
Government and, indeed, many noble Lords would not simply reach
for a ban on television advertising as somehow a solution to the
problem of problem gambling or indeed of obesity. We need a much
more sophisticated and comprehensive approach, and where we can
find common ground is to urge the Government to spur themselves
into action to provide a comprehensive approach to dealing with
problem gambling or gambling excesses. For example, I strongly
supported the ban on FOBTs that came into play. To echo what my
noble friend said, I spoke to somebody in
the gambling industry who had urged the industry to take action
itself, saying that otherwise the Government would take action
for it— and the industry did not, and the Government quite
rightly did.
So when we consider how to tackle issues such as problem
gambling, and indeed the excesses of some gambling companies,
please can we look at the online advertising environment, which
is too often forgotten in this debate? Television advertising
makes far less impact—if you accept that there is an impact—than
the much more sophisticated targeting of people, based on their
data and visits to websites, that you find online.
Look at the way gambling companies design their sites, and
regulate that to ensure that they do not design sites that are
attractive and designed to keep you coming back for more. Look at
what innovative new banks such as Monzo have done, allowing
people to fix their credit card and current accounts so that they
cannot spend money on gambling sites. Work with the responsible
gambling companies when they are doing the right thing. I read in
the paper today, in the context of Flutter releasing its annual
results, that it is apparently linking bonuses for its employees
to reducing problem gambling.
So, in the short amount of time each of us is allowed, my simple
and heartfelt plea is: please do not keep relentlessly targeting
our poor public service broadcasters, which are competing against
the likes of Netflix and Disney+, and instead produce a much more
sophisticated and comprehensive plan to reduce problem
gambling.
8.21pm
(DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for securing this
very important debate. Gambling is a problem right across all
areas of our society. It affects people from many different walks
of life: poorer people, younger people, military veterans and
busy professionals. It often does not discriminate. I have long
been of the view that there need to be further measures to
protect individuals, their families and communities from the harm
caused by problem gambling, such as the stress-related disorders
we have heard about this evening.
Many campaigners on tackling problem gambling rightly point to
the dangers of online advertising. Gambling companies have
increasingly embraced social media as a means of communicating
with potential customers. Previous analysis of the public
accounts of gambling companies has indicated that around 60% of
all gambling advertising expenditure was spent on online
advertising. Within that figure there has been a significant
year-on-year growth in reliance on targeted advertising on social
media and on affiliate social media sponsorship and advertising.
Does the Minister recognise the dangers of introductory offer
promotion and advertising via social media targeting,
particularly on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter? This is still a
major issue for problem gamblers online.
Affiliates of gambling companies have a higher proportion of
posts in terms of direct advertising. This can be seen clearly
when browsing the websites and social media pages of some of our
largest sporting teams. Online betting and casino offers such as
“Always 10% cashback” and “Claim your free £30 or £50 in free
bets” can be found strategically placed on social media posts and
images relating to certain football or rugby teams. These
often-misleading posts are designed to encourage people to sign
up. We know for a fact that many people—regrettably, often those
with existing problem gambling issues—are drawn in by these
adverts and posts.
It is clear that this industry’s targeted use of social media
algorithms specifically is an area that needs to be looked at
more carefully. Have the Government any plans to deal with this
problem? Have they met recently with Facebook or the other main
social media organisations to explore avenues for much more
co-operation in tackling these challenges? It is vital that we
continue to do all we can, here and in the other place, to
highlight and provide that help. It is essential to protect those
most at risk from gambling-related harm.
8.24pm
(Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, , on securing this
debate. In doing so, I declare my interests, such as they are, as
a non-executive director of the Channel Four Television
Corporation.
This evening, I will concentrate on the number nine. Nine Premier
League shirt sponsors are gambling companies; that is almost half
the Premier League. Young people watching a game on TV are highly
likely to see a gambling company on the shirts of one of those
Premier League teams. If you have one of those fabulous soccer
mags we all loved when we were kids, you are highly likely to see
a gambling sponsor on the front of their shirts. Successive
Governments have banned baccy and booze—does my noble friend the
Minister think that problem gambling is less bad?
Following the theme of the number nine, I will concentrate on the
9 pm threshold. What does this mean in modern, 21st-century
Britain? Is it that all those who may be attracted and
horrifically addicted to problem gambling have all gone to bed
before 9 pm? If it were to mean anything, it would have to be
much later. Much more significantly, as other noble Lords have
mentioned, it means nothing in an era of online platforms. Noble
Lords have mentioned the algorithms and technology. The truth
about this technology is that it is neutral; it has nothing
positive or negative to say about gambling, but what it can do
can be horrific and pernicious in the hands of people who purpose
that technology and target it. We have to focus on the people
driving that technology.
Finally, as your man has it, “When the fun stops, stop”. I ask my
noble friend the Minister, for hundreds of thousands of problem
gamblers, when did the fun even start?
8.26pm
(Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for initiating
this important debate. I refer to my interests as set out in the
register.
We sometimes risk forgetting in these debates that, for millions
of people in the UK, gambling is an enjoyable pastime which
causes no harm and is part of the general social cohesion of
weekly life. I enjoy the occasional flutter; I play the National
Lottery and I enjoy a day at the races. I hope this does not make
me a social degenerate.
In many ways, like the noble Lord, , I want to try to help
protect the gambling industry from itself. In an age in which
self-governance is always preferable to top-down regulations, I
want to encourage, for example, the industry to stop using
tipsters and affiliates. Most tipsters and affiliates operate on
social media; what they can say or the advice they give are not
regulated, and they often make their money when the consumer
loses bets. It is hard to imagine any other financial product
being permitted to be sold so directly and recklessly. If the
industry does not abandon this scheme soon, some type of
licensing code will be needed to curb the predatory nature of
that part of the business.
Secondly, I am concerned by reports of the number of women
seeking treatment for gambling harm more than doubling in the
last five years. I am often a bit shocked when I see an advert
for online bingo, for example; it is easy to see how people can
be tempted to sign up to these gambling products after watching
such colourful—often pink and brightly illuminated—adverts
depicting ladies, perhaps with a glass of wine, socialising
together at online bingo on their tablets or mobiles with
so-called online friends. A very different reality is experienced
by thousands of women who, having clicked on almost any of the
bingo sites, are besieged by pop-ups, VIP invitations and free
monetary vouchers. My understanding of the advertising standards
code is that an advert cannot suggest that gambling can provide
an escape from personal, professional or educational problems
such as loneliness or depression. These sorts of adverts should
really be looked at again by those making them and by the
advertising regulators.
Lastly—I have raised this in the past—advertising standards on
the National Lottery need bringing up to the same level playing
field as the rest of the gambling industry. It cannot be right
that we expect responsible gambling companies to put warnings
such as “When the fun stops, stop” and “Bet to your pocket” while
the National Lottery is permitted to use such taglines as “Set
For Life”, “Dream Big Play Small” and “The fun starts here”. What
the National Lottery is now becoming is not represented by its
adverts; it is an online, instant-win, scratch-card gambling
brand, more akin to any of the big online gambling companies and
not solely the national institution it perhaps once was, selling
paper lottery tickets. More work needs to be done in this
area.
8.30pm
(CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to speak very
briefly in the gap. Owing to the restraint of others, the gap is
perhaps a bit longer than I had expected but I do not intend to
take very much of it. I am on the executive committee of Peers
for Gambling Reform, and I pay tribute to the devoted leadership
which the noble Lord, Lord Foster, gives to that group on this
subject.
Gambling, like alcohol, is at the same time an enjoyable activity
and a dangerously addictive one. When tragedies occur, they all
too often start in childhood, and yet we allow advertising on
platforms to which children are especially likely to have access.
One recent edition of the BBC’s Match of the Day magazine for
“footy mad youngsters” featured 52 gambling logos within it. Like
others, I am not against advertising, and I am certainly not
against football, but I do not think that we should endanger our
youngsters in order to support Premier League football clubs
or—with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—public
service broadcasting. There is a balance to be struck here and I
hope the Minister will tell us this evening that the Government
are looking for it.
8.31pm
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his excellent speech
and declare my interest as a member of Peers for Gambling
Reform.
In September 2021, Public Health England published its
conclusions on the six harms caused by gambling. These are:
financial, relationship breakdown, mental and physical health,
employment and education, criminal and anti-social behaviour, and
cultural.
We have heard some powerful speeches this evening. It is
attractive to have a little flutter, and this could be quite
exciting, but when this gets out of hand it is much more serious.
Taking part in fundraising bingo evenings at Christmas and Easter
for the local school, where parents give gifts, usually
chocolate, as prizes, is a family event enjoyed by everyone. This
is a very different matter from a serious gambler who stakes
everything on one last throw to see if they can recoup their
considerable losses. I hear what the noble Lord, , says about
premium bonds—but you do get your money back.
Advertising different aspects of gambling on television gives the
impression that it is a social, enjoyable experience, but the
reality is very different. It can be a lonely, isolating and
often sordid experience for those totally hooked. Often the
gambler is aware of their addiction and does everything they can
to avoid the temptation, but the offer of a free bet is often too
tempting.
Regarding the gambling tax, research by NERA shows that curbing
gambling will lead to more jobs, more money for research,
education and treatment, and more tax reserves for the
Exchequer.
The government response so far has been to review the Gambling
Act 2005. In July 2021, DCMS promised a consultation later that
year—nothing happened. In January, it said it would be coming
soon—a favourite phrase of Governments. The Government further
indicated they would consider banning VIP schemes and free bets
in their review of the Gambling Act.
While the Government are havering, lives are being ruined and, in
extreme cases, lost. Gambling and the advertising that promotes
it need to be regulated more strictly than currently. Therefore,
my question to the Minister, who has fielded many of the
arguments raised this evening on previous occasions, is this:
just when are the Government going to review the 2005 Act? Will
the review and action be this month, in three months, in six
months or never? Can the Minister please commit to a firm
date?
8.34pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord
Foster, on securing this debate. It seems that it has been
shifted around nearly as frequently as the publication date for
the Government’s own White Paper on gambling regulation.
Yesterday, in a response to an Oral Question from my noble friend
, the Minister
seemed keen to hide behind the ongoing review, arguing that he
could not “pre-empt” its findings and stressing that we must wait
for the White Paper “in due course”. “In due course” seems to
have stretched a very long time. That review was launched in
December 2020, with the call for evidence closing at the end of
March 2021. While we appreciate that the Government have other
things on their hands and that they will have received a
significant number of responses, accompanied by a raft of data,
we are now in March 2022 and are none the wiser about the
department’s intentions.
Each and every day, people are exposed to numerous adverts for
lotteries, online casinos and sports betting. Much of this is
during the broadcast of sporting events, as many noble Lords
said, but a significant proportion is general advertising across
TV, radio and print. We are all familiar with the proliferation
of sponsorship deals with gambling firms in sports such as
football, and it remains the case that more than 85% of people
report seeing gambling adverts, but other stats should give cause
for alarm.
Late last year, market analysis by Nielsen suggested that in a
12-month period, around 1,200 hours of gambling ads, or 100 hours
per month, had been aired on radio stations during school-run
hours—that is, 8 to 9 am and 3 to 4 pm. Why is it acceptable for
children to be exposed to this in this day and age? After being
contacted by the Guardian, the owner of Gala Casino reportedly
instructed its media buyers to avoid bookings during school-run
times. Why has this been left to gambling firms themselves? Could
not Her Majesty’s Government have acted before the gambling firms
seemed so concerned to act themselves? Of course, the Government
need to establish the exact extent to which gambling advertising
causes actual harm, but firms would not spend the sums they
do—both on placing ads and securing celebrity endorsements—if
they were not securing a sizeable return on that outlay.
Voluntary schemes to promote responsible gambling messages may
have some impact, but we are still seeing too many people become
problem gamblers and ad spending far outweighs funds given to
support those who have an unhealthy relationship with gambling.
We hope that the forthcoming White Paper will land on our desks
sooner rather than later and that it will offer genuine solutions
to these problems rather than tinkering at the edges.
Finally, can the Minister say whether the online harms Bill is a
potential avenue for picking up some of these issues? We are in
need of urgent regulation, and it has been left far too long.
8.38pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport ( of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, this has been another very good debate on a topic which
I know continues to attract great interest from across your
Lordships’ House, as indeed it should. I congratulate the noble
Lord, , on securing it and on
the way he opened it this evening.
Clearly, the review of the Gambling Act represents a pivotal
moment for gambling regulation, and I am pleased to have the
opportunity again this evening to address these issues, although
I will not be able to anticipate every element of the review. I
will start with the points about timing, as raised by the noble
Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble
Lord, .
The gambling review and White Paper have not been delayed.
Ministers are working swiftly with officials at DCMS and
colleagues right across government on the White Paper. Our review
is looking at a very wide range of issues and our call for
evidence received 16,000 submissions, which we have been
considering carefully, as I am sure noble Lords will want us to
have done. This is the most thorough review of gambling law since
the 2005 Act, and we must get it right. We will of course look to
implement the outcomes of the review as swiftly as we can.
But we have not waited for the review before taking action to
make gambling safer in the meantime where we can. In the last two
years, as noble Lords will have heard me say before, we have
banned gambling on credit cards, we have tightened restrictions
on VIP schemes leading to a reported 70% reduction in the number
of so-called “VIPs”, we have made online slots games safer by
design, and we have raised the National Lottery minimum age to
18. So, we are taking action as well as carefully considering the
review.
Gambling advertising is an important part of that review. The
ways in which gambling is advertised and marketed have changed
considerably since the 2005 Act. We must make sure that our rules
on advertising, like other aspects of gambling, are suited to the
digital age; we are determined to get these right as well. The
noble Lord, , rightly used the
opportunity of the gap to anticipate that striking the right
balance in regulation is at the heart of our review; that is, the
balance between respecting adults’ freedom to choose how they
spend their money and preventing harm to children, vulnerable
groups and the community more widely.
In addition to the careful consideration of advertising of
gambling in the review, the Government have an ambitious vision
for responsible advertising practices in the digital age which
goes beyond any single sector. We will consult separately on our
online advertising programme, which will establish an overall
framework for fair, accountable and ethical online advertising to
apply to all sectors.
We already have robust rules on gambling advertising, which, as
the noble Lord, Lord Foster, noted, have been strengthened at
points over the years since the 2005 Act. All gambling
advertising, wherever it appears, is subject to strict controls
on content and placement. Compliance with the advertising codes
is a licence condition for gambling operators. The Gambling
Commission has an overarching requirement that advertising is
socially responsible, and that the advertising codes are
continually updated in the light of emerging evidence. The
commission and the advertising rules ban inducements that
encourage customers to gamble more intensely. Operators are not
allowed to market directly to people who have self-excluded or
customers showing signs of vulnerability.
Since the last gambling review, the Gambling Commission has
introduced tough new requirements on operators’ VIP schemes. It
has also cracked down on the use of misleading terms and
conditions in promotional offers and marketing. The Committee of
Advertising Practice has implemented changes to stop gambling
adverts appealing irresponsibly to vulnerable adults. A final
decision on strengthened rules on content appealing to children
is expected shortly. The industry has also introduced the
“whistle to whistle” ban, which the noble Lord, Lord Foster,
raised, on advertising in live sport. As the noble Lord, , mentioned, its code
requires adverts in social media to be targeted only at users
aged 25 and above and, for YouTube accounts, people aged 18 or
over. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked whether we have met
social media companies as part of the review. We have done so, at
official level.
Turning to the evidence on harm, the noble Lord, Lord Foster,
raised the 2019 research by Professor Binde. That research
included the statement:
“There is no evidence in this study that gambling advertising in
mass media substantially contributes to gambling problems.”
That would seem to confirm that it is people already experiencing
gambling problems who are most likely to be affected by gambling
advertising, but we do take preventing gambling harm very
seriously. We are also alive—the noble Lord, Lord Foster,
referred to our recent correspondence—to the disproportionate
impact that gambling advertising can have on different groups; in
particular, people who are already struggling with gambling
problems. We will not hesitate to take action to rule out harmful
practices and we welcome efforts to develop the evidence base and
our understanding of this relationship.
A number of noble Lords rightly mentioned sport. As well as
advertising, our review of the Gambling Act is thoroughly
considering the evidence on the subject of gambling sponsorships
in sport. We recognise both the concerns about the visibility of
gambling brands in sports that are widely enjoyed by people of
all ages, including children, and the role that sponsorship can
play in supporting elite and grass-roots sport. Gambling
sponsorship in sports is one of the areas under close
consideration in the review. We are looking at the evidence
closely to determine our approach on this issue; no decisions
have been made.
My noble friend noted the
popularity of football, particularly with children. We recognise
the global reach of the Premier League and the upper echelons of
football. There are rules in place to ensure that children are
not targeted by gambling sponsorship. Sports governing bodies are
also empowered to determine what level of involvement with the
gambling industry is appropriate for their sport. The noble Lord,
Lord Foster, mentioned the correlation between advertising and
problem gambling in children and young people. Again, protections
are already in place to limit children’s exposure to advertising.
Gambling adverts must not be targeted at children or appeal
particularly to them. The Committee of Advertising Practice will
soon publish more on its plans to tighten the rules in this
area.
My noble friends Lady Chisholm of Owlpen and spoke further on the impact
on children and young people. It is important to underline that
most forms of gambling in the UK are currently illegal for people
under the age of 18. Over the last decade, self-reported problem
gambling participation by people aged 11 to 16 has seen an
overall falling trend, from 23% to 11%. Those children who gamble
typically do so in ways which are legal for them, such as private
betting with friends or family. None the less, we recognise that
it is essential that our gambling regulation works to protect
children and vulnerable people. We have dedicated a chapter of
our call-to-evidence to questions in this very important
area.
My noble friends and mentioned the online
protections which are necessary. We have made significant
progress in recent years on making online gambling safer,
including a ban on gambling on credit cards and new rules to
reduce the intensity of online slot games. However, we recognise
that more can be done to protect those who gamble online. Our
review is looking closely at the case for greater protections for
online gamblers, including protections on products and for
individuals. The Gambling Commission is also working to improve
how operators use data to identify customers at risk of harm and
how they can intervene. Operators already must monitor play and
intervene when there are signs of harm.
My noble friend asked about affordability
checks. 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 be done in a way that is acceptable to customers. We continue
to work closely with the Gambling Commission on this issue in the
run-up to publishing our White Paper.
The noble Lord, , asked about the
Online Safety Bill. Online gambling platforms will be in scope of
the regulatory framework if they host user-generated content or
facilitate online interaction— for example, through chat
functions. However, online gambling platforms which only enable
interaction between individuals and the gambling company will not
fall into scope of that Bill.
We have a robust regulatory regime which limits children’s
exposure to advertising and the effect it may have on vulnerable
people, but we, the Advertising Standards Authority and the
Gambling Commission are always alert to where more may need to be
done. We will be publishing our White Paper at the conclusion of
the review and the consideration of all the submissions to it,
along with our proposals for reform. We have been carefully
considering the evidence that has been received and will continue
to take into account the opinions given and further arguments
made in debates such as this. I thank again the noble Lord,
, for giving us this
opportunity, and thank all noble Lords who took part in the
debate. To the noble Lord, , the noble Baroness, Lady
Wilcox, and my noble friend Lord Bourne, I say, Dydd Gŵyl Dewi
hapus.
|
