Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) I beg to move, That this House
has considered gambling-related harm. It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I am delighted to have secured
this debate to talk about the urgent need for reform of the
gambling laws. After two and half years of debates, reports and
evidence sessions and, sadly, years of harm, addiction and
ultimately loss of life, I was pleased to hear the Minister last
week confirm that the...Request free
trial
(Swansea East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered gambling-related harm.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I am
delighted to have secured this debate to talk about the urgent
need for reform of the gambling laws. After two and half years of
debates, reports and evidence sessions and, sadly, years of harm,
addiction and ultimately loss of life, I was pleased to hear the
Minister last week confirm that the publication of the
long-awaited White Paper is not just imminent, but “very, very
imminent”.
I urge the Minister to keep his word. He knows that the longer we
wait to bring outdated and ineffective gambling laws into the
digital age, the more people will fall victim to insidious online
gambling products. For years, colleagues across the House and I
have faced an onslaught of opposition from the gambling industry,
for which the status quo is the perfect mix of outdated
legislation, weak sanctions and limited scope. The reforms that
we propose would fix that broken state of affairs.
Last week, GambleAware, a charity linked to the industry,
reported that an estimated 1.4 million people suffer harms
related to gambling, and that gambling has returned to
pre-pandemic levels. According to the Gambling Commission, there
are 55,000 problem gamblers aged 11 to 16. A Public Health
England report found that 0.5% of people are problem gamblers,
3.8% are at risk and 7% are negatively affected by others’
gambling. The same report estimated that the cost of
gambling-related harm is £1.27 billion annually.
Online gambling in particular must be addressed. The majority of
online gambling revenue is derived from those classed either as
problem gamblers or as at risk. The House of Lords Select
Committee on the Gambling Industry found that 60% of gambling
industry profits come from the 5% experiencing gambling harm. The
University of Liverpool found that for online gambling that is
even higher, with 86% of profits coming from that small
cohort.
Rather than enter into a proper dialogue with those who are
looking to reform and improve our gambling laws, the industry has
come forward with very little in the way of remedies. It has
resorted to playground name-calling, labelling those who are
seeking improvements and reform as prohibitionists and, in my
case, a Methodist. As a Welsh woman, I do not consider that an
insult. That response is simply not good enough.
People having a bet on the Grand National, placing their Saturday
accumulator, or enjoying a night at bingo or in the casino, are
not—I repeat not—the focus of our reforms. We are fighting
against people being seriously harmed, families being destroyed
and lives being lost through gambling addiction and disorder. We
cannot, in good conscience, stand by and see any more
gambling-related suicides. Nor can we see people turn to
substance abuse or crime as a way out of their addiction.
The playbook that the industry uses is very similar to the one it
used during the debate on fixed odds betting terminals. We must
not be fooled by that narrative. The industry says that the
problem is historical, yet just a few weeks ago 888 was fined to
the tune of £9.4 million for multiple failings. The industry says
that reforms will harm the economy and result in job losses,
which is exactly the same argument it used ahead of the reduction
in the stake on fixed odds betting terminals. Despite warnings
from the industry that 4,500 of the 9,000 betting shops would
close as a result of reducing the stake to £2 a spin, 8,000
betting shops are still open today, and many are still clustered
in some of our most deprived communities.
Last year, Peers for Gambling Reform commissioned a report, which
was carried out by NERA Economic Consulting and concluded
that
“industry profits are likely to exceed”
any financial costs associated with proposed reforms. The report
stated that
“diverting expenditure by the public to other sectors which are
more labour intensive than the gambling sector could create up to
30,000 new jobs, and employee earnings could increase by up to
£400 million.”
Proposed reforms would see a
“net increase of £68-£87 million in tax revenues”,
rather than a net loss to the Exchequer. The industry argues that
any reform at all will drive people to the black market, but the
Gambling Commission has already said that the industry
overestimates the existence of the black market, and it is not an
argument to hold back reform.
What improvements are needed in the upcoming White Paper? Most
importantly, the case for a centralised and independent
affordability assessment is overwhelming. It cannot be right that
online operators permit customers to deposit and lose hundreds of
thousands of pounds, despite those customers having no regular
source of income and often using money that is funded by crime.
There has been a lot of debate about the level of a soft
affordability cap, by which I mean the point at which an open
banking check would kick in. Putting a limit of £100 a month on
net deposits is a sensible, proportionate and, more importantly,
evidence-based position, especially when we consider that the
average level of disposable income in Britain is £450 a month,
and that 73% of slot players and 85% of non-slot players lose £50
or less a month. A soft cap at £100 is therefore low enough to
enable the vast majority of gamblers to continue without any
checks whatever, as the vast majority of gambling activity occurs
below this level. A £100 check would kick in only for those who
gamble well above the average amount each month. Moreover, it
does not preclude gamblers spending more than that. It just means
that they would have to have an enhanced affordability check,
which—surprise, surprise—many of the industry operators already
carry out.
I also want to mention several banks that have been supporting
their customers by providing gambling blocks. Monzo and Starling
were among the first to do so, and I cannot understand why many
banks do not offer the same support. It should be mandatory.
There are now loopholes whereby gambling companies can accept
non-card payments or the information available to the block is
not accurate. I ask that Ministers work with the banking industry
to ensure that all banks provide a comprehensive blocking
facility.
(Calder Valley) (Con)
I wonder what the answer is. I fully understand what the hon.
Lady is proposing, but look at the hard evidence from Norway.
Norway has done exactly what the hon. Lady is proposing, but 66%
of all gambling stakes in Norway are done on the black market or
dark web. How does the hon. Lady propose that that does not
happen in this case?
Doing nothing is certainly not the answer. I know little about
the Norway study, but just because Norway has not been
successful, it does not mean to say that the UK Government would
not be successful. We cannot afford to have any more of the
issues that we have encountered for the last 17 years. Enough
life has been lost, and doing nothing is not an answer.
I would like to pay tribute to Annie Ashton, who bravely started
an e-petition when her husband Luke sadly took his own life after
being lured back into gambling by relentless operators. I
strongly back her calls to end the poisonous inducements that the
industry uses to hook people on its addictive products. There is
no such thing as a free bet.
It is not just inducements that are a massive problem. Gambling
advertising has proliferated in recent years. We are now
bombarded with gambling adverts on TV, online, at football
matches and on billboards. I know that colleagues are
particularly concerned about the impact that that has on
children. If we look at recent published data, we can see the
scale of the problem: 96% of people aged 11 to 24 have seen
gambling marketing messages in the last month and are more likely
to bet as a result; 45% of 11 to 17-year-olds and 72% of 18 to
24-year-olds see gambling advertising at least once a week on
their social media, with one-third of young people reporting
seeing it daily; 41,000 under 16-year-olds—children—are estimated
to be followers of gambling-related accounts on social media; and
1,200 hours of gambling ads have been played on the radio during
the school run hours over the last year.
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
Does the hon. Lady welcome the whistle-to-whistle ban on
advertisements for gambling, which has seen a 97% reduction in
the amount of adverts that children see? Would she support what
Bet365, a company in Stoke-on-Trent, is supporting, which is that
only branding should be advertised, mainly on the pitch side, not
any actual odds or free bets that, I agree with her, can be too
inducing and, therefore dangerous?
The whistle-to-whistle ban is not worth the paper it was written
on. As for supporting anything Bet365 has done, I am sorry, I
could not possibly do that. My experience of it does not allow me
to do that.
That is a fraction of the alarming statistics that come across my
desk each day. We know from research by Ipsos MORI and the
University of Stirling that regular exposure to gambling
promotions can change perceptions and associations with gambling
over time and impact the likelihood that young people will gamble
in the future. That advertising is a catalyst to risk and problem
gambling in secondary school-aged children as a result, according
to the Journal of Gambling Studies.
How can we let gambling companies spend more than £1.5 billion a
year on advertising to the extent that in one single televised
football match over 700 gambling logos were visible throughout
the game? That is insane.
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady think that kind of answers the last
intervention? If the gambling companies that are businesses did
not think the advertising was successful in capturing more
people, would they put £1.5 billion into it, or would they stop
advertising now?
The right hon. Gentleman will know my answer. I was surprised
when I saw the comment from the industry that advertising did not
affect people’s behaviour. I thought if that was the case
spending £1 would be ridiculous, but to spend £1.5 billion
beggars belief.
Will the hon. Lady give way?
I am going to make progress. Economic research has already proven
that a ban on gambling advertising in sport would be unlikely to
significantly harm sports leagues and teams. The non-gambling
sponsors exist and are ready to fill any gap created. With our
proposed carve-outs for sectors such as horse racing, we can
ensure protection on all sides.
Next is the need for a statutory levy. Chronic underinvestment in
the gambling treatment system has led to a scenario in which
treatment is unregulated, unaccountable and fails to use the
evidence base in the treatment strategies. Between 2% and 3% of
people with gambling problems enter the treatment system and
nearly all of them enter it through self-referral. A 1% smart
levy on industry revenue would provide £130 million, which would
be an increase of over £100 million on what we currently receive.
That would significantly reduce the UK’s disparity with other
nations that spend far more per gambler on treatment than the UK
does, increasing funds for improved and—most
importantly—industry-free education. That would put the UK at the
forefront of research on an issue that affects millions of people
across the world, would improve our understanding of how gambling
is developing in this country and would inform future
regulation.
There should be stake limits for online gambling, to give parity
with land-based venues, including a maximum £2 stake on harmful
slot content. Given the rapidly changing nature of both
land-based gambling and online gambling, it is essential that
limits on stakes and prizes, and potentially other factors, are
renewed on a triannual basis.
A gambling ombudsman must be set up to ensure fair representation
for those who experience problems with operators. Although the
Gambling Commission receives complaints as the basis for possible
enforcement action, it does not act on behalf of customers in
pursuit of redress. That has allowed operators to withhold
winnings unfairly and to use obscure terms and conditions to
require customers to wager their deposit dozens of times before
they are allowed to withdraw their money.
I know that the Gambling Commission has already introduced very
welcome identity and age verification requirements, banned the
use of credit cards, acted in relation to speed of play and
length of time spent on a game, taken measures to require
customers to have information on their winnings and their losses,
and required all operators to sign up to GAMSTOP. However, there
is far, far more to be done.
It is not just my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group
on gambling-related harm or the Peers for Gambling Reform group
who support these measures. Recent polling commissioned by YouGov
confirms that the British public are also on our side. Of those
surveyed, 78% believe that gambling advertising should be
completely banned on all platforms before the watershed and 67%
also think that sports clubs should no longer have gambling
sponsors on their kits or around their stadiums. In addition, 79%
of those surveyed believe that under-18s should not be exposed to
gambling advertisements in any form and 72% agree with me that
affordability checks should be in place to help to prevent people
from losing more money than they can afford to lose. Also, 69% of
those surveyed think that online slots should have a maximum
stake of £2. Finally, 76% of those surveyed think that the
gambling industry should not get to choose where funding for
treatment for gambling addiction and research goes. For me, that
is a bit of a no-brainer, because doing otherwise is letting the
gambling industry mark its own homework; the gambling industry
gives the money, so it gets to say where it is spent. It is the
people who are damaged the most who lose out; this industry only
cares about its profits.
(Caithness, Sutherland and
Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Member is making the most impassioned contribution. I
hope that I will not interrupt the stream of useful statistics
that support her argument, but I will just give an example of—I
had better be careful in my description—a senior medical person
in the highlands who was well-off and well-paid. They committed
suicide and it was discovered afterwards that they were a
gambling addict.
The point I am making, and I am sure the hon. Member will agree,
is that it is a mistake to think that gambling is something that
just affects one particular sector of society; it is a problem
that can hit anyone. And the local community in the highlands has
never quite got over that person’s death.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that it is worth remembering
that gambling is all over the place; it is found at every level
of society.
I will not name names either. I will just say that there are
people in this room at this very moment who have made the
greatest sacrifice of all, having given their children to an
addiction, with little done to support them.
It is clear that the British public, the evidence, and the
momentum are all on the side of reform. All we are asking for is
effective protections to be put in place for customers, and for
an industry that is all too often shamelessly exploitative to be
reined in and regulated effectively. If we tackle the question of
affordability, ensure restrictions on advertising and introduce
stake limits to help prevent harm, we can tackle gambling
disorder and addiction at its very core. If we push to introduce
a statutory levy on the industry to properly fund research,
education and treatment, along with a gambling ombudsman, we can
at least try to help those who are already stuck in the depths of
exploitation.
This is a once-in-a-generation chance to update our laws and,
most importantly, save lives. It is now in the hands of a few
people who I pray to God are listening to this debate, because
the time for talking is done; now is the time for action. The
gambling industry has run amok for 17 years. It cannot be allowed
to be so destructive any longer.
Several hon. Members rose—
(in the Chair)
I intend to start the wind-ups at 3.27 pm, so if Back Benchers
take a maximum of four minutes, we should get everyone in.
2.51pm
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I
will be reasonably brief, as the hon. Lady—in this case, my hon.
Friend—the Member for Swansea East () has laid out all the
criteria. I want to emphasise a couple of points, and then appeal
to my colleagues to think carefully about what their arguments
really are.
It is worth reminding ourselves that this is a very cross-party
affair. Across the political parties, we all campaigned for
reform back in 2019. Recent polling shows that 70% of existing
Conservative MPs agree that people should be protected from
losing more than they can afford, so straightaway my own party is
very strongly in favour of the changes that the Minister, who
will be answering in due course, is looking to make; and I
encourage him in doing so. Some 64% of Conservative MPs agreed
that the industry needs greater regulation, and 68%—I know these
figures have been given already—agreed with stake limits for
online gambling. That is my political party, but this is very
much a cross-party issue, and I know that Members who represent
other parties will make similar points. This is not party
political; it is about harm, and how we control that harm.
We have been told frequently by the gambling companies—I remember
the debates on fixed odds betting terminals and so on—how they
would all do self-regulation very carefully and responsibly. The
industry simply did not take the big and early decisions that it
should have taken; in a way, it has brought this on itself. I
happen to think that many of these companies are very greedy.
They have resisted regulation because they have been making such
handsome profits out of the way that the industry works right
now—excessive profits, in a way—which should be the giveaway.
Failing to have self-regulated early means that it is simply not
feasible to trust those companies to do what they should do.
As I understand it, the public agree that these changes need to
happen and, as I say, parliamentarians are also in favour. If any
colleagues have not done so, they should meet those who have
suffered enormously as a result of gambling-related harm.
Proportionately, a very high number of the British public—7%— are
involved in serious gambling harms. That is to say that their
families, family members, children, husbands, wives and partners
also get sucked into their situation, because an individual or
individuals have got themselves sucked into terrible debts,
spending more than they can afford and becoming more in debt than
their family can afford.
I want to draw attention to one element of the issue about which
I have been particularly furious, which is the existence of VIP
rooms. The gambling companies persisted with those rooms until
they finally started explaining that they were somehow not going
to do so anymore, but this has been going on for years. VIP rooms
target the most vulnerable people—the people who, as the hon.
Member for Swansea East said, the gambling companies make their
money off—who are seriously caught up in gambling, often spending
much more than they can afford. They are encouraged and
incentivised to gamble more, getting special tickets to events,
meeting celebrities, and being told what wonderful and clever
people they are. All of this is a vortex of debt to them.
We know something about debt that is really important, and the
Centre for Social Justice did a lot of work on this: debt is the
single biggest cause of family breakdown. It is a dramatic and
damaging process that destroys lives. It has led, as we know, to
embarrassment, shame and eventual suicide—although in some cases
people are caught before they get there. The truth is that debt
is damaging, and for many people gambling is a real cause of
serious and unregulated debt.
I do not believe in constantly regulating everything, but at time
industries need to be regulated to shape the market. The gambling
industry was deregulated far too much. At the time, I made a
speech saying that I thought it would lead to serious problems,
and that speech was right. It is not about the fact that the
Labour party did it at the time; the reality was that it was
wrong, whoever did it. Now we have to try to make that better. To
improve the situation is not about being against gambling. It is
about the gambling harms that come from an unregulated and
unsupported process, and it is about not allowing people who do
gamble to fall into the deep trough of debt.
My final point is about black markets. I have lost count of the
number of times that I have been told, when any reform or change
is planned, that there is going to somehow be a black market, and
that people are going to go off and use it. A gambling black
market is a pretty specialised area. If we are worried about that
black market, we should simply seek to reform it; we do not stop
doing something because we think it will somehow plunge people
into debt. I appeal to colleagues, and those who may not be here
today, to accept that the time is long overdue.
The hon. Member for Swansea East is quite right that we must move
now and swiftly. I urge the Government to come forward and not to
listen to the shrill voices that surround them at times, telling
them, “This is going to destroy and damage an industry, and it is
going to lead to huge hardships and problems.” Given the level of
profits and the private money that is taken out of the industry,
frankly, if it had common sense it would plough that money back
in and then not need to suffer anything at all.
The time is overdue; the Government are now in the right place,
although the Minister will no doubt explain that further. The
Minister responsible for this issue—the Under-Secretary of State
for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member
for Croydon South ()—has already explained his
intentions. It is time for the gambling industry to recognise
that the time is up, change is coming—it has to come—and it is
not too soon, given the lives that have been lost and the damage
that has been done to families. I say to my colleagues, do not
continue to defend bad practice.
2.57pm
(Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I
start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea
East () on securing this important
debate, and for the typically passionate way in which she set out
the case for the Government to act faster on combatting
gambling-related harm. I declare my interest as a member of the
APPG on gambling related harm.
As we know, the Government’s review was completed a year ago this
week, and it received 16,000 submissions. Gambling-related harm
is an issue that I care passionately about. Why? It is not
because of the statistics and the facts, although they are
compelling and I congratulate colleagues on reminding us of them.
The reason that I care is closer to home: I see the impact of
gambling-related harm in my constituency on a regular basis, as
do so many of us through our work with constituents. Faced with
those stories, I cannot fail to see the case for reform. I share
the view that problem gambling in the UK should be treated as a
public health issue. Gambling harm is happening every day. It
destroys lives, damages health and mental health and, at worse,
can lead to the loss of loved ones. There is also the cost to
society in lost tax receipts, benefit claims, welfare, and the
cost to the NHS and the criminal justice system. Above all, the
impact on the health of those affected and the families around
them should concern us most, and should be the focus of the
Government as they prepare to release the White Paper.
The publication of the gambling White Paper cannot come soon
enough. I urge the Minister and his colleagues in Government to
take the opportunity to deliver meaningful change where the
industry has not. Others across Parliament, in the media and
beyond will say that the industry has already introduced
significant reforms. Although change is welcome, the stories that
so many of us continue to hear demonstrate it is not enough. The
time for action is now, and our message is that we do not need to
wait; so much can be done before we reach for primary
legislation. I hope that the Government will grasp the urgency of
the situation and announce changes that can be delivered as soon
as possible.
The case for reform is not only mounting; it is overwhelming.
However, I and my colleagues across Parliament who have
campaigned tirelessly to stop gambling harm face a common
challenge. With alarming regularity, we are now told that reform
will stop the average punter spending a few quid or that it will
prevent people from enjoying themselves. That narrative has to
stop. Reform is not about prohibition. It would not stop people
doing something they have enjoyed without harm for many years.
Reform is about preventing harm and stopping an out-of-control
industry from taking advantage of people who are suffering. I
have heard several times that gamblers will be driven to the
unregulated black market. My response is simple: I do not believe
it. The Gambling Commission has previously said that the risk is
overstated.
Beyond that, we have to ask ourselves, if harm is already taking
place on a vast scale through licensed operators today, why would
we not want to regulate so they act more responsibly? There is no
reason for us to be caught in a regulatory race to the bottom. As
the publication of the White Paper comes ever closer, I hope that
the Government have listened and acted on the many concerns
raised in order to prevent gambling harm across the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East highlighted, it is
estimated that in excess of 55,000 children in this country
between the ages of 11 and 16 are gambling addicts. The gambling
industry spends more than £1.5 billion a year on advertising, and
60% of its profits come from the 5% who are already problem
gamblers or at risk of becoming so. On average, a problem gambler
commits suicide every day. A recent report from Public Health
England showed that the annual economic burden of gambling harm
is estimated to be more than £1.2 billion, with the greatest
risks occurring in the more deprived areas of the country. That
is not levelling up, but levelling down.
There are many actions we need to take, but I add my name to the
calls for four key reforms, several of which can happen now as we
begin to deal with this terrible problem in our communities and
societies. First, to underline what others have already said, we
need to an online system that ensures that people cannot spend
more than they can afford. Secondly, I cannot understand why
online gambling is not subject to the same stake limits as fixed
odds betting terminals and in-person gambling. That has to be
changed. During lockdown, people were at home more and restricted
in their movements, with access to mini casinos on their laptops
or mobile phones. That easy access to online gambling is
dangerous and puts vulnerable people at much greater risk.
Thirdly, there should be a smart statutory levy on the gambling
industry to pay for education, treatment and research. Finally,
we should remove gambling advertising from sports and sports
team, especially sports to which children are exposed.
The Gambling Act 2005 is outdated and has often been described as
analogue legislation for a digital age. It was in place before
the advent of mobile smartphones that provide access to the mini
casino in our pockets and before the internet provided an even
larger platform for gambling advertising. The asks that I and
many others have outlined are a foundation to build on in
creating a society where the risk from real harm and gambling is
not acceptable. The evidence is there, the harm that is being
caused is well documented, and the time for action is well
overdue.
3.03pm
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I
draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests and it is also only right to draw
everyone’s attention to the fact that before I came to this
place, I was employed by Bet365 between 2006 and 2019. I have not
come to this place to be a spokesperson for the gambling
industry, but I hope that my experience can be used to inform the
House in such debates. Bet365 is a major employer in
Newcastle-under-Lyme—I see two colleagues from Stoke-on-Trent
here as well—and contributes a huge amount to the local area and
to skilled jobs there. I will come to that later.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East () on securing this important
debate. I pay tribute to her tenacity and that of my right hon.
Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green ( ), and to everybody who
has pushed the subject of gambling-related harm, which we all
want to see reduced. I see the Under-Secretary of State for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for
Mid Worcestershire () in his place. The
Gambling Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital,
Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon
South (), visited Bet365 last week, and
I know that he shares that ambition. I want to share my
experience and understanding of how the industry works to respond
to some of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Swansea
East in her opening remarks, and to say that I do fear the impact
on the black market. I will come to that in a minute.
The hon. Lady is right to have held the industry to account for
so long. It has been too slow to adapt in the past, but has made
some big changes in recent years, such as the whistle-to-whistle
ban and the code on high-value customers, as referred to by my
right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.
High-value customers are not just addicts; some are seriously
wealthy, so have been treated as VIPs in the past. They are big
customers that any capitalist firm would wish to have. However, I
accept that VIPs have gone wrong in the past.
Points have already been made about advertising, but I am pleased
that 20% of TV adverting by the industry now promotes safer
gambling and that we are tackling problem gambling. Figures
published by the regulator the Gambling Commission, covering the
period to December 2021, showed that the problem gambling rate
was down from 0.6% to 0.3%, and that the number of those at
moderate risk has fallen from 1.2% to 0.8%. In countries such as
Italy, Norway and France, those rates are much higher and there
are more black markets, either because online gambling is
illegal, there is a state monopoly or there are such high tax
rates for the companies registered there. I accept that the black
market is not a big problem in the UK at the moment, but that is
because we have a well-regulated structure for gambling. We can
regulate it better and I hope we do so through the review, but we
must be mindful that that risk is out there.
I will now talk a little about Bet365 and what it is doing. The
Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,
my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, my hon. Friends the
Members for Stoke-on-Trent North () and for Stoke-on-Trent
Central () and I visited Bet365 last week. The company has been
at the forefront of the industry in trying to address the issue,
and has gone above and beyond current regulatory guidance. As I
have said, it is rooted in north Staffordshire and did not
offshore its sports betting to Gibraltar when most other firms
did in order to avoid tax. It has always paid its fair share of
taxes, and Denise Coates has always paid her fair share of income
tax and not sought to avoid that, despite the headlines that come
with that every year.
(Inverclyde) (SNP)
This is a caveat, but Denise Coates paid herself a billion pounds
over the course of four years. If I earned a billion pounds, I
would make sure I paid my tax as well.
I am glad to hear that. The fact that she has paid her tax and
has not sought to keep that money in the company or do anything
else with it is admirable.
Bet365 pays a huge amount of tax and is a British company with
huge export success. A lot of its revenue comes from abroad, and
any bet taken from abroad improves our balance of payments as an
export success. Denise Coates has donated a nine-figure sum to
the Denise Coates Foundation, which funds charities locally,
nationally and internationally. Bet365 also owns Stoke City
football club, so it is rooted in that community.
The hon. Member for Swansea East rightly raised a number of
issues, but Bet365 has already gone above and beyond regulatory
and industry guidance, by setting deposit limits, picking up on
red flags, and having a huge team for responsible gambling
proactively contacting people believed to be at risk. The hon.
Lady said she wanted a net deposit limit of £100 a month, but I
hope she will understand my genuine concern that the process of
asking people for data, such as mortgage and bank statements or
pay slips, is very intrusive.
In the experience of Bet365 and other firms that I have spoken
to, people do not want to provide that information and at the
point at which they are asked for it, they stop betting with that
firm. We do not know where they then go. Do they go to another
firm, elsewhere or stop gambling all together? We do not have
enough information, but lessons from the industry tell us that
asking people for pay slips and mortgage and bank statements
stops them engaging with the firm that already knows their
behaviour best. I am not against deposit limits, and neither is
Bet365, but we have to get the level right and have lower levels
for young people, and so on. Equally, Bet365 has set slot stake
limits lower than previously and is prepared to look at
feedback.
Change is necessary. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea
East for her campaign. I hope that in the course of the review
the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport can learn
from firms that are at the forefront of the sector, such as
Bet365, which is a major local employer that is setting standards
for responsible gambling within the sector that I believe we can
learn from.
(in the Chair)
Can Members reduce the length of their comments to three and a
half to four minutes? I call .
3.08pm
(Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East () on her passion and her
commitment. I fully support her. I like to think that I am
equally passionate when it comes to this issue and I am very keen
to see the changes that we all desire. On the whole, I believe
people should be entitled to live and let live and make their own
mistakes, but only in so far as that mistake does not harm
others. Unfortunately, gambling does affect others and, as the
hon. Lady said, it affects entire households, including people I
know and will speak about, without mentioning any names.
In Northern Ireland, an online survey identified 2.3% of the
population as having a gambling problem. Although that percentage
is likely to underestimate the number of problem gamblers, it is
still more than four times higher than that recorded in mainland
Britain and almost three times higher than in the Republic of
Ireland. Again, that illustrates my concerns. I can think of one
lady in particular in my constituency, whose husband would often
come home on a Friday night with no money to pay the bills. It
put her and her children in a desperately difficult position. It
almost drove the couple apart and ruined their marriage, lives,
health and wellbeing. That is just one example.
Some 4% of suicides among 20 to 24-year-olds are
gambling-related. There are 250 gambling-related suicides per
year in the UK. A Swedish study found that the suicide rate for
those with a gambling disorder was 15 times that of the general
population. I give those figures because that is what we are
looking at: lives that could be saved by a change in legislation.
I understand that the gambling sector has done a lot, but it has
not done enough. I ask the sector and the Minister to engage with
gambling organisations and those who are trying to make lives
better and save lives. It is clear that the damage to the
community at large is not met with an equal amount of regulation.
With that in mind, I ask the Minister to take every step to make
the changes.
Gambling with Lives is a charity that was set up in Fermanagh in
Northern Ireland by grieving parents who lost their son by
suicide after a gambling addiction. They are putting their time,
money and effort into raising awareness to ensure that no other
parent will know the pain they feel from their loss. They began
an initiative in schools because they know that is where it
begins for many gamblers, and never more so than now when the
world is at our fingertips through our smartphones. I take my hat
off to their drive and determination to bring good from loss. Can
we say in this House and in this debate today that we are
approaching the matter with equal drive? With respect, are the
Minister and the Government also involved in pushing hard on the
issue?
I would like to see the introduction of regulations that would
require operators to pay an annual levy to the Gambling
Commission, to create a joint advisory levy board with oversight
over the levy paid to the Gambling Commission, to reallocate the
£60 million pledge to GambleAware for 2023 to the Gambling
Commission under the oversight of the levy board, and to
implement the targeted findings into the smart levy. That is why
this debate is important. It is about changing lives and saving
lives. Lives and families depend on this, and I believe the
Government’s approach is not dependable. With that in mind, it
must change, and I look to the Minister to assure me that it will
change and for the better.
3.12pm
(Calder Valley) (Con)
Everybody here understands the damage caused by addiction, not
just to the individual but to families, marriages and
communities. Nobody doubts for a minute the challenges that the
Government face in trying to regulate, in this case, the gambling
industry to protect the most vulnerable, while at the same
allowing the vast majority to enjoy their hobby or, in some
cases, profession without it becoming an overburdened,
bureaucratic straitjacket or without imposing a nanny-state
solution on the majority. I say that because if the industry is
restricted too harshly, the evidence shows that it just forces
people on to the black market or the dark web, where there are
absolutely no checks or balances in place to protect people. No,
it is not difficult to access for someone who wants or needs to
use it.
The reality is that problem gambling rates in the UK, at 0.3%,
are low compared with our neighbours: in Italy, it is 2.4%; in
Norway, 1.4%; and in France, 1.3%. Despite what the hon. Member
for Swansea East () says, a big part of that
success is down to what industry in the UK has embraced, with
programmes like “BeGambleAware”. That is not just a saying or
catchphrase, but something tangible in every regulated high
street betting shop with human interaction, as well as their
online presence. The large industry players in this country have
pledged contributions of over £100 million for research,
education and treatment in this area.
Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that for the money the
industry has given, it says where it is spent? It has influence
over how that money is spent and therefore it precludes people
from accessing services because they feel there is industry
interference.
I was trying to highlight the fact that the hon. Lady said
earlier that the industry was doing nothing, and the reality is
that it is not doing nothing. It is actually part of why we have
a much lower gambling problem in this country than our neighbours
do. The industry is also spending a further £10 million on safer
gambling education for all 11 to 19-year-olds throughout the
country. As we have seen during the pandemic when we were all
working from home, advertising on safer gambling is a much larger
proportion of the money spent on gambling adverts.
That does not mean that we do nothing more. Of course there is
more to do, and anyone who has experienced living with a problem
gambler knows how potentially life-damaging it is for everyone
around them. It is therefore right that any review of gambling
has the most vulnerable at its heart.
Let us briefly look at what happens when we abandon a balanced,
competitive, regulated market, which is the only way to deter the
hugely increasing black market. I mentioned Norway earlier, which
introduced restrictions on stakes, strict affordability checks,
and curbs on advertising. Instead of protecting the most
vulnerable, it drove them to the black market, where 66% of all
gambling in Norway now takes place. There is no human interaction
on that market, no checks on affordability, and no lifelines
available, either. So Norway’s 1.4% problem gambling figure is
much higher because it does not know where the problem gamblers
are.
On the black market, my hon. Friend rightly draws attention to
the lack of protection for problem gamblers, but there is also no
protection for people to ensure they get paid if they have a
winning bet. They do not have any of the security that we have
here in the United Kingdom that ensures people will be treated
fairly by the operator, nor all the problem gambling measures
that we have.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We get legal protection in
the regulated market that we have here in the UK.
(Tewkesbury) (Con)
I draw the Chamber’s attention to my entry in the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests. There is a further point that has
not been mentioned. I represent the Cheltenham racecourse, and
45% of horseracing’s income comes from bookmakers. It is
extremely important that we tackle problem gambling. One problem
gambler is one too many, but is not that statistic very important
when the Government consider how to take a balanced approach? The
entire sport of horseracing is very worried indeed about the
potential loss of income in what is not a well-funded sport.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we see that in snooker
and darts as well, which rely on funding to ensure they remain
popular.
I mentioned Norway and I will highlight a similar story in
France, where online gambling is illegal and 57% of all gambling
is done on the black market. In Bulgaria, it is 47%. In Italy,
23% of all money staked now goes to the black market. Here in the
UK, although the figures are low in comparison, we have seen a
large rise in online unregulated gambling, from 2.2% to 4.5% over
the last 18 months. In unregulated, black market gambling—
(in the Chair)
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman wind up, please?
Of course. The average stakes are much higher, with billions and
billions of pounds involved.
Let us be careful what we ask for. Although the scourge of
addiction is a problem that we need to address, we have to be
very careful that an act of good intention does not make the
problem far worse than it currently is. The evidence is there if
the Government are keen to look. We must not throw the baby out
with the bathwater. The Government need to work closely with the
industry on solutions and not destroy good intentions by imposing
on the industry rather than working with it.
(in the Chair)
I am sorry for the three speakers remaining. We have less than
nine minutes left, so that is three minutes each.
3.19pm
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East
(), who secured today’s
debate. My biggest challenge is perhaps for the Minister, because
we do not have a public health Minister sitting in his place and
we are talking about a public health issue. I am pleased that in
York, after much persuasion, we have now got somebody from our
public health team appointed to look at the problem, but they are
starting with a blank sheet of paper because we do not have the
local data that they need to drive the health initiative.
As a country, we were shocked to hear that 55,000 children had a
gambling addiction. Some 14% of young people aged 11 to 16 had
spent their own pocket money to gamble in the week before the
report was carried out, spending an average of £16 a week. The
report also found that, over the year, 39% of children had
gambled, with 6% using their parents’ online account to do
so.
The next generation of gamblers are being drawn in by not only
the gambling industry, but the gaming industry. That industry has
not been mentioned today, but with 31% of gamers opening loot
boxes, it is causing equal harm. One young constituent was
thousands of pounds in debt from gaming—what a way to start their
life. Young people are really at risk.
The behaviour of the gambling industry is to groom young people
and put them in a place of harm. We see the lobbying that takes
place in this place—the gambling industry just does not hold
back. We see the intrusive behaviours online and the grooming
techniques. We have heard so much today about the advertising,
the free bets and those luxury days out that are offered to lure
people into that space and draw them into debt. The industry has
the data—it knows what it is doing. It is therefore a deliberate
act. We have to approach that with an equal and opposite bold
approach and not be fearful of the industry.
I am really grateful for the work that people are doing across
the health sector to take this issue seriously. Matt Gaskell, who
runs the northern hub of the NHS gambling service, is exceptional
at the work that he does.
We have to break the links through which the gambling industry
thinks it can control what health interventions are made. Yes, we
should tax the industry up to the hilt, but we should use that
general taxation to fund proper investment in the public health
measures that are now being put in place.
The treatment provided by the service is 92% effective. However,
only 8,500 people have accessed it, while only 6% have accessed
the helpline provided. We know that it is not effective
intervention. It expects very vulnerable people to be able to
access those services.
We need to open up the conversation and the dialogue. It is
really important that we start talking about this issue and open
it up, so that people feel they have a safe space in which to
talk about their debt problems, as opposed to feeling at
risk.
3.22pm
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
Thank you for calling me, Ms Rees. Like all Members present, I
recognise the real importance of addressing problem gambling.
However, I think it important that we put this issue in context,
especially given that the latest Gambling Commission figures show
a drop in problem gambling from 0.6% to 0.3% in the 18 months up
to December 2021. Those figures compare with far higher rates of
problem gambling among many of our European neighbours.
The vast majority of people in the UK gamble responsibly and
safely. EY has suggested that the sector supports 119,000 jobs
and contributes £4.5 billion in tax and £7.7 billion in gross
value added to the economy. In Stoke-on-Trent alone, the industry
supports 4,500 jobs, predominantly at Bet365, many of which are
highly skilled. We have very few of those high-skilled jobs in
areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, which is still on the journey
towards the levelling up of opportunities.
It is also important to recognise the significant investment by
the sector in sport and wider charitable causes, such as through
the Denise Coates Foundation, which most recently gave more than
£1 million to humanitarian efforts in Ukraine. More than £40
million is provided annually to the English Football League
alone—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Newcastle-under-Lyme () mentioned, includes Stoke City
Football Club, which is based in my constituency at the Bet365
Stadium. Most of the investment in the club and the Stoke City
community foundation comes from Bet365. The community foundation,
in particular, does fantastic work to engage young and vulnerable
people in sports. Without the investment of the gambling sector
in such causes, much of that work simply would not be
possible.
Most recently, we have seen many in the sector lead the way by
improving standards, including investing in improvements in safer
gambling education and in efforts to address problem gambling.
The action that industry has taken, including to introduce a
whistle-to-whistle ban on sport advertising and almost entirely
removing gambling ads seen by children, has resulted in a
significant reduction in problem gambling. Those standards should
be implemented across the sector. I have met Bet365 and I know it
has led the way on much of the work, including significant
measures for those who need that support and flagging concerns
where they exist.
(in the Chair)
Order. Wind up, please.
It is important that these actions are further rolled out
throughout the sector, but there is a significant risk that if we
do not get this right, we will just encourage a growing black
market industry. The number of people accessing unlicensed
betting websites doubled between 2019 and 2020. I urge the
Government to be very cautious and to fully understand the
implications, to ensure that we do not see unintended
consequences that would only further gift those criminal black
market operators. We want proper action focused on those who
really need help and support.
(in the Chair)
Order. Thank you. , you have two minutes. Go
for it.
3.25pm
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East () on securing this debate.
Ultimately, what she said is important. No one here is in denial
of the fact that reform needs to happen or that we need to go
further.
In Stoke-on-Trent we have Bet365, which is acting impressively to
make sure that we see improvements in what they are doing, such
as the age verification policy, a deposit limit, advice and the
ability to set. If someone wants to change their deposit limit,
it takes 24 hours and a cooling-off period before they can do so.
Behaviour algorithms monitor that behaviour, which means that
someone could be picked up by the early risk detection system,
which leads to safer gambling messages. There are on-site
messages signposting tools, sharing with the customer information
on their behaviour, mandatory problem gambling self-assessment,
phone calls with customers, affordability assessments being
trialled at the moment, and tailored net deposit limits. Those
things are in place. The gambling industry is working hard to
improve and to find solutions. Although reform is needed, it must
be done sensibly.
3.27pm
(Inverclyde) (SNP)
I must say, I am pleased that people have come here to talk on
behalf of the gambling industry. Too often, we talk in a silo and
do not hear what other people have to say. I am glad they have
come here, spoken out, expressed themselves so eloquently and
read their Bet365 briefing so beautifully.
That’s not true.
It absolutely is true. I was sat here beside you and watched you
read it.
The hon. Gentleman refers to a briefing that I was reading. I
was, indeed, reading a briefing that was presented to the
Minister when he visited to explain what the industry was doing,
which is forming part of the gambling review. I do not see why it
is bad to get a briefing from companies sharing what they are
doing. What the hon. Gentleman said is ludicrous.
As I said, a briefing from Bet365—that is exactly what it
was.
For the Minister.
It does not matter who it was written for; it is a briefing from
Bet365.
You have never had a briefing from anyone else.
(in the Chair)
Order.
We will cover that in a minute; we are wasting time.
It is simply not true that 66% of Norwegian gambling is on the
black market. I am not trying to replicate Norway. In Norway,
gambling is state monopolised, and because of that they use the
internet a lot to gamble. In fact, the 66% relates to people
using online gambling. It is not black market gambling as we
understand it.
On whether the whistle-to-whistle ban works, Stirling University
carried out a survey during five football matches with a
whistle-to-whistle ban and recorded 2,000 gambling marketing
references. It is clearly not working or protecting the people it
is supposed to protect.
The all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm has
spoken to all the chief executives of the big gambling firms. We
have listened to what they have to say. We have spoken to
gamblers who gamble every day and do not have a problem with
gambling—we are not trying to step on their toes. If they want to
gamble and they are comfortable, they can gamble. We are not
prohibitionists. We have spoken to people who control the
provision and support for people with addiction. We have spoken
to academics, to addicts and to people whose lives have been
destroyed by the gambling industry. That is the rounded,
responsible way to go about forming a view on this topic, not to
sit here and read a briefing from a gambling firm. A number of
figures have been chucked around, and they came straight from the
PoliticsHome article by , chief executive officer of
the Betting and Gaming Council.
I am not accusing anybody in this room—absolutely no one—but I do
know that among those who support the gambling industry, a number
of elected MPs are well funded by the industry to do so, while
among the people who are fighting to reform gambling and make it
a safer environment for all our constituents, no money changes
hands.
The film “Erin Brokovich” tells the true story of a campaign
against the practices of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
which had illegally dumped hexavalent chromium—deadly toxic
waste—and poisoned the residents in the area. For most people, it
is inconceivable that directors sitting in the boardroom of a
large and successful company would allow such damage or behaviour
in the full knowledge of the harm that they are doing, but that
case is not unique. Large corporations have a history of putting
profit over people, be they the tobacco giants, which have a long
history of denying the health risks of smoking, or the logging
companies that ruthlessly exploit the Amazon rainforest for
personal gain.
In that respect, industry and politics share the same dynamics.
The power to make decisions that affect the lives of many are
often made by a few people who sit at the heart of the process.
Just like Prime Ministers and senior members of the Cabinet,
chief executives and company directors make choices that can have
huge impacts on people’s lives, for good and for bad. When they
act in their own self-interests, they can heap misery on many
others. The damage that they cause may not be apparent to
them—they can confine themselves to their ivory towers—but plenty
of people who witness that harm are prepared to testify if
listened to. Throughout history, a catalogue of people have been
willing to turn a blind eye to injustices in return for the
opportunity to feather their own nests. When chief executive
officers are driven solely by the pursuit of massive personal
wealth and the privilege that it brings, the plight of others can
easily be ignored or underestimated.
The gambling firms must be today’s equivalent of the tobacco
firms. They have taken vast amounts of money, generated massive
profits and paid their elite employees huge salaries, while
ruthlessly pursuing punters and squeezing every penny out of
them. The health and welfare of their customers is not a
priority. Games are designed to be addictive. The exponential
growth of online casinos has removed the human touch, and punters
are reduced to being part of the machine.
Gambling online can be done 24/7—cooling-off periods no longer
exist, and chasing losses goes unchallenged. People who have
self-excluded are often approached and tempted back to gambling.
Free bets in VIP rooms are lures to hook often vulnerable people
and draw them back into the fold. People have turned to crime to
feed their addictions, families have been left broken, and people
have committed suicide. In attempts to divert criticism, the
public relations departments of the gambling industry are quick
to point out the charitable organisations that they support. In
fact, if those who run the gambling industry paid themselves less
and their employees more, that money would be spent in local
communities, where the benefit would be felt—less charity, more
fair distribution of wealth.
The gambling industry also funds research into addiction and
support for sufferers, and picks up the tab for the Gambling
Commission, which regulates the industry, but it is not right
that those who cause the harm have financial control of the
research, education, treatment and regulation. The link between
industry money and those services must be broken, and funding
must be channelled through the NHS in the form of a smart
statutory levy. The UK gambling industry employs more than 45,000
people and directly contributes more than £4 billion to the
Exchequer. Those are impressive numbers, but the money spent on
gambling does not yield as much tax revenue as money spent in the
retail or food sectors, and we cannot turn a blind eye to the
fact that some of those jobs and much of that profit are the
result of gambling-related harm.
I am not a prohibitionist, but I recognise that the gambling
industry has to change; it must take responsibility for its
products and its punters, and it must recognise the damage of
addiction and play a part in reducing it. The industry has run
amok since 2005, but in this digital age it is now time to grow
up and act responsibly.
3.34pm
(Manchester, Withington)
(Lab)
It is really good to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. May I start
by paying tribute to my hon Friend the Member for Swansea East
() for securing this debate
and, more importantly, for her work over the years. She has been
a brilliant campaigner on this issue and set out the problems
very clearly in her speech, as did my hon. Friends the Members
for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney () and for York Central (), who gave powerful
speeches. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate,
particularly the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford
Green ( ). It is not often that I
agree with every word he says, but I did today.
We have had a variety of contributions, but there is something
that shines through—namely, the wide recognition and consensus
that reform is needed. As we know, the Gambling Act 2005, which
is the basis for regulation of gambling in the UK, has not been
updated since it was passed. Today’s debate is a reminder of how
unfit that legislation is in meeting the demands of the digital
age. As we have heard today, the mental and physical health
consequences of harmful gambling can be devastating in many ways.
Many of us have met people who have been damaged, and whose
families have been damaged, by gambling.
Aside from the cost to individuals, the Government’s own
gambling-related harms evidence review showed that the cost to
the Government is, at a minimum, at least £340 million each year.
Despite that, it has now been two years since the Government
committed to publishing a gambling White Paper. Meanwhile,
someone with gambling-related problems dies by suicide every day.
Government action is long overdue.
The experiences, the stories and the numbers speak for
themselves, particularly when it comes to the rapid increase in
online gambling practices. I want to particularly focus on that
area, as many others have, given that it is the source of many of
the harms that we have heard about today,
Among women in particular, online gambling is growing at an
alarming rate. According to research by GambleAware, it almost
tripled during the pandemic. We need only look at the data for
202-21 from GamCare’s national gambling helpline—it shows that
84% of calls made by individuals related to concerns about online
gambling habits—to get a feel for the scale of the problem. It is
a problem that we did not appreciate in 2005, but we must now
address it and treat it as a public health issue. We need to do
more to protect individuals against addictive and easily
accessible games, and those protections must include safeguards
and affordability checks, particularly for online slot and casino
games, where the Government have been slow to act.
As I have said, change is long overdue. Only last week, my hon.
Friend the Member for Sheffield Central () led an Adjournment debate
on the tragic death of his constituent Jack Ritchie, who was
driven to take his own life after battling a severe gambling
addiction. Jack saw his addiction begin at his local bookies at
the age of 17 before moving onto online gambling. That kind of
addiction can come very quickly and have devastating
consequences.
Jack’s story is a familiar one. I met a group of former gambling
addicts about a month ago and they were from a wide variety of
backgrounds; as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central
pointed out, gambling addiction can hit anybody. They had all
followed that same pattern: starting to gamble and then getting
into online gambling, and it destroyed their lives. Unbelievably,
at the time, banks were prepared to give them loans to fund their
gambling habit. It is a problem that we must get a grip on. The
whole aim of gambling adverts, incentives and VIP schemes is to
maintain or increase the spend of their so-called valuable
clients. Those harmful schemes are addictive in nature and offer
supposedly free stakes—as my hon. Friend said, there is no such
thing as a free bet—to lure customers in. We need to do
everything we can to make sure that people like Jack who are
aware of their addiction have the tools and support available to
help them through their problem.
Will the Minister give an indication of the Government’s thoughts
on imposing a mandatory levy on all gambling operators? A levy
would help to fund educational resources and treatment services
for people suffering as a consequence of their gambling.
Colleagues will, I think, be aware that there is already the
legal power to impose a levy on the gambling industry; it is
already there in legislation. The Government have always insisted
that the industry should support harm-reduction work on a
voluntary basis, but the current, voluntary system lacks
consistency, transparency and accountability. The big five
gambling companies have committed to paying 1% of their gross
yields towards safer gambling initiatives by 2023, but the
variation between online casinos and their donations is a
concern. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford
Green said, many of us do not trust that all the gambling
companies will act to do the right thing. Labour believes that
operators can and must do more to support vulnerable people.
I hope that the Minister will also reflect on the huge increase
in online gambling advertising, especially during live sporting
events. That can lead to a normalisation of gambling among young
people. I am keen to understand the Government’s thinking on how
to tackle that—how they can create the evidence base to
understand how that advertising affects gambling addiction and
how that can inform future policy.
As the online space continues to develop—we are now looking at
the issue of gambling in the metaverse, with the potential for
virtual reality casino experiences and other experiences—we need
to be looking ahead. I am keen to know what the Government are
thinking in terms of plans to tighten up safeguards, with a view
to the future and gambling in the metaverse. Obviously, we have
the Online Safety Bill coming up. That is a matter for another
day; we need the Minister to be clear and gambling-focused in his
response today. There is currently a discrepancy between the
regulation of physical gambling and the regulation of online
gambling, with lower-harm games such as bingo being subject to
tighter restrictions in some areas than addictive online betting.
We need to know the specific steps that the Government are taking
to ensure that there is parity. We have concerns that without
action and a proper licensing process, the online space will
continue to develop as a wild west when it comes to gambling
products.
Most importantly given the extent of the issues and the problems
that we have heard about, we need to know exactly when the
gambling review is due to be published. With respect, we need a
date. We have been waiting for a date for a long time now. What
we need to see is a plan to tackle problem gambling that is fit
for the modern age. There is clearly a political consensus on the
importance of getting this right, on the need for reform, so the
Minister can be assured of widespread support if the Government
act effectively, listen and get the balance right.
On a point of order, Ms Rees. I am very grateful to you and to
the Minister for agreeing to allow me to do this. I do apologise.
Because my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South
() kept the clock ticking down
on me, I was unable, and forgot, to draw hon. Members’ attention
to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for
the £540-worth of match tickets to Stoke City versus Fulham at
the Bet365 stadium in January. I do apologise to Members for
that.
(in the Chair)
The record is duly corrected. Thank you.
3.43pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture,
Media and Sport ()
I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North
() for correcting the
record; that is absolutely appropriate. It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for
Swansea East () for securing this very
important debate and all those who have contributed, in generally
a very constructive manner.
I know how committed the hon. Member for Swansea East and many
other Members—in fact, I think this applies to every single
person who spoke today—are to gambling reform. I thank her and
other parliamentarians for the many meetings that they have had
with Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Ministers
in recent months. Their perspectives and evidence on the issues
that we are considering through the review of the Gambling Act
2005 are very valuable indeed. She and all other hon. Members who
spoke today are quite right to make the case that reform is
needed. It has been 17 years since the Gambling Act was passed,
and it is clear that the risks of harm and the opportunities to
prevent it are very different now from when legislation was
introduced. We must act to recognise that in our regulatory
framework.
In recent years, the Government and the Gambling Commission have
introduced a wide variety of reforms to help to protect people
from gambling harm. Those include the ban on credit card
gambling, the FOBT stake limit reduction, and reform to VIP
schemes. The review is an opportunity to build on those changes
and to do more to ensure that we have the right protections for
the digital age.
As the hon. Member for Swansea East will appreciate, I cannot
pre-announce what will be published in the White Paper—much as
she may wish to prompt me to do so—but we are in the process of
finalising it. However, I absolutely recognise the severity of
the harms that gambling disorder can cause and why we all have a
duty to prevent people from being led down such a dark path.
The voice of people with personal experience of harm was
thoroughly represented among the submissions to our call for
evidence, and I, the gambling Minister—the Under-Secretary of
State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the
Member for Croydon South ()—and all our successors have
met a number of people who have suffered because of their own
addictions or those of people whom they love. They have all made
clear how enormous and lasting the effects of gambling disorder
can be, not only in the obvious financial losses but in
relationship strain, family breakdown, mental health problems
and, of course, suicide in extreme cases.
As my opposite number, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington
() mentioned, just last week the
hon. Member for Sheffield Central () secured an Adjournment
debate on the coroner’s finding that gambling contributed to the
tragic death of Jack Ritchie. As my hon. Friend the gambling
Minister said then, the findings are an important call to action
for our Department, the Department of Health and Social Care and
the Department for Education. We are considering the prevention
of future deaths report carefully and will respond in due course
on the actions being taken.
The causes of gambling-related harm are inherently complex to
unpick and address. Individual circumstances play a role, but it
is essential that we also look at the products, industry
practices and wider factors that can contribute to or exacerbate
them. Understanding the drivers and taking preventive action
where it is needed is at the heart of our public health approach.
Of course, understanding where it is needed is part of the
challenge for the gambling review. About half of the population
takes part in gambling each year, and the vast majority suffer no
ill effects at all. The population “problem gambling” rate has
been broadly stable since before the 2005 Act, with some recent
signs of a decline. The White Paper’s measures will be based on
the best available evidence to target risk proportionately. We
want to prevent unaffordable losses and industry practices that
exacerbate risk. We will also maintain the freedom for adults who
choose to gamble to do so, and for a responsible and sustainable
industry to service that demand.
Technology and data are central to developing effective and
proportionate protections. As my hon. Friend the gambling
Minister has said, there is huge potential in data-led tools,
which can stop and prevent harmful gambling while letting the
majority, who spend at low levels with no signs of risk, continue
uninterrupted. There has been particular discussion in recent
weeks—this was mentioned in the debate—about the role of
so-called affordability checks, where a customer’s financial
circumstances are considered as part of assessing whether their
gambling is likely to be harming them. Such assessments are
undoubtedly a key part of the toolkit for preventing the
devastating losses that we have all heard about, but, to be
workable and prevent harm, checks need to be proportionate and
acceptable to customers. We are keen to explore the role of data
such as that held by credit reference agencies or that already
used by operators to facilitate frictionless checks.
I am pleased that the Minister mentioned credit reference
agencies, because the current state of play is that bookmakers
can get only the basic data—the credit score—and cannot use the
credit reference agency to find out whether people can afford
their proposed levels of stake-in. Would he and the gambling
Minister be receptive to a change to the law to allow bookmakers
to get more granular data about someone’s affordability—it would
need to be done carefully—so that we do not have the intrusive
checks that, as I mentioned, drive people away from licensed
operators and potentially to the black market?
As I said, I will not pre-empt the review’s findings, but my hon.
Friend makes a key point about the responsibility and role of the
financial services sector in the review. The Government will
continue to work closely with the Gambling Commission on this
issue in the run-up to publishing the White Paper.
Another much discussed issue is data-led protection in the form
of single customer views, where operators share data to protect
people most at risk. That is increasingly necessary given that
the average online gambler now has three accounts, and those with
a gambling disorder typically have far more. I am pleased that
the Betting and Gaming Council’s trial of a technical solution
has been accepted into the Information Commissioner’s Office
sandbox process, which will mean close scrutiny from both the
information and gambling regulators to ensure that the trial
proceeds with appropriate safeguards in place.
Let me turn now to a few other items raised by hon. Members. On
the statutory levy proposals, we called for evidence on the best
way to recoup the regulatory and societal costs of gambling. We
have also been clear for a number of years that, should the
existing system of taxation and voluntary contributions fail to
deliver what was needed, we would look at a number of options for
reform, including a statutory levy, and we will set out our
conclusions in the White Paper.
The horse-racing industry was mentioned by my hon. Friend the
Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson). The review is not looking
directly at the horse-racing betting levy, but we are certainly
aware of the close relationship between racing and betting. The
main area of concern from the horse-racing industry is the
affordability checks. As I said, these are important, but they
must also be proportionate, and we are carefully considering the
impact of all our proposals.
Many hon. Members mentioned advertising, and gambling advertising
can help licensed gambling operators differentiate themselves
from the black market. It also provides financial support for
broadcasters and sport, but operators must advertise responsibly,
and we are committed to tackling aggressive practices. We have
called for evidence on advertising and sponsorship as part of the
review.
Protections are already in place to limit children’s exposure to
advertising—for example, the whistle-to-whistle ban mentioned by
hon. Members. That led, for example, to about a halving in the
number of adverts at the Euros last year compared with the 2018
World cup. Gambling adverts must not be targeted at children or
appeal particularly to them. The Committee for Advertising
Practice will soon publish more on its plans to tighten the rules
in this area.
On the gambling black market, again mentioned by many hon.
Members, we have called for evidence as part of our review, and
we are looking at the Commission’s powers as part of that
process. On customer redress, which the hon. Member for Swansea
East mentioned, operators must be held accountable for their
failings. The review will assess the current system of redress,
and we will set out our conclusions in the forthcoming White
Paper.
The hon. Member for Swansea East also mentioned the clustering of
betting shops. She will be aware that local authorities already
have a range of powers under the planning system and as licensing
authorities under the Gambling Act to grant or reject
applications for gambling premises in their areas, and we
encourage them to use those powers as appropriate. We have also
been reviewing the powers local authorities and other licensing
authorities have in relation to gambling premises licences as
part of the review.
On the issue of treatment, which was raised by the hon. Member
for York Central () and others, the
Government absolutely take a public health approach to gambling.
Gambling is a regulated sector, and we have protections for the
whole population, with rules to keep gambling fair, open and free
from crime. We also have specific protections for vulnerable
people. The DCMS works closely with the Department of Health and
Social Care, which leads on treatment and health issues. She will
be aware the Government are committed to strengthening treatment
and support for gambling disorder. This will build on changes and
reforms that have already taken place in recent years. The NHS
has committed to opening up to 15 specialist problem gambling
clinics by 2023-24. Five of these are already in operation and
more will follow soon.
The hon. Member for York Central also mentioned loot boxes, and
we are delivering on a manifesto commitment to tackle the issue
in video games. We ran a call for evidence last year to
understand the impact and received over 30,000 responses. We are
reviewing this evidence and continue to engage with the industry
to determine the most robust and proportionate solutions to the
issues identified. We will also be publishing our response and
next steps in the coming months. If she is patient, we will
report on that soon.
In conclusion, I absolutely recognise that we have an important
responsibility to get reform right. We will build on the many
strong aspects of our regulatory system to make sure it is right
for the digital age and the future. The White Paper is a priority
for the Department and we will publish it in the coming
weeks.
3.54pm
I would like to congratulate Bet365: it has mobilised speakers
well today, and I hope that its protection of vulnerable
customers is as tenacious as its ability to get MPs to come and
speak on its behalf in a Westminster Hall debate.
The word I would take from today is “protection”. Some of us have
spoken about how we want to protect vulnerable people, but others
may be more inclined to protect the profits of the industry. I
know which side I am on: I want to protect the lives of
vulnerable people who are, on a daily basis, being exploited by
this industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered gambling-related harm.
|
