Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate you on your elevated position, and I will heed your comments on the time. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate on gambling harm. It is a real pleasure to welcome him in leading what I believe is his first Westminster Hall debate. I also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I took part in a charity bet last April.
My hon. Friend spoke movingly, as did Members from across the House, about those who have suffered from gambling-related harm and suicide and those who have sadly lost their lives. I extend my sympathies and those of the Government to all those who are affected by these issues.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Organisations such as Gordon Moody in my constituency provide essential and invaluable residential treatment for individuals suffering from severe gambling addiction, as well as mental health services and advice about how to detangle addiction. How are the Government supporting those organisations in their efforts to prevent gambling-related suicide, and does the Minister agree that an expansion of Government-backed rehabilitation services, especially those focused on children, is essential?
Stephanie Peacock
I have seen at first hand the impact of gambling-related harms. As shadow Minister for gambling, I spoke to individuals and families who have been directly impacted by such harm. I visited a Gordon Moody treatment centre, which I believe is in her constituency, spoke to families in Parliament and hosted roundtables with the prevention sector. The Minister for Gambling regularly engages with those who have lived experience of gambling harm.
Today, I will set out the Government’s position on gambling-related harm and the important action we are taking to reduce it. This debate is framed by the 2023 Gambling White Paper. Published by the last Government, it laid the foundations for once in a generation gambling reform. We are working with the industry to modernise regulation, as well as to implement meaningful changes to protect people from gambling-related harm.
Before I do that, I will respond to points made during the debate. If I do not cover them all now, I will during the course of my speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and others asked when the statutory levy would be reviewed. That will happen within five years. Affordability checks are being piloted. The voluntary ombudsman was in the White Paper and the Minister for Gambling will update shortly. I would argue that the Government are acting to protect people from harm, implementing the White Paper and fulfilling our manifesto commitment to reduce harm.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised a really important question about Northern Ireland. I am always keen to meet my counterparts. I would be very pleased to write to him, and the DCMS stands ready to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to strengthen regulation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) raised the important issue of horseracing, of which he is a strong champion, as did the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and others. I will relay their points to the Minister for Gambling. The Government’s position is that the horseracing and gambling industries should get round the table and come to a voluntary deal.
I will briefly respond to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who said that the levy was in jeopardy. I say gently to him that the only thing putting it in jeopardy is him voting against it, as he did last week, which is rather curious given that it was his Conservative Government that published the measure.
Mr French
The Minister will be well aware that the reason that we voted against the levy was not the principle of it—as she just acknowledged, it was designed by the previous Government—but how it has been changed by the new Government and the risks that I outlined in both my questions today.
Stephanie Peacock
I will come on to answer some of those points, but in the interests of time, I will endeavour to get the Minister for Gambling to write to the hon. Member with a full response.
The shadow Minister also asked about operators paying more in the first year. That is simply not correct. The levy is charged at a flat rate based on previous years’ profits. We believe that is the fairest and most sustainable way forward. Operators’ first levy payment will be based on profits reported to the Gambling Commission via regulatory returns. The commission changed the returns process for non-lottery licences last July. As such, operators’ first levy payment is based on three quarters’ worth of data multiplied by 1.33 to get the full year.
On the assessment the Government have made about anyone losing out on treatment in the transition period, we are clear that operators must maintain the level of contributions to the National Gambling Support Network to ensure that it has the funding it needs. We have received reassurances from the industry that that will happen. As I have just said, I or the Minister for Gambling will write to the shadow Minister. In the interests of time, I will move on to make some progress on the question before us.
We know that the vast majority of people who gamble do so safely—indeed, half of adults gamble each month. The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) spoke about the contribution the industry makes economically and in terms of jobs, and I will not repeat those comments. However, 300,000 people in Great Britain are estimated to be experiencing problem gambling. It is clear from today’s debate that many of us share the commitment to do more to protect people who are suffering that harm, especially given the significant changes that we have seen in the sector in recent years.
In that context, the Government are committed to taking forward White Paper measures such as new protections on marketing and bonuses, financial risk checks to prevent unaffordable gambling, and allowing consumers to seek redress from gambling operators via an ombudsman, which has been discussed today. We will continue to work with the industry, the third sector and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the reforms are proportionate, targeted and effective.
Dan Carden
Reflecting some of the points made early on in the debate, will the Department look at lotteries, pools and sports betting differently from addictive online forms of gambling, which we know are some of the most harmful? There is an opportunity to shape how gambling goes forward in this country.
Stephanie Peacock
I will be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. He knows that the levy is proportionate to the type of product, so it is different for different products, but I or the Minister for Gambling will be happy to discuss it with him.
The work on reform has already begun, with regulations on stake limits for online slots and a statutory gambling levy, which was debated last week and has been discussed today. I am pleased to report that the House approved both those statutory instruments, and they will be considered in the other place next week.
I will talk briefly about the first of those statutory instruments, on stake limits for online slots, which provides an important and proportionate intervention aimed at better protecting those who are most at risk of gambling-related harm. Online slots are the highest-risk and fastest-growing gambling product, but there are currently no statutory stake limits for online slot games, unlike their land-based counterparts. As the popularity of slots grows, so does the risk for vulnerable people. The limit builds on previous protections introduced by the Gambling Commission. The new regulation introduces statutory maximum stake limits in online slots games of £5 per game cycle for adults aged 25 and over and £2 per game cycle for young adults aged 18 to 24. Those limits will bolster existing safer game design requirements to ensure that online slots games are safer to play than ever.
I have heard what some Members have said about £5 being too high. The average stake in online slots is 60p, and the evidence shows that people staking high amounts are more likely to be experiencing gambling harm. The £5 stake limit is a targeted intervention to protect those who are most at risk of gambling harm and unaffordable losses.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am not quite sure how the logic works on that. We introduced a £2 limit in the betting shops, but for some reason we have introduced a higher limit where we think the harms are greatest. Which one is wrong?
Stephanie Peacock
I had made a note of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I was just coming on to address some of the points he made, although he may not agree with my response. Before I do so, I pay tribute to the work he has done. He is an experienced Member on this issue and was instrumental in forming the White Paper.
Play on land-based gaming machines is often anonymous. Online gambling is more accessible to many, and there are extra protections that can be afforded to account-based online play, such as monitoring data for signs of harm, safer gambling checks and checks for financial risks. None the less, I will relay the right hon. Gentleman’s comments to the Minister for Gambling.
The Government are also introducing for the first time a statutory gambling levy to fund research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. The levy represents a watershed moment and a significant uplift in the investment dedicated to this area, along with greater Government oversight and a renewed commitment to better understanding, tackling and treating gambling harms. The statutory levy will be charged to all licensed gambling operators, replacing and building on the successes of the current system, which is based on voluntary donations. The existing system for support and treatment would not have been possible without the financial support of the industry, but the time is now right to improve and expand the system, and to put funding on a more sustainable footing and trust in the system beyond doubt.
We have designed the levy to be charged in a way that recognises the higher levels of harm associated with some online products and the higher operating costs in the land-based sector. It will guarantee that all operators pay their fair share while ensuring that any impacts are proportionate. We expect the levy to raise around £100 million every year for research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. Twenty per cent. of the funding will be directed to research, which will be overseen by UK Research and Innovation to deliver a bespoke research programme on gambling; 30% will be allocated to developing a comprehensive approach to prevention and early intervention, and the remaining 50% will be allocated to treatment overseen by NHS England and the appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales. A full treatment pathway, from referral and triage through to aftercare, will be commissioned. Not only will the levy deliver a significant uplift in investment in areas relating to research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm, but it will also provide robust Government oversight and mobilise world-leading expertise among our public bodies.
Many Members are keen to know more about who will lead on prevention—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen asked this question. This is a very complex but important area, and we want to take the time needed to get it right. We are grateful for the funding provided by the gambling sector while the statutory levy was not in place, but we have taken note of Members’ desire to know what comes next and we intend to dedicate greater investment to prevention. I know the Minister for Gambling will announce her decision on prevention very soon. The levy represents the beginning of a new phase for gambling harm reduction where people in our country are better protected from and aware of the risks of harmful gambling, and it has wide support across the sector.
I acknowledge Members’ comments regarding gambling-related suicide. I am aware of the devastating impact that harmful gambling can have, including some instances of suicide. A single instance of this is one too many. We are absolutely committed to working across Government on this issue, as some Members have asked, including working with the Department of Health and Social Care as part of its work to take forward the suicide prevention strategy. We will continue to work with the Gambling Commission to develop the evidence base on gambling-related suicide through its gambling survey of Great Britain.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) and others spoke about the role of coroners. I recognise the important role that coroners play in assessing the facts behind instances of suicide. They are already required to make a report to a person or organisation where they think action could be taken to prevent future deaths. It is beyond the coroner’s power to investigate why a death occurred, and requiring coroners to do so would turn a fact-finding process into a subjective judgment, which would be inappropriate and potentially inconsistent. However, we will continue to explore possible options in this area, alongside introducing landmark reforms to prevent harm before it occurs and establish a comprehensive treatment system for those who need it.
Many Members have raised the issue of advertising, and I acknowledge their concerns. Advertising can have a disproportionate impact on those who are already suffering from gambling-related harm, and we know that Members are particularly concerned about the potential impact on children and young people. Key sports bodies are raising standards in this area, and the gambling sponsorship codes of conduct brought in voluntarily by sporting bodies last year are a positive step forward. The Premier League’s decision to ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsors from the end of next season was also a welcome step. We will be monitoring these reforms to assess what impact they are having on the ground.
I understand that gambling operators may feel that their own messaging and volume of ads are appropriate. The independent Advertising Standards Authority has existing robust rules in place to ensure that gambling adverts, wherever they appear, are socially responsible and that advertising is an advantage that regulated operators have over the unlicensed sector. However—
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Stephanie Peacock
In the interests of time, I will not give way.
However, the question of “appropriate volume” needs to be looked at in aggregate, and thought about from the perspective of the public, especially children. We expect the industry to take the initiative on this by working across industry with sporting bodies and academics on harm prevention. In addition, the Government are eager to see improvements made to safer gambling messages. It is clear that industry ownership of safer gambling messages is not sustainable in the long term, and we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission to develop a new approach to messaging. In the meantime, we expect the industry to make improvements in this space; we will be monitoring the impact of the sector’s work, and will step in if necessary.
This Government are committed to protecting the most vulnerable in society from gambling harm. Together with the Gambling Commission, we have made good progress on implementing the measures in the gambling White Paper. We have taken action on online slots and the levy, and we will continue to implement other measures. I am grateful for the important contributions made by Members today. I thank them for sharing their stories, illustrating why the issue is so important, and for the constructive discussion. It is a pleasure to respond to the debate.