(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Dawn Butler, who will speak for about 15 minutes.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the aim to permit principle in planning policy erodes the ability of local communities to shape their neighbourhoods; further believes that planning decisions should be made in the public interest, not skewed towards automatic approval; and therefore calls on the Government to remove the aim to permit provision so local councils can regulate the spread of gambling premises.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I will talk about three things: first, why I am campaigning for safer streets and why gambling-related harm is a key component of my work; secondly, some of the people and their testimonies; and, thirdly, the good work the Government have done, but also the further work that needs to be done next.
I am tired of seeing the number of betting shops on the high street in Brent, and how every time there is an empty shop, another betting shop opens in its place. This is specifically the case in areas such as Harlesden, Willesden, Neasden, Wembley and Kilburn. In Harlesden, we have 10 betting shops within a 10-minute walk, which is absolutely ridiculous.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I apologise that I will not be able to stay for this debate because I have to follow up with the family of Ryan Cornelius—they were in the Gallery earlier —whom I referenced during the previous debate.
As the hon. Member knows, we on the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform have taken very seriously the lessons from Brent, which have been cited in letters to the Government. We have to stop this ridiculous proliferation of betting shops and adult gaming centres, over which councils have no control. Councils do not think it is right to have them, yet they have no say in the matter. The No. 1 thing for the Government to do is to end this nonsense, and give councils the power to say no.
Dawn Butler
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the APPG on gambling reform, of which I am a member, for his intervention. Brent is a solid example of why change is needed. Another shop—a double-fronted shop—is due to open. On it has been written what I call conscious graffiti: “Stop opening gambling shops in deprived areas.” I endorse that message! In Kilburn, there have been 300 written objections to a proposed new adult gaming centre. When I campaigned on this issue, Brent council said that its hands were tied and that I needed to provide more evidence, so I collated more evidence—thousands of responses from my constituents —but that still was not enough because of the “aim to permit” legislation. That has led Brent council—through my campaigning and, probably, nagging—to run an incredible campaign. It now has other councils on board and the deputy leader from Brent council is here today for this debate.
In 2025, for my summer campaign, I decided to travel around the country, but mainly London, to investigate high streets and what they look like. And—would you believe it?—in economically deprived areas, every second or third shop was a brightly lit gambling shop. I could look down the road and see all the bright lights glittering and trying to encourage people to come in and spend their money. There was, however, one particular high street where I could not find a gambling shop. I walked up and down it on both sides. It is one of the wealthiest high streets in London, in Hampstead. Isn’t that shocking? One resident happily told me, “We even campaigned to stop McDonald’s opening on the high street. We didn’t want them.”
On Monday, I published an open letter to the Prime Minister. It had 280 signatures—mainly from London, but from all around the country—from councillors, leaders and mayors all saying that the aim to permit needs to change. In Brent, gambling premises outnumber supermarkets in 17 out of 22 wards. The gambling industry says that gambling shops help high streets, but they do not. When a gambling shop is set up, other shops do not want to be there. Gambling establishments entice people to come in and then ply them with food and drink, and teas and coffees. There is no point in opening a coffee shop next door when there are free coffees in the gambling shop.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for her visit to Kensington and Bayswater, where she herself enticed me into an adult gaming centre to show me how it is set up to keep people in there. Machines could even be reserved, so people could go away and come back. That is preying on the addictive mentality. And these are not the 20p slot machines or arcades in seaside towns; this is serious money.
Dawn Butler
Absolutely. I hope I was not a bad influence on my hon. Friend. It was the first time that I had gone into one, but you have to go into one to really understand what it is like. Like he says, we went in and a machine had been reserved for a person who had gone somewhere for when they came back. The business model is extreme and rather cruel.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is delivering an excellent speech, and I support her campaign to end the aim to permit. Another issue I have heard lots of people concerned about is the 80:20 rule, which requires gambling shops to have only 20% of their machines to be the higher stake, more dangerous and addictive machines. There is a rumour or a consultation out that the rule might be liberalised. Does she agree that the liberalisation of that rule, at a time when gambling regulation is not fit for purpose, would be completely unacceptable?
Dawn Butler
That rule must not be changed, and I will tell my hon. Friend for why. Gambling shops get around that rule by having iPads, which are classified as lower stake machines, that do not work. That is how they get away with having more B3 machines, which are the most addictive machines where you can put in £20 and lose it in a minute. That is why the rule should not be liberalised. As I say, the business model is quite shocking.
Across the nation, an average of 13.4% of people are categorised as low-risk gamblers, with 2.9% categorised as high-risk. In Brent, 17.1% of residents are categorised as low-risk and 6.2% as high-risk. This shows the link between the proliferation of gambling shops and harm. One kind of business that is found on high streets when there are lots of gambling shops is pawn shops, because people lose their money and then pawn what they can to gamble more to try to win it back.
I am not saying that we should ban gambling all together, but we have to be honest about the harm that is being caused at the moment. The Gambling Act 2005 is completely out of date.
The latest iteration of this campaign has been a personal journey for me and has increased my understanding of the harms of gambling. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), with whom I went into some gambling shops, and who is running an excellent campaign to stop a huge gambling shop opening in his constituency, I have met some amazing people, and I want to talk about their testimonies. I interviewed two of them, and those interviews are on my Substack. Their testimonies opened my eyes, and I hope they do the same for anyone else who hears them. They also moved me to tears.
Jackie Olden is a phenomenal campaigner. Her mum, Wendy Hughes, worked at a bookmaker. After Wendy was given free plays on the machine so that she could entice the punters with the bright lights, the sounds and the music when the customer wins, she became addicted and started gambling with her own money. Towards the end of her life, Wendy gambled on a slot machine for 16 hours straight; the staff knew how she liked her tea and coffee, and bought her food so that she did not leave. Wendy had maxed out her credit card, so they kept her in the shop over 12 hours so that her credit card limit would be renewed and she could take out money and start gambling again. They knew her favourite chair and her favourite machine, and they let her gamble for 16 hours. Wendy lost almost £2,000 in that session. Merkur was fined £95,000 as a result of social responsibility failings—none of that money, I might add, went to the family.
Wendy later died of cancer. [Interruption.] I am getting quite emotional, sorry—Jackie is an amazing campaigner. Wendy had told her daughter that she was gambling to win enough money to pay for her funeral. The people in that gambling shop knew she was dying of cancer; they saw her emaciated body as she kept going in to gamble.
Charles and Liz Ritchie lost their son, Jack, at the tender age of 24. Jack had a gambling addiction. In his suicide note, he said that he would never be free from gambling, and that is why he took his life. Charles told me that Jack got addicted at school; he and his friends would go into gambling shops and he would place bets with his dinner money. Okay, things have been strengthened, and there are now checks on young people who look under 18, but there were not then. Using his dinner money to gamble, Jack had two big wins, winning £1,000, and became addicted, chasing that win time and again. His parents did not find this out until after he died.
In their grief, Charles and Liz decided to mobilise others, and they have since set up an amazing charity called Gambling with Lives. There are so many people who have been fighting this addiction on their own. The Labour Government have done some good work; there was just one NHS gambling clinic when Jack died, and now there are 15. However, there is so much more that we must do.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a really powerful speech. We had representatives from the gambling industry in front of the Treasury Committee recently, and that revealed to me that such stories are not tragic by-products of an industry that is actually okay, but actually part of the business strategy of that industry. The gambling industry receives 60% of its profits from 5% of its customers. It needs people like the ones the hon. Member refers to, in the circumstances that they are in, in order to make the profits that it survives on. Does the hon. Member agree that it was a disgrace that the representatives in front of the Treasury Committee said that there is no evidence of social harm related to gambling?
Dawn Butler
Not only do I agree but I find it shocking that they can blatantly ignore the evidence and lie like that. You wonder sometimes how people sleep at night knowing the harm that is being caused.
We are not saying, “Scrap all gambling”, but we have to recognise and understand the harms and do what we can to stop and prevent them. Gambling with Lives has helped influence NHS centres and the guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which I will come to later. That is really important in how we identify and link gambling harms to the increase in mental health and suicides. At the moment we have an average of one suicide a day due to gambling harms.
I met Rob Davies, a reporter from The Guardian, who was the first person to take me into an adult gaming centre and show me the ropes, which are basically, “Stick your money in the machine and press the button”. There is no skill to it at all, and there is even an autoplay option so that the user does not have to keep pressing the button. It also spins at 0.25 seconds, which is why a user can lose £20 very quickly.
Veterans came to give evidence as part of the work of the APPG on gambling reform, and their evidence shocked me, because I had not realised just how prolific gambling was among our veterans and those in the armed forces. If we think about it, because of the gambling industry’s business model, they are the ideal clientele. They have experienced occupational stress and trauma, and face long deployments and separation from their support networks. There is also a cultural acceptance of gambling as a social activity and easy access to gambling opportunities. There are even addictive B3 machines in Army barracks. We do not know how many there are; we are still trying to get those numbers.
It is shocking that the gambling is so prolific, because despite the obvious risks of gambling, there is an additional risk for those in the armed forces at an organisational level. It can reduce operational readiness and leave personnel distracted, vulnerable to bribery or criminal influence and less able to focus on their duty, which increases the risk of errors that may endanger them, their colleagues and operational outcomes. We have to tackle gambling in the armed forces if we want them to be able to do their job properly. We must also protect veterans.
I have also spoken to Tom Fleming, Lord Foster of Bath, Harj Gahley, and Tom Goudsmit and Adam Brichto, who are making an important documentary on gambling harms.
To end, I want to address what gambling harms are and what the Government can do about them. Gambling harms include domestic abuse, rent arrears, mental health decline, relationship breakdown, and suicides, especially in young men, as we have spoken about. There is also a link to violence against women and girls. The Government want to tackle violence against women and girls, but to do so they must tackle gambling. When I asked the gambling industry why it needed some shops to be open 24/7, I was told that it is because taxi drivers who are working nights can come in after a hard night’s work and basically gamble away their wages. What used to happen is that people who lost their money—their wages—used to get really angry, pick the chairs up and smash the machines. The machines cost about £40,000, so the chairs were made so heavy that people could not pick them up and smash the machines. It is absolutely shocking.
There are links between gambling and homelessness. Rent money is being gambled away. I met a gambler who was thrown out of his house by his wife because he had just gambled away all their money; they could not even afford food. There is also suicide, particularly among young men. Gambling is not like drugs and alcohol, where we can see or smell it. It can be hidden for a while until someone has no money and is desperate. That is why sometimes it is found really late: because it gets to that desperate point.
The Social Market Foundation notes that residents consistently associate high concentrations of gambling venues with increased antisocial behaviour, reduced feelings of safety and a decline in pride in people’s high streets. If we want pride in place, we need to clear up our high streets.
GambleAware shone a light on the scary prospect of young children being systematically groomed by the industry. Young people who are being groomed become desensitised to gambling, specifically through gaming. The same addictive hooks are being used to get young people addicted to the games and gambling—and it is more potent than drugs and alcohol.
Some influencers are being paid to influence young people to gamble. Sixteen-year-old boys are more vulnerable to that than any other group, and that is because there are video games, such as EA Sports FC—I have never played it, so do not know it—with loot boxes and virtual currencies that people can use to pay. We have to get a grip on that and we need to work with creators. I have been working with Caspar Lee, Joe Sugg, Ambar Driscoll, Joshua Pieters and Giuseppe Federici on how we can involve, help, develop and nurture current and future creators. Will the Minister also meet that group of creators to see what we can do to help that industry?
Action must be taken. The Social Market Foundation says that the statutory duty to “aim to permit” gambling premises
“is no longer fit for purpose.”
As an activity, it prevents councils from responding to evidence of harm and local opposition, and it erodes the ability of local communities to shape their neighbourhoods. This is what needs to be done: the foundation has five steps and I will read them out, because I agree with them all.
“1) Greater licensing powers should be granted to local authorities, including cumulative impact assessments, with no further delay.
2) Public health directors should be included in the gambling licensing process, as they are for alcohol.
3) The current premises licence classifications should be reviewed, particularly in relation to AGCs operating under bingo licences.”
Bingo licences are another way that those adult gaming centres get away with saying that they are a bingo hall, when there is no live bingo played at all and it is mainly B3 machines, which, by the way, make an average of £30,000 a year. That is money that goes directly from the poor to the gambling industry.
Let me continue with the list of recommendations:
“4) The cap on annual licence fees payable by premises to local authorities should be increased”—
at the moment it is just £1,000—
“to at least £2,000, and the amount of the fee reviewed…
5) The balance of responsibilities between local authorities and the gambling commission on enforcement and inspection of regulations should be clarified.”
That is very opaque at the moment. The sixth recommendation is about the “aim to permit” rule. Basically, we need to get rid.
In addition to those recommendations, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and recommendations for healthcare professionals say that when people go to their GP for appointments and are asked if they have an alcohol or drug addiction, they should also be asked if they have a gambling addiction. That way, we can identify the link between gambling, mental health breakdown and suicide.
Gambling harm harms us all. For every person who is addicted to gambling, six or seven people—their family members, close friends and even work colleagues—are also affected. If we want safer streets, safer homes and safer minds, we must tackle the gambling industry and the harm of gambling and end “aim to permit”. That would make a dramatic improvement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. We will start immediately with a seven-minute time limit.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I give huge thanks to the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for proposing the motion. I was pleased to support the application for the debate. We have just heard an excellent case for action and some really clear examples of the harm that gambling causes. I am also a member of the APPG on gambling reform; I thank its chair, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for his work. It is clear that Members across parties feel passionately that the Government are ignoring clear evidence and going far too easy on this industry.
This debate is very timely: by chance, tomorrow I will be visiting the excellent Breakeven charity in Brighton, which provides free support for Brightonians dealing with gambling-related harm, including people’s partners, family members and friends. I want to thank some of the brilliant campaigners on gambling reform and harm who I meet regularly for their work, including Matt Zarb-Cousin of Gamban, Gambling with Lives, which is incredible, and the many other local charities in Brighton that are working on addiction, including to gambling, and recovery.
The motion focuses on planning policy, and we have heard excellent further suggestions about licensing. I fully support the proposal in the motion to remove the “aim to permit” provision. Councils must be able to control the spread of gambling premises in every way possible. Currently, gambling debates often centre around online gambling, which is clearly a growing menace, and its excessive levels of advertising, but much of the harm still occurs in our neighbourhoods. GambleAware research has shown that shopfronts on the high street are the source of a high number of advertising views.
My recent work on that aspect has included proposing changes to Brighton and Hove city council’s gambling policy. My response to its review highlighted the proliferation of high street gambling establishments in my city. As evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee last year stressed, gambling companies concentrate their efforts in areas of greater deprivation. However, coastal constituencies such as mine also have a very high density of gambling facilities due to our history as seaside resorts, which I believe has a harmful impact on my constituents.
According to the council, the total number of licensed gambling premises where residents and visitors can gamble in Brighton and Hove was 257 as of May 2024. In comparison, we have 25 GP surgeries, 13 libraries, 44 dentists, around 20 youth services and seven leisure centres. Soon, we could have more gambling establishments than the city’s 340 pubs. For that reason, my submission to the council called for the introduction at the very least of a one in, one out principle for gambling establishments to represent and respect our licensing objectives of preventing harm to children and people with vulnerabilities, including problem gambling and addiction. To back up that policy, I also want to see the prohibition of advertising gambling on billboards, bus stops, buses and any other outdoor advertising sites in the city.
Advertising bothers me in many ways, but on this topic it makes me really angry. I think the Government could do a lot more about it. With the physical adverts in our neighbourhoods alongside all the gaudy shopfronts, coupled with the ever-present marketing on social media and television every time we tune into sport, it is no wonder that we are seeing increased gambling harms. The Gambling Commission has estimated the problem gambler rate to be close to 2.5%. Based on the Office for National Statistics’ latest population estimates, that puts well over 1 million people in Great Britain into the category of problem gamblers. The commission also estimated a further 3.1 million people to be classified as at risk, with many more harmed indirectly.
That is experimental data using new survey methodologies and it is regularly challenged by the industry, which does not surprise me, because it is so shocking. However, it is backed up by other evidence. We know that the national gambling helpline is receiving more calls and online chats than ever before. The NHS has also reported significant growth in referrals to its gambling harm services.
Young people are increasingly at risk from this harm. In 2018, the GambleAware charity commissioned two reports to consider the extent and nature of the impact of gambling marketing and advertising on children, young people and vulnerable groups in the UK. It reported that, although children are not directly targeted by advertisers, almost all children and young people see gambling adverts. Only 4% of 11 to 20-year-olds who participated in the survey reported that they had not been exposed in the previous month. High street premises clearly contribute to that, alongside the advertising that bothers me so much.
It is clear that the Government have worked to advance the 2023 White Paper proposals. I welcome the introduction of a statutory levy on gambling operators in place of the voluntary scheme, which will generate money for research, prevention and treatment. I also welcome next steps on financial vulnerability checks and enhanced risk assessments for the online services, and the withdrawal of gambling sponsorship from the front of premier league players’ shirts by the end of this season—although that will not address the significant volume of gambling adverts that are visible during top-flight matches. We are also ambling towards a gambling ombudsman, but it should have been up and running by the summer of 2024.
As the hon. Member for Brent East said, we need bolder action, and it must focus on the high street, as the motion rightly sets out. We must give local councils the powers to properly regulate the spread of gambling premises, among other things. I have encouraged my local council to get together with other councils and to use the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to produce proposals—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady has reached the seven-minute limit. I call Feryal Clark.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this incredibly important debate on the removal of the so-called “aim to permit” rule, and on giving local authorities stronger powers to protect their communities from gambling harm.
The harms of gambling are evident and were well set out by my hon. Friend. Gambling addiction means missed birthdays, unpaid bills, broken relationships, families torn apart and lives quietly falling to piece behind closed doors, while communities deal with the consequences. At the heart of this debate lies a simple but fundamental question: who should decide what happens on our high streets—local communities and their elected representatives, or gambling companies pursuing huge commercial gain? Right now, the answer is not local communities.
Under the Gambling Act, councils are legally required to err on the side of approval when considering applications for betting shops and 24-hour slot machine venues, even when there is clear local opposition, an area is already saturated or harm is obvious. That is not localism, it is not prevention and it is certainly not protection. If councils do not follow that instruction to err on the side of approval, they face legal challenge, costly appeals and the threat of court costs—that money should be spent on local services, not on defending the indefensible.
Residents of my Enfield North constituency have watched their high streets change not because of community demand, but because the law makes it almost impossible for councils to say no to new gambling premises. There are now 30 gambling premises across my constituency. Such venues are designed to drain more deprived communities, and the law still forces councils to approve them. That is indefensible, and the Government must act to end it now.
Even if an area already has multiple betting shops or adult gaming centres, and even if constituents object and harm is well documented, councils are still legally pushed towards approval. The “aim to permit” rule is an outdated rule that stacks the deck in favour of gambling companies, as it tells councils to say yes to new gambling premises even when they have serious concerns. The result is predictable.
In Enfield North, as in many London boroughs, gambling venues cluster in our most deprived areas, not our most affluent ones. Reports tell us that a third of adult gaming centres are in the poorest 10% of neighbourhoods, but Enfield residents do not need a report to tell them that; they see it every day on their high streets. They are often located close to bus hubs, shopping parades and areas of high footfall from people already under financial pressure. Many operate long hours, and many more are operating around the clock 24/7, relentlessly feeding addiction.
My constituents tell me the same thing again and again. They say, “We object, but it makes no difference—the council says its hands are tied. We object, we organise, we lose.” They are right and the situation is wrong. Councillors across Enfield North want to protect their communities, but the law does not give them the tools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East said, change is needed not to ban gambling, close existing premises or stop people from placing a bet, but to restore balance and local control.
We need to remove the automatic legal bias in favour of gambling operators and allow councils such as Enfield to make decisions based on evidence, community impact and local need, rather than a law that loads the dice against local communities. The money leaves the community, but the harm does not; it shows up as debt, it shows up as mental ill health and it shows up as pressure on our NHS—and tragically, as we have heard, in lives lost.
The Government have acknowledged the problem, which is of course incredibly welcome, but with the “aim to permit” rule remaining in place, councils are being told to say yes by default. We must trust local democracy and empower councils such as Enfield to act before harm escalates and put people and communities before profit. Our high streets should serve the people who live around them, not exploit them. The law is broken, the balance is wrong, and the time for change is now.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
High street gambling is hollowing out our high streets and causing untold harm to hard-working families. For too long, gambling harms have been tolerated, minimised or treated as an unfortunate side effect of what is in reality an exploitative, predatory industry. That approach has failed. The consequences are visible across the country, and acutely so in my constituency.
Gambling-related harm extends far beyond financial loss. Every year in the United Kingdom, between 250 and 650 people take their own life as a result of the relentless, isolating grip of gambling addiction. Gambling fuels cycles of debt, secrecy and shame, driving anxiety and depression, and placing unbearable strain on relationships. Children grow up in households marked by stress and instability, partners face emotional and financial ruin, and communities are left to deal with the long-term fallout.
Nationwide figures show that a staggering 1.4 million Britons have a gambling problem. What makes this harm particularly troubling is its predictability. Gambling harm is not randomly distributed; it disproportionately affects those in deprived areas already facing economic insecurity, poor mental health and social isolation. These noxious effects are not unavoidable collateral damage but the predictable human cost of an industry that pursues profit above all else and a regulatory system governed by weak safeguards. We must therefore be honest about how gambling companies operate. These are not passive providers of leisure but sophisticated corporations that systematically use behavioural data, targeted marketing and psychological design to maximise profit from often vulnerable users who are routinely incentivised to continue gambling despite clear warning signs.
Some 86% of gross online betting profits come from just 5% of customers. Major gambling operators feed on misery while dodging their wider social responsibilities. There are 440 offshore companies with UK gambling licences, with over 1,500 active sites from offshore locations. Profits taken from local high streets are routed through opaque corporate structures and offshore jurisdictions, minimising tax contributions to the very communities that bear the costs of this harm. An ITV investigation in November 2025 found that Sky Bet had relocated its headquarters to Malta to avoid paying our Government £55 million a year. That is a profoundly unjust settlement. Families are pushed into debt and despair; public services absorb the social and mental fallout of gambling harm; and the wealth generated is quietly siphoned away. Gambling giants have perfected a cynical extractive business model. This is not enterprise, but an egregious abuse of capitalism dressed up as entertainment. Yet the political establishment has failed to meaningfully wrestle with the harm that the gambling industry has caused.
For years lobbyists have successfully watered down efforts to rein in reckless gambling operators. Just a few months ago, the head of the UK’s Betting and Gaming Council made the ludicrous claim to MPs that gambling does not cause any social ills. Previously hiding behind so-called voluntary contributions to harm prevention amounted to a fig leaf that allowed profits to soar while safety mechanisms remain pitiful. The introduction of a statutory levy last year is not a success story, but an admission of failure and a clear verdict on the bankruptcy of self-regulation.
When an industry repeatedly places profit over protection, Parliament has not merely a right to act, but a moral obligation to do so. Despite that obligation, treatment and support services remain overstretched and unevenly distributed. Access remains inconsistent, with too many falling through the cracks. According to data from the annual Great Britain treatment and support survey, almost 40% of those experiencing problem gambling in Great Britain have not accessed treatment or support in the last year. Tools such as self-exclusion schemes, affordability checks and voluntary limits are too often poorly enforced, inconsistently applied and easily circumvented. The burden is frequently placed on individuals to recognise their own harm and seek assistance. Gambling regulations —as for alcohol and tobacco—must be preventive, mandatory and robust.
In particular, our communities remain constrained by the outdated “aim to permit” principle, which places a legal presumption on local authorities to approve new gambling premises even when harm is evident. Our existing regulatory framework strips local authorities of the ability to prioritise public health and community wellbeing, instead forcing them to wave through applications and turn local democracy into a rubber stamp for gambling profits. I am proud to support the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and other colleagues in calling for its abolition.
In my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, these national failures to effectively regulate the gambling industry have very real consequences. According to the gambling commissioner’s own register, Kirklees council has granted 34 gambling licences, with 10 gambling premises located in my constituency alone. That level of concentration is not accidental; it reflects a system that allows gambling operators to cluster in areas of economic vulnerability.
Gambling reform is ultimately about choices—not the choices of individuals under pressure, but the choices we make as lawmakers. Do we continue to allow an industry to extract wealth from the most vulnerable with insufficient safeguards, or do we act to rebalance the system in favour of public health, fairness and community wellbeing? We need protection from gambling education in schools, and we need support. For constituencies such as mine, this is not a theoretical problem; it is urgent and it demands immediate action. We must strengthen regulation, hold corporations accountable and properly fund treatment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Members will be able to see that four Members are left. I plan to call the Front Benchers at 4.35 pm. I shall leave Ruth Cadbury on seven minutes, but there will be a five-minute limit for the remaining Members.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for her powerful speech, which outlined the impact on gambling addicts and their loved ones. I fully support the reforms she is putting forward and congratulate her, Members across this House and Brent council on leading this important campaign to address the scourge of gambling premises on our high streets.
Hounslow council is one of a number of councils across London and beyond that have signed up to the campaign. It has done so because it is aware of the harmful impact of these premises and the need for new powers, and because Hounslow High Street was the high street with the second greatest number of gambling premises in the country a few years ago. Hounslow council seeks these new powers so that it can protect public health and safeguard our communities from the tide of new gambling shops opening, whether they are new bookies or 24-hour adult casinos. I have seen the changes that have hit our high streets over the past 30 years. The rise of online shopping, the outdated business rates regime and the decline of traditional British shops have sucked the life out of many of our high streets. Too often, the gap left has been filled by bookies and casinos, which naturally can afford to run premises on our high streets.
In my constituency, I have seen the problems that gambling addiction causes. Understandably, not many constituents are prepared to admit that they have been financially affected by gambling, whether due to their own habit or that of a family member, but those who have opened up to me have told me of the devastating consequences—family separation, subsequent debt and individuals losing £5,000 or even £10,000. The gambling often started with a vain hope that a particular debt could be paid off by a win at the local bookies or the fixed odds betting terminals.
An excellent 2023 report by Hounslow council on gambling patterns in the borough referenced the work of the Gambling Commission in identifying those most at risk from the adverse impacts of gambling. The council then linked that data to the prevalence of gambling establishments in our borough. The former finds that those most at risk of falling into gambling addiction are people who already have drug or alcohol dependencies and/or mental health problems; too often, the two issues go together. That in turn has a knock-on impact on our frontline services—the NHS, social care and the police.
The “aim to permit” policy, which allows the proliferation of these premises, clearly is not cost-free. Furthermore, these high street gambling premises are targeted at the communities with the highest levels of deprivation, unemployment and homelessness. I counted the number in my constituency this morning. We have over 10 bookies and gaming centres in Hounslow town centre, compared with around three in the neighbouring, much more affluent Richmond town centre. Back in 2016, we had 44 fixed odds betting machines on Hounslow High Street. Those with the least resources are being targeted most by the gambling industry. A Guardian article in 2021 found that 21% of Britain’s gambling outlets are in the poorest 10% of the country, with just 2% in the most affluent areas.
I support the proposed amendment, because I support giving councils the power to shape their communities. Residents often incorrectly think that local councils can block new developments or new shops simply because they want to, but under the current laws, they cannot. Too often, local councils are unfairly blamed for the rise in the number of gambling establishments. If the Government truly want to put power back into communities and let local people shape their areas, they must give local councils proper powers.
I am sure the gambling industry will have prepared its defence in response to today’s debate. That is its right, in a pluralistic society, but we should remember the ferocity with which the industry reacted when there were proposals to clamp down on fixed odds betting terminals, the “crack cocaine” of gambling. Whenever sensible reforms are proposed, we see the gambling industry fall back on the same old tired clichés.
The Labour Government’s Pride in Place powers aim to give local people more control over their high streets and areas, but let us go further, faster, and give local authorities and local people more powers to take back control by reviewing and ultimately removing the “aim to permit” rule from the Gambling Act.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this important debate. Gambling is a subject that the Health and Social Care Committee has looked at in some detail, and it is clear from what I have heard from witnesses, from talking to the National Gambling Clinic—it is in my constituency—and from walking round our local high streets talking to people I know, that high streets remain at the heart of the gambling harm being caused in our country and localities, particularly in our most disadvantaged and poorest communities.
As we have heard, when the Gambling Act 2005 abolished the so-called “demand” test, and replaced it with the “aim to permit”, it removed the requirement to prove local need before opening a betting shop, and opened the door to a wild-west clustering of betting shops in poorer areas. That does devastating damage to individuals, families and communities, because residents in streets where every third or fourth shop can be a gambling den with cups of tea, face constant exposure to gambling during routine activities. They could be shopping for groceries, taking kids to school or commuting for work, and there is a gambling premises. Gambling becomes normalised. It is like a regular part of daily life, rather than activity that, as we know, requires caution. For those vulnerable to addiction, it makes avoidance nearly impossible and relapse inevitable, and the financial consequences can be catastrophic.
Lower-income families, and people who earn far less or live on benefits, have no buffers to absorb that sort of loss. What might be manageable for someone with savings becomes ruinous for someone living from pay cheque to pay cheque. We are talking about people who cannot pay their rent, or whose bills are going unpaid and whose children are going without. The toll on mental health is huge. Indeed, it is immense: depression, anxiety, shame, and isolation. As we have heard, we cannot necessarily see a problem gambler. We may be able to see a problem drunk, but a problem gambler hides their addiction from loved ones—that was one of the points made strongly to me when I visited the National Gambling Clinic in Earl’s Court. The stress that someone is already under is compounded by the gambling, and those mental health stresses may already be more prevalent in depressed or deprived areas, where housing is less adequate and people face other stresses and challenges on a daily basis.
We have heard about the redoubtable charity Gambling with Lives, to which I pay tribute. There is no doubt in my mind that the gambling industry and its lobbyists are often, in their behaviour, simply thugs. People such as the wonderful Ritchies—who set up Gambling with Lives after losing their son, and who brought a constituent to see me who talked about his own son losing his life to gambling—are still ploughing away and fighting their fight, and they have been inspirational for all Members of the House who have met them. They made me and the Health and Social Care Committee aware that there are between 117 and 496 gambling-related suicides every year. Having taken evidence, we thought that, although wide, that data was strong enough to place in our report so that it is on the public record. Gambling does not just tear families apart, it also takes lives away, and we must remember that.
We must also look at the community impact of allowing the clustering of betting shops since the law changed in 2005. That clustering drives out family businesses and community services, and it feeds neighbourhood decline. Hammersmith and Fulham council tried to do something about it. We have a high concentration of betting shops, especially in deprived neighbourhoods. North End Road in Fulham has been identified as a gambling vulnerability zone, and there are two council estates nearby, which are in the bottom decile for deprivation, employment and income.
That is not a coincidence, because higher levels of deprivation and the clustering of gambling premises go together. North End Road in the heart of Fulham is one of three hotspots in the borough. The council is doing its best to act responsibility within the national framework, and it is consulting on a local plan. Residents are keen for it to do that, and in the most vulnerable areas there will be a presumption to refuse, but in the end it cannot refuse premises because the law still constrains it, in a way that is out of kilter with alcohol and other licensing.
The Health and Social Care Committee welcome the fact that the Government have reframed this issue as a public health crisis. We have called for local authorities to have a key role in gambling licensing and for directors of public health to be made a responsible authority when it comes to gambling planning and licensing applications. We need reform of the legislation governing high street gambling, and we need it now.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing the debate and on her campaign.
Our high streets have struggled in recent years and, as others have said, that is harming our communities. My constituents tell me that one of the most pernicious trends has been the rise of adult gaming centres and other gambling establishments. In the past year alone, there have been applications for four new or expanded adult gaming centres in my constituency, and some of the applicants have come back with further applications. Each application has been met with widespread opposition from a large and diverse range of local people, bringing together community campaigners with resident associations, charities, businesses, local schools and the great national charities that have already been referenced this afternoon.
We know that the trend is towards an increase in gaming centres—between 2022 and 2024, the number has risen by 7% nationally—and that the most vulnerable people in society are at the greatest risk from the harms that they generate. Across Kensington and Bayswater, I have been campaigning with residents to halt the tide, but it is relentless and like playing whack-a-mole. In Earl’s Court, we successfully fought off an application by Silvertime to convert a former high street bank into a 24/7 gambling premises, but having withdrawn the application, the company will probably come back again.
Also in Earl’s Court, we managed to persuade the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to deny another operator, Admiral, an extended 24/7 licence. I had hoped that that would set a precedent that these planning and licensing applications would no longer be nodded through, but sadly we suffered a major defeat just before Christmas, with RBKC approving a new casino in Notting Hill, again taking over a high street banking premises, despite over 1,500 residents signing my petition to reject and a visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East. The residents and I are not giving up, and we will continue to use every procedural step we can to fight this unwanted development and persuade RBKC to say no, or at least to scale it back, but our tools our limited. I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign and for showing me at first hand the risks of the slot machine industry.
That example is symbolic of what has happened to our high streets in the past decade or two. There has been a decline in the services and businesses that our communities depend on, and they have been replaced by 24/7 gambling premises and dodgy shops pushing vapes, low-grade souvenirs and knock-off products. They are often not paying their fair share or employing people legally, so legitimate businesses cannot operate on a level playing field.
We need solutions. I am glad that the Government have committed to reform. I strongly welcome the proposals put forward as part of the Pride in Place programme to give local authorities more powers to assess the cumulative impact of these premises. I am glad that the Government have recognised that high streets cannot thrive with rows of adult gaming centres offering slot machines 24/7, and that data-driven decisions on gambling licences should help to restrict new premises opening. It is vital that the measures give real weight to community voices, like those of my constituents who have had enough, and that those measures come before the House soon, so that we can get discussions up and running.
I also welcome the measures on dodgy shops on our high streets. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to increasing enforcement, giving trading standards a boost and tackling fake company directors, along with dealing with lots of other elements of high street tax dodging and tax evasion that are linked to the decline that people see. Beyond those hugely welcome measures, I hope that we will see a continued ambition to go further, including by looking at whether the Gambling Act 2005 is still fit for purpose, and whether its provisions are helping local communities or hindering them from coming together for the benefit of their high streets, exactly in the spirit of the Pride in Place programme.
Our high streets can be so much better. There is no one simple solution, but a part of any solution must be to halt the gambling takeover.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this debate and on her campaigning on this issue over the years. That includes this week’s letter to the Prime Minister, which had nearly 300 signatories and which she co-ordinated. She was quite right to say that our high streets are being hollowed out by a surge of betting shops, with local people left seemingly powerless.
It seems to me that this issue should sit squarely with this Labour Government’s Pride in Place programme. I am not suggesting that we should have no betting shops—I recognise that the industry provides jobs and tax revenue—but local to where I am, there are three betting shops within walking distance of my office in Horwich, a town of fewer than 20,000 people, and there are two more nearby in Westhoughton town centre. The current situation is not conducive to fulfilling the Government’s manifesto pledge, which I proudly stood on in 2024, to tackle gambling harm, which is sadly a lived reality for far too many families in Bolton and Greater Manchester as a whole.
Iqbal Mohamed
Let me make a couple of points about the high street. The way that these shops are set up, with attractive front faces and lighting, is quite appealing, especially to children and young people. Does the hon. Member agree that that should be managed and that there should be regulation around that? Like cigarettes and alcohol, there should be a health warning on the outside of the shop that would ensure that people are aware of what it is and what harms it can cause.
Phil Brickell
The hon. Member makes a valid point. We see that on high streets in my constituency time and time again, all too often, in the context of vape shops.
As an aside, we all know that gambling today is no longer confined to a once-a-week trip to the bookies; it is on people’s phones, in their pockets and available 24 hours a day. Online slots are among the highest-risk products, as they are fast, repetitive and designed to encourage long sessions and binge play. I commend the Government on the introduction of stake limits for online slots. Those limits matter, because harm increasingly happens not just on the high street, but on our phones, anywhere and at any time.
Let me go back to the high street. As we have already heard many times in this debate, the clustering of betting shops remains a serious and unresolved problem, particularly in deprived communities. I received assurances from the gambling Minister last year that cumulative impact assessments on gambling licensing will be introduced to strengthen councils’ ability to influence the density of gambling outlets, but this measure is pending parliamentary time—that much-dreaded phrase. I urge the Minister not to let this important measure get crowded out. It is a new year, and with new years come new year’s resolutions. How about a resolution to prioritise addressing what is a far too liberal regime for managing gambling harms?
We know that where gambling outlets cluster, harm increases, from debt and mental ill health to family breakdown and homelessness. According to the Government’s gambling-related harms evidence review, the north-west has some of the highest rates of at-risk gambling in England, with around 4.4% of adults experiencing elevated risk. Even more worrying is the fact that the north-west has one of the highest proportions of people harmed by someone else’s gambling—partners, children, parents and friends all pay the price.
I welcome the steps already taken by the Government. Frankly, the introduction of the statutory gambling levy to raise around £100 million a year for research, prevention and treatment is the least that the industry could do. While acknowledging the issue is always the first step, I know that the Minister, as a former councillor himself, will recognise it is no good leaving councils powerless to tackle the physical concentration of gambling premises on our high streets.
If we are serious about reducing gambling harm, we must accelerate reform. Our high streets should offer opportunity, not addiction; our laws should protect people, not profits.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this debate and for all her hard work on this issue. What she has been doing is impressive.
Gambling can be a light-hearted pastime that many would describe as fun and harmless. As a Liberal Democrat, I support an individual’s right to choose, but, as we have heard, gambling comes at a very high cost for some people —some of the stories shared by the hon. Member for Brent East were very moving. That is true not just for those who are directly affected by gambling, but for their friends, their families, and all those who have that emotional burden and—in some cases—shared financial burden.
I will delve into a few of the statistics—some have already been mentioned, but they are worth emphasising. According to last July’s “Gambling Survey for Great Britain” an estimated 2.5% of adults have struggled with problem gambling, equating to over 1 million people. The proportion of people with severe problem gambling was nine times higher for those using in-person slot machines and six times higher for those using online slots. More than one in 40 people who gambled in the last year experienced severe harm to their life, such as turning to crime to finance gambling, experiencing a relationship breakdown or losing their home, and Public Health England estimates that, tragically, there are more than 400 gambling-related suicides a year. Gambling affects all ages and genders, but the rates are particularly high among men and young people. More than one in 20 of those aged 18 to 34 who had gambled in the last 12 months reported a severe impact on their life.
Liberal Democrats have long been calling for gambling reform, and we are pleased that the Government have listened to us in one key area. We campaigned for many years for the remote gaming duty to be doubled, and the Government have done exactly that. That was the right decision, but on the high street—the subject of this debate—much more action is needed. Liberal Democrats support removing the “aim to permit” principle, that statutory presumption under the Gambling Act 2005, giving local authorities the same power to refuse applications for gambling venues as they have for pubs and other licensed premises. That would enable local authorities to introduce cumulative impact policies to prevent clustering and saturation of gambling premises in areas deemed more vulnerable to harm. It is also important that local public health bodies can make statutory representations, and that public health evidence is given full weight in those licensing decisions.
Additionally, we believe that more decisive action is needed to combat the harms caused by problem gambling. With that in mind, we have been calling for gambling advertising to be restricted, to tackle the gambling adverts that bombard people through their TVs and radios as well as marketing via social media; for a gaming ombudsman to be established, one with real power to protect consumers and resolve complaints; for affordability checks to be enforced and implemented by mandating financial checks and data sharing to stop gambling beyond means; and for tough action to be taken against black-market gambling.
Access to a range of support services is also vital. Anyone worried about their gambling or anyone close to them should be able to seek help easily in their local area, and gambling firms must pay their fair share towards those services. A related concern, and one which is shared by leading support charities, is that the introduction of the statutory levy on gambling firms must not mean gambling support services being disrupted during this year’s transition period. We call on the Government to ensure that interim funding is available, so that vulnerable people do not fall through the cracks during that transition.
Although most people who regularly gamble do so without a problem, it is evident that for some, it is a slippery slope that leads to a host of financial, personal and health problems. We have a duty to prevent that from happening in the first place, and to help those who are already struggling. As such, I urge the Government to act as a matter of urgency to tackle the very real and evident harm gambling can cause to families, children, young people and communities across the country.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate, and to the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for bringing it forward. Before I turn to some of the specifics of the case she made, I remind the House that the vast majority of people who gamble do so responsibly, safely and without risk of harm. Indeed, some of our annual events in this country are associated with gambling and form part of our national identity. I am thinking in particular of the grand national. Indeed, the first time I ever placed a bet was on a horse called Party Politics. It probably led to an interest in something different from gambling, but that is another matter.
The Government’s own figures show that problem gambling affects around 0.4% of adults. That figure has remained broadly stable for many years. Meanwhile, 22 million people gamble every month without harm. Gambling harms exist, of course, and I sat through oral evidence on that issue in the Health and Social Care Committee in April last year. We have heard some of the most powerful testimony from the hon. Member about real lives that have been harmed because of gambling. Problem gambling can ruin relationships, destroy mental and physical health and, in the worst cases, end lives. The number of gambling-related deaths is far outnumbered by alcohol-specific deaths or alcohol-related deaths, but any life lost and any life destroyed is a tragedy.
We must do more to support people with gambling addictions and crack down on illegal gambling and lawbreaking. However, policy must be based on evidence. Betting shops are among the most heavily regulated retail premises. They have strict age verification requirements, limits on gaming machines, trained staff and formal self-exclusion schemes. Those protections only apply when people gamble in licensed premises. They do not exist in the same way at home and not at all on the black market. We should not assume that further reducing the number of high street betting shops will reduce problem gambling.
When it comes to high street betting shops, research by ESA Retail found that 89% of betting shop customers combine their visit with trips to other local businesses, thereby supporting the high street. Betting shops support around 46,000 jobs, contributing nearly £1 billion a year in direct tax to the Treasury and a further £60 million in business rates to local councils. We have heard how betting shops have spread uncontrollably in some areas, but nationally betting shops are closing. Since 2019, the number of licensed betting shops has fallen by 30%, from more than 8,000 to fewer than 6,000. Thousands of jobs have already been lost as a result, and many more are now at risk following the tax rises announced in the Budget.
Ben Coleman
The hon. Member talks about the amount of money raised in tax from gambling companies. Can he also give us the figures for the amount of money that the NHS has to spend each year on the mental health issues and other problems that arise from gambling addiction?
Joe Robertson
I think the hon. Member himself agrees that this is not about stopping people gambling. The point I am making is that high street premises represent some of the safer environments for gambling, and some of the riskier forms of gambling are far less visible than the high street shops we have heard about today. I am certainly not minimising in any way the effects of problem gambling and some of those involved in the industry, particularly on the black market.
While the Budget did not directly target betting shops, many operators run integrated online and retail businesses. With online gambling duty doubling and sports betting duty rising by nearly 70%, the UK will have one of the highest tax rates on gambling in the world.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brent East for talking about local empowerment. I think her key point—the heart of her argument—was about empowering local communities and local councils to be able to exercise greater control over high street premises. I want to raise a specific issue that shows how confused the system has become, and which is related to her argument.
Recently, Chesterfield borough council allowed an adult gaming centre to introduce betting facilities without a formal change of planning use, on the basis that betting was considered ancillary. This shows that the council was effectively able to bypass planning laws, and to create confusion and inconsistency in how planning and gambling laws are applied, which is deeply worrying. Betting shops and adult gaming centres are fundamentally different types of premises; they are regulated differently and treated separately in planning law, for good reason. Allowing betting facilities to be introduced into adult gaming centres without proper scrutiny risks creating a back-door route for betting operations to open without local consent or oversight. We support the sentiment behind the argument made by the hon. Member for Brent East: local communities and local councils should be better empowered to make decisions for their high streets.
I want to finish by asking the Minister four questions. First, will the Government act to close the planning loophole that allows adult gaming centres to introduce betting facilities without a proper change of use? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the impact of recent tax rises on high street betting shops, including closures, job losses and empty units, and will it be published? Thirdly, what concrete action is being taken to tackle illegal gambling, and particularly operators that target people who have self-excluded from licensed betting shops? Finally, the Government wrote to the Health and Social Care Committee on 12 June last year and said that they would look to complement local authorities’ existing powers in relation to the licensing of gambling premises. Does the Minister have an update?
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing this debate to go forward, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing it. Many hon. Members from across the Chamber have talked about the harms of gambling. Although that is incredibly important in underpinning the debate, I will concentrate on what the motion says about licences and premises, and on what local authorities can do to deal with those kinds of issues.
I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East, because the way that she presented her speech and told real-life stories was really powerful. I join her in paying tribute to Jackie Olden for her campaign on behalf of her mother Wendy—my hon. Friend told a hugely powerful story about the impact of gambling on their family and the campaign that they have subsequently proceeded with—and to Charles and Liz Ritchie, who, after the death of their 24-year-old son Jack, started Gambling with Lives. The Minister for gambling, Baroness Twycross in the other place, met both Jackie and Liz in the autumn, and the Government will take forward some of those discussions. Next Thursday there is a gambling harms debate in Westminster Hall, and I encourage Members to bring some of the contributions that they have made today to that debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East mentioned a list of things that she would like to see going forward, and I hope to cover some of them, but I will start by mentioning a few of the other contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), in an intervention, talked about the 80:20 rule and the changes to the rule that were proposed in the gambling White Paper. The gambling Minister recognises the problems and wants to ensure that protections from harms are much more robust before any thoughts on changing the rule come forward. I hope that satisfies Members who are concerned about the 80:20 rule.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) talked about the Breakeven charity in her constituency, which I believe she is visiting tomorrow, and about the 2023 White Paper. We want to implement the recommendations in that White Paper. Obviously, it was the previous Government’s initiative, but the recommendations were pretty powerful. We want them to be implemented as quickly as possible, but we also want to see them bedded in before there is another review of gambling. She also talked about the gambling ombudsman, which will require primary legislation. We will bring forward those kinds of issues as and when we are able to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) talked about the 30 gambling premises across her constituency and the cumulative impact of them. I hope to come on to some of those cumulative impacts in my speech.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) rightly talked about gambling harms. He should attend the debate next Thursday, if he is able to do so, and bring some of those real-life examples with him.
One high street in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has one of the highest concentrations of gambling establishments in the country. She demonstrated why more powers such as the cumulative impact assessments, which I will come on to talk about, will I hope help with such issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) rightly told us that problem gamblers are invisible, whereas those with other addictions are not. That highlights the problem that has to be dealt with, and the issues raised by the Health and Social Care Committee. I commend him and his Committee for what they have done to bring this issue into the public health domain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) highlighted some successes that communities have had in limiting the number of gambling premises in his constituency. However, he is frustrated both about their lack of ability to do so, and about the premises that have been approved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about our manifesto commitment to tackle gambling harms, as well as about stake limits and the statutory levy to fund research, protection and treatments. I hope that the cumulative impact assessments, which I will talk about shortly, are able to help with those issues.
Generally, the Government are fully committed to giving communities across the country stronger tools to shape their local areas, and that is what this debate has been about. We have passed the landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will deliver growth and housing, and strengthen local planning through the implementation of spatial development strategies nationwide. That is backed up by the £5 billion Pride in Place funding for neighbourhoods.
We are also widening and deepening local devolution through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and delivering a suite of tools to support communities in improving their high streets. Those include high street rental auctions, which will give councils the power to auction the lease of long-term vacant premises, a community right to buy for communities to take ownership of local buildings that they value, and streamlining of the compulsory purchase process to help local authorities regenerate our high streets.
As many hon. Members will be aware, we intend to provide additional powers to local communities on the location and density of land-based gambling premises. Today, I will focus on the Government’s approach to land-based gambling, and on the powers that local authorities have and will be given in relation to gambling premises. All of us want to see a responsible gambling industry, which brings social and economic value to communities across the country. My own mum worked in a bookmakers. In particular, we are clear about the value of the land-based gambling sector; it was certainly valuable to her when she worked there.
The sector makes an important contribution to our national life, and we have heard about events such as the grand national. I know the importance of seaside arcades and bingo halls to communities across the country, and the joy that they bring to many millions of people. The reforms to gambling duties, including the abolition of bingo duty, announced in the autumn Budget—those duties were mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson)—reflect the contributions of such venues to our economy and our local communities.
In parallel, the Government recognise that harmful gambling can wreck the lives of individuals. We know that families and communities can be wrecked, which is why we are working with the land-based sector, the Gambling Commission and others to ensure that player-protection measures are effective and that people can gamble safely, while seeking effective help when that is needed.
Local authorities are essential to efforts to mitigate this risk, so let me run through what they can do; they play a crucial role in the regulation of gambling up and down the country. They have a wide range of powers—a suite of powers and tools—in relation to gambling premises. Licences are subject to guidance issued by the Gambling Commission and its licensing objectives. Licensing authorities are given broad powers to set conditions that require licensed gambling to be carried out in a way that is consistent with keeping gambling fair and open. During the licensing process, licensing authorities can attach conditions to premises licences to which operators must adhere.
All local authorities should publish a statement of principles on gambling licensing outlining local issues, priorities and risks. In those statements, licensing authorities can identify high-risk areas and specify local risks. Operators must take steps to mitigate those risks in their applications. I fully acknowledge and understand what hon. Members have said about the “aim to permit” principle, but we do not believe that the premises licence application process is a foregone conclusion. The “aim to permit” principle is subject to strict conditions, including that the licence application is consistent with the local authority’s gambling policy statement. It is worth saying that “aim to permit” is a licensing issue, not a planning issue. Once a licence is granted, licensing authorities have extensive powers of monitoring and enforcement, and I would encourage them to use them. Planning permission is always required to create gambling premises or for a change of use to gambling premises such as a bingo hall or a betting shop, and the planning system has to be used.
Given the limited time I have left, let me move on to the cumulative impact assessments, because I think they are at the heart of this issue.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that freedom of responsibility, when it comes to gambling, is exactly where we should be, rather than restricting people from taking part in activities such as greyhound racing at Romford greyhound stadium in my constituency? It is a part of our local culture and it is very important that we do not allow such places to close down because of severe restrictions from Government.
Ian Murray
I appreciate the intervention, but that is a completely different story to the subject of this debate. Nobody is denying that betting on the grand national or on greyhound racing, as tens of millions of people do every week, is safe and secure, but the Government have to regulate industries such as gambling and have always done so. The regulations are in place to keep people safe, but they also ensure that people who enjoy gambling can be assured that the system they are using is safe.
Let me talk very briefly about cumulative impact assessments, which the Prime Minister committed to directly at Prime Minister’s questions in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East. The Government want local authorities to feel empowered to make data-driven decisions that are in their communities’ best interests. We want them to feel able to curate healthy and vibrant spaces that reflect the needs of their local communities. As part of our Pride in Place strategy to strengthen local authority influence over the location and density of outlets, we have confirmed that we will introduce cumulative impact assessments when parliamentary time allows. Cumulative impact assessments will empower local authorities to take data-driven decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling harms. We have heard a lot about where those gambling harms are.
It is really important that “aim to permit” applies also to licensing applications. Planning policies, including local plans, offer councils additional tools to influence the number of gambling premises in their areas. With local plans, the “aim to permit”, the cumulative impact assessments and the ability to enforce and set strict conditions, local authorities have a suite of powers to prevent if they so wish and make their high streets the way they want them to be.
In conclusion, the Government want to ensure that local authorities have the tools and resources they need to shape their local areas in line with their community’s best interests. That is a Government commitment and a prime ministerial commitment from the Dispatch Box. Our plans to introduce cumulative impact assessments are an important part of that commitment, and we will bring them forward as soon as a legislative vehicle is available.
Dawn Butler
I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. To the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), I say spend just 10 minutes with Katherine Morgan who acts as the secretariat of the APPG. She will talk him through how formal exclusions do not work and how families have been affected by gambling. A lot of the information the shadow Minister talked about basically does not hold water.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) talked about one in, one out. Exactly—we are not trying to stop gambling; we are just saying that the clustering needs to stop. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) talked about how her constituents want a say. That is what we are talking about: having a say on the high street.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) talked about offshore jurisdictions and tax avoidance. We did not even get into tax avoidance, but this Government have done more than any other Government in that area and they should be credited for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) talked about protecting public health and how gambling shops are sucking the life out of our high streets. Residents think that local authorities have the power to stop gambling shops, but they really do not. My hon. Friend Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) talked about the wild west of clustering of betting shops and the normalisation of gambling. We are normalising things that cause harm and there are no buffers to manage loss, which are vital. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) said, the trend is up on just a decade ago. Some 1,500 signatures to any petition from any MP is quite incredible, but we still cannot make the decision that the council wants to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about gambling on phones, online slots and clustering.
Ultimately, this is about how we protect people locally. The gambling industry will not lose any money if it does not open another couple of shops. We do not have to worry about that. We need to worry about individuals and keeping people safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that the aim to permit principle in planning policy erodes the ability of local communities to shape their neighbourhoods; further believes that planning decisions should be made in the public interest, not skewed towards automatic approval; and therefore calls on the Government to remove the aim to permit provision so local councils can regulate the spread of gambling premises.