(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered gambling advertising.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, particularly as you have taken such an interest in gambling harm over many years. I am grateful to be able to open this debate on gambling advertising and its impact across the United Kingdom, and to be joined by Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who is co-sponsoring the debate and who, like me, is a member of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform.
The interest in the debate reflects the growing concern in Parliament and beyond about the scale, reach and consequences of gambling advertising in the UK and about its growing impact on children and young people. This debate comes at an important moment. This week, the APPG and Peers for Gambling Reform released their report on gambling advertising, which brings together academic evidence, lived experience and policy analysis to make the case that our current system is not working.
Gambling advertising is everywhere: on our television screens, in our football stadiums, on local radio, on social media, where it is promoted by influencers, and on video games played by children. It is also increasingly sophisticated, targeted and personalised. Our APPG report shows that the industry now spends £2 billion a year on gambling advertising and marketing, in a deliberate and sustained effort to drive engagement, normalise gambling and grow the market, including by creating future generations of gamblers.
We must be honest about what that means: greater exposure leads to greater participation, and greater participation leads to more gambling harm. We have heard repeatedly—through research, from clinicians and, most importantly, from those with lived experience—that gambling advertising acts as a trigger. For those trying to stop gambling, it undermines their recovery.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Government’s own gambling White Paper said there was no evidence of a causal link between gambling advertising and an increase in problem gambling. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is set out in the White Paper quite clearly?
Alex Ballinger
I will not accept that. Having met lots of people with lived experience of gambling and having seen the evidence in our report, I know there is a clear link between gambling advertising and halting the recovery of people with gambling addictions.
An argument often used by the industry is that more evidence is needed, but I will come later in my speech to why that is not a problem—it was not a barrier, for example, when we introduced restrictions on tobacco advertising several years ago.
For children and young people, the situation is even more concerning, because gambling advertising normalises gambling long before they are legally able to gamble. Our report highlights data from the Gambling Commission’s “Young People and Gambling” report, which found that 79% of children had seen gambling adverts or—64% of them on television, and 74% online. That is four out of five children in the country exposed to gambling advertising, which is more than the proportion of children who read for pleasure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have already apologised to you, Mrs Harris, to the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and to the Minister for the fact that, because of the strikes, I need to take a taxi to catch my plane, so I cannot, unfortunately, be here for the whole debate. However, I spoke to the hon. Member for Halesowen before the debate about Northern Ireland’s gambling laws, and although I think he is already aware of this, I would like to put on record that those laws predate the internet, meaning that remote or online gambling is completely unregulated in Northern Ireland. Gambling operators can advertise in Northern Ireland if they hold a licence from the Gambling Commission. However, it is notable that the Gambling Commission does not have jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, meaning that the Advertising Standards Authority cannot refer operators that commit multiple breaches of its codes there to the Gambling Commission. Does the hon. Member agree that that lack of regulation must be rectified urgently? I suppose that that is also a question for the Minister to respond to at the end.
Alex Ballinger
The hon. Member is completely right: gambling regulation is devolved in Northern Ireland, and the problem there is similar to the one we have in the rest of the country; in fact, the scale of gambling harm is even higher than it is in Great Britain. Members of the APPG have been talking to colleagues in Stormont in a similar all-party group, and they face similar challenges in calling for greater regulation. I completely agree with the hon. Member’s comments, and I am glad he has put them on the record.
Gambling advertising is all over spaces that children spend time in, and unfortunately our regulations have completely failed to keep pace. We rely far too much on self-regulation and voluntary codes that deliver only partial measures, even as evidence mounts that children continue to be widely exposed. The evidence presented in our report is unequivocal: these measures have not worked.
The so-called whistle-to-whistle ban is a case in point. It was introduced with the intention of protecting children from exposure during live sports, yet research shows that thousands of gambling messages still appear during matches through pitch-side advertising, sponsorship and branding that falls entirely outside the scope of the ban. It is similar online, where regulators have struggled to respond to the rise of content marketing and influencer promotion. Those forms of advertising are often not recognised as advertising at all by younger audiences, who are less equipped to identify and critically assess what is being advertised to them.
The UK is also falling behind other jurisdictions. Countries such as Italy, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands and Belgium have recognised the risks to young people and have introduced meaningful restrictions on gambling advertising, sponsorship and promotions. By contrast, the UK is delaying action, with a demand for ever more evidence. However, as our report makes clear, that sets an impossible standard. We do not apply that standard to other areas of public health, especially where children are concerned. We did not wait until the evidence became overwhelming before restricting tobacco or junk food advertising to children. Instead, we acted based on credible evidence of harm and a duty to protect the public, especially children and young people.
Jim Shannon
I spoke to the hon. Member about this beforehand, but problem gambling is a critical issue for us in Northern Ireland, where rate is 3%, compared with 2.7% here on the mainland. A recent survey found that 65% of adults in Northern Ireland felt there were “too many gambling advertisements”, 71% supported a watershed for gambling advertising and 42% said gambling advertising should be banned altogether. Does the hon. Member not agree that this House can and must work with the Northern Ireland Assembly back home to ensure that immediate protections are enshrined in law?
Alex Ballinger
The hon. Member raises the scale of public interest in this issue in Northern Ireland, and the number of people who are fed up and have had too much of gambling adverts, particularly those that are bombarding our children. I am glad he raises the situation in Northern Ireland, and we should be working together more to tackle this issue.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Moving on slightly from Northern Ireland to Kilburn, in my constituency, there are a lot of gambling shops and casinos on Kilburn High Road. A constituent recently told me she had entered into the Gambling Commission’s self-exclusion agreement. Her regular casino knew that, but still allowed her in, and she subsequently lost thousands of pounds. My hon. Friend is talking about advertising, but is he aware of the shortcomings of the Gambling Commission’s self-exclusion agreement? It seems to be failing my constituents in Kilburn, who are exposed to so many gambling shops every time they leave their house.
Alex Ballinger
I am terribly sorry to hear my hon. Friend’s story about her constituent. It does sound like another failure of the self-exclusion system. We have heard similar stories in other places; I met one person with lived experience in Portsmouth, who signed up to self-exclusion but was able to gamble away his life savings in several shops that were not enforcing the rules properly.
The principle of credible evidence being shown—as it was with the tobacco industry and the junk food industry—should also be applied to our restrictions on gambling advertising. That is why our report calls for a significant intervention and a step change in how gambling advertising is regulated in this country, with protections for children and young people at its core. As shown in Northern Ireland, that is an approach that the UK public strongly support. According to polling, 65% of the public want stricter regulation of the gambling industry, and 68% say that under-18s should not see gambling advertising at all.
Let me highlight some of the key recommendations from our report. We recommend an end to gambling advertising before the 9 pm watershed, as part of a broader effort to reduce children’s exposure across TV and radio. We recommend an end to gambling sponsorship in sports, with the exception of horseracing and greyhound racing. Research by the University of Bristol in 2025 found that football fans were exposed to more than 27,000 gambling messages during the opening weekend of that year’s premier league—nearly triple the number in 2023. We recommend an end to content marketing and influencer-led promotion, where gambling is embedded in entertainment formats, making it particularly difficult for children and young people to recognise when they are being advertised to. Finally, we call for stronger enforcement, particularly of unlicensed operators, alongside greater transparency across digital advertising, including the introduction of “know your customer” requirements.
The current system has allowed commercial interests to outweigh sensible protections for children and young people, and we have a duty to change that. We have a duty to ensure that children are not routinely exposed to advertising for an activity that carries well-evidenced risks. We have a duty to support those experiencing harm, rather than allowing a system that can actively undermine recovery. And we have a duty to ensure that regulation keeps pace with the reality of the modern advertising landscape. This is not about being anti-gambling; it is about being proportionate, responsible and evidence-led. It is about recognising that when an industry invests billions in marketing, there are consequences, and those consequences are felt most clearly by children and young people.
This issue can be resolved now. The evidence is already there. The public concern is enormous. As the APPG report sets out, the Government have many of the powers they require to act; the question now is whether we are prepared to use them. I hope the Minister—she is not the Minister for gambling, so I appreciate her coming here today—will reflect carefully on our findings and share them with the Minister for gambling. I also hope Ministers will reflect on the case the report makes for a more precautionary public health-led approach that places the protection of children and young people at its heart.
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us in her response what assessment the Government have made of the cumulative impact of gambling advertising exposure, particularly on children and young people; whether further action is being considered to reduce that exposure across sport, broadcast and online environments; and how the Government intend that regulation to keep pace with emerging forms of advertising, including content marketing and influencer promotion.
This is an opportunity to take a more coherent and forward-looking approach that reflects both the evidence and the expectations of the public.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I have listened with great interest, but is it not true that the hon. Gentleman has been written to on numerous occasions by the Gambling Commission for a misuse of their figures? Although I agree with some of the things he says, I am rather concerned that if that is the case, some of the figures he is citing here in Parliament, which will be reported in Hansard, are also not correct.
Alex Ballinger
I am afraid that is not correct. The Gambling Commission has not written to me challenging my figures. Members of the gambling industry have written to the all-party group challenging some of the figures in other reports, but our figures are from the Gambling Commission’s own survey on children and young people. The statistics I have pulled out today are directly from that survey, and no one is challenging those statistics.
Alex Ballinger
They have not written to me.
We need to properly safeguard the next generation from gambling advertising that aims to normalise an activity that has been proven to be extremely harmful, and something that the Government have the power to act on today.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) on securing this important debate.
Sport is one of the UK’s soft power superpowers. Formula 1 is worth over £12 billion a year to our economy, supporting more than 6,000 jobs. Horseracing supports more than 85,000 British jobs and contributes over £4 billion to the economy. The Premier League adds a further £9.8 billion to the economy and supports over 100,000 jobs, those jobs contribute over £4 billion in tax annually. Sky Sports recently signed a £125 million five-year contract with the Professional Darts Corporation —double the previous contract—and we have seen a huge boost in that sport in the last decade or so, all underpinned by sponsorship from companies.
Alex Ballinger
The hon. Member talks about Formula 1, as well as other sports, but does he remember the rules that changed the tobacco sponsorship of Formula 1 and the strong resistance of that industry to those changes because of the arguments he is making right now? Does he also recognise that Formula 1 has become more successful after those changes?
Charlie Dewhirst
Over the decades, Formula 1 has always been a great British success story. The banning of tobacco ads in such a global sport was not necessarily such a problem, because its reach and ability to bring in advertising revenue from other industries was more than it was for, say, snooker or darts. The ban almost destroyed snooker, which had become heavily reliant on tobacco sponsorship. It took a number of years for it to increase those revenues again.
I will come on to the unregulated gambling market, because that is playing a part in some of these sports and it is really important that we cover that. We need to recognise that there is a particularly close link—a symbiotic relationship—between gambling and, for example, horseracing, particularly for the regulated sector and those British companies that we all know and see on our high street, so we must be careful.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I am listening to the hon. Member’s arguments with great interest. I want to be clear about the argument he is making. We all greatly value British sports, but if it is synonymous with issues that are causing harm to our children and our population, should we not move those sports forward without allowing that harm to occur?
Charlie Dewhirst
That is an excellent point; I will come on to some of the work that has already been done in that area. It is important that we do not just ban something and hope that will be a silver bullet—we do not know that it will. I worked in gambling 20-odd years ago for a company that pioneered new technology in the industry. As part of that we had to do a customer services role to give us experience talking to customers, to help us understand some of the challenges. It was around the birth of that time when companies started to be more responsible towards their customers.
A lot more progress has been made, and I agree that no gambling firm—regulated or unregulated—should be targeting children in their advertising, but we have to be careful not to just ban advertising without recognising that that could have severe impacts on certain sports. I know that the hon. Member for Halesowen does not want to take it away from horseracing and greyhound racing, but I would suggest that other, smaller sports also rely heavily on it and have a close relationship with the industry.
It is not bad to have that relationship; gambling is not an illegal activity. It is something that most people enjoy, and most people will not become problem gamblers. When we deal with problem gamblers, we need to look at how we can best protect and help those individuals.
Dr Cooper
I absolutely hear what the hon. Member is saying and I reiterate that great British sport is incredibly important. In terms of current regulation, does he agree that we are not regulating nearly enough and that we are therefore putting people who watch these sports and see ubiquitous gambling advertising in harm’s way?
Charlie Dewhirst
I think the industry is making good progress on this. It has certainly made a massive difference in recent decades, from where we have come to where we are now. As I said, and as I will go on to discuss further, there is a difference between the regulated market and the unregulated market. There are those companies that fall within the laws of this country and that are working hard to address some of these problems, and there are those that are not based in this country, over which we have no control. That is a serious problem.
Alex Ballinger
The hon. Member is making his point very well. He is talking about the unregulated market, which we also have real concerns about. Does he share my concern that some unregulated market advertising is being mixed with the regulated market advertising? Right now, we have premier league football clubs with unregulated front-of-shirt sponsors, and that should not be allowed.
Charlie Dewhirst
I could not agree with the hon. Member more. As a big football fan, this has been shocking for me. Growing up back in the ’90s, when Leeds United FC was last successful, what I would see on the front of a football shirt was a well-known brand, possibly British and possibly not. Looking at football shirts now, I often have no idea what the company is until I find out that it is, of course, an unregulated, foreign gambling site that is paying big money to the industry—I will share some figures on that in a minute. The Premier League has taken the right approach in banning those advertising deals from next season.
As I say, there is much we can do to work with the gambling sector in this country, but we also need to make sure that unregulated and illegal gambling firms do not have the ability to advertise to and target residents of this nation, because they are not regulated as they would be under UK law. We must also recognise the importance of preventing aggressive advertising towards vulnerable people and particularly children, as the hon. Member said in his opening remarks.
The balanced and evidence-led reforms made by the previous Government helped to strengthen protections, but there may be more to do. We can supplement the already-robust rules to ensure that we do more, but it is important that we do our very best to prevent children from being exposed in the way they might be at the moment. The hon. Member made an excellent point about the ways in which companies can dodge regulations, particularly those relating to football, where there has been a problem. The Premier League at least has recognised that and taken voluntary action to end it.
Dr Beccy Cooper
How successful does the hon. Gentleman think voluntary agreements have been? Given that the evidence suggests that we are one of the most unregulated countries in the world for gambling, does he not agree that more should be done through regulations that are not voluntary?
Charlie Dewhirst
I am not sure that we are necessarily the most unregulated country in the world when it comes to gambling. There are examples of other countries where gambling is completely banned, but they have an enormous black market, which obviously is totally unregulated and totally illegal, so no one is protected from anything. We need to be very wary of that happening here.
Charlie Dewhirst
The hon. Member makes a good point, but let us be quite clear that it is not some wild west out there. Gambling firms operate within quite a strict framework and take seriously their responsibilities to protect people as best they can.
Charlie Dewhirst
I would like to make a little bit of progress rather than just go back and forth with a Q&A.
We must recognise that betting and gaming is an entirely legitimate commercial practice for responsible gambling firms, as is advertising and sponsorship, but there are already alarming signs that businesses are facing difficulties in this area. The gambling sector is forecast to increase advertising by only 5% this year, which is a slowdown on last year’s 9% increase. Betting and gaming is declining as a share of advertising expenditure, as other sectors are expanding their advertising more rapidly.
Even more worrying is the growth of harmful and illegal gambling operators, the activities of which are unregulated both in the market in general and in gambling advertising in particular. Just a few years ago, licensed operators accounted for more than 80% of gambling advertising, but new analysis published this week by the global marketing intelligence firm WARC has shown that illegal operators now account for almost half of all gambling advertising. Within two years—by 2028—it is expected that they will account for the majority of advertising spend in the UK, overtaking regulated British-based operators.
Esther McVey
I know that my hon. Friend understands this arena very well. My concern is that the unregulated black market for gambling is growing at a rapid rate—as he says, it accounts for over half of advertising. The focus on licensed, regulated gambling operators is surely going to squeeze them out of the market, meaning that the illegal market can boom, as we are seeing across the world.
Charlie Dewhirst
Absolutely; I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. We have seen that trend not just in gambling but in tobacco. Taxation levels have become so high that they have created an enormous black market, which I believe has led to the Treasury losing about £6 billion in revenue. Any sector that is over-taxed or over-regulated will be replaced by a black market.
Alex Ballinger
I was not expecting to hear the hon. Member parroting big tobacco talking lines. Because of all the public health benefits and because of the reduced number of people dying from lung cancer, I think the public would be happy that the rate of smoking has reduced from 60% in the 1950s to 10%. Some 65% of people think children should not be exposed to gambling adverts at all. Does he share the public’s concern?
Charlie Dewhirst
I used an example of another sector to make a wider point that, if we over-tax or over-regulate anything, it will encourage the creation of a black market. There are various issues with that, whether for those exposed to the black market or for the Treasury, which might have concerns about the impact of a black market on its bottom line. It was a wider point about over-regulation and over-taxation, and there are number of examples of that.
I have already said that we should not allow gambling firms to target children in any way because they are not legally allowed to bet, and there has been progress. The reforms under the last Government were quite robust, and I always welcome ideas about how we can go further on that, but we should not necessarily go too far. Banning gambling advertising in sport, with the exception of horseracing and greyhound racing, feels excessive to me. There are other ways that we can address this.
Esther McVey
We are removing advertising for regulated, licensed gambling. Illegal gambling is now so large globally that, if it were an economy, it would be smaller only than that of America and China—that is how big the gambling black market has got.
Charlie Dewhirst
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The gambling black market is extraordinarily large globally; it is hugely significant. As I mentioned earlier, there are specific challenges elsewhere in the world where gambling is not allowed at all, but we all know that gambling exists in those countries at very significant levels. That is a matter for other nations to try to solve, but it is an example of how banning something does not stop it happening.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Dr Beccy Cooper, you will be making a speech. There will be an appropriate time for you to make your points.
Charlie Dewhirst
Thank you, Mrs Harris.
I will put some numbers on my discussion of the value of regulated versus unregulated advertising. The regulated market is expected to decline by more than £107 million this year, but unregulated companies will increase their expenditure to £845 million this year, which is up 32%, and to £934 million by the end of 2028, which is another 10% rise. A significant proportion of that investment originates from overseas companies that are not paying British tax, not regulated by the British market and not subject to British laws.
It is not just about advertising. More advertising by unregulated and illegal gambling companies only drives people to the harmful, unregulated and untaxed black market. Stakes on the illegal market are already estimated to equate to £4.3 billion per year. A PwC report based on H2 Gambling Capital data shows that the size and growth of the UK’s unregulated market has increased in recent years, alongside the implementation of tighter regulations. In my opening, I mentioned that regular betting and gaming contributes £6.8 billion to our economy and generates £4 billion in taxes—£4 billion that the Treasury could potentially lose. The effects of that are self-evident.
There are other measures that are squeezing people. The Gambling Commission has found that there are concerns about the introduction of new checks and how intrusive they may be. The last Government wanted to pilot that scheme, and there are potential benefits to it, but we have to be a bit careful, because the concern is that blanket checks are being brought in without a pilot scheme. People are naturally nervous—the regular people who like to have a bet are concerned—about the intrusive nature of what private companies, and indeed the Government, are doing to try to access their financial data. We need to be wary of that, because it can put people off using British, regulated companies and push them toward foreign, unregulated spaces that are not subject to the same gambling taxation, which often allows for more attractive stakes and so on.
All of that is drawing people into a place we do not want them to be in. We do not want to over-regulate our own market and force people into a place that is of no advantage to us and that we have no influence over. We must be very mindful of that, whether it is gambling or any other sector.
The modelling shows a depressing outlook for the industry under the current taxation system. There is some very headline-grabbing stuff: Coral has pulled out of its deal to sponsor Cheltenham, and the industry expects to lose 16,000 jobs across the UK, a number of which are high-tech jobs. This is a high-tech industry these days; there is a huge online element to it, as we know. Those jobs will be lost in places such as Stoke, Warrington, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle-under-Lyme where the successful gambling firms are based. Those job losses will then filter down to the gambling shops on our high streets; in recent weeks, we saw William Hill announce the loss of 200 high street stores.
Beyond the costs to the taxpayer and people’s jobs and lives, gambling advertising and sponsorship also supports broadcast media and sports across the spectrum. As well as regulated advertising falling, the WARC report also found that sponsorship by regulated companies plateaued in 2021 and is set to decline. That sponsorship covers prize money, along with increased levels of interest, competition and viewership. It is a virtuous circle. It gets people enthused by sport and gets them involved. It is not something that we should see as simply a bad thing to do.
Given that much free-to-air sports coverage—along with the lower levels or grassroots of certain sports—is largely dependent on this advertising revenue, there is a risk that we will further lose free-to-air coverage because sports will have to look to a more lucrative broadcast deals. Look at examples from the grassroots, with those firms sponsoring lower league clubs in football and the good work that they do there to support grassroots football—it is not just about what is going on in the premier league. We see less of those things on a day-to-day basis, but they are going on in clubs across the country.
While sponsorship by regulated companies plateaued and is falling, total sponsorship by the gaming sector has grown, from £158 million in 2019 to £250 million this year. The growth is not by those regulated companies, however. Unregulated firms have accelerated their sponsorship—more than tripling it in the same period—and by next year more than half of sponsorship will be by unregulated firms.
Alex Ballinger
The hon. Member’s concerns are about the unregulated market. However, the proposals in the APPG report are talking about restrictions on gambling advertising, including unregulated gambling advertising. He talks about the growth in unregulated gambling advertising, which is of course a big problem. But surely if those restrictions were implemented, it would give a better chance to bookkeepers that already have shops on the high street and a well-known reputation?
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. These are very long interventions. Some Members have given a speech and others will have an opportunity to speak later and will be able to make their points. We need to make progress.
Charlie Dewhirst
The hon. Member has made a number of points on that subject. I will make some progress as I am sure that you, Mrs Harris, are keen for me to wrap up this contribution as soon as I can.
Esther McVey
Is it not right to say that we cannot regulate the black economy, so what the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) is saying is not possible?
Charlie Dewhirst
My right hon. Friend has jogged my memory. There is a serious issue here. A lot of this advertising is online in a space that we cannot necessarily regulate, and search engines will bring up these sites with obvious key words. For example, a problem gambler who has been part of GamStop or similar will have access to non-GamStop sites and that will bring up illegal betting sites. There is no way of regulating these particularly easily. That is why we need to be very conscious about what we do to damage our own regulated market.
We are exposing people to unregulated websites where protections for those who need them do not exist. In fact, illegal operators specifically promote those sites on the internet through the various ways that they can advertise in a less regulated space. They also do other things regarding how bonuses are constructed and how they target people and so on. Regulated betting and gaming operators are already committing 20% of their advertising to safer gambling messaging, in addition to the messaging that sits within all advertising. During Safer Gambling Week, 1.53 million safer gambling tool limits were in place—an increase of 22% on the previous year. I was at a gambling shop on my high street ahead of the grand national a couple of weeks back, and it was interesting to note that they now run a similar system to Pubwatch—so it is not just online. They share information about individuals in the local area who have problems and need to be supported should they wish to try and place a bet in one of those shops.
None of those robust protections and specific licence conditions for operators, nor the strengthening of the UK advertising codes in 2022—which included new protections for children and vulnerable adults—will make any difference if the Government drive people into the black market.
In conclusion, banning something does not necessarily stop it from happening, and the Government’s policies and this report—if it were to be implemented—could in theory move more people into that less regulated illegal space. The hon. Member for Halesowen said that he is not anti-gambling, but my concern is that he is anti-regulated gambling by UK companies, and there is a very real danger that we will push people into the black market.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
If we are to allow Front-Bench speakers to have ample time, we should bear that in mind with any interventions.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris.
It has been an interesting debate so far, and I thank the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) for taking so many interventions. It was incredibly interesting to hear the discussion. I come at this issue from a particular point of view. I am a public health consultant and I have spent many years working with my colleagues to understand how big tobacco works—I put that on the record.
This debate is both timely and important. We have reached a point in this country where the advertising of gambling products is so ubiquitous that it is almost unheard of to see a sporting event without it, a gambling-free advert break on the telly, or children’s YouTube watching that is not punctuated by colourful, cheerful ads for thinly disguised gambling opportunities. Social media algorithms? Well, they are fodder for gambling promo.
I would like everybody to try a thought experiment. I do not know whether this has been done before in Westminster Hall, but stick with me. Replay what I have just said about advertising everywhere in life—sports events, telly ads, children’s YouTube, social media feeds—but replace gambling with alcohol or smoking, and take a minute this evening to consider how it would feel if we were pushing booze and fags, particularly to children, at any and every opportunity with very little regulation. The fact is, of course, that that was pretty standard fare before public health took on big tobacco, with an increasing body of evidence that smoking is addictive and causes lung cancer. That is now a widely agreed fact, and even the most libertarian colleagues would be hard pressed to make the case that advertising smoking as a desirable life choice is in the best interests of anybody. Alcohol remains more nuanced for many reasons. From a health point of view, while it is undoubtedly an addictive product that has the capacity to cause serious health harms and early death, it is also possible to enjoy alcohol and perhaps even benefit from the antioxidants in red wine. We recognise that and have produced guidelines on consumption levels.
Gambling is an addictive product. That is an incontrovertible health fact, backed up by a large and growing body of evidence. However, as with alcohol, there is a spectrum of addiction across gambling products, which, again, is well evidenced. How do current advertising regulations reflect those facts? The short answer is not very well. The recent report by the APPG on gambling reform and Peers for Gambling Reform, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) said, brings together academic research, clinical expertise and lived experience, and its conclusion is clear. The current system of regulating gambling advertising is not working.
Gambling advertising is now pervasive across television, sport, social media and online platforms, reaching audiences far beyond its intended adult market. Evidence from the Gambling Commission shows that 79% of children and young people recall seeing gambling advertising across multiple channels. Emerging forms of advertising, including content marketing and influencer promotion, blur the line between entertainment and promotion, making risks harder to identify, particularly for younger audiences.
I want to touch briefly on the conversation about legal and illegal markets. I absolutely hear the need to regulate illegal markets. It was a conversation that we had in the big tobacco world for years and years, and the answer is: it is not either/or; it is both. We have to regulate the legal industry and the illegal industry. Talking about one or the other will simply not solve the problem.
Charlie Dewhirst
If something is already illegal, we do not regulate it. Does the hon. Member agree?
Dr Cooper
Let me see if I can answer that, and the hon. Member can tell me if I have not. During our experience with big tobacco, there was a big illegal market—a black market. We brought in various rules and regulations, and we got our environmental health officers and Customs on it. We were absolutely able to look at the black market in tobacco alongside regulating the legal industry. It is perfectly possible to do. In the world of online advertising—the hon. Member referred to the wild west—we have to be very intelligent in how we look at regulation, but it is possible. It needs better brains than mine to figure out how to do it digitally, but it absolutely is possible.
Moving on, evidence shows that one quarter of people who gamble have done so in direct response to advertising. That figure rises to almost four fifths among those at highest risk.
Esther McVey
I feel it only fair to raise the same points with the hon. Lady as I did earlier. She has been written to twice by the Gambling Commission for misusing its statistics and has been written to by the Office for Statistics Regulation about the misuse of statistics. As we listen to her numbers now, I wonder, are they right?
Dr Cooper
I am a public health consultant, and I am still licensed to practise as a public health consultant. I am trained in epidemiology statistics, and I have passed professional exams on both. We have had email correspondence from the people the right hon. Lady mentions, and we have replied to that evidence, stating why the statistics that we are using are absolutely the best evidence that we have. I am happy to share the correspondence, if that is helpful.
Gambling advertising is not passive, but a core driver of market growth. As we heard, the industry spends up to £1.5 billion to £2 billion annually on advertising, marketing and sponsorship. The cumulative effect is a system that embeds gambling into everyday life, increasing the likelihood and severity of harm. Like tobacco, gambling is not just an issue of individual choice, but a product designed and marketed to drive addiction.
What should we do? First, gambling advertising should be understood as a public health issue, not simply a matter of consumer choice or industry regulation. In fact, the World Health Organisation has called for restrictions on gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship as part of a public health response.
I am grateful that the Minister is taking the time to consider the issues on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport this afternoon, but I am of the opinion that gambling sits squarely in the world of health, alongside other addictive products, and the responsibility for it should be transferred to the Department of Health and Social Care. Addressing gambling as a public health issue requires moving beyond incremental, industry-led measures towards clear, enforceable statutory regulation. Our approach continues to rely heavily on lacklustre and ineffective self-regulation. Despite existing restrictions, children continue to be widely exposed to gambling advertising across television, sport and social media.
Parliament has previously taken a precautionary approach in areas such as tobacco, alcohol and junk food marketing, where there is credible evidence of harm. Gambling advertising meets the same threshold, given its demonstrated links to increased participation and harm. As we have heard, other countries, including Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Australia, have already introduced stronger restrictions based on similar evidence, The UK’s continued reliance on limited and voluntary measures has left it an outlier, rather than a leader in protecting public health.
The Government already have powers under existing legislation, including the Gambling Act 2005, to take further action. The issue is no longer whether change is possible, but whether there is the political will to act decisively. Public concern is already there, with about two thirds of the public worried about the volume of gambling advertising and its impact on children. There is now a strong case for more fundamental reform, including a new Gambling Act that reflects the realities of today’s digital and highly commercialised gambling environment. Ultimately, this is a question of priorities: to protect public health, in particular for children and young people; or to allow the continued expansion of a system that contributes to harm.
In summary, a famous gambling industry tagline is, “When the fun stops, stop.” I think that it is past time for us to acknowledge that gambling addiction is fun for no one, and exposure of our children to harmful, pernicious advertising from big gambling companies has to stop. I say to the Minister, there is no fun here; it is time to stop.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) for securing this debate, and I commend the APPG on gambling reform for its report.
This has been a fascinating exchange. We have been told that the gambling industry is worth billions of pounds to this country, but here we are discussing advertising. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) argued that if we over-regulate the regulated market—especially advertising—we might grow the unregulated market. There is an argument to be had about whether we can regulate the black or unregulated economy, but that relates to enforcement. The fact that an element of gambling is unregulated and takes place in an even more unsafe space is an argument for increased enforcement, not less regulation.
As the hon. Member for Worthing West said, gambling advertising is a public health issue. Of course, there is a great industry, but we are talking about the public health element of advertising, including advertising to vulnerable people and children. The question is: what is the cost of that advertising? The financial cost is £1.4 billion every year drained from our economy in the form of financial harms and the associated impact of problem gambling—but there is another cost, which has not been mentioned today and cannot be expressed in monetary terms. Public Health England highlights that every year 400 people take their own lives as a result of gambling. That is 400 families shattered—it is more than one person every single day.
The damage from gambling runs through our society in many ways. As the hon. Member eloquently put it, there are fun and light elements of gambling, but the addiction runs deep. My brief covers social media, so I know how much addictive behaviour has been built into that technology. That is exactly what happens with a lot of online gambling apps—and it goes deep. Today’s debate has helped us to look at that more clearly.
There are other harms too. Nearly two thirds of those who gamble carry gambling-related debt—not “many”, not “some”, but two thirds. That is the true scale of what we are dealing with. It is not all fun. Those statistics about the money, the debt and the lives are not statistics that we should accept. The report from the APPG on gambling reform highlights that it is vital to question the role of advertising within that.
I have constituents who worry about gambling. Some have written to me specifically about young people being increasingly and dramatically harmed by gambling. Members across the Chamber seem to agree with that. Some 30% of 11 to 17-year-olds regularly spend their own money on gambling—that is driven largely by unregulated gambling, but that is about enforcement. Importantly, nearly half of young people see gambling adverts online weekly, predominantly through social media. As the hon. Member for Halesowen highlighted, those targeted ads are really pernicious—the algorithms are so strong.
It is strikingly clear that we need reforms to protect the young people and adults impacted by gambling. It is not just the Liberal Democrats and Members across the Chamber who think so: the World Health Organisation and three leading public institutions in the UK alone recommend ending gambling advertising. Many countries have already acted so, as the hon. Member for Worthing West highlighted, the UK is falling behind.
Although the Liberal Democrats welcome the statutory gambling levy and the increase in gaming duty, we do not think those steps go far enough. The evidence is there. Gambling advertising leads to people starting to gamble; it leads those who already gamble to gamble more, and it leads those who have stopped gambling to start again. There are clear solutions to reduce the harm that gambling is causing in this country, and it starts with questioning the role of advertising.
Will the Minister help to curb the negative impact of gambling advertising, whether it is sponsorship or direct gambling marketing? Will she end pre-watershed gambling advertising? Will she look at a statutory independent gambling ombudsman with real powers to protect consumers and resolve complaints? Will the Government finally replace the failed self-regulatory system with independent, enforceable regulation that actually protects people?
There is harm from gambling, as we have discussed, and that speaks for itself. There are 400 gambling-related suicides a year in England alone. That is not inevitable. The Government have the power to fix it, but that starts with taking this seriously and with tackling gambling advertising.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) for securing this debate.
I wish everyone a happy St George’s day. Perhaps the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts is off celebrating St George’s day in his own Scottish way somewhere—I was looking forward to delivering that joke to him, so I am disappointed he is not here. Although I welcome the Minister covering this very important debate, I know there will be some confusion among the public about why no one from DCMS with direct responsibility for this policy area was available to respond. Hopefully, the Minister will still be able to answer some of the key questions on behalf of the Government before their complete collapse.
We all know that the Government are yet again distracted by their latest scandal in Downing Street, and that Labour MPs are preparing the runners and riders for their leadership contest; but we meet today to discuss gambling regulation at a very important juncture in terms of how we move forward with the regulated gambling industry in the UK. As we predicted would happen before Labour’s latest tax-hiking Budget, jobs are being lost and high street shops are closing, as we have already heard. Sponsorship for British sport is also being cut, and an illegal, dangerous black market continues to grow each week. Quite clearly, Labour did not properly vet the information they were being provided.
This is also a crucial time for the Gambling Commission. Major changes are happening at the top of the organisation and, as I understand it, it is deliberating on whether to move forward with controversial affordability checks despite major concerns from a range of stakeholders about their accuracy and, again, the unintended consequences of fuelling the illegal and dangerous black market. Today’s debate is therefore timely, and I have listened very carefully to contributions from hon. Members across the Chamber.
As always, there are a range of views. On the left, we have some who are more prohibitionist and view all forms of gambling through the prism of harm. On the right—thankfully not represented in the Chamber today—there are those who believe that party leaders should be allowed to promote their own crypto and pyramid schemes with no accountability. Then we have the rest of us, more in the middle ground, who are trying to find a sensible and pragmatic approach to regulation that provides protections and support for those suffering from addiction while recognising the regulated gambling sector’s contribution to jobs, the economy, British culture and sport.
As I have said in previous debates, I have no problem bashing the bookies; it is a British pastime between punter and bookmaker, and I am unashamedly pro-consumer. But as we are seeing now, the Government have inadvertently stacked the deck in favour of the illegal black market. In preparing for this debate, I was reminded of what gambling looked like when I was growing up in south-east London: those dark and dingy betting shops with beads covering the shop doors, and the wall of smoke that would occasionally escape, allowing some fresh air into the building.
While some of those small pens might have stayed in some shops, times have changed. The regulated industry has modernised, and technology has transformed how many people gamble across the country.
Alex Ballinger
The shadow Minister is talking about an historical example of a bookmaker’s. At that time, how many children and young people were exposed to gambling advertising? Is he happy with a Premier League weekend having 27,000 adverts that families might be watching?
Mr French
That is an interesting point about how bookmakers operate. My grandfather was really keen on horseracing when I was growing up; I remember often standing in the corner of the betting shop while he had a gamble or watching horseracing on the TV. The hon. Member’s APPG has made an interesting distinction about the carve-out of the advertising ban that it has committed to; if I understand it correctly, the APPG believes that younger people or children do not watch horseracing, compared with football—is that the argument for why there is a carve-out?
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Ballinger, please sit down. Shadow Minister, please speak through the Chair.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Thank you. Mr Ballinger, if you want to intervene, can you do it appropriately?
Alex Ballinger
The APPG recognise that horseracing and greyhound racing are much more dependent on gambling advertising than other industries; that is why we made that separation.
Mr French
I thank the hon. Member for making that distinction; I understood it as being something to do with whether children watched racing. The point I was trying to make was that times have changed. When I worked in a shop—some 20-odd years ago, when I was a student—a strict rule was brought in to stop children being allowed inside the premises. There was a lot of discussion then about whether it was safer for a child to be just inside the door of a bookmaker’s or to be standing outside. That is probably not as big an issue today as it was then, but I remember that discussion being had circa 20 years ago. Times have changed, and how bookmakers operate has also changed.
The debate around gambling and gambling harms boils down to a simple but important question: how do we reduce harm from gambling without driving people into more dangerous spaces? Advertising, the subject of today’s debate, forms an important part of that discussion. Gambling, when properly regulated, is a legitimate leisure activity enjoyed by more than 20 million people across the United Kingdom every month. That averages out at more than 30,000 people in every constituency across the country. The overwhelming majority of those people gamble without harm.
The role of Government is to balance regulation for people who enjoy a flutter safely, while ensuring that those who need help can receive it as a matter of urgency. Government should not act as a heavy, puritanical hand prohibiting all avenues of fun. That is why the distinction between the regulated and unregulated market is so important. Advertising by UK-licensed operators is not a free-for-all, as some would have us believe; it is controlled and is subject to oversight by the anti-gambling commission and the Advertising Standards Authority, which has been strengthened significantly in recent years. That has resulted in some good progress: for example, I understand that the whistle-to-whistle ban has reduced children’s exposure to betting adverts during live sport by 97%. The Premier League will soon ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsors, and online campaigns are age-gated, with operators prohibited from using personalities with strong appeal to children. However, those regulations do not apply to those who act beyond the law in the black market.
The Government have been clear that there is little evidence of a causal link between exposure to advertising and problem gambling. Crucially, the evidence does not show that advertising drives participation. Advertising influences which brand people choose, not whether they gamble at all. That matters, because restricting the regulated sector too heavily will not remove demand; the Government will simply be redirecting it to the unregulated market, where harm becomes the norm. Independent analysis from WARC suggests that UK gambling advertising spend will reach around £1.9 billion this year, with half—between £800 million and £900 million, and increasing—already coming from unregulated operators.
We are approaching a tipping point. Close to half of all gambling advertising seen by UK consumers comes from operators that are not licensed in this country and can act beyond the law. It is the direction of travel that concerns me most: WARC’s research shows that while licensed operator spend has fallen, illegal and unregulated spend is growing sharply. That is a sign of a market shifting quickly and decisively, and we must be honest about what sits behind that shift. The Government have increased regulation on the legal sector, but done very little so far to stop the illegal black market.
While licensed operators are seeing their ability to advertise reduced, illegal operators are expanding aggressively, particularly online, and particularly aimed at children and younger people. Those unregulated operators do not follow the rules. They do not verify age; they do not offer safeguards such as deposit limits or self-exclusion; they do not contribute to treatment or research; they do not pay tax. Those companies actively market themselves as being outside the system, with “Not on GamStop”—a favoured slogan that is deliberately used to appeal to the most vulnerable. This is not a marginal issue. Up to 1.5 million people in Britain are estimated to be using these sites already, staking as much as £10 billion a year.
Today’s advertising frontline is not so much television as social media, streaming platforms and influencers. Around 62% of children report regularly seeing gambling-related content online on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Twitch and Instagram—I use some of those platforms myself, though I am not sure what Twitch is. What they see is not the regulated sector: they are seeing influencers who are paid to promote black market gambling sites—sites that would never be allowed to advertise through regulated channels and that offer inducements and access without safeguards. Among those young people who follow gambling content, nearly one in three report seeing an influencer advertising the products. The reality is that we have built a system that tightly regulates those who comply with the law, while those who do not are free to exploit the faster-growing parts of the media landscape.
We must be honest about the risk of getting this wrong. By clamping down further on regulated advertising without tackling illegal activity, we will not clean up this space. We will simply cede the territory to the illegal operators. We will make it harder for consumers to distinguish between safe and unsafe operators, pushing more people towards platforms that offer no protections at all. The Government’s priority must be enforcement in the spaces where harm is now most concentrated.
I will conclude by asking the Minister a series of specific questions that I hope she can answer or follow up in writing. First, will the Government bring forward proposals to place a clear duty on social media platforms to identify and remove illegal gambling advertising, particularly influencer-led promotion of unlicensed sites? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking against unlicensed operators targeting UK consumers online? Thirdly, can the Minister set out a timeline for action on unlicensed gambling sponsorship in sport, and will the Government go further to prevent UK clubs from entering into partnerships with operators that are not licensed in this country?
Esther McVey
Can my hon. Friend help me? A little earlier I raised a point about misinformation being used by the Gambling Commission, and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said that it had not been called out for misusing statistics. However, this is listed on three separate occasions on the Gambling Commission’s public log of requested corrections. Can my hon. Friend explain the clear discrepancy on what we have heard in this debate?
Mr French
I do not believe I can answer my right hon. Friend’s question, but it might be something that other Members want to correct via a point of order to ensure that, as we have this important discussion, we have all the facts in front of us. That is vital. There is a range of views, but we are here as policymakers and we need to ensure that we make informed decisions.
My fourth question is, what steps are being taken to improve consumer awareness, so that individuals can more easily distinguish between regulated and unregulated operators, as well as the dangers of the latter over the former? Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that any future restrictions on regulated advertising are assessed against the risk of displacement into the black market?
If the Government are serious about reducing harm, we must focus on where harm is growing fastest. If they fail to act, the Government risk undermining the very protections that successive Governments have worked hard to build. While there are risks that this House should not be willing to take, there must be balance. Let us not start legislating and regulating just because some Labour Members have the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am pleased to respond to this debate, standing in for my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) on securing this debate and setting out their concerns so clearly and thoughtfully. We have had a genuine debate, with an exchange of different viewpoints on this important issue.
I recognise that gambling advertising is a key area of focus for the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform and many other Members of this House, who have met the Gambling Minister to discuss the issue. The Government thank all Members for their ongoing work in this area, as their contributions are vital for informing the development of Government policy. I note that the APPG this week published a report setting out its case for change, and I know that the Gambling Minister will want to consider that work carefully. I also note the passionate call from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West for gambling to be considered from a public health perspective.
This Government are committed to supporting a gambling industry that is modern, responsible and sustainable. However, the industry must also demonstrate that it can operate without exacerbating harm among the most vulnerable. Getting that balance right is crucial. We are focused on further enhancing protections for those at risk of harm, but we also want to enable the sector to bring value through providing jobs, boosting the economy and providing a leisure activity for adults to enjoy.
That is why, since the election, we have been focused on supporting the licensed sector to further enhance protections for the young and vulnerable. This has included raising standards in a number of areas to ensure that gambling advertising is socially responsible and does not exacerbate harm. However, we also recognise that, as a legitimate industry that makes a significant contribution to the economy, the gambling industry should also be able to advertise the services that it offers. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) set out that case in his contribution.
Let me start by explaining the robust rules in place to regulate gambling advertising. All gambling operators in the UK must comply with advertising codes, which are enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority, independently of Government. These advertising codes apply across all platforms, including broadcast, online and social media. When the ASA deems that the codes have been breached, the Gambling Commission has the power to take enforcement action.
These mandatory advertising codes are further supplemented by the voluntary industry code for socially responsible advertising, which has been strengthened in recent years. This code includes a number of measures such as the whistle-to-whistle ban, which prohibits gambling advertising during the pre-watershed televised broadcast of live sports events. I note the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen has raised about its effectiveness, and I also note the statistics shared by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French).
In the past two years, the Gambling Commission has introduced a range of new controls to regulate gambling advertising. These new measures further raise standards to better protect vulnerable people from harmful gambling practices. From 1 May 2025, operators have been required to provide customers with options to opt-in to the specific types of marketing they wish to receive. This choice gives customers greater control in order to lessen the risk of harm.
From January this year, the Gambling Commission has also banned operators from bundling different gambling products—such as betting and slots—into single incentives. This is because mixed promotional offers were often confusing and led customers to engage in higher-risk gambling behaviours. This measure boosts fairness and openness to ensure advertising does not encourage excessive or harmful gambling.
I am aware that a number of Members have focused specifically on advertising standards within sports, and we know how important that issue is. Since the election, we have seen a number of developments in the regulation of gambling marketing and advertising within sports. These include gambling sponsorship codes of conduct within all major sports, and the landmark introduction of the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt sponsorship from the start of the 2026-27 season. These changes reduce the prominence of gambling advertising within mainstream football matches, acknowledging that the connection between sport and gambling must be managed with care. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these measures over time.
The Government are also conscious of the need to be vigilant and responsive to the fast-evolving digital landscape. I want to address directly the concerns raised about social media, which are likely front of mind for many Members, particularly given its potential impact on children and young people. I want to be clear that gambling advertising on social media must adhere to the same standards set for other mediums. This means that advertising rules apply in full to paid social media adverts, to operators’ own social media content, to content marketing and to affiliate marketing carried out on their behalf. However, they do not apply to editorial content, which is not deemed to be selling a product or service.
Advertising codes also require operators to ensure that targeting is used responsibly, using tools available on platforms to exclude under-18s and other vulnerable groups from exposure wherever possible. Where operators fall short of these standards, the ASA can take action or refer to the Gambling Commission for possible enforcement action. We continue to work across Government, with platforms and with industry to measure the effectiveness of these rules.
Last year, the ASA significantly strengthened its rules specifically to address the rise of influencer marketing. That includes a change to prohibit any influencers or personalities with social media followings totalling more than 100,000 under-18s across different platforms from advertising gambling. The further strengthening of these rules ensures that children’s exposure to gambling is limited, and that gambling is not marketed to them by aspirational figures as a risk-free pastime or lifestyle choice. This sets higher standards to prevent gambling-related harm.
Nevertheless, I recognise that many Members would like the ASA to go further in its regulation of the sector. I know that the Gambling Minister is meeting the ASA shortly, and I am sure she will raise some of the issues we have discussed today. I am also sure that she will be paying attention to this debate.
We are also very conscious of the need to address the illegal market, and specifically the advertising of illegal gambling in an ever-changing digital landscape, which a number of Members have mentioned. Advertising is one of the primary advantages that licensed operators have to distinguish themselves from operators in the unlicensed sector, particularly when the risks associated with the illegal market are growing. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), made that argument this afternoon.
Although estimates suggest that, historically, the illegal market in the UK has been relatively small, the issue of illegal gambling is of course a concern for this Government. That is why, since the Budget, we have increased efforts to tackle the illegal market. As the websites and advertisements of unlicensed operators can fall outside the scope of the robust rules that we have in place for licensed operators, we are paying particular attention to the issue of illegal gambling advertising through the work of our illegal gambling taskforce.
Esther McVey
I ask this question through the Minister, as she obviously does not have the relevant figures because she is not the Gambling Minister. What has been the growth of illegal gambling in the UK in the last few years? As I understand it, there has been a considerable increase in the illegal market.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the right hon. Member for her question, and I will ensure that she receives a written response.
By bringing together industry, platforms, regulators and Government, we will identify ways to clamp down on illegal advertising. We hope to ensure that exposure to illegal gambling advertising is reduced, particularly for vulnerable individuals. The Gambling Commission also continues to engage with online platforms to support the removal of illegal gambling content, which remains an ongoing priority. An additional £26 million has also been allocated to the Gambling Commission across the next three years to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market.
More recently, we announced our intention to consult on banning sports sponsorship by unlicensed gambling operators. By reducing awareness of and exposure to unlicensed operators, such a ban would further protect vulnerable consumers from the unregulated illegal market.
It is important that we do what we can to ensure that all advertising is socially responsible and does not exacerbate harm. Where there is evidence to support it, the Government would like to see more action being taken to ensure that advertising does not adversely affect the young and vulnerable. In the coming months, we will continue to explore this alongside our wider work on reducing gambling-related harms.
Mr French
I appreciate that the hon. Lady is covering for another Minister. However, I made the point in a previous debate that the Government seem to be saying that they are keen to reduce the harm to children from gambling and that they particularly recognise the issue of social media, which I raised in my speech today. Why do they not just back the Conservative party’s proposed ban on social media for under-16s?
Lilian Greenwood
As the hon. Member will know, we are currently consulting on measures to protect young people from online harms. He is aware of that work, which is continuing. Of course we want to protect children and young people, but we need to make sure that any measures we bring in will be effective.
We recognise that the regulatory framework must keep pace with technological change. That is why we are working with the Gambling Commission and the ASA to ensure that existing rules are applied to new and emerging channels. We are also clear that all policy and regulatory decisions must be made after considering a wide range of impartial, accurate and up-to-date research about the scale and impact of gambling advertising. We must ensure that our interventions are as impactful as possible.
As Members may be aware, last year we introduced the landmark statutory gambling levy, which has raised just under £120 million in its first year. This funding will be ringfenced solely for independent research into and prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms; 20% of the funding collected will be spent on research to strengthen the evidence base on gambling-related harms, which includes research on the impacts of gambling advertising. We will therefore consider next steps in the context of this strengthening evidence base.
Where appropriate, our approach will also include comparison with regulation in other jurisdictions. A number of suggestions were made, and examples have been given of the way in which other countries are doing this. However, just because a particular country has moved further than us on advertising restrictions, that does not mean that we should automatically attempt to match it. We should instead be guided by the lessons that such jurisdictions offer, and we should consider what has and has not worked.
An important point that I want to stress is that if we decide to encourage or take further action on advertising, we want to do so in a way that is supported by the evidence available. We should avoid putting in place too many restrictions that could have unintended consequences. Where standards can be raised in a careful way, we should look to do that. The Government remain open-minded about how that can be done, and we will reflect on the points that have been raised today, including in the important contributions from the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
I want to address a couple of questions that hon. Members have raised. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup raised concerns about the introduction of financial risk assessments. FRAs of online gambling customers are a widely supported principle and a key consumer protection measure from the White Paper. We are aware of concerns about so-called operator affordability checks; new financial risk checks would replace those and are better for customers and for racing. The Department has worked closely with the Gambling Commission throughout, to ensure that FRAs remain in line with the clear principles in the White Paper. If the Gambling Commission decides to introduce FRAs, it will work with operators on guidance. That guidance will ensure a proportionate approach when deciding how to manage consumers where financial risk is present and the customer continues to spend at a high level.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup also asked a number of specific questions. I will ensure that, where I have not already dealt with them in my speech, he receives a response in writing.
Mr French
On financial risk assessments, also known as affordability checks, will the Minister pass on a query relating to the gambling White Paper? My understanding from the previous Gambling Minister and from the then shadow Gambling Minister, who is now the Sports Minister, was that the checks could go ahead only if they were truly frictionless, hence the pilot. Can the Government confirm whether the Gambling Commission has the authority to proceed if that is not the will of Parliament?
Lilian Greenwood
I can tell the hon. Member that FRAs have been piloted to ensure that they are genuinely frictionless before implementation and that they are targeted at those showing signs of harm, rather than simply those spending high amounts safely. The FRA pilot found that only 3% of all gambling accounts would be subject to an FRA where their losses were significant enough to warrant it, and 97% of checks would be frictionless without any change to customer experience. Nevertheless, if there is further information that the hon. Member requires, I am sure he will follow that up.
I conclude by reiterating our commitment to working with a wide range of stakeholders, including industry, on this issue. We will continue to do what we can to ensure that gambling advertising, wherever it appears, is socially responsible and does not exacerbate the risks of gambling-related harm. I am grateful for the contributions from all hon. Members today; it has been a genuinely interesting and constructive discussion. The Government look forward to continuing this work in the months ahead.
Alex Ballinger
Thank you, Mrs Harris. I thank all Members who have joined in this lively debate: the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. We have covered a lot of issues and it has been one of the few debates in which we have had an exchange of views rather than of party political positions, so I appreciate that.
I will respond to the comments of the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I have not seen that correspondence, but she seems certain that I have received it, so I will go back and check.
Alex Ballinger
I will check, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West responded on what the all-party group may have said.
I should say very briefly that there seems to have been a big debate about the unregulated market and the regulated market. I think that is important. There were questions about the size of the unregulated market, and some of that is in our report, which I have just looked at: it is approximately 9% of the online space, with 700 operators, according to Yield Sec. As everyone has said, that is largely driven by the unregulated market going after people who have been banned by GamStop.
Alex Ballinger
I will not give way at this point, because I am just wrapping up—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Can we not have debate across the Chamber, please? Can you finish your wind-up, Mr Ballinger?
Alex Ballinger
Absolutely. This has been driven a lot by the argument that the unregulated industry will somehow capture the market. If we are talking about restrictions on gambling advertising, that should include such restrictions on the unregulated gambling market, which as we can see is already advertising in football and online in lots of spaces. Those are things that we are calling for, too. That 9% of the market, which is in our report, will hopefully not grow.
We should not pretend that the unregulated market is the only one causing problems. There are issues in the regulated market as well. We have heard about the bonuses, the promotions, the free bets and other issues from people with lived experience, who have faced them in the regulated market too, which is the majority of gambling harm.
Across the House, I think there is a wish to go further in protecting children and young people, even though we may have disagreements about how we do so. There are some good recommendations in our report, I hope, for sensible steps to protect children and young people from gambling advertising, and particularly from gambling harms that might come to them in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered gambling advertising.