Young People: Gambling Harm
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce gambling harm among young people.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Minister on what appear to be yet more responsibilities that she is taking on. I welcome this opportunity to debate with her what the Government plan to do to reduce gambling harm among children and young people. In doing so, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for Gambling Reform.
We have long accepted a simple principle: where there is clear evidence that commercial activity harms children, government has a duty to intervene, adopting a public health approach. We have accepted that principle in relation to tobacco, to alcohol and, more recently, to vapes. We are applying it to unhealthy food, to social media, to alcohol and again, more recently, to high-caffeine energy drinks. The same should surely apply to gambling. Yes, of course it is illegal for children to gamble, but a very large number do, so we are clearly not doing enough, despite the protection of children and young people being a core licensing objective in the ill-conceived Gambling Act 2005.
Last year, the Gambling Commission found that 59% of young people had taken part in some form of gambling in the previous year, that 30% had used their own money in doing so and that three in 10 children see members of their own family gambling. Most worryingly of all, it found that some 80,000 children are suffering gambling harm: in common parlance, 80,000 children are gambling addicts and many thousands more are at risk of becoming so. We need to do more to catch up with the rapidly changing gambling landscape, because children today encounter gambling brands almost everywhere. They see gambling companies sponsoring football shirts, stadiums and competitions. They watch televised sports with gambling promotions before, during and after the event. They receive gambling-related content through social media algorithms. They see influencers promoting betting products. Many play games containing gambling-like features such as loot boxes and social casinos that blur the line between gaming and gambling. This constant exposure matters, because it normalises gambling for children, who are learning to see gambling as a routine part of sport, of entertainment, of gaming and of online life.
Dealing with all this is a public health issue, and while the Government are not doing enough, many parts of local government are doing their best. Many councils have already banned gambling advertising on their premises, their land and their vehicles, and others have gone even further. For instance, ahead of the 2022 World Cup, one council launched its anti-gambling harms campaign, “Odds Are: They Win”. It pointed to harmful industry practices having a negative impact on people’s, including children’s, health and well-being, finances, work, relationships and so on. It made it clear that whatever the gambling product, whoever the gambling operator and whichever way you look at it, the odds are they win. The council leader said
“the main aim of the gambling operators is to maximise profits. These profits are the result of customer losses which, particularly during this cost of living crisis, risk having a seriously detrimental impact on people’s lives”.
He went on to say:
“The review of the Gambling Act is now well overdue and the Government must take this opportunity to do more to protect our residents and people right across the country from the harmful practices of the gambling industry”.
That council leader was our new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, so when she responds, I hope the Minister will have her Prime Minister’s words ringing in her ears.
To identify what more could be done, Peers for Gambling Reform recently hosted a round table of experts in the field. Their recommendations included, first, ending the Government’s nonsense claim that that it is possible to grow the gambling industry while reducing gambling harm. Way back in 2018, academics claimed that
“preventing gambling-related harm is not possible without limiting the overall volume of the activity, and hence the profits for the gambling industry”.
Recently, four reports all show that by reducing the volume of gambling activity in the country, the country’s economy would be strengthened and not weakened. Will the Minister at last accept that the Government have got this wrong?
Secondly, experts recommended restricting gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. Clearly, with 79% of children recalling gambling advertisements, current safeguards are not working. I even saw a computer game the other day with an age rating of 4+ containing gambling advertisements. The UK has more evidence on the harmful effects of gambling advertising than almost any other country in the world, but we are taking much less action. Does the Minister accept that reducing harm among children and young people requires reducing their exposure to gambling advertising? Does she agree with her Prime Minister, who said:
“For the sake of children and young people, it’s time to take a stand … we can relegate gambling sponsorship of sport to the history books”.
I entirely agree with the Prime Minister.
Thirdly, there were recommendations to require greater accountability of digital platforms. Children encounter gambling marketing online through content marketing—designed not to look like advertising—sports commentary, influencer-style content, livestream gambling, affiliate promotions and, of course, illegal offshore operators. Can the Minister say whether the Government will place a specific duty on online platforms to prevent under-18s being exposed to gambling advertising?
Fourthly, experts recommend addressing the convergence of gaming and gambling. Loot boxes, skin gambling, crypto gambling, social casino games and esports-linked gambling are all areas where existing legal definitions and voluntary approaches are insufficient. There is clear evidence of a stable and consistent association between loot box use and problem gambling, with risks likely to be higher for children and young people. Will the Government move beyond the failed industry self-regulation and bring loot boxes and gaming-like digital products within a stronger regulatory framework?
The round table identified other recommendations, such as greater protection for young adults, who are more likely than older adults to experience gambling harm, and further development of the welcome introduction of a gambling element into the PSHE component of the school curriculum—I believe that should be strengthened still further, and my noble friend Lord Addington will touch on this later. All need to be addressed as public health issues, without the involvement of the commercial interests of gambling companies.
Future generations will not ask whether Parliament debated these issues; they will ask whether we acted while the evidence, a vast amount of it, was already before us. I hope that when they do, they will be able to say that this House once again played its part in putting the protection of children ahead of commercial interest. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on securing this short debate and on his long-standing work on preventing gambling harms. Like him, I am very pleased to see the Minister continuing in her role at DCMS.
I will focus on the international implications of gambling harms experienced by young sports players. I am a member of our International Agreements Committee and we are currently scrutinising the impact of the Government’s proposal to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, known as the Macolin convention. It is the first and only international treaty on the manipulation of sports competitions.
I am grateful to all those who have given evidence to our committee. We have learned a great deal about how young sportspeople can fall into the traps set by those who organise international illegal operations and bribe them. Young people who are just starting out on their careers may be easy targets. We heard compelling evidence from ex-footballer Moses Swaibu about his experience of match fixing and the broader systems behind it, and about how easy it is to get sucked into the illegal gambling world, whether you are playing in league or non-league matches.
His entry into professional sports started when he was 16 and playing for his Croydon state school. He secured a one-year professional contract with Crystal Palace FC and entered an environment of mentors, structures, big brothers and discipline—a new world for him. When he moved to Lincoln City aged 19, a teammate introduced him to the world of match fixing for the first time. It was a phrase he had never even heard of. He knew that it was morally wrong; he just wanted to play football. However, he did not feel that he had the power or confidence to go to Chris Sutton, his first team manager, and say, “The teammate who introduced me to match fixing is the captain”.
Fast forward to 2015, and Moses was sentenced to 16 months in prison for conspiracy to commit bribery following his role in a 2013 match-fixing scandal during his time at Bromley FC. The prosecution said that two Singaporean businessmen were the central figures in the conspiracy. Since his release from prison, Mr Swaibu has devoted his career to combating match fixing. He has become one of the UK’s most active voices in sports integrity education and reform, with a particular focus on educating young footballers who might well fall into the same traps as he did.
Mr Swaibu told our committee that
“if you have a young Moses Swaibu at 18, look at his background, his family, and his siblings: what were the influences around him that shaped this opportunity for crime and corruption?”
We were also given evidence by Dr Madalina Diaconu. She told us that:
“In the past 15, maybe 16 years, we have seen a tremendous increase in the infiltration of organised crime into match-fixing”
of a wide variety of sports, including e-sports. She went on:
“This is where the Macolin convention comes in, because no single sports organisation or sports betting organisation can fight international organised crime syndicates. That is a job for law enforcement and international co-operation in this field, which is precisely what the Macolin convention does”.
The UK signed the convention in 2018, but the Government have only very recently brought it forward for ratification. Can the Minister explain why there has been a delay in seeking to ratify it? I understand that there may be good reasons for this, but what are they?
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for bringing this debate and for the unfailing, tireless work he does in this area. I declare my interest as medical director of the Primary Care Gambling Service, which treats patients experiencing gambling-related harms in services across England.
No matter how good my service is, when a young person walks through that door, we have already failed them. As noble Lords have heard, the numbers tell their own story: nearly half of 11 to 17 year-olds have gambled in the past year and 30% have spent their own money doing so, which is up from 27% last year. Most strikingly, the increase is being driven almost entirely by unregulated gambling, which has risen from 15% to 18% in just one year. Separately, the Gambling Commission finds that one in five 18 to 24 year-olds now gambles to relieve stress. These are not statistics about a handful of unlucky individuals. They describe a generation growing up in an environment designed to make gambling feel normal, safe and sociable—on their phones and in their feeds, increasingly disguised as a game and with no meaningful age gate.
That is why prevention cannot begin only once harm has appeared and cannot mean simply warning young people about risks. It must mean intervening upstream: in product design, in advertising and in the “free-to-play” and loot-box mechanics that train children in gambling behaviours before they have ever placed a bet with real money. It has to mean treating gambling harm, as the health Select Committee of this House argued and as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said so eloquently, as a public health issue, not simply as a matter of consumer choice.
This brings me, briefly, to the statutory levy. We finally have a statutory levy replacing the old voluntary system. In principle, that is real progress. It has raised £120 million this year, roughly triple what voluntary donations ever achieved, and gives us a sustainable foundation for research, prevention and treatment. But while the levy gives us more money, it does not in itself give us a gambling prevention strategy.
GambleAware closed its doors at the end of March, after more than 20 years, warning that the transition risked fragmentation. That uncertainty has had consequences. Last year, citing a lack of sustainable funding, GamCare ended its young people’s provision, which had reached more than a quarter of a million children, young people and parents over the past five years. Coming as the new levy settlement leaves youth prevention work unfunded, it is exactly the kind of capacity we should be protecting, not losing. I raise this not to relitigate the levy but because prevention—school-based education, youth work, early intervention and public awareness campaigns around major sporting events, as we have just had with the World Cup—is precisely what suffers when funding is unstable or unco-ordinated. Prevention depends on continuity.
My central ask today is not about the levy. It is this: if we are serious about preventing gambling harm in young people, we need to close the gap between how we regulate gambling and how fast the products marketed at young people are evolving. Unregulated gambling products, influencer marketing and constant gambling content on social media are shaping attitudes long before young people are legally allowed to gamble. We need to keep asking, as this House has before, whether we are designing policy around what protects children or around what the industry finds tolerable.
Prevention is not measured by the number of people it treats; it is measured by the number of people who never need treatment in the first place. If we get prevention right, we will spare thousands of young people avoidable harm and spend far less on treatment in years to follow. That is the investment, and the responsibility, that I hope this Minister—who I am pleased is remaining—will keep firmly in view.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for tabling this debate on reducing gambling harm among young people. That sounds admirable but, hot on the heels of the Academy of Ideas World Cup sweepstake, organised by one of our young team, Jake Weston, an enthusiastic gambler himself, I want to appeal for perspective.
As a reminder, for the vast majority of people across all age groups, gambling is harmless. As Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has noted, it can bring joy to millions of people who enjoy a regular flutter. So many get their pleasure from honing their skills in working out—and hopefully beating—the odds. Others just enjoy the thrill and challenge of taking a risk, often the sorts of instincts we want to encourage, for example in would-be entrepreneurs. Yet too often in debates in this Chamber, we discuss this legal, legitimate leisure activity as though it inevitably leads to ruin. It is unfairly characterised as toxic and pathologised as addictive, a threatening destroyer of individuals and family life.
I thought of all this when watching a lovely clip of the football icon Kevin Keegan—in my opinion, the real king of the north—from a filmed interview doing the rounds since his sad death. Kevin movingly recalled how his dad used to back the horses regularly, just like most miners at the time. One year, he won a few quid on the Grand National and used all the money to buy his young, football-obsessed son some second-hand football boots, an act of fatherly love and generosity paid for by his hobby and not some sordid, dodgy, selfish activity. Will the Minister reassure us that the Government will avoid policies that purport to protect the young but, in reality, are a puritan Trojan horse for a prohibition that unfairly demonises gambling per se?
Do not get me wrong, I know from personal experience how out-of-control gambling can bring misery, but we need to be honest that this is a small minority. Acknowledging this will allow for bespoke policies that target real problems, rather than a blanket culture of disapproval or a catch-all of ineffective, excessive state intervention into people’s private choices.
We also need to interrogate some of the data and terminology that can misleadingly suggest that this is a growing problem. We are not helped by the fact that there is no single dataset that measures problem gambling among young people. There is not even clarity about our definition of young people. In gambling-related law, “young people” can refer to adults between the ages of 18 and 25, who can legally gamble with licensed operators but with age-targeted restrictions. Then there are under-18s, defined as children, who are prohibited from gambling in that way. This can be confusing—for example, having two categories of adult of 18 to 24 year-olds and 25 year-olds and over. Apart from anything else, are we in danger of infantilising young adults, who we otherwise expect to be responsible grown-ups? The prospect of 16 year-olds being considered adult enough to vote will not help this muddle. Unfortunately, too many commentators in gambling have developed the bad habit of using the phrase “young people” to cover both the under-18 and the under-25 categories.
Regardless, what does the data show? The NHS’s Health Survey of England, which confusingly uses the age range of 16 to 24, shows that problem gambling rates fell from 1% in 2018 to 0.5% in 2024. So why is this age group a focus of special concern? Are we really worried about gambling by children, given that it is stated as fact that 80,000 children suffer from gambling harms? But that number is extrapolated from 25 schoolchildren—yes, 25—who were classified as problem gamblers in the Young People and Gambling Survey 2023. To note, “harm” is classified at a hugely lower threshold than for post-18s, so what has been labelled harmful gambling—it has been described as “addiction” here—for those 25 children should make us pause before we panic. Two-thirds self-report playing amusement games such as crane grabs at seaside arcades—shock horror. Half are called problem gamblers because they place bets with friends and family, and 40% play cards with mates and siblings or occasionally buy lottery products such as scratch cards. What constitutes illegal gambling for children is even more banal. If kids bet using pocket money or school lunch money, it is against the law, even if it is spent on forms of gambling that are legal.
Counterintuitively, even the pantomime villain of online gambling has one of the lowest rates of participation in this age group. As an antidote to those who are oversimplistic on the stats, children gambling online are largely getting access from their adult parents, who are allowing their children to use their online gambling accounts. To conclude, let us tell the kids some home truths about the pitfalls of gambling, but let us not scaremonger them or ourselves in this House.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the Minister on her reappointment. We are discussing gambling harm among young people, but perhaps we should spare a thought to the trauma caused to the Ministers responsible for gambling policy. I apologise if I am about to add to that.
Children under 18 are prohibited from gambling, but we also need to protect young adults—the 18 to 25 year-olds who are permitted to gamble—from harm. Fortunately, problem gambling rates among young people remain low. The problem gambling rate for 16 to 24 year-olds, according to the NHS Health Survey for England, fell from 1% in 2018 to 0.5% in 2024. Gambling for young people is regulated, with additional safeguards, including lower online slots stake limits for under-25s, age-targeting restrictions, deposit-limit prompts and financial vulnerability checks.
We can debate the scope of these safeguards but I want to draw attention to the danger of making the wrong policy choice, with particular reference to horseracing. There is a strong case for saying that racing is different and should be treated differently when it comes to policy relating to gambling harm, which I fear it is not. First, British racing is financially dependent on a strong legal betting market. A long-standing, mutually dependent relationship exists between racing and betting, worth approximately £350 million annually to the sport through key revenue streams such as media rights payments, sponsorship and the horserace betting levy. Secondly, the potential harm from betting on racing is relatively low. It actually carries roughly the same risk as that of betting on lottery scratchcards.
Nevertheless, two weeks ago, the Gambling Commission announced that, following a protracted pilot period, there will be a phased introduction of financial risk assessments, known as affordability checks, on betting over the course of an implementation period of unspecified length. These checks will have severe financial implications for racing and the economy, as well as subjecting racing betters to unwarranted levels of intrusion. Independent modelling has suggested that British racing could lose up to £250 million in five years due to the checks, while customers refusing to provide financial documents will lead to significant reductions in betting turnover and an estimated loss of more than £13 million per year in horserace betting levy receipts. We were promised by the previous Government that the checks would be introduced only if they were “fully frictionless”, but the checks have been proven by the Gambling Commission’s own pilot not to be so.
The crucial point of relevance to this debate is that, far from protecting consumers, these checks will have the opposite effect. They will drive more customers to the illegal market, which puts them at far greater risk of gambling-related harm, as well as starving the Treasury of much-needed revenue. Young people are rightly being taught about credit checks in school and will be increasingly worried about their credit rating. So now we have a new generation who will actually be incentivised to avoid financial risk checks and instead turn to the black market. Illegal operators can advertise without age controls and offer none of the protections required in the regulated sector. Black market advertising is extremely effective, not least because its prices are so much better because it does not pay tax or the levy. During the World Cup, several illegal adverts appeared using AI-generated versions of Harry Kane promoting wins on illegal sites. That is something that regulated UK operators are rightly not permitted to do.
Concerns about affordability checks for adults are shared by the betting industry, politicians, campaigners and policymakers, all of whom have repeatedly warned of serious unintended consequences for British racing. Those adverse consequences have been highlighted in this House and by concerned Members of Parliament. I find it difficult to understand why Ministers have allowed the Gambling Commission to proceed. Further, the policy has been signed off by the commission without key stakeholders in racing and betting being able to see vital evidence about the impact of the pilot. That is deeply unsatisfactory.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister two specific questions. How are the Government measuring the impact of affordability checks? When will the data from the pilots be available for all to understand? The perverse consequence of current policy is that people, including young adults, will be driven to the unregulated black market. Of course that is not the intention of the Government but it is the risk. Affordability checks were not this Government’s policy. The plan was inherited from the last Conservative Government. Even when shadow Ministers and the think tank architects of the policy now warn that the checks are not proceeding as they intended and should be halted, the Gambling Commission ploughs on regardless.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Lord, but this is a timed debate, so can he come to his conclusion?
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
I shall conclude in five seconds. With a new Prime Minister and new priorities, I respectfully suggest that this would be a good time to recalibrate a misguided and ill-targeted policy, give clear direction to the Gambling Commission and focus on the real issue here, which is problematic and harmful gambling in other areas.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, I put on the record that the Green Party very much supports the affordability checks that the Government are planning to introduce. We have an awful lot of money sloshing around in the UK economy in all sorts of areas, and keeping a closer eye on it is clearly a very good idea. I should perhaps declare an interest in that tomorrow I will be speaking at a protest on the 100th anniversary of the first official greyhound race, calling for a ban on greyhound racing in England to follow those in Scotland and Wales.
I declare my position as a member of Peers for Gambling Reform and thank our formidable leader, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for securing this debate. I echo his hope that our new Prime Minister might act at scale to reverse many of the disastrous impacts of the ill-conceived Gambling Act 2005.
We are focusing today on children and, like many noble Lords, I will draw on the Young People and Gambling 2025 report from the Gambling Commission, particularly looking at advertising. Essentially, half of young people—children under 18—are exposed to gambling-related adverts weekly. Boys are more likely than girls to be exposed, because of the very strong sporting link, which has been closely identified. They also have a huge amount of exposure to social media personalities promoting gambling.
Another report, released last year, from GambleAware, revealed that children as young as 11 reported that they are regularly tempted to try betting, after being flooded on their social media feeds on the apps with celebrities and sports start promoting gambling. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said, this an avoidable harm, to which we are subjecting our young people.
I want to go to the young people themselves, because the GambleAware study found that nearly four in five children said that nobody under the age of 18 should be exposed to gambling adverts. We often hear about how we should listen to the people affected. Let us listen to the young people who are saying, “Stop exposing us to this”. We know it is harmful and very seductive. That is the reality.
On that, I come to something that is absolutely directed at young people. Anyone who has a young person in their life will probably be aware of Roblox—a hugely popular gaming platform. I have to credit Sky News, particularly reporter Mickey Carroll and colleagues, who have demonstrated again and again how much illegal casinos are advertising on Roblox to children. After that group of journalists reported in 2024, some of the illegal casinos were shut down. Roblox Corporation, with its capitalisation of $40 billion and 2,400 staff, shut down some of those casinos. But, just in May, the reporter found an email in their inbox, stating, “BloxFlip is Back!”. This is an illegal casino, operating on this children’s gaming platform. It emailed her, because she had signed up to research it, to say that it is now back and she could play.
Yes, many of these illegal casinos have a geoblock, so, theoretically, you are not able to access them in the UK. I am sure that most noble Lords in this debate do not need to be reminded about VPNs, but should any of the children happen not to know about VPNs, you can find on all the chat platforms the casino operators helpfully telling people how they can get round geoblocks by using VPNs. I have based that on the research and media reports.
I finally come to the cry from the heart from a woman, who is a mother of two children, including a 10 year-old called George, who is autistic and has ADHD. This ties to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about the convergence of gambling practices and gaming practices. This mother reflects on how randomised rewards, rare item drops, daily log-in streaks, limited-time events and constant prompts to return use many of the same behavioural principles as gambling. I ask noble Lords to imagine one final story. There was a reward that was available only if you played on Christmas day. This mother talked about Christmas day being a warzone in her family as a result of that.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for speaking in all three debates today, and I too congratulate the Minister on her additional appointment. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on securing this debate. He has identified a problem that requires government action. However, action by government alone is not sufficient.
Too much time in our courts is taken up with violence and theft caused by alcohol abuse, drug habits and gambling addiction. The problems are not unrelated. Public Health England’s 2021 report on gambling harms found a clear link between alcohol consumption and harmful gambling, with 35% of non-drinkers participating in gambling, compared with 74% of those who drank 50-plus units of alcohol per week. In terms of problem gambling, court appearances are the tip of the iceberg.
As we have heard, the extent to which gambling affects young people is apparent in the figures. Online marketing is a particular problem, given that it is inherently skewed towards young people. They are susceptible, given that studies show that they do not fully understand how odds work, adopting simplistic views of risk. One study found that, among children who gamble, the most common reason for doing so is because it is fun. Once hooked, we know the problems in terms of psychological distress. Young people in the 18 to 24 age range who experience problem gambling are around 50% more likely than average to be experiencing high psychological stress and low mental well-being, and are over five times more likely to be at high risk of suicide.
The problem is getting more severe as young people rely increasingly on social media and have difficulty distinguishing advertising from independent comment. One study found that most 11 to 17 year-olds have seen or heard gambling advertising through online platforms, with such platforms rarely including visible risk warnings or transparent disclosure. I should add that I was not surprised that one survey found that certain adverts for safer gambling make the viewers want to gamble more. There is a problem especially with unlicensed gambling sites and with influencers—a rather benign term for what are manipulators—who advertise gambling-related content.
The problem is not confined to online betting. One study found that, of 11 to 15 year-olds who reported gambling, 8% had been to a betting shop. As the briefing paper from the Library reveals, of 11 to 17 year-olds who had experienced gambling, more than a third had played arcade gaming machines.
This is an issue for government. I do not share the Government’s somewhat rosy view of the robustness of the current statutory and voluntary framework. We need much tougher controls. I concur with the recommendations of the various parliamentary bodies adumbrated in the excellent Library briefing. My view is that we need to go further and give more powers to local authorities to regulate casinos, clubs and bookmakers.
I appreciate that a task force addressing illegal gambling has been established and that a consultation is under way. However, it would be helpful if the Minister can tell us what is being done to tackle what is known as skins betting—I know the Government are aware of the issue—and what plans they have to ensure that gambling ads emphasise the dangers of gambling. Children in particular, as we have heard, need educating as to the dangers.
My final but most important question derives from the number of online gaming sites that operate outside national jurisdiction. As the speech of my noble friend Lady Anelay showed, action by the UK Government is necessary but not sufficient. There needs to be greater cross-border co-operation. Can the Minister update us on what is being done to generate international action to tackle what is a major and growing problem?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Foster for bringing this subject before us. It is a difficult one. We all know why it is a difficult one. If you are taking money out of somebody’s pocket for gambling, it is not there for other subjects. It can become an addiction and destroy their life. If we forget that, we forget why we are concerned about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made the secondary but very important point that sport is threatened and potentially destroyed by gambling. The whole essence of sport is threatened. The World Cup could have been made an irrelevance by a betting conspiracy. All that excitement, all that adrenaline, all that bringing together, all that positiveness could have been ruined by one betting scandal. Cricket came close at one point.
Racing is the most experienced bit of this. I live in the village of Lambourn. The amount of energy that goes into stopping illegal interference through gambling in racing is massive and has gone on for a long time. I know people who have been involved in this, hopefully all coming out on the right side of the law, but accusations have gone to the police. It can pervert things. What are we doing to stop betting behaviour becoming endemic and uncontrolled in the young? That is the question we are asking ourselves here. We had only one voice saying that this is not a problem, but the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is used to being by herself.
What are we doing to get in? There is PSHE and GambleAware. Do we do enough in other bits? I have often guarded against this when it comes to education, but are we teaching people that at the roulette table, it is not that you will win big once in a while? The odds that you will win are always pretty bad on every single turn. Gambling is there because somebody expects to make money from you and normally does—that is why they are still there.
This is something that I do not think we get across enough. There is a difference between playing cards for a few pennies but then suddenly realising, “Oh, I’m going to lose if I play against somebody else”, and going to one of these big, organised sites that are always at your pocket, always telling you that you might win big when we know that, the vast majority of times, you will not. That is why they are doing it. They are saying to you, “Yes, here’s a gamble that gives you a small buzz”, but it will take your money off you consistently. Kevin Keegan’s father may have won big to give him football boots. If he had not bet on the horses regularly, he might have got him new ones earlier.
We have to make sure that we get information about the damage into the young and their parents. There are age barriers over these new formats that people do not understand. Are we making sure that people understand the inherent dangers? My noble friend and I have often talked about loot boxes. I have met distinguished games designers who think they destroy the essence of many of the challenging and more complicated games out there, ones with some intellectual content: “Spend some money and you might get the thing you need to carry on with your activity—but you probably won’t, so you’d better buy a few more”. Then you have lots of wasted product, but the essence is there. What are the Government doing to inform those involved, those who are at risk and those who influence them that this activity will take money off you and give it to somebody else? No matter what the buzz is, that is the answer. Unless we get that established, we will miss the essence of it because that is what it is about. That is why it happens.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for this very important debate. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, back to her place.
First, it is important to define what is meant by young people. Those under the age of 18 are classed as children and, despite the Government’s incoherence on this in other policy areas, gambling remains prohibited for children. Adults aged 18 to 25, on the other hand, are free to gamble but with additional safeguards such as financial vulnerability checks, deposit limit prompts and other age-targeted restrictions.
The previous Government were proactive in tackling issues related to gambling. In 2019, a gambling clinic for those aged 13 to 25 was introduced as part of the NHS long-term plan. We published a review of the Gambling Act 2005 in December 2020 to assess whether it provided the right balance. In 2023 the gambling White Paper sought to strengthen protections for children and young adults significantly, including through the statutory levy and stake limits on online slots.
That is not to say that there are no longer any problems. More than 16% of calls to the National Gambling Helpline came from those aged 18 to 25. Technology is constantly evolving, and co-operation with the sector is crucial.
However, the regulated sector is itself threatened by the illegal gambling market, whose operators can advertise without any of the protections mentioned in your Lordships’ House. According to forecasts from the World Advertising Research Center, advertising spend by licensed operators is expected to decrease by more than 9% this year, while spend by unregulated operators is projected to grow by 32%. By 2028, this could mean that illegal firms account for the majority of gambling advertising spend. That is why any government action to tackle the issues must be thought through.
A strong legal betting market can also provide notable benefits—for example, accumulated spend by betting companies in horseracing is around £20 million on direct sponsorship and £165 million on marketing. Media rights, sponsorship and the horserace betting levy together contribute around £350 million every year to British horseracing. We therefore do not want to drive more gambling activity into the illegal market and negatively impact other industries and legal sports.
The Gambling Commission found a 3% increase in the number of 11 to 17 year-olds participating in unregulated gambling between 2024 and 2025. This can be just a bet between friends, but children can also be targeted with advertisements via social media. We on these Benches have argued for a social media ban for under-16s that would remove children’s exposure to advertisements on unregulated sites. I would appreciate it if the Minister could give us on an update on the Government’s progress in finally implementing a social media ban.
In addition, will the funds raised by the statutory levy, which came into force last year, be used for an evidence-based response to the issues raised by noble Lords today? What other steps are the Government taking to crack down on the black market? I am grateful for the valuable insights of noble Lords to this debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for securing it and all noble Lords who took part. I also thank noble Lords from across the House for their kind words.
Let me be clear: this Government are fully committed to ensuring that the protections are robust to shield children and young people from gambling-related harm. Over the past two years, important progress has been made to strengthen protections to reduce the risk of gambling-related harm for young people.
I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—and, I hope, with all noble Lords’ support—that we will always follow the evidence in the policy-making process in this area. We know that the digital world moves faster than traditional regulation; this is why we introduced a £2 online slots stake limit for 18 to 24 year-olds—a targeted intervention aimed at young people, who are particularly vulnerable to unaffordable losses. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said, harmful gambling appears higher among boys and young men.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, asked about the definition of age. I think we are clear on what categorises children and young people within gambling policy, but I am happy to discuss that with him if he thinks that we do not have it clear enough.
In the land-based sector we have rolled out Think 25, replacing Think 21. We believe that this will minimise underage in-person betting among children, which has remained at about 1% since its introduction. We recently consulted on raising the statutory age limit for category D cash-out slot-style machines from 16 to 18. Legislation will build on the sector’s voluntary commitment to ensure that land-based venues further protect children and young people from gambling-related harm. A response to that consultation will be published in due course.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Foster, spoke about the impact and potential impacts of advertising on children and young people. The Government recognise those concerns, which is why we have existing robust protections in place to ensure that advertising does not exacerbate harm among children and young people. The ASA requires that online operators use all available tools to exclude under-18s and vulnerable groups from advertising exposure and, since October 2025, has prohibited influencers with more than 100,000 under-18 followers from promoting gambling, to ensure that it is not marketed as a risk-free lifestyle choice. I hope that will be music to the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. The Government’s planned social media ban for under-16s will also help to reduce exposure to gambling adverts on social media.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, highlighted issues around illegal gambling, which was also mentioned by a number of other noble Lords. While licensed operators are subject to strict advertising rules, illegal operators present a very different challenge. This is not a matter I take lightly, which is precisely why I personally established the Illegal Gambling Taskforce in January this year and have chaired it. It includes an illegal advertising subgroup. I hosted the most recent meeting of the taskforce last week. By bringing together industry platforms, regulators and the Government, we are collectively identifying ways to clamp down on illegal advertising and ensure that exposure is reduced for young people. I will provide an update on our progress later in the year.
The noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, raised the question of loot boxes. We recognise the close links between gaming and gambling, especially through loot box mechanics that can imitate gambling. Alongside the independent research on skins gambling that we published last year, we have also commissioned independent research to assess the effectiveness of the industry guidance on loot boxes. We have engaged relevant government departments, regulators and industry to consider the results and will publish the report and set out our next steps in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, raised a particular point about skins gambling. There are currently no licensed operators that offer skins gambling, meaning that any websites doing so may be operating illegally. The Gambling Commission is clear that, where products amount to illegal gambling, it will take swift action.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, talked about evolving products. I absolutely recognise that this is fast-moving. DCMS and the Gambling Commission are working together to understand the market, including evolving products, and monitor developments closely.
The noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Addington, raised education and how children might be taught about odds in school. Since 2020, children have been taught about the risks relating to gambling as part of the relationships, sex and health curriculum. The Gambling Commission publishes an annual survey on children’s exposure to and involvement in all types of gambling to help us monitor gambling-related harm.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, asked what progress has been made in ratifying the Macolin convention. I am delighted to say that we are making progress with the ratification of the Macolin convention —the Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions. The explanatory memorandum laid by the FCDO is undergoing scrutiny by the Lords International Agreements Committee. Ratifying the convention will demonstrate UK leadership and our commitment to working with international colleagues to tackle match fixing.
The noble Lords, Lord Herbert and Lord Evans, raised points around the importance and financial significance of gambling to horseracing, and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, in particular, raised financial risk assessments. We support the recent announcement by the Gambling Commission about implementing FRAs for online gambling through a carefully phased approach, working with the sector in an implementation phase. This was a decision for the Gambling Commission, which has met stakeholders throughout the recent pilot process to ensure that implementation is focused on protecting consumers. The Government have encouraged the commission to continue and increase engagement with the gambling industry. Successful implementation is vital, and this requires engagement from all interested parties.
The vast majority of customers will never require an FRA. People who place an occasional bet or even regularly spend hundreds of pounds would be unlikely to need a check. I am happy to meet any Peer to discuss FRAs, as is the Gambling Commission. We can arrange that subsequently. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, also talked about publishing data and measuring the impact of FRAs. The Government will work with the Gambling Commission to ensure successful implementation. There will be a significant implementation phase that will involve key stakeholders, including the horseracing sector and operators’ implementation groups. I will raise the point about what data can be released with the Gambling Commission. Where it can, we are encouraging it to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, raised important points about how we need to be proportionate in our response to gambling. I reassure the noble Baroness that we understand the importance of striking the right balance between acting on problem or harmful gambling and ensuring that there are no unintended consequences for those who enjoy a casual bet and do not suffer gambling harm. As I said earlier, we are determined to follow the evidence in how we implement gambling-related policies.
I thank again the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for bringing this important debate before your Lordships’ House. I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. Today’s debate has demonstrated our shared determination to protect children and young people from gambling-related harm. We have built a strong foundation over these past two years to ensure that those most at risk, including young people, are protected from gambling harm. We have committed to reviewing a range of selected policy measures through the Gambling Act review evaluation to ensure that they had the intended impact. We also look forward to any future evaluations to understand the impact of our measures and inform future policy-making. We will continue to work closely with the Gambling Commission, the industry, and health and education partners to keep pace with emerging risks and to do everything we can to protect children and young people from gambling harms.