Gambling Levy Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Foster of Bath

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

No, I do not accept that basic premise. Indeed, I suspect that the Minister supports these statutory instruments. The instrument concerning the levy makes clear that there are different levels of contribution for various parts of the gambling sector, which is based on an assessment of the risk. The noble Lord and I would both accept that bingo, for example, does not create a great deal of harm, but the research clearly indicates that it creates harm, nevertheless, and that is why it is included in the levy. I entirely accept that the size of the harm varies.

The noble Lord asked me whether I was prepared to accept that the vast majority of gambling does not create harm. The answer is no, I will not accept that —I shall not accept it when 2.5 million people in this country are suffering from gambling harm. I will not accept it when more than one gambling-related suicide per day takes place in this country. I will not accept it when the evidence shows that anybody, regardless of age or background, can suffer gambling harm. So, no, I will not accept the noble Lord’s premise.

I was trying to explain that the £5 limit is due to the bizarre desire on the part of the Government in believing that they can reduce gambling harm yet increase the size of the sector. The fact that they want to do that, and the complication that it causes, was made very clear when this instrument was debated in the other place. The Minister, Stephanie Peacock, said—and it is so revealing—that

“we know that those who do reach that higher limit are at higher risk. This statutory instrument”

aims

“to balance tackling gambling harms with supporting industry”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 29/1/25; col. 7.]

Those are the Minister’s very words; she admits that the £5 limit means that there will be a greater amount of harm, yet she is prepared to tolerate it because the Government want to expand the industry. That is despite the Gambling Commission data from 2023 showing that 52% of gamblers staking over £2 and up to £5 are flagged by the commission as at risk. Despite that, the Government have bowed to the industry in the way that I have just described.

That is in marked contrast to what the previous Conservative Government did when they introduced a £2 stake for fixed-odds betting terminals. They came under exactly the same pressure from the industry, which did not want that stake limit. The then Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, said:

“When faced with the choice of halfway measures or doing everything we can to protect vulnerable people, we have chosen to take a stand. These machines are a social blight and prey on some of the most vulnerable in society, and we are determined to put a stop to it and build a fairer society for all”.


They took a stand against the pressure from the gambling industry and, while I welcome the £2 limit, I am disappointed that we have the £5 limit going forward. I hope that the Minister will at least assure us that the SI provides sufficient flexibility for the Government to change that limit if they realise and accept the error of their ways.

I turn to the other statutory instrument and the introduction of the statutory levy to fund research, prevention and treatment. The Minister knows full well how delighted I am that this is now being introduced. I am absolutely delighted, as others have said, that the announcement has been made, even today, about the introduction of OHID and similar bodies in Scotland and Wales to be the prevention commissioner. I am well aware of the enormous amount of work that has gone on to get us to this position, and I pay tribute to the Minister, her predecessors and the very large number of civil servants who have worked so hard to get us where we are today.

However, the Minister knows that the work is not over; a great deal has to be done. For example, we have heard already from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, the right reverend Prelate and others that there is real concern that the amount of money that will come in will be insufficient. After all, the £100 million that will come in from the levy, approximately, is more or less comparable with the amount of money that we are already getting in through current voluntary contributions. As others have said, all the research evidence clearly shows that the cost to the country of gambling harm is at least £1 billion, and some estimates are very much higher.

As my friend the right reverend Prelate pointed out, on the polluter pays principle, many would argue—and I would be one of them—that the level should be very much higher than in the current instrument, but it is a welcome start. I hope that the Minister can confirm that nothing will prevent the Government, should they come to a different view about the appropriate level, being able to change it, even, if necessary, on an annual basis, since the levy is an annual one—although there is a nine-month period for the first one.

In a recent letter, for which I thank her, the Minister said:

“We are pursuing this landmark reform to put the independence of the future system beyond absolute doubt”.


I welcome that, but does she acknowledge that some gambling companies may still choose to make voluntary contributions? If we want to ensure that independence, we need transparency about that. Does she accept that it will be important that those voluntary donations are clearly identified and recorded, and we know to whom the payments are made? She will be aware that the Gambling Commission has just announced that it is no longer going to require that evidence to be collected. I hope she might be willing to persuade the commission that, for the sake of the transparency that she talks about and for the clarity of independence, it might think again about it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, is 100% right to say that the key issue now, having got to where we are, is how we deal with the interim period between where we are now and the full introduction of the levy. A safe transition is vital to ensuring that there is no system degradation, prevention work continues and people at risk or experiencing gambling harm can access the support they need. That means two things: continuity of income to pay for the services and urgent decisions on the allocation of such funds. On the first, even though we may disagree about what level it should be at, can the Minister confirm that the Government have received categorical assurances that the industry will continue to make appropriate voluntary payments until the first statutory payments kick in? Can she also tell us to whom those payments are to be made? On the second, the fund allocation, the Government have consistently and rightly said that the role of the third sector will continue to be vital in this new research, prevention and treatment system. I fully support that. I accept that over time, the new commissioners may choose to commission different things and from different providers. But assurances are needed that, albeit over time in a modified form, the vital third sector experience and expertise, and the important contribution from the wider lived-experience community, will be sustained in the new system. Will the Minister confirm that?

In the immediate term, urgent decisions are needed. Many organisations need to know, in some cases within just a few weeks, whether their service is expected to continue at least over the next couple of years. Gordon Moody, for example, provides a range of gambling treatment services, including residential therapy, which means that it has significant fixed costs, but the reserves are sufficient to support it for only three months. Clearly, that service and others involved in the National Gambling Support Network need urgently to know what funding, if any, they will receive.

I am sure that the Minister and her officials are well aware of this challenge, but it would be reassuring to have her confirmation of that and some indication of how the Government plan to proceed. While there is still much to be done, these two statutory instruments are important and welcome landmarks on the road to tackling gambling harm. I welcome them.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an important and interesting debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords for their insightful contributions and for their work over many years. It is clear from today’s discussion that we all share the commitment to protecting the British public from gambling-related harm. The Government want to do that while ensuring that those who want to gamble can continue to do so as safely as possible.

I am determined to get this regime right. As outlined, the online slots stake limits are an important and proportionate intervention aimed at people most at risk of gambling-related harm. This is a timely regulation, as online slots games continue, as mentioned earlier, to grow in popularity and gross gambling yield. These limits will bolster existing safer game design requirements to ensure that online slots games are safer to play. Online slots stake limits should serve as a maximum stake that customers should choose to stake up to, rather than as a new default that operators drive customers towards. Operators currently offer stakes from as little as one penny per spin, and we would expect a range of staking options far below the maximum available.

To reassure noble Lords, the Secretary of State will review the limits within five years. The statutory levy will be charged to all licensed gambling operators, replacing and building on the current system based on voluntary donations.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Regarding the other part of my question, can the Minister confirm that it would, however, be possible to make a change within a one-year period?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I can confirm that. I have lots of inserts in my brief, so I will get to other points later in my response.

The levy will be charged in a way that recognises the higher levels of harm associated with some online products, which a number of noble Lords noted, and the higher operating costs in the land-based sector. This will guarantee that all operators pay their fair share, while ensuring that any impacts are proportionate.

Working in partnership with the appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales, and the third sector, we are entering a new phase in the Government’s efforts to tackle and treat gambling harms. We will closely monitor the impact our approach is having on the ground, with a DCMS-led levy board maintaining clear oversight of the system. We will also conduct a formal review within five years and take action as needed. I am happy to set up a briefing meeting with interested noble Lords to go through the more technical aspects of the levy process and how the Government’s oversight of it will work in practice.

I turn now to the wide range of questions and points raised in what was an interesting debate, starting with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, that the £100 million that will be raised by the new statutory levy will not be enough. I note that we are nearly doubling the level of funding in the system. We will monitor the impacts of the levy and formally review the system within five years, including levy rates. Any change would be subject to full consultation, and we would need to be led by the evidence.

Although it has been welcome that operators have voluntarily contributed to the current levy, it is no longer fit for purpose and the Government’s priority is to ensure sufficient long-term funding for research, prevention and treatment to tackle gambling harm, in line with our manifesto commitment. This is part of a suite of protections that we and the Gambling Commission are introducing to prevent harm before it occurs.

On the Government’s timing of the levy, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned the need for charities to have some certainty over funding. I am grateful for the significant uplift in funding of research, prevention and treatment that the industry has provided in recent years. Without this support, it is unlikely that the expansion of treatment services would have been possible up to the point of getting the statutory levy. We have received a commitment from the Betting and Gaming Council that its financial contributions will continue until the levy is in force. Operators should make their final contributions to charities as soon as possible to maximise the time ahead of their first levy payments. We have received reassurances on that point.

I strongly agree with my noble friend Lady Armstrong that the work carried out by GambleAware, not least on stigma, is hugely valuable. My officials and I met GambleAware yesterday, and we will support it through a safe and smooth transition. It is a real priority for me that the right services in the current system are maintained for the future; we do not want to see a cliff edge where, with good intentions, we cause unintended harm. I will write to Minister Dalton, as she starts her new role, to set out my priorities to see a smooth transition for OHID and to engage with all key stakeholders. We are keen to make sure that operators maintain their level of contributions to networks such as the National Gambling Support Network to ensure that they have the funding they need. As I mentioned, we have received reassurances from the industry that funding for services will be maintained in the transition.

Points on stake limits were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hay of Ballyore and Lord Foster, among others. I appreciate that there are concerns that the £5 stake limit is higher than the £2 fixed-odds betting terminal limit, but a £5 limit brings online slot machines in line with their closest land-based machine counterparts. We believe that a higher limit is justified online by the extra protections afforded by account-based online play, such as monitoring data for signs of harm, safer game design and checks for financial risk.

The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Hay and Lord Foster, asked how we decided where the stake limit should be set—why £5? In our view, a £5 stake limit will protect those most vulnerable to serious harm while balancing the impact that this measure will have on the industry. Primarily, we considered consultation responses, expert evidence and harms data related to each of the staking levels and determined that the £5 limit targets those customers most at risk of harm. I note that the average stake on online slots is 60p.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, quoted Minister Peacock in the debate in the other place. The evidence shows that people staking high amounts are more likely to experience gambling harm. The £5 stake limit is a targeted intervention to protect those most at risk. These stake limits build on other rules introduced by the Gambling Commission in 2021 that make online slots safer to play. Those requirements slowed the speed of play to a minimum of 2.5 seconds per spin. A raft of rules will reduce play intensity, including a ban on autoplay features, as well as features which speed up the display of results or which can give the illusion of control, such as turbo or slam stops. The evidence shows that these features increase the risk of harm to customers.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, asked about R&D funding from the levy. Research, prevention and treatment are the key areas where we think investment is most needed to reduce gambling harms. We will monitor the impact that levy funding is having on the ground and will step in as needed. As I mentioned previously, we will formally review the levy within five years.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, mentioned gambling-related suicide. I am aware of the truly devastating impact that harmful gambling can have, including contributing to suicide. I have visited the National Gambling Clinic and seen at first hand the excellent work the service provides for those in acute need. We are committed to working cross-government on this issue, including with the Department of Health and Social Care on its suicide prevention strategy. Statistics around things as complex as suicide should be used carefully, and we will continue to work with the Gambling Commission to develop the evidence base on gambling-related suicide, which will be important going forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referenced the statistics in the Gambling Survey for Great Britain. Although the harm statistics seen in the gambling survey are higher than previous statistics from health surveys, this does not necessarily represent an increase in problem gambling, as the two surveys have different methodologies and the results cannot be compared like for like. The Government are committed to ensuring that the potential harm that can ensue from gambling is limited, and we are strengthening protections for those at risk. However, we need to make sure that when we are comparing statistics, we use them carefully, and I am keen that as part of the investment in research, we have a really strong evidence base going forward.

On advertising, which the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Foster, and the right reverend Prelate raised, the Gambling Commission is introducing new requirements for operators to allow customers to have greater control over the direct marketing they receive and has consulted on measures to ensure that incentives such as free bets are constructed in a safety-responsible manner. There is work ongoing with the DHSE and the Gambling Commission to develop a new evidence-based model for independently developed messages to increase awareness of gambling harms, replacing industry ownership of safer gambling messaging.

However, I am clear that standards can be raised and, as I set out at the GambleAware conference on 4 December last year, more needs to be done to improve the protections. We have set the gambling industry a clear task to further raise standards to ensure that the levels of gambling advertising and sponsorship do not exacerbate harm, and that work will be monitored closely.

My noble friend Lord Watts asked about offshore or illegal gambling. The Gambling Commission is committed to preventing illegal gambling in all its forms. Its latest corporate strategy commits to increasing investment and resources to tackle illegal gambling.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked about Northern Ireland. We recognise our shared interest in a commitment to the reduction of gambling harm. Gambling regulation is, as the noble Lord noted, devolved in Northern Ireland, where it falls under separate legislation. Unlike Great Britain, Northern Ireland does not have an independent gambling regulator, and we stand ready to support the Northern Ireland Executive in plans to reform regulation in this space.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and a number of other noble Lords asked when we would review the levy. We recognise that the levy represents a significant change for the sector. We will monitor the levy system closely to ensure its effectiveness and to ensure that it delivers on our objectives. Although we will formally review the levy within five years, we will closely consider any necessary changes earlier, including revised regulations to change levy rates.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, queried how the Government can see this as part of growth alongside the commitment to tackle gambling harm. I appreciate that the noble Lord is unlikely to agree with me on this point but I believe it is possible to have an industry that is both growing and becoming safer for consumers. I want to see a safer, more responsible gambling industry and a sector we can be proud of—which offers good jobs, brings social value and which people enjoy—alongside making sure that we do whatever we can to reduce gambling harm in all its forms, both for people experiencing gambling harm themselves and their families and the wider community.

In conclusion, I am really grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed today. I am always happy to meet—I know that I owe the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans a meeting—but I have spoken to a number of noble Lords present today about this issue. I am grateful to noble Lords for everything they are doing to raise issues in this area, and I beg to move.

National Lottery: Contribution to Good Causes

Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Foster of Bath

Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The fourth licence requires Allwyn to contribute to research, prevention and treatment for gambling-related harm, or we will make a payment of £1.6 million annually, which triples the amount given under the third licence.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, further to that point, the Government will be well aware that almost half of National Lottery income now comes from instant win games, including scratchcards, which, unlike weekly draws, have a notable risk of gambling harm. It is welcome that Allwyn has introduced a limit of 10 scratchcards per shop visit, but does the Minister agree that this is wholly inadequate, since it allows determined gamblers to make repeat visits, even on the same day? Does she agree that Allwyn should be required to do more, and to have independent published verification of compliance?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Allwyn is introducing further measures compared to the previous licence. The noble Lord will be aware that while some players do experience gambling harm, that experienced by National Lottery players is the lowest of all gambling products. Allwyn is also implementing further protections. As was noted, this includes introducing a maximum of 10 scratchcards per transaction, as of last October, and an extensive mystery shopper programme to test retailers’ enforcement of the age-verification measures. We are clear that protecting participants is an overriding statutory duty of the Government and the Gambling Commission. It is embedded within the fourth licence, with a significantly strengthened requirement on the operator to protect people exposed to the National Lottery as well as those directly participating in it, which goes further than under previous licences.

Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices

Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Foster of Bath

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, unlike the Conservatives, with their somewhat lukewarm response, we on these Benches very strongly welcome the Statement, not least because it is a clear promise of action. We welcome the words of the Minister in the other place, Chris Bryant, that

“the House should be in no doubt that we intend to act”.

To date, there has been too little action to address concerns that have been raised over very many years. Twenty years ago, in the other place, I asked the then Labour Government what they planned to do about widespread concerns about ticket touting. I waited until 2006 to get an answer, which was to call on the industry to find a voluntary solution to ticket touting. After four so-called summit meetings, very little was achieved.

More recently, the same voluntary approach was adopted by the then Conservative Government, who said in response to the CMA’s report and recommendations in 2021:

“The Government believes in the power of competitive markets to give consumers choice and flexibility”,


and concluded that

“it is too soon to conclude that the only way forward is further legislation focused on this market”.

The voluntary approach has not worked.

There have, of course, been some improvements over the years—measures restricting the use of bots have been referred to already—but overall, Governments of all persuasions have failed to seriously address these issues, despite the growing concerns of fans, artists, event promoters, live venues and many others. With the Government doing little, many in both Houses have pressed for action. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who, together with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, has doggedly raised concerns and, more importantly, offered solutions to the ticketing and touting issues that are now at last being covered in the consultation.

It is no wonder that the Statement—a statement of intended action—is so widely welcomed, including on these Benches. That is, of course, hardly surprising, since we supported amendments covering many of the points in the consultation paper during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. The FanFair Alliance, which also deserves praise for its dogged campaigning on these issues, has gone so far as to say that the suggested measures “are potentially game-changing”.

The Statement sets out the issues to be addressed very clearly, but while it illustrates the Government’s intended direction of travel, I would have preferred, and wished for, greater clarity about some of the preferred options. I hope the Minister will provide more detail. What is the preferred limit on resale price? Are the Government in favour of a licensing system for resale platforms? Will they prohibit platforms from allowing sellers to list more tickets for an event than the seller can legally procure from the primary market? Will they make platforms strictly liable for incorrect information about tickets listed on their websites?

There are two further issues. Not included in this consultation is dynamic pricing, which is to be consulted on separately. Although I welcome that it is only in relation to the live events sector, I regret that it is not part of the main consultation. Surely it would have been better for implementation if the two were considered alongside each other with the outcomes forming one plan of reform. Can the Minister explain why they are not? Given that we know that the separate consultation is to last 12 months, can she tell us when it will start and how the two consultations will work together?

Finally, it is obvious that there is little point in new legislation unless it is rigorously enforced, but despite existing regulation on bots, for example, we know that there are still cases of them being used. We need tougher enforcement in this area. There are continuing concerns about the black market and even about our ability to deal with touts operating outside the UK. Can the Minister say a little more about plans for enforcement of both existing legislation and the new legislation that will arise following the consultation? Does she accept that a licensing system for resale platforms will be a great help in that enforcement procedure? Is she aware that various bodies, such as the CMA, will be involved? Trading standards departments will certainly be involved, yet in recent years there has been a significant drop in the number of available qualified trading standards officers right across the country.

Trading standards and other enforcement bodies will require additional resources, including to recruit new staff to take on additional responsibilities. What assurances are there that funds will be provided to meet these additional needs? Will the new burdens principle apply, for example?

Our current ticketing market is not working for fans, and voluntary measures will not solve the problems. We have waited too long for action, so we welcome the Statement and the promise of action. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, as has been noted by the noble Lords, Lord Effingham and Lord Foster of Bath, on Friday, 10 January, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a consultation on live events and the resale of tickets, and a call for evidence on pricing practices in the live event sector. Tackling the resale market was a manifesto pledge and I am grateful for the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, noting and reminding us of the work over many years by Members of your Lordships’ House. I am also grateful for the broad support for these measures from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and for the support of the Opposition—albeit caveated—from the noble Lord, Lord Effingham. I hope I can respond to the noble Lord’s concerns as I go through my speech.

The UK has a world-leading live events sector, which is the heartbeat of the UK’s cultural and economic landscape. It employs, as noble Lords will be aware, over 200,000 people and contributes to local economies and communities up and down the country. Live performances create unforgettable shared experiences, uniting communities up and down the country. However, too many fans are still missing out on opportunities to experience these live events, because ticket marketing, as noble Lords will be aware, is not working for fans.

We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Effingham, that a well-functioning ticket resale market can and will play an important role in redistributing tickets between genuine fans. Far too often, however, we see tickets being listed on the resale market at extortionate prices—many times the original price in the primary market—which removes tickets from the ability of legitimate fans to buy. It is not a question of legitimate fans buying tickets they cannot use and needing to get their money back by reselling their tickets; what we are talking about here, and we need to be clear about this, is the work of organised touts—big business buying up tickets in bulk on the primary market, solely to sell on to fans at hugely inflated prices.

These people are not only denying true fans the opportunity to buy tickets on the primary market, they are pocketing any profit for themselves. Very little of the additional revenue goes to the live music sector. This Government are committed to putting fans back at the heart of live events and clamping down on unfair, exploitative practices in the secondary ticketing market. In doing so, we want fairness for fans and an economically successful live events sector.

We have launched this consultation as the first major step towards delivering on this ambition. The consultation outlines a range of options to address problems in the resale market, including a statutory price cap on ticket resales, a licensing regime for resale platforms, new limits on the number of tickets individual resellers can list, and new requirements on platforms to ensure the accuracy of information about tickets listed for sale on their websites. We also want to understand whether there is scope for the primary market to do more to prevent touts getting hold of tickets in the first place.

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on whether the Government have a preference on where that price cap would land, we are open through the consultation to hearing from a range of stakeholders and we do not have a preference on that. The noble Lord, Lord Effingham, suggested that it is possible that the price cap could lead to an increase in unregulated activities, scams and a potential increase in black-market sales. We have launched a consultation to learn from the experience of other countries introducing measures such as price caps on the resale of tickets. The ticket marketing is broken for fans, in our view; doing nothing is not an option. The measures will be intended to ensure that revenue flows to the sector, including the venues and artists, and not to the touts.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about enforcement. I absolutely recognise the importance of enforcement of consumer protection legislation, and the consultation seeks views and proposals to make this more effective for ticket resale. In many areas, there are successful enforcement measures taking place. For example, in May last year, following an investigation by trading standards, notwithstanding the point the noble Lord made about trading standards officers, four people were sentenced to a combined total of six years and five months in prison, with substantial fines, for criminal activity in relation to ticket touting. Prosecutions such as these send a message to the ticket touts. We hope the consultation will allow us to strengthen the enforcement of consumer protection legislation, as well as making it more difficult for touts to operate.

There were a number of other questions the noble Lord raised to which I do not have the answer now, but I will write to him. There was a question around dynamic pricing more generally. For our live events industry to be successful and sustainable over the long term, we believe that fans, artists and organisers all need to feel fairly treated, so, where dynamic pricing is used, it must be done in a way that is compliant with consumer protection law.

We are also issuing a call for evidence on pricing practice across the live events sector to better understand the changes adopted by the sector in selling tickets in recent years, including the use of new pricing strategies and technologies, and how these impact on the experiences of fans. It is important that fans are treated fairly and openly, with timely, transparent and accurate information presented ahead of sales.

We are seeking evidence on how the ticket pricing system for live events generally works in UK, if and how consumers are being impaired by lack of transparency in this area, and whether new business models and technologies are creating new risks for consumers or gaps in the consumer protection framework. The consultation and call for evidence will be open for 12 weeks. It is closing on 4 April. We will then decide on next steps, but be in no doubt that we intend to act. I look forward to hearing Members’ views in the debate today and also, hopefully, through the consultation period. For too long, fans have been excluded from seeing the artists and shows that they love, due to organised touts. This Government are determined to clamp down on touts. The question is not whether but how we improve protection for fans.