High Street Gambling Reform
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the aim to permit principle in planning policy erodes the ability of local communities to shape their neighbourhoods; further believes that planning decisions should be made in the public interest, not skewed towards automatic approval; and therefore calls on the Government to remove the aim to permit provision so local councils can regulate the spread of gambling premises.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I will talk about three things: first, why I am campaigning for safer streets and why gambling-related harm is a key component of my work; secondly, some of the people and their testimonies; and, thirdly, the good work the Government have done, but also the further work that needs to be done next.
I am tired of seeing the number of betting shops on the high street in Brent, and how every time there is an empty shop, another betting shop opens in its place. This is specifically the case in areas such as Harlesden, Willesden, Neasden, Wembley and Kilburn. In Harlesden, we have 10 betting shops within a 10-minute walk, which is absolutely ridiculous.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I apologise that I will not be able to stay for this debate because I have to follow up with the family of Ryan Cornelius—they were in the Gallery earlier —whom I referenced during the previous debate.
As the hon. Member knows, we on the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform have taken very seriously the lessons from Brent, which have been cited in letters to the Government. We have to stop this ridiculous proliferation of betting shops and adult gaming centres, over which councils have no control. Councils do not think it is right to have them, yet they have no say in the matter. The No. 1 thing for the Government to do is to end this nonsense, and give councils the power to say no.
Dawn Butler
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the APPG on gambling reform, of which I am a member, for his intervention. Brent is a solid example of why change is needed. Another shop—a double-fronted shop—is due to open. On it has been written what I call conscious graffiti: “Stop opening gambling shops in deprived areas.” I endorse that message! In Kilburn, there have been 300 written objections to a proposed new adult gaming centre. When I campaigned on this issue, Brent council said that its hands were tied and that I needed to provide more evidence, so I collated more evidence—thousands of responses from my constituents —but that still was not enough because of the “aim to permit” legislation. That has led Brent council—through my campaigning and, probably, nagging—to run an incredible campaign. It now has other councils on board and the deputy leader from Brent council is here today for this debate.
In 2025, for my summer campaign, I decided to travel around the country, but mainly London, to investigate high streets and what they look like. And—would you believe it?—in economically deprived areas, every second or third shop was a brightly lit gambling shop. I could look down the road and see all the bright lights glittering and trying to encourage people to come in and spend their money. There was, however, one particular high street where I could not find a gambling shop. I walked up and down it on both sides. It is one of the wealthiest high streets in London, in Hampstead. Isn’t that shocking? One resident happily told me, “We even campaigned to stop McDonald’s opening on the high street. We didn’t want them.”
On Monday, I published an open letter to the Prime Minister. It had 280 signatures—mainly from London, but from all around the country—from councillors, leaders and mayors all saying that the aim to permit needs to change. In Brent, gambling premises outnumber supermarkets in 17 out of 22 wards. The gambling industry says that gambling shops help high streets, but they do not. When a gambling shop is set up, other shops do not want to be there. Gambling establishments entice people to come in and then ply them with food and drink, and teas and coffees. There is no point in opening a coffee shop next door when there are free coffees in the gambling shop.
Gambling: Regulatory Reform
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reform of gambling regulation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We are here to talk about gambling regulation and to discuss the scale of the problem. There is clear evidence that current regulation of the gambling industry is not adequate to protect people from harm, including children and young people. Figures published by the Gambling Commission this October showed that 1.4 million people in Britain have a gambling problem. That number is not spread equally: young men aged 25 to 34 are most affected, with 5.5% experiencing at least moderate-risk gambling, and rates are much higher in more deprived communities, with men in the most deprived areas twice as likely as those in more well-off areas to be moderate-risk gamblers.
Evidence suggests that while many people gamble a bit, the vast majority of profits derived by gambling firms come from a small number of gamblers. The House of Lords Gambling Industry Committee found that 60% of the industry’s profits come from just 5% of customers, who are either problem gamblers or at risk. Recent Gambling Commission figures also show that the harms caused by gambling are increasingly being experienced by children, with the proportion of young people being exposed to significant harms more than doubling between 2023 and 2024. Moreover, the harms caused by gambling are not isolated to the individuals who take part; when it reaches a harmful level, it can have devastating impacts for families and right across communities, in every constituency.
Gambling is linked to addiction, debt and other serious harms, and can negatively impact mental and physical health, relationships, finances, employment and education, but it is comparatively less regulated than other harmful industries and not taxed to directly reflect the harms it causes. In my home patch of Witney, Oxfordshire county council identified gambling addiction as a key risk factor in its recently updated suicide prevention strategy. Research by Gambling with Lives, a charity established in 2018 by families bereaved by gambling suicides, shows that, shockingly, there are hundreds of gambling-related suicides each year, an average of around one a day.
The impact on the public purse is also significant. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that a person experiencing problem gambling leads to an additional £3,700 spend per year in higher welfare payments, healthcare and criminal justice costs, and the cost of homelessness. A research report from the University of Oxford by Dr Naomi Muggleton showed that as many as one in four gamblers are harmed.
The industry continues to develop rapidly, and regulation must keep pace and remain fit for purpose. The Lancet public health commission on gambling found in 2024:
“Digitalisation has transformed the production and operation of commercial gambling… The commercial gambling industry has also developed strong partnerships in media and social media. Sponsoring and partnering with professional sports organisations provides gambling operators with marketing opportunities with huge new audiences.”
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In the light of that, some two years ago it was recommended very clearly that a gambling ombudsman should be set up. So far, across two Governments, nothing has happened on that. That is needed to check that all these elements are being dealt with at the same time. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that that should be one of the first acts that the Government should get on with right now?
Charlie Maynard
I fully agree and will cover that shortly.
The Lancet commission concluded that
“gambling poses a threat to public health, the control of which requires a substantial expansion and tightening of gambling industry regulation”.
So what should we do? First, we should limit the impact of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship, especially the extent to which children and young people are exposed to it. The industry spends £2 billion a year on gambling advertising and would not be putting that money in without a high degree of certainty that it will be more than paid back in profits. Some 80% of that is spent online, which is why children so often come across gambling and gambling companies.
Research undertaken by the Gambling Commission found that 34% of British bettors admitted to being influenced by advertising, and 16% stated that ads caused them to increase their gambling. Research published this year found that 96% of people aged 11 to 24 had seen gambling marketing messages in the month before the study, and were more likely to bet as a result. On Twitter—or X—alone, there are more than a million gambling ads in the UK each year. Football matches are saturated by gambling ads; there were thousands of gambling messages during the opening weekend of the English premier league alone, across various channels.
Many of our neighbours have taken action. In 2018, Italy banned all online advertising of gambling products. Spain added strong restrictions in 2020. Germany did the same in 2021, as did the Netherlands and Belgium in 2023. Finland and Sweden are set to implement restrictions in 2027. By contrast, here in the UK, the 2023 White Paper on reforming gambling for the digital age acknowledged the harm caused by marketing but opted to continue with a mostly self-regulatory approach. I think such an approach means a huge amount of harm will continue, so I urge the Minister to look again at that, given the damage the sector does and the action already taken by others to mitigate it in their countries. There is strong public support for greater restrictions, too, with polling showing that 51% of people think all gambling advertising, promotion and sponsorship should be banned, and 78% think that nobody under the age of 18 should be exposed to it.
Secondly, underpinning all this, we need a statutory independent gambling ombudsman with real power, exactly as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) stated. That was recommended in the 2023 gambling White Paper and was intended to be established and operational within 12 months, and yet no progress has been made. I also understand that the Government have asked the gambling industry, of all people, to come up with ideas on how the ombudsman should be run—a case of poacher turned gamekeeper if ever there was one. If that is the case, are the Government really serious about setting up an ombudsman with effective powers that it actually uses? Will the Minister please clarify what steps are being taken to achieve that?
Thirdly, another area where our regulation has a disconnect is licensing frameworks. Pubs are licensed by local authorities. Licensing for vape shops, requiring retailers to obtain a personal licence to sell the products and a premises licence for their storage and sale, is currently under consideration in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Given that, why do local authorities not have the powers they need to prevent new gambling premises from opening? We should review and implement the relevant commitments in the 2023 gambling White Paper, which seeks to strengthen local authority discretion and better reflect community harm. I would welcome an update from the Minister on plans to review and progress the recommendations in the White Paper.
Finally, I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to increase gaming duty in last week’s Budget—that was an important step. I now encourage the Government to consider directing some of the revenue raised from that towards taking steps better to regulate the industry and reduce the personal and social harms it contributes to in the long term.
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend the right hon. Lady for her statement, which covered everything precisely. I disagree with one or two of those who have come out against her on this matter. I simply say this: when the partial assessment was done, everybody centred on what happened in Amsterdam, but when they played a game in Istanbul there was no trouble at all. It is a bit partial to choose one bit of evidence over the other. I simply say that with the rise of antisemitism now in the UK, the right hon. Lady is making the right decision to protect those people.
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He raises the important question of whether this decision is proportionate, and whether, if there had not been a risk to the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans because of where they come from and who they are, this decision would have played out in the way that it has. That is what is exercising a lot of Members of this House, and it is obviously a view that we share.
Gambling Harms
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Mr Turner, it is, as ever, a pleasure to see you in one of these debates, even if you are not speaking on the subject. It is great to have you in the Chair.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on obtaining this debate. It is great to see so many Government Members taking part; there have been times previously when it was a lonely business for Members on both sides of the House to push this issue. The APPG continues to do its work because, as the hon. Member for Halesowen will know as a member of the group, there is a continuing demand to bring this industry under better control.
It is massively well understood that the harms this industry is capable of need to be checked. It started when we campaigned to get the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals reduced to £2. That was attacked, but we got it through, and it has led to a dramatic improvement in behaviour in betting shops and among those who use those machines after having far too much to drink in the evening.
The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) was right to say that the number of betting shops that proliferate around housing estates is something to be seen, and it is because those companies want to get people who have picked up their benefits or their wage packet en route home. Some of them never make it home because they end up in the betting shop. Of course, that makes poverty even worse, because the families do not get the money, and it is wasted. That is a real issue.
I will not repeat all the points that the hon. Member for Halesowen made, but he is right that the original legislation is completely out of date, because it was made for an analogue world when it was either the betting shops or nothing at all. Gambling has now proliferated in cyber-space.
During lockdown, there were huge problems with gambling harms. People were sitting in their rooms for hours on end, spending money they did not have and ending up in massive debt. Suicides took place. The hon. Member mentioned his constituent, and my heart grieves for the family. I have met far too many families who have been in that position. If anybody disagrees with us about this subject, they should go and meet those who have lost their sons and daughters to the terrible scourge of gambling online late at night—on the slots, for the most part.
The argument is put to us endlessly: “This will close down horseracing. This will close down sport.” This work has nothing to do with that, because betting on a horserace is not the same as someone sitting in their room late at night on a slot, constantly pounded by the desire to bet more, bet faster, immediately. It will never damage horseracing—its purpose is not to damage sport—but some gambling companies are now pursuing children through various algorithms used in online games, and that has to be stopped.
Although the online stake limit has been reduced to £5, we think that is too high. The limit in betting shops has been reduced to £2, so why not have both at the same level? It seems a peculiar last-minute cop-out to the gambling industry to keep it at £5. It should be brought into line with the betting limits on fixed-odds betting terminals—that would make complete sense. I ask the Minister to speak to her colleagues and to those in the Treasury, whose hand is always seen in this debate because they are worried about the revenues. There are revenues and then there are revenues, and this particular set of revenues needs to be received with a very careful eye.
I welcome the introduction of the levy, which we campaigned for, and congratulate the Government on bringing it in, because it is vital. It does not just go to charities for their work in supporting those who have suffered as a result of gambling; vitally, it also goes into research so that we can look at what is happening. This is a fast-moving area online, and with the amount of money being spent by gambling companies, it is wholly feasible that they will find ways around what we are trying to do and use it in a pernicious way to increase their profits.
I have nothing against gambling companies. In a free world, they are more than welcome to give access to people who wish to bet on different things, but the real problem lies in the lack of any sense of remorse shown in conversations we have had with the gambling industry. The simple fact is that they make money when those who gamble lose theirs.
One of the areas we noted was those companies’ pursuit of people who have got into the habit of losing sums of money. Although there was great talk about how they should step back, and about the ways in which they were going to help them, that was, by and large, not the case. They pursue them right to the bitter end on the basis that that money is going into their profits. When we hear that an individual—who I shall not name —who heads up one particular gambling company was able to give themselves a bonus of £1 billion over three years, we must ask: what is the price of human life? Is it only about profit?
In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen and hon. Members in the Chamber. The sooner we get these measures on the statute book, the better. There is room for improvement in what the Government are proposing, but I wish them well on that, and I will certainly be supporting them.
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I now impose a formal time limit of two minutes and 30 seconds.
Stephanie Peacock
I will be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. He knows that the levy is proportionate to the type of product, so it is different for different products, but I or the Minister for Gambling will be happy to discuss it with him.
The work on reform has already begun, with regulations on stake limits for online slots and a statutory gambling levy, which was debated last week and has been discussed today. I am pleased to report that the House approved both those statutory instruments, and they will be considered in the other place next week.
I will talk briefly about the first of those statutory instruments, on stake limits for online slots, which provides an important and proportionate intervention aimed at better protecting those who are most at risk of gambling-related harm. Online slots are the highest-risk and fastest-growing gambling product, but there are currently no statutory stake limits for online slot games, unlike their land-based counterparts. As the popularity of slots grows, so does the risk for vulnerable people. The limit builds on previous protections introduced by the Gambling Commission. The new regulation introduces statutory maximum stake limits in online slots games of £5 per game cycle for adults aged 25 and over and £2 per game cycle for young adults aged 18 to 24. Those limits will bolster existing safer game design requirements to ensure that online slots games are safer to play than ever.
I have heard what some Members have said about £5 being too high. The average stake in online slots is 60p, and the evidence shows that people staking high amounts are more likely to be experiencing gambling harm. The £5 stake limit is a targeted intervention to protect those who are most at risk of gambling harm and unaffordable losses.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am not quite sure how the logic works on that. We introduced a £2 limit in the betting shops, but for some reason we have introduced a higher limit where we think the harms are greatest. Which one is wrong?
Stephanie Peacock
I had made a note of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I was just coming on to address some of the points he made, although he may not agree with my response. Before I do so, I pay tribute to the work he has done. He is an experienced Member on this issue and was instrumental in forming the White Paper.
Play on land-based gaming machines is often anonymous. Online gambling is more accessible to many, and there are extra protections that can be afforded to account-based online play, such as monitoring data for signs of harm, safer gambling checks and checks for financial risks. None the less, I will relay the right hon. Gentleman’s comments to the Minister for Gambling.
The Government are also introducing for the first time a statutory gambling levy to fund research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. The levy represents a watershed moment and a significant uplift in the investment dedicated to this area, along with greater Government oversight and a renewed commitment to better understanding, tackling and treating gambling harms. The statutory levy will be charged to all licensed gambling operators, replacing and building on the successes of the current system, which is based on voluntary donations. The existing system for support and treatment would not have been possible without the financial support of the industry, but the time is now right to improve and expand the system, and to put funding on a more sustainable footing and trust in the system beyond doubt.
We have designed the levy to be charged in a way that recognises the higher levels of harm associated with some online products and the higher operating costs in the land-based sector. It will guarantee that all operators pay their fair share while ensuring that any impacts are proportionate. We expect the levy to raise around £100 million every year for research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. Twenty per cent. of the funding will be directed to research, which will be overseen by UK Research and Innovation to deliver a bespoke research programme on gambling; 30% will be allocated to developing a comprehensive approach to prevention and early intervention, and the remaining 50% will be allocated to treatment overseen by NHS England and the appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales. A full treatment pathway, from referral and triage through to aftercare, will be commissioned. Not only will the levy deliver a significant uplift in investment in areas relating to research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm, but it will also provide robust Government oversight and mobilise world-leading expertise among our public bodies.
Many Members are keen to know more about who will lead on prevention—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen asked this question. This is a very complex but important area, and we want to take the time needed to get it right. We are grateful for the funding provided by the gambling sector while the statutory levy was not in place, but we have taken note of Members’ desire to know what comes next and we intend to dedicate greater investment to prevention. I know the Minister for Gambling will announce her decision on prevention very soon. The levy represents the beginning of a new phase for gambling harm reduction where people in our country are better protected from and aware of the risks of harmful gambling, and it has wide support across the sector.
I acknowledge Members’ comments regarding gambling-related suicide. I am aware of the devastating impact that harmful gambling can have, including some instances of suicide. A single instance of this is one too many. We are absolutely committed to working across Government on this issue, as some Members have asked, including working with the Department of Health and Social Care as part of its work to take forward the suicide prevention strategy. We will continue to work with the Gambling Commission to develop the evidence base on gambling-related suicide through its gambling survey of Great Britain.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) and others spoke about the role of coroners. I recognise the important role that coroners play in assessing the facts behind instances of suicide. They are already required to make a report to a person or organisation where they think action could be taken to prevent future deaths. It is beyond the coroner’s power to investigate why a death occurred, and requiring coroners to do so would turn a fact-finding process into a subjective judgment, which would be inappropriate and potentially inconsistent. However, we will continue to explore possible options in this area, alongside introducing landmark reforms to prevent harm before it occurs and establish a comprehensive treatment system for those who need it.
Many Members have raised the issue of advertising, and I acknowledge their concerns. Advertising can have a disproportionate impact on those who are already suffering from gambling-related harm, and we know that Members are particularly concerned about the potential impact on children and young people. Key sports bodies are raising standards in this area, and the gambling sponsorship codes of conduct brought in voluntarily by sporting bodies last year are a positive step forward. The Premier League’s decision to ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsors from the end of next season was also a welcome step. We will be monitoring these reforms to assess what impact they are having on the ground.
I understand that gambling operators may feel that their own messaging and volume of ads are appropriate. The independent Advertising Standards Authority has existing robust rules in place to ensure that gambling adverts, wherever they appear, are socially responsible and that advertising is an advantage that regulated operators have over the unlicensed sector. However—
Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I will keep my intervention short. First, it is a significant pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform, it is a great pleasure to be here when the regulations will hopefully be brought in at last.
I welcome the long-awaited establishment of a maximum staking limit for online slots, a measure for which the all-party parliamentary group has long campaigned. It is long overdue, and, while we welcome its introduction, the one point I would like to make is that £5 is simply too high. We have a problem here, because we have physical shops on the high street where stakes will be limited to £2, yet we have a £5 limit for online. The online side will grow rapidly, and it has the greatest attraction for those who get hooked on gambling. Online slots are available anytime, can be marketed to every current and potential account holder and offer unrestricted access to high-speed and addictive products. That was clear in all the evidence. Although I welcome this move, I make clear that the stake limits will have to be reviewed quickly, because we cannot have two different stake limits that will at the end of the day punish those on the high street while supporting those online. That is the wrong way round.
The facts are clear. Online slots account for more than half of gambling revenues online, and 45% of those who engage with them are classed as either problem gamblers or at risk. A report on harm to national gambling treatment service clients by location shows that 38.1% report harm online. There is a multitude of evidence about the great harms of online slots gambling, and I therefore suggest to the Government that while they are doing the right thing, they should get it perfect, rather than just doing it. The truth is that the stake limit has to be at the same level as the existing £2. What scope will the Minister build into these regulations to adjust the maximum stake, given the risks of the £5 limit? Will she review the limit, given the clear indication that it is too high? That is a cross-party view of the all-party parliamentary group, and not mine alone.
The draft Gambling Levy Regulations are important. That levy was an important feature of the previous Government’s White Paper, and it is a damning indictment of the gambling industry that this levy—
The Chair
Order. You must stick to the first set of regulations. Have you finished your comments on them?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I want to make a very simple point. I do not agree with the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has taken. We spent a number of years debating this question with our Government, and we eventually came to this conclusion and the proposal went into the White Paper. Yes, of course there are issues, but are they worth our trying to block the idea of the statutory levy? The answer is no. Research will be vital to understand how many people are affected, how they are affected, and the extensions in effect on those that have suffered. I have met an endless number of families who have been ripped apart by early suicides, by problems and by bankruptcies, because, unbeknown to them, somebody in the family was addicted to gambling to the extent that, late at night, they basically trashed their own family.
This is where we intended to go. It was my whole original drive, and it was backed by the evidence-based findings of the then all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm. I understand many of the points that my hon. Friend made, some of which have been reiterated endlessly by the gambling industry, but may I say one thing about trusting the gambling industry? I would not place much store on that. It had years to get the voluntary levy right. The good ones contributed; the bad ones did not—or when they did, it was peanuts. The statutory levy was required, otherwise the money was not going to many of those community groups and charities—I have met very many of them—who disburse the money and work to get this done.
I would simply say to my hon. Friend that I hope that Her Majesty’s Opposition will think very carefully about today, because it is important to get this legislation through. Yes, it is not without its faults. I recognise that there is an increase in the percentage it will raise that will affect high street betting shops, which are not the wealthy, massive offenders. We know that—that is where the pressure should come. I am in principle supportive of this legislation, because of the evidence we found.
I want to make one final point; I really want to press the Government on this. Will the Government confirm that GambleAware will have no role in influencing the future work, framework or shape of the research undertaken by UKRI under the statutory levy? GambleAware is far too close to the gambling industry. We need to make sure there is independence, based on the evidence we have of the harms, and more evidence that we can gather. I urge the Government to make sure that GambleAware is not party to that, so that this research will therefore be clearly independent.