Gambling Levy Regulations 2025
Debate between Lord Browne of Belmont and Lord Hay of Ballyore
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, while I welcome the Government’s intention to implement a statutory levy, as provided for in the 2005 Act, I am concerned that the levy set out in the draft regulations has not gone far enough, because it has been fixed at such a low level that it will make little difference to the lives of those who find themselves in gambling harm. The money raised will not allow adequate treatment or be sufficient to ensure that proper prevention and education measures are put in place.
Recent data from the Gambling Commission is concerning. For a number of years, it was suggested that gambling harm in the United Kingdom affected around 0.5% of the population. Now we have discovered that the problem is significantly greater than we previously thought. The latest data shows that gambling harm in the UK directly affects 2.5% of the adult population. This means that over 1.5 million adults in the UK struggle with the public health effects of gambling addiction.
The economic cost of gambling harm, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, is approximately £1.4 billion annually, but this was based on the much lower figure of under 0.5% of the UK population and the costs are certainly much higher now when based on new data. Indeed, the costs may well be almost £5 billion. This figure encompasses increased healthcare expenditure, higher welfare support, criminal justice costs and homelessness services for those affected. Individuals experiencing problem gambling are nine times more likely to require hospital treatment and four times more likely to need homelessness support, which of course dramatically increases healthcare risks and the need for additional treatment. While the economic cost of gambling is significant, the cost to families and individuals caught in gambling harm is incalculable. Almost 500 people across the UK take their own lives each year due to gambling harm.
I believe that this levy is insufficient to deal with the costs of gambling harm. Clause 4 of the draft regulations sets out the level of the levy for each type of gambling operator. It is clearly right that those gambling licences, such as remote online gambling operators, which cause the most harm and pose the greatest risk are levied at the highest level. I welcome this graduated levy from low to high risk, but again underscore that the percentage rate or gross gambling yield set by the regulations is too low to have a meaningful impact.
The proposed tiered structure in Clause 4 aims to raise between £90 million and £100 million annually when fully implemented. Again, this falls way short of what is needed. Back in 2019, in evidence given to the Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry by Dr Anna van der Gaag, it was estimated that treating a person in gambling harm costs around £600 per annum. Uplifting that figure by a modest 10% over the last six years would give a figure of £660 per annum needed to treat every person in gambling harm. This means that we need about £1 billion every year just to treat every person currently in gambling harm, and this would require a levy of £1 billion just to stand still. The levy proposed by the draft regulations will raise a mere one-tenth of what is needed for treatment. That leaves no money in the pot for research and prevention and is likely to leave nine-tenths of those with gambling harm not helped at all.
The gambling industry generates over £15 billion in profits annually. These draft regulations will levy approximately 0.67% of industry profits. This seems disproportionately low relative to the scale of the issue. I urge the Minister to think again about the levels set in the draft regulations and at the very least consider raising the levy for the most harmful remote gambling licences to at least 5%.
Finally, while these regulations will apply only to Great Britain, I want to raise a very specific issue in respect of Northern Ireland. It is not right to say that gambling is fully devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. By virtue of Section 5 of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, it is an offence to advertise and thereby operate remote gambling in Northern Ireland without holding a GB remote gambling licence. People in Northern Ireland, which has a much more significant gambling harm problem than the rest of the United Kingdom, are targeted by companies holding GB remote gambling operator licences. Remote gambling, the most harmful type of gambling, is therefore not devolved.
Every remote gambling company that targets adverts to people in Northern Ireland and thereby causes harm in Northern Ireland, does so because of their GB licence issued by the Gambling Commission. While the Northern Ireland Assembly must move forward swiftly and introduce a levy for terrestrial gambling, it is certainly morally if not legally arguable that these regulations, in respect of the remote elements of the levy, should apply to Northern Ireland. I urge the Minister to consider how Northern Ireland could be included in these regulations as regards remote gambling, which is, at least in part, no longer devolved, as I have said.
In conclusion, the current funding uncertainty is detrimental to the treatment and support pathways for many hundreds of people who are registering each day with many different charities, such as GAMSTOP. I call for clarity on the levy and for the legislation to be tightened as soon as possible.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I want to make a few comments regarding the stake limits set by the Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. I am unsure of the rationale set out in the regulations for setting a limit of £5 for over-25s. Given that terrestrial gambling is limited to an average of £2 across all gaming machines, and given the higher risk of gambling harm from online gaming, it seems difficult to understand what the Government’s rationale is in setting a limit of £5 for remote operators in these regulations.
It seems almost too obvious to point out, but most terrestrial gambling operators close, while online casinos are open 24 hours a day. How can a higher limit be appropriate for a more harmful product that cannot be switched off? A holder of a remote licence, given the continuous operation and the much lower level of fixed costs, such as premises and staffing costs, is much more profitable than its land-based equivalent. Remote licence holders have a gross gambling yield that is almost twice that of their terrestrial equivalent. Given that the harm is greater online and they accrue more revenue, it is difficult to understand why the limit has been set at such a high level.
The Gambling Commission, as part of its risks algorithms data study found that 52% of gamblers placing stakes of above £2 and up to £5 were most at risk of gambling harm. Given the increased risk, it seems difficult to understand why the limit has been set in such a way that those most at risk of gambling harm are not protected from that risk. It is my view that even a £2 limit on remote stakes is too high. Even when spinning at a very low stake size of between £1 and £2, evidence from the Gambling Commission survey in 2021 highlights that more than one in five gamblers suffer high or medium levels of harm. Additionally, online slots are associated with binge gambling and long gambling sessions, accounting for over 70% of single-product gambling sessions that last over three hours. Clearly, remote gambling is highly addictive and a sustained harm that people find difficult to escape from.
If £2 is too high a maximum for over-25s, it is clearly much too high a level for those aged 18 to 25. Given the difficulty faced by young people, the risk is much higher and the stake limits should be much lower. I am concerned that the evidence does not support a limit of £5 for over-25s and £2 for 18 to 25 year-olds. The clear evidence is that these limits should be lower. I urge the Government to think again and ensure that these regulations properly protect those who find themselves at risk of harm.
I am concerned that, if these draft regulations are passed, the risks of remote gambling will not be reduced and they will have a limited or no impact on reducing gambling harm and protecting those who are most vulnerable. Unlike other noble Lords, I am not convinced that these regulations go far enough and do what needs to be done. We all know that addictive gambling creates major problems not only for the individuals involved but for the families who suffer in all this. The Government could go much further and look again at the issue and the regulations before us.
Postponement of Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023
Debate between Lord Browne of Belmont and Lord Hay of Ballyore(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I am pleased to rise in support of this order. I have to admit I am old enough to remember the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in June 1953—
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
I was a small boy. I remember crowding into a small room in the house of a neighbour, who had invested in one of the first television sets in the street. I caught a rather blurred image of the Gold State Coach; much to my delight, my neighbour gave me a small toy replica of it. Those are happy memories.
It is only right to delay the local council elections in Northern Ireland as this will afford the people of Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, an opportunity to join in the celebrations and events that follow the Coronation of King Charles III without having their TV coverage interrupted by the results of the later stages of the count, which, as we know, can take a considerable number of days.
As the Minister stated, the chief electoral officer, Virginia McVea, is stepping down ahead of the May local elections; I know that the post has been advertised. She has worked extremely well with all the political parties in Northern Ireland. She has been very effective and has helped greatly in improving every aspect of the election process—especially as it is a complicated single transferrable vote system. I am sure that we all wish her well in her new post here in England. I know that the position has been advertised, but will the new chief electoral officer be in post well before the May elections so as to give them a reasonable lead-in time?
A recent report on the May 2022 Assembly elections in Northern Ireland showed that most people were confident that the election was well run. However, there was a concern that the large number of postal and proxy applications rejected due to a missing digital registration number indicates that there may be a barrier to some voters. Does the Minister agree that the Government should undertake a review of the operation of the digital registration number? Have the Government looked at using some form of technology for these votes to try to speed up the counting?
I welcome this order. I am sure that many people in Northern Ireland will partake in the celebrations that follow the Coronation and have lasting memories of the great pageantry of the occasion, as it is unlikely to be seen until the next jubilee or Coronation.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Browne, I welcome the draft order before the Committee, which will allow the people of Northern Ireland to celebrate the Coronation of King Charles III. It is something that I very much welcome; I know that people in Northern Ireland do too.
I want to follow up on what my noble friend Lord Browne said about elections in Northern Ireland generally; I indicated this to the Minister before this afternoon. We know that, in the rest of the United Kingdom, the counting of votes starts after the polling stations close that evening. In Northern Ireland, the count starts the next day. I know from history and from fighting elections for over 40 years about the complex issue of proportional representation elections, but I still do not understand the system when I go into a count.
Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Act 2016 (Independent Reporting Commission) Regulations 2016
Debate between Lord Browne of Belmont and Lord Hay of Ballyore(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, first, I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the start of this debate. I see this very much as a further development of the political process in Northern Ireland. This can only help. I know that the Executive are dealing with some very difficult issues at the moment. I would hope that these provisions will help them to deal with those issues a lot sooner.
We should put on record the previous Secretaries of State who have worked tirelessly to get where we are in Northern Ireland today. We need to recognise that we have had almost nine years of fairly stable government; okay, there have been a few bumps along the way—some of them fairly serious—but they have managed to stay together. I think that we have a stable Government and a stable Assembly in Northern Ireland now. That is a huge achievement compared to where we came from 20, 25 or 30 years ago. We have all moved on in Northern Ireland. You have only to look at the pledge of office used by Ministers in the Assembly, and by Assembly Members, which is set out in Schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act. All this is moving Northern Ireland forward.
This all comes out of what was agreed by the political parties on 17 November in A Fresh Start. I hope that we will now have a commission which will report independently—“independently” is very important. The objective is of course to help end paramilitary and criminal activity in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that this commission can do that on its own; there has to be a collective approach from politicians, policing and the southern Government to bring this activity to an end. I know that some Peers have said, rightly, that it has been 20 years and we still have paramilitary organisations and criminality. They are almost leeches to their own communities; they beg from their own communities and create major problems there. We have to remember that they are happy enough to keep their own community in the way that it is because that helps their cause. For me, it was never about when they would leave the stage; for me, it is how they leave the stage that is vitally important.
I believe that we have paramilitaries who genuinely want to come into the democratic process. We should try to help to bring them in. The police and the justice system in Northern Ireland should deal with those who do not want to come into the process. When you talk to paramilitaries, there is a desire to leave it behind and come in. It is about how we get them in and deal with them, and then how they eventually leave the stage, but they must be part of the solution in Northern Ireland. We cannot isolate them totally and absolutely. Yes, as noble Lords have said, it is 20 years but that is 20 years too long. We need to find a way of dealing with this issue. They are a total curse in Northern Ireland. I believe that on some occasions they hold back our politicians who want to move forward even quicker. The legacy issue in Northern Ireland is a major issue. We must try to resolve that issue. I am hearing reasonably good soundings that they are moving forward on it. If it can be resolved, that will be better for the future of Northern Ireland and for all its people, so let us move forward. This is good news here tonight.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement and I, too, apologise for missing the opening. I very much welcome the regulations relating to the setting-up of the Independent Reporting Commission. Does the Minister agree that good progress has been made in Northern Ireland since the signing of the fresh start agreement? A long list of issues has been agreed and all are being progressed and implemented. The situation in Northern Ireland today is much more positive and, as we have heard, there has been a long period of stable government.
However, the threat posed by paramilitaries from both the republican and the loyalist sides, unfortunately, still exists. Only last night, we witnessed the murder of Mr Jim Hughes at Divis flats. This has to be condemned by all right-minded persons. All parties must work together to rid society of all paramilitary activity.
I look forward to the Independent Reporting Commission beginning its work and to receiving its first report, which I trust will prove to be an important arm in helping to bring an end to all forms of paramilitarism in Northern Ireland, which for far too long has been a scourge to law-abiding communities in Northern Ireland. I very much hope that the next step in securing long-lasting peace is for all parties to agree a way forward to finding a solution for dealing with the legacy of the Troubles.