Gambling Levy Regulations 2025
Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Watts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
The noble Lord is right. I do not think I can go much further because I am just making my views clear. I have certainly had direct contact with a number of organisations, in the charity field and other fields, which think that the matter is out of hand. I said it was “out of hand” in the Chamber earlier this week. It is out of hand. Consequently, while I welcome these provisions, I am pleading with the Government to get greater control of this, because it is unacceptable. Of course, online gambling is another area where it has burgeoned completely, and that seems to be in greater need. I know there is reference to that in the second of these two statutory instruments. It is completely out of control as well.
I am sorry to be so negative about this. I welcome the levy, at least, and, notwithstanding my questions about dispensation, I support the Government in what they are trying to do.
Lord Watts (Lab)
I very much welcome this legislation, which is overdue. I was a member of the Select Committee that looked at gambling, and we were very concerned about the lack of action, so I am pleased to see that the Government are taking action and have brought this forward.
I have two questions, the first of which is about the distribution of resources. We found that there were a number of organisations which were sometimes in conflict with each other. There needs to be co-ordination to make sure that we get effective spend and that spending results in the things that we want to see. Secondly, I am concerned about the growth of offshore gambling. It grew by a sizeable amount last year and is growing very fast. It is unregulated and will not be touched by this legislation. Will the Minister say something about that? It is of concern to the industry as well as to the public.
Overall, this strikes the right balance. I disagree with the previous point that there is plenty of evidence; there is not plenty of evidence that we can scrutinise. There needs to be proper scrutiny and accountability.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Would the noble Lord acknowledge that, in this country, there are 597 registered documents demonstrating a clear link between gambling advertising and gambling harm? That is more than in many European countries put together which, based on less evidence, have chosen to massively limit gambling advertising.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and as a vice-chair of the APPG on Gambling Reform. I assure the Minister that, today, I will say nothing further on advertising, but I will be back on that subject later.
I begin with a very strong welcome for these two statutory instruments. Many of us have campaigned for many years to achieve what they bring. However, having said that, it is clear that we need to get them absolutely right.
I start with the SI on stake limits. Noble Lords are aware that, with the mass adoption of smartphones, the evidence grew that online slots—accounting for more than half of gambling revenues online—were causing a great deal of harm. So the campaign began to try to get the same £2 stake limit for online gambling as had been achieved by the successful, although lengthy, campaign to get a £2 maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals, which was introduced in 2019.
We welcome the £2 limit for younger players announced in the statutory instrument, but Peers for Gambling Reform, the APPG, the noble Lords behind me and the right reverend Prelate have all rightly expressed real concern about the £5 limit for other players. We fail to understand why the Government went for it. Unfortunately, I can provide a possible answer: I think it is based on the Government’s ill-judged desire to grow the gambling sector.
As the Minister knows, I have been very concerned. For instance, at the GambleAware conference at the end of last year, she said,
“I believe it is possible to have an industry that is growing and that is safer for consumers”.
Frankly, I find it hard to understand how a Government who acknowledge that gambling should be treated as a public health issue can also claim to want to help the gambling industry grow. Reducing gambling harm simply is not compatible with growing the size of the gambling industry, as was made clear in the recent report by the Lancet public health commission on gambling.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Is the noble Lord trying to suggest that all forms of gambling are addictive? There are millions of people who regularly enjoy a bet. It is possible to grow a business and still not increase the number of people who have an addiction. Most people do not have an addiction; is that not correct?
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.