High Street Gambling Reform

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this debate and for all her hard work on this issue. What she has been doing is impressive.

Gambling can be a light-hearted pastime that many would describe as fun and harmless. As a Liberal Democrat, I support an individual’s right to choose, but, as we have heard, gambling comes at a very high cost for some people —some of the stories shared by the hon. Member for Brent East were very moving. That is true not just for those who are directly affected by gambling, but for their friends, their families, and all those who have that emotional burden and—in some cases—shared financial burden.

I will delve into a few of the statistics—some have already been mentioned, but they are worth emphasising. According to last July’s “Gambling Survey for Great Britain” an estimated 2.5% of adults have struggled with problem gambling, equating to over 1 million people. The proportion of people with severe problem gambling was nine times higher for those using in-person slot machines and six times higher for those using online slots. More than one in 40 people who gambled in the last year experienced severe harm to their life, such as turning to crime to finance gambling, experiencing a relationship breakdown or losing their home, and Public Health England estimates that, tragically, there are more than 400 gambling-related suicides a year. Gambling affects all ages and genders, but the rates are particularly high among men and young people. More than one in 20 of those aged 18 to 34 who had gambled in the last 12 months reported a severe impact on their life.

Liberal Democrats have long been calling for gambling reform, and we are pleased that the Government have listened to us in one key area. We campaigned for many years for the remote gaming duty to be doubled, and the Government have done exactly that. That was the right decision, but on the high street—the subject of this debate—much more action is needed. Liberal Democrats support removing the “aim to permit” principle, that statutory presumption under the Gambling Act 2005, giving local authorities the same power to refuse applications for gambling venues as they have for pubs and other licensed premises. That would enable local authorities to introduce cumulative impact policies to prevent clustering and saturation of gambling premises in areas deemed more vulnerable to harm. It is also important that local public health bodies can make statutory representations, and that public health evidence is given full weight in those licensing decisions.

Additionally, we believe that more decisive action is needed to combat the harms caused by problem gambling. With that in mind, we have been calling for gambling advertising to be restricted, to tackle the gambling adverts that bombard people through their TVs and radios as well as marketing via social media; for a gaming ombudsman to be established, one with real power to protect consumers and resolve complaints; for affordability checks to be enforced and implemented by mandating financial checks and data sharing to stop gambling beyond means; and for tough action to be taken against black-market gambling.

Access to a range of support services is also vital. Anyone worried about their gambling or anyone close to them should be able to seek help easily in their local area, and gambling firms must pay their fair share towards those services. A related concern, and one which is shared by leading support charities, is that the introduction of the statutory levy on gambling firms must not mean gambling support services being disrupted during this year’s transition period. We call on the Government to ensure that interim funding is available, so that vulnerable people do not fall through the cracks during that transition.

Although most people who regularly gamble do so without a problem, it is evident that for some, it is a slippery slope that leads to a host of financial, personal and health problems. We have a duty to prevent that from happening in the first place, and to help those who are already struggling. As such, I urge the Government to act as a matter of urgency to tackle the very real and evident harm gambling can cause to families, children, young people and communities across the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Life Sciences Investment

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. It is incredibly disappointing that MSD has pulled out of this billion-pound investment in the UK, including the loss of more than 100 jobs in important life sciences infrastructure. However, this has been on the cards for some time, and the warnings to Government have fallen on deaf ears. Earlier this year, AstraZeneca also cancelled planned upgrades to its production, and Novartis has described the UK as “largely uninvestable”. One pharmaceutical company reducing its UK operations is a problem, but there is a worrying trend that threatens a crisis in the sector.

The UK is becoming less and less attractive to the life sciences industry, and with good reason. First, the Budget saw huge rises in costs to all businesses, including through Labour’s jobs tax. Secondly, there has been a notable lack of investment across the life sciences sector, including in job creation, critical skills and creating a commercial environment that can compete internationally. The Lib Dems continue to call for the Government to make research and development investment 3.5% of GDP, and the life sciences would be a key focus. That would be coupled with extra support for academic institutions to commercialise research. How do the Government plan to restore confidence among pharmaceutical companies that the UK is a competitive place for research and development and manufacturing?

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points. It is important to lay out to the public and to the House that MSD will continue to employ 1,600 people and be a key part of the life sciences sector. There are many companies that are investing in this country—Moderna, BioNTech, Isomorphic Labs—and in my own constituency, Roslin CT is expanding at such a great pace that it cannot keep up with the amount of space and the wet lab facilities it requires. Those are all the challenges that we have to try and deal with.

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman: the second sentence of his contribution was about the national insurance increases for employers and the fourth was about spending more money on R&D and life sciences. They cannot both be true. If we want to spend money on our priorities—political parties will have different priorities—we have to raise that money. We cannot have it both ways. The message to the industry is: this is the best place in the world to invest. Bring your investment here and this Government back you through an industrial strategy and a life sciences sector plan.

Draft Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 General Committees

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.

The regulations before us today represent a change that runs directly counter to the Liberal Democrat approach to tackling problem gambling and gambling harm. Public Health England estimates that problem gambling costs the economy £1.27 billion annually in healthcare, criminal justice and other social costs. Over 420,000 online gamblers lose at least £2,000 a year, with those losses being disproportionately concentrated in our most deprived communities.

Recent NHS data shows that gambling addiction referrals to specialist clinics more than doubled last year; that is partly why the Liberal Democrats have consistently called for a public health approach to gambling harm. We know that gambling affects not just individual players but families, communities and wider society. We know that there are more than 400 gambling-related suicides annually and that 340,000 problem gamblers in the UK deserve better protection than these regulations provide.

The stated aim is to help land-based operators compete with online gambling companies, but I suggest that that creates a race to the bottom. Instead of relaxing physical gambling regulation to match that online excess, maybe we should look at strengthening the online space. I have two questions for the Minister. First, what specific assessment has been made of whether increasing gaming machine ratios from 2:1 to 5:1, combined with that new extended entitlement for up to 80 machines, will increase gambling-related harm? Secondly, given that 20% of the UK population are directly or indirectly harmed by gambling, will the Government commit to monitoring harm rates following these changes and to adjusting the regulations if harm increases?

The regulations are easing controls precisely when stronger controls are needed. They prioritise industry convenience over consumer protection and take a step back from the harm reduction principles that should guide gambling policy. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats oppose the regulations.