Gambling Advertising

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alex Ballinger

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger]

I will not accept that. Having met lots of people with lived experience of gambling and having seen the evidence in our report, I know there is a clear link between gambling advertising and halting the recovery of people with gambling addictions.

An argument often used by the industry is that more evidence is needed, but I will come later in my speech to why that is not a problem—it was not a barrier, for example, when we introduced restrictions on tobacco advertising several years ago.

For children and young people, the situation is even more concerning, because gambling advertising normalises gambling long before they are legally able to gamble. Our report highlights data from the Gambling Commission’s “Young People and Gambling” report, which found that 79% of children had seen gambling adverts or—64% of them on television, and 74% online. That is four out of five children in the country exposed to gambling advertising, which is more than the proportion of children who read for pleasure.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have already apologised to you, Mrs Harris, to the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and to the Minister for the fact that, because of the strikes, I need to take a taxi to catch my plane, so I cannot, unfortunately, be here for the whole debate. However, I spoke to the hon. Member for Halesowen before the debate about Northern Ireland’s gambling laws, and although I think he is already aware of this, I would like to put on record that those laws predate the internet, meaning that remote or online gambling is completely unregulated in Northern Ireland. Gambling operators can advertise in Northern Ireland if they hold a licence from the Gambling Commission. However, it is notable that the Gambling Commission does not have jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, meaning that the Advertising Standards Authority cannot refer operators that commit multiple breaches of its codes there to the Gambling Commission. Does the hon. Member agree that that lack of regulation must be rectified urgently? I suppose that that is also a question for the Minister to respond to at the end.

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Member is completely right: gambling regulation is devolved in Northern Ireland, and the problem there is similar to the one we have in the rest of the country; in fact, the scale of gambling harm is even higher than it is in Great Britain. Members of the APPG have been talking to colleagues in Stormont in a similar all-party group, and they face similar challenges in calling for greater regulation. I completely agree with the hon. Member’s comments, and I am glad he has put them on the record.

Gambling advertising is all over spaces that children spend time in, and unfortunately our regulations have completely failed to keep pace. We rely far too much on self-regulation and voluntary codes that deliver only partial measures, even as evidence mounts that children continue to be widely exposed. The evidence presented in our report is unequivocal: these measures have not worked.

The so-called whistle-to-whistle ban is a case in point. It was introduced with the intention of protecting children from exposure during live sports, yet research shows that thousands of gambling messages still appear during matches through pitch-side advertising, sponsorship and branding that falls entirely outside the scope of the ban. It is similar online, where regulators have struggled to respond to the rise of content marketing and influencer promotion. Those forms of advertising are often not recognised as advertising at all by younger audiences, who are less equipped to identify and critically assess what is being advertised to them.

The UK is also falling behind other jurisdictions. Countries such as Italy, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands and Belgium have recognised the risks to young people and have introduced meaningful restrictions on gambling advertising, sponsorship and promotions. By contrast, the UK is delaying action, with a demand for ever more evidence. However, as our report makes clear, that sets an impossible standard. We do not apply that standard to other areas of public health, especially where children are concerned. We did not wait until the evidence became overwhelming before restricting tobacco or junk food advertising to children. Instead, we acted based on credible evidence of harm and a duty to protect the public, especially children and young people.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Member about this beforehand, but problem gambling is a critical issue for us in Northern Ireland, where rate is 3%, compared with 2.7% here on the mainland. A recent survey found that 65% of adults in Northern Ireland felt there were “too many gambling advertisements”, 71% supported a watershed for gambling advertising and 42% said gambling advertising should be banned altogether. Does the hon. Member not agree that this House can and must work with the Northern Ireland Assembly back home to ensure that immediate protections are enshrined in law?

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Member raises the scale of public interest in this issue in Northern Ireland, and the number of people who are fed up and have had too much of gambling adverts, particularly those that are bombarding our children. I am glad he raises the situation in Northern Ireland, and we should be working together more to tackle this issue.

NATO and the High Arctic

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alex Ballinger

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

That is the focus we need to have. Climate change is affecting the world. We might find ourselves in a slightly different geographical position in a short time. The right hon. Lady has illustrated that to our advantage.

The Greenland-Iceland-UK gap remains vital for monitoring submarine activity. I can never understand how anybody can get into a submarine; it is too claustrophobic for me, but I admire those who do, as they play a vital role in the defence of this great nation. It is no secret that Russia has expanded its Arctic military footprint, which may be what Trump is looking towards. We need to be aware of Russia’s input, especially its submarine operations, air bases and missile systems. The Arctic region is a key domain for undersea infrastructure. Protecting the integrity of UK security is a major priority. NATO allies must remain as a cornerstone of support in doing that.

When we focus on the importance of where we are, we support the policies that strengthen deterrence rather than encourage confrontation. I cannot remember which one, but a US President said:

“Speak softly but carry a big stick.”

That reminds us that we must have a deterrent—the nuclear power and the submarines and the strength of the Army—to persuade others not to go to war. That is the ultimate goal we all try to achieve. We must also maintain readiness to respond to threats and ensure that military deployments to Norway and the north Atlantic are exercised and fully trained. Again, we see commitment from the British Army and NATO, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, as well as Poland. Those troops are the best.

The hon. Member for Halesowen mentioned the Marines, and there are none better. When I was a wee boy, I was always saying, “I am going to be a Royal Marine.” As an eight-year-old, that was my big ambition. It obviously never happened, but I did serve part time in the Ulster Defence Regiment and in the Royal Artillery. It was a slightly different role and not as exciting as the Marines—it never could be—but it was an incredible role.

We often have discussions around defence spending. A proper budget is needed to perfect intelligence and surveillance of the High Arctic. In strategic terms, sea lanes and undersea cables are vital. I asked the Minister a question over recess, and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy came to the main Chamber maybe six or eight weeks ago and referred to undersea cables. In my question to the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), I asked about the undersea cables that come across the North sea, down to England and across to Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is a soft belly. Do we have a role to play in securing the undersea cables that go from there across the Atlantic as well? Of course, the Republic of Ireland does not have the Royal Navy, the Army or the personnel that we have. Are there discussions, or is there a relationship or a defensive agreement, between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to ensure that the undersea cables that go across the Atlantic are protected? The Chair of the Select Committee was unable to confirm that. That is not a criticism; I am just saying that I asked a question and the answer could not be given.

The undersea cables and the Arctic’s stability affect trade, energy and global security. Furthermore, the United Kingdom and the United States have shared interests in terms of the Arctic region. Of course, President Trump has made his opinions clear in relation to Greenland, but close co-operation ensures that NATO can respond rapidly to threats, particularly from Russia. The United States, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and the hon. Member for Halesowen mentioned, has bases in Greenland. It has feet on the ground and it is building up to using that footprint as a protection or a launchpad. It is important that we have that relationship with the United States.

To conclude, I stand firmly for a united NATO, a credible deterrent to aggression and robust investment in our armed forces to ensure they are equipped for operations in the High Arctic. We have an enduring partnership with the United States of America and we must strengthen our ability to defend vital waters and airspace. The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of ships being built for the Royal Navy to enhance its position. I know the Government are giving everything to enhance investment—that is never in doubt—but maybe the Minister could tell us about their commitment to the Royal Navy, which is clearly needed.

I say this with incredible respect. For 10 days our base in Cyprus was potentially under attack. My comment is not an attack on anybody, but why on earth did we not send a ship to protect Cyprus 10 days ago? It niggles me whenever we see the French and the Germans giving us protection.

[Alex Ballinger]

I am sure the Minister will respond, but the hon. Gentleman will know that there are allies of ours in the Mediterranean as well, including a large American flotilla. It is appropriate for us to work closely with other air defence assets. The single ship that we have sent would not have changed the situation entirely; there are other assets out there as well.

[Jim Shannon]

The point I am trying to make is that there is a perception across the world that the United Kingdom, who ruled the waves 300 years ago or whenever it was, has not got a ship that it can send. That sends a message. The hon. Gentleman is right about working with our allies. We cannot fight a war on our own any more; we have to do it collectively, but there is something that niggles me whenever I recognise that. It is not meant to be an attack on anybody; I am just making the point that we need to be seen to be proactive.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alex Ballinger

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his earlier comments. When I speak to constituents in Halesowen, Cradley Heath and Quarry Bank, their message for me is clear: they are concerned about illegal immigration, and they want the Labour party to secure our borders. That was one of our manifesto commitments, because there is nothing progressive about allowing smuggling gangs to take people across Europe, or about children drowning in the channel. I welcome the Bill, and I welcome the tough measures that the Home Secretary announced on Monday.

I will speak to Lords amendments 7 to 9 and 12 to 15. They are mostly about criminalising the online advertising and marketing of illegal migration actions, often conducted by smuggling gangs. There are lots of reasons why people flee a country and seek refuge in another, including conflict and persecution.

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome what the Government are trying to do, and the thrust of what the Minister is saying, but I think that the Minister and the hon. Gentleman are referring to the fact that we have to ensure that there is a bit of muscle behind the legislation. My colleague Lord Weir was very clear in the other place about our party’s point of view on the legislation. There are people from across the world who flee their home because of persecution or human rights abuses, and who have nowhere to go. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about those who can never go back to their country again? I know people who came to Newtownards in my constituency six or eight years ago, and there are six Syrian families who are still there. They are established in the community. Does he agree that those who flee persecution must be protected in the legislation?

[Alex Ballinger]

Yes, of course. We are a compassionate country, and a place of refuge for many people who are fleeing persecution or face other issues. Everything that the Government have announced this week, and the measures in the Bill, allow us to be compassionate; but we can also be also tough on the smuggling gangs, who are in no way compassionate, and who are bringing people into this country on very dangerous journeys.

As I said, people are fleeing conflict and poverty, and I have mentioned in other debates the importance of the Foreign Office investing in conflict resolution and prevention in order to mitigate the challenges from which people are fleeing. However, that does not excuse the smuggling gangs that are operating for profit, or the organisations that market these dangerous journeys, often on Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or Telegram. They are selling the service of smuggling people across continents on dangerous journeys. I am pleased that Lords amendment 8 cracks down on online gangs’ marketing and advertising, and that we have some tough new criminal measures to use against them. I understand the need not to place the liability on the platform providers, but how will we work with those platforms, if we see smuggling gangs advertising routes or selling illegal work opportunities on them? How will we ensure that the legislation is effective?

Lords amendments 12 and 13 are about cracking down on such advertising, even if it is not in the UK. People advertising smuggling opportunities are likely to be based in Europe or the middle east, so it is important that our legislation is extended to allow us to go after the gangs operating outside the UK, where possible, and I welcome that change.

In summary, this is an excellent Bill and I support the amendments. It is important that we use all the powers that we have to go after the smuggling gangs. The legislation is an important step, and I am pleased that we are building on it with what the Home Secretary announced earlier this week.