Gambling Harms

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I remind Members that interventions must be short.

[Alex Ballinger]

I agree with my hon. Friend that gambling companies are often preying on the most vulnerable in our society; those with the least and the most to lose. I wholeheartedly agree that stronger regulation is needed, and I will talk about that somewhat as I go.

Children and young people are particularly at risk. Just last week, The i Paper newspaper reported that children playing free mobile phone games are being targeted with gambling advertisements. Such adverts are priming children to gamble as soon as they are old enough to do so. A critical part of tackling gambling harms has to be stronger regulations on marketing, advertising and sponsorship.

Both Ben and Jack were drawn back into gambling by the constant offers and inducements to gamble that were seen everywhere. We cannot now watch a football match without being bombarded by gambling adverts. At the opening weekend of the premier league this season, there were 29,000 gambling messages—a 165% increase on the year before. How is that acceptable in a sport that so many children enjoy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for organising this much-needed debate; I will declare a conflict of interest in that my partner runs the licensing team for a local authority in London. Is my hon. Friend aware of the 2021 University of Bristol study that found that betting shops are 10 times more likely to be in deprived towns than in affluent areas? It also found that although only 10% of food stores are located in the poorest areas, those places are home to 34% of amusement arcades, 30% of bingo venues and 29% of adult gaming centres. Will he join me in asking the Minister to take steps to give more powers to stop the proliferation of such—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Alex Ballinger.

[Alex Ballinger]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I support her call. It is very concerning that those sites are concentrated around the most deprived areas in our society—arguably, the areas that need greater investment rather than money being extracted from their communities.

The 2005 Act is an analogue law in a digital age. The harms from online gambling have accelerated since covid, and it is vital that the Government act now to protect gamblers from harm. The stories of Ben and Jack are a stark reminder of the urgent need for comprehensive gambling reform. We cannot wait any longer.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to take part in the debate. I am imposing an informal time limit of two and a half minutes.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. One in 15 residents in Greater Manchester faces gambling harms—that is one and a half times the national average—and recent research reveals that the Wigan borough has the highest referral rate to specialist gambling services in the region.

We have heard the most poignant contributions about how such harms can include financial stress, relationship breakdown, mental health struggles and, tragically, even suicide. The impacts are therefore not limited to the individuals who gamble; for every person at risk, an average of six others are affected—family, friends and colleagues. Although gambling may not always be the sole cause of such harms, it often deepens existing vulnerabilities.

The path to recovery can be long and difficult, but recovery is possible, and that is what I want to focus on. One constituent of mine, David Smith, has a powerful story of his addiction and recovery. For 37 years, David’s life was controlled by gambling. He describes how it ruined his life: it made him a “walking nuisance”—his words—and ultimately led him to “hit rock bottom”. It was the moment that he maxed out five credit cards in one afternoon that led David to bravely seek help from Gamblers Anonymous. Later, he joined GaMHive, an incredible organisation in Greater Manchester founded by individuals who have personal experience of gambling harm. They and their families have been affected by addiction and, through their collective lived experience, they are working to break the stigma.

I do not have time in this short contribution to go through the story of how gambling has affected David’s life. All Members will have heard constituents’ powerful stories. I have seen David bring his audience to tears with the story that he has to tell. That is why these groups are so important. We have heard from other hon. Members that money from the public levy could be used for prevention, which is obviously key, but it could also support groups such as GaMHive.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

I call Chris Evans.

[Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Turner. It seems funny to call you Mr Turner—we have been friends for so long—but I congratulate you on your elevation to the Panel of Chairs. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this very important debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), I add my condolences to Jack’s family, who are in the Public Gallery.

I come from a bookmaking family: my parents were bookmakers and my grandparents were bookmakers. I have always defended the industry, because I have always believed, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), in the horseracing levy—as someone who loves horses, I have always been attracted by the investment in equine science—but there comes a point when we cannot defend the indefensible any more. We have gone too far.

I bought the newspaper on Sunday. My son, like millions of boys and girls across the country, loves Erling Haaland. There was a picture of him on the front page of the paper, and next to it was advertised a free £3 bet. I do not want my son’s love of football linked to betting. I should declare an interest as administrative steward for the British Boxing Board of Control.

Gambling is no longer just gambling; it is embedded in the sports programmes that we see everywhere. When I drive home from London, I like to listen to the match on talkSPORT, and it cuts over to a betting expert to tell people the latest odds. At the end of each round of a boxing match, they improve the odds on what they are doing. When I was in the betting shop, there was a limit on football betting. No one could bet on singles, doubles and trebles, only an accumulator. It was not possible to bet in game as can be done now.

I do not believe the Labour Government brought about the Gambling Act 2005 envisaging smartphones. That legislation did not envisage the examples we have talked about today—but they need to stop. I see nothing wrong with betting shops being open the way they are—they were once sleazy places, but they do support the industry—but I believe we have gone too far with advertising.

Gambling has taken the space of tobacco companies. Mr Turner, you are more or less my age; you will remember the Embassy darts championship and the Embassy snooker championship. You will remember the John Player Special Formula 1 cars on a Sunday afternoon. The livery of the McLaren cars was the same as a packet of Marlboro cigarettes. When we see Stake going round the circuit, it is the same thing. I really think we need a regulator with real teeth that can shut these companies down, and a change in the law. I hope that when the Minister stands up, he will talk—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin McKenna]

I do not believe that a prohibition on gambling is the right approach—we can see how that would fail—but I believe that it should be a managed problem. It is a very high-risk area, and we need to look comprehensively at how gambling is organised, legislated for and regulated in this country. We should look at everything. It is time to review the legislation. First and foremost, I want this to be seen through a public health lens.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing a debate on this important and sensitive issue.

As we have heard, betting and gaming are key economic contributors. Last year Ernst & Young reported that the industry supported more than 100,000 jobs, generated over £4 billion in tax revenue and contributed close to £7 billion to the wider economy. Across all forms of gambling, more than 22.5 million adults in Britain enjoy a flutter every single month and generate almost £11 billion in gross gambling yield every year. The vast majority of this is done safely, supported by measures enacted by regulated operators and enforced by the Gambling Commission.

However, there are a number of people who have suffered harm because of gambling, whether that is financial harm or, in tragic cases, suicide, which we have heard about today. My heart goes out to all the families impacted. We must continue to take this seriously and provide the best support we can. For example, the current voluntary system funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers.

We are fortunate in the United Kingdom that rates of problem gambling are relatively low compared with European countries. Greece has a problem gambling rate of 2.7%. France has a rate of 2.9%, and the Czech Republic has a rate of 4.5%. The United Kingdom’s problem gambling rate almost halved from 2016 to 2023 and now sits at 0.4%, according to the gold-standard NHS health survey. We would all like to see the rate become 0%, which is why the sector already contributes and why we must get the balance right in this area of legislation.

Over the last four years, the sector has contributed more than £170 million to the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harm, with more than £50 million volunteered in the last year alone. That money funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers, which cares for approximately 85% of all problem gamblers receiving treatment in Britain. However, that work is now being put into doubt by the Government. The Gambling Levy Regulations 2025, which the Minister and I debated, among other colleagues, in a delegated legislation Committee last week, risk the much-needed funding stopping in the short term, as the transition to a new statutory levy takes place. The new regulations will lead to a double levy this year, with the voluntary levy still in place and the statutory levy taxing gross gambling yield backdated to April last year. Not only that, but this first levy period is being charged at 133% of the rate for subsequent years.

Even those with the purest intentions, including those providing the current prevention and treatment programmes, are aware of the enormous damage that could do. There are clear risks of a gap in funding from the ending of the voluntary levy in April to the first collection of the statutory levy in October. As businesses, the sector will have to take decisions to survive Labour’s tax rises, which could include minimising voluntary payments to the current minimum of just £1 for this year.

I raised that issue in our debate last week, but the Minister did not give me or the sector an answer, and I wonder whether she will answer this vital question today. How will prevention and treatment programmes be funded when the voluntary funding is minimised but the statutory levy is yet to be collected or distributed? The sector was broadly supportive of the statutory levy proposed under the previous Government, but the way in which it has been introduced, with higher rates than those the Department previously discussed with the sector, means that both gambling businesses and treatment charities are deeply concerned about the outcomes and unintended consequences. Will the Minister tell us today how many people she thinks will lose out on vital treatment in that time? I know she is not the Minister for Gambling, but she is accountable for gambling to us in the Commons.

As I set out last week, there are many there are many concerns across the sector about the lack of engagement coming forward. Over the several months in which I have asked questions, I have yet to receive any response from either the Minister or the Minister for Gambling in the other place. Why are the Government leaving the betting and gaming sector in the dark? Will the Minister finally give us the answers that we have been waiting so patiently for? What about GambleAware, which has stated that it needs the confirmation of its funding for the period to April 2026, when the new system will be fully in place? I am sure that it has also told the Department about this, but it is becoming increasingly urgent as it is uncertain about how it commissions services going forward, including commissioning via the crucial national gambling support network, which helps fund many of those charities that I have already highlighted across the sector. GambleAware needs clarity.

Not only are the Government consciously leaving the prevention and treatment of gambling harm in a state of uncertainty, but the higher rates of the levy now to be charged will also have further implications. The higher costs on companies will lead to business closures and job losses, particularly among smaller firms, as well as a reduction in tax revenue for His Majesty’s Treasury, and they will have a knock-on effect of up to £60 million in business rates that are currently flowing to local authorities. That, in turn, will have a dual impact.

First, it will likely increase participation rates in the black market, where no regulations or safeguards apply, and no levy revenue will be generated. As Members will know, black markets are created when gambling customers cannot access products or, more pertinently, find those products highly restricted in their domestically regulated market. No amount of anti-black market measures will prevent a black market from forming if customers cannot gamble enjoyably with limited frictions. Here in the United Kingdom, we have historically enjoyed a relatively low level of black market participation, but there is clear evidence that this is a growing risk and there are clear reasons why, including price frictions in bonuses and free bets, as well as other financial limits, such as affordability checks, not being enforced properly.

We are reaching a tipping point of the Government’s own making—a point at which those most at risk from gambling harm will be unable to wean themselves off gambling in a responsible and monitored way. Instead, they will turn to illicit bookies and international websites to meet their needs. A report by Regulus Partners confirms this, stating:

“On the current pattern of increasing consumer friction in the domestically regulated market… international experience shows Britain’s illegal gambling leakage could more than double.”

If that happens, the most at risk will be furthest from the help that they desperately need. It will also continue to damage British horseracing, as mentioned by other Members.

There is a middle ground in allowing players to engage with betting and gaming safely, with plenty of warnings and signposting to the help they can receive. If we push the cost of safe and legal betting to such a height that participants choose to exit the market in favour of cheaper prices and better odds in the unregulated market, it would undermine efforts to make gambling safer and would force more players and more money into unregulated providers who do not need to comply with regulations around safer play.

I asked the Minister several questions last week, and I will ask them again to see whether she has had time to confer with her colleagues. First, who in Government will be setting the strategic direction, and who is ultimately accountable for any issues arising with the levy? Is it Ministers in her Department, the Department of Health and Social Care or the Treasury?

Secondly, how will services be commissioned and value for money ensured? If commissioning will primarily be led by the NHS, what support will be provided to charities to ensure that any future tendering processes do not risk their expertise being lost? Who decides who sits on any advisory boards for the levy, and how will the Government ensure all views are heard rather than just those of vested interests? Will the Government ensure that charities currently being funded by the voluntary levy are not frozen out by the more anti-gambling parts of the sector? Are the Government looking to expand residential treatment currently provided by excellent charities such as Gordon Moody? The Minister’s Department has announced that the Gambling Commission will not be given a carte blanche, which I know will be a relief to many in the sector, but what does that mean in practice? How will the Government hold the commission to account?

I want to place on the record my thanks to the many amazing charities, such as Gordon Moody, Deal Me Out and others, representative of which are in the Gallery. They continue to do fantastic work to help people turn their lives around, and they are at the forefront of helping those who suffer the harmful effects of gambling. They should be the ones we keep in our minds throughout these discussions, as we try to strike an appropriate balance that ensures safe gambling across the country. Will the Minister reassure those watching from the Gallery and from afar that she will make sure that her ministerial colleagues meet them, listen to them and put in practice their expertise in this field? They know what they are talking about. Do the Government?

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind her that I would like very much to allow Alex Ballinger two minutes to wind up at the end.