Gambling Advertising

Louie French Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) for securing this debate.

I wish everyone a happy St George’s day. Perhaps the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts is off celebrating St George’s day in his own Scottish way somewhere—I was looking forward to delivering that joke to him, so I am disappointed he is not here. Although I welcome the Minister covering this very important debate, I know there will be some confusion among the public about why no one from DCMS with direct responsibility for this policy area was available to respond. Hopefully, the Minister will still be able to answer some of the key questions on behalf of the Government before their complete collapse.

We all know that the Government are yet again distracted by their latest scandal in Downing Street, and that Labour MPs are preparing the runners and riders for their leadership contest; but we meet today to discuss gambling regulation at a very important juncture in terms of how we move forward with the regulated gambling industry in the UK. As we predicted would happen before Labour’s latest tax-hiking Budget, jobs are being lost and high street shops are closing, as we have already heard. Sponsorship for British sport is also being cut, and an illegal, dangerous black market continues to grow each week. Quite clearly, Labour did not properly vet the information they were being provided.

This is also a crucial time for the Gambling Commission. Major changes are happening at the top of the organisation and, as I understand it, it is deliberating on whether to move forward with controversial affordability checks despite major concerns from a range of stakeholders about their accuracy and, again, the unintended consequences of fuelling the illegal and dangerous black market. Today’s debate is therefore timely, and I have listened very carefully to contributions from hon. Members across the Chamber.

As always, there are a range of views. On the left, we have some who are more prohibitionist and view all forms of gambling through the prism of harm. On the right—thankfully not represented in the Chamber today—there are those who believe that party leaders should be allowed to promote their own crypto and pyramid schemes with no accountability. Then we have the rest of us, more in the middle ground, who are trying to find a sensible and pragmatic approach to regulation that provides protections and support for those suffering from addiction while recognising the regulated gambling sector’s contribution to jobs, the economy, British culture and sport.

As I have said in previous debates, I have no problem bashing the bookies; it is a British pastime between punter and bookmaker, and I am unashamedly pro-consumer. But as we are seeing now, the Government have inadvertently stacked the deck in favour of the illegal black market. In preparing for this debate, I was reminded of what gambling looked like when I was growing up in south-east London: those dark and dingy betting shops with beads covering the shop doors, and the wall of smoke that would occasionally escape, allowing some fresh air into the building.

While some of those small pens might have stayed in some shops, times have changed. The regulated industry has modernised, and technology has transformed how many people gamble across the country.

[Alex Ballinger]

The shadow Minister is talking about an historical example of a bookmaker’s. At that time, how many children and young people were exposed to gambling advertising? Is he happy with a Premier League weekend having 27,000 adverts that families might be watching?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

That is an interesting point about how bookmakers operate. My grandfather was really keen on horseracing when I was growing up; I remember often standing in the corner of the betting shop while he had a gamble or watching horseracing on the TV. The hon. Member’s APPG has made an interesting distinction about the carve-out of the advertising ban that it has committed to; if I understand it correctly, the APPG believes that younger people or children do not watch horseracing, compared with football—is that the argument for why there is a carve-out?

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman let me respond?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Ballinger, please sit down. Shadow Minister, please speak through the Chair.

[Mr French]

I apologise, Mrs Harris.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Thank you. Mr Ballinger, if you want to intervene, can you do it appropriately?

[Alex Ballinger]

The APPG recognise that horseracing and greyhound racing are much more dependent on gambling advertising than other industries; that is why we made that separation.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for making that distinction; I understood it as being something to do with whether children watched racing. The point I was trying to make was that times have changed. When I worked in a shop—some 20-odd years ago, when I was a student—a strict rule was brought in to stop children being allowed inside the premises. There was a lot of discussion then about whether it was safer for a child to be just inside the door of a bookmaker’s or to be standing outside. That is probably not as big an issue today as it was then, but I remember that discussion being had circa 20 years ago. Times have changed, and how bookmakers operate has also changed.

The debate around gambling and gambling harms boils down to a simple but important question: how do we reduce harm from gambling without driving people into more dangerous spaces? Advertising, the subject of today’s debate, forms an important part of that discussion. Gambling, when properly regulated, is a legitimate leisure activity enjoyed by more than 20 million people across the United Kingdom every month. That averages out at more than 30,000 people in every constituency across the country. The overwhelming majority of those people gamble without harm.

The role of Government is to balance regulation for people who enjoy a flutter safely, while ensuring that those who need help can receive it as a matter of urgency. Government should not act as a heavy, puritanical hand prohibiting all avenues of fun. That is why the distinction between the regulated and unregulated market is so important. Advertising by UK-licensed operators is not a free-for-all, as some would have us believe; it is controlled and is subject to oversight by the anti-gambling commission and the Advertising Standards Authority, which has been strengthened significantly in recent years. That has resulted in some good progress: for example, I understand that the whistle-to-whistle ban has reduced children’s exposure to betting adverts during live sport by 97%. The Premier League will soon ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsors, and online campaigns are age-gated, with operators prohibited from using personalities with strong appeal to children. However, those regulations do not apply to those who act beyond the law in the black market.

The Government have been clear that there is little evidence of a causal link between exposure to advertising and problem gambling. Crucially, the evidence does not show that advertising drives participation. Advertising influences which brand people choose, not whether they gamble at all. That matters, because restricting the regulated sector too heavily will not remove demand; the Government will simply be redirecting it to the unregulated market, where harm becomes the norm. Independent analysis from WARC suggests that UK gambling advertising spend will reach around £1.9 billion this year, with half—between £800 million and £900 million, and increasing—already coming from unregulated operators.

We are approaching a tipping point. Close to half of all gambling advertising seen by UK consumers comes from operators that are not licensed in this country and can act beyond the law. It is the direction of travel that concerns me most: WARC’s research shows that while licensed operator spend has fallen, illegal and unregulated spend is growing sharply. That is a sign of a market shifting quickly and decisively, and we must be honest about what sits behind that shift. The Government have increased regulation on the legal sector, but done very little so far to stop the illegal black market.

While licensed operators are seeing their ability to advertise reduced, illegal operators are expanding aggressively, particularly online, and particularly aimed at children and younger people. Those unregulated operators do not follow the rules. They do not verify age; they do not offer safeguards such as deposit limits or self-exclusion; they do not contribute to treatment or research; they do not pay tax. Those companies actively market themselves as being outside the system, with “Not on GamStop”—a favoured slogan that is deliberately used to appeal to the most vulnerable. This is not a marginal issue. Up to 1.5 million people in Britain are estimated to be using these sites already, staking as much as £10 billion a year.

Today’s advertising frontline is not so much television as social media, streaming platforms and influencers. Around 62% of children report regularly seeing gambling-related content online on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Twitch and Instagram—I use some of those platforms myself, though I am not sure what Twitch is. What they see is not the regulated sector: they are seeing influencers who are paid to promote black market gambling sites—sites that would never be allowed to advertise through regulated channels and that offer inducements and access without safeguards. Among those young people who follow gambling content, nearly one in three report seeing an influencer advertising the products. The reality is that we have built a system that tightly regulates those who comply with the law, while those who do not are free to exploit the faster-growing parts of the media landscape.

We must be honest about the risk of getting this wrong. By clamping down further on regulated advertising without tackling illegal activity, we will not clean up this space. We will simply cede the territory to the illegal operators. We will make it harder for consumers to distinguish between safe and unsafe operators, pushing more people towards platforms that offer no protections at all. The Government’s priority must be enforcement in the spaces where harm is now most concentrated.

I will conclude by asking the Minister a series of specific questions that I hope she can answer or follow up in writing. First, will the Government bring forward proposals to place a clear duty on social media platforms to identify and remove illegal gambling advertising, particularly influencer-led promotion of unlicensed sites? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking against unlicensed operators targeting UK consumers online? Thirdly, can the Minister set out a timeline for action on unlicensed gambling sponsorship in sport, and will the Government go further to prevent UK clubs from entering into partnerships with operators that are not licensed in this country?

[Esther McVey]

Can my hon. Friend help me? A little earlier I raised a point about misinformation being used by the Gambling Commission, and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said that it had not been called out for misusing statistics. However, this is listed on three separate occasions on the Gambling Commission’s public log of requested corrections. Can my hon. Friend explain the clear discrepancy on what we have heard in this debate?

[Mr French]

I do not believe I can answer my right hon. Friend’s question, but it might be something that other Members want to correct via a point of order to ensure that, as we have this important discussion, we have all the facts in front of us. That is vital. There is a range of views, but we are here as policymakers and we need to ensure that we make informed decisions.

My fourth question is, what steps are being taken to improve consumer awareness, so that individuals can more easily distinguish between regulated and unregulated operators, as well as the dangers of the latter over the former? Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that any future restrictions on regulated advertising are assessed against the risk of displacement into the black market?

If the Government are serious about reducing harm, we must focus on where harm is growing fastest. If they fail to act, the Government risk undermining the very protections that successive Governments have worked hard to build. While there are risks that this House should not be willing to take, there must be balance. Let us not start legislating and regulating just because some Labour Members have the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the right hon. Member for her question, and I will ensure that she receives a written response.

By bringing together industry, platforms, regulators and Government, we will identify ways to clamp down on illegal advertising. We hope to ensure that exposure to illegal gambling advertising is reduced, particularly for vulnerable individuals. The Gambling Commission also continues to engage with online platforms to support the removal of illegal gambling content, which remains an ongoing priority. An additional £26 million has also been allocated to the Gambling Commission across the next three years to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market.

More recently, we announced our intention to consult on banning sports sponsorship by unlicensed gambling operators. By reducing awareness of and exposure to unlicensed operators, such a ban would further protect vulnerable consumers from the unregulated illegal market.

It is important that we do what we can to ensure that all advertising is socially responsible and does not exacerbate harm. Where there is evidence to support it, the Government would like to see more action being taken to ensure that advertising does not adversely affect the young and vulnerable. In the coming months, we will continue to explore this alongside our wider work on reducing gambling-related harms.

[Mr French]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady is covering for another Minister. However, I made the point in a previous debate that the Government seem to be saying that they are keen to reduce the harm to children from gambling and that they particularly recognise the issue of social media, which I raised in my speech today. Why do they not just back the Conservative party’s proposed ban on social media for under-16s?

[Lilian Greenwood]

As the hon. Member will know, we are currently consulting on measures to protect young people from online harms. He is aware of that work, which is continuing. Of course we want to protect children and young people, but we need to make sure that any measures we bring in will be effective.

We recognise that the regulatory framework must keep pace with technological change. That is why we are working with the Gambling Commission and the ASA to ensure that existing rules are applied to new and emerging channels. We are also clear that all policy and regulatory decisions must be made after considering a wide range of impartial, accurate and up-to-date research about the scale and impact of gambling advertising. We must ensure that our interventions are as impactful as possible.

As Members may be aware, last year we introduced the landmark statutory gambling levy, which has raised just under £120 million in its first year. This funding will be ringfenced solely for independent research into and prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms; 20% of the funding collected will be spent on research to strengthen the evidence base on gambling-related harms, which includes research on the impacts of gambling advertising. We will therefore consider next steps in the context of this strengthening evidence base.

Where appropriate, our approach will also include comparison with regulation in other jurisdictions. A number of suggestions were made, and examples have been given of the way in which other countries are doing this. However, just because a particular country has moved further than us on advertising restrictions, that does not mean that we should automatically attempt to match it. We should instead be guided by the lessons that such jurisdictions offer, and we should consider what has and has not worked.

An important point that I want to stress is that if we decide to encourage or take further action on advertising, we want to do so in a way that is supported by the evidence available. We should avoid putting in place too many restrictions that could have unintended consequences. Where standards can be raised in a careful way, we should look to do that. The Government remain open-minded about how that can be done, and we will reflect on the points that have been raised today, including in the important contributions from the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.

I want to address a couple of questions that hon. Members have raised. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup raised concerns about the introduction of financial risk assessments. FRAs of online gambling customers are a widely supported principle and a key consumer protection measure from the White Paper. We are aware of concerns about so-called operator affordability checks; new financial risk checks would replace those and are better for customers and for racing. The Department has worked closely with the Gambling Commission throughout, to ensure that FRAs remain in line with the clear principles in the White Paper. If the Gambling Commission decides to introduce FRAs, it will work with operators on guidance. That guidance will ensure a proportionate approach when deciding how to manage consumers where financial risk is present and the customer continues to spend at a high level.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup also asked a number of specific questions. I will ensure that, where I have not already dealt with them in my speech, he receives a response in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

On financial risk assessments, also known as affordability checks, will the Minister pass on a query relating to the gambling White Paper? My understanding from the previous Gambling Minister and from the then shadow Gambling Minister, who is now the Sports Minister, was that the checks could go ahead only if they were truly frictionless, hence the pilot. Can the Government confirm whether the Gambling Commission has the authority to proceed if that is not the will of Parliament?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I can tell the hon. Member that FRAs have been piloted to ensure that they are genuinely frictionless before implementation and that they are targeted at those showing signs of harm, rather than simply those spending high amounts safely. The FRA pilot found that only 3% of all gambling accounts would be subject to an FRA where their losses were significant enough to warrant it, and 97% of checks would be frictionless without any change to customer experience. Nevertheless, if there is further information that the hon. Member requires, I am sure he will follow that up.

I conclude by reiterating our commitment to working with a wide range of stakeholders, including industry, on this issue. We will continue to do what we can to ensure that gambling advertising, wherever it appears, is socially responsible and does not exacerbate the risks of gambling-related harm. I am grateful for the contributions from all hon. Members today; it has been a genuinely interesting and constructive discussion. The Government look forward to continuing this work in the months ahead.