Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025.

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to these regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 12 May. This instrument has been considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and was not drawn to the special attention of the House. It is part of a package of statutory instruments that, together, make a number of changes to the legislative framework for land-based casinos.

If these regulations are approved by both Houses, I intend to sign two related statutory instruments that follow the negative procedure: the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2025 and the Gambling Act 2005 (Premises Licences and Provisional Statements) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2025. The former extends existing casino entitlements, and the regulations we are debating today introduce protections—equivalent to those for 2005 Act casinos—for converted casino premises as a result of the extended entitlements.

The premises licences and provisional statements regulations amend existing procedures so that a converted casino operator can apply to its licensing authority to vary its premises licence to enable it to exercise the extended entitlement. We published the negative instruments in draft on 12 May, the same day that these regulations were laid, to provide transparency about the range of changes we are proposing and to allow for proper scrutiny. None of the interconnected legislative instruments will be made unless the protections in these regulations are approved by Parliament.

The Government are focused on economic growth. I believe that enabling a responsible gambling sector to grow is compatible with creating an even safer one. We have already brought forward measures to improve consumer protections, including the introduction of stake limits for online slot games and establishing a statutory levy on gambling operators, to fund the research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms. Our manifesto also committed to working with industry to ensure responsible gambling, and we acknowledge the difficulties that land-based gambling businesses, particularly casinos, have faced since the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, following a consideration of the best available evidence, we intend to proceed with a series of reforms for the land-based casino sector.

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for setting out what is, in many ways, a very technical SI, as well as the two related SIs to which she referred.

I understand that a lot of the pressure and motivation —if not the only motivation—behind this measure is economic growth and the international competitiveness dimension. However, I certainly had some concerns on reading through the SI. Perhaps I am unique in this —I do not know—but it seems to me that the regulations would potentially alter the split between gaming machines and table-based gaming, which I think the Minister referred to, from 2:1 to 5:1. That is quite a considerable shift. The latter form, table-based gaming, represents a less intense gaming experience and is, I would argue, potentially less harmful to consumers. The Minister will know that 25% of casinos in this country are in the poorest decile of the country; we should therefore be concerned about the connection with gambling harm. Has there been a corresponding increase in space and opportunities for customers to take a break from gambling? There has been an increase in the space available for gambling machines. If there has been an increase in the areas for non-gambling, what is that increase, and what sort of facilities do these areas represent?

It is very clear in the analysis and the evidence that the annual increase in income for the gambling sector after three years is between £52 million and £63 million per annum—the gross gambling yield, I should say—with a median figure of £58 million. I recognise that that is obviously subject to costs and tax, but it still represents a considerable increase. Should we not at the same time be increasing the amount that is put aside to help with gambling addiction and gambling harm? There is no indication of that happening here in the measure.

If one looks at the theme of the analysis and the evidence, which I have done, it is quite clear. Page 4 of the impact assessment states:

My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I share the concerns that he expressed. I am not going to oppose this statutory instrument but I want to raise some concerns about it, not least in terms of the potential impact on increasing gambling harm.

The Minister has been very generous with her time in speaking with me on a number of occasions recently; I am very grateful for that. She already knows that I have considerable concern about the Government’s current approach, which seems to suggest that, in the wider desire of the Government to increase the whole state of the economy in the country, they also want to grow the gambling industry as part of that. I have argued with the Minister—although I know that she disagrees—that it is simply not possible to grow the gambling industry without also having an increase in gambling harm, whereas she and the Government believe that it is possible both to grow the industry and to reduce the level of gambling harm. You would not increase the tobacco industry and expect it to reduce the consumption of tobacco; the same is true for products in the gambling sector. No doubt this debate will continue between me, the Minister and others over the coming months.

If I look at this statutory instrument, I have some real concerns about it. We have with it an impact assessment. A few minutes ago, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, asked a simple question: could we have some more data about the length of time spent on these machines? He will be delighted to know that, on page 19 of the impact assessment, that data, which we are told is

“a useful insight into how customers currently play on gaming machines”,

is provided. Unfortunately, however, all of the figures are blacked out. We are advised that this is helpful information, yet it—together with many other bits that would be very helpful to us—is blacked out.

I suggest to the Minister that there is a huge problem with the impact assessment. If this measure is going to make casinos more profitable—the figures suggest that the increase will be somewhere in the region of £58 million per annum—then presumably there is the possibility of not just more machines, which the Minister has talked about the regulations bringing forward, but of that number being significantly greater if more casinos open and are allowed to operate under the conditions she has mentioned.

The Minister may ask, “What is the possibility of that happening?” I am sure she is aware that there are 186 gambling premises licences and that not all of them are currently being used; there are 42 dormant premises casino licences. Will she assure me that she is confident that none of those licences will be brought into operation, which they are entitled to do, as the SI, which suggests making casinos more profitable, would suggest they might?

When 10 years ago I proposed the sort of measure that this SI introduces, I did so with the caveat that it could be introduced only if all those remaining dormant licences were brought back and could not be used. There is nothing in this statutory instrument’s impact assessment addressing that issue. I hope the Minister can tell us, first, why so much of the information is blacked out and, secondly, what assurances she can give me that the impact assessment is not woefully inadequate because of the possibility of other licences being brought forward?

The Minister also said, and it is covered in the impact assessment, that a number of measures will be taken to ensure that there is compliance. Paragraph 2.69 states:

“To ensure there are no unintended consequences from this measure, we will have a robust monitoring programme in place to assess rates of gambling harm and other indications of harmful play”.

I am delighted that that will happen, but the evidence within the gambling sector—I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform—is that robust assessments are not very successful at picking up harm. Sometimes, they do so long after a great deal of harm has been created. The Minister is well aware of concerns expressed to her and the Secretary of State about current practices in adult gaming centres, which are clear breaches of the regulations that apply to them. I have drawn her attention to them and sent her an email only about a quarter of an hour ago with further details on concerns about the lack of implementation of the regulations around gambling advertising, not least that being received by children.

Even in the world of casinos, there have been a number of breaches of the regulations, leading, in some cases where they have been found out, to fines in the order of half a million pounds for a lack of social responsibility activities and money laundering. We therefore do not have particularly good evidence that robust checks leading to the sort of things that we would want take place. However, I am prepared to acknowledge that this might be true in this particular case because, I am told:

“The monitoring and evaluation plan is discussed in more detail in the Post Implementation Review and Monitoring and Evaluation Plan”.

That is provided in great detail on the last few pages of the impact assessment.

I am delighted to note that there is a budget for this, as it gives us a clear indication of how significant and important the department sees this as being. I am also delighted to tell your Lordships this:

“The budget for the first 2 years of this evaluation programme is”—