My Lords, I shall speak also to the Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. Both sets of regulations were laid before the House in draft on 12 and 10 December 2024 respectively.
Two decades have passed since the Gambling Act 2005 was introduced. Leading gambling firms operating in this country are now some of the world’s most successful companies. With cutting-edge technological capabilities and deep insight into customer behaviour, the gambling industry and gambling behaviours have undergone monumental change, from the smartphone to the huge increase in online gambling. Our manifesto set out a commitment to
for those at risk. We know that harmful gambling can have massive financial, emotional and mental health impacts on individuals, families and communities across our country.
The 2023 gambling White Paper laid the foundations for what is before us today as we introduce draft regulations for stake limits on online slots and a statutory gambling levy to fund research, prevention and treatment. The Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 introduce statutory maximum stake limits on online slots games of £5 per game cycle for adults aged 25 and over, and £2 per game cycle for young adults aged 18 to 24.
Online slots are the highest-risk gambling product. They have the highest rate of binge play and the highest average losses of any online product, and are associated with long playing sessions and high levels of use by people experiencing gambling harm. Online slots are also the fastest-growing gambling product. In the past five years, this yield has grown by 61% and growth is not slowing down. However, there are currently no statutory stake limits for online slot games, unlike their land-based counterparts. As the popularity of slots grows, so does the risk for vulnerable people. Now is the time to act and stem the growing tide of unaffordable losses for people most at risk of gambling harm.
We have designed these stake limits to target those most at risk of harm while ensuring that the impact on operators is proportionate. The lower staking limit for younger adults is an important intervention, as our research showed that younger people may be at an elevated risk of gambling harm. The industry’s trade body, the Betting and Gaming Council, welcomed the decision to introduce stake limits. If these regulations are agreed, there will be a transitional period to ensure that gambling operators have sufficient time to implement the changes.
Today, we are also proposing draft regulations for a statutory gambling levy. From April, all licensed operators will be required to pay an annual levy to the Gambling Commission. The rates at which licensed operators pay the levy are set down in the legislation and licensees are at risk of losing their licence if they do not pay. The levy represents a watershed moment: a significant uplift in the investment dedicated to this area; greater government oversight; and a renewed commitment to further understanding, tackling and treating gambling harms.
My Lords, first, I confirm that I have not been promoted and nor am I even a Whip who is able to take over in certain circumstances. I am not sure whether a colleague of mine will be here to answer this debate from the opposition point of view.
I would just like to say a few words because I know others wish to speak who are far more up to date in many ways than I am. I was the Minister in the Home Office responsible for gambling—or controlling gambling, I should say, perhaps—back in the mid-1990s. I welcome in general anything that improves the services available to those who have addiction or who are likely to be vulnerable to gambling, but I always took the view when I was Minister that we could develop these matters in a simple, one-by-one regulation way rather than in a great way. I was therefore very disappointed when the Labour Government came in in 1997 to see that they took a very strong and comprehensive approach towards gambling, which I never thought was appropriate.
I have worried ever since about its effect. I spoke in the House on an Oral Question earlier this week and said how disturbed I was at the level of gambling in front of all of us, particularly young people, today, both in television advertising, which I would not accept was sensible or proper, and, as we all know, in the burgeoning amount of advertising in sport, such as at sports grounds and in sponsorship. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of gambling in this country, which has been deleterious and unacceptable. Therefore, I welcome anything that is going to help. I want to ask a couple of questions, if I may, on this.
First, the use of the levy—directional and focused—seems to be correct, but we need a little more flesh on the bones regarding the delivery of support. We have talked about organisations. A number of organisations, some known to the Government and some in the charity sector and so on, are there to look after people who have fallen for gambling in the wrong way and are looking after their addictions and so on. Will the dispensation of the money raised on this levy be wide enough and comprehensive enough to cover all the areas in which people are vulnerable and suffering? I am not sure that that is the case, so I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurances. I must say that I am not happy with that element.
May I ask the noble Lord to go a little further than saying it is “unacceptable”? There is very clear evidence—more in this country than in any country in the world—that gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship is causing considerable gambling harm.
The noble Lord is right. I do not think I can go much further because I am just making my views clear. I have certainly had direct contact with a number of organisations, in the charity field and other fields, which think that the matter is out of hand. I said it was “out of hand” in the Chamber earlier this week. It is out of hand. Consequently, while I welcome these provisions, I am pleading with the Government to get greater control of this, because it is unacceptable. Of course, online gambling is another area where it has burgeoned completely, and that seems to be in greater need. I know there is reference to that in the second of these two statutory instruments. It is completely out of control as well.
I am sorry to be so negative about this. I welcome the levy, at least, and, notwithstanding my questions about dispensation, I support the Government in what they are trying to do.
I very much welcome this legislation, which is overdue. I was a member of the Select Committee that looked at gambling, and we were very concerned about the lack of action, so I am pleased to see that the Government are taking action and have brought this forward.
I have two questions, the first of which is about the distribution of resources. We found that there were a number of organisations which were sometimes in conflict with each other. There needs to be co-ordination to make sure that we get effective spend and that spending results in the things that we want to see. Secondly, I am concerned about the growth of offshore gambling. It grew by a sizeable amount last year and is growing very fast. It is unregulated and will not be touched by this legislation. Will the Minister say something about that? It is of concern to the industry as well as to the public.
Overall, this strikes the right balance. I disagree with the previous point that there is plenty of evidence; there is not plenty of evidence that we can scrutinise. There needs to be proper scrutiny and accountability.
Would the noble Lord acknowledge that, in this country, there are 597 registered documents demonstrating a clear link between gambling advertising and gambling harm? That is more than in many European countries put together which, based on less evidence, have chosen to massively limit gambling advertising.
I agree that there is a lot of information out there, but I would like to see it scrutinised more professionally. Part of the problem we heard in the committee was that access to data made it difficult for the academic studies that were carried out to find the evidence needed. I hope that the instrument will allow academics to look at issues with gambling and the prevention of gambling addiction, and that it will be an effective measure to help people to avoid this trap.
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of Peers for Gambling Reform. I congratulate the Minister on today’s announcement, which is very welcome as this is a major health issue. It is worth reminding your Lordships, a number of whom were on the Select Committee, of the shocking statistics and why we are having this debate. More than 60,000 teenagers and a third of a million adults are formally diagnosed with some sort of gambling addiction. It affects the lives of around 2 million adults. It is a debateable figure, but possibly more than 400 people take their lives over this serious issue every year, so I congratulate the Government on taking this seriously.
I will not say too much, because my colleagues will speak on this more, but I wonder if we could be told the rationale behind the £5 maximum stake. My understanding of the research is that it needs to be much lower, so it would be very helpful to understand how His Majesty’s Government got to that figure.
The introduction of this levy is hugely helpful. For many years, operators made extensive profits—we have used that phrase in the House time and again—by privatising the profits and nationalising the costs. There are 14 gambling clinics paid for by us, via the NHS, with our taxes. The polluter clearly needs to pay for this pollution. Those gambling operators have hardly contributed even 0.1% of their GGY to support the treatment of gambling harms, so the regulations are good news. They send a signal about the seriousness with which His Majesty’s Government are taking this.
Just last week, a High Court ruling found that Sky Betting & Gaming unlawfully bombarded a problem gambler with more than 1,300 marketing emails over a two-year period, because he was identified as a high-value customer. Sadly, these sorts of people then hugely suffer.
My Lords, I am not sure about declaring interests, because I have never understood how on earth I got involved in this issue. It is in an incredibly difficult arena where so many people have experienced trauma. I have never laid a bet or bought a lottery ticket. I grew up in a household that did not even have a pack of cards. None of us was exposed to anything around gambling, and nothing in my life has led me anywhere near it.
The reason that I became interested in gambling was gambling harm and what that does to people, particularly those with complex needs. I have been involved in that area of work over many years, particularly with regard to women. Those who were on the Select Committee will remember that I used to rabbit on about women when no one knew that that was an issue. Even that short time ago, we really did not address it in the Select Committee. It is very clearly an important issue, particularly around online gambling, as they are being used exploitatively in ways that we are only just becoming aware of, which I am very worried about. However, that is not what we are concerned with today.
I will not talk about the restriction on the amount that you can put into a slot machine, as that is not really my area of expertise, but I do want to talk about the compulsory levy and the move from where we are now to where we need to be. It is not very long to 1 April. With the amount of time that there is for transition, we need to make sure that there is a straightforward way ahead for those who are working on these issues, either in treatment or in prevention—and it is not as clear a division as we sometimes talk about it being. We are still a long way from knowing the amount of money that can be spent, who will spend it and how that is understood.
I congratulate my noble friend on getting the decision out today. She knows that I have some anxiety. I am not as convinced as colleagues in Peers for Gambling Reform that OHID is the right vehicle. First, OHID, virtually does not exist at the moment. It has been denuded since the change from Public Health England during Covid, and there are only three people in the Department of Health who now work for OHID. They are not in a position even to be thinking about what commissioning in this area means at the moment. There will have to be a big recruitment, very fast learning and a really clear understanding.
5:15 pm
The Minister will know the technicalities of that—the Committee does not need to go into that level of detail —but we have to get all these things right. I can see so many problems in our initial legislation, even though I know why it was done, and that was way before we ever knew anything about online. No Government have yet caught up with online and we need to do so.
As the Minister knows, I have become a bit scared by seeing someone who has what he calls neurodiversity, which has exposed to those of us listening the real depth of some of the advertising around those companies that are not registered in this country but every football team that is advertising a particular brand is linked to. Those companies have taken over this area—companies bigger than Amazon—and they are now linking young people with neurodiversity into their adverts and into the way they project them through the internet. Those people then have to get into cryptocurrency—we know that there is a problem with that—and they are spending hours and hours a day, using whatever money they have, which they are losing on gambling.
The football companies that are doing this need to be held to account. There is a lot to do. There are many anxieties, and we have got ourselves into a position where the timetable is tight, and reassurance is needed for the voluntary sector. Those with lived experience, who are working in the voluntary sector, must be there so that they know they can continue the work that they are doing. I meet lots of people with lived experience who are now working in some capacity in tackling gambling harm. I am overwhelmed by their levels of commitment and the way in which they are working. But many of them also still experience trauma, and we should not be giving them even more uncertainty and anxiety in their lives.
I urge the Minister to go back to the department and make sure that we do not leave gaps, that we get on top of this, and that OHID understands that treatment is a progression. It has to progress from prevention. OHID has to be as concerned with people right at the beginning as it is with people at the end. It also has to use the experience, particularly lived experience, and not tell people how to run their lives or how to change other people’s lives. I say to the Minister: good luck.
20 of 31 shown
The significant contributions that the gambling industry has made to support research, prevention and treatment since the introduction of the Gambling Act 2005 have been crucial. This has allowed an expansion of the support and treatment options available for those in need. I am clear that the third sector will continue to play a key role in the future of research, prevention and treatment, but we now need a sustainable and equitable funding system so that all licensed gambling operators are paying their fair share. The levy provides us with an opportunity and the resources to put in place the right projects and services, clear objectives and robust governance.
To create a world-leading funding and commissioning system, we are mobilising existing expertise and infra- structure. Working with UK Research and Innovation, NHS England, appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales, the Gambling Commission and the third sector, we are transforming the current system to deliver better access, outcomes and services for people across our country. To ensure that there is sufficient trust, expertise and authority in the use of the levy funding for prevention, I confirmed to the House this morning that we will appoint the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities in the Department of Health and Social Care to take on the role as lead commissioning body in this area for England, alongside appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales.
Prevention remains a crucial part of the government’s efforts to tackle gambling-related harm. An effective prevention plan seeks to identify the right mix of interventions to be applied at both the population and individual level. That is why the Government are increasing dedicated investment, allocating 30% of levy funding to the prevention stream, alongside the significant funding allocated for research and treatment. Ring-fenced investment in this area will help to encourage innovation and support a strengthened, integrated and co-ordinated approach to prevention in Britain. Working closely with appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales, OHID will develop a comprehensive approach to prevention and early intervention, supporting improvement across the respective nations.
I want to recognise the leading role that GambleAware has played. Its work to raise awareness of gambling harm and provide support for those in need has been invaluable. We want to build on the successes of the current system while improving and expanding the system to better serve those at risk. Until now, financial contributions from operators have been the only source of funding for the sector. This funding has established the National Gambling Support Network, overseen by GambleAware, which has helped people in need across the country. However, the levy will mean that there is sustainable, ring-fenced and trusted funding for the first time. This will be used across Great Britain for vital treatment, better understanding of the causes of harm and early intervention to support greater awareness and reduce stigma.
My decision on prevention is about building the future system on the strongest foundations. Through the levy, we are investing £100 million of public money to tackle gambling harm and it is right that key commissioning decisions on research, prevention and treatment are made by statutory bodies to ensure that funding is spent appropriately. This is why we are appointing OHID alongside UKRI and NHS England.
Robust government oversight will ensure that levy funding is getting to where it is needed most. The Government will set clear objectives for the system to maximise value for money. We will establish a levy board as the mechanism for the Government to closely monitor spending and the overall effectiveness of the levy. We want to be led by the evidence of what works across the system and so, alongside the levy board, we will organise an advisory group.
We are confident that we have designed the levy in an effective and proportionate way. It has been a priority to strike the right balance between managing impacts on licensees and ensuring that operators are paying their fair share. I recognise that some gambling businesses are facing a tough fiscal environment. These regulations reduce levy rates for a number of licensees compared with the rates proposed in the previous Government’s consultation. Both the Tote and on-course bookmakers will also pay the levy at rates much lower than other land-based operators such as casinos and bookmakers. Online operators will be required to pay significantly more.
These regulations represent the beginning of a new phase for gambling harm reduction, one where people in our country are better protected and aware of the risks of harmful gambling. The levy is a crucial first step to delivering this and I look forward to discussing it further in the debate today. I beg to move.
Secondly, is the administering of the levy sufficiently watertight, or are there ways in which it can be avoided? The list of specifics where the levy will be applicable is fairly comprehensive, but I still feel that we need to be clear that this is an obligatory levy that cannot be avoided by various means that might be used.
Finally, am I wrong to assume that the Government will not be doing much else about gambling advertising? I would like to know because, as I have pointed out and as other people have raised with me on many occasions, this level of advertising is unacceptable, but we never seem to deal with it—indeed, it burgeons even more.
My other concern is that, with the level of harm that is going on, we need to review the amounts for treatment before waiting for five years—which is how I understand it. I urge the Government to consider annual funding reviews, so that we can ensure that money gets to treatment quickly to support all those who are suffering.
I love the National Health Service—my husband is back working for the NHS at the moment, even though he is 76—but, historically, it has not been good at enabling people themselves to take decisions in the journey through the change that they need to get out of their problems. Too often, it has told people what the answer is, what the treatment should be and what they need to do. My experience is that, until we get neighbourhood health organisations—I know that that is one issues being worked on in the 10-year plan—we are in danger of the NHS trying to tell people with lived experience and people running charities how they should behave, rather than seeing them as essential partners in the journey from very early prevention, when somebody first understands that they or somebody in their family might have a problem, through to when the heavy end of treatment is needed.
As an example of how it is really complicated to understand this, the previous Government said that the online help service, which is run by GamCare at the moment, is part of treatment and not prevention, when in fact, a lot of people ringing up are just asking, “Do I have a problem? Is there somebody I can talk to who might be helpful?” They are not ready for treatment or therapy as such; they want someone to help them understand the problems they are getting into and their alternative ways forward.
For me, it is a continuum between prevention and treatment. We have to make sure that funding does not totally separate those two, because then you will lose the strength of some of those voluntary organisations, particularly those that are run by people with lived experience, in how they help people through the different stages. Some are just treatment centres; if you think about the residential people or the NHS clinics, they are both into treatment. My concern as well is that, given the pressures that I know there are in the NHS, if the money goes through the NHS without any checks, there may be a push to spend it all on treatment clinics. That cannot happen, because that will mean that millions will lose that ability to engage before it becomes a big NHS issue.
On women, my experience is that they really do not want to let anybody in the state who has control over the future of their children know when they are getting into problems, because they are terrified that they will lose their children. So we have to handle this very carefully.
I know that the Minister is aware of these things, and I hope that OHID, as it grows and develops, will use people who are currently working in the commissioning area and who understand this, so that they are able to help negotiate the way forward.
On GambleAware, I thank the Minister for saying what she did. I was a trustee of GambleAware and used to get a bit annoyed by everybody out there saying, “Oh, GambleAware takes its money from the industry and it’s run by the industry”. I have never met anybody from the industry since 2005, I think. For me to be told that I was controlled by the industry was a bit of an insult, to put it mildly, when I know that that is not the case. However, I accept that too many people built this up into a great issue and so GambleAware could not continue it, but it has the expertise and the brand. It is contacted through its website about tackling gambling harm more than any other organisation in the world.
It has had incredible, really powerful campaigns in the last couple of years—for example, on stigma. It has also commissioned research: I encourage my noble friend sitting in front of me to look at the research from Bristol University, which has been peer reviewed very strictly, on the effect of harm from gambling advertising. It demonstrates that you can remove a lot of gambling advertising without affecting the main work of the gambling industry. It affects mostly those people who are on the edge of harm and who then get into it. It annoys me as a football supporter that I have to sit among all the advertising, but it does not push me into doing it.
So there are many things here. I know the Minister is aware of the issue of timing. There is much to be done to ensure that the network of providers in the voluntary sector does not end up being tipped over, because there is no certainty about its future. GambleAware is a charity and, because the trustees have responsibilities in its charitable role, it will need a deadline cut-off when it can reassure the people who use the network that there will be a future and that their money for the next year will be there.