[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Health and Social Care Committee on 2 April 2025, on Gambling-related harms, HC 804; and Correspondence between the Health and Social Care Committee and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention, on Gambling-related harms, reported to the House on 18 June and 29 April 2025.]
That this House believes that the aim to permit principle in planning policy erodes the ability of local communities to shape their neighbourhoods; further believes that planning decisions should be made in the public interest, not skewed towards automatic approval; and therefore calls on the Government to remove the aim to permit provision so local councils can regulate the spread of gambling premises.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I will talk about three things: first, why I am campaigning for safer streets and why gambling-related harm is a key component of my work; secondly, some of the people and their testimonies; and, thirdly, the good work the Government have done, but also the further work that needs to be done next.
I am tired of seeing the number of betting shops on the high street in Brent, and how every time there is an empty shop, another betting shop opens in its place. This is specifically the case in areas such as Harlesden, Willesden, Neasden, Wembley and Kilburn. In Harlesden, we have 10 betting shops within a 10-minute walk, which is absolutely ridiculous.
I apologise that I will not be able to stay for this debate because I have to follow up with the family of Ryan Cornelius—they were in the Gallery earlier —whom I referenced during the previous debate.
As the hon. Member knows, we on the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform have taken very seriously the lessons from Brent, which have been cited in letters to the Government. We have to stop this ridiculous proliferation of betting shops and adult gaming centres, over which councils have no control. Councils do not think it is right to have them, yet they have no say in the matter. The No. 1 thing for the Government to do is to end this nonsense, and give councils the power to say no.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the APPG on gambling reform, of which I am a member, for his intervention. Brent is a solid example of why change is needed. Another shop—a double-fronted shop—is due to open. On it has been written what I call conscious graffiti: “Stop opening gambling shops in deprived areas.” I endorse that message! In Kilburn, there have been 300 written objections to a proposed new adult gaming centre. When I campaigned on this issue, Brent council said that its hands were tied and that I needed to provide more evidence, so I collated more evidence—thousands of responses from my constituents —but that still was not enough because of the “aim to permit” legislation. That has led Brent council—through my campaigning and, probably, nagging—to run an incredible campaign. It now has other councils on board and the deputy leader from Brent council is here today for this debate.
In 2025, for my summer campaign, I decided to travel around the country, but mainly London, to investigate high streets and what they look like. And—would you believe it?—in economically deprived areas, every second or third shop was a brightly lit gambling shop. I could look down the road and see all the bright lights glittering and trying to encourage people to come in and spend their money. There was, however, one particular high street where I could not find a gambling shop. I walked up and down it on both sides. It is one of the wealthiest high streets in London, in Hampstead. Isn’t that shocking? One resident happily told me, “We even campaigned to stop McDonald’s opening on the high street. We didn’t want them.”
On Monday, I published an open letter to the Prime Minister. It had 280 signatures—mainly from London, but from all around the country—from councillors, leaders and mayors all saying that the aim to permit needs to change. In Brent, gambling premises outnumber supermarkets in 17 out of 22 wards. The gambling industry says that gambling shops help high streets, but they do not. When a gambling shop is set up, other shops do not want to be there. Gambling establishments entice people to come in and then ply them with food and drink, and teas and coffees. There is no point in opening a coffee shop next door when there are free coffees in the gambling shop.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for her visit to Kensington and Bayswater, where she herself enticed me into an adult gaming centre to show me how it is set up to keep people in there. Machines could even be reserved, so people could go away and come back. That is preying on the addictive mentality. And these are not the 20p slot machines or arcades in seaside towns; this is serious money.
Absolutely. I hope I was not a bad influence on my hon. Friend. It was the first time that I had gone into one, but you have to go into one to really understand what it is like. Like he says, we went in and a machine had been reserved for a person who had gone somewhere for when they came back. The business model is extreme and rather cruel.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is delivering an excellent speech, and I support her campaign to end the aim to permit. Another issue I have heard lots of people concerned about is the 80:20 rule, which requires gambling shops to have only 20% of their machines to be the higher stake, more dangerous and addictive machines. There is a rumour or a consultation out that the rule might be liberalised. Does she agree that the liberalisation of that rule, at a time when gambling regulation is not fit for purpose, would be completely unacceptable?
That rule must not be changed, and I will tell my hon. Friend for why. Gambling shops get around that rule by having iPads, which are classified as lower stake machines, that do not work. That is how they get away with having more B3 machines, which are the most addictive machines where you can put in £20 and lose it in a minute. That is why the rule should not be liberalised. As I say, the business model is quite shocking.
Across the nation, an average of 13.4% of people are categorised as low-risk gamblers, with 2.9% categorised as high-risk. In Brent, 17.1% of residents are categorised as low-risk and 6.2% as high-risk. This shows the link between the proliferation of gambling shops and harm. One kind of business that is found on high streets when there are lots of gambling shops is pawn shops, because people lose their money and then pawn what they can to gamble more to try to win it back.
I am not saying that we should ban gambling all together, but we have to be honest about the harm that is being caused at the moment. The Gambling Act 2005 is completely out of date.
The latest iteration of this campaign has been a personal journey for me and has increased my understanding of the harms of gambling. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), with whom I went into some gambling shops, and who is running an excellent campaign to stop a huge gambling shop opening in his constituency, I have met some amazing people, and I want to talk about their testimonies. I interviewed two of them, and those interviews are on my Substack. Their testimonies opened my eyes, and I hope they do the same for anyone else who hears them. They also moved me to tears.
Jackie Olden is a phenomenal campaigner. Her mum, Wendy Hughes, worked at a bookmaker. After Wendy was given free plays on the machine so that she could entice the punters with the bright lights, the sounds and the music when the customer wins, she became addicted and started gambling with her own money. Towards the end of her life, Wendy gambled on a slot machine for 16 hours straight; the staff knew how she liked her tea and coffee, and bought her food so that she did not leave. Wendy had maxed out her credit card, so they kept her in the shop over 12 hours so that her credit card limit would be renewed and she could take out money and start gambling again. They knew her favourite chair and her favourite machine, and they let her gamble for 16 hours. Wendy lost almost £2,000 in that session. Merkur was fined £95,000 as a result of social responsibility failings—none of that money, I might add, went to the family.
The hon. Member is making a really powerful speech. We had representatives from the gambling industry in front of the Treasury Committee recently, and that revealed to me that such stories are not tragic by-products of an industry that is actually okay, but actually part of the business strategy of that industry. The gambling industry receives 60% of its profits from 5% of its customers. It needs people like the ones the hon. Member refers to, in the circumstances that they are in, in order to make the profits that it survives on. Does the hon. Member agree that it was a disgrace that the representatives in front of the Treasury Committee said that there is no evidence of social harm related to gambling?
Not only do I agree but I find it shocking that they can blatantly ignore the evidence and lie like that. You wonder sometimes how people sleep at night knowing the harm that is being caused.
We are not saying, “Scrap all gambling”, but we have to recognise and understand the harms and do what we can to stop and prevent them. Gambling with Lives has helped influence NHS centres and the guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which I will come to later. That is really important in how we identify and link gambling harms to the increase in mental health and suicides. At the moment we have an average of one suicide a day due to gambling harms.
I met Rob Davies, a reporter from The Guardian, who was the first person to take me into an adult gaming centre and show me the ropes, which are basically, “Stick your money in the machine and press the button”. There is no skill to it at all, and there is even an autoplay option so that the user does not have to keep pressing the button. It also spins at 0.25 seconds, which is why a user can lose £20 very quickly.
Veterans came to give evidence as part of the work of the APPG on gambling reform, and their evidence shocked me, because I had not realised just how prolific gambling was among our veterans and those in the armed forces. If we think about it, because of the gambling industry’s business model, they are the ideal clientele. They have experienced occupational stress and trauma, and face long deployments and separation from their support networks. There is also a cultural acceptance of gambling as a social activity and easy access to gambling opportunities. There are even addictive B3 machines in Army barracks. We do not know how many there are; we are still trying to get those numbers.
It is shocking that the gambling is so prolific, because despite the obvious risks of gambling, there is an additional risk for those in the armed forces at an organisational level. It can reduce operational readiness and leave personnel distracted, vulnerable to bribery or criminal influence and less able to focus on their duty, which increases the risk of errors that may endanger them, their colleagues and operational outcomes. We have to tackle gambling in the armed forces if we want them to be able to do their job properly. We must also protect veterans.
I give huge thanks to the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for proposing the motion. I was pleased to support the application for the debate. We have just heard an excellent case for action and some really clear examples of the harm that gambling causes. I am also a member of the APPG on gambling reform; I thank its chair, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for his work. It is clear that Members across parties feel passionately that the Government are ignoring clear evidence and going far too easy on this industry.
This debate is very timely: by chance, tomorrow I will be visiting the excellent Breakeven charity in Brighton, which provides free support for Brightonians dealing with gambling-related harm, including people’s partners, family members and friends. I want to thank some of the brilliant campaigners on gambling reform and harm who I meet regularly for their work, including Matt Zarb-Cousin of Gamban, Gambling with Lives, which is incredible, and the many other local charities in Brighton that are working on addiction, including to gambling, and recovery.
The motion focuses on planning policy, and we have heard excellent further suggestions about licensing. I fully support the proposal in the motion to remove the “aim to permit” provision. Councils must be able to control the spread of gambling premises in every way possible. Currently, gambling debates often centre around online gambling, which is clearly a growing menace, and its excessive levels of advertising, but much of the harm still occurs in our neighbourhoods. GambleAware research has shown that shopfronts on the high street are the source of a high number of advertising views.
My recent work on that aspect has included proposing changes to Brighton and Hove city council’s gambling policy. My response to its review highlighted the proliferation of high street gambling establishments in my city. As evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee last year stressed, gambling companies concentrate their efforts in areas of greater deprivation. However, coastal constituencies such as mine also have a very high density of gambling facilities due to our history as seaside resorts, which I believe has a harmful impact on my constituents.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this incredibly important debate on the removal of the so-called “aim to permit” rule, and on giving local authorities stronger powers to protect their communities from gambling harm.
The harms of gambling are evident and were well set out by my hon. Friend. Gambling addiction means missed birthdays, unpaid bills, broken relationships, families torn apart and lives quietly falling to piece behind closed doors, while communities deal with the consequences. At the heart of this debate lies a simple but fundamental question: who should decide what happens on our high streets—local communities and their elected representatives, or gambling companies pursuing huge commercial gain? Right now, the answer is not local communities.
Under the Gambling Act, councils are legally required to err on the side of approval when considering applications for betting shops and 24-hour slot machine venues, even when there is clear local opposition, an area is already saturated or harm is obvious. That is not localism, it is not prevention and it is certainly not protection. If councils do not follow that instruction to err on the side of approval, they face legal challenge, costly appeals and the threat of court costs—that money should be spent on local services, not on defending the indefensible.
Residents of my Enfield North constituency have watched their high streets change not because of community demand, but because the law makes it almost impossible for councils to say no to new gambling premises. There are now 30 gambling premises across my constituency. Such venues are designed to drain more deprived communities, and the law still forces councils to approve them. That is indefensible, and the Government must act to end it now.
Even if an area already has multiple betting shops or adult gaming centres, and even if constituents object and harm is well documented, councils are still legally pushed towards approval. The “aim to permit” rule is an outdated rule that stacks the deck in favour of gambling companies, as it tells councils to say yes to new gambling premises even when they have serious concerns. The result is predictable.
20 of 51 shown
Wendy later died of cancer. [Interruption.] I am getting quite emotional, sorry—Jackie is an amazing campaigner. Wendy had told her daughter that she was gambling to win enough money to pay for her funeral. The people in that gambling shop knew she was dying of cancer; they saw her emaciated body as she kept going in to gamble.
Charles and Liz Ritchie lost their son, Jack, at the tender age of 24. Jack had a gambling addiction. In his suicide note, he said that he would never be free from gambling, and that is why he took his life. Charles told me that Jack got addicted at school; he and his friends would go into gambling shops and he would place bets with his dinner money. Okay, things have been strengthened, and there are now checks on young people who look under 18, but there were not then. Using his dinner money to gamble, Jack had two big wins, winning £1,000, and became addicted, chasing that win time and again. His parents did not find this out until after he died.
In their grief, Charles and Liz decided to mobilise others, and they have since set up an amazing charity called Gambling with Lives. There are so many people who have been fighting this addiction on their own. The Labour Government have done some good work; there was just one NHS gambling clinic when Jack died, and now there are 15. However, there is so much more that we must do.
I have also spoken to Tom Fleming, Lord Foster of Bath, Harj Gahley, and Tom Goudsmit and Adam Brichto, who are making an important documentary on gambling harms.
To end, I want to address what gambling harms are and what the Government can do about them. Gambling harms include domestic abuse, rent arrears, mental health decline, relationship breakdown, and suicides, especially in young men, as we have spoken about. There is also a link to violence against women and girls. The Government want to tackle violence against women and girls, but to do so they must tackle gambling. When I asked the gambling industry why it needed some shops to be open 24/7, I was told that it is because taxi drivers who are working nights can come in after a hard night’s work and basically gamble away their wages. What used to happen is that people who lost their money—their wages—used to get really angry, pick the chairs up and smash the machines. The machines cost about £40,000, so the chairs were made so heavy that people could not pick them up and smash the machines. It is absolutely shocking.
There are links between gambling and homelessness. Rent money is being gambled away. I met a gambler who was thrown out of his house by his wife because he had just gambled away all their money; they could not even afford food. There is also suicide, particularly among young men. Gambling is not like drugs and alcohol, where we can see or smell it. It can be hidden for a while until someone has no money and is desperate. That is why sometimes it is found really late: because it gets to that desperate point.
The Social Market Foundation notes that residents consistently associate high concentrations of gambling venues with increased antisocial behaviour, reduced feelings of safety and a decline in pride in people’s high streets. If we want pride in place, we need to clear up our high streets.
GambleAware shone a light on the scary prospect of young children being systematically groomed by the industry. Young people who are being groomed become desensitised to gambling, specifically through gaming. The same addictive hooks are being used to get young people addicted to the games and gambling—and it is more potent than drugs and alcohol.
Some influencers are being paid to influence young people to gamble. Sixteen-year-old boys are more vulnerable to that than any other group, and that is because there are video games, such as EA Sports FC—I have never played it, so do not know it—with loot boxes and virtual currencies that people can use to pay. We have to get a grip on that and we need to work with creators. I have been working with Caspar Lee, Joe Sugg, Ambar Driscoll, Joshua Pieters and Giuseppe Federici on how we can involve, help, develop and nurture current and future creators. Will the Minister also meet that group of creators to see what we can do to help that industry?
Action must be taken. The Social Market Foundation says that the statutory duty to “aim to permit” gambling premises
“is no longer fit for purpose.”
As an activity, it prevents councils from responding to evidence of harm and local opposition, and it erodes the ability of local communities to shape their neighbourhoods. This is what needs to be done: the foundation has five steps and I will read them out, because I agree with them all.
“1) Greater licensing powers should be granted to local authorities, including cumulative impact assessments, with no further delay.
2) Public health directors should be included in the gambling licensing process, as they are for alcohol.
3) The current premises licence classifications should be reviewed, particularly in relation to AGCs operating under bingo licences.”
Bingo licences are another way that those adult gaming centres get away with saying that they are a bingo hall, when there is no live bingo played at all and it is mainly B3 machines, which, by the way, make an average of £30,000 a year. That is money that goes directly from the poor to the gambling industry.
Let me continue with the list of recommendations:
“4) The cap on annual licence fees payable by premises to local authorities should be increased”—
at the moment it is just £1,000—
“to at least £2,000, and the amount of the fee reviewed…
5) The balance of responsibilities between local authorities and the gambling commission on enforcement and inspection of regulations should be clarified.”
That is very opaque at the moment. The sixth recommendation is about the “aim to permit” rule. Basically, we need to get rid.
In addition to those recommendations, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and recommendations for healthcare professionals say that when people go to their GP for appointments and are asked if they have an alcohol or drug addiction, they should also be asked if they have a gambling addiction. That way, we can identify the link between gambling, mental health breakdown and suicide.
Gambling harm harms us all. For every person who is addicted to gambling, six or seven people—their family members, close friends and even work colleagues—are also affected. If we want safer streets, safer homes and safer minds, we must tackle the gambling industry and the harm of gambling and end “aim to permit”. That would make a dramatic improvement.
According to the council, the total number of licensed gambling premises where residents and visitors can gamble in Brighton and Hove was 257 as of May 2024. In comparison, we have 25 GP surgeries, 13 libraries, 44 dentists, around 20 youth services and seven leisure centres. Soon, we could have more gambling establishments than the city’s 340 pubs. For that reason, my submission to the council called for the introduction at the very least of a one in, one out principle for gambling establishments to represent and respect our licensing objectives of preventing harm to children and people with vulnerabilities, including problem gambling and addiction. To back up that policy, I also want to see the prohibition of advertising gambling on billboards, bus stops, buses and any other outdoor advertising sites in the city.
Advertising bothers me in many ways, but on this topic it makes me really angry. I think the Government could do a lot more about it. With the physical adverts in our neighbourhoods alongside all the gaudy shopfronts, coupled with the ever-present marketing on social media and television every time we tune into sport, it is no wonder that we are seeing increased gambling harms. The Gambling Commission has estimated the problem gambler rate to be close to 2.5%. Based on the Office for National Statistics’ latest population estimates, that puts well over 1 million people in Great Britain into the category of problem gamblers. The commission also estimated a further 3.1 million people to be classified as at risk, with many more harmed indirectly.
That is experimental data using new survey methodologies and it is regularly challenged by the industry, which does not surprise me, because it is so shocking. However, it is backed up by other evidence. We know that the national gambling helpline is receiving more calls and online chats than ever before. The NHS has also reported significant growth in referrals to its gambling harm services.
Young people are increasingly at risk from this harm. In 2018, the GambleAware charity commissioned two reports to consider the extent and nature of the impact of gambling marketing and advertising on children, young people and vulnerable groups in the UK. It reported that, although children are not directly targeted by advertisers, almost all children and young people see gambling adverts. Only 4% of 11 to 20-year-olds who participated in the survey reported that they had not been exposed in the previous month. High street premises clearly contribute to that, alongside the advertising that bothers me so much.
It is clear that the Government have worked to advance the 2023 White Paper proposals. I welcome the introduction of a statutory levy on gambling operators in place of the voluntary scheme, which will generate money for research, prevention and treatment. I also welcome next steps on financial vulnerability checks and enhanced risk assessments for the online services, and the withdrawal of gambling sponsorship from the front of premier league players’ shirts by the end of this season—although that will not address the significant volume of gambling adverts that are visible during top-flight matches. We are also ambling towards a gambling ombudsman, but it should have been up and running by the summer of 2024.
As the hon. Member for Brent East said, we need bolder action, and it must focus on the high street, as the motion rightly sets out. We must give local councils the powers to properly regulate the spread of gambling premises, among other things. I have encouraged my local council to get together with other councils and to use the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to produce proposals—
In Enfield North, as in many London boroughs, gambling venues cluster in our most deprived areas, not our most affluent ones. Reports tell us that a third of adult gaming centres are in the poorest 10% of neighbourhoods, but Enfield residents do not need a report to tell them that; they see it every day on their high streets. They are often located close to bus hubs, shopping parades and areas of high footfall from people already under financial pressure. Many operate long hours, and many more are operating around the clock 24/7, relentlessly feeding addiction.
My constituents tell me the same thing again and again. They say, “We object, but it makes no difference—the council says its hands are tied. We object, we organise, we lose.” They are right and the situation is wrong. Councillors across Enfield North want to protect their communities, but the law does not give them the tools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East said, change is needed not to ban gambling, close existing premises or stop people from placing a bet, but to restore balance and local control.
We need to remove the automatic legal bias in favour of gambling operators and allow councils such as Enfield to make decisions based on evidence, community impact and local need, rather than a law that loads the dice against local communities. The money leaves the community, but the harm does not; it shows up as debt, it shows up as mental ill health and it shows up as pressure on our NHS—and tragically, as we have heard, in lives lost.
The Government have acknowledged the problem, which is of course incredibly welcome, but with the “aim to permit” rule remaining in place, councils are being told to say yes by default. We must trust local democracy and empower councils such as Enfield to act before harm escalates and put people and communities before profit. Our high streets should serve the people who live around them, not exploit them. The law is broken, the balance is wrong, and the time for change is now.