Statutory Gambling Levy

I beg to move,

That this House has considered proposals for a statutory gambling levy.

Today, we will consider the introduction of a statutory gambling levy to replace the inadequate voluntary model, and it is a pleasure to do so under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that at the back of the room we have bereaved families of people who gave their lives up to gambling addiction. I thought it only fair to highlight that at the start.

As we all know, the gambling review was launched over 18 months ago, and most of us thought that by now we would be discussing the detail of the White Paper in the Chamber, but unfortunately, that is not the case. I am hoping that good things come to those who wait. With just a couple of weeks to go until the highly anticipated publication of the long overdue Government reform of our gambling legislation, I am pleased by the shift in direction towards reform that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has signalled. Press reports over the past few weeks of the Government’s plan to introduce limits to online stakes and to pioneer an affordability system to prevent people from gambling beyond their means are welcome indeed.

Stake limits online should be comparable to those for land-based venues, and to be effective, any system of affordability must be run independently of the industry and have a single customer view. This is not the time to take half measures, and only banning front-of-shirt sponsorship without tackling the dozens of other ways in which gambling firms advertise would represent a missed opportunity. That would not address the harm that advertising can lead to, nor would it reduce children’s exposure to advertising as they watch sport on their screens.

Given that the previous gambling legislation review took place well over 15 years ago, the White Paper needs to make meaningful, robust and significant proposals. However, we are here today to discuss a specific proposal that I believe is vital to the success of the gambling review and which must be at the centre of the Government’s plan: a statutory levy on gambling operators to provide long-term funding for research, education and, most importantly, treatment of gambling-related harm.

Gambling is leading to significant harm in this country, and more than 55,000 children aged between 11 and 16 are gambling addicts. The gambling industry spends more than £1.5 billion a year on advertising, and 60% of its profits come from the 5% who are already problem gamblers or at risk of becoming so. On average, one problem gambler commits suicide every single day, and we have families here today who have experienced such loss.

Funding for research, education and treatment with respect to gambling-related harm in the UK is facilitated through a system of voluntary contributions from gambling operators, which should be 0.1% of their gross gambling yield. That goes to GambleAware, and each year, at current levels, that equates to donations totalling around £10 million. From there, funding is allocated by GambleAware to a range of third-sector organisations, academic institutions and two NHS providers. That might sound like a sensible amount of money and a seemingly sensible system, but if we consider the scale of the cost of gambling harm and how poorly the voluntary levy is operated, it soon becomes clear why this is a woefully inadequate method of providing funding for research, education and treatment.

Because of the voluntary nature of the contributions, operators can vary the size of donation that they send to GambleAware, which means there is a lack of consistency in the amount donated each year. Operators even have discretion over how much they contribute, with some operators giving as little as a few pounds. Alongside that ridiculous situation, operators are able to decide when donations are made. As a result, there is a complete lack of stability in the voluntary funding model. Recipients cannot plan budgets effectively, or ensure that long-term research projects or education programmes are properly funded, when they have no idea whether there will be enough money to continue them.

To make things worse, operators are able to determine who their contribution goes to, meaning that the voluntary system allows the gambling industry to retain a sense of control over the funding. That damages the independence of the service providers, academic institutions and other third-party recipients of funding, as well as the effectiveness of the levy in reducing wider gambling harms in the UK.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will make some progress, because I have a long speech and a lot of people want to speak.

Earlier this year, NHS clinicians announced that they would stop taking money from the gambling industry to treat people with addiction. While I agree with the sentiment, I worry that that will only hurt treatment services in the long run. We need to find a better long-term solution to allow the NHS to access funding that comes from the industry but is not controlled by it.

The all-party parliamentary group for gambling related harm and Peers for Gambling Reform have recognised and commented on the limitations and failings of the current voluntary system. That view is shared elsewhere. Back in March, Lord Foster of Bath, chair of Peers for Gambling Reform, received a reply to a letter, from Andrew Rhodes, chief executive of the Gambling Commission. In his reply, Mr Rhodes stated that

“the current voluntary system does not provide long-term certainty of funding to support planning and commissioning, it does not impact on all operators fairly, and it is perceived as allowing gambling operators too much control over the availability and destination of funds.”

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I am not giving way. Even GambleAware, the charity that receives voluntary donations, commented recently on the woefully inadequate nature of the voluntary levy. Its chief executive, Zoë Osmond, said in April that the industry has never reached its target of achieving 0.1% of GGY—gross gambling yield—from the voluntary industry levy. The vast majority of the industry continues to donate in support of research, education and treatment at extremely low levels.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. She referred to expenditure being tied to donors, but the industry puts billions into the Treasury through taxation, so should that not be properly done through the national health service? Also, will she say what she actually wants for the industry? Does she want to close down gambling, or does she acknowledge that millions of people enjoy gambling perfectly safely and that abuse is going down?

If my right hon. Friend listened to the rest of my speech, he might hear some information about where that is not the case. As for me being anti-gambling, I am certainly not. I spent last Thursday night at Ffos Las racecourse having a thoroughly good time placing bets on horses.

Clearly, the voluntary levy is not fit for purpose. It lacks consistency, transparency and, crucially, accountability. So, what is the solution?

What the hon. Lady is trying to achieve is admirable, and she will find that she has a lot more support than she realises. My big concern, which I expressed in the previous debate on this subject as well, is the black market—the offline, unregulated areas. Black market gambling is growing at a huge pace, including, believe it or not, over WhatsApp, which is highly encrypted and hard to tackle. If we are to have a levy, how does she propose that we tackle this area? I fear that it will, sadly, push people into the black market.

I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the comments of Peers for Gambling Reform and the Gambling Commission about the industry’s expression of concern about the black market being extremely over-exaggerated.

That is such a scary comment to make. I point the hon. Lady to the report “The State of Illegal Betting” produced by the Asian Racing Federation, which includes Australia, Japan and Hong Kong among its 17 members. It states that 61% of online gambling is unregulated, illegal and on the black market. Would she like to refute that evidence?

I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention, again, to the Gambling Commission’s own words that the scare around the black market has been grossly overestimated. That is from the Gambling Commission, not from me.

I was involved in the campaign to regulate the payday lending industry. Does my hon. Friend recognise that in order to protect its profits, the sector’s big argument was, “Don’t touch us, because the threat is the black market”?

I agree entirely, and I will talk about exactly that later. It is clear to see that the voluntary levy is not fit for purpose. What is the solution? Well, a solution is already in place and available: it is set out in the Gambling Act 2005. There are already provisions in legislation for the Government to place the collection of levy donations on a statutory footing should the voluntary arrangement be shown not to work, which clearly it does not. DCMS should use existing powers to require operators to pay an annual levy to the Gambling Commission. A joint advisory levy board should then be given oversight of the levy paid. That would be a formal cross-Government working group led by the Department of Health and Social Care. The levy board should oversee a comprehensive assessment of the evidence base of gambling-related harm and the limitations of the current voluntary system.

It is also crucial that the levy is graduated or smart. By that I mean that when considering the options for calculating the statutory levy, officials have devised a formula that requires companies offering potentially more harmful gambling products to pay a correspondingly higher proportion of the levy—more simply known as a “polluter pays” principle. This has precedent in New Zealand, where the gambling problem levy is set by an Order in Council and reviewed every three years. A lottery provider, bingo hall or high street bookie or casino will pay far less than a giant monopolised online gambling operator. There is also precedent in the UK: the Financial Conduct Authority already operates a similar system for financial services organisations, where a statutory levy is imposed on firms to fund free-to-client debt advice according to the “polluter pays” principle.

The problem with having a statutory levy is that it would hit land-based gambling companies—casinos, bingo halls and the high street shops—when they are just emerging from the pandemic. I appreciate that the hon. Lady suggested they would be levied at a slightly different rate, but the problem is that if those businesses go out of business, we could see a huge cost to the Exchequer from loss of taxation revenue, lost jobs in communities and an economic hit on the high street. Does she not consider that to be a likely outcome of a statutory levy?

I certainly do, but I just stated that the statutory levy would be graduated so that land-based high street bookies, on-street casinos and bingo halls would not pay the same levy as online companies who make a lot more profit than the individual companies, who will also have overheads of staffing costs and business rates. I acknowledge all that, but the proposal is aimed at making sure that the polluters pay the most.

If it was brought in by the DCMS, a 1% levy on industry revenue would provide £130 million of funding for research, education and treatment. That would massively improve the disparity between other nations’ spending and that of the UK. Australia spends £368 per gambler, Canada spends £329 per gambler and New Zealand spends £413 per gambler. The UK spends £19 per gambler. If we had funding for research, what could we do? We would finally be able to hold a proper prevalence survey, not wholly inadequate telephone surveys of a few hundred people, to ascertain exactly how many people in the UK are suffering gambling-related harm, so that we can get them the help they need. There would be improvements in research and data for clinical outcomes, along with the quality of data collection, to ascertain how gambling treatment clinics are performing and what more could be done to improve treatments.

With better and more certain funding for education, we can prevent people falling into the hands of gambling operators in the first place. We can highlight ways to set up banking blocks, deposit limiters, advice services and many more tools, not only to teach people about the dangers of some gambling products, but to signpost those who are already addicted towards help.

Finally, and probably most importantly, we come to treatment. Treatment for gambling addiction in the UK is completely inadequate. Chronic underinvestment in the gambling treatment system, as a result of the current voluntary levy, has led to a scenario in which treatment is unregulated, unaccountable and fails to use the evidence base in its strategies. Only between 2% and 3% of people with gambling problems enter the treatment system, all of whom are self-referrals. With a statutory levy, that can change.

I should refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As the hon. Lady knows, because we have spoken about this, I do not particularly disagree with her about the principle. The one thing that does worry me is that she and some of her colleagues might never be satisfied with the rate at which the statutory levy is set. If it was set at 1%, they might say it should be 2%; if it was 2%, they might say it should be 3%; if it was 3%, they might say it should be 4%. We would have a never- ending arms race.

Because I do not disagree with the principle, could the hon. Lady give me some reassurance that she would support a fixed, unamendable figure for a statutory levy, for example 1%, with a lower rate for land-based sales—I agree with her about that—to prevent the arms race I am worried about?

I find myself in the position of matriarch of the anti-gambling brigade, which I am not. I have no interest in persecuting the industry; I merely want it to pay for the damage that it has caused. I have no intention of forcing any argument that the levy should increase. I am just asking for common sense, and for the worst polluters to give 1%. I will then walk away from this argument, quite satisfied that my job is done.

The truth is that the most toxic forms of gambling, which cause extensive harm, have the means to pay for the harm they cause. The industry will say that levels of problematic gambling are low. Tell that to the families at the back in the Gallery who have lost children. Tell them that problem gambling rates are low. We are having this debate because of the industry’s reluctance to do the right thing. It reacts to our reform recommendations with petty name-calling and offers feeble attempts at self-regulation. For a cash-rich industry, its commitment to repairing the damage that it causes or to preventing it from happening in the first place is both pathetic and insulting. If a statutory levy is introduced alongside tackling the question of affordability, ensuring that people are not gambling more than they can afford, we can stop the vast exploitation that we have seen in recent years. If that is brought in alongside stake limits for online gambling, to give parity with land-based venues, we can ensure that people do not fall into the depths of addiction. If it is introduced with meaningful reform of gambling advertising, sponsorship and direct marketing, along with the ending of inducements to gamble, we can prevent the poisonous hold that operators have on people through their addictive products. It is clear to me that, without a statutory levy at the heart of the White Paper, this Government will have missed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring analogue legislation into a digital era, to radicalise a toxic environment and—without a shadow of a doubt—to save lives.